Originally posted by @dj2beckerI'm just going on the aggregate opinion of hundreds of scholars who have
Do you have any compelling reason to believe that none of the gospels were written during the lifetime of the apostles?
made it their job to research such things so that you and I don't have to.
Of course you may have devoted your entire academic
life to dating the gospels in which case I apologise.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59Your reasons for not believing the Gospels are most likely not intellectual at all. They are with the vested interest of protecting other areas of your life from what you perceive as God's interference.
I'm just going on the aggregate opinion of hundreds of scholars who have
made it their job to research such things so that you and I don't have to.
Of course you may have devoted your entire academic
life to dating the gospels in which case I apologise.
The Good News to you has the effect of being Bad News for your conscience.
"The truth will make you free. But first it will piss you off."
Originally posted by @sonshipAn atheist isn't concerned with protecting himself from God's interference (In the same way he is not concerned with 'hedging his bets' ).
Your reasons for not believing the Gospels are most likely not intellectual at all. They are with the vested interest of protecting other areas of your life from what you perceive as God's interference.
The [b]Good News to you has the effect of being Bad News for your conscience.
"The truth will make you free. But first it will piss you off."[/b]
Why is this?.....Wait for it.......Atheists don't believe in God!!!
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeTell me how dirt eventually became a thinking mind with the ability to argue about God's non-existence.
An atheist isn't concerned with protecting himself from God's interference (In the same way he is not concerned with 'hedging his bets' ).
Why is this?.....Wait for it.......Atheists don't believe in God!!!
Originally posted by @sonship to Wolfgang59Wouldn't wolfgang59 need to believe that your God actually exists first if he were to believe that this God was able/wanted to 'interfere' in areas of his life?
Your reasons for not believing the Gospels are most likely not intellectual at all. They are with the vested interest of protecting other areas of your life from what you perceive as God's interference.
Originally posted by @stellspalfieNobody’s tried to convince me of that. And I’m not aware of attempts of that occurring to other Christians, at least not without threats of violence.
Do you understand the motivations of those who believe in 'false' gods wishing to convince you that your god is false?
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYou don’t buy the theory of evolution either, that the beginning of life was single-called organisms and every living thing evolved from that?
It didn't.
Originally posted by @sonshipThe first life on Earth probably appeared about 3.5 billion years ago; some of the earliest evidence comes from fossilised structures that formed on rocky shores and resemble microbial mats called stromatolites, which are still found on Earth today.
Tell me how dirt eventually became a thinking mind with the ability to argue about God's non-existence.
Almost from the moment of its origin, life began to influence – and be influenced 'BY' soil. For instance, those first microbial mats were built up from photosynthetic organisms, which could produce huge volumes of organic material using energy from the sun.
Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules—nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids—needed for the earliest form of life to get its start. Although the new work does not prove that this is how life started, it may eventually help explain one of the deepest mysteries in modern science.
Sutherland’s team argues that early Earth was a favorable setting for those reactions. HCN is abundant in comets, which rained down steadily for nearly the first several hundred million years of Earth’s history. The impacts would also have produced enough energy to synthesize HCN from hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen. Likewise, Sutherland says, H2S was thought to have been common on early Earth, as was the UV radiation that could drive the reactions and metal-containing minerals that could have catalyzed them.
That said, Sutherland cautions that the reactions that would have made each of the sets of building blocks are different enough from one another—requiring different metal catalysts, for example—that they likely would not have all occurred in the same location. Rather, he says, slight variations in chemistry and energy could have favored the creation of one set of building blocks over another, such as amino acids or lipids, in different places. “Rainwater would then wash these compounds into a common pool,” says Dave Deamer, an origin-of-life researcher at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who wasn’t affiliated with the research.
Could life have kindled in that common pool? That detail is almost certainly forever lost to history. But the idea and the “plausible chemistry” behind it is worth careful thought, Deamer says. Szostak agrees. “This general scenario raises many questions,” he says, “and I am sure that it will be debated for some time to come.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum
Originally posted by @romans1009The Theory of Evolution describes natural selection and the origin of species.
You don’t buy the theory of evolution either, that the beginning of life was single-called organisms and every living thing evolved from that?
It makes no claims about the origin of life.
It certainly doesn't talk about dirt.
You need to talk to a geologist, pedologist or edaphologist - they can all talk dirt.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59Never said the theory of evolution proposed an explanation for the origin of life. But it does claim the first life form was single-celled organisms and everything else resulted from that. The theory’s total garbage.
The Theory of Evolution describes natural selection and the origin of species.
It makes no claims about the origin of life.
It certainly doesn't talk about dirt.
You need to talk to a geologist, pedologist or edaphologist - they can all talk dirt.
Meanwhile:
'Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.'
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeThank you for posting the truth!
Meanwhile:
'Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He ...[text shortened]... hat moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.'