TA List Debunked

[morondog]

(03-07-2016 09:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  And he was a pederast who, at the age of 45, married a 14-year-old girl.

Cultural standards of Bacon's time might have found that perfectly acceptable?

[goodwithoutgod]

(03-07-2016 09:53 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  

(28-06-2016 06:19 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  

um welcome back. I see you waited a couple years to make a reply and that was what you came back with? truly?

I'm in the last year of my B.S. right now, am enrolled full-time, and spend a lot of time with my wife. I reply when I find time. I engaged in some lengthy discussion the last time.

(28-06-2016 06:19 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  You haven't even tried to refute my well researched and cited paper on Daniel. I would have hoped in 2 years you could have at least embarked on some studying of theology. Well, my dear ineducable friend, you came to the right place. This is afterall theTHINKINGatheist, and the best experts on the bible are atheists....that's why we are atheists, we actually read it, and applied critical thinking skills and comparitive studies to it. A bit busy tonight, but I can spend a few minutes helping you. No need to thank me, teaching theists to think is my hobby. I will answer you by number to match your points in the quote above.

Many of the founders of science as we know it were the 'non-thinking theists' you deride. Sir Isaac Newton wrote analyses of Revelation and Daniel. Louis Pasteur used experiments to prove life could not arise from nothing. Sir Matthew Maury discovered ocean currents on the basis of what was written in Psalms 8:8.

And the father of empiricism and the scientific method, Sir Francis Bacon, was a Christian who openly criticized atheism and wrote against it. In the words of Bacon, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy brings about man's mind to religion: for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."

http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/EtAlia/bacon16.html

There are more thorough lists here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...technology

http://www.icr.org/article/bible-believi...ists-past/

(28-06-2016 06:19 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Let us begin:

1. No, faith does require a lack of evidence, that is how it works. If it had evidence, it wouldn't require faith, as it would just be fact.

"Faith can be without evidence but humans generally have a reason, i.e. some kind of evidence, for what they believe. Evidence is not always physical, e.g. logical evidence."

Wrong. Having a reason for faith is not the definition for evidence. People purport to believe all sorts of nonsense. The belief itself is not evidence. Being taught a lie, is not evidence, being taught that there is an unevidenced transcendental god who designed everything is not evidence.

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.

There is ZERO proof of god.

Scientists have faith in the scientific method and their findings. Faith is just another word for trust. And trust can be placed with varying degrees of evidence. Very few people would trust without evidence.

And there is proof for God. A number of factors about the universe don't fit the Big Bang model and in some cases directly indicate God. For example, under atheistic predictions the universe expansion rate should have been slowing down after the Big Bang. However, the 1998 Hubble Telescope discoveries revealed that it is speeding up, consistent with what the Bible says about a Creator who spreads out the universe.

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/foc...rk-energy/

Another example would be the lack of antimatter. Under a purely naturalistic Big Bang equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created, but the antimatter is missing.

http://press.cern/backgrounders/matteran...-asymmetry

(28-06-2016 06:19 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Incidentally, there is ZERO first hand evidence for jesus. No one who EVER wrote of jesus, knew him. Not even Paul. No, his story of a hallucination while on the road to Damascus doesn't qualify. Why? One, people who see shit that no one else does is having a hallucination. Two, since his story is uncorroborated, his testimony doesn't count because he is the leader of the cult, thus he will, by design, say anything to create belief. That is how cults work.

Once again, Joseph's and Tacitus were some of the best historians in the world during the 1st century B.C. and mentioned Jesus. Neither was the type known for shoddy research or careless claims.

And you're ignoring the Gospels of Matthew and John and the epistles of Peter, James, John, and Jude. Even Luke interviewed Mary just as Matthew did Joseph when writing their Gospels.

oh dear

Josephus Flavius, (37–100 CE) the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Josephus, a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

You do realize those gospels were not written by their namesakes right? They are pseudonymous works.

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

Matthew: generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer.

I find it interesting that the writer of matthew refers to "matthew" in the third person. Matthew claims jesus was born in "the days of herod the king." Yet Herod died in 4 BCE. Luke reports that jesus was born "when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria." Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 CE...that is a discrepancy of 9 years. Luke says Jesus was born during a roman census, and it is true there was a census in 6 CE. This would have been when jesus was 9 years old according to matthew. There is no evidence of an earlier census during the reign of Augustine. Which is true?

