Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Do you have a link?
Here's mine that says no contradiction :
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html


Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus' birth. Matthew 12 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 12 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus' birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

---

They weren't written as part of a comprehensive work. When you try to rewrite or re-tell the story as a comprehensive whole, then you have created a whole new story different from the other two. The two stories can't both be right. They don't agree with each other, nor with historical facts.

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Do you have a link?
Here's mine that says no contradiction :
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html


Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus' birth. Matthew 12 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 12 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus' birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

---

They weren't written as part of a comprehensive work. When you try to rewrite or re-tell the story as a comprehensive whole, then you have created a whole new story different from the other two. The two stories can't both be right. They don't agree with each other, nor with historical facts.

---

You made claims about contradictions. Do you have authority outside of your own opinion or feelings?
I only ask for the authority on which you base your conclusions for the statements below
You posted:
That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Do you have a link?
Here's mine that says no contradiction :
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html


Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus' birth. Matthew 12 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 12 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus' birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

---

They weren't written as part of a comprehensive work. When you try to rewrite or re-tell the story as a comprehensive whole, then you have created a whole new story different from the other two. The two stories can't both be right. They don't agree with each other, nor with historical facts.

---

This theory will completely revolutionize the study of ancient history as we know it.

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Do you have a link?
Here's mine that says no contradiction :
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html


Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus' birth. Matthew 12 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 12 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus' birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

---

They weren't written as part of a comprehensive work. When you try to rewrite or re-tell the story as a comprehensive whole, then you have created a whole new story different from the other two. The two stories can't both be right. They don't agree with each other, nor with historical facts.

---

Please share some of these "historical facts" you trust in and tell us why they are accepted as fact vs myth/lore

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

I think REM has a song about this.

ScottS said:

---

I think REM has a song about this.

---

Which is?

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

There are a lot of passages in the Bible that speak to God existing prior to creation. I just get confused as to which verses you trust and which you don't.

I know anything that speaks of love you seem to believe. Anything that speaks of justice you seem to deny. Anything that speaks of miracles you flip a coin . Anything that speaks of soul or spirit is dependent upon the direction of the wind.

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

not to mention the conflicts with known history.

Thje birth narratives do not line up with history.

One simply cannot put Augustus Cesar, Herod, and Quirinius was governor of Syria.

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Actually, it is both.

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

Logically / philosophically, the argument for the first motion. Something has to pull the train cars.

Waco1947 said:

---

not to mention the conflicts with known history.

Thje birth narratives do not line up with history.

One simply cannot put Augustus Cesar, Herod, and Quirinius was governor of Syria.

---

Technically, Luke did not write that Quirinius was governor, only that he "governed" or "ruled". Luke did not use the Greek word for the title of "governor", he used a verb.

The census in Luke can easily line up with Josephus' written history. Read more here: https://crossexamined.org/was-luke-wrong-about-the-census/


And I'm waiting for your answer to my question about choice.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Consciousness.

Any die-hard determinist will never accept the arguments for free will. At least most religionists do. I have no idea if the percentage of determinists is higher or lower among non-believers.

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

---

Not if it is an open system, which is theoretically possible.

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Consciousness.

Any die-hard determinist will never accept the arguments for free will. At least most religionists do. I have no idea if the percentage of determinists is higher or lower among non-believers.

---

Is consciousness governed by the physical laws of the universe?

If it is not, and consciousness can cause the movement of molecules in the brain, then it follows that the movement of molecules in this universe is not solely determined by the physical laws of the universe. Agree? Waco47, you agree?

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

---

Not if it is an open system, which is theoretically possible.

---

any evidence?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Not if it is an open system, which is theoretically possible.

---

any evidence?

---

Great question for quash.

With a little research, an Open System universe is a theory; however, it does not appear to have a great deal of support that I could find in the scientific community.

It still begs to ask what is outside that system and where did it come from. It just kicks the can down the road.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

---

Not if it is an open system, which is theoretically possible.

---

any evidence?

---

Sorry, been down that dead end road with you before.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

---

Not if it is an open system, which is theoretically possible.

---

any evidence?

---

Sorry, been down that dead end road with you before.

---

Wanna try my question?

Still waiting for both you and Waco to answer.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Consciousness.

Any die-hard determinist will never accept the arguments for free will. At least most religionists do. I have no idea if the percentage of determinists is higher or lower among non-believers.

---

Is consciousness governed by the physical laws of the universe?

If it is not, and consciousness can cause the movement of molecules in the brain, then it follows that the movement of molecules in this universe is not solely determined by the physical laws of the universe. Agree? Waco47, you agree?

