{
  "block": 35615687,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "steemitboard",
      "body": "Congratulations @madmovond! You received a personal award!\n\n<table><tr><td>https://steemitimages.com/70x70/http://steemitboard.com/@madmovond/birthday3.png</td><td>Happy Birthday! - You are on the Steem blockchain for 3 years!</td></tr></table>\n\n<sub>_You can view [your badges on your Steem Board](https://steemitboard.com/@madmovond) and compare to others on the [Steem Ranking](https://steemitboard.com/ranking/index.php?name=madmovond)_</sub>\n\n\n###### [Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness](https://v2.steemconnect.com/sign/account-witness-vote?witness=steemitboard&approve=1) to get one more award and increased upvotes!",
      "json_metadata": "{\"image\":[\"https://steemitboard.com/img/notify.png\"]}",
      "parent_author": "madmovond",
      "parent_permlink": "the-real-reason-greece-defaulted",
      "permlink": "steemitboard-notify-madmovond-20190816t232942000z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2019-08-16T23:29:42",
  "trx_id": "56e4de30992c53103f4c701442f04ff98dba24d8",
  "trx_in_block": 15,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 25132101,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "steemitboard",
      "body": "Congratulations @madmovond! You have received a personal award!\n\n[![](https://steemitimages.com/70x70/http://steemitboard.com/@madmovond/birthday2.png)](http://steemitboard.com/@madmovond)  2 Years on Steemit\n<sub>_Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor._</sub>\n\n\n> Do you like [SteemitBoard's project](https://steemit.com/@steemitboard)? Then **[Vote for its witness](https://v2.steemconnect.com/sign/account-witness-vote?witness=steemitboard&approve=1)** and **get one more award**!",
      "json_metadata": "{\"image\":[\"https://steemitboard.com/img/notify.png\"]}",
      "parent_author": "madmovond",
      "parent_permlink": "the-real-reason-greece-defaulted",
      "permlink": "steemitboard-notify-madmovond-20180817t002017000z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-08-17T00:20:15",
  "trx_id": "66b1c2673192c5b1af626e0ca493b8c60a63bf84",
  "trx_in_block": 32,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 19899116,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "Quick correction: Aurora, Colorado.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"news\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}",
      "parent_author": "corbettreport",
      "parent_permlink": "fake-news-of-the-year-honorable-mentions",
      "permlink": "re-corbettreport-fake-news-of-the-year-honorable-mentions-20180215t191024213z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-15T19:10:24",
  "trx_id": "8c5f916a3c1585c1c49bcfab99c1d61e5474649b",
  "trx_in_block": 17,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 19899108,
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "author": "corbettreport",
      "permlink": "fake-news-of-the-year-honorable-mentions",
      "voter": "madmovond",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-15T19:10:00",
  "trx_id": "95f9353fe73751f92d57fe1234f55e380714ba4a",
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 14639989,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "steemitboard",
      "body": "Congratulations @madmovond! You have received a personal award!\n\n[![](https://steemitimages.com/70x70/http://steemitboard.com/@madmovond/birthday1.png)](http://steemitboard.com/@madmovond)  Happy Birthday - 1 Year on Steemit Happy Birthday - 1 Year on Steemit\nClick on the badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.\n\nFor more information about this award, click [here](https://steemit.com/steemitboard/@steemitboard/steemitboard-update-8-happy-birthday)\n> By upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how [here](https://steemit.com/steemitboard/@steemitboard/http-i-cubeupload-com-7ciqeo-png)!",
      "json_metadata": "{\"image\":[\"https://steemitboard.com/img/notifications.png\"]}",
      "parent_author": "madmovond",
      "parent_permlink": "the-real-reason-greece-defaulted",
      "permlink": "steemitboard-notify-madmovond-20170817t012254000z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2017-08-17T01:22:54",
  "trx_id": "3c00b1b59c33723296783d0a7950d7f3accb4df3",
  "trx_in_block": 6,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 9627341,
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "author": "corbettreport",
      "permlink": "pentagon-caught-peddling-fake-news-about-airstrikes",
      "voter": "madmovond",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2017-02-23T18:48:30",
  "trx_id": "ba4d8177be2936ebe3222f13e966b6c2ce722f6e",
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 8620987,
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "author": "corbettreport",
      "permlink": "3d-printed-guns-crowd-sourced-internet-webtorrent-video-and-other-decentralized-solutions",
      "voter": "madmovond",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2017-01-19T19:15:27",
  "trx_id": "d6139e50155f264663dcc3789549b8b1e8a36899",
  "trx_in_block": 10,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 5750751,
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "author": "corbettreport",
      "permlink": "a-brief-history-of-fake-government-media",
      "voter": "madmovond",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-10-11T22:50:33",
  "trx_id": "01bde0952edbfe5925d136b801fecd1e38bf2495",
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 5451495,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "sean-king",
      "body": "Parts of a comment that I recently left for @stan are directly responsive to your comment:\n\nYes, we have far more copies of the Bible than we do any other ancient text, but those copies of the Bible are riddled with inconsistencies.  And, even when we settle upon some particular one of those great many inconsistent versions, we then must translate them accurately.  Did you know that there are more than 300 English translations alone of \"the\" Bible? \n\n\nUntil more modern times, most English translations, including the KJV, were heavily influenced by Tyndale's original English translation.  But Tyndale is well known to have taken certain liberties that subsequent translations have sometimes corrected:\n\n>It was Tyndale who established …that the Bible should not be in the language of scholars but in the spoken language of the people. [H]e coined such words as “Passover,” “scapegoat,” “mercy seat,” and “long-suffering.”\n\n>Many expressions of Tyndale are also unforgettable, cherished by countless readers of the English Bible: “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2); “the pinnacle of the temple” (Matt. 4:5); “the salt of the earth” (Matt. 5:13); “daily bread” (Matt. 6:11); “Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow” (Matt. 6:28); “meek and lowly in heart” (Matt 11:29); “shepherds abiding in the field” (Luke 2:8); “eat, drink, and be merry” (Luke 12:19); “fatted calf” (Luke 15:23); “only begotten son” (John 1:14, 18); “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2); “in whom we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28); “God forbid” (Rom 3:4); “sounding brass” and “tinkling cymbal” (1 Cor. 13:1); “in the twinkling of an eye” (1 Cor. 15:52); “singing and making melody (Eph. 5:19); “office of a bishop” (1 Tim. 3:1); “the pleasures of sin for a season” (Heb. 11:25); “an advocate with the Father” (1 John 2:1); and “Behold, I stand at the door and knock” (Rev 3:20). (How We Got the Bible at 178-179)\n\nDespite their familiarity, the above expressions do not appear in the original Greek, at least not in so many words: \n\n>[I]t is noteworthy that these expressions could have been translated differently from the Greek text, yet because Tyndale had such an ear for the English language, these [para]phrases live on. [parentheticals added]. (How We Got the Bible at 179)\n\nHere are many more additional examples of changes and inconsistencies in our Bibles:\n\n1) Later manuscripts of 1 John 5:7-8 contain a phrase that the earliest and best manuscripts do not. Specifically, later versions say “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit…”. <b>This phrase first appears in Miniscule 61, dating to the fifteenth or sixteenth century.</b> The reader can see How We Got the Bible at 100 for an interesting discussion of how this verse came to be included in modern English Bibles, but to make a long story short, it was originally inserted by Literalists centuries after the fact to bolster the doctrine of the Trinity. \n\n2) Later manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark contain an ending that does not appear in the earliest versions of the book. Specifically, Chapter 16:9-20 of Mark, which describes Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to Mary Magdalene and others, do not appear in the earliest and bests texts, such as the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Likewise, they do not appear in the oldest known manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate or Old Syriac. The vocabulary used in these verses is highly suspect and generally does not fit with Mark’s style. Furthermore, many expressions found in them appear nowhere else in the entire New Testament. Because all of our earliest versions of Mark simply end his account with the discovery of the empty tomb (Chapter 16, verse 8), we can be assured that the expanded ending placed in our modern Bible is almost certainly inauthentic. After all, consider which is more likely: (a) Early orthodox Christians (who argued vehemently that Christ physically resurrected “in the flesh” and who were the keepers of the Bible for centuries) inexplicably deleted Mark’s original account of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances before compiling our most ancient texts and destroyed all older versions, thus accounting for its absence in our earliest manuscripts; or (2) these same orthodox Christians intentionally added references of Jesus’ post-resurrection to the end Mark to support their argument that he rose in the flesh and inadvertently failed to destroy all older versions. If we are to be fair, the second explanation is far more likely. \n\n3) In Mark 1:1, many of the oldest manuscripts do not include Jesus’ title as “Son of God.” This “divine” title was added by the church to bolster its claim of Jesus’ divinity. \n\n4) The oldest and best manuscripts mistakenly attribute the Old Testament quote in Mark 1:2 to Isaiah rather than to Malachi. Later scribes corrected this obvious error by altering the text to attribute the subsequent quotes simply to “the Prophets.” \n\n5) Mark 11:26 does not appear at all in the most ancient texts. \n\n6) Mark 15:28 does not appear in the most ancient texts.\n\n7) Part of Luke 22:19 and all of Luke 22:20 do not appear in the most ancient manuscripts.