My theory on creation.

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Once again you confirm that science works. We can test theories using facts.


Examples?



How so?



That is false. Opinions are subjective. Theories are objective and testable.



If I have faith that the Harry Potter books are real history, then can I say that we know they are true?



The same applies to believers of other faiths which you probably think are made up. The Mormons are a good example.
Except that the Mormons just moved. They didn't choose to die.
Can you justify your disagreement with facts?
No, but I can tell you what my conclusions are from the facts presented.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Except that the Mormons just moved. They didn't choose to die.

They moved because they were attacked for their beliefs. Joseph Smith himself was killed during one of these attacks. According to your own logic, Joseph Smith really did get some golden tablets from an angel because he wouldn't have kept false beliefs in the face of persecution.

The Heaven's Gate cult is another example. They all committed suicide because of their beliefs.

No, but I can tell you what my conclusions are from the facts presented.

Which facts are those?
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You can "explain" your position. You will still be wrong And no matter how much you protest you know that you were rude.
You know, I'm man enough to admit when I'm rude if I am, in fact. And I wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that you think I was rude. Which is your opinion.
Holy cow! The explanation went right over your head. You are now guilty of ignoring a clear explanation and you are making an equivocation fallacy. You are using different definitions of "faith". Faith of the sort that leads you to believe the Bible is not the same sort of "faith" that leads you to conclude that someone loves you. The second is evidence based, the former is not.
Nope. It's exactly the same. Love is what Jesus displayed to all humanity on the Cross. That's the definition of love-sacrifice. If someone sacrifices themselves to do something for me, I call that love. Can I prove it factually? Never.
Yet you hide your head in the sand when the Bible is shown to be wrong. It is not proven. It is not even close.
You cannot show me a place where the Bible is wrong.
I doubt that. Many Catholics have a very one dimensional knowledge of Christian history. They won't allow themselves to see that flaws in the Bible so their understanding is limited.
I'm not speaking for many Catholics, because I don't know that many Catholics. I know my understanding of Christian history because I study it.
That is about as early as scholars think that it was written. Most actually think it was written in the 80's or 90's:

The Dating of the Gospels
Well, the site clearly is wrong. There is no provable Q source, firstly. Secondly, Mark didn't provide material to Matthew and Luke. Ergo, therefore, I would not trust your source.
All you will find that support our claim are apologists, and they are about the worst sources possible. Ron Conte Jr. has a very good book, well attributed, showing otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
They moved because they were attacked for their beliefs. Joseph Smith himself was killed during one of these attacks. According to your own logic, Joseph Smith really did get some golden tablets from an angel because he wouldn't have kept false beliefs in the face of persecution.

The Heaven's Gate cult is another example. They all committed suicide because of their beliefs.
Committing suicide is different than being murdered for your faith. The point I am making is that early Christians were given the opportunity to recant or change what they believed, under penalty of death or exiled. They refused to change them, in many cases, and were put to death for those beliefs. Joseph Smith wasn't killed because of his beliefs. He was accused of inciting riot, and killed by a public mob.

Which facts are those?[/QUOTE]
Haven't seen any facts presented.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You know, I'm man enough to admit when I'm rude if I am, in fact. And I wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that you think I was rude. Which is your opinion.

Wrong again, but then you admitted that you are wrong. I have noticed that when you are obviously wrong and even you have to know it your try to claim that what the other person has is "opinion". I explained how you were rude and you continue in the behavior.

Nope. It's exactly the same. Love is what Jesus displayed to all humanity on the Cross. That's the definition of love-sacrifice. If someone sacrifices themselves to do something for me, I call that love. Can I prove it factually? Never.

Wrong again, I am probably going to have to use that phrase quite often in dealing with you. Let's not bring up the failed "cross" story. A just God would not accept such a punishment. A sane God would not accept such an act. It really does not help your claims at all. We can know that someone loves us by the evidence of their acts. You do not appear to have any evidence for your beliefs. Faith is what is needed when one has no evidence.

You cannot show me a place where the Bible is wrong.

Wrong again. I knew that I would be repeating that. I gave you a clear cut example and you had no response to it. Once more the ten year difference between the birth dates of Jesus of Matthew and Luke are a clear example of an error. Now I may not be able to get you to face up to the facts, but that is your problem and not mine.

I'm not speaking for many Catholics, because I don't know that many Catholics. I know my understanding of Christian history because I study it.

Your understanding is impaired by your beliefs.

Well, the site clearly is wrong. There is no provable Q source, firstly. Secondly, Mark didn't provide material to Matthew and Luke. Ergo, therefore, I would not trust your source.

Oh my! You really have no clue when it comes to the Bible. Mark didn't have to "provide" material to Matthew and Luke. It is obvious to those that have studied the books that the authors of Matthew and Luke copied from the author of Mark. The unknown source is called "Q" because it has been lost. You really need to study the history of the Bible some more. That is not just that one site, that is the finding of every serious biblical historian out there.

