Originally Posted by Westvleteren View PostI had said that by historical critical methods we can corroborate the Gospels as historical evidence of Jesus' existence. I also laid out an extensive criteria for determining what is mythology and what is not. I didn't claim the Bible corroborates itself. There is obviously a method or no book could ever be corroborated. That method is called "historical critical method." This is so basic and these guys act like I made it up. They are practically saying there's no such thing as historical criticism. This more than more than anything else shows the Orwellian nature of atheism. Anything that they can't out argue by reason or historical fact they merely claim doesn't exist and make to go away because they don't like it. They just brain wash their mentions into thinking "there can't be such a thing as historical critical methods."
There is no method that allows the Bible to corroborate itself, as soon as you said that it nullified any possible argument you could make. Quite simply it is asinine. And no I could not care less that you are a PhD candidate as it has no bearing on the validity of your assertions.
Doesn't it seem really imbecilic to think that there's this one book that can't be corroborated? I used three different senses in which a book can be corroborated in order to show how foolish it is to make the statement "no method could exist that would do this." Each sense in which the Gospels can be corroborated (use the Gospels since the historical Jesus was the issue) I use another kind of book. Let's look at the three aspects of the historical critical method that verify the Gospels, and then at the criteria for understanding mythology from historically based writing. Three ways of corroborating the Gospels:
I. The authority of the teaching for the tradition
Most scholars point to the fact that the four canonical Gospels were already used by most of the church by the time of the canon[Martin Franzmann (The Word of the Lord Grows, St Louis: Concordia, 1961, 287-295)]. They bear the stamp of approval of those who were in charge of the teaching for the tradition. The problem is modern skeptics refuse to accept the facts, despise the truth, refuse to accept any sort of defense regardless of how good it is and basically refuse to even investigate the facts. If one actually examined the facts there is no way one can conclude other than that the four canonical gospels are the most logical choices of all the writings we have. Of the 34 lost gospels of which we have copies, fragments, theories, or any sort of inking only the four canonical Gospels makes sense as candidates for the canon. The Gospel according to Thomas has a historical core that probably goes back to the time of late first century. Yet it also has obviously late, maybe 3d century, heavily gnostic material. The Gospel of Peter had material that is corroborated as independent of the synoptic or of of John (see Ray Brown, Death of the Messiah) yet it encases this material in a clearly late framework. Only the canonical Gospels can be bore out as early dated, the trend is to even earlier dates, and at the same time has this vast body of attestation including the final inclusion in the canon. Skeptics also overlook the extent to which these 34 lost gospels supplement and corroborate the canonical Gospels. Most of the historical core of Thomas is in agreement with the synoptic.
American Theological Library Association
More than half of the material in the gospel of Thomas (79 sayings) is paralleled in the canonical gospels:
*
27 sayings are in Mark & the other synoptic
s; *
46 parallel Q material (in Matthew & Luke)* *
12 echo material special to Matthew; & *
1 is only in Luke.
* [Q parallels include 7 sayings where Mark has a variant version]
Thomas is important for synoptic studies for two reasons:
Form: It proves that collections of Jesus sayings with no narrative were known in the early church. Thus, it gives indirect support to the hypothesis of a synoptic sayings source, Q. *
Contents: Its version of some Jesus sayings is simpler than the synoptic parallels.
For the past 40 years scholars have debated whether Thomas is directly dependent on the synoptic gospels or not. Some have maintained the traditional view that Thomas is a 2nd or 3rd c. gnostic composition whose author extracted Jesus sayings from a Coptic translation of the NT & edited them to fit a gnostic worldview. Most recent experts on Thomas, however, regard it as an early sayings collection based on oral tradition rather than any canonical text.
There are four main reasons why scholars who have studied Thomas conclude that it is independent of synoptic tradition:
No narrative frame: If the compiler of Thomas drew these sayings from the canonical narrative gospels, he removed every trace of the stories in which the synoptic writers embed them. *
Non-synoptic order: If the compiler of Thomas drew these sayings from the synoptic gospels, he totally scrambled them, separating adjoining sayings & scattering them at random. No one has yet proven that the sayings in Thomas are arranged according to any logical pattern. *
Random parallels: Sayings in Thomas sometimes echo Mark, sometimes Matthew, sometimes Luke. There is no clear pattern of dependence on any one text. *
More primitive form: Sayings in Thomas are often logically simpler than their synoptic counterparts. If the compiler drew these sayings from the synoptic gospels, he edited out the traits characteristic of each writer. While some synoptic parallels in Thomas have gnostic embellishments, these are easily removed.
