was the "new testament" actually finished around 400 AD?

[norseamd]

and what do you think about this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_religion

 

[WTSherman]

I am a warrior for all religions and beliefs, even insane ones!

 

[norseamd]

the roman church and the roman catholic church are not the same

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism

worrying about demoninations is not going to do anything for you in the long run

churches that broke off before the orthodox church are now associated with the catholic church, despite having older conflicting beliefs.

 

[norseamd]

sorry if i seem rude

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

My point is, you've got no evidence supporting said event didn't happen.

Well, you tell me: if I have literally billions upon billions of recorded instances of humans being born of 2 human parents, and then among those billions and billions I have one allegation of a baby being born of only 1 human parent -- not even naturally, mind you, but by some mystical magical hocus-pocus -- we shouldn't suppose that the alleged mystical magical hocus-pocus story is simply an instance of a few humans being mistaken (humans who we cannot interrogate, of course, and were almost assuredly scientifically ignorant), but we should at least grant equal plausibility to the idea that this was in fact the one any only legitimate exception among those billions and billions of data points because Jesus makes you feel good when you close your eyes and dream about him.

Yeah, totes reasonable.

Using your standard of evidence, neither of us have any.

You're burden-shifting. It's pathetic. If the best you can muster at this point is "You can't prove it didn't happen," I think we're done. That isn't even the point of contention -- you deleted the only part of my post that is actually germaine. How convenient for you, and how sadly typical.

So, now I have to be an investigative journalist to check facts, huh?

I said nothing of the sort. Please read more carefully.

Secondly, and I am shocked to hear you trot out the old "this tall-tale was false, so your scripture is too" fallacy, I can find correlations between virtually anything, and by virtue of "X" being false, "A" and "B" must be too.

You have utterly failed to understand the argument. Do you want to try again?

This is an argument of desperation that you're making.

You don't understand the argument, so this rings particularly hollow.

And what about all those other points I made that you're just pretending don't exist, now?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't live in a book?

You're asking me? Are you not sure? Can't figure that one out on your own?

Regardless, the question remains unanswered, so I will ask it again:

And how does that compare to the world you live in, or the world's body of knowledge? Are either of those "finished"?

 

[WTSherman]

the roman church and the roman catholic church are not the same

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism

worrying about demoninations is not going to do anything for you in the long run

churches that broke off before the orthodox church are now associated with the catholic church, despite having older conflicting beliefs.

Is Wikipedia where everyone gets their information these days? I learned what I know about history from books. I would advise you to go out and read about what happened in those days on your own.

The early Roman church was pagan, with a variety of gods. But Roman Catholicism had its start with a figure named Jesus, and his disciples. If you aren't a Christian let me fill you in, every other Christian religion is based off of and in opposition to my religion, which represents the original Christians.

 

[rudeguy]

You're asking me? Are you not sure? Can't figure that one out on your own?

Regardless, the question remains unanswered, so I will ask it again:

And how does that compare to the world you live in, or the world's body of knowledge? Are either of those "finished"?

The world I live in is not finished.
The world's body of knowledge is not finished.

Is this your "gotcha" question?

 

[norseamd]

If you aren't a Christian let me fill you in, every other Christian religion is based off of and in opposition to my religion, which represents the original Christians.

confused.

you are a roman catholic, you apparantly do not know how protestants think. even many protestants do not think catholics are heretics per se, just misguided. the protestants revolted because of non biblical practices and beliefs among the catholic church. they viewed the early chruch as their inspiration. you can argue that many protestant congregations have diverged from neo-early chruch beliefs over time, but that was not their original intent. also i do not think that viewing protestants as enemies is a current catholic doctrine. that would be from the 15th century.

roman mythology is not a church. that is a word with christian connotations.

you should try brittanica. the 1911 edition is on the web. it is free and public domain.
but maybe the brittanica is anglican?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The world I live in is not finished.
The world's body of knowledge is not finished.

So why is it seemingly to the Bible's credit that it is "finished," and conversely to the discredit of science that it is "always changing"?

Wouldn't you think in a changing world with a growing body of knowledge, science's changeability is advantageous?

