How Jesus became god'... from not being one. Bart Ehrman.

[Picaro]

Erhman has been refuted so many times it's a wonder anybody would run around claiming he's some great 'scholar'. Darrell Bock alone has shut him down literally every time Bock bothered to critique his books, as well as Elaine Pagels and the rest of the fake 'scholars' from the Gnostic revivalist scam. The Peanut Gallery can start with Bock's The Missing Gospels, a work explaining to lay people from a secular point of view why the various popular modern claims of the original orthodoxy being 'falsified' is rubbish and nonsense by merely using textual analysis and historical records. From there it gets very easy to prove the Erhman claims are total rubbish.

 

[zaangalewa]

true theist do not require a particular deity for anything -

you just deny the spiritual content of physiology that does not conform to your christian bible ... and obviously have never surmounted adversity to acquire an inalterable victory. to know the difference.

Why would I need a deity to explain physiology? Many subjects can be explained without one. A deity comes in with religion and with the study of origins of life and our universe in terms of science. Also, when we discuss objective morality.

With physiology, we find how our bodies work except there are differences between how western and eastern beliefs developed. Also, what we know today and believe is much different from the past. What are you going to add with your evolutionary physiology?

What is the physiology of schizophrenia?

A problem in the transmitter substances in the metabolism of the brain - specially the substance dopamin is a problem in this context. In general have about 50% of all human beings during their lifetime a minimum of 1 schizophrenic boost. It's by the way wrong that schizophrenic people are more dangerous than others. They are as criminal and/or violent as anyone else.

 

[Picaro]

He was looking for reasons not to believe which is why he studied textual criticisms (whatever that is) in graduate school and then made a career out of it.

Completely wrong, did you just make that up? He was a devout Christian who wanted to read and understand the word of God. Only much later did he question his faith and it had nothing to do with textual criticisms (the study of the history and context of the Bible).

No. I didn’t make it up. I deduced it from his actions.

Really? Which of his actions?

That he was drawn to study textual criticisms. It’s not a surprise he made a career out of it.

No, it's no surprise he made a career out of it. It's also no surprise you'd jump to the conclusion that no one would read and try to understand the history and context of the Bible unless they didn't believe in it.

It's not a surprise that an atheist would read the Bible and not understand it. It's also not a surprise that an atheist would think that God could be found from reading the Bible. Nor is it a surprise that an atheist would conclude that God doesn't exist from reading the Bible. God isn't a book. God is a relationship to be entered into. You aren't going to get that from a book.

If you're talking about me, you may (or may not) be right. If you're talking about Ehrman you're completely wrong, and you don't seem to care that you are. Ehrman was a devout Christian when he began his studies and remained a believer for many years after that.

My opinion is that only an atheist could read the Bible and understand it since he brings nothing to it and injects nothing into it.

If he was devout his belief would have been based upon a relationship with the Creator of existence not with a relationship with words in a book. So clearly he was not devout. Apparently he is like every other atheist in that he is unable to reconcile how bad things can happen to good people.

Plus he probably didn't get that pony he prayed for either.

 

[Picaro]

He was looking for reasons not to believe which is why he studied textual criticisms (whatever that is) in graduate school and then made a career out of it.

Completely wrong, did you just make that up? He was a devout Christian who wanted to read and understand the word of God. Only much later did he question his faith and it had nothing to do with textual criticisms (the study of the history and context of the Bible).

He found he could sell books if he bashed Da Evul Xians.

 

[esalla]

true theist do not require a particular deity for anything -

you just deny the spiritual content of physiology that does not conform to your christian bible ... and obviously have never surmounted adversity to acquire an inalterable victory. to know the difference.

Why would I need a deity to explain physiology? Many subjects can be explained without one. A deity comes in with religion and with the study of origins of life and our universe in terms of science. Also, when we discuss objective morality.

With physiology, we find how our bodies work except there are differences between how western and eastern beliefs developed. Also, what we know today and believe is much different from the past. What are you going to add with your evolutionary physiology?