Together these traits of Thomas make it highly unlikely that any synoptic gospel was used as its source. In fact, the random, eclectic character of the contents of Thomas makes it a more primitive composition than the synoptic sayings source that scholars call "Q." While many individual sayings in Thomas may be of late gnostic origin, the core of the collection (sayings with synoptic parallels) is probably as old or older than the composition of the canonical gospel narratives (50-90 CE). To date this gospel any later makes it hard to explain the general lack of features dependent on the synoptics.(Copyright © 1997- 2008 by Mahlon H. Smith All rights reserved.)
[For more details see Crossan, J.D. Four Other Gospels (Sonoma CA: Polebridge Press, 1992) pp. 3-38 or Patterson, S. J. in Q-Thomas Reader (Sonoma CA: Polebridge Press, 1990) pp. 77-127.]
The old independent core of Peter supports the idea of guards on the tomb, meaning it also supports the crucifixion, the tomb, and the resurrection, empty tomb.
What this means for us so far is that the stamp of approval given by inclusion in the canon means several things:
(1) it means the church as a whole already recognized those books as valid based upon the teaching handed down from the Apostles through the Bishops.
(2) That is corroborated historically and can be verified by the extra canonical materials that agree with the readings, such as Thomas and Peter.
(3) The very fact inclusion in the canon is a priori testament to this fact, since apostolic affirmation was part of the criteria.
An examination of how the canon came to be will bear this out. This is written by me based upon the Franzman source above. It's found on my website Doxa> Bible> The Canon: how do they know the got the right books?
this was originally part ofa much longer work, to see the whole thing here's a link: https://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2011/08/historical-validity-of-gospels-part-1.html
14 comments:
Joe: This guy was saying I can't distinguish true passages from ad ons but I just choose what I like. I listed a criteria for understanding mythology, it was a criteria based upon historical critical methods.
This would be more concinving if you then listed the criteria.
Joe: Most scholars point to the fact that the four canonical Gospels were already used by most of the church by the time of the canon[Martin Franzmann (The Word of the Lord Grows, St Louis: Concordia, 1961, 287-295)]. They bear the stamp of approval of those who were in charge of the teaching for the tradition.
And yet there were several - 34 you say - that were not included in the canon, such as the Gospel of Peter and Q.
How did they decide which to include? Was it historical research? Or was it politics and popularity? You suggest it was on the basis of when they were written, but Q was earlier, as was the original pre-Markan passion narrative. Why do we not still have these?
The canon was affirmed in AD 382, three and a half centuries after the crucifixion. What exactly do you think this proves, Joe?
Joe: More than half of the material in the gospel of Thomas (79 sayings) is paralleled in the canonical gospels:
When we compare Mark and Matthew and see how much they have in common, this looks like an ad hoc explanation.
In fact most of your post is about why the Gospel of Thomas is not canon, which really does not convince me that the other gospels are history!
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: This guy was saying I can't distinguish true passages from ad ons but I just choose what I like. I listed a criteria for understanding mythology, it was a criteria based upon historical critical methods.
This would be more concinving if you then listed the criteria.
Yea you right I should have.
Joe: Most scholars point to the fact that the four canonical Gospels were already used by most of the church by the time of the canon[Martin Franzmann (The Word of the Lord Grows, St Louis: Concordia, 1961, 287-295)]. They bear the stamp of approval of those who were in charge of the teaching for the tradition.
PX: And yet there were several - 34 you say - that were not included in the canon, such as the Gospel of Peter and Q.
Q is in the canon in a sense because at least some of it is in the synoptics. Peter is an interesting independent tradition, I kind of wish it was in the canon. But it has that crazy stuff like talking cross. The angles heads stretching to heaven
PX: How did they decide which to include? Was it historical research? Or was it politics and popularity? You suggest it was on the basis of when they were written, but Q was earlier, as was the original pre-Markan passion narrative. Why do we not still have these?
No it wasn't when they were written, Three criteria: apostolic connection, recognition by the chuch, apostolic doctrine.
The canon was affirmed in AD 382, three and a half centuries after the crucifixion. What exactly do you think this proves, Joe?