Is this your "gotcha" question?

If you feel like I "gotcha," then I don't know what to tell you. I simply asked you a straightforward question pertinent to the subject, and it apparently took you two tries to answer it. Why that would be, I can only speculate.

 

[rudeguy]

So why is it seemingly to the Bible's credit that it is "finished," and conversely to the discredit of science that it is "always changing"?

Wouldn't you think in a changing world with a growing body of knowledge, science's changeability is advantageous?


If you feel like I "gotcha," then I don't know what to tell you. I simply asked you a straightforward question pertinent to the subject, and it apparently took you two tries to answer it. Why that would be, I can only speculate.

I just respect you and was really hoping this wasn't your whole argument.

I have mixed feelings on science. Mainly because there is so much junk science out there that gets hyped as the next big thing. Then its gets disproved and no one questions it.

Real science, not theoretical science I love. Deep space exploration, microbiology, physics...those are my favorites. I'm also a huge history buff. I don't reject science. I reject junk science.

But if we follow your logic. ..should every science textbook have a disclaimer that the contents could not be true?

 

[norseamd]

Real science, not theoretical science I love.

"real science" is based off theoretical science. remember einstein did not think that quantum mechanics made much sense. i would not either. but apparantly movement without moving in the space inbetween is possible.

But if we follow your logic. ..should every science textbook have a disclaimer that the contents could not be true?

maybe anything ever?

what you know is based off what your senses percieve and what your brain thinks of your experiences over time. do you really know if any thing exists at all. how do you know if your not in a illusion?

 

[Retro Rob]

Well, you tell me: if I have literally billions upon billions of recorded instances of humans being born of 2 human parents, and then among those billions and billions I have one allegation of a baby being born of only 1 human parent -- not even naturally, mind you, but by some mystical magical hocus-pocus -- we shouldn't suppose that the alleged mystical magical hocus-pocus story is simply an instance of a few humans being mistaken (humans who we cannot interrogate, of course, and were almost assuredly scientifically ignorant), but we should at least grant equal plausibility to the idea that this was in fact the one any only legitimate exception among those billions and billions of data points because Jesus makes you feel good when you close your eyes and dream about him.

Yeah, totes reasonable.

Likewise, we have billions of instances where something creates something, but the exception is the start of the Universe, which...all of a sudden..HAS NO CREATOR.

If you reject that argument, you'll see why I reject yours.

You're burden-shifting. It's pathetic. If the best you can muster at this point is "You can't prove it didn't happen," I think we're done. That isn't even the point of contention -- you deleted the only part of my post that is actually Germaine. How convenient for you, and how sadly typical

I am not burden shifting, I just want to know what evidence you're following to declare something a myth.

I said nothing of the sort. Please read more carefully.

Well, you seemed to be implying that since investigative journalism is a 20th century invention, this is the defacto fact-checking standard, and previous ways to fact check are automatically inferior.

You have utterly failed to understand the argument. Do you want to try again?

You're poorly presenting it...try making more sense.

You don't understand the argument, so this rings particularly hollow.

Then learn to communicate. I cannot read minds.

And what about all those other points I made that you're just pretending don't exist, now?

I'm under no obligation to respond to every point you make.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I just respect you and was really hoping this wasn't your whole argument.

Fair enough, I was just trying to illustrate the absurdity of a particular prevalent polemic I've seen bandied about regarding science and how it "can't be trusted because it's always changing." Like it's some kind of asset that the authors of the Bible decided everything 2000 years ago, full stop. Got it right on the first try! Don't bother me with your little "discoveries" and fancy book-lernin'.

I have mixed feelings on science. Mainly because there is so much junk science out there that gets hyped as the next big thing. Then its gets disproved and no one questions it.

I'll grant you that there's a lot of incentive for people to purport scientific support for their objectives -- that's because real science is so damned successful. The trick is to develop a thorough understanding of what science really is, and thereby build yourself an effective filter.

Real science, not theoretical science I love. Deep space exploration, microbiology, physics...those are my favorites. I'm also a huge history buff. I don't reject science. I reject junk science.

