Homosexuality and Evolution: God's Will and Human Belief

[columbus]

There are lots of records of your birth? You have more than a certificate? Photos, perhaps?

There are multiple documents who testify of Christ's birth. But I'm not sure you exist. You could be a Poe.

Nope.
I am adopted. My biomom was an unwed teen, and my real parents jumped through a bunch of hoops to get me. If you know anything about adoption you will know about the huge paper trail that left.
Tom

 

[Sapiens]

There are lots of records of your birth? You have more than a certificate? Photos, perhaps?

There are multiple documents who testify of Christ's birth. But I'm not sure you exist. You could be a Poe.

Birth Certificate, birth announcement in the paper, hospital records, baptismal records for some, possibly mailed birth and letters, census data, etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It isn't whether I like them. It's that the stories aren't credible and the authors are anonymous.

So you tell me. If events took place as described, why didn't any Jewish or Roman sources mention them?
If they did, why hasn't anyone found such a record in about 2000 years?

The reasonable answer to that question is that the Gospel authors made up the events, years afterwards, to convince a gullible audience who had no way to ascertain the truth.
Tom

I'd love to answer you, but since you rhetorically answered your own question--and incorrectly, without even attempting to explore the possible/plauisble/practical answers . . .

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nope.
I am adopted. My biomom was an unwed teen, and my real parents jumped through a bunch of hoops to get me. If you know anything about adoption you will know about the huge paper trail that left.
Tom

My wife was adopted and there is nearly no paper trail. She'd like to find her birth parents. Recently, we learned who they were, but they've vanished.

Now, all you need do is tell me how you can prove you were adopted. Since you weren't conscious during the goings-on, you are relying on oral testimony from people you trust, who were around before you, and documents written by other people you've never met, whom you place trust it. But you mock me for doing something similar with the Bible writers and eyewitnesses? Is that right?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Birth Certificate, birth announcement in the paper, hospital records, baptismal records for some, possibly mailed birth and letters, census data, etc.

Nope--that doesn't prove you exist, if I'm a solipsist.

And you weren't there to see all with your own eyes--you simply expect to show me some DOCUMENTS that prove you were born at such a time and such a place?! SHAME. But you won't let me or anyone else do the same thing with Jesus. Looks like a double standard, eh?

 

[columbus]

I'd love to answer you, but since you rhetorically answered your own question--and incorrectly, without even attempting to explore the possible/plauisble/practical answers . . .

I did give a possible/plausible/practical answer. One that explains the facts, without resorting to supernatural stuff.

Jesus had an dramatic life, and a dramatic death. He became the subject of exciting stories, which grew into legends. This happened in the dramatic setting of 1st century Judea. People were looking for a Messiah, because the pagans were crushing "The Chosen People". Many people fully expected God to come to the rescue, and were willing to believe a good story that gave them hope that He was about to do so.

So the stories were created.
Then Paul came along and built a new religion on them. One that got a lot of traction as it became clear that God wasn't going to rescue the Jews.

Now, perhaps you have a better explanation for why nobody noticed the major plot elements, like the dramatic events of the first Good Friday. And you'd love to tell me about it. Feel free.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Since you weren't conscious during the goings-on, you are relying on oral testimony from people you trust, who were around before you, and documents written by other people you've never met, whom you place trust it. But you mock me for doing something similar with the Bible writers and eyewitnesses? Is that right?

Nonsense.
Despite centuries of celebrity, which I don't have, there's still almost no evidence that Jesus existed. Whereas I have a paper trail consistent with my life. You might question the court records from Michigan in the 50s, but they don't make any supernatural claims. Just an unwed mother, a bunch of people trying to help out, and a stable loving couple who wanted to be parents.

According to the Bible, Jesus was publicly executed. He showed up again the next week, taught for over a month to people that knew all this. Then He ascended to the Heavens, but by the time the Gospels were being written nobody remembered where The Ascension happened. Or didn't find the location of this event important enough to mention.

