TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

You are clearly wrong. Yes, there are lots of biblical "scholars" looking for reasons to criticize scripture, water down the text, & deny the truths of God. They provide a fake intellectual veneer to their lies but their scholarship is worthless. Biblical inerrancy is a fact but some people cannot deal with that.

It is reverting back to foolishness to continue to deny these truths. As already stated, despite the diverse authorship over a long period of time, the Bible has amazing continuity from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation. That is a proof of its divine authority.

---

It's just the opposite, and you refuse to recognize the evidence of reality staring you in the face, because it upends what you've been conditioned to believe and requires you to cope with the fact you've been misled and parked in an echo chamber.

---

You are clearly wrong. You refuse to recognize the evidence of reality staring you in the face, because it upends what you've been conditioned to believe and requires you to cope with the fact you've been misled and parked in an echo chamber.

This willful ignorance is exceedingly foolish.

---

The evidence of reality lands you in 21st century objective truth. Fundamentalist belief in Iron Age and older myths, legends, and lore trap you in ignorance.

---

"21st century objective truth" = latest lies from people who cannot cope with genuine truth

True objective truth in every sense of the term:

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6

Any so-called "truth" contradicting this most important reality is a foolish lie from an arrogant person who worships himself.

TexasScientist said:

---

Assassin said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

You are clearly wrong. Yes, there are lots of biblical "scholars" looking for reasons to criticize scripture, water down the text, & deny the truths of God. They provide a fake intellectual veneer to their lies but their scholarship is worthless. Biblical inerrancy is a fact but some people cannot deal with that.

It is reverting back to foolishness to continue to deny these truths. As already stated, despite the diverse authorship over a long period of time, the Bible has amazing continuity from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation. That is a proof of its divine authority.

---

It's just the opposite, and you refuse to recognize the evidence of reality staring you in the face, because it upends what you've been conditioned to believe and requires you to cope with the fact you've been misled and parked in an echo chamber.

---

You are clearly wrong. You refuse to recognize the evidence of reality staring you in the face, because it upends what you've been conditioned to believe and requires you to cope with the fact you've been misled and parked in an echo chamber.

This willful ignorance is exceedingly foolish.

---

The evidence of reality lands you in 21st century objective truth. Fundamentalist belief in Iron Age and older myths, legends, and lore trap you in ignorance.

---

You are on a board loaded with Christians. What purpose does it serve to make posts like this? You are going in circles, chasing your own tail, hoping you can catch it.

---

And Baylor graduates. The last I checked, graduating from Baylor didn't require a profession of Christian faith. I'm here because I once suffered the same Christian delusions, and I want to promote critical thinking. It's not just Christianity (and all its schisms), but Islam, Judaism, Jainism, etc. The definition of who's a 'Christian' is not universal. Do you really want to live in an echo chamber? I do find it interesting that some of my comments create such Christian vitriol as to belie or falsify the notion of what is Christianity.

Setting aside his doctrinal differences, the person who projects what I was taught were the teachings of Jesus (factual or not) is Waco1947. You know, do unto others as you would have them do unto you … the Golden Rule more or less. You might even say he is persecuted for his Christian faith. The fundamentalists of the times were the ones who supposedly insisted upon the crucifixion.

---

Yes, there are multiple definitions of Christianity but most are lies. The only valid definition comes from Jesus Christ Himself. That one definition is universal because it is the only one that is accurate.

Believing in Christ is not a delusion, rejecting Him is the ultimate delusion with fateful eternal consequences. Doctrinal differences do not matter nearly as much as do the fundamentals: who Jesus is, what He did and why, what it means.

TexasScientist said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Once again, you are on a board loaded with Christians.

If Waco47 is your measuring stick, you learned very little in your Christian years.

My point for you is, who do you think you are trying to convert to your agnostic views? Seems like a no-win strategy on this particular board. Just observing.

---

I guess I'm just a voice in the wilderness. I'll agree that the board is loaded with pseudo Christians, very few following what Jesus likely taught.