\n\n8) The oldest manuscripts do not contain John 8:1-11, which records the only gospel account of the woman caught in adultery, and Jesus’ famous statement to “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. About a dozen of the ancient manuscripts (the “Family 13” miniscules dating to the ninth century) peculiarly place the story of the adulterous woman not in the gospel of John, but after Luke 21:38. However, based on the historical record, scholars are quite certain that this story was never part of John’s or Luke’s “original” account. \n\n9) <b>The oldest manuscripts do not contain Acts 9:37, in which Phillip apparently requires a eunuch to profess a certain “belief” that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God” prior to being baptized with water. The eunuch’s confession of faith appears for the first time in the Codex Laudianus, which is dated to the sixth century. </b> This spurious addition was inserted long after Acts was written, likely in an effort to bolster the orthodox position that specific “beliefs” were required in order to receive baptism and be saved.\n\n10) Matthew 23:14 is not found in the earliest manuscripts.\n\n\nI can't emphasize enough that the most important of these differences between the oldest manuscripts/translations and the KJV and certain other more modern ones--the additions that appear in later manuscripts like the KJV but which do not appear in earliest (or newest) versions-- are easily traced to on-going and well-known debates within the church on various theological issues.  Perhaps not surprisingly, virtually all of these edits tend to bolster what we would today consider to be orthodox doctrinal views (but which were highly contested then).\n\nFor example, the doctrine of the Trinity was not an explicitly stated theological concept when the earliest manuscripts were written, and it was the subject of much heated debate as late as the 4th century CE (and actually much, much beyond that, as any moder day Unitarian or Jehovah's Witness would tell you). That later manuscripts contain Trinitarian words or phrases which are not found in the earliest versions of those same manuscripts is compelling evidence of intentional revision by orthodox editors who were the keepers of the Bible at the time, not simply scribal error. Even Bible scholars frequently cited by Literalists have had to admit this fact:\n\n>I think that these words [concerning the Trinity in 1 John 5:7-8] are found in only about seven or eight [source] copies, all from the fifteenth or sixteenth century. I acknowledge that this is not part of what the author of 1 John was inspired to write. (Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ at 65, quoting Bruce M. Metzger, PhD)\n\nThe insertion of Jesus’ title as Son of God in later versions of Mark 1:1 provides a second example of a spurious and intentional addition. Jesus’ exact nature continued to be debated into the Fourth Century, with many Christians viewing him as having been purely human, others as purely God, and yet others as both. Those who viewed him as in some manner divine ultimately won the day. That his “divine” title as “Son of God” appears in later versions of Mark 1:1, but not in earlier ones, again reveals the hand of editors intent on bolstering their theological case, and perhaps on harmonizing the Gospels. (As a side note, \"Son of God\" was not considered a divine title at all to Jews, as evidenced by various Old Testament personalities who, like Jesus, were called such. However, Greek culture, thanks to various pagan religious myths, did consider the \"sons of God\" to be divine.)\n\nYet, another example of intentional revision occurs in Luke 2:33. Originally this verse said, “And His [i.e., Jesus’] father and mother marveled at what was said about Him”, suggesting that Jesus’ father was Joseph, which could not be if Jesus were born of a virgin. Consequently, Literalist scribes altered later versions of the manuscripts to read, “Joseph and his mother marveled at what was said about him”, thereby preventing anyone from interpreting Luke as suggesting that Joseph was Jesus’ father. The altered version is the one that is preserved for us today in King James Version of our Bibles, although the New American Standard and New International Versions are among those that properly render the phrase as it was originally. \n\nOrthodox editors also made revisions to Luke 3:22 to counteract the claim by some early Christians that Jesus was not truly divine until he was “adopted” by God at his baptism. This theory, known as adoptionism, was popular among certain early Christian groups and, at least originally, had biblical support. <b>For example, the oldest surviving source texts of Luke 3:22 quotes God as saying from the clouds at Jesus’ baptism, “You are my son, today I have begotten you”, which is a paraphrase of Psalm 2:7. However, orthodox scribes, who opposed the adoptionist theory, were naturally uncomfortable with a quote from God suggesting that Jesus was not begotten of God until the day of his baptism, especially when such language was different from that offered in Mark’s and Matthew’s accounts of Jesus’ baptism, and directly contradicted John’s account of Jesus’ pre-existent divinity! \n\nSo, was Jesus begotten of God before his birth, as suggested in the opening chapter of John, or only after his baptism, as taught by the authentic Luke, or only upon his resurrection as taught by Paul? All of these inconsistencies were too much for Literalist orthodox editors to bear. To prevent the faithful from being “misled”, Literalist scribes and translators simply altered Luke 3:22 to read, “You are my beloved Son; in You I am well pleased”, an apparent illusion to Isaiah 42. This alteration had the three-fold benefit of preventing an adoptionist interpretation, harmonizing Luke’s account of God’s words with the accounts of Mark and Matthew, and linking Jesus to Isaiah and his prophecies. </b>Perhaps it is for these reasons that the altered version survives to this day in virtually every modern translation of the New Testament (though the authentic reading is sometimes footnoted). \n\nIn another striking example of orthodox alterations, a whole scene was inserted into Luke to counteract the docetic “heresy”, or the teaching that Jesus didn’t actually suffer during his passion due to his divine nature. The scene in question is the famous episode where Jesus, distressed over his impending fate, \"sweats blood\" in the Garden of Gethsemane. Luke 22:43-44 describes the scene as follows: \n\n>Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in great agony, he prayed more earnestly. Then his sweat became like great drops of blood falling to the ground.\n\nAs dramatic and memorable as this scene is, it appears only in later versions of the Gospel of Luke. It does not appear in the earliest and most reliable versions of Luke and is absent from Matthew, Mark, and John altogether. Although it is an obvious and spurious addition, it is preserved even in our modern Bibles (though again, some translations provide the authentic reading via footnote).",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"god\"],\"users\":[\"stan\"]}",
      "parent_author": "madmovond",
      "parent_permlink": "re-sean-king-re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160927t174208495z",
      "permlink": "re-madmovond-re-sean-king-re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20161001t131956851z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-10-01T13:19:57",
  "trx_id": "ac573ae958a2e0d187d88d83de6afd0f1656b6a2",
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 5425142,
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "author": "corbettreport",
      "permlink": "who-wants-to-be-a-carbon-trillionaire",
      "voter": "madmovond",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-09-30T15:21:30",
  "trx_id": "a704c3441442f6122ba70410a8bb5dc94cfb8c5d",
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 5341636,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "I must say I enjoyed reading this response, sean-king. You have a very interesting point of view and your time spent studying this subject really shows! But I still disagree with your logic on several fundamental levels. You approach the subject of the Bible from that of a postmodernist. Postmodernism is a form of deconstructionism and has the same general philosophy that words and language cannot hold any inherent truth. Language in and of itself cannot be regarded as true, because truth is always subjective if we're not considering any existence of objective truth (God of the Bible or other religious theology). If this is the case, your argument of textual criticism won't work. Does the author really know what they meant? How can we have any idea what's true or not if we don't have anything to base truth on? Empirical data could play a role, but with history we can only give our best educated guess as to what happened since we weren't there.\n\nBut if we go with your argument of textual criticism in the context that you portrayed of anything adverse to self-interest is more likely true than anything self-rewarding, the Bible still stands up quite tall to the scrutiny. Here's a somewhat lengthy quote from theopedia.com that sums up my thoughts better than I could:\n\"\"At present, we have more than 6,000 manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament or portions thereof. No other work of Greek literature can boast of such numbers. Homer's Iliad, the greatest of all Greek classical works, is extant in about 650 manuscripts; and Euripides' tragedies exist in about 330 manuscripts. The numbers on all the other works of Greek literature are far less. Furthermore, it must be said that the amount of time between the original composition and the next surviving manuscript is far less for the New Testament than for any other work in Greek literature. The lapse for most classical Greek works is about eight hundred to a thousand years; whereas the lapse for many books in the New Testament is around one hundred years. Because of the abundant wealth of manuscripts and because several of the manuscripts are dated in the early centuries of the church, New Testament textual scholars have a great advantage over classical textual scholars. The New Testament scholars have the resources to reconstruct the original text of the New Testament with great accuracy, and they have produced some excellent editions of the Greek New Testament.\n\n\"Finally, it must be said that, although there are certainly differences in many of the New Testament manuscripts, not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. Frederic Kenyon, a renowned paleographer and textual critic, affirmed this when he said, 'The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries.' \" -- Philip W. Comfort, The Complete Guide to Bible Versions, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1991.