DirtyChai

The vast majority of the bible has nothing to do with ancient perspectives of the universe, nor how the natural world works. The creation story for example is barely a page and a half long. We know that scribal transmission of Hebrew scriptures was a rather meticulous undertaking. - Each column had to have between 48 and 60 lines. - Each word had to be verbalized before copying it. - Every paragraph, word and letter had to be counted. - The middle paragraph, middle word and middle letter of every page had to correspond to the manuscript being copied. - If any letters touched each other it was voided. - if more than 2 pages needed any minor corrections then the manuscript had to be rewritten. The reliability of this process was validated by the Dead Sea Scrolls that had a 95% word for word accuracy rate when compared to Masoretic manuscripts written a thousand years later. Correct, Jesus is believed to be God incarnate, but apart from that, one could also believe that God is an invisible omnipresent force, given the text. It should also be noted that while those two "complete" versions were dated around the 4th century, there are also individual manuscripts dating back to 125-250 CE

It appears Paul is commending them for keeping up with some type of tradition. He seems to have a strong opinion on the issue, but he really doesn't seem to be that adamant about it. If you read on, he says "Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman." He says to them "Judge for yourselves." There seems to be a sense that he doesn't want anyone being "contentious" about it, because they have "no such practice, nor do the churches of God." I could be wrong tho. I'd have to take a closer look at the original language to be sure. First it should be clear that he's not talking about non-believers: 1 Corinthians 5: 10,12: "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world. . .For what have I to do with judging outsiders?" He was basically scolding the Church for boasting about the acceptance of immorality "that is not tolerated even among pagans. . ." Paul was talking about the pervasiveness of sin, and the church just let it slide. I highly doubt you have a problem when non-religious people call out hypocrite preachers for cheating on their wives with prostitutes or by having gay sex in bathrooms, so why deny Paul that same privileged? If the Catholic Church had leaders like Paul 50 years ago, then perhaps all the sexual abuse wouldn't have gone unchecked for so long. . . Why would he have to give a list? He talks about how they already heard testimony: Corinthians 15:15: "More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead." And much of that Testimony could have come from Peter himself. If You look back at 1 Corinthians 1:11-13 it's seems that Peter visited Corinth and unintentionally started some factions: "For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? . . . It may seem off to you because: 1 - you haven't finished reading. 2 - Either you haven't comprehended that which you did read, or you're just superficially glazing over the text looking for selective quotes that fit a biased narrative. You seem to be fixed on the idea that Paul only stayed with Peter for those 15 days a few years after his conversion. You don't seem to remember that Paul was concerned that what he was preaching may have been in vain, so he went back to Jerusalem where Peter, John and James approved of his message. You seem to have missed the part when Peter was in Corinth and other cities where Paul was preaching. It was a concerted effort. At times they agreed, other times not so much. Peter might agree with you: 2 Peter 3:15–16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. Anyway, best regards. Thanks for the discussion. I hope it benefits you in one way or another.

I think that before we either accept or reject a set of passages in scripture and offer commentary, it's important to understand to the best of our ability what it is those passages are actually trying to convey. Sometimes building a historical, cultural and circumstantial context can provide some insight. Just curious, did you finish reading Paul's letters? I know you said that 1 Corinthians was next on your list, but did you finish reading beyond that? Because it seems to me that you may have only superficially glazed over the text while relying on wiki links to guide your confirmation bias. If you read, you'd see that many times Paul says things like "You believed the Gospel that we preached," or "You believed our testimony." Paul talks about how he would preach, reason and persuade people for weeks at a time. When Paul was in Berea the Jews searched the scriptures daily to see if what he said was true. These references imply that there was a lot more to Paul's teachings than what's written in his small collection of letters. Again if you actually read, you's see that he did. One issue with the Corinthian Church was that they were disorganized and divisions started to develop when they gathered. Some people were getting drunk and some were stuffing their faces while others went hungry. Paul was pretty upset so he taught them that it should be a time of self reflection and referenced the last supper, directly quoting Jesus. When Paul was is in Prison, there seemed to be a sense of fear among the Philippians, so he tried to offer comfort by encouraging them to have the same mindset as Jesus. To do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. To humble themselves. To look at the interests of others rather than just their own. He taught that tho Jesus was equal to God, he did not use that equality for his own advantage, but rather humbled himself. Now you probably won't accept that even though it satisfies both your qualifiers. Anytime something comes up that shows you might be wrong you just say, well that's not enough, that was probably added at a later time, that's just a forgery. How convenient. You can't seem to get that earworm out of your head. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over. You: I just can't understand why Paul hardly mentions Jesus. Response: Actually, he mentions him several hundred times. You: Ya, well Christianity is all about Jesus's death and resurrection and Paul hardly ever mentions it. Response: Actually Paul talks quite extensively about the death and resurrection of Christ, how it related to the OT scriptures and what it means for believers. You: Ya, well he doesn't talk about finding Jesus's parents and, you know, walking on water and stuff like that. Response: No, because those things weren't relevant to the issues he was addressing. You: Well, he should've responded with Jesus said this and Jesus did that, he's hardly mentioned. Response: If you read, you'd see that he did. (Rinse, Repeat) It's already been shown multiple times how Paul wasn't silent. As for the others, did it ever occur to you that perhaps their silence may have something to do with being terrified out of their minds? Church leaders were continually being arrested and beaten repeatedly. Many were killed for their beliefs. If those in power at the time were so concentrated on thwarting the spread of Christianity, does it follow that their should be extensive writings about it? It's a miracle any of it survived.

