Not a sin anymore???

[leroy]

These are independent testimonies. Much more so than the ones you're citing. And not only that, these people making these claims about alien abductions are still alive today. So we can question them if we so desire. Not so much for the Jesus claims.


Nope, it really isn't.

I don't accept bare, eyewitness accounts without any outside corroboration as "strong evidence." You do. I don't think anybody should for the reasons I've already mentioned several times now.

The thing that you aren't grasping that I really wish you would, is that claims aren't evidence. You have claims of Biblical miracles, but you're lacking in the evidence department.


So you're claiming that if I don't accept your Biblical claims that I am throwing away all ancient history?

You seem really confused about how historians go about determining historical facts.

I don't know why you keep going on about my worldview, since I've not mentioned it, and you have no idea at all what it is. We're dealing with your claims here.




There is no difference between "2 people to tell the same lie" and "2 people to have elaborated the exact same lie, with the same specific details."

It's not unlikely at all, and happens more often than you seem to think. Hence the evidence I provided for you on that claim.


Good grief. It actually demonstrates my point - that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

However did you conclude it demonstrates your point about eyewitness testimony being reliable, "strong evidence" ????


Who said anything about "absolute proof" of anything?

Eyewitness testimony, on it's own, is notoriously unreliable. Hence the need for actual corroborating evidence.


Read them more closely. You would lose that bet.

Again when it comes to history all we have is ancient books and testimonies, this is how we “know” most of the things that you learned at school.so ether,

1 keep your standards and deny all ancient history

2 change your standards and accept that old book s and testimonies are reliable

3 admit that you are making an arbitrary exception and change your standards with things that contradict your current world view.

There is no difference between "2 people to tell the same lie" and "2 people to have elaborated the exact same lie, with the same specific details.

Ok can you give an example of two individuals elaborating the same lie (same details) independently…these things do not happen .

With independently I mean that they didn’t copied form each other nor from a common source (like you Alien example)

Eyewitness testimony, on it's own, is notoriously unreliable. Hence the need for actual corroborating evidence

.
Yes which is why we need more than 1 independent witness corroborating the story (this is the corroborating evidence that you are asking for)

If I say that it is currently raining in Mexico City (say in downtown) you might not accept my testimony, (I would be lying or hallucinating) but if you call a friend of yours that lives in Mexico City and also tells you that it is raining, you would accept it as evidence,……….. why? because it is unlikely that 2 persons would lie about the climate and just by chance happen to invent the same lie…….. (if both of us a liars we would have invented a different lie each)

If Paul and the authors of the Gospels where liers, then each one would have invented his own lies and their own events and their own miracles

Of all the lies and of all the miracles that they could have invented, it´s strage that both happen to invent a resurrection independently………….. if they would have been liars, each would have had invented his miracle

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again when it comes to history all we have is ancient books and testimonies, this is how we “know” most of the things that you learned at school.so ether,

1 keep your standards and deny all ancient history

2 change your standards and accept that old book s and testimonies are reliable

3 admit that you are making an arbitrary exception and change your standards with things that contradict your current world view.

This is just a repeat of your earlier claims and doesn't address what i said.

Ok can you give an example of two individuals elaborating the same lie (same details) independently…these things do not happen .

With independently I mean that they didn’t copied form each other nor from a common source (like you Alien example)

I already did this. I gave you more than one example. I'm starting to think you aren't actually reading through my posts.

Yes which is why we need more than 1 independent witness corroborating the story (this is the corroborating evidence that you are asking for)

No, we don't just need more eyewitness accounts. We need corroborating evidence.

If I say that it is currently raining in Mexico City (say in downtown) you might not accept my testimony, (I would be lying or hallucinating) but if you call a friend of yours that lives in Mexico City and also tells you that it is raining, you would accept it as evidence,……….. why? because it is unlikely that 2 persons would lie about the climate and just by chance happen to invent the same lie…….. (if both of us a liars we would have invented a different lie each)

You keep ignoring the part where we are talking about fantastical claims.
We're not talking about what people think the weather is doing. We're talking about a person supposedly resurrecting from the dead, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing lepers, etc.
You know, extraordinary claims.

