Homosexuality and Evolution: God's Will and Human Belief

[Sapiens]

What is true:

The NT got EVERYTHING right, whereas Tom Clancy had good sources and got some things right.

A claim that you make without any rational support. That is more subjective preconception that anything else.

My memory hasn't altered of things Jesus did for me 20 years ago, and it wouldn't have changed an iota in 36 years if I saw Him resurrect, raise the dead, heal the blind, mute and deaf and more. NEITHER WOULD YOURS.

Again, purely subjective preconception without any objective evidence. Besides, how would you know that your memory had altered?

I call baloney!

You seem to think that calling it makes it so despite the abject weakness of your argumentation. The processed meat is all on your side.

 

[Sapiens]

Clancy did not indulge in magical realism, which makes his books
more believable, really. They could happen, just didnt.

That is true, in the case of the NT it is more than "just didn't," the fact is that without breaking the laws of the universe it could not have happened.

 

[BilliardsBall]

A claim that you make without any rational support. That is more subjective preconception that anything else.
Again, purely subjective preconception without any objective evidence. Besides, how would you know that your memory had altered?You seem to think that calling it makes it so despite the abject weakness of your argumentation. The processed meat is all on your side.

I see what you're saying, but it's not subjective, it's objective. Just like I can recall many details from my wedding day, I can call many details for the months leading up to my salvation day.

To make the argument, "The NT is wrong because there's no way people 36 years after could have accurate memories about a powerful preacher who personally healed them, rose from the dead, performed miracles, and caused tremendous turmoil when tens of thousands were present with us inside the Temple courts," seems poor to me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So what if they add in trade routes? I am not questioning that live humans wrote about their time and place. You are overemphasizing the obvious.

So the words of "Jesus" as report d are not accurate? Never thought they were. Lo and many a Christian will say they are, though.

Yes, you can SAY all sorts of things. There are stories of miracle cures
from probably every culture that ever was, and a lot of them involve
stories of, yes, gods that died and came back to life. Christianity is so far from unique in this! Id be more impressed if they didnt have such stories.

Standards for books-

Your fav. is supposed to come from God, be something special.
You seem arguing that it is not.

Now, to me, it is a book of the collected folk tales of a people, some
wise,, some ridiculous, with a bunch of magical hooey and or course,
all one sided from the POV of the writers.

It isn't just trade routes. For example, specific architectural details revealed in the OT demonstrate per archaeology that the writings are far older than modern skeptics say, and there is a book with dozens of ultra-specific details from Luke and the Acts alone that shows early, eyewitness recording: https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-En...preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

As important, the fulfilled prophecies--including ones fulfilled in the modern day--are conclusive, compelling.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You can believe that all you want, but studies in psychology and human nature show that our memories are not nearly as great as we think they are and are subject to our personal biases, interpretations, and re-interpretations long after the fact.

I feel strongly that if I saw you rise from the dead, and you healed me and my family, and raised others from the dead, and preached powerfully to tens of thousands while I was present, that I would have strong memories.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's a form of hearsay. You can't report on what 500 other people saw. You can claim that you saw that those people were there, but you have no claim to their testimony of what they saw at the event/occurrence. In other words, stating that 500 other people saw the same thing you did doesn't get you anywhere, because you can't speak on their behalf. And since they didn't bother to speak on their own behalf, we have no idea what they claim to have seen. So the claim that 500 people were there doesn't tell us much of anything.

I mean, I can be in the presence of a person suffering from hallucinations, as I was when my Grandmother had a stroke. She told me that she saw waves and flowers bouncing around the room and that her (deceased) sister was there, dancing around. She could have told someone that I was present when she saw all of these things and so I must have seen them too. But then if you come and ask me what I saw, you will find out that I didn't see any waves or flowers bouncing around and that my Great Aunt was definitely not their either. The situation is most decidedly different, based on what perspective a person is coming from. I'd say the same goes for miracle claims, wouldn't you?



No, not at all. A reporter can report that 1000 people showed up to a political rally, but they cannot report on what those people saw or how they interpreted what went on at the rally unless they speak to them and record their experiences directly from them.

Going back to your claim that 500 people witnessed the resurrection of Christ ... the most you can say is that 500 people were in attendance, according to what you witnessed (and that assumes the person that recorded the event was even an eyewitness in the first place). You cannot say what those 500 other people witnessed/saw/experienced. And since they didn't record it themselves, we can never know. That is the very reason I keep asking you where I can read 500 testimonies of the people that were supposedly there.

