bear2be2 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

The fact is that they are NOT true.

God is all loving and all good. Many people (atheists included) do not understand the bible or how it was written.

---

None of those are facts. They're beliefs that can be neither proven nor disproven.

Which brings us back to the original topic, which is that we are all essentially constructing our belief system (or lack thereof) based on what we want to believe (or not believe) and what our individual experiences suggest is likely. None of us can say definitively that any of this is true.

If we all approached interactions with those who believe differently than us with more humility and curiosity, the world would be a much better place.

---

proof? No we don't have proof because, in this situation, proof would mean it cannot be any other way.

You cannot prove to me that your spouse loves you. I'm guessing the evidence pointing to your spouse's love is overwhelming.

The same goes for the many different points regarding God, creation and the gospel. None of us were there at the beginning. None of us were there for the crucifixion or the for the resurrection. We can look at the evidence we have and then decide, if we want to put our faith in the remaining claims.

I'll celebrate 36 years of marriage next month. I can't prove to you my wife will not poison me between now and then but, the evidence suggests that she will not

---

I'm not telling you to stop believing what you believe -- or that it's wrong.

I just think we all need to be careful about treating our beliefs (or nonbelief) as fact. We're all just doing our best to make sense of this existence and the world around us, and none of us can be certain that what we believe is the absolute truth.

And the issue with the wife analogy is that there's a second, tangible person in that equation that you can ask directly, clearing up any mystery on the topic. That will never be the case with an invisible God.

---

I have two takeaways from that.

First, there is an important difference between Fact and Truth. And without getting overly wordy, sometimes we need to stop and consider that we need both, each in its place.


Second, if you have had personal experience of God, it doesn't matter that someone else says He is "invisible", or even "not real". I will not deny you your experience, but please I understand I shall not deny mine.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

"I think therefore I am." Descartes

---

Yes, but when you think, do you have control over the atoms and molecules in your brain?

---

Yes some of them hey I breathe automatically and my heart beats automatically.
What is the point you're making. State your premise first.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

"I think therefore I am." Descartes

---

Yes, but when you think, do you have control over the atoms and molecules in your brain?

---

Yes some of them hey I breathe automatically and my heart beats automatically.
What is the point you're making. State your premise first.

---

So you say you control some of the molecules....but aren't all molecules in the universe controlled only by physical laws?

bear2be2 said:

---

None of those are facts. They're beliefs that can be neither proven nor disproven.

---

All Oldbear stated, these are truths.

bear2be2 said:

---

Which brings us back to the original topic, which is that we are all essentially constructing our belief system (or lack thereof) based on what we want to believe (or not believe) and what our individual experiences suggest is likely. None of us can say definitively that any of this is true.

---

This may be accurate for some; however, I (and I'm quite sure others) have investigated the claims of Christianity and found them to be true. I've posted this before, but I'll do a brief synopsis.

I'm a cradle-Catholic that was poorly catechized (Vatican II child). I knew that I would never leave the Church but explain or defined my faith. At the age of 40 (my spiritual wandering of 40 years) I had an awaking of my faith and started to learn more about it. I had to deconstruct everything and start at the beginning - Does God exist. I "knew" He did; but had to investigate the various arguments for and against belief. I researched the moral, cosmological, and scientific arguments for God. I could not disprove Him.

From there I looked at the arguments for/against the existence and resurrection of Jesus. I could not disprove them either.

Finally, I looked at the claims of the Catholic Church. Same process. I found those all valid as well.

My path wasn't this linear. There a great deal of overlap with in these. I've enjoyed my journey over the last 12 years.

bear2be2 said:

---

If we all approached interactions with those who believe differently than us with more humility and curiosity, the world would be a much better place.

---

We have some argumentative (borderline toxic) posters in this forum, we have many here that are who do ask with " humility and curiosity". I try to be one of those.

If you would like to share your journey of a search for truth so that we can ask questions, I'll be happy to listen (read). If you don't wish to share that in a public forum, please feel free to PM and I'd like the opportunity to understand your search for truth.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

"I think therefore I am." Descartes

---

Yes, but when you think, do you have control over the atoms and molecules in your brain?

