Do You Agree?

[SkepticThinker]

Thanks, interesting information, but I don't think that answers to the question, why it is happening why people are killing now more.

It's due to an increase in gang warfare.

 

[nPeace]

Yes scholarly opinions with evidence anyone can verify trumps anecdotal, telephone game nonsense and apologetics. If not, provide some evidence. I post facts or our best attempt at knowledge. If you are too close minded to actually weight facts and decide which is actually more logical that is your choice. It doesn't make logic and facts wrong. It just makes you close minded to the idea that your beliefs are wrong.

I will challenge my beliefs when evidence warrants. You are already wrong because real scholars are not working with opinions, they are interested in evidence and facts. Clearly this bothers you and the way you dismiss evidence shows your only interest is supporting what you think is true.

Yes, you keep calling scholarly opinions with evidence
nonsense, simply because they come from your peers who disagree with you.
How is that openminded and reasonable... but then, how can you even be openminded if you don't know that you are close-minded.

Seems to me you only challenge things you don't agree with... not your beliefs.

 

[joelr]

Yes, you keep calling scholarly opinions with evidence
nonsense, simply because they come from your peers who disagree with you.

Regarding the shooting the police in the video agreed, the Texas report agreed, I haven't seen any experts who disagree.

On religion there are no historical scholars who support any religious narrative as true.
There are theologians who start out with the assumption the scripture is real and even sign a disclosure agreement upon working for a university they will never speak against the theology.
All of their evidence is debunked.
But in every religion there are theologians who say their theology is the only true version. Islamic theologians and apologists are even more intense than Christian apologists.
Again, historical scholars do not support the Quran as revelations, sources of miracles, angels and Gods being real. Nor the Gospels.

Historical scholars do not disagree on the basics? Peer-review has a purpose. It's to understand what is our best attempt at truth. Fundamentalists just make up ridiculous claims like Satan influenced them or they don't believe so they can't know it's true (circular much)??????
If there was evidence they would believe it's true?

Next time you are running away from evidence why don't you post some of these scholars who disagree with me.

How is that openminded and reasonable... but then, how can you even be openminded if you don't know that you are close-minded.

Seems to me you only challenge things you don't agree with... not your beliefs.

Then you are wrong. First you are the champion of ignoring evidence. That is literally the definition of close minded. You will not consider the idea that you beliefs are not true. That is the most close minded a human can get.

I challenge my beliefs constantly.
I recently studied a form of Hinduism to see if I could find the part faith came in or to see if they had evidence.
I listen to most scholars on mythvision, and several other channels and have spent time with apologetics, C.S. Lewis, Mike Licona, Gary Habermas and then listened to what historians had to say about their work.
As well as Street Epistemology, AXP, Dr Josh, and apologetics channels (they repeat the same stuff over and over but I try). I mean how much Islamic apologetics could you take? Do you even try? Probably not.
Well I do. Firaz Zahabi turned me on to some Islamic theologians works as well.

There are many more involving years of study of all points of view. Yet when I debunk or discuss anything you run. You are in a protective circle looking out calling me close minded. Bizarre.

 

[nPeace]

Regarding the shooting the police in the video agreed, the Texas report agreed, I haven't seen any experts who disagree.

I guess that would depend on whom are experts to you righ? Isn't that the crux of the matter here?

On religion there are no historical scholars who support any religious narrative as true.

Right off the bat, the crux of the matter surfaces with this one false statement.
There are no historical scholars who lived before the 19th century right? Therefore, your false statement is true... to you.

Next time you are running away from evidence why don't you post some of these scholars who disagree with me.

Ha Ha. With a guy who sits and posts his favorite opinions? No thanks. I'll keep running. You can stand and beat your chest.
Everyone has access to scholarly works, yourself included, and every one knows that the scholars you favor, do not even agree with each other.
So feel free to pick from them, which among them presents nonsense, from who are experts. Ha Ha.

Then you are wrong. First you are the champion of ignoring evidence. That is literally the definition of close minded. You will not consider the idea that you beliefs are not true. That is the most close minded a human can get.

I thought you were the champion of that.
I guess pointing fingers does no good, does it.

I challenge my beliefs constantly.

No you don't. You challenge anything against your beliefs.