\"\n\nBut I have to ask why you think Romans would want to minimize their role in Jesus' death? Most Romans weren't Christians, and Christians were seen mostly as a threat at the time that Constantine was attempting to merge the two cultures. It seems like more of an assumption to support your argument than backed by historically supported evidence.\n\nIf we stick with unhelpful facts only making it to print if they're so well known that people would immediately shun them, why doesn't the Old Testament portray the prophets and God's chosen people differently? They make horrible decisions and are generally disobedient and evil a lot of the time. The NT has an exaltation of women and the marginalized. This was completely counter-cultural for the region and religions of that day. Why would it admit that women were the first to the tomb when women were not regarded as important or relevant to many stories at all from that time? There are even more examples that I'm not able to recall, but the question stands. Why would the authors of scripture have changed things immediately to suit their own agenda? Could it be that so many people wrote about what actually happened? 6,000 manuscript copies is a lot of copies to all be so cohesive with each other. But just to clarify, I don't disagree with you that things should always be closely examined and that history written with obvious glorification should be scrutinized to make sure it's not propaganda. Hence the plethora of scholarly subjects, such as hermeneutics and textual criticism, that put all of these manuscripts to the fire. \n\nAs for Pilate acting in a reasonable fashion instead of being cruel, I wouldn't say he didn't act cruel. He let a prisoner go and crucified Jesus to appease an angry mob. To me, that's what any Roman ruler would do. They wanted cooperation from the already established power found in the Pharisees and other powerful religious groups. Why wouldn't he second guess killing someone as contested as Jesus? Also, Jesus himself was a Jew and was loyal to the law of Moses. Where do you get the notion that that's why he was in opposition to the Pharisees? To me the Bible clearly shows he was in opposition to them because they were using God's laws for their own personal gain instead of God's glorification. He basically says listen to what they teach but don't do what they do. Jesus himself fulfilled the OT law and turned Jewish religion on it's head by saying he was the way to God, not all of the religious works anymore. Salvation and then bearing fruit, not bearing fruit in order to be saved. Again, completely counter-cultural.\n\nI like your example of parenting with textual criticism. As a father of two, the truth is almost always smeared a little bit when it comes to children. But that doesn't mean it's ALWAYS smeared. There is still a chance that they did call, didn't mean to wreck the car, and that the accident wasn't their fault. Again, we agree to be skeptical, but the translation of 6,000 manuscripts to one child taking a car without permission is an incredibly long leap with a lot of error along the way. For the sake of the definition of textual critisicm, I see your point. But beyond that it just doesn't hold water.\n\nAlso, we're in agreement that it's not logical to say that the Bible is \"infallible\". But stating that something is infallible conveys that you believe in some objective truth that exposes fallacy. I believe that God revealed himself to humanity over thousands of years and we have those stories (as well preserved as a broken humanity can have available). The authors of the NT did not present themselves in positive ways very often. Paul comes across as egotistic, but further study reveals that he's only portraying what a church leader needs to be like, and without confidence and faith in Jesus people aren't going to listen. Then most of them died in prison. Not very glorious.\n\nI don't abandon reason and common sense when I read the Bible. I just have an objective truth given by God that I base my reason and common sense on when I read the Bible or any other book. And people need hope. The Bible offers the only logical form of hope for people on Earth. Without an end to our means, all really is hopeless unless we spend our whole lives trying to convince ourselves that it's not. Your contention of \"...so what?\" in regards to the concept of God and objective truth just demonstrates to me that maybe you haven't given proper logical thought to the implications of a loss of objective truth. Subjective truth can argue convincingly that Hitler was justified, and that's a huge problem. It's not a non sequitur to consider God's existence as the only possible reason for objective truth and ethics unless you have distinctly chosen to not believe in God. But there is no empirical evidence against God, so you would be doing yourself a great disservice from many logical and philosophical standpoints.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"god\"]}",
      "parent_author": "sean-king",
      "parent_permlink": "re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160927t114707427z",
      "permlink": "re-sean-king-re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160927t174208495z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-09-27T17:42:09",
  "trx_id": "1dfb86e13eec87c55a9a645d90efb8daebc1ede3",
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 5334621,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "sean-king",
      "body": "@@ -193,17 +193,16 @@\n y employ\n-e\n  certain\n@@ -214,18 +214,19 @@\n es of th\n-em\n+umb\n %22 (forma\n@@ -607,16 +607,96 @@\n ction.  \n+Humans do this all the time everyday in our ordinary interactions with others.  \n %0A%0AAlthou\n@@ -846,22 +846,16 @@\n thor\n- of a document\n+/speaker\n  (so\n@@ -1023,18 +1023,43 @@\n irmation\n-.\n  \n+and so must be suspect. %0A%0A\n For inst\n@@ -1446,17 +1446,17 @@\n ze Rome'\n-v\n+s\n  involve\n@@ -1459,16 +1459,34 @@\n olvement\n+ in Jesus's death,\n  if anyt\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"god\"]}",
      "parent_author": "madmovond",
      "parent_permlink": "re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160926t204036504z",
      "permlink": "re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160927t114707427z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-09-27T11:51:24",
  "trx_id": "1685219a988bca2d3eeda11460b5846734d987d8",
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 5334535,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "sean-king",
      "body": "Let me elaborate on what I mean when I say that you interpret the Bible differently from any other book.  \n\nIn any other context, and with any other book, you would consciously or unconsciously employe certain \"rules of them\" (formally called rules of textual criticism) for ferreting out the truth.  You wouldn't just take the author's contentions at face value but would instead scrutinize the author's motives and biases and agenda to figure out the \"true\" message--one free of the author's spin.  And you'd do this regardless of whether you were reading a history book, a religious book or a book of fiction.  \n\nAlthough the rules of textual criticism can be confusing, the most useful is quite simple and intuitive: Facts that go against the interest of the author of a document (so-called \"admissions against interest\") are almost certainly true, while those that advance the author's agenda can't necessarily be accepted without further confirmation. For instance, we can be almost certain that those elements of the gospels that hint at or suggest that Rome was responsible for Jesus's death are true since we know for a fact that non-Jewish, Roman editors during the time of Constantine/Eusebius compiled and revised our present day gospels, putting them in their current and “final” form. Those Romans would have been inclined to minimize Rome'v involvement if anything.  Thus, \"unhelpful facts\" (such as the fact that Jesus was tried and sentenced by the Roman official, Pilate) constitute an admission that goes against the Roman editors' interests, and it is almost certainly true. It remains in our gospels very likely only because it was so well known that it could not be subsequently denied or deleted, only subsequently “spun” (as the last gospel, the Gospel of John, does so well).\n\nWhy is this rule of textual criticism so useful in making sense of accounts of historical events? Well, when compiling a history, it goes without saying that unhelpful facts are only mentioned when they are so well known that they can't credibly be denied or ignored. By contrast, helpful \"facts\" can often be invented and secretly added to an account so as to change the reader's impression of the unhelpful ones without drawing too much suspicion. Thus, it is much easier to add a \"clarifying fact\" (even an invented one) to an historical account than it is to deny or ignore the original well-known historical fact altogether. \n\nPropagandists do this all the time. In modern times we call the process of acknowledging unhelpful facts while supplementing them with falsehoods so as to change the overall impression \"spin\". But, spin is not a new invention. Thus, when reading a history, any history, admissions against interest are almost always true, while those little \"helpful\" facts--those that advance the interests of the writer of the history by attempting to soften the impact of the unhelpful ones--must be taken with a large grain of salt. It does not mean for certain that they are untrue, but we should at least seek independent corroboration before buying into them lock, stock, and barrel. \n\nThus, because our Bibles were compiled and edited primarily by Gentiles in churches founded primarily by Paul, and because Rome redacted and edited our Bibles further during the time of Constantine, any remaining admissions against Paul's or Rome's interests are very likely true (and are included only because the were so well-known that they couldn't be credibly denied), while anything that makes Paul or Rome look \"good\" or \"less culpable\" is potentially false and must at least be second-guessed. \n\nFor example, non-biblical sources present Pilate as a cruel, hot-headed and blood-thirsty dictator who was ultimately recalled to Rome to explain his harsh policies, but the Bible presents him as a reasonable and very reluctant executioner of Jesus who went so far as to \"wash his hands\" of responsibility. Thus, the fact that Pilate (a Roman) sentenced Jesus to death is an unfavorable fact as to Rome and is therefore almost certainly true, while the \"spin\" that Pilate did so very reluctantly and only to appease the rowdy Jewish crowd, is, given all we know about him form other sources, likely false. That Jesus counted anti-Roman zealots among his family and followers can't be denied (even by the Bible), so this fact is almost certainly true, but the Bible's suggestion that Jesus was a pacifist who opposed their cause must be questioned. That Jesus criticized the establishment Pharisees and Sadducees is almost certainly true, but not the Bible's suggestion that he did so only because they were so stubbornly JEWISH and LOYAL to the law of Moses. The truth is almost certainly the opposite:  Jesus opposed them because they were COLLABORATORS who had softened the requirements of God's law (in matters such a circumcision, diet, divorce, etc.) in order to make accommodations with Roman culture. \n\nAnyone who raises children can immediately understand why this technique of textual criticism—accepting “unhelpful” facts as true while questioning “helpful” ones--is such a useful means of getting at the truth of a situation. Consider this parenting example:\n\nA child \"borrows\" his parent's car without permission and then in gets into an auto accident. The parents are angry and begin questioning the child. What does the child then (rather predictably) say? Something like this: \"Yeah, Dad, it's true I snuck out with the car, and I'm really sorry for that, but I was never going to do anything bad with the car, and I tried to call you to ask permission first but I couldn’t get a hold of you. And, besides, the accident wasn't my fault!