[Morality Games]

Sure, but that's not proof God doesn't exist.

No, but it is proof he is a functional non-entity in world affairs. Even if a remote creator God is somehow involved, his involvement is imperceptible, and therefore meaningless.

I don't think so. I mean, you can show the context of the use and prove me wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. For Mark 2, Jesus was responding to pharisees. They were questioning why he was with sinners, why he was not fasting, and why he did not observe the Sabbath properly like the Bible said. Mark 2:22 and Mark 2:27 were his responses. I don't think that was out of context. The book of Hebrews was entirely a letter to the strict Jews. It also included the phrase "For if that first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second one. But he finds fault with them and says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah." Hebrews 8:7-8 If you still think these phrases are out of context, please tell me how.

I don't have my Bible with me right now, but I sort of remember the dialogue you are referencing, and you are taking it out of context. Jesus' reformist theology was rule-based, not science or history based. He argued against the strictness of the rules of Jewish theological interpretations of the Bible. He never demonstrated doubt for the history or science of the Bible.

This isn't really an argument, so it's hard to respond.

No, it is a huge argument. Since you all operate under the same (low) logical standard of truth, you should all accept each other's ideas as true and valid. Picking and choosing on no basis other than because you feel like it is unacceptable.

But I don't think we use a double-standard. We just add one extra fact that we just know is true. God exists. The logical foundation is built on that.

You can use scientific vocabulary (like the term 'fact') and insist you 'know' God exists, but words have no meaning unless they have the objectives to back them up. You don't have the objectives to back up your "fact", so use of the term fact is only nominal (in name, not in form).

Please provide textual support for this statement.

I don't have my Bible with me.

So you think the Jews were stoned when they wrote the genealogy? Do you really think they were sure that Adam lived 900+ years?

What? Of course they thought that was true. Are you kidding? That the lives of humans became increasingly shorter as centuries passed was an important part of their theology, and they dedicated much thought to the problem, pondering the many "why's" of its truth.

I already explained the Jews considered themselves chroniclers of history, that their God was tangible and directly involved in their affairs, and that he would not suffer them to write anything false in their account of the facts.