I recently studied a form of Hinduism to see if I could find the part faith came in or to see if they had evidence.
I listen to most scholars on mythvision, and several other channels and have spent time with apologetics, C.S. Lewis, Mike Licona, Gary Habermas and then listened to what historians had to say about their work.
As well as Street Epistemology, AXP, Dr Josh, and apologetics channels (they repeat the same stuff over and over but I try). I mean how much Islamic apologetics could you take? Do you even try? Probably not.
Well I do. Firaz Zahabi turned me on to some Islamic theologians works as well.

There are many more involving years of study of all points of view. Yet when I debunk or discuss anything you run. You are in a protective circle looking out calling me close minded. Bizarre.

You brag. That's it.

 

[1213]

It's due to an increase in gang warfare.

And what is the reason for that? Why suddenly more people are willing to kill others? Because the gun tells them to do so?

 

[SkepticThinker]

And what is the reason for that? Why suddenly more people are willing to kill others? Because the gun tells them to do so?

.
Sweden’s Brutal Gang Problem: Here’s What Officials Blame It On
Why shootings are on the increase in Sweden’s suburbs | ITV News

 

[1213]

.
Sweden’s Brutal Gang Problem: Here’s What Officials Blame It On
Why shootings are on the increase in Sweden’s suburbs | ITV News

Thanks, interesting articles. And I think it is especially good to notice what the first article says:

"Even though Sweden has some of the “world’s strictest” gun control laws, it is faced with increasing gun-related violence"

Gun laws don't solve the real problem that is, they don't have the same moral and values Swedes once had. The reason for crimes are not guns, it is that people are evil and don't think murder is wrong. Only way to end murder is that people learn and understand that murder is wrong.

 

[joelr]

I guess that would depend on whom are experts to you righ? Isn't that the crux of the matter here?

No. I gave you an expert testifying on the incident. The Texas Gov also called it "intolerable"

Right off the bat, the crux of the matter surfaces with this one false statement.
There are no historical scholars who lived before the 19th century right? Therefore, your false statement is true... to you.

Historians from centuries ago had very limited access to original materials. Speaking against the church up until the mid 19th century was proven to be a bad idea. When Thomas Thompson did his PhD in the 70's about Moses and the Patriarchs being myth his advisor was a Cardinal and refused to accept it. He ended up moving to Canada. Meanwhile his work was peer-reviewed and studies and accepted as excellent work. Now his position is standard. Modern historians have a much wider access to comparative religion, more gospels, historians and are free to say what they believe is the most likely truth.

But there were not any historians much before the 19th century when it comes to religion. This is a modern field:

"Until fifty years ago the study of medieval religious life was left largely to theologians, church historians, and members of religious orders."
The Christian Middle Ages as an Historiographical Problem on JSTOR

And yes, historians do not support the supernatural narratives in religion
Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier
"
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves."



H

a Ha. With a guy who sits and posts his favorite opinions? No thanks. I'll keep running. You can stand and beat your chest.

You may have had to tell yourself that to protect your beliefs. There certainly isn't any evidence of that. I post work from historical, archaeological and other related work. You are then free to post counter arguments. You haven't. All you do is make an unsupported claim that they are "nonsense" because they don't buy into a complete mythology that you do. Yet you still haven't shown evidence.

I learn from debates. Unfortunately with religion and supernatural studies apologetics has run out of information. This is why the only come -backs are to just say the scholar is wrong, possessed by Satan, a non-believer, as if that impacts facts? I'm looking to make sure the information cannot be debunked by equally qualified experts. You think it's chest beating because you are not in the debate but rather protecting beliefs at all costs.
I read or listen to new scholars almost weekly. I didn't pick them because of their beliefs, I just listened.
“Christianity is not a Jewish religion, it’s a Hellenistic religion.”


“Jesus is of Jewish ethnicity but is telling the story of a Hellenistic deity”

1:57

Carl A. P. Ruck (born December 8, 1935, Bridgeport, Connecticut), is a professor in the Classical Studies department at Boston University. He received his B.A. at Yale University, his M.A. at the University of Michigan, and a Ph.D. at Harvard University.

