Prove there's a god.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#762638 Jul 27, 2014
From another thread:

The Strange Case of a Possible First Century Fragment of Mark

On his website, Daniel B. Wallace, an apologetic professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, mentions his announcement in February 2012 that a *probable* first century fragment of Mark has been recovered from antiquity.

His post is dated March of that year and claims a book would be published in 2013.

http://danielbwallace.com/2012/03/22/first-ce...

Guess what? We've entered the last half of 2014 and no book yet. A delay of the book's publication could suggest problems with the find. Or not.

So I went looking for info.

What I found both bothered me but also suggests Wallace's claim *may* have merit.

But first a short background. Very early fragments of Christian texts are rather rare, and none of them date earlier than the 2nd century, with the earliest being a fragment of John from the first half of that century. So a 1st century fragment of Mark would be a significant find. In addition, the six fragments of other Christian texts Wallace mentions at the above link, suggesting a 2nd century date for them, also would be significant, but not nearly so much so as a 1st century fragment of Mark.

Now enter Hobby Lobby, the closely-held corporation that successfully challenged application of part of "ObamaCare" to it because of the owners' Christian beliefs.

The family that owns Hobby Lobby has put together a massive collection of ancient or otherwise rare biblical texts, and, according to the NYT, they have been on a recent buying spree to expand that collection:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/business/12...

And it appears they are behind the recent discoveries Wallace mentioned -- and thousands of other fragments.

Thousands?

Yup.

How so?

Mining mummy masks.

Mining mummy masks, you ask?

Would I lie to you?

It appears these folks are taking mummy masks that are the rough equivalent of paper-mâché, dunking them in Palmolive and water, and then shredding them to retrieve the texts that were used to create them.

I think it's great if a 1st century copy of Mark has been recovered from antiquity. Critical scholars date Mark to the late 1st century, and such a find would be consistent with that.

But I question the process.

I also question the credentials of some involved and whether what they are doing is legal.

I won't go into details about that here.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#762639 Jul 27, 2014
ROCCO wrote:
Hey, Catcher, how has your weekend been?
Any dirt bike writing?
I wrote one, until I broke my arm.

Now I can't write anything.

It was a leisure injury.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#762641 Jul 27, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
I am decidedly and purposefully not sending you any stamps, especially that particular one you are trying to avoid.
I think I might have that one.

It's very rare. None were ever made.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#762643 Jul 27, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>By that logic, Zeus was Christian too.

o.O
Before there was any such thing as christianity?

Uh huh.

http://i.imgur.com/pD66221.jpg

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#762644 Jul 27, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
In big neon letters.
Ignorance, by itself, is troublesome.

When it's coupled with dishonesty, it can lead to serious damage.

And when it's joined with fervent religious needs, it's truly awful.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#762645 Jul 27, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Please, Tide, don't encourage the Redneck.
I know. He has an imaginary friend for that.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#762646 Jul 27, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you even read what I wrote? Or did you decide to take the Joy way of answering posts now?
If so, I'll answer in the same way:
Unless it's on Tuesday, in which case, I'd go with blue.
But not in September, right?

Then you have to follow the Kaufman method.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#762648 Jul 27, 2014
Stalin actually renounced his very christianity, Hitler did not. That's the difference. The things they had in common is that they used christianity to advance their attempted world domination causes and that it made them into mass murdering, power hungry lunatics.

http://i.imgur.com/thjTuaN.jpg

Praise the jesus! character.
gort

Strasbourg, France

#762649 Jul 27, 2014
your scholar says a "source" for evidence on the internet for the case that Attis was crucified may be from (Harari, 31) for it says, "castrated and crucified Attis." The above referenced source is Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-structuralist Criticism by Josue V. Harari and published by the University of Michigan Press. So it certainly would meet the test of an being academic source. However, one might question whether the author has any relevant expertise given the book is, judging by the title, dealing with literary criticism rather than the history of religion.
6877

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#762651 Jul 27, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
100% wrong!-Pomona
Religion = a particular system of faith and worship.
Child abuse = Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, OR an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/co...