I think it proves they did not have a concept of canon in the beginning, it took time to develop. We can trace the history of it; development through the centuries
Joe: More than half of the material in the gospel of Thomas (79 sayings) is paralleled in the canonical gospels:
PX: When we compare Mark and Matthew and see how much they have in common, this looks like an ad hoc explanation.
Thames contains an old core that dated to first century because it consists largely of Q sayings, but that core is housed in a Gnostic framework that is from the thirds century. While Matt used Mark in composition and within a few years of marks composition.
In fact most of your post is about why the Gospel of Thomas is not canon, which really does not convince me that the other gospels are history!
That was not at all on my mind. Rather I see those aspects of Thomas
s older core as validation of the synoptics.
Joe: Q is in the canon in a sense because at least some of it is in the synoptics. Peter is an interesting independent tradition, I kind of wish it was in the canon. But it has that crazy stuff like talking cross. The angles heads stretching to heaven
But in a more real sense Q is not in the canon, and its absence shows us how Christianity changed. For the early Christians, Jesus' words were carefully recorded (whether orally or written) and preserved, while the narrative clearly was not, given the changes seen across the gospels. And yet when it comes to creating a canon, it is the narratives that are preserved for eternity, while Q is lost outside of fragments in those documents.
I would suggest that that is because the church was fighting heresies left and right. Q and other collections of sayings were not contentious.
The very first Christian canon was set by Marchion in the middle of the second century, and consisted of an abridged Luke and ten of Paul's letters only. The orthodox canon was a reaction to that, and naturally the choice of texts had to also counter the heresy of Marchionism, and others, in particular Arianism.
Joe: No it wasn't when they were written, Three criteria: apostolic connection, recognition by the chuch, apostolic doctrine.
The second and third are deeply connected. Recognition by the church effectively means the works recognised by the orthodox churches and apostolic doctrine means those works conforming to orthodox doctrine.
In other words they chose the works that supported the view they wanted to promote as the orthodoxy.
More specifically, Athanasius of Alexandria wanted to promote Trinitarianism against Arianism, and so selected texts accordingly. He was one of many who held to Trinitarianism, and likely that was a majority view at the time, but we still have to see the canon as being set in those terms.
The exclusion of the gospels of Peter and Thomas, against the inclusion of Luke, indicates that apostolic connection was of less significance.
Joe: I think it proves they did not have a concept of canon in the beginning, it took time to develop. We can trace the history of it; development through the centuries
That is fair enough. As long as you are not trying to use the canon to prove historicity!
Joe: Thames [Thomas] contains an old core that dated to first century because it consists largely of Q sayings, but that core is housed in a Gnostic framework that is from the thirds century. While Matt used Mark in composition and within a few years of marks composition.
What is interesting then is that the original core of Thomas was not preserved. The time span between the original and the redacted being so large makes this even more surprising.
When the redacted version was written, there must have been numerous copies of the original floating around, and these would all have the advantage of being more authentic just by virtue of being so much older. Why was the original version not preserved?
This is exactly analogy to Mark/Matthew, with the original Mark forming a core to the later Matthew, but in this case both were preserved.
I have no answer for that, but we need to keep that in mind when trying to work out why some gospels were canonised and others not. The original Thomas would seem to have everything going for it... Except, perhaps, it did not promote the right message for those on the council setting the canon.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: Q is in the canon in a sense because at least some of it is in the synoptics. Peter is an interesting independent tradition, I kind of wish it was in the canon. But it has that crazy stuff like talking cross. The angles heads stretching to heaven
PX: But in a more real sense Q is not in the canon, and its absence shows us how Christianity changed. For the early Christians, Jesus' words were carefully recorded (whether orally or written) and preserved, while the narrative clearly was not, given the changes seen across the gospels. And yet when it comes to creating a canon, it is the narratives that are preserved for eternity, while Q is lost outside of fragments in those documents.
Q didn't have apostolic backing.
I would suggest that that is because the church was fighting heresies left and right. Q and other collections of sayings were not contentious.
the major requirement was apostolic backing.
PX: The very first Christian canon was set by Marchion in the middle of the second century, and consisted of an abridged Luke and ten of Paul's letters only. The orthodox canon was a reaction to that, and naturally the choice of texts had to also counter the heresy of Marchionism, and others, in particular Arianism.