---

Yes some of them hey I breathe automatically and my heart beats automatically.
What is the point you're making. State your premise first.

---

Did I stump you? You've had time to think about this. What's your answer to my question - aren't all molecules controlled by physics? So how are you controlling some of them?

You are seeking some kind of entrapment of my logic but your method is passive aggressive. Just what your belief is and will go from there. Otherwise, I am out.

Waco1947 said:

---

You are seeking some kind of entrapment of my logic but your method is passive aggressive. Just what your belief is and will go from there. Otherwise, I am out.

---

Passive aggressive? I'm directly asking you a question.

It's a simple, straightforward question - do you control the molecules in the brain, or does physics?

Your answer will further our understanding and this discussion if you answer. Why are you afraid?

Done

Waco1947 said:

---

Done

---

Ahh, I think you see the problem with your theology, that is why you are afraid:

If you can control molecules....then why can't God?

Science says God cannot. Make your case why God can

Waco1947 said:

---

Science says God cannot. Make your case why God can

---

If science says God can not, then science also says YOU can not. Correct?

You see your dilemma, don't you?

If you believe you can move the molecules in your brain, then certainly God can be capable of moving molecules.

If you DON'T believe you can move any molecules in your brain, then it logically follows that you don't have free will or choice because physics is what ultimately determines how you think and move.

And if you don't have free will or choice, then there is no such thing as morality, i.e. "good" or "bad". All thoughts and actions would merely be the result of the physical laws of the universe playing itself out in your brain. Also, without choice there would be no such thing as "love" either. Hence, since there is no morality, then there is no "sin". And since there is no sin, there is no need for Jesus to save us out of "love". In fact, anything Jesus did out of "love", or anything else in his life for that matter, had nothing to do with his choice; it was just the result of physical laws that he had no control over acting out on the molecules in his brain and body.

In fact, "love" would be morally equivalent to "hate" in that they are both not moral at all - they are only the result of physics. "Love" then, would be meaningless, no more meaningful to the universe than a bird turd dropping from the sky.

Coke Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

The fact is that they are NOT true.

God is all loving and all good. Many people (atheists included) do not understand the bible or how it was written.

---

Sounds like a cliche.

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

God is all loving and all good. Many people (atheists included) do not understand the bible or how it was written.

---

Sounds like a cliche.

---

Which part?

No one frowned on personal struggle. This is disingenuous.

BaylorJacket said:

---

JXL 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.

---

1. Hell is not a place of "torture" - that picture comes from Dante and Milton. It is a place of separation from God, which may bring "torment" from the soul's internal anguish.

2. Unreached persons are not automatically condemned, as explained in Romans 1.

3. A certain group of scholars and theologians may hold that view, but there is no shortage of those who feel differently. Since all of the earliest sources recount that the Christians believed Christ to be divine, it is not clear where these particular "scholars and theologians" are getting their information.

4. 99 percent of those "variations" are inconsequential and meaningless - the scribal equivalent of typos. Not one single variant ever identified makes any difference in beliefs or theology. Even those variations which are more than mere typos are things like 1 Timothy 3:16, which the Byzantine text renders "great is the mystery of godliness - God was manifested in the flesh" while the Alexandrian text says "great is the mystery of godliness - he was manifested in the flesh." So all the talk about "variations' is vastly overblown.

---

I personally couldn't care less (in historical context) if one gospel says Jesus died on the Passover and another said he died on Good Friday. Is this a discrepancy? Historically, obviously yes - but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

---

Apologize for the late reply, but I just read this comment in another person's response.

Nowhere in the Gospels does it say that Jesus died on Good Friday. They all say he died on "Preparation Day" which is the day before a Sabbath. Since Sabbaths are usually on Saturdays, then it would seem that Jesus died the day before on a Friday, and so people just automatically assumed this. But the fact people are are missing is that there were TWO Sabbaths that week - there was a yearly "High Sabbath" which was the day following Passover, and a weekly Sabbath later that week on a Saturday. So there were TWO "Preparation Days" that week - one on the day of Passover (which was on a Wednesday), and the other one on Friday of that same week.