"In two studies, 5- and 6-year-old children were questioned about the status of the protagonist embedded in three different types of stories. In realistic stories that only included ordinary events, all children, irrespective of family background and schooling, claimed that the protagonist was a real person. In religious stories that included ordinarily impossible events brought about by divine intervention, claims about the status of the protagonist varied sharply with exposure to religion. Children who went to church or were enrolled in a parochial school, or both, judged the protagonist in religious stories to be a real person, whereas secular children with no such exposure to religion judged the protagonist in religious stories to be fictional. Children's upbringing was also related to their judgment about the protagonist in fantastical stories that included ordinarily impossible events whether brought about by magic (Study 1) or without reference to magic (Study 2). Secular children were more likely than religious children to judge the protagonist in such fantastical stories to be fictional. The results suggest that exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children's differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories."

Any education system that decreases the ability of a human being to reach their full potential as cognitive individuals is abusive.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#762652 Jul 27, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn Japanese....
How's that for a generalization lol.
Sony!

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#762653 Jul 27, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You don't do well with the women,do you, gort? That's about the worst pick-up line ever.


https://www.youtube.com/watch...

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#762654 Jul 27, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Neato, a study!! Then it *must* be true.
Question though... How many 5- and 6-year-old children were questioned? What were their demographics?
I'll reproduce some of it here for you:

"These two sets of findings, one concerning children's ideas about magic and the other concerning their ideas about God, suggest that with appropriate testimony from adults, young children believe that otherwise impossible outcomes can occur. Accordingly, it is plausible to expect that children who grow up in religious households will not treat a religious story as a fairy tale. Instead, they will conceive of the protagonist in such narratives as a real person—even if the narrative includes impossible events.

Two recent studies support this prediction. Woolley and Cox (2007) found that preschoolers increasingly claim that the miracles in religious (i.e., biblically based) storybooks could have really occurred. Moreover, as compared to children from nonreligious families, children from Christian families were especially likely to regard such events as plausible. In a follow-up study, Vaden and Woolley (2011) examined the judgments of 4-, 5-, and 6-year olds about closely matched religious and nonreligious stories. In both story types, ordinarily impossible events occurred (e.g., the parting of the seas), but in the religious stories, there was also a reference to divine intervention. Children were more likely to claim that the story character and the ordinarily impossible event were real in the context of the religious stories than in the context of nonreligious stories. This pattern was more evident among 6-year olds than younger children, more evident for familiar religious stories, and more evident among children with a Christian upbringing. Moreover, when subsequently interviewed about the impossible story events, children acknowledged their impossibility but often invoked God to further explain the story events.

In summary, these two studies provide persuasive evidence that older preschoolers and preschoolers with more religious exposure readily think of Bible stories as accounts of actual events that include real people. By implication, even if young children differentiate between realistic stories that are shorn of any impossible elements and fictional stories in which the impossible can occur, they can also come to recognize a third story genre—stories that describe miracles, that is, events that are ordinarily impossible but did actually occur."

...

" As noted earlier, the proportion of such children in the US population is quite small (16%), but they offer an important opportunity to test two competing predictions about children's stance toward the miraculous. The analysis offered by Corriveau et al.(2009) implies that, in the absence of a religious education, children will regard miracles as implausible because they involve ordinarily impossible outcomes. Accordingly, they should conclude that the protagonist in a story that includes a miracle is a fictional character rather than a real person. In that respect, the judgments of such secular children should diverge sharply from these made by children who have received a religious education."

So the above tells us directly that religion is damaging to one's cognitive abilities, and this damage begins in childhood.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#762656 Jul 27, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it a mistake?
1. How do you prove that someone's religion is causing them to cut off contributions to certain aspects of health care?
2. Can we now deny people of other religions our health care plans?
3. Can we now use the "it's against my belief" to deny anyone access to any particular kind of health care?

You don't see this as troubling? Societal laws should not be so inconsistent and lenient - what if I, as a believer of religion X, firmly believe that my company's health care plan should not cover some aspect that you need?

