Choosing a faith

quote:

---

Firstly Streeter's proposal is very nearly 100 years old. There has been a considerable amount of work done by scholars since then. The diagram on this page presupposes Markan priority, and as near as I can tell is consistent with Streeter.
Four Document Hypothesis
​

---

Which is a complete irrelevance to the fact that you told falsehoods, that you should have known to be false.

quote:

---

Now we can look at the Griesbach hypotheses which presupposes Matthean priority. There is no need of "Q". Essentially Matthew fills that function. Two Gospel Hypotheses

---

Another irrelevance.

quote:

---

As you can see, there is no need for "Q" and this was the view held by all the early church fathers

---

All? I don’t think Papias said any such thing, and the early church fathers are generally silent on the authorship of the Gospels, Papias being the exception. So I think this is an invention or in need of substantial caveats.The implied message you are sending is that you do not care about the truth, that you think it is just fine to make false claims, that there is no need to do even basic checks. And you are saying that very clearly.

quote:

---

It was kinda tongue in cheek, but you might go back and look the full discussion. It was about an area that science might and might not fill.

---

It’s hardly the first time you’ve used the phrase. It’s just a false equivalence used to dismiss a perfectly rational position.

I seriously doubt that your description in any way resembles GDR's "God".I will admit that you people here at EvC make me think outside my usual box. I will try and return the favor. Silly ringo! It was you who made up this whole attractive nuisance
rabbit trail. If I am to make up a God, I need to do more research than simply listening to ringo and jar all the time. jar wants me to throw God away for crying out loud. Some goober named Mark Mittelberg wrote a good book called The Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask: (With Answers) which will annoy ringo since he never got the opportunity to contribute to those answers. We can discuss the questions in the book specifically.

Yeah, me too, but being behind is not a bad thing. You shouldn't be feeling any pressure to respond in a timely fashion. There are no rules about how fast you have to respond. The longer you take to respond the slower the discussion will proceed. People will quickly get used to the slower pace.--Percy

This doesn't answer the question. Why do you think the number of people who believe something is evidence? My earlier example was that most of the western world believed the world flat a few hundred years ago. Presumably you agree those great numbers were not evidence of a flat world, so why do you think the number of people who believe the Bible true is evidence, however weak, that the Bible is true.The cause of many of your baseless claims is your belief that there are other ways of knowing than through observations of the natural world. You are wrong. No such "other ways of knowing" exist in any real-world way. If you want to believe they exist as a matter of faith then that's fine. If you think there is evidence for these other ways of knowing then present it.About eyewitnesses, as the constant flow of freed former felons convicted on eyewitness testimony illustrates, eyewitnesses are horribly unreliable anyway. A hundred Popes swearing on a Bible that they've witnessed God (not together but as individual personal experiences) is zero evidence. What label should we give someone who once informed they are wrong fails to discuss it and keeps repeating the error? Religious books are notoriously unreliable when it comes to the foundational stories of their religious beliefs. Sure, the Bible is evidence, but not of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Noah, Abraham or Jesus. It certainly contains historical information of kings like Sennacherib and Hezekiah and of places and regions like Jerusalem and Galilee, but other parts of the Bible completely abandon any connection to real world observational evidence, such as in the story of Job or the Book of Revelation. You keep repeating this but never get specific. Name an observation using one or more of the five senses that is recorded in the Bible and that can be shown reliable. Why can't your belief be based upon faith? Why does your faith require evidence?--Percy

What evidence leads you to believe there is anything "behind those chemical reactions in the brain"? Is your speculation about an "external intelligence" based upon evidence? If so, what is it?Arguing that the presence of good and evil and of our ability to choose between them is evidence of an "external intelligence" has a big hole because the conclusion doesn't seem to follow. Evil is even relative. A man fires his gun and kills an innocent person. That is evil. A man fires his gun and kills an enemy soldier. That is good. So much for "Thou shalt not kill."--Percy

You're making arguments that have self-evident answers. If whether a weed is ugly depends upon who is looking at it, then whether a flower is beautiful also depends upon who is looking at it. You must have realized this already. I don't understand why you made an argument containing an obvious fallacy.Hopefully you're not arguing that everything is beautiful and nothing is ugly, so I'll ignore that possibility.If both beauty and ugliness exist in the world, just as good and evil exist in the world, then if one is evidence of God, isn't its opposite evidence of the opposite of God, or at lease evidence of something other than God? If not then your argument reduces to, "That there is something rather than nothing is evidence of God."Your argument that the ability to choose between beauty and ugliness or between good and evil is evidence of God has not made sense to anyone. To everyone but you you seem to be claiming a deductive relationship between two unrelated things.--Percy

If I implied it was irrational at any point that was unintended. I have no objections to belief in anything as an article of faith.
​ Again, no objection to anyone accepting this as an article of faith.--Percy

Feel free to correct me where you think I'm wrong. NO it was NOT. YOU are the one who tried to defend the attractive nuisance. YOU are the one who tried to turn it into a "training dojo" (that kills its students). But you DON'T listen to a word I say. I have to repeat myself ad nauseam. Don't come whining to me about that. OF COURSE you should throw away the god you made up. It has no basis but your fevered imagination.And you should also throw away your pathetic need for a god that doesn't exist. Never heard of him. No doubt you call it 'good" because it has "the Asners" that you want to hear. (And that goober is pretty arrogant to think he has "the answers".) I couldn't care less about the 'answers" that some goober thinks he has. By all means, lets do that. But i predict that you'll do what you always do: when your first "stumper" is soundly refuted, you'll run away.ABE:I looked up the goober's website. All of the "links" to books on his site just poijnt back to themselves. So I did a broader search for his books and came up with "the questions":

quote:

---

"Why are Christians against same-sex people getting married? . . . Why do you believe God exists at all? . . . Why would God allow evil and suffering? . . . Why trust the Bible when it's full of mistakes? . . . How could a loving God send people to hell? . . . What makes you think Jesus was more than just a good teacher? . . . Why are Christians so judgmental?"