What's with that? Does that make any sense to you?
Tom

PS ~Maybe we should move this derail to the thread about evidence for the Resurrection? ~

 

[Sapiens]

Nope--that doesn't prove you exist, if I'm a solipsist.

And you weren't there to see all with your own eyes--you simply expect to show me some DOCUMENTS that prove you were born at such a time and such a place?! SHAME. But you won't let me or anyone else do the same thing with Jesus. Looks like a double standard, eh?

Show me Jesus' birth certificate, with his foot prints on it like mine has and his ID with his photo and thumbprint, or similar items and then you'll have something to talk about. As it now stands the best you can do is point to tenebrous items that speak of Jesus indirectly in the third person and that are without provenance save the claim that they are hand copies made a century after the origins of the originals that were themselves written a generation or two after the events.

If you are a solipsist, please let me know, and I'll place you gently on IGNORE.

Solipsism is the belief that it doesn't make sense to think that anything exists other than the solipsist himself Since solipsist do not claim to be personally convinced that deities exist, they are, essentially functional atheists. If you are, in fact, a solipsist, you have revealed yourself as an internet troll of the worst ilk, and should be IGNORED.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I did give a possible/plausible/practical answer. One that explains the facts, without resorting to supernatural stuff.

Jesus had an dramatic life, and a dramatic death. He became the subject of exciting stories, which grew into legends. This happened in the dramatic setting of 1st century Judea. People were looking for a Messiah, because the pagans were crushing "The Chosen People". Many people fully expected God to come to the rescue, and were willing to believe a good story that gave them hope that He was about to do so.

So the stories were created.
Then Paul came along and built a new religion on them. One that got a lot of traction as it became clear that God wasn't going to rescue the Jews.

Now, perhaps you have a better explanation for why nobody noticed the major plot elements, like the dramatic events of the first Good Friday. And you'd love to tell me about it. Feel free.
Tom

First off, if you think an earthquake or darkness is a "major plot element," rather than the death and resurrection of Christ and the Acts of the Apostles . . .

Second, you don't have a classics or NT degree (I don't believe so), I do. You clearly overestimate how many ancient records are extant.

Third, I don't personally believe the reason you don't believe has to do with your level-headed, logical understanding that "only the gospel writers wrote about certain things, and we can't find these things in other sources."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nonsense.
Despite centuries of celebrity, which I don't have, there's still almost no evidence that Jesus existed. Whereas I have a paper trail consistent with my life. You might question the court records from Michigan in the 50s, but they don't make any supernatural claims. Just an unwed mother, a bunch of people trying to help out, and a stable loving couple who wanted to be parents.

According to the Bible, Jesus was publicly executed. He showed up again the next week, taught for over a month to people that knew all this. Then He ascended to the Heavens, but by the time the Gospels were being written nobody remembered where The Ascension happened. Or didn't find the location of this event important enough to mention.

What's with that? Does that make any sense to you?
Tom

PS ~Maybe we should move this derail to the thread about evidence for the Resurrection? ~

I've seen a number of authors (dispensational) state that where Jesus ascended is where He will descend in the return. I would tend to say the ascension fact is primary over the location, just like I worship the risen Christ, not the City of Jerusalem...

...However, we are back to "I don't like the Bible because God didn't write what I would have written in it." Do you take this tack with government, school and family persons, also? "Let's not get married, because I don't like how a marriage license is written and executed!"

I'll argue Bible evidence for most anything, except for childlike, willful, tantrums and complaints. You seem too intelligent for this "line of argument". It's beneath you. Let's talk like adults or not at all, please.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Show me Jesus' birth certificate, with his foot prints on it like mine has and his ID with his photo and thumbprint, or similar items and then you'll have something to talk about. As it now stands the best you can do is point to tenebrous items that speak of Jesus indirectly in the third person and that are without provenance save the claim that they are hand copies made a century after the origins of the originals that were themselves written a generation or two after the events.

