Not a sin anymore???

[F1fan]

Sounds like you wasted your money on subjects that gain you nothing in the real world.

Ironic coming from somebody who rejects evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sounds like you wasted your money on subjects that gain you nothing in the real world.

Coming from someone who hasn't the slightest idea what goes on in universities or the real world, in regards to how gender is discussed, I'll take that as a compliment. You could use a university course or two - it's a great cure for ignorance.
I've got a psychology degree and I'm doing just fine trying to help people navigate their lives and emotions in the real world, but thanks for your contempt. Much appreciated.

 

[leroy]

You think it's irrelevant and "dumb" to point out that you're making assumption on top of assumption in order to draw your conclusions? Of course you do, because it demonstrates the weakness in your arguments/claims.
1. No. You quote his points that you think are irrelevant. I've provided the points for you. The poster you want me to quote has liked my posts where I point out his points, so I'm going to take that as confirmation that I'm on the right track with them. This is just obfuscation, on your part.
2. I did that. Are you having trouble reading my post that literally says "the points are ... " ?

All arguments are based on assumptions on top of assumptions, that is why that criticism is dumb and not worthy of response.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Coming from someone who hasn't the slightest idea what goes on in universities or the real world, in regards to how gender is discussed, I'll take that as a compliment. You could use a university course or two - it's a great cure for ignorance.
I've got a psychology degree and I'm doing just fine trying to help people navigate their lives and emotions in the real world, but thanks for your contempt. Much appreciated.

Thanks for confirming that you wasted your money.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Ironic coming from somebody who rejects evolution.

Which matters not a bit in everyday life.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Which is why we never study something without taking in other factors as nothing exists as a stand-alone.

You can't know all the factors in the past.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I see people claiming to be Christian who want homosexual behavior to not be a sin
My Bible says:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind … it is abomination, Lev. 18:22 (20:13).
There shall be no … sodomite of the sons of Israel, Deut. 23:17.
declare their sin as Sodom, Isa. 3:9
men … burned in their lust one toward another, Rom. 1:27.
nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1 Cor. 6:9.
them that defile themselves with mankind, 1 Tim. 1:10.
as Sodom and Gomorrha … going after strange flesh, Jude 1:7.

Now I’m not calling for violence or mistreatment of anyone, but I am challenging those preaching this “other gospel” When did God change His mind on this being a sin?

You forgot one:

If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense. ~ Lev. 20:13

 

[metis]

You can't know all the factors in the past.

Of course not, thus decisions are hopefully made on where the evidence largely indicates, and often no decisions are in order. It's obvious you make decisions all the time, so I doubt we're that different. But between religious concepts and science, I mostly lean towards the latter.

 

[leroy]

I care about believing in as many true things as possible, and not believing in as many false things as possible. It doesn't appear that you do, and instead will believe most any claim, as long as more than one person makes it? That's not a pathway to believing true things.

Yes if more than one independent testimony reports the same event it will always be considered strong evidence for the historicity of that event.



There is nothing controversial about that, I challenge you to quote a single claim for ancient history that is supported by 2 or more independent sources that it is not widely considered as a historical fact among scholars.


Specifically what is exactly what you are claiming?

1 that the bible doesn’t have multiple independent sources (documents)

2 that multiple attestation is not a reliable criteria to determine the historicity of an event

3 that multiple attestation is not a reliable criteria to determine the historicity of the event, when (and only when) the event is supernatural

 

[Wildswanderer]

Of course not, thus decisions are hopefully made on where the evidence largely indicates, and often no decisions are in order. It's obvious you make decisions all the time, so I doubt we're that different. But between religious concepts and science, I mostly lean towards the latter.

Then you are in opposition to what the Bible teaches.

 

[metis]

Then you are in opposition to what the Bible teaches.

Nope, but I simply do not believe in everything that I may read.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nope, but I simply do not believe in everything that I may read.

Then you aren't following the scripture.

 

[metis]

Then you aren't following the scripture.

I'm just not blind to the reality that all scripture is subjective, thus not objective.

Some people seem to be "blind" in that they pretty much ignore the application of Jesus' answer to "Which is the greatest Commandment?". As Gandhi said, so many self-proclaimed Christians "... elevated the man and forgot his message", which is the main theme of Jesus' Parable of the Sheep & Goats [Matthew 25].

 

[Wildswanderer]

I'm just not blind to the reality that all scripture is subjective, thus not objective.

Some people seem to be "blind" in that they pretty much ignore the application of Jesus' answer to "Which is the greatest Commandment?". As Gandhi said, so many self-proclaimed Christians "... elevated the man and forgot his message", which is the main theme of Jesus' Parable of the Sheep & Goats [Matthew 25].

Now you're just creating an either /or false dichotomy.

 

[metis]

Now you're just creating an either /or false dichotomy.

Not really.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes if more than one independent testimony reports the same event it will always be considered strong evidence for the historicity of that event.

According to you. Even though you don't have "independent testimony." Instead, you have multiple so-called testimonies all from the same book - the BIble. You don't even have contemporary testimony. Or originals of said testimonies.

There is nothing controversial about that, I challenge you to quote a single claim for ancient history that is supported by 2 or more independent sources that it is not widely considered as a historical fact among scholars.

