Update on "Ida" - not ancestor-link at all

[ConScience]

Why wasn't Lazarus interviewed about his experience?

The CNN news team was busy at the Wailing Wall?

I just snotted on my keyboard.

If it happened (I'm not judging one way or another), the scientific explanation is that the guy probably had narcolepsy.

[ConScience]

One small correction - all dogs are the same species, Canis familiaris, be they pug, poodle or pomeranian.

Oh, while I remember, have you seen the new tree of life they have put together?

I know it's scientific, but whatever your stripes, it's BEAUTIFUL to see so many animals documented this way.

First, http://tolweb.org/tree/

And then a big picture (there are bigger and much more beautiful ones out there): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

Enjoy (wherever you believe these animals come from!).

[MorningGlory]

I just snotted on my keyboard.

Whoa! Glad I wasn't there for that one!

If it happened (I'm not judging one way or another), the scientific explanation is that the guy probably had narcolepsy.

Seriously, I couldn't understand why anyone would ask why Lazarus wasn't interviewed. I mean, how would anyone know? I guess it was a rhetorical question.

[MorningGlory]

One small correction - all dogs are the same species, Canis familiaris, be they pug, poodle or pomeranian.

Yes, they are.

[ConScience]

It was intended to color belief in God as childish and naive. At least have the courage to be honest.

WRONG! Thank you for playing, though. Calling me a coward, now. Boy, oh boy - do you have anger management issues? (Honest question).

I DO have the courage to be honest. And I WAS honest.

Why don't YOU have the courage (and courtesy) to take people at their word? I was clumsy, and I didn't know you were so anti-unicorn. I thought about it overnight and thought of some alternative analogies, but they might all come out wrong, so I'll leave it alone.

Yeah, see I already know about all of that. Most of it is liberal, higher criticism. Sorry but it is nothing but hokum. There are other better, and competent scholars and more of them, who can demonstrate the authenticity of John, so you really have nothing of value to offer me. I am far more well read in theological circles than you can imagine.

I've read both sides of the debate and John being a different John is much more compelling (more compelling than Mark was the first gospel).

And there were certainly there text that were taken from (Source Q), right? We can agree on that (Luke even admits this!). Let's agree on something. I think it's better to flirt with the agree/disagree thing, rather than all-out disagree all the time, don't you? Let's try and find some areas that we can both learn from.

You don't seem like such an open-minded guy, but I am, so at lease one of us (that'd be me) could learn something.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

Yeah, see I already know about all of that. Most of it is liberal, higher criticism. Sorry but it is nothing but hokum. There are other better, and competent scholars and more of them, who can demonstrate the authenticity of John, so you really have nothing of value to offer me. I am far more well read in theological circles than you can imagine.

I've read both sides of the debate and John being a different John is much more compelling (more compelling than Mark was the first gospel).

Really and why is that?

And there were certainly there text that were taken from (Source Q), right? We can agree on that (Luke even admits this!).

No, Luke tells us where he got his information. "Q" is nothing more than liberal higher criticism and is not really genuine, competent Christian scholarship along with the whole "JPED" nonsense.

Let's agree on something. I think it's better to flirt with the agree/disagree thing, rather than all-out disagree all the time, don't you? Let's try and find some areas that we can both learn from.

Where the Bible is concerned, you really have nothing to offer.

You don't seem like such an open-minded guy, but I am, so at lease one of us (that'd be me) could learn something.

I can afford to be closed-minded where the truth is concerned, like it or not.

[ConScience]

Really and why is that?

How long have you got? A fortnight? It's a long story. There are a lot of books out there, and I would have to go through the notes.

Perhaps this is best for another thread (I don't like this Ida topic, anyway!)

No, Luke tells us where he got his information. "Q" is nothing more than liberal higher criticism and is not really genuine, competent Christian scholarship along with the whole "JPED" nonsense.

Oh boy. tell us, Shiloh, where do YOU think Luke tells us that he got his information? We went though this last night! Read Luke 1:1-3. Goodness me!

Where the Bible is concerned, you really have nothing to offer.

Pure cowardice. I'm confident from that response that I know much more than you on the subject. Do you have a monthly plan to read through the bible? Have you read over thirty books on the origins of scripture? Have you lectured on the subject? I'm guessing not.

You want to see nothing to offer? Take a look in the mirror.

I can afford to be closed-minded where the truth is concerned, like it or not.

You admit, at least, that you're closed-minded. It's the first step, they say!

Nobody can afford to be closed-mined, whether or not they believe they can.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Oct 25 2009, 10:32 AM)

Really and why is that?

How long have you got? A fortnight? It's a long story. There are a lot of books out there, and I would have to go through the notes.

Perhaps this is best for another thread (I don't like this Ida topic, anyway!)

Take your best shot.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Oct 25 2009, 10:32 AM)

No, Luke tells us where he got his information. "Q" is nothing more than liberal higher criticism and is not really genuine, competent Christian scholarship along with the whole "JPED" nonsense.

Oh boy. tell us, Shiloh, where do YOU think Luke tells us that he got his information? We went though this last night! Read Luke 1:1-3. Goodness me!

Luke did not get it from the silly "Q" source. Like I said, Luke investigated the accounts just like a responsible scholar would. Funny how that suddenly becomes a liability where accuracy is concerned.

Where the Bible is concerned, you really have nothing to offer.

Pure cowardice.

Not cowardice at all. Just being honest, judging from what you have offered thus far. So far, everything you have said is old news in the arena of theology. It is warmed over stew that people like you have been blithering about for decades. Honestly, do you think you are the first to come on this board with this nonsense????

I'm confident from that response that I know much more than you on the subject.

You may feel free to test that assumption any time you wish.

Do you have a monthly plan to read through the bible? Have you read over thirty books on the origins of scripture? Have you lectured on the subject? I'm guessing not.

You want to see nothing to offer? Take a look in the mirror.

I study and learn from the best and like I said, you are old news and have nothing to offer that is any challenge to the truth. You proceed in your presumptuous underestimations of me if you wish, but you will only suceed in making a fool of yourself.

[MorningGlory]

I see this thread becoming really ugly, really fast. The constant insults contribute nothing to the discussion. They're pretty childish. Why on earth can't you people discuss the subject instead of each other's perceived shortcomings?

[Guest shiloh357]

My apologies. I will stand down.