If you are a solipsist, please let me know, and I'll place you gently on IGNORE.

Solipsism is the belief that it doesn't make sense to think that anything exists other than the solipsist himself Since solipsist do not claim to be personally convinced that deities exist, they are, essentially functional atheists. If you are, in fact, a solipsist, you have revealed yourself as an internet troll of the worst ilk, and should be IGNORED.

Did they make certificates with footprints and thumbprints circa 30 BCE, do you think?

And should I ignore you, since you are a solipsist?

 

[columbus]

First off, if you think an earthquake or darkness is a "major plot element," rather than the death and resurrection of Christ and the Acts of the Apostles . . .

By major, I mean something so big and dramatic that it necessarily impacted thousands of people crowding into Jerusalem for Passover. In way that portended something huge going on.
Whether or not they were aware of Jesus, they all experienced it.

Second, you don't have a classics or NT degree (I don't believe so), I do. You clearly overestimate how many ancient records are extant.

You don't need a degree to know that. But also that lots did. Like Josephus, as an example.

Third, I don't personally believe the reason you don't believe has to do with your level-headed, logical understanding that "only the gospel writers wrote about certain things, and we can't find these things in other sources."

That certainly is not the only reason.
It's not even the only "lack of historical verification".
It's not even the biggest of those. Just the one you and I happen to be talking about.
Tom

 

[Sapiens]

Did they make certificates with footprints and thumbprints circa 30 BCE, do you think?

Did I not say, "or similar items"? I'll consider any item ... but you have none.

And should I ignore you, since you are a solipsist?

But I am not a solipsist, where ever did you get that idea?

You claim a "classics or NT degree". Which is it, what is the exact degree and from what institution. If you're to make an appeal to authority, as you have, that is all that keeps it from being yet another logical fallacy.

 

[columbus]

I've seen a number of authors (dispensational) state that where Jesus ascended is where He will descend in the return. I would tend to say the ascension fact is primary over the location, just like I worship the risen Christ, not the City of Jerusalem...

Nevertheless, if a fairly well known figure in Jerusalem were publicly executed, then reappeared the following week, to hundreds of people (and indirectly to the thousands of people known by the ones Jesus appeared to), preaching and teaching for about a month, then Jesus ascended to the Heavens, I would expect big crowds to know where and for lots of them to record that, however informally.
2000 years later, nobody has ever found such a record.

...However, we are back to "I don't like the Bible because God didn't write what I would have written in it." Do you take this tack with government, school and family persons, also? "Let's not get married, because I don't like how a marriage license is written and executed!"

If any of those people tried to convince me of something as implausible as the Gospel story, yeah. I would have the same attitude.
In fact, it happens a lot. People make all kinds of claims every day. I don't always believe the less credible ones without substantial corroboration from independent sources. Not claims of any importance at any rate.
Tom

 

[columbus]

I'll argue Bible evidence for most anything, except for childlike, willful, tantrums and complaints. You seem too intelligent for this "line of argument". It's beneath you. Let's talk like adults or not at all, please.

I kinda resent this.
I have responded to you consistently with the way things look to me. Sometimes at length.
But "child-like, willful, tantrums and complaints"?
Tom

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nevertheless, if a fairly well known figure in Jerusalem were publicly executed, then reappeared the following week, to hundreds of people (and indirectly to the thousands of people known by the ones Jesus appeared to), preaching and teaching for about a month, then Jesus ascended to the Heavens, I would expect big crowds to know where and for lots of them to record that, however informally.
2000 years later, nobody has ever found such a record.


If any of those people tried to convince me of something as implausible as the Gospel story, yeah. I would have the same attitude.
In fact, it happens a lot. People make all kinds of claims every day. I don't always believe the less credible ones without substantial corroboration from independent sources. Not claims of any importance at any rate.
Tom

The gospel records, honestly, that Jesus appeared in Galilee to over 500 of His disciples, including ones who "doubted He resurrected". I would say that underscores a quite honest report. This accounting actually addresses your concern directly and concisely.