Matthew also reports that Herod slaughtered all first born in the land in order to execute jesus. No historian, contemporary or later, ever mentions this alleged genocide, an event that should have caught someones attention....like the many miraculous stories of jesus, no one at the time thought they were cool enough to record...odd don't you think?

Mark: Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative. Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories. All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). However, many modern scholars reject this view. The most probable date for Luke-Acts is around 80-100 CE, the anonymous author using as his sources the Gospel of Mark, a sayings collection called Q, and some unique Lukan material called the L source.

The author is not named in either volume. According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself; this view is still sometimes advanced, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters." (An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17-24).)

He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately. In summary, the Gospel of Luke was written by an anonymous author. The Gospel wasn't written and does not claim to be written by direct witnesses to the reported events.

He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.

Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110. The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward. There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 7: (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon). 2 of them (Ephesians, Colossians) scholars are divided on their authenticity, and of course 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus are pseudepigrapha. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. (hallucination/lie)The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.

References:

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Moule, C. F. D., The birth of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Print

Lieu, Samuel N. C., and Montserrat, Dominic, Constantine: History, Historiography, and Legend. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

O'Collins, Gerald, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Carrier, Richard, On the historicity of jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

Faith is the belief in something without evidence...if there were evidence, it wouldn't require faith as it would simply be fact. No one who ever wrote of jesus knew him. This isn't opinion, this is fact. If you had gotten a degree in religious studies with specialization in Christianity and lengthy study in the NT as I did, you would know that.

[goodwithoutgod]

(03-07-2016 09:56 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  

(28-06-2016 06:19 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  2. "We agree on the definition of delusion which applies quite well to atheism. Life is far too diverse and complex to deny a Creator."

To believe in something even in the face of superior evidence to the contrary is delusion. Atheism is one who doesn't believe in god/s. Theists believe in god and the bible even in the face of superior evidence to the contrary. There is zero evidence for god or jesus the miracle performing super star. Nice try though.

Life is not designed in such a way to suggest a creator. Take some biology classes. Look up vestigial organs, and dormant genes. Look up the design of the eye by richard dawkins.

In fact when we peel back the layers to life, we find exactly what we would expect to find from an organism that evolved from lesser forms, turning off genes as it mutated successfully for survival. What we dont find is VOILA! life! If we were created, we wouldnt have recessive and dormant genes which trace our evolutionary crawl, we wouldnt have vestigial organs and bone formations wihtin our bodies that are still leftover in physical form from our evolutionary crawl.

When we look at fossil evidence, we don't see nothing, then BAM! all life in its current form, then BAM! mythical global flood kills all life. What we do find is exaclty what evolutinary science predicted...layers upon layers of simpler and simpler forms of life going back millions of years.

I've taken University level biology and anthropology thank you very much. And vestigial organs interpreted as nonfunctional remnants of Evolution from a common ancestor like the appendix and coccyx have been shown to have function after all.

http://www.bereawiki.com/Creationism#Vestigiality

And actually that is what the fossil record shows. The fossil record looks nothing like the steady gradual progression predicted by Darwin. Instead microevolution steadily occurs within core types of life, genera, Biblical kinds/baramin, and then brand new types pop into the fossil record. This is a serious fatal weakness for the theory of Evolution which is why it had to be repackaged as "punctuated equilibrium" by Gould and Eldredge in the 1970s.

http://www.bereawiki.com/Creationism#Pun...quilibrium

(28-06-2016 06:19 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  3. "What differentiates the evangelical atheist intent on spreading their beliefs and enforcing them via government regulation from a religious person? A religion is just a belief system, and atheism is a religion."


Wrong. Atheism is not a belief, it is just the opposite. We do not believe in a god because there is zero evidence for a god, and overwhelming evidence against a god existing.

Science is the antithesis of faith. Science is a process that contains multiple and redundant checks, balances, and safeguards against human bias and error. Science has a built in corrective mechanism..hypothesis testing...that weeds out false claims. Claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are held as tentatively true by scientists..unlike claims of faith that are held as eternally true with zero evidence. Related to this, claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are falsifiable, that is, there is a way to show the claims are false. This is not the case with faith claims. For example, there's no way to falisify the claim that the norse god Loki was able ot assume other forms.