What is the physiology of schizophrenia?

A problem in the transmitter substances in the metabolism of the brain - specially the substance dopamin is a problem in this context. In general have about 50% of all human beings during their lifetime a minimum of 1 schizophrenic boost. It's by the way wrong that schizophrenic people are more dangerous than others. They are as criminal and/or violent as anyone else.

Wrong as usual. 1 percent of humans typically are effected with schizophrenia, not to say that 50 percent of the people in your family are not effected though.

Jesus the clueless are clueless

 

[zaangalewa]

... There's no biological evolution without a living organism. And there's no living organism without folding instructions for the molecular machines. Molecular machines don't operate randomly. You wouldn't exist if they did. No one would. Molecular machines follow instructions. Life did not happen by accident. Life is programmed into the laws of nature.

This logic is in contradiction with the theory of evolution. You say with this words that the "design" of matter leads inevitably to life. But how much matter do you really see which is living? Life is an extraordinary seldom metabolic state of energy/matter.

What you say is basing on a teleological idea. Indeed life had happened by accident (a single unique event) - and every evolutionary micro-step (and other steps the biological evolution not is able to do) also had happened by accident. All this steps together lead to a phylogenetic tree of evolution. And what came out of this process has not a lot to do with a machine minded form of logic. I would say nothing in a human brain works like any machine which we know.

 

[ding]

nn

Not sure how anyone can watch that video and not know that life and intelligence was preordained by the laws of nature.

Are humans the first and only intelligent species on earth? If so it took 4.5 billion years and innumerable accidents to get to us, and one asteroid strike could have wiped out every intelligent creature on the planet.

We are the first beings to know and to create. That's a whole different level of intelligence. But to your point, the varying levels of intelligence show that intelligence - like life - strives to reach its potential.

It actually took longer than that for beings that know and create to arise. As far as we know it took ~14 billion years for energy and matter to reach its potential. Granted, for all we know it could have happened sooner in some distant galaxy. I am not sure what you think intelligence being wiped out has to do with the purpose of the universe though. They don't really seem related to me.

.

We are the first beings to know and to create.

.
you are a broken record bing ... all beings know and create -
.
View attachment 386692
.
there are some that transform themselves spiritually from one being to another if anything your religion and beliefs are in the least a regression from everything you state in the progression evolution has relentlessly exemplified and the spiritual content that has enabled its uninterrupted development.

No. Not all beings know and create. Stop being a simpleton.

You aren't some metaphysical guru. You are just a run of the mill socialist attacking the dominant religion of the land. Nothing new here. Go away.

.

No. Not all beings know and create. Stop being a simpleton.

You aren't some metaphysical guru. You are just a run of the mill socialist attacking the dominant religion of the land. Nothing new here. Go away.

.
neither you nor bond offer anything of value just a regressive religion madeup in the 4th century that hasn't a single accomplishment for its justification from that time to the present day.
.

No. Not all beings know and create. Stop being a simpleton.

.
other than yourself what other example do you have of a being that does not know and create.

That you believe Christianity is evil and liberation theology is the religion of antiquity says it all.

Look if you want to believe that humans are not unique when it comes to intelligence, be my guest. Your intelligence is a great argument.

 

[ding]

... There's no biological evolution without a living organism. And there's no living organism without folding instructions for the molecular machines. Molecular machines don't operate randomly. You wouldn't exist if they did. No one would. Molecular machines follow instructions. Life did not happen by accident. Life is programmed into the laws of nature.

This logic is in contradiction with the theory of evolution. You say with this words that the "design" of matter leads inevitably to life. But how much matter do you really see which is living? Life is an extraordinary seldom metabolic state of energy/matter.

What you say is basing on a teleological idea. Indeed life had happened by accident (a single unique event) - and every evolutionary micro-step (and other steps the biological evolution is not able to do) also had happened by accident. All this steps together lead to a phylogenetic tree of evolution. And what came out of this process has not a lot to do with a machine minded form of logic. I would say nothing in a human brain works like any machine which we know.