---

Physical laws apply.

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Consciousness.

Any die-hard determinist will never accept the arguments for free will. At least most religionists do. I have no idea if the percentage of determinists is higher or lower among non-believers.

---

Is consciousness governed by the physical laws of the universe?

If it is not, and consciousness can cause the movement of molecules in the brain, then it follows that the movement of molecules in this universe is not solely determined by the physical laws of the universe. Agree? Waco47, you agree?

---

Physical laws apply.

---

If physical laws determine consciousness, then you're back to not having choice.

So you believe we have no choice or free will?

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

---

Not if it is an open system, which is theoretically possible.

---

any evidence?

---

Sorry, been down that dead end road with you before.

---

think of it as a cul de sac where you can easily circle back

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

---

Not if it is an open system, which is theoretically possible.

---

any evidence?

---

Sorry, been down that dead end road with you before.

---

think of it as a cul de sac where you can easily circle back

---

So, a Psaki Universe

RMF5630 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science hasn't come close to providing an answer to that question, nor do the current theories make any logical sense. There is no science that supports the theory that life evolved from inanimate matter.

Even Einstein had a problem with that question, which is why intelligent design was a plausible explanation for him.

---

Science doesn't state that life "evolved" from inanimate matter. Evolution is a process of living organisms.

---

I agree it doesn't state that. It has no plausible explanation for how life began.

---

Yet we're now finding that the basic components for life are present in certain conditions, and even will interact in those conditions. We'll eventually in time unravel the puzzle, just as we now understand the basics of genetics, and are learning more everyday.

---

You're speculating. Look, I understand and appreciate that you have faith in science. The ironic thing is your belief requires more faith than mine.

We are no closer to answering the question of how life began than we were 1000 years ago. The idea that we will eventually get there, outside of belief in a creator, is unsupported speculation on your part and nothing more. I that sense, your belief is no less far fetched than mine. You just don't realize it.

---

You're ignoring our history of centuries of advancement in human knowledge and revelation about the universe, its components, and the physics of its existence. We know far more about life, and the universe than we did 2000 years ago. We're continuing to learn and advance in that knowledge. There is no good reason to think we won't be able to answer how life began.

---

Once again even if we can figure that out. It still does not answer the why? I take a more Jesuit view of this discussion. Science can describe, measure and use the observations of what is around, but cannot answer the whys,how it fits, where we are heading and other questions that go along with the great advances in science. Reverse engineering is not the same as invention or knowing not only what gravity is,, but why it worls and why everything has to fit.. But the other side of the coin is the metaphysics, philosophy, religion, or whatever you want to call it.

There is some reason the universe is like it is, not just randomness. More scientist are starting to come to that conclusion. Read "Language of God", I too look for signs of the truth.

---

Why does there have to be a why? I'm very much in the process of figuring out what I still do and don't believe of the evangelical teachings I grew up with, but it would seem to me that human beings' collective quest for the why has led them/us to some very different (and often illogical and/or problematic) conclusions, and the proliferation of those disparate beliefs would seem to follow some pretty logical geographic and colonial paths. To me, it seems increasingly plausible that religion may only exist to satisfy our curiosity and give our lives meaning beyond a state of existence because most humans can't rest in the unknown or accept that there may simply be nothing beyond what we see.

I'm growing increasingly comfortable with the notion that we may just be happy accidents. I don't know the how or why, but only the former is truly necessary. There may simply be no why. Humanity may only exist because it does. And frankly, I'm OK with that. Working with elderly people and experiencing more death than most, I've come to believe that there is peace in passing. Eternal rest after a mostly difficult life in a pretty rotten world seems like a blessing to me. Living forever -- regardless of where you end up -- doesn't.

That probably speaks to the erosion of my faith, but I've never personally experienced God the way many here have. And it's not for a lack of trying. I'm just wired in a way that makes that very difficult, as I view virtually everything through a logical/practical lens and don't have very strong emotional responses. My wife calls me a robot. I'm not obviously. I have a pretty strong sense of justice and a heart for the weak, forgotten and downtrodden.

I think that's actually what still draws me to Jesus. And contrary to C.S. Lewis' postulation in Mere Christianity, I can follow him whether he was the Messiah or not. Even if he was a madman, I still think there's value in the radical things he taught about love and generosity. Just from a practical standpoint, I believe that the world would be a better place if more people lived and loved the way Jesus did. Unfortunately, I haven't seen very much of that from the modern church, which is a big part of the reason my faith has been shaken the way that it has. What value can a religion have that has so little material impact on the lives and behaviors of its adherents?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Because we have brains that know a history and a consciousness of self in relationship to other selfs.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Do you have a link?
Here's mine that says no contradiction :
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html


Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus' birth. Matthew 12 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 12 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus' birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

---

They weren't written as part of a comprehensive work. When you try to rewrite or re-tell the story as a comprehensive whole, then you have created a whole new story different from the other two. The two stories can't both be right. They don't agree with each other, nor with historical facts.

