Raf

Honestly, i just didn't want to argue anymore

Well, for one thing, when did I say anything that remotely equates to that?

This line is not accurate because the only thing that can be tested is the claim being made. "God exists" is not a testable claim. But if you claim God healed you of, say, the flu, I would be able to test whether you have the flu. If you have it, I could say with certainty that God did not heal you of the flu. Because you still have it. That does not prove God doesn't exist. It does not mean God never heals. It just means a particular claim is empirically false. I would never cite evidence to "disprove God." I would cite evidence to disprove a claim that is made in his name. But that's only when the claim is testable. "I've been born again" is not a testable claim. "Thomas put his hand in the side of the resurrected Christ" is a whole lot of untestable claims. I'd have nothing to say about it (except maybe that it was curious three gospel writers ignored this particular post-resurrection appearance, but that's not a scientific, empirical argument). But that last point. Wow. Just as false as it could be. Not sure where you got the idea that I was claiming it's "Benny Hinn" or "no God." All I said was that religion makes testable claims. Faith healing is a testable claim. But you don't see its adherents emptying hospitals. That doesn't prove all faith healing is false. But all faith healing is a testable claim, regardless of who makes it. For some reason, when I postited faith healing as a claim made by religion (which it undoubtedly is), the thought that popped into YOUR mind was not gnuine faith healers who genuinely exercise the power of God by healing people. You went straight to huckster charlatans. That's on you, not me. All I said was "You didn't see the CPR team getting out of the way of the faith healers." I don't recall that I have ever found it necessary to cite Benny Hinn or Creflo Dollar (winner of the ConManliest Name in Charlatan History award, better known as the Loy Medal). In any event, we were talking about non overlapping magisteria, which is one man's effort to short-circuit creation-evolution arguments, and my point is that religion makes MANY claims that cannot be defined as "non-overlapping." Any testable claim overlaps. The need for religion to undermine the reliability of empirical facts will never fade. If "facts" can be manipulated enough to sway toward confirmation bias, just imagine what can be done with "faith."

Close enough

This is not remotely true.

Ok, as long as we're agreed on that

It was historical. Would you agree that it was an oversimplified history that did not fully account for Pharisaic devotion to the Torah, or that the Talmud was developed by people who loved and cherished and revered the Torah? And that the Pharisees' interpretation of Torah was at odds with multiple sects, not just Jesus, and that they genuinely thought they were right? Or do you think they just wanted power and had no sincere faith in Yahweh?

Ok, so we have the Torah (the Bible) and the Babylonian Talmud/traditions of men (PFAL) and the Pharisees rejected Jesus because he rejected the Babylonian Talmud (PFAL) and thereby posed a threat to their power and influence. The Pharisees in this comparison are Mike, minus the Power and Influence, as he has none. I think Power and Influence is where my analogy falls apart, because we in this conversation do not really have any, so we're more of the laity than "Pharisees" or The Vatican. But I wouldn't presume that anyone in this group rejects PFAL as God-breathed merely because some higher-up is pressuring us to maintain power. I would contend, nonetheless, that 2,000 someodd years later, no Jews are worried about maintaining Pharasaic power and influence. If you ask them, they reject Jesus on scriptural grounds. They don't reject the New Testament because they reject Jesus. It's the other way around. But that's my contention and I have no qualms if you decline to embrace it.

Ok, let's go there. WHY did the Pharisees reject Jesus as Messiah?

Rocky, I'll engage in a conversation as long as there's a conversation in which to engage. "I dropped my stake in this argument a decade ago" is about the argument over whether the Bible is God-breathed and whether PFAL is God-breathed and what God-breathed even means. That's NOT what this discussion and dialog have been about. What we're discussing here is the parallel between the arguments and methods used to defend or reject PFAL as compared to those used to reject and defend the Bible. I contend those methods are precisely the same. That's THIS discussion, and I never claimed to be uninterested in the conversation. But you are correct: At some point the points are made and it's time to move on.

The problem with non-overlapping magisteria as a concept is that to adopt it, you have to ignore the fact that religion makes testable claims. The concept was popularized by biologist Stephen Jay Gould to neutralize debate between evolution v. creation. It was a deliberate effort to convince people that accepting the fact of evolution (his words) was not inconsistent with belief in God. And it's not. As long as that God doesn't define himself. Once he does, non-overlapping magisteria becomes an inapplicable principle. You can't have all of mankind bottlenecked to two humans, Adam and Eve, roughly 10,000 years ago AND pretend that is not a claim that can be tested by science. It most certainly can. Yes, there are certain things that can stay in the realm of religion without intersecting with science. The source and "objective" nature of morality, for example. The exact moment life begins and the deliberate abortion of a fetus becomes murder. Science won't answer that. Religion can, and its answer can be debated with a competing religion or with a humanist worldview. But science cannot make the moral judgment required. But religion says concrete, testable things about the world that cannot simply be declared "non-overlapping" by fiat. When that football player collapsed on the field in January, thousands of people prayed for him. But no one got in the way of the medical team that was performing CPR and other measures to save his life. You didn't see the CPR team getting out of the way of the faith healers. Why not? Faith healing is a testable claim. Just don't test that $#!T on me! Call me a doctor, stat!