As I've already asked you, would you trust Jesus for salvation if I put you in touch with 500 living persons who have encountered God? Not that I'm evangelizing, especially since you'll say NO!

 

[Audie]

It isn't just trade routes. For example, specific architectural details revealed in the OT demonstrate per archaeology that the writings are far older than modern skeptics say, and there is a book with dozens of ultra-specific details from Luke and the Acts alone that shows early, eyewitness recording: https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520017193&sr=8-1&keywords=i+don't+have+faith+to+be+an+atheist&dpID=41ScZbXvBML&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

As important, the fulfilled prophecies--including ones fulfilled in the modern day--are conclusive, compelling.

Come on, I know it isnt just "trade routes". Lets not play Captain Obvious.

Including that if I wrote about New York City
and supposed miracles, why I would include
mention of the Staten Island Ferry, the Wall St bull,
and, gee who knows, even central park.

And a thousand years later, it would all be true, whatever I said, just because I identified landmarks?

I dont doubt that anything you want to believe is as
compelling as it needs to be to suit.

The fulfillment of prophecy,though-people find fulfilled prophecy where they want to.

Conclusive biblical prophecy? Garbage.

There are t hose who really-really believe Nostradamus did a prophecy of the
911 attack. Seriously, and they have just as good (conclusive) evidence as you do.

I have seen the prophecies. I've no agenda in it the
way you do. You lack the capacity to be objective
about it.

But hey, if it suits you, go for it. Whatevs. Just
dont think you can peddle it here.

 

[Sapiens]

It isn't just trade routes. For example, specific architectural details revealed in the OT demonstrate per archaeology that the writings are far older than modern skeptics say, and there is a book with dozens of ultra-specific details from Luke and the Acts alone that shows early, eyewitness recording: https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520017193&sr=8-1&keywords=i+don't+have+faith+to+be+an+atheist&dpID=41ScZbXvBML&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

As important, the fulfilled prophecies--including ones fulfilled in the modern day--are conclusive, compelling.

Here is a detailed rebutal of your reference: Index: Rebuttal to Geisler's and Turek's "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Come on, I know it isnt just "trade routes". Lets not play Captain Obvious.

Including that if I wrote about New York City
and supposed miracles, why I would include
mention of the Staten Island Ferry, the Wall St bull,
and, gee who knows, even central park.

And a thousand years later, it would all be true, whatever I said, just because I identified landmarks?

I dont doubt that anything you want to believe is as
compelling as it needs to be to suit.

The fulfillment of prophecy,though-people find fulfilled prophecy where they want to.

Conclusive biblical prophecy? Garbage.

There are t hose who really-really believe Nostradamus did a prophecy of the
911 attack. Seriously, and they have just as good (conclusive) evidence as you do.

I have seen the prophecies. I've no agenda in it the
way you do. You lack the capacity to be objective
about it.

But hey, if it suits you, go for it. Whatevs. Just
dont think you can peddle it here.

I never said "landmarks". One of the things I've said you to or three times now is "architectural details". OT includes design elements of buildings so that archaeologists, for example, can place the OT's writing far earlier than do skeptics, eliminating YEDP theory.

There is conclusive biblical prophecy, and neither me nor a debate audience finds the response "garbage" compelling.

And why can't I peddle religious belief at a religious forum, do you think?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Here is a detailed rebutal of your reference: Index: Rebuttal to Geisler's and Turek's "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"

I didn't see a rebuttal of the facts of the book at that link, just an (incorrect) criticism of the methodology. As a matter of fact, there are dozens of pages explaining their efforts to present balanced views that are also not pre-suppositional. Did you read the book?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I see what you're saying, but it's not subjective, it's objective. Just like I can recall many details from my wedding day, I can call many details for the months leading up to my salvation day.

To make the argument, "The NT is wrong because there's no way people 36 years after could have accurate memories about a powerful preacher who personally healed them, rose from the dead, performed miracles, and caused tremendous turmoil when tens of thousands were present with us inside the Temple courts," seems poor to me.

Recalling one's own memories is most definitely subjective.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I feel strongly that if I saw you rise from the dead, and you healed me and my family, and raised others from the dead, and preached powerfully to tens of thousands while I was present, that I would have strong memories.

Again, you can believe whatever you want. It doesn't alter the reality of the human condition.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As I've already asked you, would you trust Jesus for salvation if I put you in touch with 500 living persons who have encountered God? Not that I'm evangelizing, especially since you'll say NO!

If they made compelling arguments, I would have to consider it.

