Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!

[oldbadger]

The gospel accounts don't agree with each other, or so it seems to me.

For example: Why did the Gospel of Mark tell of the 'Temple clearance' happening in the last week of his mission when the Gospel of John tells us that it happened in the first weeks? ........most strange.

...............and more to come.

[oldbadger]

Oh dear. Your Theistic denial is showing.

Indeed it is.....I'm not a theist.

This is not 'My opinion' but definitions, and the generally accepted meanings (1) and how logic works.

That you try to make it some opinion of mine. I had to lean this myself, just as you have to learn it - if you are willing to abandon Theist Faith as something more than that.

It is simple.

Belief in a god - Theism Belief in a god, a cosmic intelligence supposedly creative, managing maybe, and intervening or not, but intelligent makes it a god (2), anything else is physics.

Non belief in a god - atheism.

Not knowing one way or the other (Agnosticism) is irrelevant. One either believes or not.

Degrees of probability for or against a god claim (which the maker - the theist - has to define, not the unbeliever) is a Discussion but does not alter the point of 'Believe - or not'.

Aside that cosmic origins and some kinds of 'fine tuning' arguments have some legs, we really do not know (agnostic) and without compelling evidence for a god, non - acceptance of the god - claim is logically mandated by not knowing whether there is a god (cosmic intelligence) or not. Simple and logical position and only Theist - think tried to confuse it. Often by debating meanings of terms.

(1) I coined the 'Humpty Fallacy' (it might be known under another name) but 'Words mean what I want them to mean'. I think Dodgson knew this was a fraud but maybe not. But the way it works is, if you use words with your own meanings (as distinct from the generally accepted ones that get into dictionaries) the you have created your own language, and if nobody understands you, it is your fault that you didn't use the definitions everyone else did.

cue alternative meanings. 'God' is used in various ways, but in the theist context, it has a generally accepted meaning and if you mean something else "Harry Potter is my God" you are not part of the conversation. We all know this, as we do know why we have 'Faith' our car will start, but Theist apologists fiddle words and meanings to confuse the issue.

Don't do it; we are better than this.

(2) your point was evasive, using diffuse and ambiguous wording. Do you believe this cosmic whole is intelligent or not? If not, you are atheist, if you do, you are theist and burden of proof is on you to show why you think so. I suspect that (like many an 'agnostic') you are trying to evade this crossroads position.

The way that you argue in such heat reminds me of a Baptist priest that I sometimes converse with at a tea morning here. There is no truth beyond his own perception of all. There is only his truth squared up against the rest of the world.

[TRANSPONDER]

Oh dear. Your Theistic denial is showing.

Indeed it is.....I'm not a theist.

This is not 'My opinion' but definitions, and the generally accepted meanings (1) and how logic works.

That you try to make it some opinion of mine. I had to lean this myself, just as you have to learn it - if you are willing to abandon Theist Faith as something more than that.

It is simple.

Belief in a god - Theism Belief in a god, a cosmic intelligence supposedly creative, managing maybe, and intervening or not, but intelligent makes it a god (2), anything else is physics.

Non belief in a god - atheism.

Not knowing one way or the other (Agnosticism) is irrelevant. One either believes or not.

Degrees of probability for or against a god claim (which the maker - the theist - has to define, not the unbeliever) is a Discussion but does not alter the point of 'Believe - or not'.

Aside that cosmic origins and some kinds of 'fine tuning' arguments have some legs, we really do not know (agnostic) and without compelling evidence for a god, non - acceptance of the god - claim is logically mandated by not knowing whether there is a god (cosmic intelligence) or not. Simple and logical position and only Theist - think tried to confuse it. Often by debating meanings of terms.

(1) I coined the 'Humpty Fallacy' (it might be known under another name) but 'Words mean what I want them to mean'. I think Dodgson knew this was a fraud but maybe not. But the way it works is, if you use words with your own meanings (as distinct from the generally accepted ones that get into dictionaries) the you have created your own language, and if nobody understands you, it is your fault that you didn't use the definitions everyone else did.

cue alternative meanings. 'God' is used in various ways, but in the theist context, it has a generally accepted meaning and if you mean something else "Harry Potter is my God" you are not part of the conversation. We all know this, as we do know why we have 'Faith' our car will start, but Theist apologists fiddle words and meanings to confuse the issue.

Don't do it; we are better than this.

(2) your point was evasive, using diffuse and ambiguous wording. Do you believe this cosmic whole is intelligent or not? If not, you are atheist, if you do, you are theist and burden of proof is on you to show why you think so. I suspect that (like many an 'agnostic') you are trying to evade this crossroads position.

The way that you argue in such heat reminds me of a Baptist priest that I sometimes converse with at a tea morning here. There is no truth beyond his own perception of all. There is only his truth squared up against the rest of the world.

Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought you were a Deist. If youy are a deists, you are a theist. If you are not, a theist you are an atheist. You trell me, using the definitions I posted, not meanings you use yourself.