Scientists try to prove claims false (falsification), unlike faith leaders who unequivocally state their faith claims are true. If a scientist can demonstrate that a popular scientific claim is false, he or she can become famous, get tenure, publish books, earn more money and become respected by her or his peers. If a preacher states that the claims of his faith tradition are false, he's excommunicated, defrocked or otherwise forced to abandon his position...the stifling of growth and enlightenment basically.

Science is a method for advancing our understanding. It is process we can use to bring us closer to the truth, and to weed out false claims. Science thus is the best way we've currently found to explain and understand how the universe works...unlike the religious leaders who base it on a superstitious fictional book put together and sold to the masses. The greatest pyramid scheme in history: religion. Money goes up, noting of intrinsic value comes down.

If science were the "antithesis of faith" then why have so many of its founders and greatest thinkers been Bible-believing-scientists-past Christians?

Take evolutionary science before you finish your academic studies, it will be eye-opening for you.

Evolution isn't debatable, it is predictable, observable and falsifiable.

1) As the huge array of drug-resistant pathogens grows we are learning that evolution is easiest to observe in species with a quick generation turnover. Since 1988, in the lab of Richard Lenski, the evolution of twelve E. coli populations from a single ancestor strain has been studied. Since then, over 50,000 generations of E. coli have been and gone, and the differences between the populations and each population from the ancestor strain have been documented. With samples of each population taken regularly, the accumulated genetic changes can be followed with ease. Over time the bacteria have become far more efficient at growing under the conditions used. This study has provided evidence of how evolution actually occurs. One of the populations developed the ability to utilize citrate as a nutrient, something otherwise unknown in E. coli under similar conditions.

2) Studying evolution can take decades, but occasionally change happens incredibly rapidly. The Blue Moon Butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina) of the Samoan islands was being attacked by a parasite which destroyed male embryos. This led to a gender imbalance whereby males made up only 1% of the butterfly population. However, within ten generations (~1 year) males had returned to 40% of the population. This is not because the parasite has disappeared, it is still present, but it is no longer deadly to male embryos. This case shows how a mutation giving an advantage can rapidly spread throughout a population. Any male with the ability to survive infection would be able to mate with a great many females, due to the paucity of other males, and spread his immunity through the gene pool.

3) The medium ground finch was well established on the isle of Daphne, and had been studied in depth. Its beak was suited perfectly for cracking large nuts. In 1982, the large ground finch from a neighboring island arrived. These larger finches could drive away the native medium ground finches and would eat all the large nuts. Over the period of study, the medium ground finches of Daphne island were found to have developed smaller beaks more suited to the smaller nuts, ignored by the invading larger finches. This is a classic study in evolutionary biology.

4) In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards (Podarcis sicula) were introduced to the island of Pod Mrčaru from a neighboring island. The lizards were left for decades, and compared to the colony from which they were taken. The wall lizards on Pod Mrčaru, having passed through a tiny genetic bottleneck, were found to have thrived and adapted to their new island. They were found to have shifted from a mainly insectivorous diet to one heavy in vegetation. This diet change seems to have driven dramatic changes in the lizards. The head of the Pod Mrčaru lizards is larger, and has a far greater bite force. These are key adaptations for dealing with chewing leaves. The most exciting sign of evolution is the development of cecal valves, muscles used to separate portions of the intestine. These serve to slow the passage of food through the intestine and give time for the bacteria in the gut to breakdown the plant matter for absorption. This is an entirely novel development in the Italian wall lizard, and a major adaptation.