---

Do you seriously think we don't know what "the answers" to those questions will be? And do you seriously think we don't know what's wrong with the rote answers?

Good argument. Maybe I should be drawing a distinction between emotions that are instinctive, as compared to thoughts involving empathy, love, morality etc. Again I think that might well be the case. I am now of the belief that I was wrong and you were right. I surrender.

Good question, off topic, but I'll try and answer.First off though, the question is too general. What do you mean as necessary? Necessary for what? Also what do you understand as worship.I'd like to get an answer to those questions before going further.

What makes that more likely? There is no evidence for that.For that matter, let's say you are correct. Does that AAC give meaning and purpose to our lives. Does it have an ultimate goal? I was told that I was making up my god, and I am simply saying that my beliefs are based on the teachings of Jesus. So it is relevant but it isn't His death but HIs resurrection that is relevant.Also, yes I believe in a god of forgiveness but I also believe in a god of justice. What that looks like ultimately is above my pay grade but I pretty much go along with the thinking of CS Lewis.
​

I have no idea what you are referring to. You claimed that Matthean priority didn't do away with the need for "Q". I clearly showed you that it did and this is your reply. So, the times when you are wrong are just irrelevances. Here is a quote from Eusebius quoting Clement.
​

quote:

---

Again, in the same books Clement has set down a tradition which he had received from the elders before him, in regard to the order of the Gospels, to the following effect. He says that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first, and that the Gospel according to Mark was composed in the following circumstances:-Peter having preached the word publicly at Rome, and by the Spirit proclaimed the Gospel, those who were present, who were numerous, entreated Mark, in as much as he had attended him from an early period, and remembered what had been said, to write down what had been spoken. On his composing the Gospel, he handed it to those who had made the request to him; which coming to Peter’s knowledge, he neither hindered nor encouraged. But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.

---

Because I care so much for the truth, I have whole books on the study and have done considerable internet research. Just how much time have you put into the subject or do you just enjoy being contrary, without doing the research.

Real things don't come in ones. There isn't one mammoth or one T. Rex. AND an advanced civilization doesn't require anything supernatural. AND even if there WAS evidence of a god, it wouldn't be evidence of only ONE god. Why would we need an alien overlord to give meaning to our lives? Why would there have to be an ultimate goal? That's another question we never get an answer for: What possible relevance could Jesus' resurrection have? If God is going to forgive us, why on earth would He send His son to die, only to be resurrected again right away? Where is there an ounce if sense in that story? What could be less relevant?
​

quote:

---

I have no idea what you are referring to.

---

To start with the laughably false assertion that Matthean priority would make the arguments for Q “go away”. You couldn’t make even one of Streeter’s five arguments go away - Message 622. You can’t even justifiably claim ignorance of those arguments.

quote:

---

You claimed that Matthean priority didn't do away with the need for "Q". I clearly showed you that it did and this is your reply.

---

You did no such thing. In fact when you tried to answer Streeter’s five arguments Matthean priority played no role whatsoever. So my claim was already proven - by you.Anyway let us look again at your claimed demonstration.

quote:

---

Now we can look at the Griesbach hypotheses which presupposes Matthean priority. There is no need of "Q". Essentially Matthew fills that function. Two Gospel Hypotheses

---

As we can see all that you show is that there is a hypothesis assuming Matthean priority without Q. That does nothing to answer any of the arguments for Q. Nor does the linked page have any answers to he arguments for Q based on Matthean priority. Indeed it says: It cannot be true that generic arguments for the Two Source hypothesis would work against the Griesbach hypothesis if simply assuming Matthean Priority made them “go away”.So your assertion is indeed, irrelevant. It does not address the point I made and it does nothing to support your assertion - which it implicitly denies,So again we have you telling the most blatant falsehood, and one which looks very like an outright lie.

quote:

---

So, the times when you are wrong are just irrelevances.

---

But I am not wrong and I told the truth. It WAS irrelevant.

quote:

---

Here is a quote from Eusebius quoting Clement.

---

So, Eusebius says that Clement said that Luke and Matthew preceded Mark - but he does not say that Mark was derived from Luke and Matthew. That is rather thin pickings and according to the Wikipedia page cited above: One second-hand quote hardly shows that the early Church Fathers in general held such a view, and it seems that other views prevailed.

quote:

---

Because I care so much for the truth, I have whole books on the study and have done considerable internet research

---

That only means that you cannot claim ignorance as a defence. If you knew of the arguments for Q and knew that the assumption of Matthean priority did not make them “go away” how could you honestly claim otherwise? And if you had really done the research it seems impossible that you could not know that.

quote:

---

Just how much time have you put into the subject or do you just enjoy being contrary, without doing the research

---

I do enough to avoid telling blatant falsehoods. Obviously you do not.