---

Please share some of these "historical facts" you trust in and tell us why they are accepted as fact vs myth/lore

---

Clearly neither story is historical, and the authors of Matthew and Luke know Jesus is from Nazareth, so in order for him to be the Messiah, he has to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). Either they or someone before them made up the birth narratives in order to get him in Bethlehem, because they knew he was from Nazareth. The narratives are implausible and irreconcilably contradict each other. However, historically we know Herod died in 4BCE. Quirinius became governor in 6CE. We know stars don't stop over houses, they don't lead anywhere, and they don't disappear and reappear. There is no other record of the slaughter of two year old boys by Herod. If Herod killed all of the boys two years old in Bethlehem, you would think someone such as Josephus would have mentioned it, since he didn't particularly like Herod. In Matthew, Mary and Joseph are from Bethlehem, and Jesus spends his first 1 1/2 years or so there before fleeing to Egypt. Supposedly they want to return to Bethlehem their hometown, but can't because of Archelaus, so they move to Nazareth. Also, it's not plausible that an older adult King Herod would be afraid that a 2 year old or younger peasant child could take the kingdom away from him. And if he was afraid, he could just send someone with the wise men to kill him when they found him. In Luke, Bethlehem is clearly not Joseph and Mary's hometown. That's the main point, so they concoct a story to get him to Bethlehem. They say Caesar Augustus sent out a decree, first enrollment when Quirinius was governor of Syria, that everyone in the world had to be enrolled and register for the census in the home of their ancestors from 1000 years earlier. (Joseph is from the lineage of David (from Bethlehem) so they have to return to Bethlehem. Why the town of David who lived1,000 years before Joseph, instead of some other town from a different ancestor in time? There is no independent record of any such census that required everyone to return to the place of their ancestors from 1,000 years prior. And, how would most peasants even know who their ancestors were 1,000 years prior? Think of the upheaval that would require for everyone around the world, and that there would be no historical record. There is no independent record of any Roman census that required people to return to the home of their ancestors. Quirinius was not the Syrian governor when Herod was the Judean king. It's just not historically plausible. In Matthew they flee to Egypt and come back much later wanting to return to Bethlehem, but have to go to Nazareth. In Luke, they return to Nazareth, after waiting 8 days for circumcision. Then, 32 days after the birth they go to the Temple in Jerusalem to perform the offering for Mary's ritual cleansing, according to what is said in the Law of Moses (Leviticus 12), and when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth. Jesus is under two months old. These stories are not plausibly reconcilable and clearly not historically factual, but instead were concocted to get Jesus born in Bethlehem when everyone knew he was from Nazareth.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

not to mention the conflicts with known history.

Thje birth narratives do not line up with history.

One simply cannot put Augustus Cesar, Herod, and Quirinius was governor of Syria.

---

Technically, Luke did not write that Quirinius was governor, only that he "governed" or "ruled". Luke did not use the Greek word for the title of "governor", he used a verb.

The census in Luke can easily line up with Josephus' written history. Read more here: https://crossexamined.org/was-luke-wrong-about-the-census/


And I'm waiting for your answer to my question about choice.

---

Semantics

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.That the Bible makes those claim is immaterial. We live in a physical universe governed laws.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

There are a lot of passages in the Bible that speak to God existing prior to creation. I just get confused as to which verses you trust and which you don't.

I know anything that speaks of love you seem to believe. Anything that speaks of justice you seem to deny. Anything that speaks of miracles you flip a coin . Anything that speaks of soul or spirit is dependent upon the direction of the wind.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Actually, it is both.

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

Logically / philosophically, the argument for the first motion. Something has to pull the train cars.

---

You are "special pleading" your case by claiming God is a different sort not subject to the laws of physics. Your premise "God is the first cause" begs the question - is that idea true? You cannot prove it. You have no evidence.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Because we have brains that know a history and a consciousness of self in relationship to other selfs.

---

How does that give you choice? Do you have control over the atoms and molecules in your brain at any point?

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

not to mention the conflicts with known history.

Thje birth narratives do not line up with history.

One simply cannot put Augustus Cesar, Herod, and Quirinius was governor of Syria.