.

If Paul and the authors of the Gospels where liers, then each one would have invented his own lies and their own events and their own miracles

Not if they wanted the story to appear true. These guys had an agenda, remember.

.

Of all the lies and of all the miracles that they could have invented, it´s strage that both happen to invent a resurrection independently………….. if they would have been liars, each would have had invented his miracle

Yeah, people never lie about stuff like that. Keep telling yourself that.
I mean, we are talking about stories in an old book, so ... yeah.

 

[leroy]

This is just a repeat of your earlier claims and doesn't address what i said.

Please quote a specific claim that you think I haven’t adressed

I already did this. I gave you more than one example. I'm starting to think you aren't actually reading through my posts.

No you did not, you alien and your Apollo examples are not independent

The example of the prisoner, confirms my claim, testimonies are strong evidence (so strong that a court can judge you under that based on eye witness testimonies )

No, we don't just need more eyewitness accounts. We need corroborating evidence.

Again you are talking about ancient history, testimonies is all we have in most of the cases, so ether reject all history or explain why are you making an arbitrary exception with this particular event

You keep ignoring the part where we are talking about fantastical claims.
We're not talking about what people think the weather is doing. We're talking about a person supposedly resurrecting from the dead, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing lepers, etc.
You know, extraordinary claims.

That is my point, when an events contradicts your view, your standards go up , since resurrections are against your current world view, you need additional evidence than with a “normal” historical fact.


This is and has always been my point, why don’t you simply admit that your standards are higher when something contradicts your current world view?

.
Not if they wanted the story to appear true. These guys had an agenda, remember.

.
Yeah, people never lie about stuff like that. Keep telling yourself that.
I mean, we are talking about stories in an old book, so ... yeah.

Stop repeating the same dishonest straw man, I never said that people don’t lie.

I said that different people don’t elaborate the exact same lie independently with the same details ,…….. each one would have had invented their own miracles, their own context and their own details.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Please quote a specific claim that you think I haven’t adressed

I said, "This is just a repeat of your earlier claims and doesn't address what i said."

My suggestion, scroll up to this very post you were responding to, to find out what I said.

No you did not, you alien and your Apollo examples are not independent

They are actually, much more so than yours are. As noted already.

The example of the prisoner, confirms my claim, testimonies are strong evidence (so strong that a court can judge you under that based on eye witness testimonies )

No, it doesn't. Seriously, did you not even read them?

In those examples I gave, there were numerous "eyewitness accounts" of a person being somewhere or doing something that seemed to heavily implicate them in the crime. They were put in prison based on those "eyewitness testimonies."

But lo and behold, when actual evidence was examined ( in most cases DNA evidence) the people that had been put in prison based on that "eyewitness testimony" were exonerated. In other words: THE EYEWTINESS TESTIMONY WAS NOT RELIABLE.

Please explain how this strengthens your case, and not mine.

Again you are talking about ancient history, testimonies is all we have in most of the cases, so ether reject all history or explain why are you making an arbitrary exception with this particular event

So when you think it comes to "ancient history" that no further evidence is required? Just testimonies? We have to just take hearsay claims at face value? Where do you come up with that?

I'm not making any arbitrary exception, as already explained several times. Historians don't do science the way you seem to think they do.

That is my point, when an events contradicts your view, your standards go up , since resurrections are against your current world view, you need additional evidence than with a “normal” historical fact.

This has nothing to do with my worldview and everything to do with demonstrable facts of reality. Reality tells us that people don't die and come back from the dead three days later.
You have ZERO evidence that this can happen, aside from claims in an old book. You're the one with the set "worldview" here - based on really bad evidence (if you can even call it that). It's really just claims completely lacking in corroborating evidence.

This is and has always been my point, why don’t you simply admit that your standards are higher when something contradicts your current world view?