You don't know that. There are way too many things that could make life impossible for us to not believe that life is predestined. George Wald responds...

Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

 

[esalla]

... There's no biological evolution without a living organism. And there's no living organism without folding instructions for the molecular machines. Molecular machines don't operate randomly. You wouldn't exist if they did. No one would. Molecular machines follow instructions. Life did not happen by accident. Life is programmed into the laws of nature.

This logic is in contradiction with the theory of evolution. You say with this words that the "design" of matter leads inevitably to life. But how much matter do you really see which is living? Life is an extraordinary seldom metabolic state of energy/matter.

What you say is basing on a teleological idea. Indeed life had happened by accident (a single unique event) - and every evolutionary micro-step (and other steps the biological evolution not is able to do) also had happened by accident. All this steps together lead to a phylogenetic tree of evolution. And what came out of this process has not a lot to do with a machine minded form of logic. I would say nothing in a human brain works like any machine which we know.

Matter is not life, life is matter arranged by dna

 

[zaangalewa]

true theist do not require a particular deity for anything -

you just deny the spiritual content of physiology that does not conform to your christian bible ... and obviously have never surmounted adversity to acquire an inalterable victory. to know the difference.

Why would I need a deity to explain physiology? Many subjects can be explained without one. A deity comes in with religion and with the study of origins of life and our universe in terms of science. Also, when we discuss objective morality.

With physiology, we find how our bodies work except there are differences between how western and eastern beliefs developed. Also, what we know today and believe is much different from the past. What are you going to add with your evolutionary physiology?

What is the physiology of schizophrenia?

A problem in the transmitter substances in the metabolism of the brain - specially the substance dopamin is a problem in this context. In general have about 50% of all human beings during their lifetime a minimum of 1 schizophrenic boost. It's by the way wrong that schizophrenic people are more dangerous than others. They are as criminal and/or violent as anyone else.

Wrong as usual. 1 percent of humans typically are effected with schizophrenia, not to say that 50 percent of the people in your family are not effected though.

Jesus the clueless are clueless

The relative number of schizophrenic people is in all societies of the world the same. Indeed we can use the ideas and behavior of a society in context with its schizophrenic people and their work for this people for a measurement of the quality of a society. And without any doubt about 50% of all people have a minimum of one time in their life a schizophrenic boost: worldwide.

And to the absolute impertinent typical US-American asshole in you, which is full of hate and idiotic political propanda let me say: I never use alcohol and/or drugs and I am very very careful with medicine. I use medicine only in cases it is important to do so. And wether it is important to use medicine or not is not deciding me.

And you are right: the clueless are clueless. But no one needs Jesus to find this out. To be an idiot is enough to find out this "wisdom".

 

[zaangalewa]

... There's no biological evolution without a living organism. And there's no living organism without folding instructions for the molecular machines. Molecular machines don't operate randomly. You wouldn't exist if they did. No one would. Molecular machines follow instructions. Life did not happen by accident. Life is programmed into the laws of nature.

This logic is in contradiction with the theory of evolution. You say with this words that the "design" of matter leads inevitably to life. But how much matter do you really see which is living? Life is an extraordinary seldom metabolic state of energy/matter.

What you say is basing on a teleological idea. Indeed life had happened by accident (a single unique event) - and every evolutionary micro-step (and other steps the biological evolution not is able to do) also had happened by accident. All this steps together lead to a phylogenetic tree of evolution. And what came out of this process has not a lot to do with a machine minded form of logic. I would say nothing in a human brain works like any machine which we know.

Matter is not life, life is matter arranged by dna

And what is desoxyribonucleinacid?

 

[zaangalewa]

... There's no biological evolution without a living organism. And there's no living organism without folding instructions for the molecular machines. Molecular machines don't operate randomly. You wouldn't exist if they did. No one would. Molecular machines follow instructions. Life did not happen by accident. Life is programmed into the laws of nature.

