Zone1 Separation of Church and State?

[ding]

Conspiracy is, as I've said before, your word. I didn't ever use it. It does show your lack of understanding of how the Bible came to be what is today.

That's exactly what you are arguing though. You just don't want to admit it because you know you can't prove it.

 

[ding]

So how did people profit from the functional advantage of alcohol?


You believe wrongly. I never said any of those things because I don't believe them. I do appreciate it when you tell me what I think.

You tell me how alcohol is a functional advantage. I explained how belief in a higher power is a functional advantage.

This is like you trying to tell me you don't believe the historicity of Christ is a conspiracy theory. I didn't believe that anymore than I believe you aren't arguing against the principle of natural selection.

 

[ding]

I believe I made a list awhile back. One thing I didn't include was the birth narratives of Jesus. I believe people think they know the story but they don't really understand it.

And you believe that proves what exactly? That the 24,000 written manuscripts and the behaviors of early Christians and apostles is a lie?

 

[hadit]

So who decides what is the 'right' science. During the COVID pandemic we saw Science doing what science has always done, i.e. trial and error to get closer to a final truth out there somewhere. And Science got it wrong every bit as much or more than they got in right.

Who gets to dictate what is real science and what is politically or socially motivated science? Or should that be something left to the people to work out?

In essence, they are replacing blind faith in Church leaders with blind faith in scientists. When Church leaders were wrong, the ones that found them to be wrong simply said, "We now are right, and you must believe us". Likewise, scientists who are found wrong are simply replaced by other scientists in whom blind belief is still required.

 

[alang1216]

That's exactly what you are arguing though. You just don't want to admit it because you know you can't prove it.

I can't argue for a conspiracy since, as I keep having to repeat, there was none. If you want to discuss the inaccuracies and changes made to the NT, that is another story.

 

[alang1216]

You tell me how alcohol is a functional advantage. I explained how belief in a higher power is a functional advantage.

Gives people courage and makes them look better to the opposite sex.

This is like you trying to tell me you don't believe the historicity of Christ is a conspiracy theory. I didn't believe that anymore than I believe you aren't arguing against the principle of natural selection.

You can believe whatever you choose to believe. Since your beliefs are not based on facts, they are hard to dispute.

 

[alang1216]

And you believe that proves what exactly? That the 24,000 written manuscripts and the behaviors of early Christians and apostles is a lie?

I doubt your number of manuscripts since most are later copies of the Greek originals (which we don't have).

Acts describes Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically. Acts differs with Paul's letters on important issues, such as the Law, Paul's own apostleship, and his relation to the Jerusalem church. The writer of Acts applied creative intelligence and imagination, and fictional techniques for a more vivid and persuasive narratives about historical events.

 

[Foxfyre]

In essence, they are replacing blind faith in Church leaders with blind faith in scientists. When Church leaders were wrong, the ones that found them to be wrong simply said, "We now are right, and you must believe us". Likewise, scientists who are found wrong are simply replaced by other scientists in whom blind belief is still required.

Something like that for sure. And you are right that in both cases, those who have not done the science themselves and/or had religious experiences themselves are pretty much operating on faith that the scientist and/or the theologian have it right.

And when they try to use such faith to control the minds, behavior, lives of others, and/or allow no question or challenge to such beliefs, both are wrong.

 

[ding]

I can't argue for a conspiracy since, as I keep having to repeat, there was none. If you want to discuss the inaccuracies and changes made to the NT, that is another story.

Not sure how you can make that argument in light of the 24,000 written manuscripts in existence and the actions of early Christians and the apostles.

 

[ding]

Gives people courage and makes them look better to the opposite sex.


You can believe whatever you choose to believe. Since your beliefs are not based on facts, they are hard to dispute.

Says the guy who can't explain how 24,000 written manuscripts are based upon lies without arguing a conspiracy was involved.

 

[ding]

I doubt your number of manuscripts since most are later copies of the Greek originals (which we don't have).

Acts describes Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically. Acts differs with Paul's letters on important issues, such as the Law, Paul's own apostleship, and his relation to the Jerusalem church. The writer of Acts applied creative intelligence and imagination, and fictional techniques for a more vivid and persuasive narratives about historical events.

Maybe google biblical manuscripts for the number of manuscripts in existence.

So was Paul the head of the conspiracy?

 

[alang1216]

Not sure how you can make that argument in light of the 24,000 written manuscripts in existence and the actions of early Christians and the apostles.

Of those 24,000 how many agree 100% with all the others?