My standards are the same across the board. Whether it's big foot, big bang, aliens, or gods. It's all the same.
You're the one giving weight to claims completely lacking in evidence. Why? Because you already believe the Bible is true, I'm guessing. Stop projecting your "worldview" stuff onto me. I am being consistent.

Stop repeating the same dishonest straw man, I never said that people don’t lie.

Then admit then you're citing stories written by people with an obvious agenda.

I said that different people don’t elaborate the exact same lie independently with the same details ,…….. each one would have had invented their own miracles, their own context and their own details.

What are you basing that on? Not reality, as far as I can tell.

And again you seem to be forgetting that the stories in the Bible were carefully selected (and omitted) by a committee with an obvious agenda.

 

[Muffled]

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?

I believe the Word I have from Jesus is that He still considers it an abomination.

 

[Muffled]

I have no great interest in arguing the Bible from a Christian perspective because I'm not one and I don't really care about its moral values. However since it's here, and its such a common and frightfully low effort argument, a couple things:

Levitical law doesn't apply to Christians today, the abomination of shellfish is no more or less relevent. Also there are plenty of both Christians and Jewish scholars who implore people to look at those verses with the rest of the chapter for context, since it is often talking about temple prostitution and pedastry, not everyday relationships. Things that actually contrasted against other local religious customs and practices.

Similarly 'strange flesh' isn't male flesh, and certainly not a consensual relationship between two same sexed individuals. But a mob trying to rape two angels. Comparing that to a consensual loving homosexual relationship is monstrous.

Edit: if you actually want reasons and perspective from LGBT friendly Christians there are resources like this to be had leviticus Archives | Bible and Homosexuality
Homosexuality: Not a Sin, Not a Sickness Part II "What The Bible Does and Does Not Say..." | Religious Institute

I believe it matters not if some laws are no longer necessary. Jesus determines which ones are and which ones are not. The sodomizers are not Jesus.

I believe there is no verse that ties in special considerations.

Finally, I believe I did not need the Bible to know it was wrong. I just naturally knew it.

 

[Muffled]

The thing is the Bible authors knew so little about our world. Why should we go by outdated information?

I believe God knows everything and He says it is an abomination.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I believe God knows everything and He says it is an abomination.

The Bible shows lack of knowledge in many areas. So much we know is not true. So you're saying God only has the knowledge they had from thousands of years ago? Sounds suspicious. Don't limit God like that.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I believe it matters not if some laws are no longer necessary. Jesus determines which ones are and which ones are not. The sodomizers are not Jesus.

I believe there is no verse that ties in special considerations.

Finally, I believe I did not need the Bible to know it was wrong. I just naturally knew it.

I believe you naturally otherize people sufficiently different than you and would have 'known it was wrong' out of tribalism, rather than biblical indication. Which is why you don't also observe dietary, textile, or legal imperatives given in the levitical text, or other instructions for specific congregations.

And again, these scriptures being about homosexuality is an extremely superficial read, which considering the lack of scholarly depth to most Christian beliefs is hardly surprising.

It reminds me of misinformed Christian parents who support corporal punishment on children by citing 'spare the rod, spoil the child,' as if the rod they were talking about wasn't a shepherds crook used to guide sheep back onto paths, usually by slinging pebbles to where the shepherd doesn't want the sheep to go, or by gently turning the sheeps head, not by beating said sheep as punishment for going astray.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I believe the Word I have from Jesus is that He still considers it an abomination.

Where does Jesus say that?

 

[leroy]

So when you think it comes to "ancient history" that no further evidence is required? Just testimonies? We have to just take hearsay claims at face value? Where do you come up with that?

Again, in ancient history all we have are “testimonies” this is how we know most of the stuff that you learned at school. If testimonies are not good enough for you the you should reject all ancient history (not just the parts that contradict your view)


And please stop making straw man arguments, I didn’t say that you should accept hearsay claims, I said that you should accept testimonies that are independently corroborated by other testimonies

This has nothing to do with my worldview and everything to do with demonstrable facts of reality. Reality tells us that people don't die and come back from the dead three days later.
You have ZERO evidence that this can happen, aside from claims in an old book. You're the one with the set "worldview" here - based on really bad evidence (if you can even call it that). It's really just claims completely lacking in corroborating evidence.