---

Do you realize that the original "voice in the wilderness" was John the Baptist proclaiming the coming of the Messiah? It was John who called Jesus "the Lamb of God who comes to take away the sins of the world." This may have been the first statement of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

🚨DEVELOPING: Macron, Starmer, and Merz caught on video on their return from Kiev. A bag of white powder on the table. Macron quickly pockets it, Merz hides the spoon. No explanation given. Zelensky, known cocaine enthusiast, had just hosted them. Connect the dots. pic.twitter.com/aROGuf06Nm

— Dr. Simon Goddek (@goddeketal) May 11, 2025

While I don't doubt Macron does blow, that looks like a napkin?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

🚨DEVELOPING: Macron, Starmer, and Merz caught on video on their return from Kiev. A bag of white powder on the table. Macron quickly pockets it, Merz hides the spoon. No explanation given. Zelensky, known cocaine enthusiast, had just hosted them. Connect the dots. pic.twitter.com/aROGuf06Nm

— Dr. Simon Goddek (@goddeketal) May 11, 2025

---

Bag of white powder? Looks like a used Kleenex.

Not sure how anyone thinks that's cocaine.

We need to get out of NATO. Culturally, demographically, and politically those nations are nothing like the ones we agreed to give Truman doctrine protections to almost 80 years ago.

Realitybites said:

---

We need to get out of NATO. Culturally, demographically, and politically those nations are nothing like the ones we agreed to give Truman doctrine protections to almost 80 years ago.

---

Disagree with total exit but Trump is doing the right thing = rebalancing our relationship with Nato.

Lord Ismay, the 1st Sec. Gen. of Nato, made a humorous off-hand yet spot-on remark about the purpose of Nato: "to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." Those were exactly the proper priorities of the day.

Today, the situation is different. Russia is still trying to grow empire and still the largest power in Europe, but not quite the relative behemoth it once was. The other two have profoundly changed. America no longer economically dwarfs Europe = Europe can afford to bear a greater burden of the defense role. That means America can become a supporting power for Nato, rather than the preponderance of the force,* freeing America up to take a greater focus in Asia, where a rising China is a new, arguably greater threat than Russia. A stronger Germany can easily be kept in balance by the rest of Nato.

One thing that hasn't changed though - American membership in Nato does give the US a high degree of influence over war & peace in Europe. Europeans managed to engulf itself iin TWO world wars in the 20th century. We should not step away from having influence over the foreign policy of our largest trade partner and its constituent states.

Realitybites said:

---

We need to get out of NATO. Culturally, demographically, and politically those nations are nothing like the ones we agreed to give Truman doctrine protections to almost 80 years ago.

---

Agree 100%

WW2 ended almost EIGHTY years ago.

Europe is stronger.
The US is in massive debt and our people's problems now need to be focused on.

Pasted time to get the hell out of NATO.

It does look like a napkin. So why does he grab it like that? His behavior is a bit strange.

Realitybites said:

---

We need to get out of NATO. Culturally, demographically, and politically those nations are nothing like the ones we agreed to give Truman doctrine protections to almost 80 years ago.

---

I disagree

Being in NATO allows the Western World to have a powerful alliance network

And that also prevents outsiders from coming into Europe and causing trouble. (Russia)

And it prevents the massive rearming of the European powers and their old bitter rivalries (UK vs France, France vs Germany, Germany vs Poland, Turkey vs all the non-Muslim Balkan states, etc.)

The NATO allies are all supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defense (most don't hit that number)...but it keeps everyone spending around the same proportionally.

If NATO goes away then the UK, France, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland all start to rearm at a fast pace to become the big military dog in Europe. And we get dangerously close to a 1914 world again of rival alliance networks and large military spending campaigns.

That world is not good for America or the average European.

The USA and the EU States need to be in a general positive military alliance....especially as we face the big challenges of the future.

Rivalry and war in Europe eventually sucks us in....and its not good for anyone but the non-Western rivals who gain from the West infighting

historian said:

---

It does look like a napkin. So why does he grab it like that? His behavior is a bit strange.

---

Putting away a napkin/kleenex that he used to blow his nose so it's not in a photo op? I mean, that makes a lot of sense.

There's no evidence that was a bag of powder.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

We need to get out of NATO. Culturally, demographically, and politically those nations are nothing like the ones we agreed to give Truman doctrine protections to almost 80 years ago.