I share the sentiment, and I while don't want to project other people's mistakes onto you, I can say that it in my experience it is unfortunately common for "junk science" to stand for "facts that are inconvenient for my religious beliefs" when speaking with Christians. Particularly this concerns things like evolution, the age of the earth/universe, the "flood" etc. The alleged miracles of Jesus are a different animal, basically outside scientific investigation.

But if we follow your logic. ..should every science textbook have a disclaimer that the contents could not be true?

Science isn't about truth. Truth is for the philosophers. Science is about developing better and better models of reality. When a child makes a paper airplane for the first time, it may fly (or at least glide, albeit poorly), and we know it certainly isn't a Cessna, but it models certain characteristics of a Cessna, even if only crudely. When the child hones his skill over years of practice and patience, and finally he builds an excellent scale model of a Cessna, controlled by remote, that he can fly and land and perform stunts... we know that this still is no Cessna, it is a model, even if it is a very, very good one. Does that mean the child's paper airplane wasn't "true"? Is the later model Cessna "true"? What would that even mean?

Strictly speaking, scientific models are not judged by whether or not they are "true." They are judged by whether or not they work. The model Cessna above works better than the paper airplane, but neither are "not true."

I used the word "models" here because I feel it is a much under-used and more apt word than "theories" -- which is a word that misleads a lot of people about science. Wherever you see the word "theory" in a scientific context, it would help to mentally replace it with "model," in my opinion.

 

[TreVader]

The new testament is an amalgamation of several different works that was later decided upon by several different sects and each takes a different view on what consists of "the new testament".


The one thing they have in common is they are all based primarily on the human imagination.

 

[Retro Rob]

I used the word "models" here because I feel it is a much under-used and more apt word than "theories" -- which is a word that misleads a lot of people about science. Wherever you see the word "theory" in a scientific context, it would help to mentally replace it with "model," in my opinion.

Better get on board with the word "simple" too, as regards our alleged beginnings.

There isn't anything "simple" about an atom or a cell, or an unguided, unplanned, chaotic roll-of-the dice all "sixes" beginnings that happened to somehow fall so well into place that we have a habitable world.

"Simple" should be replace with "unlikely" or better still, "impossible".

 

[norseamd]

imagination is one of the many things that went into the bible

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Likewise, we have billions of instances where something creates something, but the exception is the start of the Universe, which...all of a sudden..HAS NO CREATOR.

What "start of the universe"? You're transparently attempting a tu quoque argument, and you fell flat on your face. How about you deal with the plank in your own eye before you try to talk about the motes of dust you imagine are in mine, hmm?

If you reject that argument, you'll see why I reject yours.

Is that reason because you don't believe Jesus performed miracles like I don't believe there exists a "start of the universe"?

Sweet! We agree on all counts!

I am not burden shifting, I just want to know what evidence you're following to declare something a myth.

Bullshit. You need to deal with my arguments first before you start demanding I respond to yours.

Well, you seemed to be implying that since investigative journalism is a 20th century invention, this is the defacto fact-checking standard, and previous ways to fact check are automatically inferior.

What "previous ways to fact check"? Contrary to what you might have been told, snopes.com hasn't been around since the first century. There weren't photographic records or video evidence. There was word of mouth, and that was it.

Remind me again how infallible you think humans are. Or are they just infallible when they're saying the things you want to believe?

You're poorly presenting it...try making more sense.

My argument makes perfect sense. It's not like you don't have a track record for failing to apprehend nuanced arguments.

Then learn to communicate. I cannot read minds.

It appears you can't read words, either.

I'm under no obligation to respond to every point you make.

I'm sorry, I was under the ignorant impression that you wanted to be taken seriously. My apologies, in the future I'll just remind you what a disingenuous fuckwit you are. Is that what you'd prefer?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Better get on board with the word "simple" too, as regards our alleged beginnings.

There isn't anything "simple" about an atom or a cell, or an unguided, unplanned, chaotic roll-of-the dice all "sixes" beginnings that happened to somehow fall so well into place that we have a habitable world.

"Simple" should be replace with "unlikely" or better still, "impossible".

What the fuck are you blathering about?