Therefore, all the Gospels agree on which day Jesus died - on Preparation Day before the High Sabbath, which was also the day of Passover, which was a Wednesday.

Here is a link to a video that explains this, and how it means Jesus fulfilled his prophecy exactly, that he would be buried for three full days and three full nights:

Waco47, what are your thoughts about the dilemma I presented you?
I want to know if you understand fully what is being said.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

JXL 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.

---

1. Hell is not a place of "torture" - that picture comes from Dante and Milton. It is a place of separation from God, which may bring "torment" from the soul's internal anguish.

2. Unreached persons are not automatically condemned, as explained in Romans 1.

3. A certain group of scholars and theologians may hold that view, but there is no shortage of those who feel differently. Since all of the earliest sources recount that the Christians believed Christ to be divine, it is not clear where these particular "scholars and theologians" are getting their information.

4. 99 percent of those "variations" are inconsequential and meaningless - the scribal equivalent of typos. Not one single variant ever identified makes any difference in beliefs or theology. Even those variations which are more than mere typos are things like 1 Timothy 3:16, which the Byzantine text renders "great is the mystery of godliness - God was manifested in the flesh" while the Alexandrian text says "great is the mystery of godliness - he was manifested in the flesh." So all the talk about "variations' is vastly overblown.

---

I personally couldn't care less (in historical context) if one gospel says Jesus died on the Passover and another said he died on Good Friday. Is this a discrepancy? Historically, obviously yes - but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

---

Apologize for the late reply, but I just read this comment in another person's response.

Nowhere in the Gospels does it say that Jesus died on Good Friday. They all say he died on "Preparation Day" which is the day before a Sabbath. Since Sabbaths are usually on Saturdays, then it would seem that Jesus died the day before on a Friday, and so people just automatically assumed this. But the fact people are are missing is that there were TWO Sabbaths that week - there was a yearly "High Sabbath" which was the day following Passover, and a weekly Sabbath later that week on a Saturday. So there were TWO "Preparation Days" that week - one on the day of Passover (which was on a Wednesday), and the other one on Friday of that same week.

Therefore, all the Gospels agree on which day Jesus died - on Preparation Day before the High Sabbath, which was also the day of Passover, which was a Wednesday.

Here is a link to a video that explains this, and how it means Jesus fulfilled his prophecy exactly, that he would be buried for three full days and three full nights:

---

Will have to look into the two Sabbaths, that's interesting. Discrepancy or not though, the symbolism of these dates is clear

It wasn't just symbolism, it was prophetic fulfillment - the dates of Jesus' death, burial, resurrection, and the first coming of the Holy Spirit all fell EXACTLY on the dates of the first four of the seven "Feasts" that God commanded Israel to observe, in the book of Leviticus:

Passover - Jesus was sacrificed as the Passover lamb.
Feast of Unleavened Bread - Jesus, the unleavened (sinless) bread of life, was buried.
Feast of First Fruits - Jesus was resurrected, the first fruit of the resurrection, the new Adam
Pentecost - the day to commemorate the first day of the full harvest and the day Moses first received the Law - the day the disciples first received the Holy Spirit, the first "harvest" of believers.

The first four Feasts of Israel were prophetically pointing to Jesus, and they were fulfilled EXACTLY. God's word is perfect and precise.

(The next three Feasts prophetically point to Jesus second coming, btw. A very fascinating subject. Given how exactly the first four were fulfilled, I'd pay attention to the dates of those next three Feasts!!)

There are many good videos on YouTube that explains all this. Here's one that I'm just picking out of a hat:

Kinda like two guys getting credit for killing Goliath.

Sam Lowry 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.

---

In academic jargon, this is what is known as a history.

---

In English literature, it is what is known as fiction.

JXL 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.

---

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

---

Research how historians determine what is most probably historically true from what is fiction or lore.

Osodecentx 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.

---

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.

---

Dr. Mark Goodacre, Duke University, Dr. Brent Landau, University of Texas, Dr. Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina, Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, University Vanderbilt, Dr. David Runia, University of Melbourne and Australian Catholic University.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator.".

Actually, what they have done is claim that if a series of assumptions are correct, none of them proven, then within the parameters of their limited description a universe creator outside those parameters is not defined as required ... but something else is.