\" \n\nWell, the first assertion (that the kid snuck out with the car) is almost certainly true and can be taken at face value since the child admitted against his interest what simply couldn't credibly be denied. But the second one (that he didn't intend to do anything \"bad\" with it) and the third one (that he tried to call to get permission first), and the fourth one (that the accident wasn’t his fault), simply can’t be accepted at face value by any self-respecting parent. If parents expect to get to the truth, they will have to delve a little deeper.\n\nThis is one of the major problems with \"faithful\" interpretations of the Bible, those that insist that the Bible is \"infallible\". They never “delve a little deeper.” They never question the motives or biases of the author of the text. Rather, they simply accept every word at face value, assuming it not only to be “true”, but also “infallibly” so. Is that really a reasonable way of getting to the truth of any matter? By accepting the words of one side to the story without question?  Would we interpret ANY other document in ANY other context that way?  \n\nOf course we wouldn't.   \n\nIn short, despite your attempts to rationalize it away, your double standard (of interpreting the Bible differently than anything else) betrays the truth--that you are willing to abandon reason and common sense to preserve your \"faithful\" understanding of Christianity.  Why?  Because it makes you feel good.  It gives you hope.  \n\nEven it were true that \"when you eliminate God you eliminate objective truth\"...so what?  Respectfully, you are coming at the question ass backwards.  You have a natural bias, a strong desire, that objective truth exists.  And the only way to validate that bias is to believe in God.  And so you believe.  \"It makes me feel better if there's objective truth in the world.  For there to be objective truth, God must exist.  Therefore, God must exist.\"  Surely you see that's a non sequitur.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"god\"]}",
      "parent_author": "madmovond",
      "parent_permlink": "re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160926t204036504z",
      "permlink": "re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160927t114707427z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-09-27T11:47:06",
  "trx_id": "a3ce6722b64ea55fb28cc75ae236955812d4dc93",
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 5316430,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "@@ -115,16 +115,708 @@\n ation-%0A%0A\n+Books are written across a vast array of genres. A lot of these genres require a certain type of interpretation and critical thinking to understand them as intended. There are no other books that I'm aware of that convey the same message as the Bible (you say others are similar, which I agree, but more different than the same). Therefore, I'm not under any obligation to treat the Bible the same as a history textbook or a novel. Books are, by nature, subjectively digested by the reader even if we're all supposed to read it the exact same way objectively. That's just part of the miracle of human nature and how our brains work. My reasoning isn't circular, it's entirely logical to me. %0A\n I don't \n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"god\"],\"users\":[\"sean-king\"]}",
      "parent_author": "sean-king",
      "parent_permlink": "reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills",
      "permlink": "re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160926t204036504z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-09-26T20:41:45",
  "trx_id": "96b449102c114b1d8516c306d258ba2c81634211",
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 5316407,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "@sean-king\n\nI ran out of room to keep replying in our thread since we hit the six deep mark. So here's the continuation-\n\nI don't just simply believe the Bible because I like it. There's a lot in there I don't like and that is incredibly hard to understand. The story is definitely different, but by all account as creatures of habit, why would that make anyone choose to believe the Bible instead of their own selfish doctrine? It's arguably a lot easier to live for yourself than it is to change your lifestyle and hold contentious opinions in our modern liberal culture. The Bible certainly isn't convenient for making a lot of friends these days. And we all have existential angst that we're trying to \"soothe\" in some way or another. As I explore mine, I find that the Bible offers the most capable help, hope, and truth. But, as many atheists and agnostics may not realize, when you eliminate God you also eliminate objective \"truth\". This is what makes this debate so incredibly hard to bridge.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"god\"],\"users\":[\"sean-king\"]}",
      "parent_author": "sean-king",
      "parent_permlink": "reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills",
      "permlink": "re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160926t204036504z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-09-26T20:40:36",
  "trx_id": "2f3b385ea85d0282557c0bc03cd3f82558db73ad",
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 5250572,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "sean-king",
      "body": "Your \"argument\" in the second paragraph is entirely circular.  Essentially you say that you're not under any obligation to interpret the Bible as you would any other text.  Why?  Because the Bible says so.  \n\nThe question isn't whether Christianity's message is different or not (and it's not nearly as different as you suppose) but rather whether we can believe that message.  Believing just because you like the story, or because the story is different, or because it bests soothes your existential angst doesn't make the story any more likely to be \"true\".  It just makes the story convenient.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"god\"]}",
      "parent_author": "madmovond",
      "parent_permlink": "re-sean-king-re-madmovond-re-sean-king-re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160905t151841970z",
      "permlink": "re-madmovond-re-sean-king-re-madmovond-re-sean-king-re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160924t134708633z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-09-24T13:47:09",
  "trx_id": "8498f6780478839b6dcf24075684847d2a5d4055",
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 5165870,
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "author": "corbettreport",
      "permlink": "bayersanto-what-the-merger-really-means",
      "voter": "madmovond",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-09-21T14:54:36",
  "trx_id": "182a12cc34766209adcd58b040a0ea098fb527ba",
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4707854,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "Simply because someone starts out as a fundamentalist Christian doesn't mean they're not now out to prove that the Bible can't be trusted with an agenda. In retrospect I might change anti-Bible to anti-Legalist/Literalist agenda. But in his quest to prove that Legalism is wrong because the Bible has contradicitons (which many Christian theologians would agree with. Legalism/Literalism seems to be slowly on the decline thanks to our information age), Erhman has taken a stance in opposition to the Bible en masse as any sort of truth on his own fundamental level. Something happened in his life that planted the seeds of doubt in his Christian faith, and he surely found lots of people corroborating that doubt which led to his bias in his research of discrediting, in the video's case, the New Testament. He had a confirmation bias from the moment he found an argument in opposition to Legalism/Literalism. I just don't think any of those arguments stand up to scrutiny where he does and you do. \n\nI didn't \"refuse\" to interpret any other literature in the same way as the Bible. I'm actually under no obligation to do so considering no other literature asks me to interpret it in the same way. Christianity is the only religion that says God bridged the gap to us by becoming our servant. No other religion that I've studied (limited, again I admit. But also ongoing) has that same message. Every other is a works-based approach of impressing a god or gods in some way to achieve enlightenment or get in to some version of heaven. The counter-culture of Christianity best explains a loving God and the human plight to me. It's not almost certainly contrived, it was the natural progression from simply reading, interpreting, and digesting in the only ways I knew how. I just happened to agree and believe in it. It's just begging the question to say anyone who interprets a religious text differently than, say, a novel or textbook has an interpretation that is almost certainly contrived.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"god\"]}",
      "parent_author": "sean-king",
      "parent_permlink": "re-madmovond-re-sean-king-re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160903t141420739z",
      "permlink": "re-sean-king-re-madmovond-re-sean-king-re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160905t151841970z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-09-05T15:18:39",
  "trx_id": "0508d61a51f0b484febfbda3aebab92edb7ac97b",
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4649154,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "sean-king",
