LC I'm trying to catch up here, you're quite a few posts ahead of me. Have a few things going on. I appreciate the engagement though.
Oh no worries, I understand - the reality is this discussion has occurred for millennia and never changes anyone's mind. We'll miss points and talk past each other, but just having the discussion is the end goal

In response to the above. Correlation does not prove causality. Look at the bold and underlined parts from the source quoted above. Firstly, according to the source Ferdinand was an "inspiration" to the conflict. It was also an important economic war with the Habsburgs. So there has to be a point where the actors in the conflict specifically and humans in general should take ownership of the conflict, from beginning to end. To argue that Jesus inspired it, there has to be causality and none of the above proves it.
This is having it both ways. "All the goodness is jesus, all the wickedness is human". What a crock of baloney!
Of course people fight and kill each other for power in the material world. The point is they use their blind faith in jesus (or mohommad or whomever) as the excuse and the means. How do you get countrymen to go kill each other? Is it by saying, "do this so my family can get richer while you die?" or by saying, "those evil wicked nonbelievers are an affront to god and we must risk our lives to cut them down! Oh and don't worry if you die you'll go to heaven!"
Jesus will bring God's judgement and the Thirty Year War will look like a tea party in comparison, so I'm not trying to suggest Jesus is some peace loving, cuddly, pacifist.
This may be a topic for another day but it is a juicy one. This is the death wish that the
truly religious have, not the pseudo religious (i.e. the cafeteria catholics, etc.). They are waiting for the world to end, so that the wheat may be separated from the chaff, and all us nonbelievers will be sent to burn in hell. To the real believer who is convinced he will end up in god's embrace, every day on earth is a toil and they cannot wait for the "other" to be punished. In my interpretation, this is sadism and a very real evil of religion and christianity.
I originally put forward the definition of TRUTH in response to your observation “I thought you were posting in support of how we are treating these folks”, exactly to point out that TRUTH is not relative to which side I’m on. How people, including myself, “know/accept something is true” has no bearing on the TRUTH.
I don't disagree that facts exist. And some of these facts may be unknown to us.
The point I am making is the one Bertrand Russel makes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapotRussell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
You believe the teapot exists, and you ask me to do the same!
However, if the Bible is true as it claims then any competing theory should be false. Evolution logically then should be false. You will disagree.
I don't disagree with this, but you must prove the bible is true.
If god exists he can create man from a gum wrapper and woman from an old tennis shoe if he wants to.
Of course, if spider-man exists then we can solve a lot of crime issues in NYC.
Convince me. What evidence "traces the evolution of homo sapiens"?
Well it's generally impossible to convince the religious, and certainly not with facts. But wikipedia provides a wealth of knowlege:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#EvidenceAs does the Smithsonian:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/Firstly, radiocarbon dating as a method is hotly debated as you will know
This is nonsense. I find it hilarious that the religious, whose method of factual verification is "trust me and my book", claim to challenge scientific rigor and independent verification. Here provides the evidence of radiometric dating:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.htmlAlso, the Braterman article you reference concludes that carbon dating is reliable.
Surely if it was a document invented by humans and exploited by different groups then someone somewhere would have tried to change the facts in the Bible to line up with the conventional wisdom of the time? How come it's always the estimates around the Bible that changes as in your section in bold above?
Well, scientific analysis changes as new facts and methodologies are introduced. Religion doesn't have this benefit (which is why as I mentioned in an earlier post, it was secular change which forced the religious to abandon slavery etc.)
As to the bible, what about the books left out of the canon? What about the different interpretations of jesus, which had to be "settled" at the council of nicea? To say the bible has been consistent (and to say they are facts) is just not true.
And this is really a moot point. The Epic of Gilgamesh far predates the Bible, and to my knowledge has been "consistent". That doesn't make it true.
God was satisfied until man rebelled against Him and then He was dissatisfied. Where's the contradiction? Contradiction is logical concept not a linguistic one. You would know that though, so what am I missing?
Why would god be surprised in something he knew would happen?
###
I'll pause here because my next response is (in my opinion) a bit of a cheap argument. But I have seen the religious use the same logic to cast doubt on scientific analysis, so let's have some fun and turn it right back around

To the second half of your post, this is all your personal interpretation of what makes a "true christian" and how to identify one who has "the spirit". And as we have established, only those with "the spirit" can interpret the bible for the rest of us.
First, if we accept your interpretation, then we must keep jesus' commands to receive "the spirit". Here are some sampled commands that we must follow to get "the spirit":
"If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."
Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear.
Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself
Do you hate your family and hate yourself? Do you not worry about your health, your hunger, your clothes and shelter? By the very fact that we frequent an investment forum, we obviously have taken thought for tomorrow. So already, neither of us are fit to receive "the spirit"
But let's keep going! (why not right?

) If we wanted to identify those with "the spirit", they will have those characteristics you listed - love, peace, kindness, gentleness...
Now apparently jesus said some stuff like:
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."Truly I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemies against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."I don't know about you, but this doesn't seem peaceful, kind, gentle, etc.. I mean, he literally says "i don't bring peace".
So apparently this jesus dude can't even follow his own commands and is unwilling of this "spirit"!
GREAT DISCUSSION. THANKS LC!!
This was a long post but hey, I stick by what I originally wrote: we'll never convince each other of anything but that isn't the point - it's an age-old discussion that's fun to have (at least when there's free time)