5) The example of the peppered moth is a nice one for textbooks because it uses a single trait. Speciation involves many mutations leading to significant changes. The yellow bellied three-toed skink (Saiphos equalis) is a lizard of New South Wales, in Australia, that appears to be undergoing the change from laying eggs to live birth. Since these skinks can either lay eggs or give birth, it gives scientists the chance to study the adaptations necessary for live birth. Skink embryos encased in an egg have an extra source of calcium that the live born skinks lack. It turns out that this nutritional difference is made up by the mother secreting extra calcium for the young held inside her. This looks like the first step on the road to developing a system like the mammalian placenta. Skinks living on the coast tend to lay eggs, probably because the warm weather is predictable and sufficient for embryonic development. Those skinks living in the cooler mountains tend to give birth to live young, the mother’s body providing a more stable temperature. It is to be predicted that these two populations will at some point separate into different species as each population becomes fixed in its reproductive strategy. This brings up a common question in creationists – If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Well, with the skinks we would see two species formed, an egg laying and a live birthing species. Each would be best suited for their habitat. If live birthing skinks evolved from egg layers, why are there still egg layers? Because each is adapted for its niche.

The eye is always a fun topic, The anatomy of the human eye, in fact, shows anything but "intelligence" in its design. it is built upside down and backwards, requiring photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, acquaeous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses....which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns. For optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards?

Hox genes: Embryos temporarily take on the characteristics of their ancestral species, such as human embryos having gill arches, a tail, eyes on the sides of the head, a tube-shaped heart, and ear-bones in the jaw during development, all of which vanish in later development. Just as Hox Genes make it possible for species to easily change forms and configurations, the stages of fetal development can change to produce very different characteristics in an organism.

Here let’s take it back to evolution, take it up a notch, and look at the next deeper level of evolution. The human ABO blood group system is controlled by alleles at a single locus on chromosome 9. The alleles encode glycosyltransferases, which add different sugar residues to the terminal part of the oligosaccharide core, thus generating the A or B antigens; an allele encoding enzymatically inactive protein is responsible for the blood group O. The A and B antigens are present not only in humans, but also in many other primate species and it has been proposed that the AB polymorphism was established long before these species diverged. Here we provide molecular evidence for the trans-species evolution of the AB polymorphism. Polymerase-chain reaction (PCR) amplification and sequencing has revealed that the critical substitutions differentiating the A and B genes occurred before the divergence of the lineages leading to humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. This polymorphism is therefore at least 13 million years old and is most likely maintained by selection. Comparison of the sequences derived from different species indicates that the difference in enzymatic activities between the A and B transferases is caused by two single nucleotide substitutions responsible for Leu-Met and Gly-Ala replacement at positions 265 and 267 in the polypeptide chains, respectively.

The three living monophyletic divisions of Class Mammalia are the Prototheria (monotremes), Metatheria (marsupials), and Eutheria (`placental' mammals). Determining the sister relationships among these three groups is the most fundamental question in mammalian evolution. Phylogenetic comparison of these mammals by either anatomy or mitochondrial DNA has resulted in two conflicting hypotheses, Theria and Marsupionta, and has fueled a ``genes versus morphology'' controversy. We have cloned and analyzed a large nuclear gene, the mannose 6-phosphate/insulin-like growth factor II receptor (M6P/IGF2R), from representatives of all three mammalian groups, including platypus, echidna, opossum, wallaby, hedgehog, mouse, rat, rabbit, cow, pig, bat, tree shrew, colugo, ringtail lemur, and human. Statistical analysis of this nuclear gene unambiguously supports the morphology-based Theria hypothesis that excludes monotremes from a clade of marsupials and eutherians. The M6P/IGF2R was also able to resolve the finer structure of the eutherian mammalian family tree. In particular, our analyses support sister group relationships between lagomorphs and rodents, and between the primates and Dermoptera. Statistical support for the grouping of the hedgehog with Feruungulata and Chiroptera was also strong.

The genetic code, formerly thought to be frozen, is now known to be in a state of evolution. This was first shown in 1979 by Barrell et al. (G. Barrell, A. T. Bankier, and J. Drouin, Nature [London] 282:189-194, 1979), who found that the universal codons AUA (isoleucine) and UGA (stop) coded for methionine and tryptophan, respectively, in human mitochondria. Subsequent studies have shown that UGA codes for tryptophan in Mycoplasma spp. and in all nonplant mitochondria that have been examined. Universal stop codons UAA and UAG code for glutamine in ciliated protozoa (except Euplotes octacarinatus) and in a green alga, Acetabularia. E. octacarinatus uses UAA for stop and UGA for cysteine. Candida species, which are yeasts, use CUG (leucine) for serine. Other departures from the universal code, all in nonplant mitochondria, are CUN (leucine) for threonine (in yeasts), AAA (lysine) for asparagine (in platyhelminths and echinoderms), UAA (stop) for tyrosine (in planaria), and AGR (arginine) for serine (in several animal orders) and for stop (in vertebrates). We propose that the changes are typically preceded by loss of a codon from all coding sequences in an organism or organelle, often as a result of directional mutation pressure, accompanied by loss of the tRNA that translates the codon. The codon reappears later by conversion of another codon and emergence of a tRNA that translates the reappeared codon with a different assignment. Changes in release factors also contribute to these revised assignments.