      "body": "Erhman doesn't have an \"anti-Bible agenda\".  He's a life-long student of the Bible, and he had build his career around its study.  He was originally a fundamentalist, Literalist Christian who started out attending a Bible College.  \n\nRead my dialogue with @stan in the comments to this post and you'll better understand why I think your confidence in the Bible is misplaced.  When you can only arrive at your conclusions regarding the Bible's message by interpreting it in ways that you'd refuse to interpret any other collection of documents in any other context, you can know that your interpretation is almost certainly contrived.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"god\"],\"users\":[\"stan\"]}",
      "parent_author": "madmovond",
      "parent_permlink": "re-sean-king-re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160831t182027439z",
      "permlink": "re-madmovond-re-sean-king-re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160903t141420739z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-09-03T14:14:18",
  "trx_id": "629efeb45b58efce7b2779c2e3f3334018a74e79",
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4597227,
  "op": [
    "custom_json",
    {
      "id": "follow",
      "json": "[\"follow\",{\"follower\":\"madmovond\",\"following\":\"instructor2121\",\"what\":[\"blog\"]}]",
      "required_auths": [],
      "required_posting_auths": [
        "madmovond"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-09-01T18:49:18",
  "trx_id": "ba067d753417f962d2aa03ab955534483e258710",
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4593054,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "@@ -1325,14 +1325,13 @@\n f. I\n+t\n  can\n-'t\n  com\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"god\"],\"image\":[\"https://img.youtube.com/vi/-iE6YX9O5tE/0.jpg\"],\"links\":[\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iE6YX9O5tE\"]}",
      "parent_author": "sean-king",
      "parent_permlink": "re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160831t174507294z",
      "permlink": "re-sean-king-re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160831t182027439z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-09-01T15:20:15",
  "trx_id": "c1769ef9ab479ad26c8745abfa17f4cc0186fbdc",
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4584231,
  "op": [
    "author_reward",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "permlink": "re-honeyscribe-sometimes-i-m-jealous-of-others-belief-in-a-god-20160831t165539504z",
      "sbd_payout": "0.011 SBD",
      "steem_payout": "0.000 STEEM",
      "vesting_payout": "42.307234 VESTS"
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-09-01T07:57:39",
  "trx_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "trx_in_block": 4294967295,
  "virtual_op": 230
}

{
  "block": 4580955,
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "permlink": "re-honeyscribe-sometimes-i-m-jealous-of-others-belief-in-a-god-20160831t165539504z",
      "voter": "idealist",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-09-01T05:13:33",
  "trx_id": "6c45fe0b3d91b2dd46654e109b7331272356ae72",
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4569789,
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "permlink": "re-honeyscribe-sometimes-i-m-jealous-of-others-belief-in-a-god-20160831t165539504z",
      "voter": "angryredbarber",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-31T19:54:42",
  "trx_id": "e34991e6ade0f8fc91635d32f0e2c10cb2a3183c",
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4567926,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "@@ -261,16 +261,17 @@\n y topic \n+%0A\n (https:/\n@@ -309,16 +309,17 @@\n 9O5tE). \n+%0A\n But Erhm\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"god\"],\"image\":[\"https://img.youtube.com/vi/-iE6YX9O5tE/0.jpg\"],\"links\":[\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iE6YX9O5tE\"]}",
      "parent_author": "sean-king",
      "parent_permlink": "re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160831t174507294z",
      "permlink": "re-sean-king-re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160831t182027439z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-31T18:21:24",
  "trx_id": "9ca3b8e671f9c5ae53a40abb91047cc489740196",
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4567907,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "Admittedly, I haven't read what you wrote outside of this article. But the un-cited scholars I was referring to are up in your section about Paul's \"Pastoral Letters\". You start off that section quoting Bart Erhman, who actually debated Mike Licona on this very topic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iE6YX9O5tE). But Erhman has an anti-Bible agenda. He has the same confirmation bias you say Mike Licona has. \n\nAs for the first churches having agreed upon scriptures - logic says that they did based on evidence found in the New Testament and other secular history of how they were structured, culture, etc. Our Bible is different from what they had both content and translation-wise. But I was referring to the \"underlying truth\" that I believe is most definitely in the Bible. I'm not a Literalist, as you call them, but I have put four years now of study in to the Bible and my Christian faith and I do believe the Bible is a true story about the relationship between God and man.\n\nPre-existing beliefs are what gives rise to discovering evidence is many cases. There can be just as much danger in suppressing a pre-existing belief for the sake of needing to see evidence first. A lot of harm has been said to be avoided by listening to this pre-existing \"intuition\". I disagree that evidence should come before belief. I can't come at any time to encourage, reinforce, or refute belief. It's up to each individual to be cognoscente of their own confirmation biases and to seriously consider each side before digging their heels in.\n\nIn any case, I want you to know I respectfully disagree with you and I would love to get Mike on Steemit to share his much more capable opinions on this subject.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"god\"],\"image\":[\"https://img.youtube.com/vi/-iE6YX9O5tE/0.jpg\"],\"links\":[\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iE6YX9O5tE\"]}",
      "parent_author": "sean-king",
      "parent_permlink": "re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160831t174507294z",
      "permlink": "re-sean-king-re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160831t182027439z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-31T18:20:27",
  "trx_id": "aae1b21697bcbfc52ede486f670338e17900aa8c",
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4567336,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "sean-king",
      "body": "@@ -580,16 +580,15 @@\n ho %22\n-Brielle'\n+believe\n s in\n@@ -826,16 +826,17 @@\n ct to al\n+l\n  lines o\n@@ -853,16 +853,44 @@\n e biases\n+ (as are Licona's arguments)\n .%0A%0AIn an\n@@ -1050,9 +1050,9 @@\n sees fit\n-.\n+?\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"god\"],\"links\":[\"https://steemit.com/christianity/@sean-king/early-christianities-weren-t-orthodox\"]}",
      "parent_author": "madmovond",
      "parent_permlink": "re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160831t173224228z",
      "permlink": "re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160831t174507294z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-31T17:51:54",
  "trx_id": "ae9d850f4a8e931080e256585c3a0e64d3658d4a",
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4567296,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "sean-king",
      "body": "@@ -854,8 +854,177 @@\n  biases.\n+%0A%0AIn any event, I would very much enjoy debating Mike.  Why don't you encourage him to join Steemit, post his own stuff, and respond to my arguments however he sees fit.\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"god\"],\"links\":[\"https://steemit.com/christianity/@sean-king/early-christianities-weren-t-orthodox\"]}",
      "parent_author": "madmovond",
      "parent_permlink": "re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160831t173224228z",
      "permlink": "re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160831t174507294z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-31T17:49:54",
  "trx_id": "84b536643c101feaac4d6744eacff96124e3d2fc",
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4567242,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "sean-king",
      "body": "@@ -538,8 +538,324 @@\n orthodox\n+%0A%0AFinally, you enourage everyone who %22Brielle's in the Bible's underlying truth%22 to study Mike Licona in search of validation of those beliefs.  Respectfully, that's backwards.  Evidence should come before belief.  Pre-existing beliefs in search of evidence are dangerous and subject to al lines of cognitive biases.\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"god\"],\"links\":[\"https://steemit.com/christianity/@sean-king/early-christianities-weren-t-orthodox\"]}",
      "parent_author": "madmovond",
      "parent_permlink": "re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160831t173224228z",
      "permlink": "re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160831t174507294z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-31T17:47:12",
  "trx_id": "c772ba05ece4143a2b31746e926bf9cd2dd592f8",
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4567200,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "sean-king",
      "body": "I cited every scholar either in the lead up to the quote or else in the parenthetical immediately after the quote.  So, I'm not sure what you mean by \"un-cited\" assumptions.  Also, if you've not read the prior chapters, then they may provide some context.  \n\nThere is absolutely no evidence that the first churches had agreed upon scriptures.  I'm not saying that they didn't, only that we have no reliable evidence for it.  I talk about the early churches here:\n\nhttps://steemit.com/christianity/@sean-king/early-christianities-weren-t-orthodox",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"god\"],\"links\":[\"https://steemit.com/christianity/@sean-king/early-christianities-weren-t-orthodox\"]}",
      "parent_author": "madmovond",
      "parent_permlink": "re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160831t173224228z",
      "permlink": "re-madmovond-re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160831t174507294z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-31T17:45:06",
  "trx_id": "34d52d80250b0b57902fca5293f075f977c42a7f",