All you will find that support our claim are apologists, and they are about the worst sources possible. Ron Conte Jr. has a very good book, well attributed, showing otherwise.

Never heard of him. What has he published in peer reviewed journals?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Committing suicide is different than being murdered for your faith.

Why is it different? It seems to me that the same logic applies. Also, Joseph Smith was murdered for his faith.

The point I am making is that early Christians were given the opportunity to recant or change what they believed, under penalty of death or exiled.

The same applies to the Heaven's Gate cult. They chose to die because of their beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Committing suicide is different than being murdered for your faith. The point I am making is that early Christians were given the opportunity to recant or change what they believed, under penalty of death or exiled. They refused to change them, in many cases, and were put to death for those beliefs. Joseph Smith wasn't killed because of his beliefs. He was accused of inciting riot, and killed by a public mob.

Haven't seen any facts presented.
Where is your evidence for the claims that early Christians were offered the chance to recant? Mere claims by Christians is not very convincing at all. The tales of early "martyrs" has been shown to be highly doubtful. Yes, there were clearly some martyrs. All religions have martyrs. But when a religioni claims thousands of them the burden of proof is clearly upon them.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Wrong again, but then you admitted that you are wrong. I have noticed that when you are obviously wrong and even you have to know it your try to claim that what the other person has is "opinion". I explained how you were rude and you continue in the behavior.
Actually, you didn't explain it. You said I was, and that's, right now, an opinion.
Wrong again, I am probably going to have to use that phrase quite often in dealing with you. Let's not bring up the failed "cross" story. A just God would not accept such a punishment. A sane God would not accept such an act. It really does not help your claims at all. We can know that someone loves us by the evidence of their acts. You do not appear to have any evidence for your beliefs. Faith is what is needed when one has no evidence.
You can say wrong all you want, and believe it, for all I care. Evidence is not needed for faith, though I got all the evidence you need, if you'd be willing to listen. It is my opinion that you're not willing, so we cannot go further.
Wrong again. I knew that I would be repeating that. I gave you a clear cut example and you had no response to it. Once more the ten year difference between the birth dates of Jesus of Matthew and Luke are a clear example of an error. Now I may not be able to get you to face up to the facts, but that is your problem and not mine.
I've proven that 'the'10 year difference is not a 10 year difference. In other words, there are different theories, none of which is established as fact, none of which can be established fact without going back to the time of the writing. I've done that, you haven't.
Your understanding is impaired by your beliefs.



Oh my! You really have no clue when it comes to the Bible. Mark didn't have to "provide" material to Matthew and Luke. It is obvious to those that have studied the books that the authors of Matthew and Luke copied from the author of Mark. The unknown source is called "Q" because it has been lost. You really need to study the history of the Bible some more. That is not just that one site, that is the finding of every serious biblical historian out there.
The problem is that Mark wrote after Matthew, so could not have been copied by those writing Matthew. And your belief in Q proves that you need no evidence to believe something. Q doesn't exist.
Never heard of him. What has he published in peer reviewed journals?
Yes. Check it out. Read it if you dare.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Why is it different? It seems to me that the same logic applies. Also, Joseph Smith was murdered for his faith.



The same applies to the Heaven's Gate cult. They chose to die because of their beliefs.
They chose to commit suicide because that was part of their beliefs. Different situation.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Where is your evidence for the claims that early Christians were offered the chance to recant? Mere claims by Christians is not very convincing at all. The tales of early "martyrs" has been shown to be highly doubtful. Yes, there were clearly some martyrs. All religions have martyrs. But when a religioni claims thousands of them the burden of proof is clearly upon them.
You know, you say things like "It has been shown..." without providing anything that shows what you're saying. Start with the persecutions of Diocletan, Caligula, and Decius. Persecution in the Early Church: A Gallery of the Persecuting Emperors
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Actually, you didn't explain it. You said I was, and that's, right now, an opinion.
Now you are not being honest. I did explain. If you did not understand you should have said so. You continue to purposefully run your post together on purpose to make it a bit of a pain to respond to. That is rude. If you do not understand proper internet etiquette you should ask questions instead of denying the obvious fact.

You can say wrong all you want, and believe it, for all I care. Evidence is not needed for faith, though I got all the evidence you need, if you'd be willing to listen. It is my opinion that you're not willing, so we cannot go further.

Right, for once, evidence is not needed for faith. It is believing what you want to believe and is not a road to "truth" that is easily demonstrable. And I seriously doubt if you understand the nature of evidence. Otherwise you would have posted some for your beliefs. And of course you are wrong in your opinion of me. So at least you are back on track.

I've proven that 'the'10 year difference is not a 10 year difference. In other words, there are different theories, none of which is established as fact, none of which can be established fact without going back to the time of the writing. I've done that, you haven't.