Like, let's say I'm a Rasta, and believe that all surgery is wrong. Can I, as the employer, deny you surgery? That's against my religion. So there.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#762657 Jul 27, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>No, I'm psychic. This happens all the time on Topix. I once posted the same post at exactly the same minute as another poster here. We synced so much I decided to give it a rest.
BTW, you said it was before he did anything; that was kinda vague, sweetie.
The man (Obama) had the nerve to call himself, "a perfect example of non-violence", which isn't true, cannot "be" true of any leader commanding a standing army. As if he forgot about his Commander -in- Chief title? There is nothing humble or non-violent about the part he has played in giving the nod on all the "incidental" deaths in the Middle East.
Technically, you were right, in that he has done nothing deserving an award.
I know very little about Obama, but I know enough to know that even he thought it was ridiculous he was granted that award. He really should have turned it down. Imo, now the reward is worthless.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#762658 Jul 27, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Got this from another thread. Well worth posting here!
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/co ...
<quoted text>
Without knowing the full context of the study, how in the world did you find that helpful? How do you know it wasn't a biased study? How do you know they didn't study 12 children? You said you were an evidence-based thinker....
If you want the full study, send me a PM with an email address. I'll send it to you. Then you can critically analyze it.
andet1987

Chicago, IL

#762659 Jul 27, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.... Yes.
oh my :) there is a new poster, Stilgar ? new poster or previous poster with new name ?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#762660 Jul 27, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Religionthebiglie wrote:
If xtian business owners refuse to pay for birth control.....then humanists proponents of zero population growth should refuse to accommodate maternity/paternity leave.
<quoted text>
I wonder what this country is coming to when people like the two of you are championing business owners being required to pay for people's leisure activities.
Seriously, what are we coming to? You guys want all businesses to pay for every type of birth control for every employee, that's a leisure activity. You like playing jeopardy. If you had a job, would you be pounding on your boss' door demanding that he pay for it? If you enjoyed dirtbike writing, would you demand that your boss buy you a dirtbike, pay for the fuel and the insurance on it? Those are just more leisure activities, why not make the business owners just pay for everything? You know what, they should even pay our electric bills, damn them.
Be careful that you don't walk into a socialist, communist mindset. I'm afraid that you might without even realizing it.
Of all the G8 nations, only America lacks full national health care. It's the main reason for your enormous debt, and the main reason for personal debt.

Not having health care - giving it to private companies - is bad for your GDP and your people.

That certain religions promote thoughtless policies on birth control increases your teenage and unwanted pregnancies, which subsequently reduce people's economic outcomes.

Your national policies are crippling your nation. But, hey, don't worry about it. Don't change. It's great for the rest of us. Seriously. The private sector in America produces lots of new medicines and surgical techniques that benefit the rest of the world - and you are able to do so b/c of the competitive capitalist nature of your health care system, which necessarily keeps health resources out of reach for those of lower income.

Anyways, the nations I live in benefit from your nation's choices, at the expense of your nation's population.

So, thank you America :)

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#762661 Jul 27, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Crazy stuff.
Took my son to the optometrist for a check up and new glasses,$200.
Took myself to the chiropractor to get some back work done,$45.
Price insurance would have cost me so far this year,$2800.
Crazy stuff, man.
You do understand what "aging" means, yes?

You will, like everyone else, get sick and require medical assistance at some point. If you don't have health care at that time, you will go bankrupt. Additionally, depending on the nature of your illness, you may be denied insurance in your nation (unless your gov't prevents that before you get sick).

Seriously, humans do not grow younger. Baring death from accident, you will need health services.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#762662 Jul 27, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya. Good point. The Hitler debate NEVER goes anywhere.
It's not a debate. You, and other Christians, are history deniers. You feel this strange need to rewrite history, thinking it somehow supports your religious beliefs in the doing so.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Israel End is Near (Feb '15) 5 min Neville Thompson 1,100
London TV viewers fixed on trump Inaugural process 16 min truth 4
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 30 min Neville Thompson 286,079
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 34 min truth 92,711
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 49 min truth 667,938
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr Sky Writer 31 183,628
Everyone is a fool 2 hr Truthiness 4
More from around the web