Everyone has access to scholarly works, yourself included, and every one knows that the scholars you favor, do not even agree with each other.
So feel free to pick from them, which among them presents nonsense, from who are experts. Ha Ha.

Yes, in historicity there is a debate about Historicity vs Mythicism. One believes in a historical Jesus being a Rabbi (human) and the other believes it's all made up. Neither side supports the gospel narratives as anything other than Hellenistic myths combined with Judaism. Every scholar supports this, always.

I thought you were the champion of that.
I guess pointing fingers does no good, does it.

Yes, you thought that because you are the most close-minded a person can get. I bother to read and listen to apologetics from C.S. Lewis to Licona, Habermas and others and also take in the works of historians and archaeologists on Christianity and on surrounding religions and comparisons. But you are so twisted that you can't even understand that that is the most open minded you can be. You don't even listen to the entire field of Biblical historicity, archaeology or comparative religion. All because you were told a myth with no evidence was true and decided to believe it.

No you don't. You challenge anything against your beliefs.

Actually I do. Apologetics has been debunked over and over. My beliefs align with what the evidence shows. They are not "my beliefs". It's what the evidence demonstrates. Anytime anyone begins to explain the positions of historical scholarship to you you run away and make up a reason why they can't possibly be correct. As if there are actually a whole different side of historical studies that agrees with you. There isn't.
So by understanding evidence you call that close minded. Probably because you can't actually fathom that that is where the evidence leads.

You brag. That's it.

Ah, ok. So moving the goalpost. So you're not really sincere at all. Just desperate to make attacks. So I did explain that I am looking at many different sides and arguments, which is exactly what you insist I should do. I tell you a few areas of exploration and your'e response isn't "ok at least you are trying to see different sides". Nope. You make a character attack and say I'm "bragging". So all that whiling was just to hear yourself talk. Total crash and burn.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes, you keep calling scholarly opinions with evidence
nonsense,

“Systemic failures” in Uvalde shooting went far beyond local police, Texas House report details

 

[Sheldon]

how can you even be openminded if you don't know that you are close-minded.

If you ignore the facts about the US's shockingly lax gun laws, and their tragic and heart braking results, compared to other western democracies.

Or did you mean, how can you be open minded if you accept bs conspiracy theories without a shred of objective evidence?

If so I may have an answer..

 

[nPeace]

...So you're not really sincere at all. Just desperate to make attacks. So I did explain that I am looking at many different sides and arguments, which is exactly what you insist I should do. I tell you a few areas of exploration and your'e response isn't "ok at least you are trying to see different sides". Nope. You make a character attack and say I'm "bragging". So all that whiling was just to hear yourself talk. Total crash and burn.

Let's see.

If you are too close minded to actually weight facts and decide which is actually more logical that is your choice. It doesn't make logic and facts wrong. It just makes you close minded to the idea that your beliefs are wrong.

Clearly this bothers you and the way you dismiss evidence shows your only interest is supporting what you think is true.

First you are the champion of ignoring evidence. That is literally the definition of close minded. You will not consider the idea that you beliefs are not true. That is the most close minded a human can get.

You don't see these as making "character attacks", but telling you that you brag, is a character attack?
I hope you can see from that why repeating to you anything contrary to your beliefs / opinions won't help you to see anything. ...but how could you even see that.. with that level of...
You can choose the word to put there, since anything I say is "just to hear yourself talk".

 

[joelr]

Let's see.

You don't see these as making "character attacks", but telling you that you brag, is a character attack?

First you called me close minded, when I explained I am listening to the opinions of apologists (those are people who believe what you do), you didn't say, "oh good then". YOu moved the goalpost and used it as a chance for an attack. The response was genuine and attempting to tell you I DO explore the opinions of people who I disagree with. All things you accused me of.
So it certainly wasn't "bragging"? You moved the goalpost to make an attack.

Everything I said in your post was true. You do not explore evidence. You claim I only use opinions of scholars "I like" and I keep telling you the historicity field does not support the mythical narratives in the Gospels, Quran, Hindu scripture, revelations and so on. None of the them. No scholars.
The opinions of apologists are very debunkable. But you hand wave evidence as if the magical claims and anecdotal stories of amateurs belief systems somehow are equal. They are not.
You cannot hand wave evidence, dismiss the vast majority of scholarship (even Christian scholars on the Synoptic problem and mythical nature of the OT) and then pretend you are not close minded.