But converted nonetheless. How long do you think it would take to fill one in on the everyday details of Jesus's life - A day, a week, a month? I mentioned earlier as an example that the Church in Rome had been established for almost 10 years when Paul decided to write them, and he didn't convert any of them. He didn't even visit that Church. I'm trying to build a reasonable and realistic context from the information that we actual have. You're basically making arguments from silence. If Paul had written a letter entitled "The Wonderful Miracles of Jesus" and none of it included the miracles found in the gospels, then your argument might have some validity. In Corinth for example, the people were asking Paul to address contemporary issues that they were facing. They weren't inquiring about everyday details of Jesus's life. If they did, then you might have a point, but they didn't.

Fair enough, but you did say "the house of David." Paul never phrased it that way in his letters. As far as the NT is concerned, it's only used in the gospel. Personally, I think that the statement "James, the lord's brother" is rather straightforward. There's really nothing ambiguous about it. There's nothing that jumps off the page prompting one to pull it apart and dismiss it, unless of course it's not inline with ones preconceptions. Exactly right. Belief in the death and resurrection of Christ is essential to being a Christian, which is probably why Paul quite often focused more on that aspect than any other part of Jesus's life. So I don't understand why you insist on framing your argument like that, suggesting that he never mentioned it. After being called out on this, you clarified that what you really meant was why Paul doesn't talk more about Jesus's daily life, activities, quotes, etc. So why not just keep your argument framed that way rather than galloping back n' forth ad nauseam? What's ludicrous is putting Paul in a box and basically saying how dare he write anything about contemporary Christianity apart from the daily activities of Jesus's life! You started this thread with various arguments and then added to the list, posting various wiki links as you verbosely galloped along. Surely some of these arguments are worthy of their own thread? Again, Paul's letters were written to seasoned believers that were most likely already familiar with the life of Jesus. You're acting like Paul was their only source of knowledge and/or spiritual enlightenment. You're acting like Paul's small collection of letters were the full extent of his teachings and influence over the course of a 30+ year ministry.

Your quote: "it could mean that James was from the House of David, which was claimed for Jesus" Where in the Old Testament does it claim that Jesus was the Messiah, from the house of David? And if the claim isn't in there, where did you get that idea from? You were wondering why Paul in his epistles didn't talk ad nausem about the daily events in Jesus's life. I gave you an answer, but you completely ignored it. So again, I'll rephrase it in the form of a question: Why would Paul, in his letters have to continually reiterate the events of Jesus's life to congregations of seasoned believers that were most likely already well informed about those events, whether by Peter, Paul or other early believers/church leaders? I'd say the gospel was fresh in Paul's mind till the day he died regardless if he took any notes or not. Even if he did, it's unlikely that they'd survive very long considering he was practically homeless, traveling a lot, shipwrecked several times and repeatedly beaten and emprisoned. That's probably why the only writings we have of his are in the form of letters sent to other churches where they had a chance at being preserved

