Religion II

[hcap]

Buh-Bye.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I understand perfectly, thank you.

Question: Is this the only way reproduction can occur with organisms? Can't reproduction occur through the process of biogenisis?

I don't think you do understand it, otherwise you would not have asked the question.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I don't think you do understand it, otherwise you would not have asked the question.

Perhaps if you answered the question, you would broaden my understanding. So, here it is again:

Question: Is this the only way reproduction can occur with organisms? Can't reproduction occur through the process of biogenisis?

[boxcar]

Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
is Bart Ehrman’s attempt to treat“mythicists” (i.e., people who deny the existence of Jesus) with respect and take their arguments seriously, “if for no other reason than to show why they cannot be right about their major contention” (4). On the one hand I can see why people might find a book like this necessary—mythicists are a vocal minority that make plenty of noise on the internet but have thus far failed to receive a fair shake from those in the academic community—so why not have a credentialed scholar address their arguments? But on the other hand, mythicist arguments deserve to be ignored, and for every internet mythicist there’s ten internet apologists who have dealt with their nonsensical claims in some way, shape, or form (most notably J. P. Holding of Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry, who has been debunking mythicist bunk for at least a decade). So who is this book for? Ehrman recognizes that he won’t convince the mythicist of Jesus’ existence because they just don’t want to be convinced, and Christians certainly need no convincing, so this is a book for people on the fence; for those who have never really looked into the subject but could possibly be persuaded by the mythicist if they’re ignorant of the evidence in favor of Jesus’ existence. And who better to present the evidence than Bart Ehrman? He’s a credentialed scholar who has published broadly in the field of New Testament studies. He’s acquainted with all of the relevant ancient and modern languages that one needs to be in order to assess the evidence and arguments relevant to the topic. And let’s not forget that Ehrman is “not a Christian, and [has] no interest in promoting a Christian cause or Christian agenda. [He is] anagnostic with atheist leanings” (5) so we can rest assured that he’ll handle the evidence fairly,right? Riiiiight... (emphasis mine)

http://www.academia.edu/4351367/Ehrm...rdcover._26.99

Here is an excerpt from Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist? that was quoted in yesterday's sermon in my church:

Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing -- whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of presidents, or even a presidential place of birth -- will not be convinced. Simply will not be convinced.

And so, with Did Jesus Exist?, I do not expect to convince anyone in that boat. What I do hope is to convince genuine seekers who really want to know how we know that Jesus did exist, as virtually every scholar of antiquity, of biblical studies, of classics, and of Christian origins in this country and, in fact, in the Western world agrees. Many of these scholars have no vested interest in this matter. As it turns out, I myself do not either. I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed. My beliefs would vary little. The answer to the question of Jesus' historical existence would not make me more or less happy, content, hopeful, likable, rich, famous or immortal.

But as a historian I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both the evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist.. (emphasis mine)

It never ceases to amaze me how God can even use unbelievers to serve him and to advance his kingdom. (I've given examples in the past from scripture of how God directs the actions of unbelievers to accomplish his purposes. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and King Cyrus of Persia are two great biblical examples from the OT. Judas is an excellent one in the NT.) And so it is with this gentleman Mr. Ehrman. Here's a man totally apathetic to the Christian Faith, yet has spent a good part of his life investigating whether or not Jesus Christ ever existed. Megabytes of Irony!

I plan on buying Mr. Ehrman's book.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Perhaps if you answered the question, you would broaden my understanding. So, here it is again:

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Question: Is this the only way reproduction can occur with organisms?

I assume that by "the only way" you are referring to my words " immersed in (or in contact with) nutrients". As far as I know that is the only way in which organisms can reproduce. Single cell organisms grow until he reaches certain size at which time they divide into two daughter cells. The daughter cells also grow until they too reproduce. From a single cell we get two new sales the same size as the parent cell. The extra mass has to come from somewhere. It comes from nutrients. Single celled organisms in a culture are immersed in nutrients. Large organisms consume nutrients. They are in contact with the nutrients rather than being surrounded by them.

I am trying to establish a definition of what life is. Reproduction is key. If something reproduces then it is alive. If it does not reproduce then it may or may not be alive. E.g., worker bees do not reproduce but they are definitely alive.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Can't reproduction occur through the process of biogenisis?

Obviously yes. That's how I got here. But that does not rule out abiogenesis. The ability to reproduce defines life, but life need not have been generated solely by reproduction.

[bpiets]

Jesus Christ is the word of God, that became the flesh , that was predicted in the word of God by the Holy Spirit, died on the cross and was rised from the dead and now sits at the right hand of God and is the Son of God in whom God is well pleased....now to get in God's 'well pleased' thoudhts and words as well is what us creatures He created all try to do....and no back doors like satan etc tries to do and has done to the creation as it is a liar, who only come to destry, steal and kill...etc...lol...and sine we are the generation that wil see all of what Jesus Christ stated , we are in the end days...so pray that 'you' will miss out on the worst time on earth that will shortly happen...lol..etc etc..thanks to God , He is in control of all He created and happy are 'we' when He sets up his to rule as He sets up those who do and will do His will ...etc..soon to happen...etc

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

[i] Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
is Bart Ehrman’s attempt to treat“mythicists” (i.e., people who deny the existence of Jesus) with respect and take their arguments seriously, “if for no other reason than to show why they cannot be right about their major contention” (4). On the one hand I can see why people might find a book like this necessary—mythicists are a vocal minority ...