I hope you can see from that why repeating to you anything contrary to your beliefs / opinions won't help you to see anything. ...but how could you even see that.. with that level of...
You can choose the word to put there, since anything I say is "just to hear yourself talk".

How many times have I explained this? Since you were too busy trying to think of an insult like "bully" you must have failed to take in I have been listening to counter opinions for a long time.
I gave you a list of people I had read or listened to lecture which I'm not repeating because you didn't even respond except to say I was bragging????????

This isn't about opinions? Do you think there are 2 opinions in Islam, one that says Gabrielle gave revelations to Muhammad and the other that it's all made up from earlier emerging theology in Arab countries, 'ilm al-kalam, Kalam, Greek philosophy, Judaism, Greek science, Arabic mysticism and early religions?
NO. One os a belief based on faith, apologetics, and things that can be shown to be not likely true. The other can be shown to be an excellent explanation as to how this theology emerged, not in a vacuum from a deity but slowly over time.
Same with Christianity and Judaism except even more so.

I will see anything that has good evidence. I'm not a Muslim because I see the evidence isn't good. Same with Mormonism, Hinduism and Christianity.
You are the one saying you have the only truth and scholars are all incorrect including, historians, geologists and a huge host of science that shows no world flood, comparative religion, and claiming deities from legends are real. Not only that but you don't even want to make sure scholars are wrong, you just claim they are. That is close minded.

I'm sure you laugh when a Muslim says you are close minded because you don't believe in the Quran as the word of God. Yet you are doing the exact same thing.
And no opinions should not change anything. Evidence should. Opinions are why we have billions of Muslim and other religions. So why would you claim that opinions are reliable without good evidence?

 

[Sheldon]

Why is the perverted God hater's child more pure than a child born to the desperate youth?

The parents of children conceived outside of marriage are as likely to be theists as not, and I'd love to see you evidence this piece of rhetoric they are "god haters". Abortions do not involve children, and the choice to terminate the pregnancy must always be the woman's, anyone else's opinion is moot, as it is not their body. Describing any rapist as a "desperate youth" is a repugnantly immoral assertion. Rape is a deeply heinous crime, that causes lifelong damage to the victim, and to increase that trauma by refusing a termination if they became pregnant is again morally repugnant.

 

[nPeace]

First you called me close minded, when I explained I am listening to the opinions of apologists (those are people who believe what you do), you didn't say, "oh good then".

Actually, you took the initiative in that.

YOu moved the goalpost and used it as a chance for an attack. The response was genuine and attempting to tell you I DO explore the opinions of people who I disagree with. All things you accused me of.
So it certainly wasn't "bragging"? You moved the goalpost to make an attack.

Not sure why you claim that, but maybe you will explain... Maybe.

Everything I said in your post was true. You do not explore evidence. You claim I only use opinions of scholars "I like" and I keep telling you the historicity field does not support the mythical narratives in the Gospels, Quran, Hindu scripture, revelations and so on. None of the them. No scholars.

The opinions of apologists are very debunkable. But you hand wave evidence as if the magical claims and anecdotal stories of amateurs belief systems somehow are equal. They are not.

You cannot hand wave evidence, dismiss the vast majority of scholarship (even Christian scholars on the Synoptic problem and mythical nature of the OT) and then pretend you are not close minded.
There you go again. For real?
I accept scholars that know what they are talking about.
When you... or any of your favored scholars can fill the boots of those, you have something, but as it stands, you have nothing, but your strong passionate opinionated ... beliefs.


How many times have I explained this? Since you were too busy trying to think of an insult like "bully" you must have failed to take in I have been listening to counter opinions for a long time.

I gave you a list of people I had read or listened to lecture which I'm not repeating because you didn't even respond except to say I was bragging????????

This isn't about opinions? Do you think there are 2 opinions in Islam, one that says Gabrielle gave revelations to Muhammad and the other that it's all made up from earlier emerging theology in Arab countries, 'ilm al-kalam, Kalam, Greek philosophy, Judaism, Greek science, Arabic mysticism and early religions?
NO. One os a belief based on faith, apologetics, and things that can be shown to be not likely true. The other can be shown to be an excellent explanation as to how this theology emerged, not in a vacuum from a deity but slowly over time.
Same with Christianity and Judaism except even more so.