---

I disagree

Being in NATO allows the Western World to have a powerful alliance network

And that also prevents outsiders from coming into Europe and causing trouble. (Russia)

And it prevents the massive rearming of the European powers and their old bitter rivalries (UK vs France, France vs Germany, Germany vs Poland, Turkey vs all the non-Muslim Balkan states, etc.)

The NATO allies are all supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defense (most don't hit that number)...but it keeps everyone spending around the same proportionally.

If NATO goes away then the UK, France, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland all start to rearm at a fast pace to become the big military dog in Europe. And we get dangerously close to a 1914 world again of rival alliance networks and large military spending campaigns.

That world is not good for America or the average European.

The USA and the EU States need to be in a general positive military alliance....especially as we face the big challenges of the future.

Rivalry and war in Europe eventually sucks us in....and its not good for anyone but the non-Western rivals who gain from the West infighting

---

Good post. Agree with most of it.

Mothra said:

---

historian said:

---

It does look like a napkin. So why does he grab it like that? His behavior is a bit strange.

---

Putting away a napkin/kleenex that he used to blow his nose so it's not in a photo op? I mean, that makes a lot of sense.

There's no evidence that was a bag of powder.

---

Agreed. But it could be cocaine as well. Who knows? It's quite possible this will disappear with the news cycle.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

🚨DEVELOPING: Macron, Starmer, and Merz caught on video on their return from Kiev. A bag of white powder on the table. Macron quickly pockets it, Merz hides the spoon. No explanation given. Zelensky, known cocaine enthusiast, had just hosted them. Connect the dots. pic.twitter.com/aROGuf06Nm

— Dr. Simon Goddek (@goddeketal) May 11, 2025

---

Looks like kleenex

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

🚨DEVELOPING: Macron, Starmer, and Merz caught on video on their return from Kiev. A bag of white powder on the table. Macron quickly pockets it, Merz hides the spoon. No explanation given. Zelensky, known cocaine enthusiast, had just hosted them. Connect the dots. pic.twitter.com/aROGuf06Nm

— Dr. Simon Goddek (@goddeketal) May 11, 2025

---

Bag of white powder? Looks like a used Kleenex.

Not sure how anyone thinks that's cocaine.

---

Because everything is a conspiracy.

historian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

historian said:

---

It does look like a napkin. So why does he grab it like that? His behavior is a bit strange.

---

Putting away a napkin/kleenex that he used to blow his nose so it's not in a photo op? I mean, that makes a lot of sense.

There's no evidence that was a bag of powder.

---

Agreed. But it could be cocaine as well. Who knows? It's quite possible this will disappear with the news cycle.

---

Certainly doesn't look like cocaine, and in either regard, making the claim that it is without any proof is incredibly irresponsible and the kind of "fake news" that those of us who support Trump have complained about the last 8+ years.

Probably best to refrain from declaring it cocaine without a smidge of proof. We should call out people when they do this sort of ****, regardless of whether it helps us.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

We need to get out of NATO. Culturally, demographically, and politically those nations are nothing like the ones we agreed to give Truman doctrine protections to almost 80 years ago.

---

I disagree

Being in NATO allows the Western World to have a powerful alliance network

And that also prevents outsiders from coming into Europe and causing trouble. (Russia)

And it prevents the massive rearming of the European powers and their old bitter rivalries (UK vs France, France vs Germany, Germany vs Poland, Turkey vs all the non-Muslim Balkan states, etc.)

The NATO allies are all supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defense (most don't hit that number)...but it keeps everyone spending around the same proportionally.

If NATO goes away then the UK, France, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland all start to rearm at a fast pace to become the big military dog in Europe. And we get dangerously close to a 1914 world again of rival alliance networks and large military spending campaigns.

That world is not good for America or the average European.

The USA and the EU States need to be in a general positive military alliance....especially as we face the big challenges of the future.

Rivalry and war in Europe eventually sucks us in....and it's not good for anyone but the non-Western rivals who gain from the West infighting

---

+1

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

We need to get out of NATO. Culturally, demographically, and politically those nations are nothing like the ones we agreed to give Truman doctrine protections to almost 80 years ago.