Wait a minute, you were the one that referenced the gospels in the first place when you suggested that James was from the "House of David," rather than the literal brother of Jesus as Paul stated. I simply used the same standard that you did by referencing the gospels, but provided a context that might offer more insight into what Paul meant when he said "brother." That's the problem, Paul didn't "just recently" meet with Peter and James when he wrote his epistles. He met them just a few years after his conversion, well before the churches in his letters even existed. Paul was writing to congregations of well grounded believers with their own set of leaders in Churches that had already been established for years. For example, the Church in Rome had already been around for almost 10 years when Paul decided to write them from afar. It wasn't like Paul's letters were a collection of bible tracks aimed at non-believers with the hope of converting them - that ground work had already been established, whether by Paul, or other apostles and early believers. If you were in Paul's shoes, would you you establish a Church and repeat the same events of Jesus's daily life ad nauseam for 10 years, and then send letters to everyone from afar about the same life events? Paul was essentially writing doctrine for these churches, he was addressing contemporary issues and problems within those churches. There was a need for people to understand what it meant for Jesus to be the Christ and how it related to OT scriptures that many gentile believers were unfamiliar with. Finally, he was giving instruction on how to practically apply these teachings to their daily lives.

There are other passages with more context about his brothers/sisters/family/relatives that you may not find as ambiguous: Matthew 13:53-57 : And when Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.” Mark 6:1-4 : He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” Mark 3:20-21; 31-32 : then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat. And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.” And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” Paul refers to Jesus/Christ approximately 623 times in his epistles.

Personally, I felt such restrictions were unwarranted given that the previous administration had already addressed problems with the system. In 2008, the family reunification program was suspended not because of a security threat, but because of fraud. It was found that people from Kenya and Nigeria weren't actually related to those granted asylum in the U.S. In 2011, it was discovered that Iraqi operatives infiltrated the Iraqi refugee program. As a result, that program was also suspended to address the problem. The operatives were arrested for arms dealing and plotting attacks against former military personnel they encountered back in Iraq. Having said that, we still have to look at the data to see if these policies actually limited the overall number of "non-whites." BTW, "Non-whites" is a rather poor choice of words considering the amount of immigrants coming from various parts of Africa, India, and China that weren't subject to such policies. There is also a proposal to cut immigration overall by 50% within 10 years, but pushback and criticism from both the left and the right will most likely result in it's failure. So again, the case for the problem of white nationalism worsening is speculative at best. No, this is neither a signal, nor an indication that the problem with white nationalism is worsening. And it's not just because these people get very little support, but because they've already reared their ugly heads to a greater extent in the recent past. Your link showed an exhaustive list of 17 right wing extremists/supremacists, 5 of which have already lost. James Ulsup won the renowned high office of the most prestigious Whitman County Republican Precinct Committee Officer [/sarcasm] - But he only won because he went unchallenged - and now the GOP has denounced him and desperately searching for loopholes to remove him, so what does that tell you? The rest of the pack probably doesn't have much of a chance either. Art Jones thinks he can win in Illinois (Chicago) against a guy named Dan Lipinski. It just goes to show how delusional these people are. I would definitely agree that this is a case of Trump "emboldening" white supremacists if Jones wasn't doing this same thing for the past 50 years - hasn't won yet. But anyway, back to my point. Compare your ADL list of 17 extremist candidates in 2018 to a list compiled by the SPLC in 2010 of 23 extremists candidates, 5 of which actually won. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/electoral-extremism-23-candidates-radical-right This is just another example of the data showing that the problem really isn't getting worse. And that pretty much holds true for almost everything we argue about today given the fact that we have 24 hour on demand access to bolster whatever negative perspective we want. Anger is a very powerful stimulant, and we as a nation are practically addicted to it. But overall, things tend to get better and progress marches onward. I understand that the majority doesn't like Trump, therefore the perception of racism is heightened in order to link it all to back to him and get him out of office - and I suppose that's all fair game. Just don't get yourself killed over it by picking a fight with a bunch of delusional rednecks over a statue. I think there are more constructive ways to fight hate, and your link to ADL is a very good starting point. Thanks for posting that. As for the rest of your post, I don't really have much to add. I hope you don't feel that I'm just trying to dismiss your points. I really enjoy reading your posts and appreciate your thoughtful response. Cheers!

That's fine, you can selectively quote my post and play dumb if you want, but you're not fooling anyone. I had a legitimate reason for making the comparison, I'm sorry you refuse to see it.

Right, because we ignore black separatists like we should. They just march around with their guns in a lonely circle-jerk. We don't have these massive counter-protests against them so they never escalate to the point where people get hurt or even killed. And that was the point I initially stated in my original post - that we should ignore white nationalists just as we do black separatists, effectively making them powerless. Charlottesville was an exercise in futility, and nothing good can came from disorganized debacles like that. Our time would be better spent protesting institutional racism, not risking our lives because of some dumb statue. Exactly, don't believe the hype that the problem with white nationalism is worsening as propagated throughout social media, because it's not. If you disagree, please provide supporting documentation for your claim. I'm still waiting. . .