My standards are the same across the board. Whether it's big foot, big bang, aliens, or gods. It's all the same.
You're the one giving weight to claims completely lacking in evidence. Why? Because you already believe the Bible is true, I'm guessing. Stop projecting your "worldview" stuff onto me. I am being consistent.

Whether it's big foot,

If there were multiple independent ancient documents reporting the existence of a big ape with big feet, nobody would deny that such a creature existed. (Including you) ……. Why? Because the existence of big apes, does not contradict your current view.

Then admit then you're citing stories written by people with an obvious agenda.

Again irrelevant, the point that you keep ignoring and strawmaning is that even if people had an agenda it is unlikely that 2 or more persons would have had elaborated the same lie independently (without coping from each other, nor from a common source)

BTW how do you know that these people had an agenda?.....please provide evidence……….

And again you seem to be forgetting that the stories in the Bible were carefully selected (and omitted) by a committee with an obvious agenda.

How do you know that?..........

Please provide your evidence (remember testimonies don’t count as evidence)

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again, in ancient history all we have are “testimonies” this is how we know most of the stuff that you learned at school. If testimonies are not good enough for you the you should reject all ancient history (not just the parts that contradict your view)

We don't determine history based on "testimonies." That is not how I "know most of the stuff I learned at school." I don't know what kind of school you went to.

I don't know what you think my "view" of history is, but it seems to be based upon some sort of psychological projection on your part. I don't ignore parts of history that "contradict my view." I just don't accept ancient hearsay claims with no corroborating evidence. About anything. Never mind fantastical miracle claims that can never be verified, which is what we're talking about here.

And please stop making straw man arguments, I didn’t say that you should accept hearsay claims, I said that you should accept testimonies that are independently corroborated by other testimonies

The claims you are citing are hearsay. So yeah, that's what you're saying.

If there were multiple independent ancient documents reporting the existence of a big ape with big feet, nobody would deny that such a creature existed. (Including you) ……. Why? Because the existence of big apes, does not contradict your current view.

If it were just based on peoples' claims? No, I probably wouldn't. I would require some actual evidence. And we're talking about people making claims now, today. People that I can go and talk to about their bigfoot claims. We don't have anything like that for your claims.

I agree though, bigfoot is something of a mundane claim. Because bipedal mammals do actually exist. We have evidence for them. Your claims are above and beyond this kind of claim - yours are miracle claims. They are extraordinary claims. And as such, they require extraordinary evidence. A better example would be something like vampires or magical pixies.

A lot of people used to believe and claim that Thor existed. But that doesn't lead me to believe in Thor. I need more than claims. You should too.

Again irrelevant, the point that you keep ignoring and strawmaning is that even if people had an agenda it is unlikely that 2 or more persons would have had elaborated the same lie independently (without coping from each other, nor from a common source)

I have no idea why you think that two people couldn't have an agenda. I have no idea why you believe that the people who had a hand in compiling the Bible didn't have an agenda when they clearly would have.

Sorry but it's not a strawman nor irrelevant to directly address your claims.

BTW how do you know that these people had an agenda?.....please provide evidence………
How do you know that?..........
.

Thanks for reinforcing that my point above is not a straw man.
So you really believe that the people who convened to determine which books would be included in the Bible and which would be excluded didn't convene with an agenda in mind? Really?
Are you not familiar with human nature?

Sounds like you have some reading to do ...

Council of Nicaea concludes.
First Council of Nicaea | Description, History, Significance, & Facts
325 The First Council of Nicaea
First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

Please provide your evidence (remember testimonies don’t count as evidence)

Testimonies, on their own, that make fantastical claims, don't constitute evidence. They constitute a claim.

 

[leroy]

W
Sounds like you have some reading to do ...

Council of Nicaea concludes.
First Council of Nicaea | Description, History, Significance, & Facts
325 The First Council of Nicaea
First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

.