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4566947,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "There are a lot of un-cited assumptions in this article. If you're going to try to disprove the Bible, you're going to need to go in to immense detail and cite every \"scholar\" that you're referring to. There are many scholars that are hell-bent on convincing everyone that there is no God and Jesus didn't exist. The same can be said of the contrary, but the whole point is to present with minimal bias. Otherwise it moves from an article to an op-ed. \n\nYou're also caught up on what took place hundreds of years after the first churches formed. The secular Roman government butchered true Christianity and called it Catholicism. If you focus on how broken people fought over what's true and what's not, you'll have to go back way further than a few hundred years AD. The first churches had agreed upon scriptures and even had eye-witnesses to Jesus' life and death. I'm not sure many Christian scholars would disagree that translation is difficult, but that's why the vocation of hermeneutics exists. People spend their entire lives bettering translations and deciding what may or may not be forgeries. \n\nI'm no expert and I'm still studying all of this for myself, but I recommend anyone who believes in the Bible's underlying truth to study a New Testament scholar named Mike Licona. http://www.risenjesus.com/\nHe has very pertinent and empirically sound logic backing up his belief that the Bible we have tells a true story of human salvation by and through God.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"god\"],\"links\":[\"http://www.risenjesus.com/\"]}",
      "parent_author": "sean-king",
      "parent_permlink": "reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills",
      "permlink": "re-sean-king-reading-the-bible-is-like-picking-out-diamonds-from-dunghills-20160831t173224228z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-31T17:32:24",
  "trx_id": "4fff2657977c4236a56bb675a4d9b17a67384f62",
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4566212,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "As some previous commenters have noted, religion is not God. I totally agree. As a Christian I can only speak from my years of studying the Bible, apologetics, hermeneuitcs, secular art history, and contemporary history. We have to realize that religion is also not the Bible. The Bible was spoken/written by people who had no intention of inventing the \"religion\" of Christianity. They were simply people who were trying to tell the stories of their lives and the lives of others that they bore witness to. They did this because they believed that God was speaking through them and that the whole world needed to hear what He had to say. \n\nOk, you say, then which one is true and which are false doctrine? That's an extremely important question to ask and then seek to answer. If you believe in God, and if God loves us as His children and only wants the best for us, can we ascribe to a religion that promotes severe gender inequality? Hatred? Killing? As I've studied the Bible more and more through actual scholars instead of listening to pretentious televangelists, I've found our that these questions have answers. Not all religions can support the same one God or a version of polytheism. They're at odds in more ways than they align. But God is very real underneath all of that. Corrupt religions are also very real. You have to dig deep to find the answers you need, and these answers likely require reading/talking/listening to many different \"scholars\" (or equivalent in amount of time and effort spent studying the topic) or people who have had amazing experiences that corroborate God's existence. It's a little complicated, but absolutely worth it. If we could drop the materialistic delusion we would see an entirely different purpose for ourselves.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"life\"]}",
      "parent_author": "honeyscribe",
      "parent_permlink": "sometimes-i-m-jealous-of-others-belief-in-a-god",
      "permlink": "re-honeyscribe-sometimes-i-m-jealous-of-others-belief-in-a-god-20160831t165539504z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-31T16:55:39",
  "trx_id": "e06809120eab5ec39868d3879e5c9a22dc105f9d",
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4419375,
  "op": [
    "custom_json",
    {
      "id": "follow",
      "json": "{\"follower\":\"madmovond\",\"following\":\"arnoldwish\",\"what\":[\"blog\"]}",
      "required_auths": [],
      "required_posting_auths": [
        "madmovond"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-26T14:00:57",
  "trx_id": "659420c9864c00a4661c7cc5c31a416714c96419",
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4419375,
  "op": [
    "custom_json",
    {
      "id": "follow",
      "json": "{\"follower\":\"madmovond\",\"following\":\"matrix\",\"what\":[\"blog\"]}",
      "required_auths": [],
      "required_posting_auths": [
        "madmovond"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-26T14:00:57",
  "trx_id": "bf84601ffe0b0d80a9bdf5b5a988212468e4528b",
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4419374,
  "op": [
    "custom_json",
    {
      "id": "follow",
      "json": "{\"follower\":\"madmovond\",\"following\":\"skyefox\",\"what\":[\"blog\"]}",
      "required_auths": [],
      "required_posting_auths": [
        "madmovond"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-26T14:00:54",
  "trx_id": "704877689b7e73cde74bdab7bc19768a292f9a7c",
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4397144,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "<html>\n<p><img src=\"https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Mdcc2148cab370b5d2558e94289ec3d82H0%26pid%3D15.1%26f%3D1&amp;sp=9393f611c8ec018374b7d259fc039325\" width=\"300\" height=\"196\"/></p>\n<p>Documents provided to Wikileaks by a Greek official indicate that Greece has been planning to default on its debts for almost two decades. The reason behind it all – “Grexit”. The portmanteau of the century.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Top Greek officials have known for nearly twenty years that the term “Grexit” would captivate the hearts and minds of the world, revitalizing the image of Greece and bringing the attention they’ve craved since antiquity.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>“A portmanteau of epic proportions is what we need to really get the attention of the world.” Greek Prime Minister Alex Tsipras is quoted saying in the leaked reports. “Not only is Grexit fun to say, but people will love learning that a portmanteau isn’t just luggage or a coat rack. It’s a great way to make friends laugh by combining two words in a clever fashion. Outside of track and field, this is something we’re quite good at here in Greece.”&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Another top Greek official is quoted saying, “This isn’t about paydebt or grexiting the Eurozone. It’s about combining words. We’ve planned this portmantakeover for a long time because of how amazactful it would be for the world.” Tspiras and the Syrizarty have not returned our callmails for comment.&nbsp;</p>\n</html>",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"politics\",\"writing\",\"satire\",\"grexit\"],\"image\":[\"https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Mdcc2148cab370b5d2558e94289ec3d82H0%26pid%3D15.1%26f%3D1&sp=9393f611c8ec018374b7d259fc039325\"]}",
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "writing",
      "permlink": "the-real-reason-greece-defaulted",
      "title": "The Real Reason Greece Defaulted"
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-25T19:21:27",
  "trx_id": "bb5055fba58cff4e2415e043a2d906206c5f9155",
  "trx_in_block": 5,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4396008,
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "permlink": "the-real-reason-greece-defaulted",
      "voter": "moodledidoodledi",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-25T18:24:12",
  "trx_id": "65263fda702bb19021fe7d90e23e69509f6af4c0",
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4395773,
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "permlink": "the-real-reason-greece-defaulted",
      "voter": "madmovond",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-25T18:12:27",
  "trx_id": "3cef911506364b505c2772dd75f65a95dd59f509",
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4395773,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "<html>\n<p><img src=\"https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Mdcc2148cab370b5d2558e94289ec3d82H0%26pid%3D15.1%26f%3D1&amp;sp=9393f611c8ec018374b7d259fc039325\" width=\"300\" height=\"196\"/></p>\n<p>Documents provided to Wikileaks by a Greek official indicate that Greece has been planning to default on its debts for almost two decades. The reason behind it all – “Grexit”. The portmanteau of the century.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Top Greek officials have known for nearly twenty years that the term “Grexit” would captivate the hearts and minds of the world, revitalizing the image of Greece and bringing the attention they’ve craved since antiquity.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>“A portmanteau of epic proportions is what we need to really get the attention of the world.” Greek Prime Minister Alex Tsipras is quoted saying in the leaked reports. “Not only is Grexit fun to say, but people will love learning that a portmanteau isn’t just luggage or a coat rack. It’s a great way to make friends laugh by combining two words in a clever fashion. Outside of track and field, this is something we’re quite good at here in Greece.”&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Another top Greek official is quoted saying, “This isn’t about paydebt or grexiting the Eurozone. It’s about combining words. We’ve planned this portmantakeover for a long time because of how amazactful it would be for the world.” Tspiras and the Syrizarty have not returned our callmails for comment.&nbsp;</p>\n</html>",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"writing\",\"satire\",\"grexit\",\"politics\"],\"image\":[\"https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Mdcc2148cab370b5d2558e94289ec3d82H0%26pid%3D15.1%26f%3D1&sp=9393f611c8ec018374b7d259fc039325\"]}",
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "writing",
      "permlink": "the-real-reason-greece-defaulted",
      "title": "The Real Reason Greece Defaulted"
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-25T18:12:27",
  "trx_id": "3cef911506364b505c2772dd75f65a95dd59f509",