Wrong again. Now you have demonstrated that you do not know what the word "prove" means. You made an unsubstantiated claim about how one historian and there were many historians of Rome, that made an error and tried to claim that resolved the problem. I can support my claims. You can't support yours. The Census of Quirinius is well dated, as is the death of Herod. You have not resovled the contradiction.

The problem is that Mark wrote after Matthew, so could not have been copied by those writing Matthew. And your belief in Q proves that you need no evidence to believe something. Q doesn't exist.

Once again: ROFLMAO!! No, Mark was the first gospel written according to the vast majority of biblical scholars. Where do you get your claims from? Wikipedia can be an excellent resource. Not merely for their article, but also because they properly cite and link their sources:

Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

In the above article they not only explain why, they also link their sources that they based their conclusions on.

Yes. Check it out. Read it if you dare.

Your claim, it is up to you to support it. So how about some links to peer reviewed historical articles by the man.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You know, you say things like "It has been shown..." without providing anything that shows what you're saying. Start with the persecutions of Diocletan, Caligula, and Decius. Persecution in the Early Church: A Gallery of the Persecuting Emperors


Not very impressive. An article that can't be read and lists one very questionable act of "persecution".

And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between persecution and martyrdom. You need to support your claim of martyrs that were offered the chance to recant and did not. Once again, I will grant that there were a few true martyrs. Every religion has true martyrs. A recent historical example are Buddhist monks that have lit themselves on fire. Yes, there was some persecution of early Christians, but it has been overblown into a myth of Christians huddling in the catacombs.

Here is an article that you can read in its entirety:

“The Myth of Persecution”: Early Christians weren’t persecuted
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
They chose to commit suicide because that was part of their beliefs. Different situation.

The same applies for the supposed martyrdom of early christians. It was part of their beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Now you are not being honest. I did explain. If you did not understand you should have said so. You continue to purposefully run your post together on purpose to make it a bit of a pain to respond to. That is rude. If you do not understand proper internet etiquette you should ask questions instead of denying the obvious fact.
Very quick to criticize...could it be that I didn't see your explanation? Also, I didn't run my post together. IF that was your explanation, you're a bit too sensititve.
Right, for once, evidence is not needed for faith. It is believing what you want to believe and is not a road to "truth" that is easily demonstrable. And I seriously doubt if you understand the nature of evidence. Otherwise you would have posted some for your beliefs. And of course you are wrong in your opinion of me. So at least you are back on track.
If you're willing, then read the book I posted.
Wrong again. Now you have demonstrated that you do not know what the word "prove" means. You made an unsubstantiated claim about how one historian and there were many historians of Rome, that made an error and tried to claim that resolved the problem. I can support my claims. You can't support yours. The Census of Quirinius is well dated, as is the death of Herod. You have not resovled the contradiction.
Quite wrong.
Once again: ROFLMAO!! No, Mark was the first gospel written according to the vast majority of biblical scholars. Where do you get your claims from? Wikipedia can be an excellent resource. Not merely for their article, but also because they properly cite and link their sources:

Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

In the above article they not only explain why, they also link their sources that they based their conclusions on.
Wikipedia is known to be wrong. And it is in many cases. This is one.
Your claim, it is up to you to support it. So how about some links to peer reviewed historical articles by the man.
Given. Bye. Not wasting my time with you any longer.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Not very impressive. An article that can't be read and lists one very questionable act of "persecution".

And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between persecution and martyrdom. You need to support your claim of martyrs that were offered the chance to recant and did not. Once again, I will grant that there were a few true martyrs. Every religion has true martyrs. A recent historical example are Buddhist monks that have lit themselves on fire. Yes, there was some persecution of early Christians, but it has been overblown into a myth of Christians huddling in the catacombs.

Here is an article that you can read in its entirety:

“The Myth of Persecution”: Early Christians weren’t persecuted
The Myth of Candida Moss: The Myth of Candida Moss – The American Catholic
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single

A Catholic apologist site? Is that all that you have?

Try again.

That site does not deal with the myth of early Christian martyrdom at all. No one has denied that there was some persecution of early Christians. Mere persecution does not make one a martyr in the sense that Christians have claimed. What has not been supported is the claim that Christian were offered the chance to recant and did not.

You are merely grasping at straws at this point.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,652
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟104,175.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Where is your evidence for the claims that early Christians were offered the chance to recant? Mere claims by Christians is not very convincing at all. The tales of early "martyrs" has been shown to be highly doubtful. Yes, there were clearly some martyrs. All religions have martyrs. But when a religioni claims thousands of them the burden of proof is clearly upon them.

There is a well known correspondence between Pliny the Younger and Trajan. The second paragraph reads:

"Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome."

Pliny and Trajan on the Christians
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Root of Jesse
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
There is a well known correspondence between Pliny the Younger and Trajan. The second paragraph reads:

"Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome."

Pliny and Trajan on the Christians
A little better than what was provided, but this only concerns a few early persecuted Christians at best. These are not the martyrs of myth. This occurred much earlier than the catacomb stories.
 
Upvote 0