---

I disagree

Being in NATO allows the Western World to have a powerful alliance network

And that also prevents outsiders from coming into Europe and causing trouble. (Russia)

And it prevents the massive rearming of the European powers and their old bitter rivalries (UK vs France, France vs Germany, Germany vs Poland, Turkey vs all the non-Muslim Balkan states, etc.)

The NATO allies are all supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defense (most don't hit that number)...but it keeps everyone spending around the same proportionally.

If NATO goes away then the UK, France, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland all start to rearm at a fast pace to become the big military dog in Europe. And we get dangerously close to a 1914 world again of rival alliance networks and large military spending campaigns.

That world is not good for America or the average European.

The USA and the EU States need to be in a general positive military alliance....especially as we face the big challenges of the future.

Rivalry and war in Europe eventually sucks us in....and its not good for anyone but the non-Western rivals who gain from the West infighting

---

same argument applies to the UN. It really, really sucks. What a waste of time, money, and effort. But. If we leave it, our adversaries will seek to use it to organize the world against us, to curb our strengths. We have to engage in it to keep it from being used to harm us.

We don't need to control the world. We just need to make sure nobody else does.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

We need to get out of NATO. Culturally, demographically, and politically those nations are nothing like the ones we agreed to give Truman doctrine protections to almost 80 years ago.

---

I disagree

Being in NATO allows the Western World to have a powerful alliance network

And that also prevents outsiders from coming into Europe and causing trouble. (Russia)

And it prevents the massive rearming of the European powers and their old bitter rivalries (UK vs France, France vs Germany, Germany vs Poland, Turkey vs all the non-Muslim Balkan states, etc.)

The NATO allies are all supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defense (most don't hit that number)...but it keeps everyone spending around the same proportionally.

If NATO goes away then the UK, France, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland all start to rearm at a fast pace to become the big military dog in Europe. And we get dangerously close to a 1914 world again of rival alliance networks and large military spending campaigns.

That world is not good for America or the average European.

The USA and the EU States need to be in a general positive military alliance....especially as we face the big challenges of the future.

Rivalry and war in Europe eventually sucks us in....and its not good for anyone but the non-Western rivals who gain from the West infighting

---

At this point NATO is a major hinderance to native Europeans purging their countries of the 3rd world invaders and rainbow globalists who are on the cusp of making them extinct. Britain, France, Sweden, and Belgium are already lost forever... and the rest of Europe isnt far behind.

Nationalism needs to thrive.

NATO needs to die.

Realitybites is right.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

We need to get out of NATO. Culturally, demographically, and politically those nations are nothing like the ones we agreed to give Truman doctrine protections to almost 80 years ago.

---

I disagree

Being in NATO allows the Western World to have a powerful alliance network

And that also prevents outsiders from coming into Europe and causing trouble. (Russia)

And it prevents the massive rearming of the European powers and their old bitter rivalries (UK vs France, France vs Germany, Germany vs Poland, Turkey vs all the non-Muslim Balkan states, etc.)

The NATO allies are all supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defense (most don't hit that number)...but it keeps everyone spending around the same proportionally.

If NATO goes away then the UK, France, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland all start to rearm at a fast pace to become the big military dog in Europe. And we get dangerously close to a 1914 world again of rival alliance networks and large military spending campaigns.

That world is not good for America or the average European.

The USA and the EU States need to be in a general positive military alliance....especially as we face the big challenges of the future.

Rivalry and war in Europe eventually sucks us in....and its not good for anyone but the non-Western rivals who gain from the West infighting

---

At this point NATO is a major hinderance to native Europeans purging their countries of the 3rd world invaders and rainbow globalists who are on the cusp of making them extinct. Britain, France, Sweden, and Belgium are already lost forever... and the rest of Europe isnt far behind.

Nationalism needs to thrive.

NATO needs to die.

Realitybites is right.

---

your knuckles are dragging the ground again.....

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

We need to get out of NATO. Culturally, demographically, and politically those nations are nothing like the ones we agreed to give Truman doctrine protections to almost 80 years ago.

---

I disagree

Being in NATO allows the Western World to have a powerful alliance network

And that also prevents outsiders from coming into Europe and causing trouble. (Russia)

And it prevents the massive rearming of the European powers and their old bitter rivalries (UK vs France, France vs Germany, Germany vs Poland, Turkey vs all the non-Muslim Balkan states, etc.)