The way you think I argue is nothing like your baptist preacher. The fact that you don't answer my simple questions doesn't look good. You can clear this up in one post and debunk me.

Do you think there is an intelligent cosmic mind that created our universe or do you not?

[oldbadger]

Do you think there is an intelligent cosmic mind that created our universe or do you not?

Now that is a bit better........you're asking what I 'think'.

No....I don't think that the whole of all, the deity or God..... is aware, and I don't have a clue about how it/you/me/the bricks in my home etc came to be.

I am a Deist, but I would understand if anyone might suggest that my Deism leans towards naturalism.
You see ...... Deism doesn't have a rigidly set description, any more than, say, Christianity does. (There are many many differing creeds, churches, congregations in Christianity).

And by the way, there are variations within Atheism as well. For example, I know some Atheists who are superstitious.

[TRANSPONDER]

Old Badge, it was always about what you think (in respect of the god - claim; do you believe it or not. Simple) within the context of accepted definitions of Theism. It includes deism. If you think the universe is Not aware in a reasoning cognisance sense, you are an atheist not a deist. Sorry. You can invent your own definiitions, but using English instead of Badge, that is the way it is.

If however you ''don't know', that mandated non belief (logically) until you do know or are at least convinced. If you are, you are a Theist or convinced by the god - claim.

To be quite clear, this is not me imposing my opinions, but the logical framework of theism/atheism using the definitions quoted. Where your views fall is dictated by the definitions and logic, not by me.

why does this simple thing get so infernal complex? I reckon it is about evading the hated name 'Atheist' even if that is what one is.

Cue: grudging acceptance of the term but we - yall are the 'wrong kind of atheist'. I have seen it before.

[oldbadger]

Old Badge, it was always about what you think.........

My posts have always offered my thoughts. But some people insist that they have certitude, like that priest I take tea with or maybe yourself?

Theism. It includes deism.

Theism = aware...involved.
Deism= unaware...uninvolved.

Your own and many other ideas seem to believe that yes means no, or up means down.

If you think the universe is Not aware in a reasoning cognisance sense, you are an atheist not a deist.

So you tell me what I am, eh?

Sorry.

That's ok....i forgive you.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not misrepe reseting you, you are misrepresenting me. Clearly, as i already said what I am arguing.

Definitions say what theism is A belief in a god. Deism (a non involved god) is a subset of theism. (1)

You get to tell me where your beliefs fit. I don't get to tell you what you believe, but what you believe fits into the definitions.

If you devise your own definitions, you are talking a different language to anyone else

Theism = aware...involved.
Deism= unaware...uninvolved.

I don't recall that the definition of theism said a god had to be involved, after the act of creation (and even that isn't strictly needed). It looks like you have invented your own definition to ...do what, is not clear. If a god is involved or not (Deism) it is still a god - belief (Theism).

If a god is not believed in, it is atheism.

"Sorry"? You forgive me? I was not apologising; I was sympathising with your cognisant misperception. Snarks only make your misundertanding look worse by adding edginess. We really do not want or need that. We are on the same side.

(1)Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › theist
: a believer in theism : a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods.

Now I know that dictionaries scurry to specify 'especially' an intervening god. Because religions need interacting gods. A Deist god (created stuff then leaves it alone) is a half - way mark to non -belief. But Theism does not exclude deism; Non -belief (atheism) does, even though we are brethren, both being irreligious.

[oldbadger]

I'm not misrepe reseting you, you are misrepresenting me. Clearly, as i already said what I am arguing.

No. I have never told you what you are, but you've tried that on me a few times now.

Definitions say what theism is A belief in a god. Deism (a non involved god) is a subset of theism.

No. Theism is all about aware, interested, involved God's.

If you devise your own definitions, you are talking a different language to anyone else

All the religions,together with agnostics, irreligious, and even atheists have their many subsections....I may be able to show you that on this your copied post....

I don't recall that the definition of theism said a god had to be involved, after the act of creation (and even that isn't strictly needed). It looks like you have invented your own definition to ...do what, is not clear. If a god is involved or not (Deism) it is still a god - belief (Theism).[

Really?! I'm on a mobile at present but when I get home I'll copy paste a few dictionary definitions of Theism for you.

If a god is not believed in, it is atheism.[

Now that is really very wrong.
The above includes agnosticism, and many religious people disbelieve in any gods. Etc etc.

I was not apologising....

Folks who tell me 'sorry' and don't mean 'sorry' might do better to select a more pertinent word?

And 'Same Side'.…..... Allies in a particular controversy or dispute can find themselves beside all kinds of other people. Think about the countries that have stood by each other in bad times, yet before,/after are enemies. We are just individuals who meet where we touch......true,?

[oldbadger]

I'm not misrepe reseting you, you are misrepresenting me. Clearly, as i already said what I am arguing.

Definitions say what theism is A belief in a god. Deism (a non involved god) is a subset of theism. (1)

I mentioned subsets of atheism before.