Evidence of evolution is all around us, ongoing....to refute evolution is to refute sunlight.

Here since you need assistance in understanding evolution, here are pictures:

http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reas...oftheEarth

Textbooks you will have when you take evolutionary science:

https://vialogue.wordpress.com/2012/05/0...es-review/

https://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/05/23...er-review/

and some info on the imperfect design of our bodies.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-most-unfortun...1518242787

Read, think, evolve.

[Deesse23]

(04-07-2016 12:49 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Read, think, evolve.

Very interesting read, thx.
Just so you dont think noone will read this anyway

[Aliza]

(03-07-2016 09:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 09:53 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  I'm in the last year of my B.S. right now, am enrolled full-time, and spend a lot of time with my wife. I reply when I find time. I engaged in some lengthy discussion the last time.

B.S. in what?

Angelology

(It's really a thing)

[morondog]

(04-07-2016 02:00 PM)Aliza Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 09:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  B.S. in what?

Angelology

(It's really a thing)

[Chas]

(04-07-2016 12:10 AM)morondog Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 09:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  And he was a pederast who, at the age of 45, married a 14-year-old girl.

Cultural standards of Bacon's time might have found that perfectly acceptable?

That was actually part of my point. That someone a few hundred years ago in a society which punished heresy was a believer and a scientist is not very interesting and smacks more than a little of presentism.

[Chas]

(04-07-2016 02:00 PM)Aliza Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 09:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  B.S. in what?

Angelology

(It's really a thing)

'Really' in the sense that people really have these delusions.

Bible.org Wrote:The fact that God has created a realm of personal beings other than mankind is a fitting topic for systematic theological studies for it naturally broadens our understanding of God, of what He is doing, and how He works in the universe.

They are using 'fact' in an unintentionally ironic manner.

This is a shining example of the utter emptiness and pointlessness of Theology.

[Aliza]

(05-07-2016 09:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 02:00 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Angelology

(It's really a thing)

'Really' in the sense that people really have these delusions.

Bible.org Wrote:The fact that God has created a realm of personal beings other than mankind is a fitting topic for systematic theological studies for it naturally broadens our understanding of God, of what He is doing, and how He works in the universe.

They are using 'fact' in an unintentionally ironic manner.

This is a shining example of the utter emptiness and pointlessness of Theology.

I learned the term "angelology" when presented with a "PhD" program from an online christian "college" which promises to award you with a PhD from a list of several fields of study. This can be earned by sending $99.95 to said university and checking the box with the field of study you'd like to be recognized in.

Angelology was among several other equally amusing programs of study. "Angel counseling" and "spiritual guidance" were on the list as well.

I wish I still had a link to that site.

[TheInquisition]

(05-07-2016 09:46 AM)Aliza Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 09:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  'Really' in the sense that people really have these delusions.


They are using 'fact' in an unintentionally ironic manner.

This is a shining example of the utter emptiness and pointlessness of Theology.

I learned the term "angelology" when presented with a "PhD" program from an online christian "college" which promises to award you with a PhD from a list of several fields of study. This can be earned by sending $99.95 to said university and checking the box with the field of study you'd like to be recognized in.

Angelology was among several other equally amusing programs of study. "Angel counseling" and "spiritual guidance" were on the list as well.

I wish I still had a link to that site.

I have a fundamentalist background, but this nonsense surprises me:

Angelology Trinity College

Sounds a lot like the crap they blathered about in the fundamentalist church I was raised in.

Gotta be a good Christian or a demon will jump out of nowhere and latch onto you.