That we know of but this did not have apostolic backing
Joe: No it wasn't when they were written, Three criteria: apostolic connection, recognition by the church, apostolic doctrine.
The second and third are deeply connected. Recognition by the church effectively means the works recognized by the orthodox churches and apostolic doctrine means those works conforming to orthodox doctrine.
In other words they chose the works that supported the view they wanted to promote as the orthodoxy.
wjy not? why chose one you think is wrong? But "think" is based upon tradition from the apostils.
More specifically, Athanasius of Alexandria wanted to promote Trinitarianism against Arianism, and so selected texts accordingly. He was one of many who held to Trinitarianism, and likely that was a majority view at the time, but we still have to see the canon as being set in those terms.
The exclusion of the gospels of Peter and Thomas, against the inclusion of Luke, indicates that apostolic connection was of less significance.
No! We have evidence that those had apostolic backing. Even though they basically agree with the Orthodox, Thomas is an Orthodox core set in a gnostic frame so they not include that one.
Joe: I think it proves they did not have a concept of canon in the beginning, it took time to develop. We can trace the history of it; development through the centuries
That is fair enough. As long as you are not trying to use the canon to prove historicity!
Joe: Thames [Thomas] contains an old core that dated to first century because it consists largely of Q sayings, but that core is housed in a Gnostic framework that is from the thirds century. While Matt used Mark in composition and within a few years of marks composition.
What is interesting then is that the original core of Thomas was not preserved. The time span between the original and the redacted being so large makes this even more surprising.
Most of it preserved because it's synoptic sayings
When the redacted version was written, there must have been numerous copies of the original floating around, and these would all have the advantage of being more authentic just by virtue of being so much older. Why was the original version not preserved?
usually when made incorporation of one document in another the ad on document was lost because they quite copying it since they had it long with other stuff.
This is exactly analogy to Mark/Matthew, with the original Mark forming a core to the later Matthew, but in this case both were preserved.
I have no answer for that, but we need to keep that in mind when trying to work out why some gospels were canonised and others not. The original Thomas would seem to have everything going for it... Except, perhaps, it did not promote the right message for those on the council setting the canon.
the original Thomas was just section form the synoptics that Gnostics added to from their own stuff.
Joe: Q didn't have apostolic backing.
We do not know that, but it is possible. That said, the collected saying of Jesus is as close to something authored by Jesus as there ever was, which would seem to trump apostolic backing.
Joe: the major requirement was apostolic backing.
Which is why so many works falsely claimed that. The Gospel of Matthew was not actually written by the apostle, and John is decidely dubious. Luke and Mark never met Jesus, yet their gospels got included.
Worth remembering that there was a lot of argument about including John. Of the four gopels we have, it has the best claim to apostolic backing, and yet was the one that was most hotly debated. This tells me there was rather more to it than apostolic backing...
Joe: That we know of but this did not have apostolic backing
The Marchion canon was an abridged version of Luke and ten letters of Paul so all had apostolic backing.
Joe: wjy not? why chose one you think is wrong? But "think" is based upon tradition from the apostils.
Exactly! If another gospel has apostolic backing, but you think it is wrong, you are not going to choose this. And just like that you destroy all your previously comments in your reply!
It was about selecting texts that promoted the message the fourth century bishops wanted to promote.
Joe: No! We have evidence that those had apostolic backing.
Not sure what you mean. You seem to be saying we have evidence that the gospels of Peter and Thomas had apostolic backing? That suppports my position, so I guess you meant something else?.
Joe: Even though they basically agree with the Orthodox, Thomas is an Orthodox core set in a gnostic frame so they not include that one.
Right! So apostolic backing is less important than that the text promotes the message the fourth century bishops wanted to promote.
Joe: Most of it preserved because it's synoptic sayings
About two thirds is repeated in the synoptics. But more than 90% of Mark is in Matthew, so why keep Mark? Thomas has better apostolic backing, and more that is unique to it. But it was rejected because the text does not promote the message the fourth century bishops wanted to promote.
Joe: usually when made incorporation of one document in another the ad on document was lost because they quite copying it since they had it long with other stuff.
So you see them as maintaining a central library, with full version control. When a new version was written, a message was sent out across the Roman Empire to destroy all the older versions.
I think that unlikely. I think each community, each church even, had its own collection of texts. If one community updated a text, it is likely other communities would never know. For example, one community updated Mark to produce Matthew, while another updated it to produce Luke, while yet other communities continued with Mark.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: Q didn't have apostolic backing.