That answer is a dodge. They don't accept the Messiah BECAUSE they don't accept the inspiration of the NT, not the other way around.

The reasons for Jewish rejection of the inspiration of New Testament scriptures are not mysteries that can only be revealed through individual interrogation. The idea that it takes mindreading skills to determine their thoughts on this question is ludicrous. We KNOW why Jews reject the New Testament. They reject the authors' reliability, they reject the interpretation of the Old Testament and they see the New Testament as the inspiration behind centuries of anti-Semitism. This is not mindreading, it's history. Just like you reject PFAL because of its author's unreliability, its interpretation of the scriptures you hold sacred, and its inspiration of decades of abuse. The parallels are not invented for the sake of a thread. But please, go back to your Jewish sources and tell me two things: 1. What reasons do they give for their rejection of the inspiration of the New Testament? 2. Do you not reject PFAL as God-breathed for precisely the exact same reasons?

Right. They accept the New Testament but remain hidden behind locked doors for fear of the Judeans.

And ultimately they reject the New Testament as God-breathed on the same grounds that you reject PFAL. They reject the writers and the profitability of their message. It's uncanny.

Which is how Jews felt about Paul. Identical.

Whatever you say. Whatever Mike says. It's hard to tell them apart.

"I said Christianity in its genuine form." How convenient! A formula that absolves Christianity of the actions of everyone who applied it and disclosed its flaws! An application doesn't fit your prediction? Must not have been genuine Christianity! Tadaaaa! These. Are. Excuses. The same excuses Mike makes to absolve PFAL of the misdeeds of its adherents, the same excuses Christians make to absolve Christianity of the misdeeds of its adherents. It's. the. same. thing! And I know you take solace in characterizing me as someone who was hurt by both groups or mad at both groups [don't recall ever saying I was hurt by either, and I am no angrier at TWI that you are], but ok, you "get to" make $#!/ up to dodge from my point by making it about ME so you don't have to confront it. It doesn't change the fact that the tactics Mike uses to defend his holy book are identical to the tactics you use to defend yours. Mike's dismissal of those who "abuse" PFAL is identical to your dismissal of those who "abuse" Christianity or scripture. Mike's exaltation of the true value of the real PFAL is identical to your exaltation of true Christianity and Biblical understanding/appreciation. Mike's assertion that it takes a certain in-depth spiritual perception and awareness to see PFAL for the Godsend that it is is identical to your/Paul's assertion that the natural man can't understand the things of God because you need the magic decoder ring... I mean, because they are spiritually discerned [which is a first century admission that when you look at it dispasdionately, it just makes no flipping sense]. Go ahead and make it about me. But it's not. I dropped my stake in this argument a decade ago. This is about the fact that the only difference between Mike and traditional Christians is the age of the scriptures they defend.

Yeah, that guy

For you. I think you will agree that I could find oodles of examples of the fruit of Christianity being precisely the same as PFAL: the abuse, the cover ups, the shunning, the egotism, the persecution, the estrangement of families... Catholic, Evangelical, Pentecostal. Maybe not the Lutherans. Heh heh: not anymore. But ask the Germans... 'But,' you might say, 'that's only people who abuse the Christian label, not true Scotsm... I mean not true Christianity.' Fine. But Mike gets to make the same argument: no one who truly understands and applies the principles of PFAL will ever produce anything but the fruit of the spirit. Anyone who abuses has betrayed PFAL.

Supergirl Helen Slater The Legend of Billie Jean

Two years earlier... https://youtu.be/LqJxyuTMMog

Hubba hubba? Potato sack lady?

I disagree. I think you [not you, but the community of faith in general] posited a God who exists and who demonstrates his existence only to turn around and redefine existence so as to make it undetectable to account for the fact that he fails any test for existence. If you ever get a chance, look up Carl Sagan's dragon in the garage and you'll see my point. The Bible does not describe a God who will do His best to avoid detection as a test of faith. It describes a God who rewards those who diligently seek him with tangible evidence of his power. **** For anyone not following threads, this thread is intended as the unbeliever's answer to a similarly titled thread in doctrinal. Because doctrinal is supposed to explore the Biblical answer to the questions raised therein, I chose not to respond there. But why do we not see the same miracles today that we saw in the first century or in the 1970s when people told incredible [and coincidentally unverifiable] stories of miraculous healings? You guys are twisting yourselves into pretzels seeking an answer to the point of denying any such "scarcity" exists. My unbelieving ass is sitting here giggling vecause the answer is so painfully obvious: The scarcity of miracles is directly relate to the non-existence of a power behind them.

Why do we no longer see the miracles that were prevalent before we could scrutinize them and subject them to inquiry? Why is it easier to make excuses for why an omnipotent God is powerless to bring good to pass than it is to recognize he is a fictional character who could not affect our lives if he had an existence or will that wanted to?