But we're not even talking about that. We're talking about a guy who claims that 500 people saw a thing, with absolutely no way for us to verify that 500 people saw anything at all.

 

[columbus]

As I've already asked you, would you trust Jesus for salvation if I put you in touch with 500 living persons who have encountered God? Not that I'm evangelizing, especially since you'll say NO!

That is simply not true. I would definitely change my opinions about Jesus if you put me in touch with 500 people who have encountered God.
Or even 5.
The problem I expect to find here is your meaning for the word "encountered". The encounter would have to be distinguishable from a dream or a delusion or a fib. I've been around a lot of religious people in my life, of many different varieties. None have ever had an encounter with God that I could see as at all convincing.

Could you explain what you mean by encounter in your post?
Tom

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is simply not true. I would definitely change my opinions about Jesus if you put me in touch with 500 people who have encountered God.
Or even 5.
The problem I expect to find here is your meaning for the word "encountered". The encounter would have to be distinguishable from a dream or a delusion or a fib. I've been around a lot of religious people in my life, of many different varieties. None have ever had an encounter with God that I could see as at all convincing.

Could you explain what you mean by encounter in your post?
Tom

This ^^

 

[BilliardsBall]

Recalling one's own memories is most definitely subjective.

Certainly. But my memory is clearest regarding events of import. I know where I was on 9/11, I know what I wore, what I ate, even how I shaved my face, on my wedding day.

The concept that the apostles forgot the risen triumphant Christ and His miracles 36 years later is laughable.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is simply not true. I would definitely change my opinions about Jesus if you put me in touch with 500 people who have encountered God.
Or even 5.
The problem I expect to find here is your meaning for the word "encountered". The encounter would have to be distinguishable from a dream or a delusion or a fib. I've been around a lot of religious people in my life, of many different varieties. None have ever had an encounter with God that I could see as at all convincing.

Could you explain what you mean by encounter in your post?
Tom

Sure, would you like to meet a person who has a living, active relationship with God? Who sees miracles in modern times? Who experiences provision from God constantly?

 

[Audie]

Certainly. But my memory is clearest regarding events of import. I know where I was on 9/11, I know what I wore, what I ate, even how I shaved my face, on my wedding day.

The concept that the apostles forgot the risen triumphant Christ and His miracles 36 years later is laughable.

More strawmen. Who said they "forgot" this non-event?

 

[Audie]

Sure, would you like to meet a person who has a living, active relationship with God? Who sees miracles in modern times? Who experiences provision from God constantly?

Oh, we've met people who get messages. See things nobody else can see. We tend to back away from them

 

[SkepticThinker]

Certainly. But my memory is clearest regarding events of import. I know where I was on 9/11, I know what I wore, what I ate, even how I shaved my face, on my wedding day.

Well, you just claimed they were objective memories, in your last post.

You have a lot of research to do on the fallibility of human memory and the problem with eyewitness accounts.

As I pointed out earlier:

"So what is an "original memory?"6 The process of interpretation occurs at the very formation of memory—thus introducing distortion from the beginning. Furthermore, witnesses can distort their own memories without the help of examiners, police officers or lawyers. Rarely do we tell a story or recount events without a purpose. Every act of telling and retelling is tailored to a particular listener; we would not expect someone to listen to every detail of our morning commute, so we edit out extraneous material. The act of telling a story adds another layer of distortion, which in turn affects the underlying memory of the event. This is why a fish story, which grows with each retelling, can eventually lead the teller to believe it."

... Memory is affected by retelling, and we rarely tell a story in a neutral fashion. By tailoring our stories to our listeners, our bias distorts the very formation of memory—even without the introduction of misinformation by a third party. The protections of the judicial system against prosecutors and police "assisting" a witness’ memory may not sufficiently ensure the accuracy of those memories. Even though prosecutors refrain from "refreshing" witness A’s memory by showing her witness B’s testimony, the mere act of telling prosecutors what happened may bias and distort the witness’s memory. Eyewitness testimony, then, is innately suspect."
The Problem With Eyewitness Testimony
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...counts-arent-surprising/?utm_term=.2b9b190318
Remarkable false memories « The Invisible Gorilla

This all goes on without your conscious knowledge of it.


And since you mentioned 9/11:
Do You Really Remember Where You Were on 9/11?
Remember where you were on 9/11? Study suggests memories may be distorted

Have you ever heard of the Invisible Gorilla experiment?
The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us

The concept that the apostles forgot the risen triumphant Christ and His miracles 36 years later is laughable.

Who made that claim? Oh never mind, it's just another one of your straw man arguments.