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4338041,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "I'm not sure you can safely make a objective distinction between \"modern\" science and what you're calling \"science as actual personal knowledge\". Science has a standard definition, then we all just add whatever baggage we want to it so that it fits our worldview. If you're delineation is subjective, it doesn't hold any water considering my point of view is different and there are thousands of other points of view different than either of ours. \n\nPsychic phenomena occurrences are illogical according to empirical science, but they're not impossible. This would be a category that researchers would just label as \"we're not really sure\". That category exists in all major branches of science, so it's not scientific to say that supernatural occurrences are impossible. Illogical, sure. But logic has a dynamic definition that changes with technology, philosophy, theology, and many other \"ology\"'s. That being said, there is no such thing as a non-modern science that holds all of the logic. There's just your opinion based on what you consider logical based on a definition of science that you have adopted to suit your personal tastes. This is essentially what many people do to varying degrees. The real challenge is to try and push through bias and seriously consider all applicable angles to our life and universe. \n\nThere are qualified and degree'd scientists that believe in God. They guy who mapped the human genome believes in God. I would say these believing scientists have found a level playing field with logic and God on the same team if they're that entrenched and didn't throw out supernatural possibilities. Science does not say God doesn't exist.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"science\"]}",
      "parent_author": "veritopian",
      "parent_permlink": "re-madmovond-re-veritopian-re-monsoondrain-re-veritopian-modern-science-is-a-religion-prove-me-wrong-20160820t175549305z",
      "permlink": "re-veritopian-re-madmovond-re-veritopian-re-monsoondrain-re-veritopian-modern-science-is-a-religion-prove-me-wrong-20160823t173854329z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-23T17:38:54",
  "trx_id": "518c97e01f8ca7df05d0d4e77f90ed8d61165bb3",
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4309545,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "One has to wonder - The people in power know the end from the means of war. They've studied it and encouraged it for their own manipulative and horrendous agendas for ages. Why are they promulgating the idea of division and destruction of the very people they need to satisfy their quest for power?\n\nAny logical thought train will lead directly to the conclusion that those in charge of running the political and military-industrial behemoths around the world are implicitly detached from humanity. They are narcissists and sociopaths. They created a meat grinder knowing it was a meat grinder, regardless of what they try to disguise it as through propaganda and rhetoric. \n\nStay strong in your stance against this evil and corrupt world, James. More and more people will come to know the truth if we just keeping talking about it.\n\n\"Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember?\"",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"writing\"]}",
      "parent_author": "corbettreport",
      "parent_permlink": "it-is-later-than-you-think",
      "permlink": "re-corbettreport-it-is-later-than-you-think-20160822t174046553z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-22T17:40:45",
  "trx_id": "d79e88be39510ed62bdf05e19a0aad6d54f44e46",
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4252783,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "veritopian",
      "body": "\"Modern science\", and science as actual personal knowledge are obviously two different things... I love science, but despair over modern-science.\n\nIf you're suggesting that psychic phenomena(?) are illogical, then what's the basis for that? Surely, if real, these things follow cause & effect like anything else. If  modern-science doesn't deal with it - it doesn't mean it's illogical. Modern-science isn't logical.\n\nLogic leads directly to God, so anyone arguing against the existence of God is a religious devotee, not a scientist. They absolutely have no idea what they're talking about, and are in fact being the biggest hypocrites it's possible to be... \n\nThis is the whole point of the article right? :)\n\nI note no-one has put forward any substantive refutation of my logic. Nada.\n\nScience says God doesn't exist, but 'random' does. That's illogic on the verge of lunacy...\nAnd the sad indictment of humanity is that no-one ever thinks it through for themselves. (Well, I did, but I was bored.)\n:)",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"science\"]}",
      "parent_author": "madmovond",
      "parent_permlink": "re-veritopian-re-monsoondrain-re-veritopian-modern-science-is-a-religion-prove-me-wrong-20160817t210144034z",
      "permlink": "re-madmovond-re-veritopian-re-monsoondrain-re-veritopian-modern-science-is-a-religion-prove-me-wrong-20160820t175549305z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-20T17:55:51",
  "trx_id": "a6609073cbbac9de8cb791e77549741f8f2e98b5",
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4230461,
  "op": [
    "custom_json",
    {
      "id": "follow",
      "json": "{\"follower\":\"madmovond\",\"following\":\"ivanba12\",\"what\":[\"blog\"]}",
      "required_auths": [],
      "required_posting_auths": [
        "madmovond"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-19T23:13:51",
  "trx_id": "775a4308f293928568b7b3549122b15aafe31716",
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4224056,
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "author": "corbettreport",
      "permlink": "incirlik-nukes-out-russian-air-force-in-is-turkey-leaving-nato",
      "voter": "madmovond",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-19T17:50:00",
  "trx_id": "87f7be97177b89e731da863f1401f326fe1268fd",
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4223711,
  "op": [
    "custom_json",
    {
      "id": "follow",
      "json": "{\"follower\":\"madmovond\",\"following\":\"steemlinks\",\"what\":[\"blog\"]}",
      "required_auths": [],
      "required_posting_auths": [
        "madmovond"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-19T17:32:36",
  "trx_id": "83e843a93ba419214ad930a13b900413664c9ae1",
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4195004,
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "author": "corbettreport",
      "permlink": "soros-got-hacked-can-you-guess-what-we-found",
      "voter": "madmovond",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-18T17:16:51",
  "trx_id": "b4e8f25de147ae75f59fe6f10e3ce8b7f4e1587b",
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4193832,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "cryptosteem",
      "body": "Thank you for your reply I can give you other scientific facts to confirm Quran is the words of God, but that will only benefit u if u are truethful person, and a man of understanding I would also ask u to do ur own research on Islam and science u will be amazed. or check some of my blog post about science and Islam. @cryptosteem",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"science\"],\"users\":[\"cryptosteem\"]}",
      "parent_author": "madmovond",
      "parent_permlink": "re-cryptosteem-re-veritopian-re-discernente-re-veritopian-modern-science-is-a-religion-prove-me-wrong-20160818t153507208z",
      "permlink": "re-madmovond-re-cryptosteem-re-veritopian-re-discernente-re-veritopian-modern-science-is-a-religion-prove-me-wrong-20160818t161801926z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-18T16:18:03",
  "trx_id": "6b7116c596b03374250290900a83c5fa40c123b2",
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4192975,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "Nothing personal, but the argument that Islam is the correct religion based on a \"golden mean\" figure has so many holes in it it's not even considerable as a smoking gun by any scientific or theological point of view.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"science\"]}",
      "parent_author": "cryptosteem",
      "parent_permlink": "re-veritopian-re-discernente-re-veritopian-modern-science-is-a-religion-prove-me-wrong-20160817t223935729z",
      "permlink": "re-cryptosteem-re-veritopian-re-discernente-re-veritopian-modern-science-is-a-religion-prove-me-wrong-20160818t153507208z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-18T15:35:06",
  "trx_id": "345498725901338234e78e6644a48e0434f04494",
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4192768,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "Hello @veritopian! I do think that science and superstition/religion are compatible. They are separate in many ways, but very much intertwined and compliment each other often in my experience.\n\nThere are a lot of people who have stories of things that defy any known logic. I've had experiences that land in that category. Now, in a world of skeptics, who is going to believe these stories unless they were there too? You have to experience the illogical for yourself to grasp that there is a supernatural element to our universe. If you haven't, you have no reason to believe it because it's in opposition to your own confirmation bias. \n\nI mentioned that the universe is not as black and white as you make it seem. Science, by definition, is black and white. Cause and effect. Observations and theories based on other observations, causes, and effects. But I stand by the fact that is not explaining anything. It's merely describing how natural laws are being played out. It doesn't explain why the universe is structured the way it is. We ultimately don't know why things are the way they are through science alone. We just know that things act a certain way in certain situations due to scientific experiments and observations. The argument is there that it's only a matter of time before we get to the bottom of it, but that is a subjective argument just the same as saying science will never get to the bottom of it because God is too big for a microscope (so to speak). \n\nLet me suggest two books for you that I found very relevant for this discussion in the past. As a believer they're both from my side, of course, but you might find them interesting if you can get through them objectively. \nThe Insanity of God by Nik Ripkin. The author's name is a pseudonym, but the stories he tells are from his actual experiences as a missionary in Africa, Asia, and eastern Europe. Many of the stories defy logic, it's just up to you if you want to believe them.\nThe other book is Who Made God by Edgar Andrews. Andrews is a respected physicist was the first person to debate Dawkins in a live setting. That debate is worth a listen, too if you have the chance. But the book is a very scientific approach to evidence that there is a God.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"science\"],\"users\":[\"veritopian\"]}",
      "parent_author": "veritopian",
      "parent_permlink": "re-madmovond-re-veritopian-re-monsoondrain-re-veritopian-modern-science-is-a-religion-prove-me-wrong-20160818t090112076z",