We do not know that, but it is possible. That said, the collected saying of Jesus is as close to something authored by Jesus as there ever was, which would seem to trump apostolic backing.
It's true that I am assuming based upon the apostolic backing being the major criterion. The collected sayings of Jesus would only be accepted as valid if they had apostolic backing.
Joe: the major requirement was apostolic backing.
Which is why so many works falsely claimed that. The Gospel of Matthew was not actually written by the apostle, and John is decidely dubious. Luke and Mark never met Jesus, yet their gospels got included.
apostolic backing does not mean written by an apostle, although would be one version, it means somewhere in the transmission an apostle approved it or that the author was close to an apostle. Luke for example was not written by an apostle but Luke was close to Paul. What evidence you have that Matt did not write Matt?
Worth remembering that there was a lot of argument about including John. Of the four gopels we have, it has the best claim to apostolic backing, and yet was the one that was most hotly debated. This tells me there was rather more to it than apostolic backing...
Only fundies claim it was written by apostle john. one popular idea is that john was written by John the elder who not a apostle but who wrote Johannine epistles.
Joe: That we know of but this did not have apostolic backing
The Marchion canon was an abridged version of Luke and ten letters of Paul so all had apostolic backing.
the author was considered a heretic for some reason
Joe: wjy not? why chose one you think is wrong? But "think" is based upon tradition from the apostils.
Exactly! If another gospel has apostolic backing, but you think it is wrong, you are not going to choose this. And just like that you destroy all your previously comments in your reply!
None of my comments have ever been based upon choosing one you think is wrong
It was about selecting texts that promoted the message the fourth century bishops wanted to promote.
Joe: No! We have evidence that those had apostolic backing.
Not sure what you mean. You seem to be saying we have evidence that the gospels of Peter and Thomas had apostolic backing? That suppports my position, so I guess you meant something else?.
I did not men that, I have never seen anything to suggest that peter snd Thomas had apostolic backing.
Joe: Even though they basically agree with the Orthodox, Thomas is an Orthodox core set in a gnostic frame so they not include that one.
Right! So apostolic backing is less important than that the text promotes the message the fourth century bishops wanted to promote.
I never said it had apostolic backing,
Joe: Most of it preserved because it's synoptic sayings
Part 2 of PX's comments
About two thirds is repeated in the synoptics. But more than 90% of Mark is in Matthew, so why keep Mark? Thomas has better apostolic backing, and more that is unique to it. But it was rejected because the text does not promote the message the fourth century bishops wanted to promote.
Just copying is apostolic backing.
Joe: usually when made incorporation of one document in another the ad on document was lost because they quite copying it since they had it long with other stuff.
So you see them as maintaining a central library, with full version control. When a new version was written, a message was sent out across the Roman Empire to destroy all the older versions.
Of course there was no central library. But I think something like that process existed.
I think that unlikely. I think each community, each church even, had its own collection of texts. If one community updated a text, it is likely other communities would never know. For example, one community updated Mark to produce Matthew, while another updated it to produce Luke, while yet other communities continued with Mark.
No doubt but communities kept in touch and eventually joined.
Joe: It's true that I am assuming based upon the apostolic backing being the major criterion. The collected sayings of Jesus would only be accepted as valid if they had apostolic backing.
So what you are saying is that the original document that recorded what Jesus actually said was not endorsed by the apostles!
Joe: apostolic backing does not mean written by an apostle, although would be one version, it means somewhere in the transmission an apostle approved it or that the author was close to an apostle. Luke for example was not written by an apostle but Luke was close to Paul.
Okay.
Joe: What evidence you have that Matt did not write Matt?
That is the majority scholarly position. Papias tells us Matthew wrote something, but that it was written in Hebrew. The Gospel of Matthew we have was originally written in Greek, so is something else.
Joe: Only fundies claim it was written by apostle john. one popular idea is that john was written by John the elder who not a apostle but who wrote Johannine epistles.
But what does apostolic backing now mean? The canon was set in the fourth century, apparently on the basis of what texts people thought the apostles are endorsed three centuries earlier.
Joe: the author was considered a heretic for some reason
He thought the God of the OT was different to the God of the NT for one thing. The point here is that there were lots of ideas about theology at that time, many revolving around the nature of Jesus. All but one got labelled heresy. Texts were selected for the canon based on whether they supported the orthodoxy - which is different to whether they were more accurate records or not.