[/quote]
Apollo must be real because Parthenius and Homer both mention him in their stories. Do you believe that Apollo rides the sun across the sky every day?

Specifically what is exactly what you are claiming?

1 that the bible doesn’t have multiple independent sources (documents)

2 that multiple attestation is not a reliable criteria to determine the historicity of an event

3 that multiple attestation is not a reliable criteria to determine the historicity of the event, when (and only when) the event is supernatural

Demonstrate the supernatural exists in the first place, and then we'll talk. You don't just get to declare it as real without any evidence outside some ancient stories in a book.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[leroy]

According to you. Even though you don't have "independent testimony." Instead, you have multiple so-called testimonies all from the same book - the BIble. You don't even have contemporary testimony. Or originals of said testimonies.

Apollo must be real because Parthenius and Homer both mention him in their stories. Do you believe that Apollo rides the sun across the sky every day?[/QUOTE]

Why don’t you explain to me , with your own words, what “independent” means

Demonstrate the supernatural exists in the first place, and then we'll talk. You don't just get to declare it as real without any evidence outside some ancient stories in a book.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I asked you a simple question, why didn’t you answer?


If you are asking me for evidence for a supernatural event that occurred 2000 years ago, the best I can do is provide ancient documents as evidence, I don’t know what else do you expect me to do……

Ancient documents is nearly all we have to show the an event from ancient history took place ……… if this miracle did happened 2000 years ago, what other evidence do you expect to find apart from ancient documents?

Demonstrate the supernatural exists in the first place

What exactly do you mean by supernatural, and what type of evidence would you accept?

 

[F1fan]

Why don’t you explain to me , with your own words, what “independent” means

Independent doesn't mean a different writier repeating fantastic stories. There has to be a recognized author who is stating known facts that might ot might not have additional details to existing history. The Gospels are not written as history. There are no other documents that support the stories as true at face value.

If you are asking me for evidence for a supernatural event that occurred 2000 years ago, the best I can do is provide ancient documents as evidence, I don’t know what else do you expect me to do……

Or that any supernatural phenomenon exists, as thatwould suggest that the Jesus myths were more plausible. As it is there is no evidence that any supernatural phenomenon exists, and we can't interpret the Gospels as true.

Ancient documents is nearly all we have to show the an event from ancient history took place ………

There is an ancient history. There is no magic known to be art of it. Many pieces of evidence come together to give us a narrative of actual history. The Gospels, and other stories of the Bible, are no supported by other bits of evidence. There are some factual elements to some stories in the Bible, but that is a common literary technique. A Tale of Two Cities is a work of fiction about the French Revolution. For Whom the Bell Tolls takes place during the Spanish Civil War but is fiction.

if this miracle did happened 2000 years ago, what other evidence do you expect to find apart from ancient documents?

Miracles are a very hard sell even if it happened yesterday. There are many claimed miracles but they are easily debunked.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why don’t you explain to me , with your own words, what “independent” means

It'd be super cool if you'd just address my point in the context of our discussion.

I asked you a simple question, why didn’t you answer?

I did. You just didn't like the way I answered it.

If you are asking me for evidence for a supernatural event that occurred 2000 years ago, the best I can do is provide ancient documents as evidence, I don’t know what else do you expect me to do……

I'm asking your for evidence of any supernatural anything. Ever. You are claiming that events described in the Bible are supernatural events, without first demonstrating that supernatural events ARE EVEN POSSIBLE AT ALL. You don't get to use "supernatural" as an explanation for anything when "supernatural" anything is not in evidence. We might as well just say magical pixies did it and leave it at that. I really wish you could grasp this. "The supernatural" has zero explanatory power and has never been shown to exist.

Ancient documents is nearly all we have to show the an event from ancient history took place ……… if this miracle did happened 2000 years ago, what other evidence do you expect to find apart from ancient documents?

We're not just talking about "ancient documents" are we? We're talking about supposed supernatural claims contained within those ancient documents.

What exactly do you mean by supernatural, and what type of evidence would you accept?

I don't mean anything by supernatural. You're the one claiming that something supernatural exists. You define it. You provide evidence for it. I don't see any reason to believe it even exists in the first place.

 

[leroy]

It'd be super cool if you'd just address my point in the context of our discussion.

Paul and the gospels are independent because they were written by different authors, who didn’t copied from each other, nor from a common source………. This is not even controversial……. No historian would deny this

I did. You just didn't like the way I answered it.

It was just a simple question about your own personal views, why cant you answer it?

I don't mean anything by supernatural. You're the one claiming that something supernatural exists. You define it. You provide evidence for it. I don't see any reason to believe it even exists in the first place.

I am claiming that Jesus rose from the dead about 2000 years ago, weather if you want to label this a super natural or not is irrelevant.

My evidence for the historicity of this event:

1 Multiple independnet sources report this event

Why I think is good evidence?

2 Because multiple independent attestation is considered by scholars as strong evidence for thee historicity of the event

Why scholars say that?

3 because it is unlikely for multiple independent people to have invented the same story


How many times do I have to repeat this?.................which of the 3 points do you affirm is false? Why do you keep avoiding this question?

What you are asking me to do is ridiculous

I am supposed to provide evidence for the supernatural without you explaining what you mean by supernatural and by evidence, sorry but your request is an impossible task.