I will see anything that has good evidence. I'm not a Muslim because I see the evidence isn't good. Same with Mormonism, Hinduism and Christianity.
You are the one saying you have the only truth and scholars are all incorrect including, historians, geologists and a huge host of science that shows no world flood, comparative religion, and claiming deities from legends are real. Not only that but you don't even want to make sure scholars are wrong, you just claim they are. That is close minded.

I'm sure you laugh when a Muslim says you are close minded because you don't believe in the Quran as the word of God. Yet you are doing the exact same thing.
And no opinions should not change anything. Evidence should. Opinions are why we have billions of Muslim and other religions. So why would you claim that opinions are reliable without good evidence?

Wait. You think I haven't listened to your repeated "list of people I had read or listened to"?
I have heard it a zillion times B.
Don't forget. You repeat yourself countless times, in the same thread.

Like I said, when you can fill the boots of real scholars, talk to me.
Let's start with Paul. Prove your worth along side him.

 

[joelr]

Actually, you took the initiative in that.

I don't say that in the post you linked to? This still stands:
"First you called me close minded, when I explained I am listening to the opinions of apologists (those are people who believe what you do), you didn't say, "oh good then". YOu moved the goalpost and used it as a chance for an attack. The response was genuine and attempting to tell you I DO explore the opinions of people who I disagree with. All things you accused me of.
So it certainly wasn't "bragging"? You moved the goalpost to make an attack."

Not sure why you claim that, but maybe you will explain... Maybe.

It's actually 100% self explanatory. You called me closed minded for only believing things with actual evidence. But I told you I do study the opinions of Christian/Islamic/Hindu apologists to see if they can make any points and demonstrate evidence. I am open minded enough to listen to what C.S. Lewis argues as well as Licona, Habermas and others.
So I countered your accusation with these facts to demonstrate I am not close minded.
Your response was to move the goalpost, a common fallacy in debates and arguments and claim I was now "bragging".

The fact remains, I am not close minded. I just represent the side that can demonstrate evidence and isn't using some form of denial, lies, revisionist history and false narratives.
There are amateur researchers who write books about Jesus being a creation of Rome, Jesus being a copy of Horus and many other revisionist history nonsense crank. It's not just apologists. I'm not picking a side, I'm choosing what is most likely true.

Why am I repeating something so obvious? Because you asked me to explain.

Wait. You think I haven't listened to your repeated "list of people I had read or listened to"?
I have heard it a zillion times B.
Don't forget. You repeat yourself countless times, in the same thread.

Well that's funny because I only wrote that list down ONE TIME. My response to your claim that I was "close minded" and I listed some apologists I have read or listened to.



As if you don't repeat yourself constantly? You have stock answers to scholarship that encapsulates your denial perfectly that you re-use.

You also IGNORE facts and scholarship as if they don't exist. Which sometimes means one has to repost. It's now clear you seem to think denial means something goes away when you turn away. Then you seem to think commenting on repeated posts means anything. What it means is the facts have not gone away.

Like I said, when you can fill the boots of real scholars, talk to me.

Another fallacy? Really? That's like me saying don't talk about religion until you can fill the boots of the 12 apostles or you are of the bloodline. Ridiculous. Scholars write their knowledge in books for people to learn, use, spread and encourage educating people. This is more denial and ways to avoid uncomfortable facts.

Let's start with Paul. Prove your worth along side him.

A man who claimed to see and get messages from a ghost Jesus?
Thinks magic blood sacrifice is real -
Doesn't think men should touch women and doesn't think people should get married? Except to avoid sin.
Thinks the end of the world is coming soon - "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."
Has a God that killed 20,000 for fornication - "Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand."
Thinks women should be silent in church - "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law."

Wants the man to mansplain the church words to his woman - "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Doesn't know humans started in Africa 200,000 years ago - "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."

Knows nothing about the Earthly Jesus, his ministry, miracles, family, birthtowns, nothing. Says Jesus was killed by the archons of this age. This can mean spiritual forces supporting the celestial Jesus theory.