---

Technically, Luke did not write that Quirinius was governor, only that he "governed" or "ruled". Luke did not use the Greek word for the title of "governor", he used a verb.

The census in Luke can easily line up with Josephus' written history. Read more here: https://crossexamined.org/was-luke-wrong-about-the-census/


And I'm waiting for your answer to my question about choice.

---

Semantics

---

And? Semantics is what your objection is based on.

I believe you're making my point that no amount of evidence will dissuade a determinist.

quash said:

---

I believe you're making my point that no amount of evidence will dissuade a determinist.

---

Your side point is irrelevant. I'm asking if YOU believe we have choice or not, and if so, where does it cone from if you believe only physical laws govern the movement of matter in this universe.

bear2be2 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science hasn't come close to providing an answer to that question, nor do the current theories make any logical sense. There is no science that supports the theory that life evolved from inanimate matter.

Even Einstein had a problem with that question, which is why intelligent design was a plausible explanation for him.

---

Science doesn't state that life "evolved" from inanimate matter. Evolution is a process of living organisms.

---

I agree it doesn't state that. It has no plausible explanation for how life began.

---

Yet we're now finding that the basic components for life are present in certain conditions, and even will interact in those conditions. We'll eventually in time unravel the puzzle, just as we now understand the basics of genetics, and are learning more everyday.

---

You're speculating. Look, I understand and appreciate that you have faith in science. The ironic thing is your belief requires more faith than mine.

We are no closer to answering the question of how life began than we were 1000 years ago. The idea that we will eventually get there, outside of belief in a creator, is unsupported speculation on your part and nothing more. I that sense, your belief is no less far fetched than mine. You just don't realize it.

---

You're ignoring our history of centuries of advancement in human knowledge and revelation about the universe, its components, and the physics of its existence. We know far more about life, and the universe than we did 2000 years ago. We're continuing to learn and advance in that knowledge. There is no good reason to think we won't be able to answer how life began.

---

Once again even if we can figure that out. It still does not answer the why? I take a more Jesuit view of this discussion. Science can describe, measure and use the observations of what is around, but cannot answer the whys,how it fits, where we are heading and other questions that go along with the great advances in science. Reverse engineering is not the same as invention or knowing not only what gravity is,, but why it worls and why everything has to fit.. But the other side of the coin is the metaphysics, philosophy, religion, or whatever you want to call it.

There is some reason the universe is like it is, not just randomness. More scientist are starting to come to that conclusion. Read "Language of God", I too look for signs of the truth.

---

Why does there have to be a why? I'm very much in the process of figuring out what I still do and don't believe of the evangelical teachings I grew up with, but it would seem to me that human beings' collective quest for the why has led them/us to some very different (and often illogical and/or problematic) conclusions, and the proliferation of those disparate beliefs would seem to follow some pretty logical geographic and colonial paths. To me, it seems increasingly plausible that religion may only exist to satisfy our curiosity and give our lives meaning beyond a state of existence because most humans can't rest in the unknown or accept that there may simply be nothing beyond what we see.

I'm growing increasingly comfortable with the notion that we may just be happy accidents. I don't know the how or why, but only the former is truly necessary. There may simply be no why. Humanity may only exist because it does. And frankly, I'm OK with that. Working with elderly people and experiencing more death than most, I've come to believe that there is peace in passing. Eternal rest after a mostly difficult life in a pretty rotten world seems like a blessing to me. Living forever -- regardless of where you end up -- doesn't.

That probably speaks to the erosion of my faith, but I've never personally experienced God the way many here have. And it's not for a lack of trying. I'm just wired in a way that makes that very difficult, as I view virtually everything through a logical/practical lens and don't have very strong emotional responses. My wife calls me a robot. I'm not obviously. I have a pretty strong sense of justice and a heart for the weak, forgotten and downtrodden.

I think that's actually what still draws me to Jesus. And contrary to C.S. Lewis' postulation in Mere Christianity, I can follow him whether he was the Messiah or not. Even if he was a madman, I still think there's value in the radical things he taught about love and generosity. Just from a practical standpoint, I believe that the world would be a better place if more people lived and loved the way Jesus did. Unfortunately, I haven't seen very much of that from the modern church, which is a big part of the reason my faith has been shaken the way that it has. What value can a religion have that has so little material impact on the lives and behaviors of its adherents?

---

In Luke, Christ speaks of the non-religious doing a better job than the religious in the telling of the Good Samaritan. And yet, His story taught people how to put love into action and how not to be a hypocrite. He built the church on not being religious.

Why do people look at sinners, say I don't want to be like them and then walk away from the One who was/is the most unlike them.