At one time Christians were a "vocal minority".

Originally Posted by boxcar

... that make plenty of noise on the internet but have thus far ...

Operative words are "thus far". At one time those words applied to Copernicus, Galileo and Einstein.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... failed to receive a fair shake from those in the academic community—so why not have a credentialed scholar ...

Define "credentialed scholar". Did a German patent clerk without an academic position qualify?

Originally Posted by boxcar

... address their arguments? But on the other hand, mythicist arguments deserve to be ignored ...

By what standard does any idea "deserve to be ignored".

Originally Posted by boxcar

... and for every internet mythicist there’s ten internet apologists ...

Only ten? Are skeptics outnumbered only 10 to 1?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority ...

Argumentum ad populum!

Originally Posted by boxcar

... who have dealt with their nonsensical claims in some way, shape, or form (most notably J. P. Holding ...

I plan on buying Mr. Ehrman's book.

If you are going to appeal to the aforementioned J.P. Holding then in all fairness you should also buy and read Richard Carrier's book Not the Impossible Faith.

[hcap]

...

Originally Posted by V

we are in the end days...so pray that 'you' will miss out on the worst time on earth that will shortly happen...lol..etc etc..thanks to God

This is a very late insignificant literal doctrine not supported by most Christians, let alone all other religions except the most literal minded splinter groups.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

At one time Christians were a "vocal minority".
Operative words are "thus far". At one time those words applied to Copernicus, Galileo and Einstein.
Define "credentialed scholar". Did a German patent clerk without an academic position qualify?
By what standard does any idea "deserve to be ignored".
Only ten? Are skeptics outnumbered only 10 to 1?
Argumentum ad populum![/i]

If you are going to appeal to the aforementioned J.P. Holding then in all fairness you should also buy and read Richard Carrier's book Not the Impossible Faith.

The definition of "Argumentum ad populum" is this:

Examples. This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true, based SOLEY on the fact that it is a widely popular thought. ...

The operative term is "solely", by the way. And that is not what the article or Ehrman said. You're overlooking the term "evidence". Ehrman didn't even remotely hint at the absurd idea that people should believe Jesus existed because that is what most people believe.

Learn to understand the English language.

[boxcar]

The Pope and Sodomy

Has it appeared "odd" to anyone else that there are so many promoters of sodomy around Pope Francis? Hardly a week goes by where some outlandish gay thing after another fails to make an appearance in some manner, shape or form — from reports of the gay orgy in the apartment of Cdl. (Francesco) Coccopalmerio's assistant near the end of last year to Abp. (Vincenzo) Paglia's homoerotic painting to the gay-themed Nativity set in St. Peter's Square to gay cheerleaders Fr. James Martin and Fr. Thomas Rosica's special jobs in the Vatican bureaucracy to a very gay-friendly company running aspects of the Vatican's communications apparatus to the infamous line in the Synod on the Family's 2014 Midterm Relatio that homosexuals have certain gifts and qualities, an idea sneaked into the document by Abp. Bruno Forte, known to be extremely gay-friendly. It's so much, people are wondering when the Dome of St. Peter's is going to be painted pink. And believe us when we say those examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

https://www.churchmilitant.com/video...eid=4093aff58d

This is what is what "trickle down" spiritual/moral decay looks like in the RC Church.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

...This is a very late insignificant literal doctrine not supported by most Christians, let alone all other religions except the most literal minded splinter groups.

Actually, Dispensationalism, which I think the writer is alluding to, is held by most in Evangelical Protestantism. Thankfully, though, it appears that its popularity is starting to wane.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The definition of "Argumentum ad populum" is this:

Examples. This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true, based SOLEY on the fact that it is a widely popular thought. ...

That is not the definition. In fact that is not even a definition. It is simply a statement.

Used alone the argumentum ad populum proves nothing. Used in addition to other arguments it adds nothing to the debate, so why use it at all?

[hcap]

Darby inverted iit in the 19 th century. What did Christians believe up until Darby?

https://www.quora.com/Do-any-Christi...ll-ever-happen

....Despite the fact that dispensationalism is not accepted by any of the world's major Christian Traditions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and Protestantism), because dispensationalism is popular among a vocal subsection of American Fundamentalist Evangelicals -- who claim to speak for all of Christianity -- "the Rapture" is often presented as a mainstream Christian belief by the mass media, who often confuse Fundamentalism with historic mainstream Christianity. This facile acceptance of Fundamentalist Evangelical claims to be "the real Christians" may be due to a general ignorance in the media to the actual historic teachings of global Christianity.



BTWE, the only other religions to accept anything like it are fundamentalist Muslims. Literal minded believers are birds of the same feather, no matter their "house" brand.

I apologize to bpiets for mangling his name.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Did Jesus Exist? ... is Bart Ehrman’s attempt ...

To bad Ehrman did not come up with an original title. G.A. Wells book of the same name is only about 30 years old. Unless Ehrman's book fades quickly into obscurity we are going to have to specify which author whenever we refer to the title.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

That is not the definition. In fact that is not even a definition. It is simply a statement.

Used alone the argumentum ad populum proves nothing. Used in addition to other arguments it adds nothing to the debate, so why use it at all?

That is the definition! Google it.

If you want a great example of the "argumentum ad populum" you could use many quotes by liberals with respect to AGW, their formula essentially taking this form: "The consensus of scientists" or the "consensus of the scientific community", etc.