Right, and in response I posted examples where they did exactly that. It's not a matter of "if." Now you're just moving the goal posts - and ya, they do that too. But that initially wasn't my point in bringing this up. This isn't about "whataboutism," or whatever you want to call it. My point was that black separatists are just dismissed as a bunch of wack jobs. Nobody empowers them by entertaining their hateful message. They have the right to say whatever they want, but it isn't until they start acting on their threats that I become concerned. That's why I think it's foolish, and dangerous to incite naive young people to confront these psychopathic white supremacists over some stupid statue that was going to be destroyed anyway. The supremacists have already lost. It's not worth the exasperation, it's not worth starting a race war, it's not worth your life. Trump will be gone soon along with this temporal delusion of a dystopia and the "downward trend" toward equality will persist. I think our time would be better spent fighting institutionalized racism, racist lobbyists, and white supremacists seeking public office, rather than entertaining a bunch of double digit IQ racists bitching about some statue that nobody really cares about. Unfortunately tho for us, the human brain desperately seeks stimulation, and it seems anger is the path of least resistance regardless of how displaced it is. I know, I simply posted a quote illustrating how you're in agreement. Dude, that's just lame. Now I suppose we can just blame russia in order to cast doubt and dismiss any data that isn't inline with our world view? I should remind you that most of the data I provided was being accumulated over a period of almost 20 years, far before russia's supposed meddling. The SPLC doesn't list BLM and keyboard warrior blacktivists as hate groups. Can you please provide sources for your claims so that I know exactly what it is you're talking about? ...and btw, I'm still waiting for supporting documentation for the initial claim by iNow that "the problem with white nationalism is worsening." Where would you put your money?

I'm not suggesting that the media is driving racism, just the perception that it's worsening. You claimed that the "problem with white nationalism is worsening." I illustrated how the number white nationalist groups among other racists peaked around the middle of Obama's presidency. They were outwardly protesting much in the same way they do today. They were protesting against immigration, they were protesting Holocaust museums, they were protesting against changing the names of parks that were dedicated to confederate leaders, they had keynote speakers addressing the Federalist Society which is one of the most influential legal institutions in the country. Some of these protests were met with opposition while others weren't. And while these numbers peaked during Obama's term, he didn't pay them much attention and there wasn't this preoccupation with them as there is today - and looked what happened - white nationalist and skinhead groups dropped by nearly 50% while the KKK dropped from 272 groups down to 72. Furthermore, hate crimes have been on a downward trend since 2001 and seemingly reached an all time low in 2014. https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/aIoTc/1/ There was a slight uptick in 2016 due to an increase in hate crimes against whites and Muslims, but we can expect to see the downward trend continue just as it has with it's various fluctuation. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/us/hate-crimes-muslim-white-fbi-trnd/index.html https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2017/09/01/racist-behaviour-is-declining-in-america The SPLC is very meticulous when it comes to identifying hate groups. Their lists are compiled using "hate group publications and websites, individual and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports. Most of these newer groups are additional chapters of well documented black separatist organizations like the Nation of Islam and the New black panthers. Also, SPLC specifically states that "black nationalists, however, should not be confused with the many non-racist African-American organizations that work for social justice and the elimination of institutional racism in America." The majority of Black Separitist groups are extremely anti-Semitic. They can be found on the streets in combat uniforms with assault rifles spouting off their hatred. "Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets!" "Our lessons talk about the bloodsuckers of the poor… . It's that old no-good Jew, that old imposter Jew, that old hooked-nose, bagel-eating, lox-eating, Johnny-come-lately, perpetrating- a-fraud, just-crawled-out-of-the-caves-and-hills-of-Europe, so-called damn Jew … " "I hate white people. All of them. Every last iota of a cracker, I hate it. We didn't come out here to play today." “The revolution is on, off the pigs. Time to pick up the gun, off the pigs. Oink Oink… Bang Bang!” "Kill all white men, women, babies, blind, crippled, faggots, lesbians and old crackers, then dig them up and kill them again." From The SPLC: If we seek to expose white hate groups, we cannot be in the business of explaining away the black ones. To CharonY: Good post overall - lot's of content. The two points that stood out the most to me are how the graphs plot out the number of groups, but not membership. Also, how black separatists don't generally find themselves in positions of political power. Two points worthy of more research.