Uses Greek theology, dying/rising saviors,
in the first chapter of the Gospel of John in which the word becomes flesh, a Greek Platonic concept.

Paul helped start another religion based on complete mythology. I have started zero fake religions. Not interested in "proving my worth". It's a diversion anyways.






Your link uses Acts which has been demonstrated to be the most fictitious of all in the peer-reviewed work by Purvoe. Also shown in papers by Brodie, Dennis MacDonald , Burton Mack, Carrier. The author re-works several known sources of fiction like Homer and the Odyssey.

"Overall, Acts just shares far too many features with popular adventure novels that were written during the same period, in order to lend it any trust as history. Here’s an overview of those features:

1) They all promote a particular god or religion.
2) They are all travel narratives.
3) They all involve miraculous or amazing events.
4) They all include encounters with fabulous or exotic people.
5) They often incorporate a theme of chaste couples that are separated and then reunited.
6) They all feature exciting narratives of captivities and escapes.
7) They often include themes of persecution.
8) They often include episodes involving excited crowds.
9) They often involve divine rescues from danger.
10) They often have divine revelations which are integral to the plot

Since Acts shares all of these features and thus looks exactly like an ancient novel of the period, there is simply no good reason to assume that all of the parallels it has with other literary sources are merely historical coincidences. Rather, we should conclude that they are in fact what they have been shown to be: literary constructs and other elements of fiction."
blog post summarizing the work of these scholars

 

[Muffled]

I watched a CNN cast condemn officers for not storming the classroom and taking out the gunman. One person even suggested those officers are not worthy to be cops, and should hand in their badge.
I watched the video - muted of course, since I didn't want to hear anything.
I think the first responders were not equipped either mentally, physically, or experienced enough to handle the situation.
The trained and equipped officers arrived 30 minutes later, and moved in a little after 15 minutes - no doubt after a briefing of the situation and planned action - taking out the gunman.
I think those CNN "experts" owe those cops an apology.
It seems many other people... including an ex chief of police agree with them.
What do you think... Would it have been wise for those cops to have stormed the classroom? What do you think might have been the outcome?

I believe it would not have been wise but I find it difficult to understand why a person would not at least try to defend those children.

 

[Muffled]

Absolutely, that's what it takes to be in the public service protection sector. I say that as a military veteran. A lot of cops are also ex military (not all but enough). If you aren't willing to die, or take that chance, don't become a police officer or join the military.

When i tried to enlist I conceived that I would be an office worker. Later in life I did work on an air force base as a contract office worker.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe it would not have been wise but I find it difficult to understand why a person would not at least try to defend those children.

Why didn't a deity help them, they and their parents must have prayed pretty hard? I guess it values the free will of murderers and rapists over the lives of children.

 

[nPeace]

I don't say that in the post you linked to? This still stands:
"First you called me close minded, when I explained I am listening to the opinions of apologists (those are people who believe what you do), you didn't say, "oh good then". YOu moved the goalpost and used it as a chance for an attack. The response was genuine and attempting to tell you I DO explore the opinions of people who I disagree with. All things you accused me of.
So it certainly wasn't "bragging"? You moved the goalpost to make an attack."

You didn't say what?

It's actually 100% self explanatory. You called me closed minded for only believing things with actual evidence.

No, I did not do that.
What is evidence may I ask... and what evidence do you have, which is actually more than circumstantial, and thus any different to what opposing scholars have?

But I told you I do study the opinions of Christian/Islamic/Hindu apologists to see if they can make any points and demonstrate evidence. I am open minded enough to listen to what C.S. Lewis argues as well as Licona, Habermas and others.

So I countered your accusation with these facts to demonstrate I am not close minded.
Your response was to move the goalpost, a common fallacy in debates and arguments and claim I was now "bragging".

I'll listen for your response to the question above.

The fact remains, I am not close minded. I just represent the side that can demonstrate evidence and isn't using some form of denial, lies, revisionist history and false narratives.

Beating the chest isn't what I am interested in. Let's look at the real facts.

There are amateur researchers who write books about Jesus being a creation of Rome, Jesus being a copy of Horus and many other revisionist history nonsense crank. It's not just apologists. I'm not picking a side, I'm choosing what is most likely true.