"2000 years later, nobody has ever found such a record."

I just quoted the record for your convenience. Also, you have a Presentist bias--your assumption is that Jewish scribes went around recording historical events on paper, when rather they were conversant with God's Law and the scriptures, and did mostly commentary on same.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Did I not say, "or similar items"? I'll consider any item ... but you have none.

But I am not a solipsist, where ever did you get that idea?

You claim a "classics or NT degree". Which is it, what is the exact degree and from what institution. If you're to make an appeal to authority, as you have, that is all that keeps it from being yet another logical fallacy.

I don't understand why dozens of NT documents aren't "similar items". We're discussing Jesus Christ today because eyewitnesses claimed to have written certain documents, which documents are extraordinary in their length and breadth. I've memorized, for example, one particular book of the NT that is like memorizing over 20 Gettysburg Addresses. I know personally these documents are not spurious but very devout and broad. Your point is moot.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Did I not say, "or similar items"? I'll consider any item ... but you have none.

But I am not a solipsist, where ever did you get that idea?

You claim a "classics or NT degree". Which is it, what is the exact degree and from what institution. If you're to make an appeal to authority, as you have, that is all that keeps it from being yet another logical fallacy.

I have a Bachelor's in Religion with the emphasis on biblical studies from a secular university. I will decline to name the spot because I've had other people harass me on other forums and do unsavory research on my ISP and etc.

The appeal to authority I'm making is that I truly care about studying, and committed to such studies after salvation at a secular university. I would presume I have more Greek and Hebrew training than you also. You seem more like an armchair critic to me. I'm sorry, but since we are debating facts, not just philosophy, if you make an untutored wrong assumption--you're still wrong.

 

[Jean Valjean]

I don't go there...

the seers are misinterpret the word Homosexuallity with intention. Just as the word "gun".

Homme = latin, meaning male
sexual = latin, meaning gender.

Male gender.

the opponents, argue gun control as a sign of sissies stumping other men.

In philosophy there is a way to set forth you notion misinterpret the opponent with intentions.

It's a valid way to confuse. And for the middle class to show superiority...

I argue, that's just rude...

 

[Sapiens]

I don't understand why dozens of NT documents aren't "similar items". We're discussing Jesus Christ today because eyewitnesses claimed to have written certain documents, which documents are extraordinary in their length and breadth. I've memorized, for example, one particular book of the NT that is like memorizing over 20 Gettysburg Addresses. I know personally these documents are not spurious but very devout and broad. Your point is moot.

Because there are no contemporaneous documents ... NONE! The provenance of what has survived is highly questionable. You have to want to believe to take it seriously and while that maybe fine for religion, that is no way to do history. Memorizing 20 Gettysburg Addresses is hardly intellectual legerdemain, many people have memorized all five acts of Hamlet or large chunks of Chaucer in Middle English.

You may believe that these documents are not spurious, but your claim that they you know that they are not is absurd and rooted in hubris rather than knowledge, so it is your point that is, in fact, moot.

I have a Bachelor's in Religion with the emphasis on biblical studies from a secular university. I will decline to name the spot because I've had other people harass me on other forums and do unsavory research on my ISP and etc.

The appeal to authority I'm making is that I truly care about studying, and committed to such studies after salvation at a secular university. I would presume I have more Greek and Hebrew training than you also. You seem more like an armchair critic to me. I'm sorry, but since we are debating facts, not just philosophy, if you make an untutored wrong assumption--you're still wrong.

If you are unwilling to revel the source of your claim of authority then I really can't take it seriously. Your Hebrew is likely far better than mine, but I rather doubt that you have an advantage in either Greek or Latin. I have made no assumptions, tutored or untutored ... the assumptions are all yours and your vaunted religious education has only served to feed your obvious propensity for confirmation bias.