This logic is in contradiction with the theory of evolution. You say with this words that the "design" of matter leads inevitably to life. But how much matter do you really see which is living? Life is an extraordinary seldom metabolic state of energy/matter.

What you say is basing on a teleological idea. Indeed life had happened by accident (a single unique event) - and every evolutionary micro-step (and other steps the biological evolution is not able to do) also had happened by accident. All this steps together lead to a phylogenetic tree of evolution. And what came out of this process has not a lot to do with a machine minded form of logic. I would say nothing in a human brain works like any machine which we know.

You don't know that.

What do I not know in this context?

There are way too many things that could make life impossible for us to not believe that life is predestined.

Life is not predestined in sense of the theory of evolution. That's one of the strange things. Freedom (=chance) is predestined. And somehow is life a growing of the degrees of freedom.

George Wald responds...

Who is George Wald? ... Got it. Wonderful scientist. ...

Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature.

= "Life exists". Looks like this is true, if I take a look around in the real world.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life,

If I take a look at our planet than I see some life - sometimes also desserts, water desserts in the oceans, ice desserts. Difficult situations for life. And the planet Earth is in the middle of a habitable zone of a stable star in a nearly circular orbit. Only a little paradox inclination of the Earth axis in the double planet system Earth and Moon causes seasons. ... Hmm ... what to say about other places in the universe? I don't know. His idea is full of romance - but seems not to be plausible.,

in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

We do not know whether other universes exist or not. And as it looks like we never will be able to know this.



PS: Multi-cellular organisms - that's what we normally call "life" - started to exist since about 1/2 to 3/4 of a billion years. The Earth is much older - and if it is true that we are the "crown of gods creation" - what I believe - then we are fully responsible for all and every life on planet Earth.

 

[BreezeWood]

... There's no biological evolution without a living organism. And there's no living organism without folding instructions for the molecular machines. Molecular machines don't operate randomly. You wouldn't exist if they did. No one would. Molecular machines follow instructions. Life did not happen by accident. Life is programmed into the laws of nature.

This logic is in contradiction with the theory of evolution. You say with this words that the "design" of matter leads inevitably to life. But how much matter do you really see which is living? Life is an extraordinary seldom metabolic state of energy/matter.

What you say is basing on a teleological idea. Indeed life had happened by accident (a single unique event) - and every evolutionary micro-step (and other steps the biological evolution not is able to do) also had happened by accident. All this steps together lead to a phylogenetic tree of evolution. And what came out of this process has not a lot to do with a machine minded form of logic. I would say nothing in a human brain works like any machine which we know.

Matter is not life, life is matter arranged by dna

.

Matter is not life, life is matter arranged by dna

.
you are very confused, dna is matter in form the same metaphysical substance comprising physiology that is fused with a spiritual content that together function as a living being and is the basis together for the ToE and change over time -
.

No, it's not possible to believe in both evolution and creation because of the age of the Earth. No rock or fossil could last billions of years, let alone millions as there are chemical, weathering, aging, pressure, and other factors that affect the planet.

.
the 4th century christians and sicko's rely on purposeful delusion to manifest an artificial reality they themselves have very little understanding for other than for their self directed irresistible sense of importance.

 

[esalla]

true theist do not require a particular deity for anything -

you just deny the spiritual content of physiology that does not conform to your christian bible ... and obviously have never surmounted adversity to acquire an inalterable victory. to know the difference.

Why would I need a deity to explain physiology? Many subjects can be explained without one. A deity comes in with religion and with the study of origins of life and our universe in terms of science. Also, when we discuss objective morality.

With physiology, we find how our bodies work except there are differences between how western and eastern beliefs developed. Also, what we know today and believe is much different from the past. What are you going to add with your evolutionary physiology?

What is the physiology of schizophrenia?