The NATO allies are all supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defense (most don't hit that number)...but it keeps everyone spending around the same proportionally.

If NATO goes away then the UK, France, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland all start to rearm at a fast pace to become the big military dog in Europe. And we get dangerously close to a 1914 world again of rival alliance networks and large military spending campaigns.

That world is not good for America or the average European.

The USA and the EU States need to be in a general positive military alliance....especially as we face the big challenges of the future.

Rivalry and war in Europe eventually sucks us in....and its not good for anyone but the non-Western rivals who gain from the West infighting

---

At this point NATO is a major hinderance to native Europeans purging their countries of the 3rd world invaders and rainbow globalists who are on the cusp of making them extinct. Britain, France, Sweden, and Belgium are already lost forever... and the rest of Europe isnt far behind.

Nationalism needs to thrive.

NATO needs to die.

Realitybites is right.

---

That is the EU bureaucracy

Not NATO

NATO truly does not have anything to do with setting European migration policies (leftwing or rightwing)

And if NATO went away tomorrow there is not a totally impossible scenario where Muslim Turkey under Erdogan starts actually invading other European-Balkans countries. (they have dangerous neo-Ottoman tendencies)

We need to remain in NATO while letting the other member nation believe we could leave at anytime. This will be a strong encouragement for them to step up their defense spending. At the same time it will prevent Turkey from running roughshod over their sphere of influence

nm.

I'll try to show some grace and decorum.

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

We need to get out of NATO. Culturally, demographically, and politically those nations are nothing like the ones we agreed to give Truman doctrine protections to almost 80 years ago.

---

I disagree

Being in NATO allows the Western World to have a powerful alliance network

And that also prevents outsiders from coming into Europe and causing trouble. (Russia)

And it prevents the massive rearming of the European powers and their old bitter rivalries (UK vs France, France vs Germany, Germany vs Poland, Turkey vs all the non-Muslim Balkan states, etc.)

The NATO allies are all supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defense (most don't hit that number)...but it keeps everyone spending around the same proportionally.

If NATO goes away then the UK, France, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland all start to rearm at a fast pace to become the big military dog in Europe. And we get dangerously close to a 1914 world again of rival alliance networks and large military spending campaigns.

That world is not good for America or the average European.

The USA and the EU States need to be in a general positive military alliance....especially as we face the big challenges of the future.

Rivalry and war in Europe eventually sucks us in....and its not good for anyone but the non-Western rivals who gain from the West infighting

---

At this point NATO is a major hinderance to native Europeans purging their countries of the 3rd world invaders and rainbow globalists who are on the cusp of making them extinct. Britain, France, Sweden, and Belgium are already lost forever... and the rest of Europe isnt far behind.

Nationalism needs to thrive.

NATO needs to die.

Realitybites is right.

---

That is the EU bureaucracy

Not NATO

NATO truly does not have anything to do with setting European migration policies (leftwing or rightwing)

And if NATO went away tomorrow there is not a totally impossible scenario where Muslim Turkey under Erdogan starts actually invading other European-Balkans countries. (they have dangerous neo-Ottoman tendencies)

---

Red has his eye on the ball here. NATO is a tremendous stabilizing force in EUrope, greatly lessening geopolitical tensions within the alliance by freezing borders where they are and largely removing the dynamic of "spheres of influence." Bulgaria, Greece, and Romania are no longer just shatterzone states between greater powers - Turkey, Italy, and Germany. They are all allied together rather than pieces of constantly shifting blocks of alliances whose dynamics threaten larger powers.

historian said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

You are clearly wrong. Yes, there are lots of biblical "scholars" looking for reasons to criticize scripture, water down the text, & deny the truths of God. They provide a fake intellectual veneer to their lies but their scholarship is worthless. Biblical inerrancy is a fact but some people cannot deal with that.

It is reverting back to foolishness to continue to deny these truths. As already stated, despite the diverse authorship over a long period of time, the Bible has amazing continuity from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation. That is a proof of its divine authority.