Do You realize that all that information is based on testimonies?

You said that testimony are not evidence, so ether admit your mistake or provide evidence for the claim that the authors of the new testament or the guys who made the cannon had an agenda

How do you know that the documents where not selected randomly with a dice???????? Because we have testimonies that describe the process and criteria that they used………….but testimonies are not evidence…., so apart from testimonies, what evidence can you provide that shows that the documents where not selected randomly with a dice?

 

[leroy]

We

Testimonies, on their own, that make fantastical claims, don't constitute evidence. They constitute a claim.

Ok so testimonies are not evidence only when the you personally consider the claim to be “fantastical” …… is this an accurate representation of your view?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok so testimonies are not evidence only when the you personally consider the claim to be “fantastical” …… is this an accurate representation of your view?

You don't think that the claim that a person died and came back from the dead three days later is an extraordinary claim?
I can't help you then.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do You realize that all that information is based on testimonies?

You said that testimony are not evidence, so ether admit your mistake or provide evidence for the claim that the authors of the new testament or the guys who made the cannon had an agenda

How do you know that the documents where not selected randomly with a dice???????? Because we have testimonies that describe the process and criteria that they used………….but testimonies are not evidence…., so apart from testimonies, what evidence can you provide that shows that the documents where not selected randomly with a dice?

No, it is not based just on testimonies. There is actual documentation and texts. Plus, like, you know, the Bible that they met to put together.
You didn't even so much as look at the links I provided, did you?

Philip Schaff: NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Nicene Creed Greek Text with English translation


Nice job avoiding the point the though, I guess.
Do you still think these guys didn't have an agenda? How and why?
Think about it for a second.


I'll even provide the definition of "agenda"

agenda


agen·da | \ ə-ˈjen-də \
Definition of agenda


1: a list or outline of things to be considered or doneagendas of faculty meetings
2: an underlying often ideological plan or program

Definition of AGENDA

 

[leroy]

You don't think that the claim that a person died and came back from the dead three days later is an extraordinary claim?
I can't help you then.

íll repeat my question
leroy said: ↑
Ok so testimonies are not evidence only when the you personally consider the claim to be “fantastical” …… is this an accurate representation of your view?



as for your question, I dont know , what exactly do you mean by "extraordinary"?

 

[leroy]

No, it is not based just on testimonies. There is actual documentation and texts. Plus, like, you know, the Bible that they met to put together.
You didn't even so much as look at the links I provided, did you?

Philip Schaff: NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Nicene Creed Greek Text with English translation

https://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/nicene_creed.htm

Yes and this documentation is based on testimonies

Nice job avoiding the point the though, I guess.
Do you still think these guys didn't have an agenda? How and why?
Think about it for a second.

I already addressed this point

Even if the authors of the r} texts had an agenda; it would have been unlikely for them to have invented the exact same lies

 

[SkepticThinker]

íll repeat my question
leroy said: ↑
Ok so testimonies are not evidence only when the you personally consider the claim to be “fantastical” …… is this an accurate representation of your view?

No.

Already answered in detail.

as for your question, I dont know , what exactly do you mean by "extraordinary"?

extraordinary
adjective

ex·traor·di·nary | \ ik-ˈstrȯr-də-ˌner-ē , ˌek-strə-ˈȯr- \
Definition of extraordinary


1a: going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary; extraordinary powers
b: exceptional to a very marked extent; extraordinary beauty
Definition of EXTRAORDINARY

A person dying and coming back to life after three days goes well beyond what is considered usual or normal, given what we know about the natural world.

An ordinary claim:
I have a dog.

An extraordinary claim:
My dog can fly.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes and this documentation is based on testimonies

No, they come from primary source material.

I already addressed this point

Even if the authors of the r} texts had an agenda; it would have been unlikely for them to have invented the exact same lies

The authors and the compilers of the Bible all had agendas. Try actually reading the links I provided as to how they picked and chose what books to include and which to omit and you'll see how silly this comment of yours is.