I can agree that the problem seems to be worsening, but that's most likely due to various news outlets and social media giving more attention to these trolls rather than ignoring them like we have for the past 30-40 years. The fact is that the number of white hate groups have been on the decline. According to SPLC figures, white nationalist groups are down nearly 50% since they peaked in 2011. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/white-nationalist KKK groups are down to their lowest number in almost 20 years, maybe even longer. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/ku-klux-klan Racist skinhead groups are also down nearly 50% since they peaked in 2012. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/racist-skinhead Interestingly enough however, the number of black separatist groups have been on the rise and have more than doubled over the past 4-5 years. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/black-nationalist We just don't hear about it because nobody cares. Nobody empowers these trolls by giving them a platform and entertaining their hateful nonsense - and we should treat white supremacy groups the same way.

Ok, so just to clarify everything: You posted a link to an article from Evolution News by Casey Luskin - https://evolutionnews.org/2014/08/evolutionary_st/ From that article you agreed with the following Quote: "Religious thoughts seems to be an emergent property of our standard cognitive capacities." That quote is actually referenced from a published essay in the Nature International Journal of Science found here: https://www.nature.com/articles/4551038a If you don't have access to the journal, you can read the full essay here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258847104/download The other two sources referenced in the Evolution News Article you linked to are: https://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982 and (Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?, pp. 29-30 (Baker Books, 2011) https://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751 I agree that the Evolution News article, the Science 2.0 article and the book by Paul Copan all seem to suggest a predisposition toward belief in God. It seems you agree more with the Published Essay in the Nature Journal by Pascal Boyer that tends to be more objective and suggests a general, more encompassing predisposition toward faith? That's not what the articles and published essay are talking about.

I think the author phrased it that way since the predisposition toward faith referenced from the published essay is what ultimately leads one to ponder the existence of God in the first place. This probably more accurately describes the heart of the actual essay referenced in the article. And while I still like this article a lot, one of my pet peeves is how various news outlets across the board will cherry pick objective studies and offer commentary just to make it more provocative, and then slap on a sensationalized headline for good measure.

I forgot about that study. Great article, thanks for posting it! So I guess the answer to the OP is a resounding yes. Suffice it to say, we're born this way.

And in closing one gap, we may open five more that we never knew existed, bringing more questions and newer ideas. The more we learn, the wider the gap becomes. Science is an ongoing endeavor in an ever expanding universe.

That is of course until new discoveries open up an entirely new realm of things we cannot explain, perhaps even causing us to question everything we've ever known about a particular subject.

Right. Discrimination would be refusing to serve gays regardless of the event or message on the cake. If the gay couple wanted a birthday cake, I'd suspect the baker wouldn't object. If he did, then the case for discrimination would be a slam dunk. It's seems to me that this case is more about disagreeing with an idea than it is about discrimination.

How many more turned to it because of a traumatic event in their life? I hear there is a big turnover. . . No, my response was completely anecdotal, just like the post I was replying to. If I had to guess, I'd say that most religious people are born into it. I was involved in a conversation awhile back about how many times 2nd and 3rd generation christians may not be as appreciative of their faith, or as dedicated as their parents or grandparents. They may tend to just go through the motions since they haven't gone through an intense, meaningful experience of having their own personal conversion. Oh, according to your OP I was under the impression that you were the one arguing about emotions and logic while she was talking about motor skills.

I don't much understand moon phases, but most documented moon phases show a full moon at the height of illumination. Timedate.com (with the exception of China) showed the full moon on the 27th when the moon was the furthest from the earth. (A Micro Moon) However, timedate.com also showed that the height of illumination was on the 28th for the same parts of the world. Did they say the full moon was on the 27th just so they could call it a micro moon? To Recap: For most countries, the moon was furthest away on the 27th, but he height of illumination was on the 28th Parts of China had a true micro moon on the 28th when it was both furthest from the earth and at it's highest illumination, unlike most of the world. Now I understand why China had a True micro moon, but why did they sell us the hype in other countries?

Well, you already said that "that may be so." You did fail. I'm sure she was more concerned about her health and having a friend rather than how right (or wrong) you were, especially since you didn't even convince yourself. Was it really worth it?

How many more turned to it because of a traumatic event in their life? I hear there is a big turnover. . .

What's truly futile is "thinking" that humans will ever be without religion. "It's evolution baby!"