Joe: None of my comments have ever been based upon choosing one you think is wrong
Of course not. They thought they were right. But that does not mean that they were actually right. "History is Written by Victors." In this case, the victors were what we now consider the orthodoxy. They won, so they controlled the what documents would be canonisaed, what documents would be preserved and what documents would be destroyed.
Joe: I did not men that, I have never seen anything to suggest that peter snd Thomas had apostolic backing.
They are named after two apostles!
Joe: Just copying is apostolic backing.
Really? That would seem to remove all meaning from the term.
Joe: Of course there was no central library. But I think something like that process existed.
Joe: No doubt but communities kept in touch and eventually joined.
How do you reconcile that with all the different beliefs that developed, and were later called heresies?
Pix
Naming a book after an apostle is not apostolic backing. That term means an apostle either read the book and approved it or the author was taught by apostles. Luke was a friend of Paul as was Mark. Mark also was interpreter for Peter when he was in Rome.
Sounds like apostolic backing is whatever suits your purpose. If a book was canonised, then you say it had apostolic backing, and then you can use apostolic backing to support its canonisation.
The idea that bishops in the fourth century had any real idea about whether the apostles read and approved a text is laughable.
The idea that a book an apostle supposedly read and approved has more backing than one an apostle supposed wrote is just absurd.
Pix
You are right about these atheists, Joe. I see it on Facebook. For example, this guy named Dale Bigford is saying stupid stuff again, like this:
HE DIED FOR YOUR SINS BECAUSE THE GOATS WHO HAD BEEN NO LONGER COULD.
Substitutional death for wrongdoing makes absolutely no actual sense in the way christians portray it. No matter how hard they’ll try and gaslight you into thinking someone else dying for someone else’s wrongdoing does.
But it DOES make sense when you grasp what christianity is desperately covering up and covertly replacing but taking great pains not to mention: Yom Kippur.
The national ANNUAL sin remission/forgiveness ceremony of the Jews that could ONLY be performed at the Jerusalem temple ever since King Josiah consolidated worship there in 623 BCE. And in that ceremony two goats were involved. One has the sins of all the people loaded ONTO it symbolically and sent out into the desert to die. The other, is the innocent sacrifice FOR those sins and is killed. This is why scholars note the trial of Jesus and Barabbas is a beat-for-beat mirror of the original Yom Kippur ritual in Mark, the oldest gospel which is a simpler allegory tale.
Barabbas is the sin laden goat stand-in and Jesus is the innocent sacrificial goat stand-in. See, the very Greek minded Jews that survived the 66-70 CE war that got the temple destroyed needed a PERMANENT sin forgivness avenue because no temple'=s' no Yom Kippur='s everyone remains sinful and damned. Permanently. And the temple never was rebuilt.
So, while mirroring the actual ritual in their new texts they fused their Judaic messiah motif with the Greek mystery cult/personal savior god motif. And the fingerprints are there to see: Prior to this Greek infusion the Judaic god was anything but personal. Who invented Jesus? The Greco-Jews still alive across the empire who saw Yom Kippur of 71 CE come and go…with no ritual.
I said something sarcastic about how the Jesus Myth stuff warms my heart. He actually believes this stuff. And, this is the tip of the iceberg. Check this out:
We are thinking, feeling, growing and replicating biological machines.
I was not made in the image and likeness of God or gods, because I exist, God or gods don't exist in reality, but in a fictional book or books. When I'm dead, I'll still be in existence because my flesh will be absorbed into nature, meaning, my DNA will be in nature; my bones will survive for millions of years, perhaps as fossils. In a sense, I'm almost immortal. My bone DNA will have information about me and my life, what I ate, and drank, and what was my health like. With the advance of science; who knows, I may be brought back about 99.99♾️%. I probably won't be the 100% me. There will be a few missing memories.
We are thinking, feeling, growing and replicating biological machines.
Not many intelligent people on that site. It's worse than the God is imaginary-Marshall Brain forums.
whar is all that stuff? people are just too stupid to deal with
I know. Bigford is posting more crap today. He is talking about Theists and their addiction to cognitive dissonance.
It is on the Atheist vs Theist Debates, Original Facebook group. It is sad.
Post a Comment