      "permlink": "re-veritopian-re-madmovond-re-veritopian-re-monsoondrain-re-veritopian-modern-science-is-a-religion-prove-me-wrong-20160818t152446409z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-18T15:24:45",
  "trx_id": "19e98ef1dc175482c55f3c7e31d27cd2e4de0925",
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4185122,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "veritopian",
      "body": "Hi @madmovond, are you saying that you think science and superstition are compatible?\n\nI think science is absolutely about black and white. It's about facts, right & wrong, true & false... That's it's whole purpose.\nWhat things do you think defy logic? I can't think of any.\nIf one can prove a theory/theology wrong by logic, then that does make it false, so I'd have to say you're wrong about that.\nScience absolutely *can* explain things, in terms of cause and effect. It'd be useless if it couldn't.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"science\"],\"users\":[\"madmovond\"]}",
      "parent_author": "madmovond",
      "parent_permlink": "re-veritopian-re-monsoondrain-re-veritopian-modern-science-is-a-religion-prove-me-wrong-20160817t210144034z",
      "permlink": "re-madmovond-re-veritopian-re-monsoondrain-re-veritopian-modern-science-is-a-religion-prove-me-wrong-20160818t090112076z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-18T09:01:03",
  "trx_id": "d4b95e229d3d52209a1be60b372ba0bb3e56f54b",
  "trx_in_block": 5,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4170953,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "@@ -116,16 +116,17 @@\n nd other\n+s\n  have fi\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"science\"]}",
      "parent_author": "michaelmatthews",
      "parent_permlink": "that-s-no-moon-it-s-a-space-station",
      "permlink": "re-michaelmatthews-that-s-no-moon-it-s-a-space-station-20160817t210946605z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-17T21:10:00",
  "trx_id": "3645470002dd0d263887a3706e933e75aef84562",
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4170948,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "Always intriguing to look more closely at our moon. Crrow777 on Youtube has some interesting insight with what he and other have filmed, too. Make what you will of his opinions, but the lunar wave he captured is something to consider.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"science\"]}",
      "parent_author": "michaelmatthews",
      "parent_permlink": "that-s-no-moon-it-s-a-space-station",
      "permlink": "re-michaelmatthews-that-s-no-moon-it-s-a-space-station-20160817t210946605z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-17T21:09:45",
  "trx_id": "d313c407895f9453ca2db1a80bd3c02f639925e9",
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4170787,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "Your definition of logic rests solely on empirical data. My definition of logic goes beyond our flawed human ability to describe the universe -- because it has to. There are many things that science cannot explain, and some things that science will likely never explain. Modern science had to adopt faith because technology has opened and shut too many doors for foot planting conclusions to occur more than rarely. This is due to the fact that some things defy what you or I would define as \"logical\". An exhausting argument in semantics is all we have without considering the supernatural. Our universe is not as black and white as your argument is trying to make it seem. \n\nYou're entitled to disagree with all the theology you want, but that doesn't make it false. That only makes it your opinion against their experience. Science can only describe. It cannot explain.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"science\"]}",
      "parent_author": "veritopian",
      "parent_permlink": "re-monsoondrain-re-veritopian-modern-science-is-a-religion-prove-me-wrong-20160817t204304423z",
      "permlink": "re-veritopian-re-monsoondrain-re-veritopian-modern-science-is-a-religion-prove-me-wrong-20160817t210144034z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-17T21:01:42",
  "trx_id": "6f8031df078bced8b4f3ac09adc5465498cb7d32",
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4169934,
  "op": [
    "custom_json",
    {
      "id": "follow",
      "json": "{\"follower\":\"madmovond\",\"following\":\"corbettreport\",\"what\":[\"blog\"]}",
      "required_auths": [],
      "required_posting_auths": [
        "madmovond"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-17T20:18:48",
  "trx_id": "2f44be1d210061770cd15654569b520e820e9bcd",
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4169911,
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "author": "corbettreport",
      "permlink": "how-big-oil-conquered-the-world",
      "voter": "madmovond",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-17T20:17:39",
  "trx_id": "c8a6223d5db951a628e5e1de0e3558eebe39d641",
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4169790,
  "op": [
    "author_reward",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "permlink": "re-jakemccauley-is-it-evil-to-join-the-military-20160817t153607952z",
      "sbd_payout": "0.078 SBD",
      "steem_payout": "0.000 STEEM",
      "vesting_payout": "191.567926 VESTS"
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-17T20:11:39",
  "trx_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "trx_in_block": 4294967295,
  "virtual_op": 203
}

{
  "block": 4169451,
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "author": "jthej70",
      "permlink": "expounding-on-is-it-evil-to-join-the-military-by-jakemccauley",
      "voter": "madmovond",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-17T19:54:39",
  "trx_id": "b850f45f14ce60e1d3dc85e0f99c2a44e7680a3c",
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4167972,
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "permlink": "re-jakemccauley-is-it-evil-to-join-the-military-20160817t153607952z",
      "voter": "blakemiles84",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-17T18:40:21",
  "trx_id": "e27d012a2134dafdfbc53ad4946873307aa03755",
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4167604,
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "permlink": "re-jakemccauley-is-it-evil-to-join-the-military-20160817t153607952z",
      "voter": "madmovond",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-17T18:21:57",
  "trx_id": "c0ed426f18ee6695f21c509edfdfac6bb88d06ff",
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4167073,
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "permlink": "re-kyriacos-re-clevecross-re-kyriacos-rebuttal-of-gavvet-s-entropy-vs-christ-a-scientific-basis-for-jesus-christ-20160817t162153375z",
      "voter": "madmovond",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-17T17:55:21",
  "trx_id": "59435a9ac244ff200db1eb666bfb953459469050",
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4165210,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "Religion is not God. You cannot safely assume the non-existence of God by citing a lack of evidence held within a book(s). That's a logical fallacy. Ask a Christian Apologetic where they get their validation that God is real and I would bet most wouldn't say the Bible.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"philosophy\"]}",
      "parent_author": "kyriacos",
      "parent_permlink": "re-clevecross-re-kyriacos-rebuttal-of-gavvet-s-entropy-vs-christ-a-scientific-basis-for-jesus-christ-20160816t161727568z",
      "permlink": "re-kyriacos-re-clevecross-re-kyriacos-rebuttal-of-gavvet-s-entropy-vs-christ-a-scientific-basis-for-jesus-christ-20160817t162153375z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-17T16:21:51",
  "trx_id": "7a87ed78961e5a38582aa9119773f3738f4fcd18",
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4164299,
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "author": "madmovond",
      "body": "We're in total agreement with regards to the sad reality of the military meat grinder. But I have to disagree with your statement about the content of Christian's holy book leading to burning and stoning people. That's not a true statement. The content of the Bible teaches its believers that they should be loving servants to all people, including their enemies. The Old Testament exists for background of how God worked through people to bring them back around leading up to Jesus finishing up the ultimate redemption for humanity. Was the OT pretty brutal? Yeah, it was. But God ain't no pansy. As for Islam and the Quran, that same message of love and servitude doesn't quite exist in the same measure to my knowledge. There are seemingly similar, but very different reasons for their extremism at the theological level.\n\nIf and when people use the Bible to commit atrocities, they're taking scripture out of context and bastardizing entire stories and contents to their will. What's the best way to turn people from the truth? Tell people the same truth with a few lies added in. When the lies are exposed the truth gets squashed with them. Which is basically how government propaganda works. Sounds like the same evil people to me. \"In God we trust\", right? Their god might be from a holy book, but it's the bad guy in the story.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"life\"]}",
      "parent_author": "jakemccauley",
      "parent_permlink": "is-it-evil-to-join-the-military",
      "permlink": "re-jakemccauley-is-it-evil-to-join-the-military-20160817t153607952z",
      "title": ""
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-17T15:36:06",
  "trx_id": "bd2f084bbd8d8bce80d1cd62d8c799b5536f16b5",
  "trx_in_block": 5,
  "virtual_op": 0
}

{
  "block": 4144819,
  "op": [
    "account_create",
    {
      "active": {
        "account_auths": [],
        "key_auths": [
          [
            "STM5RiwEAtsgG9zczaztVkQr7aw29A3775CPFq87tJ8R9VegAH67N",
            1
          ]
        ],
        "weight_threshold": 1
      },
      "creator": "steem",
      "fee": "3.000 STEEM",
      "json_metadata": "",
      "memo_key": "STM6Q3JD69cNM84hV9QxBJCoUZVhxHnyy4N9f17M9QRBxNANmn14c",
      "new_account_name": "madmovond",
      "owner": {
        "account_auths": [],
        "key_auths": [
          [
            "STM6HRPFGwZ97nYhoY9axWYNct3bDoapJmUmYUJaSagYnM2HmHFoo",
            1
          ]
        ],
        "weight_threshold": 1
      },
      "posting": {
        "account_auths": [],
        "key_auths": [
          [
            "STM5bxknQVpETaD718Yu5GKXXGbSMZHrN63boKpcD6rgurcviDHhV",
            1
          ]
        ],
        "weight_threshold": 1
      }
    }
  ],
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-16T23:15:03",
  "trx_id": "18514891ecad0884accadad003257231720f0c00",
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0
}