A problem in the transmitter substances in the metabolism of the brain - specially the substance dopamin is a problem in this context. In general have about 50% of all human beings during their lifetime a minimum of 1 schizophrenic boost. It's by the way wrong that schizophrenic people are more dangerous than others. They are as criminal and/or violent as anyone else.

Wrong as usual. 1 percent of humans typically are effected with schizophrenia, not to say that 50 percent of the people in your family are not effected though.

Jesus the clueless are clueless

The relative number of schizophrenic people is in all societies of the world the same. Indeed we can use the ideas and behavior of a society in context with its schizophrenic people and their work for this people for a measurement of the quality of a society. And without any doubt about 50% of all people have a minimum of one time in their life a schizophrenic boost: worldwide.

And to the absolute impertinent typical US-American asshole in you, which is full of hate and idiotic political propanda let me say: I never use alcohol and/or drugs and I am very very careful with medicine. I use medicine only in cases it is important to do so. And wether it is important to use medicine or not is not deciding me.

And you are right: the clueless are clueless. But no one needs Jesus to find this out. To be an idiot is enough to find out this "wisdom".

Again on Earth 1 percent of people have schizophrenia like you do

true theist do not require a particular deity for anything -

you just deny the spiritual content of physiology that does not conform to your christian bible ... and obviously have never surmounted adversity to acquire an inalterable victory. to know the difference.

Why would I need a deity to explain physiology? Many subjects can be explained without one. A deity comes in with religion and with the study of origins of life and our universe in terms of science. Also, when we discuss objective morality.

With physiology, we find how our bodies work except there are differences between how western and eastern beliefs developed. Also, what we know today and believe is much different from the past. What are you going to add with your evolutionary physiology?

What is the physiology of schizophrenia?

A problem in the transmitter substances in the metabolism of the brain - specially the substance dopamin is a problem in this context. In general have about 50% of all human beings during their lifetime a minimum of 1 schizophrenic boost. It's by the way wrong that schizophrenic people are more dangerous than others. They are as criminal and/or violent as anyone else.

Wrong as usual. 1 percent of humans typically are effected with schizophrenia, not to say that 50 percent of the people in your family are not effected though.

Jesus the clueless are clueless

The relative number of schizophrenic people is in all societies of the world the same. Indeed we can use the ideas and behavior of a society in context with its schizophrenic people and their work for this people for a measurement of the quality of a society. And without any doubt about 50% of all people have a minimum of one time in their life a schizophrenic boost: worldwide.

And to the absolute impertinent typical US-American asshole in you, which is full of hate and idiotic political propanda let me say: I never use alcohol and/or drugs and I am very very careful with medicine. I use medicine only in cases it is important to do so. And wether it is important to use medicine or not is not deciding me.

And you are right: the clueless are clueless. But no one needs Jesus to find this out. To be an idiot is enough to find out this "wisdom".

Schizophrenia Symptoms, Patterns and Statistics and Patterns

Schizophrenia is not a terribly common disease but it can be a serious and chronic one. Worldwide about 1 percent of the population is diagnosed with

www.mentalhelp.net

Again 1 percent have schizophrenia, which is a permanent disease not a boost whatever the hell that is

 

[esalla]

... There's no biological evolution without a living organism. And there's no living organism without folding instructions for the molecular machines. Molecular machines don't operate randomly. You wouldn't exist if they did. No one would. Molecular machines follow instructions. Life did not happen by accident. Life is programmed into the laws of nature.

This logic is in contradiction with the theory of evolution. You say with this words that the "design" of matter leads inevitably to life. But how much matter do you really see which is living? Life is an extraordinary seldom metabolic state of energy/matter.

What you say is basing on a teleological idea. Indeed life had happened by accident (a single unique event) - and every evolutionary micro-step (and other steps the biological evolution not is able to do) also had happened by accident. All this steps together lead to a phylogenetic tree of evolution. And what came out of this process has not a lot to do with a machine minded form of logic. I would say nothing in a human brain works like any machine which we know.

Matter is not life, life is matter arranged by dna

And what is desoxyribonucleinacid?