---

It's just the opposite, and you refuse to recognize the evidence of reality staring you in the face, because it upends what you've been conditioned to believe and requires you to cope with the fact you've been misled and parked in an echo chamber.

---

You are clearly wrong. You refuse to recognize the evidence of reality staring you in the face, because it upends what you've been conditioned to believe and requires you to cope with the fact you've been misled and parked in an echo chamber.

This willful ignorance is exceedingly foolish.

---

The evidence of reality lands you in 21st century objective truth. Fundamentalist belief in Iron Age and older myths, legends, and lore trap you in ignorance.

---

"21st century objective truth" = latest lies from people who cannot cope with genuine truth

True objective truth in every sense of the term:

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6

Any so-called "truth" contradicting this most important reality is a foolish lie from an arrogant person who worships himself.

---

John is the last of the gospels, believed to be written around the end of the 1st or early 2nd century, by someone (unknown) who claims to be quoting Jesus with the purpose of conveying the writer's theological message to his specific audience, which is substantially different from the Synoptic Gospels. This falls far short of objective truth, and has nothing to do with objective reality, in spite of your fervor.

historian said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Assassin said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

You are clearly wrong. Yes, there are lots of biblical "scholars" looking for reasons to criticize scripture, water down the text, & deny the truths of God. They provide a fake intellectual veneer to their lies but their scholarship is worthless. Biblical inerrancy is a fact but some people cannot deal with that.

It is reverting back to foolishness to continue to deny these truths. As already stated, despite the diverse authorship over a long period of time, the Bible has amazing continuity from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation. That is a proof of its divine authority.

---

It's just the opposite, and you refuse to recognize the evidence of reality staring you in the face, because it upends what you've been conditioned to believe and requires you to cope with the fact you've been misled and parked in an echo chamber.

---

You are clearly wrong. You refuse to recognize the evidence of reality staring you in the face, because it upends what you've been conditioned to believe and requires you to cope with the fact you've been misled and parked in an echo chamber.

This willful ignorance is exceedingly foolish.

---

The evidence of reality lands you in 21st century objective truth. Fundamentalist belief in Iron Age and older myths, legends, and lore trap you in ignorance.

---

You are on a board loaded with Christians. What purpose does it serve to make posts like this? You are going in circles, chasing your own tail, hoping you can catch it.

---

And Baylor graduates. The last I checked, graduating from Baylor didn't require a profession of Christian faith. I'm here because I once suffered the same Christian delusions, and I want to promote critical thinking. It's not just Christianity (and all its schisms), but Islam, Judaism, Jainism, etc. The definition of who's a 'Christian' is not universal. Do you really want to live in an echo chamber? I do find it interesting that some of my comments create such Christian vitriol as to belie or falsify the notion of what is Christianity.

Setting aside his doctrinal differences, the person who projects what I was taught were the teachings of Jesus (factual or not) is Waco1947. You know, do unto others as you would have them do unto you … the Golden Rule more or less. You might even say he is persecuted for his Christian faith. The fundamentalists of the times were the ones who supposedly insisted upon the crucifixion.

---

Yes, there are multiple definitions of Christianity but most are lies. The only valid definition comes from Jesus Christ Himself. That one definition is universal because it is the only one that is accurate.

Believing in Christ is not a delusion, rejecting Him is the ultimate delusion with fateful eternal consequences. Doctrinal differences do not matter nearly as much as do the fundamentals: who Jesus is, what He did and why, what it means.

---

I don't recall Jesus being quoted with a definition of Christianity, even if you rely on the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of Thomas. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches probably have the best claim to a definition, because their early church leaders eventually dominated the discussion and eliminated/suppressed what didn't fit their developing narrative.

A critical examination of the OT, NT, or other Hellenistic, Persian, Asian mystical Iron Age beliefs doesn't support the premise that they are truths.

historian said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Once again, you are on a board loaded with Christians.

If Waco47 is your measuring stick, you learned very little in your Christian years.

My point for you is, who do you think you are trying to convert to your agnostic views? Seems like a no-win strategy on this particular board. Just observing.

---

I guess I'm just a voice in the wilderness. I'll agree that the board is loaded with pseudo Christians, very few following what Jesus likely taught.