I'm on a mobile and cannot copy/paste, but if you ask your search engine for ',different kinds of atheism' you'll come across a range of titles, from extreme thru hard on to soft and very very close to agnosticism. Deism can also come close to atheism but hard atheists don't really want us as guests on their forums. I'm a member of an atheist forum and some members are very very aggressive about my presence, but the forum boss doesn't mind me visiting and posting.

[TRANSPONDER]

No, no no. You are wrong there.

I'm not misrepe reseting you, you are misrepresenting me. Clearly, as i already said what I am arguing.

No. I have never told you what you are, but you've tried that on me a few times now.

Definitions say what theism is A belief in a god. Deism (a non involved god) is a subset of theism.

No. Theism is all about aware, interested, involved God's.

If you devise your own definitions, you are talking a different language to anyone else

All the religions,together with agnostics, irreligious, and even atheists have their many subsections....I may be able to show you that on this your copied post....

I don't recall that the definition of theism said a god had to be involved, after the act of creation (and even that isn't strictly needed). It looks like you have invented your own definition to ...do what, is not clear. If a god is involved or not (Deism) it is still a god - belief (Theism).[

Really?! I'm on a mobile at present but when I get home I'll copy paste a few dictionary definitions of Theism for you.

If a god is not believed in, it is atheism.[

Now that is really very wrong.
The above includes agnosticism, and many religious people disbelieve in any gods. Etc etc.

I was not apologising....

Folks who tell me 'sorry' and don't mean 'sorry' might do better to select a more pertinent word?

And 'Same Side'.…..... Allies in a particular controversy or dispute can find themselves beside all kinds of other people. Think about the countries that have stood by each other in bad times, yet before,/after are enemies. We are just individuals who meet where we touch......true,?

You misunderstand agnosticism. A common mistake, but still a mistake. As much as your confusion (if not misrepresentation) that religions that do not have gods, are still theist (Scientology and supposedly Buddhism).

You are still confusing or misrepresenting what the definitions and logic says with what I say as some kind of personal opinion.

You can go definition - shopping if you wish. I looked at a few before I quoted Webster. Be sure I shall jump on you if you quotemine OR pretend that 'especially' or 'specifically' means 'exclusively', which it does not.

Subsections are irrelevant. Deism as a subset of Theism is still theism. Atheism as a subset of humanism or rationalism is still atheism. You cannot fool me, even if you fool yourself, by gathering up a lot of subsets.

Sorry if my choice of Sorry makes you sorry, but I'm not really sorry if you are sorry, and I'm not even sorry if you are now telling me what I should do in your opinion.

We are allies or should be. As we ought to be with all - and religion is something that makes enemies of us for no good reason. Like a common misunderstanding of 'agnosticism' that seems to depend on making deism a non belief that isn't atheism. It is just wrong and I wonder why this is so often a thing. As I said, I have seen a clinging to godfaith by those who have all but lost it. And it can become pretty heated (1).

Take the excellent Athetotheist here, who is pretty good on religion, but flaws on Cosmic origins.

And even more revealing, a couple of bods on my Other piano; one who got banned for being toxic about the wrong kind of atheist after he'd sulkily agreed that non belief meant he was one. And one before him (also got banned about the time I parachuted in here) who was a 'Wind up an atheist for Jesus' type who opposed atheists for political reasons.

And another who was a non believer but kept arguing the 'Civilisation will collapse without the (Catholic) church" nonsense.

Political dislike of atheists whom they see as 'liberals' and thus political enemies,. Or they just dislike the name. I have seen it before, and it looks like it is here again. I don't mind irreligious theists, deists and even atheists calling themselves 'agnostic' because 'atheist' has a bad rap in the US. Just so they understand it is a subterfuge, not correct usage.

(1) but it can happen even with irreligious atheists. I have wrangled with deep - dyed disbelievers over my "Q" theory, which they regard as heresy. I was verbally carpet - bombed by a German Bible expert who refused my 'Mark added material' argument (specifically the addition to the death of the baptist) while he tried to argue 'Fatigue' was why Matthew didn't have the extra stuff that mark has. It happens, but I don't take it personally, may their atheist carcasses burn eternally in hades.

[oldbadger]

You misunderstand agnosticism. A common mistake, but still a mistake. As mich as your confusion (if not misrepreseantation) that religions that do not have gods, are still theist (Scientology and supposedly Buddhism).

I know some agnostics and they describe their feelings about this differently. Some would no doubt respond aggressively to being told what and who they are.
And I know Hindu atheists who would trample that other point of yours.

You are still confusing or misrepresenting what the definitions and logic says with what I say as some kind of personal opinion.

So your logic is more canny than mine or many definitions, right?
I wonder what the term is for such a mindset?

Subser ctions are irrelevant. Deism as a subset of Theism is still theism.

You've tried pushing that on me for days now.
You can't tell all the world how it is, T.

Sorry if my choice of Sorry, makes you sorry, but I'm not really sorry if you are sorry, and I'm not even sorry if you are now telling me what I should do in your opinion.

That doesn't seem very sorry at all.
Yet another word used incorrectly by you?