Ion

Good point today in the other forum, dongiovanni.

So, redactions and editing by the earlier church fathers do corrupt the genuineness of the alleged word by the alleged Jesus.

This gets back to the meaning of doctrine explained earlier in that forum by Vorkosigan, and ProEvangelical shouldn't be able to escape this vicious circle he entered with his admission of redactions and editing.

Ion

Good post today by Dyogenes the Cynic.

ProEvangelical has a habit to dilute the truth in compromizes with his debaters, like a negotiator making friends with the more knowledgeable and honest than him, he tried it today with the last post by dongiovanni, but today, Dyogenes the Cynic cut it short, to the point.

Diogenes the Cynic

Thanks. Let's hope he responds this time. He has a tactic of posting an avalanche of mostly superfluous words which obscure the weakness of his core assertions and attempt to make him seem more erudite than he actually is. I'm hoping I can pin him down to his basic premises and make him defend them but he seems reluctant to engage with me so far. I also think he's in over his head with Vork and he knows it. He's been doing some bcakpedalling.

Jedi Mind Trick

I agree... And I'll quote Abraham Lincoln in this regard.

ex-xian

...I don't think I've ever seen a play by play of a discussion at another forum before...interesting.

Ion

I agree.
Yesterday, newcomer in that forum, CX from here, also notes this smoke screen when he comments that the thread has a hard time to live up to its title.

In yesterday's action over there:

.) Diogenes exposes a source used by ProEvangelical to establish the reliability of the Bible as being 2nd century folklore, ProEvangelical's 'explanation' of Peter depicting himself as a traitor being unprecedented in history so unlikely but rather being religiously apologetic, and Peter being exalted by Christians being a later church doctrine;

.) there is a phenomenal post -in lucid knowledge and intelligence- by Vorkosigan, who points out the lack of evidence to the claim that a JohnMark is the author of the Gospel of Mark, and that the name Mark corresponding to different ordinary individuals is mentioned in the second century romance Acts -talk about alterations to the Bible: second century!-while it gives no connections from these 'Mark' to the Gospel of Mark, who also points out that using witnesses Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Jerome is abuse since they lived after 180 A.D., the implausibility of Peter making up his betrayal of Jesus just to look humble as opposed to the plausibility of this betrayal being only a myth, and the Gospel of Mark being past 70 A.D. considering some events mentioned in Mark;

.) Contra X -what a name!- from here, stabs ProEvangelical's reliance on the Bible with 18% of the sayings by the alleged Jesus being possibly made, and discredits pro-Christian 'historian' Eusebius since in his book Evangelical Preparation he condones distortions with his preaching of "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived";
CX cites Wheless for studying Christian forgeries, but Vorkosigan is somewhat reserved about Wheless.

Once again, it is impressive the open mind intellectual level in that forum that administrator McMouse (aka Mikey) shows in moderating and participating, and also at almost the same level to some degree that administrator Bud shows.

Ion

Yesterday, Diogenes took off the gloves and...

...bam, he escalated the boxing match -using the infidels.org style of skepticism- with a ProEvangelical that he corners.

Diogenes throws an avalanche of punches -uppercut to the guts, feint to the left, uppercut to the chin, head butt, jab, circling around and smacking the neck- to core stereotypes that ProEvangelical keeps growing in his doctrine.

Amongst them:

.) "...Yeah nobody ever rested before these Jews invented the Sabbath. OK...";

.) "...It's ripped off from the Hammurabi's Code...";

.) "...There's no...heroism in Homer?...";

.) "...Popular education existed in Persian, Greek and Roman culture...";

.) "...Modern science is directly descended from Greek philosophy...";

.) "...The Bible is very pro-slavery...".

Read that thread.

Debunking of religious exploitative stereotypes takes place live there, right now...

Richard of Chelmsfor

I understand your frustrations, Ion.

The trouble with these fundies is that they seem to have lots of time on their hands and they make university degrees out of all the reasons why their opinions are infallibly true and you, old son, and me, are just the pitts when it comes to expressing our views.

You're onto a loser old son.

Diogenes the Cynic

Pro E has started a new thread about the traditional authorship of Mark now. Actually, all he did was cut and paste an essay from some conservative apologist.

Ion

Good catches today by Little John -taking a break here from roaming the Sherwood forest alongside Robin Hood- in:

.) ProEvangelical opening a new thread, countered by Little John's "...Multilayered? More like embarrassing...";
personally, I think ProEvangelical tries to split and dilute his opponenents, by opening a new front for debate, a new thread, when he is overwhelmed on the current one;

.) addressing ProEvangelical with "...you have not demonstrated the veracity of your claims beyond what would be considered a statement of faith...".

The administrator there, Mickey, dispels any ProEvangelical excuse for escaping that thread and onto another one while pretending that web links don't work well in that thread, and writes:

"...I'm rooting for the lions."

referring to heavyweights in critical thinking and knowledge over there, Vorkosigan and Diogenes the Cynic.

We sent over there the brightest on the subject, from here, and this gives a good image to our methods in life.

I will analyze more in depth, tonight.