---

Do you realize that the original "voice in the wilderness" was John the Baptist proclaiming the coming of the Messiah? It was John who called Jesus "the Lamb of God who comes to take away the sins of the world." This may have been the first statement of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

---

Do you realize that the quotes attributed to John the Baptist are from the anonymous author of John, written decades after JTB's time, whose purpose was to raise Jesus to a higher Christology for the purposes of furthering the author's theological message?

You keep making statements of opinion as if they were fact. That's hardly "scientific" or scholarly! While some "scholars" might claim the Gospel of John was written anonymously, most legitimate Bible scholars don't. They make all kinds of ridiculous claims about Jesus and His ministry, about His disciple, about Paul, and much else. These false narratives are often repeated by atheists, charlatans, people with an axe to grind, Christ-haters, & others but they always collapse under the facts, especially as presented in scripture.

For at least 150+ years (probably much more), various "experts" have been trying to cast doubts about various aspects of scripture: the accounts of the creation, the flood, other historic events, the authorship of various books, the biographies of persons in the Bible, and almost everything else. Most of their claims have been soundly refuted by genuine scholarship that takes the text seriously. Over the years, including recently, there have been several dramatic archaeological finds and other scholarship that confirm the biblical accounts of events 3,000 or 4,000 years ago.

To be honest, most of the efforts to contradict the Bible & its history are a rabbit hole, a silly waste of time for anyone who takes it seriously.

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good."
Psalm 14:1

historian said:

---

You keep making statements of opinion as if they were fact. That's hardly "scientific" or scholarly! While some "scholars" might claim the Gospel of John was written anonymously, most legitimate Bible scholars don't. They make all kinds of ridiculous claims about Jesus and His ministry, about His disciple, about Paul, and much else. These false narratives are often repeated by atheists, charlatans, people with an axe to grind, Christ-haters, & others but they always collapse under the facts, especially as presented in scripture.

For at least 150+ years (probably much more), various "experts" have been trying to cast doubts about various aspects of scripture: the accounts of the creation, the flood, other historic events, the authorship of various books, the biographies of persons in the Bible, and almost everything else. Most of their claims have been soundly refuted by genuine scholarship that takes the text seriously. Over the years, including recently, there have been several dramatic archaeological finds and other scholarship that confirm the biblical accounts of events 3,000 or 4,000 years ago.

To be honest, most of the efforts to contradict the Bible & its history are a rabbit hole, a silly waste of time for anyone who takes it seriously.

---

None of what you said is remotely true and just a repeated talking point from senile grandmothers. The idea that there are thousands of Jewish scholars that laugh at Christian scholars should at least give you some hint that intelligent and educated people don't easily come to the same conclusions as you do. I know you are pushing 100 but it is never too late to grow up.

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good."
Psalm 14:1

Trumps blinked again. He is Putin's Beech!

historian said:

---

You keep making statements of opinion as if they were fact. That's hardly "scientific" or scholarly! While some "scholars" might claim the Gospel of John was written anonymously, most legitimate Bible scholars don't. They make all kinds of ridiculous claims about Jesus and His ministry, about His disciple, about Paul, and much else. These false narratives are often repeated by atheists, charlatans, people with an axe to grind, Christ-haters, & others but they always collapse under the facts, especially as presented in scripture.

For at least 150+ years (probably much more), various "experts" have been trying to cast doubts about various aspects of scripture: the accounts of the creation, the flood, other historic events, the authorship of various books, the biographies of persons in the Bible, and almost everything else. Most of their claims have been soundly refuted by genuine scholarship that takes the text seriously. Over the years, including recently, there have been several dramatic archaeological finds and other scholarship that confirm the biblical accounts of events 3,000 or 4,000 years ago.

To be honest, most of the efforts to contradict the Bible & its history are a rabbit hole, a silly waste of time for anyone who takes it seriously.

---

Only if you redefine legitimate to exclude critical credentialed researchers and scholars. Ask the Baylor Religion Department. They'll help you out.

The evidence of reality, science and history tell us the biblical accounts of creation, both accounts, and the flood story was borrowed and embellished from ancient Canaanite and older cultures.

The rabbit hole is believing in impossible, and far-fetched myths.