A very complicated molecular base 4 computer assembling and operating code that is only partially understood by humanity, as it was written by god

 

[esalla]

... There's no biological evolution without a living organism. And there's no living organism without folding instructions for the molecular machines. Molecular machines don't operate randomly. You wouldn't exist if they did. No one would. Molecular machines follow instructions. Life did not happen by accident. Life is programmed into the laws of nature.

This logic is in contradiction with the theory of evolution. You say with this words that the "design" of matter leads inevitably to life. But how much matter do you really see which is living? Life is an extraordinary seldom metabolic state of energy/matter.

What you say is basing on a teleological idea. Indeed life had happened by accident (a single unique event) - and every evolutionary micro-step (and other steps the biological evolution not is able to do) also had happened by accident. All this steps together lead to a phylogenetic tree of evolution. And what came out of this process has not a lot to do with a machine minded form of logic. I would say nothing in a human brain works like any machine which we know.

Matter is not life, life is matter arranged by dna

.

Matter is not life, life is matter arranged by dna

.
you are very confused, dna is matter in form the same metaphysical substance comprising physiology that is fused with a spiritual content that together function as a living being and is the basis together for the ToE and change over time -
.

No, it's not possible to believe in both evolution and creation because of the age of the Earth. No rock or fossil could last billions of years, let alone millions as there are chemical, weathering, aging, pressure, and other factors that affect the planet.

.
the 4th century christians and sicko's rely on purposeful delusion to manifest an artificial reality they themselves have very little understanding for other than for their self directed irresistible sense of importance.

Dna is not metaphysics, it is a base 4 molecular computer code

Take your meds

 

[ding]

What do I not know in this context?

That life happened by accident. If the design of matter preordained life, then it's no accident. It's predetermined.

Life is not predestined in sense of the theory of evolution. That's one of the strange things. Freedom (=chance) is predestined. And somehow is life a growing of the degrees of freedom.

Predestined in the sense that it was inevitable through and by the laws of nature.

If I take a look at our planet than I see some life - sometimes also desserts, water desserts in the oceans, ice desserts. Difficult situations for life. And the planet Earth is in the middle of a habitable zone of a stable star in a nearly circular orbit. Only a little paradox inclination of the Earth axis in the double planet system Earth and Moon causes seasons. ... Hmm ... what to say about other places in the universe? I don't know. His idea is full of romance - but seems not to be plausible.,

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

We do not know whether other universes exist or not. And as it looks like we never will be able to know this.

Everything is manifested through consciousness. I think, therefore, I am.

PS: Multi-cellular organisms - that's what we normally call "life" - started to exist since about 1/2 to 3/4 of a billion years. The Earth is much older - and if it is true that we are the "crown of gods creation" - what I believe - then we are fully responsible for all and every life on planet Earth.

Intelligence as in beings that know and create are the pinnacle of creation. Consciousness is the most complex thing the universe has produced. Anyone who would scoff at or dismiss this has never really thought it through.

 

[ding]

The molecular machinery of life is no accident.

 

[BreezeWood]

The molecular machinery of life is no accident.

.

Dna is not metaphysics, it is a base 4 molecular computer code

The molecular machinery of life is no accident.

.
both of you pretend the physical attributes of physiology is responsible for the organisms management when there is patent proof the functionality of physiology is controlled by a spiritual content exclusive to each individual organism and that both are metaphysically produced from the same origin. the Everlasting.

 

[esalla]

The molecular machinery of life is no accident.

.

Dna is not metaphysics, it is a base 4 molecular computer code

The molecular machinery of life is no accident.

.
both of you pretend the physical attributes of physiology is responsible for the organisms management when there is patent proof the functionality of physiology is controlled by a spiritual content exclusive to each individual organism and that both are metaphysically produced from the same origin. the Everlasting.

What is the patent proof that the functionality of physiology is controlled by a spiritual content exclusive to each individual organism and that both are metaphysically produced from the same origin. the Everlasting.