---

What they did was illustrate from observation and what is known about quantum mechanics that it is plausible for spontaneous formation - without the need of a creator. You can't say that about any unproven religious claim of creation. Operating within the 'parameters' of what is know about quantum theory is what allows you to communicate over this message board and your cell phone or computer. There is no need for any god or gods to mysteriously deliver the message.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

Physical laws allow for making choices from learned frame of reference.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

It may be tired to you, but it is one for which you have no credible answer.

Forest Bueller said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 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?"

---

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.

---

Of course GOD would not be subject to physical laws, he created them. He does as he pleases.

Your problem is faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. You have created a god, placed within the bounds of what you wish to limit him to, but rejected the GOD of the Bible who is almighty, all knowing, all powerful. The God who made everything, and without whom nothing was made.

Does it take faith to believe in this GOD. Of course it does. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.

Just because we can see it face to face, doesn't mean it isn't.

---

I agree with you that the creator of the universe would be above the laws of physics. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to make a case that God chooses to act outside of those laws on earth.

Such a view would bring up some serious moral and ethical dilemmas that would be impossible to reconcile with an all-loving God.

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

I didn't put that because the prior poster was disputing God's supernatural power, not Him being All Loving. He sent His own Son to die for our sins. Of course He is all loving, that was not in dispute.

However, part of being All Loving is being perfectly just, God hates evil, sin cannot exist in His presence. So many people's definition of being All loving, leaves out his perfect justice and hatred of sin. They turn God's real love into a, hippified version of love, an anything goes no rules type of love. That does not reflect on a Just and Righteous love God has for us.

---

If he were all loving and all powerful, and all knowing, he wouldn't have created a universe that requires the concepts of justice, or allows for sin. If he hated sin he wouldn't have required the OT patriarchs to sin, and he wouldn't have allowed a "hippified version of love," whatever that is, if it is bad, It's not possible to possess all three of those characteristics and be responsible for life in this universe.

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

It may be tired to you, but it is one for which you have no credible answer.

---

This exact question has been posed by you and answered on this forum multiple times.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

His statement with regard to physics is demonstrably untrue. He has claimed that quantum physics explains creation "from nothing," but all his proof really does is postpone the question.

---

Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator. Far closer to the truth than ancient tales of primitive people handed down through the years.

---

Hawking got it right in Brief History of Time. Changed his mind, interestingly enough, for what can only have been personal reasons.

---

Hawking didn't change his mind. He has explained and clarified what he meant metaphorically in his book.

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx 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.

---

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.

---

Dr. Mark Goodacre, Duke University, Dr. Brent Landau, University of Texas, Dr. Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina, Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, University Vanderbilt, Dr. David Runia, University of Melbourne and Australian Catholic University.

---

Several of these claims have been proven wrong as archeology and textual analyses progresses

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx 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.

---

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.

---

Dr. Mark Goodacre, Duke University, Dr. Brent Landau, University of Texas, Dr. Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina, Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, University Vanderbilt, Dr. David Runia, University of Melbourne and Australian Catholic University.

---

Several of these claims have been proven wrong as archeology and textual analyses progresses

---

If you're talking about religious claims, I agree.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

In academic jargon, this is what is known as a history.

---

In English literature, it is what is known as fiction.

---

In biblical studies it's what's known as univocality.

There are in fact many voices, which is why Elhanan killed Goliath and then David killed Goliath so they had to create a fictional brother of Goliath and have Elhanan kill that guy.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

His statement with regard to physics is demonstrably untrue. He has claimed that quantum physics explains creation "from nothing," but all his proof really does is postpone the question.

---

Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator. Far closer to the truth than ancient tales of primitive people handed down through the years.

---

Hawking got it right in Brief History of Time. Changed his mind, interestingly enough, for what can only have been personal reasons.

---

Hawking didn't change his mind. He has explained and clarified what he meant metaphorically in his book.

---

He went from believing that some questions are beyond scientific understanding to believing he could explain creation through physical laws. The theory he and Guth propounded may well be correct, but their theological conclusion is based on circular reasoning.