Most likely true to whom?

Why am I repeating something so obvious? Because you asked me to explain.

Well that's funny because I only wrote that list down ONE TIME. My response to your claim that I was "close minded" and I listed some apologists I have read or listened to.

Lol. I'm not referring to this thread B. Check all your past posts on scholarship.

As if you don't repeat yourself constantly? You have stock answers to scholarship that encapsulates your denial perfectly that you re-use.

You also IGNORE facts and scholarship as if they don't exist. Which sometimes means one has to repost. It's now clear you seem to think denial means something goes away when you turn away. Then you seem to think commenting on repeated posts means anything. What it means is the facts have not gone away.

I'm sorry, but that view is expected when one can only see what's in a closed box, or closed mind.
I don't repeat myself. I leave that to you.
I say what I have to say, and move on - namely that scholars have different opinions.
You are the one sir, in denial, when you dismiss that fact, to claim that only certain scholars' opinions matter, since you agree with them.
All the others just come from crack heads, who need to find another job in another field... one that doesn't involve education ... in my own words.

Another fallacy? Really? That's like me saying don't talk about religion until you can fill the boots of the 12 apostles or you are of the bloodline. Ridiculous. Scholars write their knowledge in books for people to learn, use, spread and encourage educating people. This is more denial and ways to avoid uncomfortable facts.

More words. They come easy to you, don't they.
They mean nothing to me. Let's see you do more than talk. Back up your claims with actual evidence.
You are saying Paul was not a scholar?

A man who claimed to see and get messages from a ghost Jesus?
Thinks magic blood sacrifice is real -
Doesn't think men should touch women and doesn't think people should get married? Except to avoid sin.
Thinks the end of the world is coming soon - "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."
Has a God that killed 20,000 for fornication - "Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand."
Thinks women should be silent in church - "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law."

Wants the man to mansplain the church words to his woman - "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Doesn't know humans started in Africa 200,000 years ago - "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."

Knows nothing about the Earthly Jesus, his ministry, miracles, family, birthtowns, nothing. Says Jesus was killed by the archons of this age. This can mean spiritual forces supporting the celestial Jesus theory.

Uses Greek theology, dying/rising saviors,
in the first chapter of the Gospel of John in which the word becomes flesh, a Greek Platonic concept.

Paul helped start another religion based on complete mythology. I have started zero fake religions. Not interested in "proving my worth". It's a diversion anyways.


Your link uses Acts which has been demonstrated to be the most fictitious of all in the peer-reviewed work by Purvoe. Also shown in papers by Brodie, Dennis MacDonald , Burton Mack, Carrier. The author re-works several known sources of fiction like Homer and the Odyssey.

"Overall, Acts just shares far too many features with popular adventure novels that were written during the same period, in order to lend it any trust as history. Here’s an overview of those features:

1) They all promote a particular god or religion.
2) They are all travel narratives.
3) They all involve miraculous or amazing events.
4) They all include encounters with fabulous or exotic people.
5) They often incorporate a theme of chaste couples that are separated and then reunited.
6) They all feature exciting narratives of captivities and escapes.
7) They often include themes of persecution.
8) They often include episodes involving excited crowds.
9) They often involve divine rescues from danger.
10) They often have divine revelations which are integral to the plot

Since Acts shares all of these features and thus looks exactly like an ancient novel of the period, there is simply no good reason to assume that all of the parallels it has with other literary sources are merely historical coincidences. Rather, we should conclude that they are in fact what they have been shown to be: literary constructs and other elements of fiction."
blog post summarizing the work of these scholars

This coming from a man who claims to be better in understanding and knowledge than anyone who doesn't believe what he does. Lol.
You want someone to take your words seriously, over someone who never even claimed to see and get messages from a ghost... which you falsely claim they did? Seriously? ...and you consider yourself a Biblical scholar?

 

[nPeace]

I believe it would not have been wise but I find it difficult to understand why a person would not at least try to defend those children.

You do?
I find it difficult to understand why?
You could always try playing hero in any situation where you think you could save the child hostages in any closed room... in your mind, I mean.
Does that help?
Mind telling me how it went?