 

[Retro Rob]

What "start of the universe"? You're transparently attempting a tu quoque argument, and you fell flat on your face. How about you deal with the plank in your own eye before you try to talk about the motes of dust you imagine are in mine, hmm?

You cite billions of examples of two-parent births as evidence virgin births cannot happen before the age of science -- I simply counter with evidence that everything in our natural world had a beginning except the natural universe.

If the universe is aged, it didn't always exist. I'm pointing out the inconsistencies in your argument.

Is that reason because you don't believe Jesus performed miracles like I don't believe there exists a "start of the universe"?

Sweet! We agree on all counts!

Good one.

Bullshit. You need to deal with my arguments first before you start demanding I respond to yours.

Why are you getting so upset? Many with your mindset claim to "follow the evidence" before determining whether or not something is fact or fiction...I simply ask what evidence have you followed to declare the Bible "fiction".

Or are you just arbitrarily labeling something "fiction" for no real reason?

What "previous ways to fact check"? Contrary to what you might have been told, snopes.com hasn't been around since the first century. There weren't photographic records or video evidence. There was word of mouth, and that was it.

So are you saying that we can re-write history on a whim because "hell, they're all wrong....they didn't have the internet!!!"? If you didn't know, the internet isn't 100 percent fact. Sorry to ruin your day.

Sure, lets completely revision any history prior to say...200 C.E because we know what went on...we have the internet...created by a bunch of people not alive then either, with information uploaded by a bunch of incredulous individuals born in an age of unfounded "skepticism".

Remind me again how infallible you think humans are. Or are they just infallible when they're saying the things you want to believe?

LOL. You just admitted that without the internet and 20th century inventions, you have no sense of real "history".

I'm sorry, I was under the ignorant impression that you wanted to be taken seriously. My apologies, in the future I'll just remind you what a disingenuous fuckwit you are. Is that what you'd prefer?

C'mon, no need for ad hominem attacks, Taxt.

 

[sandorski]

C'mon, no need for ad hominem attacks, Taxt.

That wasn't an ad hominem.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You cite billions of examples of two-parent births as evidence virgin births cannot happen before the age of science -- I simply counter with evidence that everything in our natural world had a beginning except the natural universe.

Ok there are so many things wrong with this I'm starting to believe in miracles, because it's a goddamned miracle you can find your way out from under your bedcovers in the morning, let alone type words on the internet.

1.) I did not cite any "evidence virgin births cannot happen." I explained why it's unreasonable to believe vis-a-vis the more parsimonious hypothesis.
2.) You are flatly lying about your own statements. You specifically cited "the start of the universe" before, and now you're claiming your argument presupposes a universe without a beginning.
3.) Objects in the universe are simply re-configurations of pre-existing matter. The matter that makes up a baseball did not suddenly pop into existence when it fell off the assembly line.

If the universe is aged, it didn't always exist. I'm pointing out the inconsistencies in your argument.

This is particularly wrong-headed. Where "always" represents "all meaningful time values," the universe has certainly always existed. Time is a coordinate system superimposed on the universe. It is senseless to talk about a "time when the universe did not exist."

Why are you getting so upset? Many with your mindset claim to "follow the evidence" before determining whether or not something is fact or fiction...I simply ask what evidence have you followed to declare the Bible "fiction".

I'm sick of you dodging legitimate criticism of your own positions to launch into off-topic criticism of positions that you are projecting onto me. You do it constantly, and it is disingenuous in the utmost. You have certainly earned your reputation around here, that's the truth.

Or are you just arbitrarily labeling something "fiction" for no real reason?

Quote me doing what you accuse of me.

So are you saying that we can re-write history on a whim because "hell, they're all wrong....they didn't have the internet!!!"? If you didn't know, the internet isn't 100 percent fact. Sorry to ruin your day.

I'm not saying that at all, so I won't defend positions I don't hold.

Sure, lets completely revision any history prior to say...200 C.E because we know what went on...we have the internet...created by a bunch of people not alive then either, with information uploaded by a bunch of incredulous individuals born in an age of unfounded "skepticism".

I really have no idea what you're talking about here.

LOL. You just admitted that without the internet and 20th century inventions, you have no sense of real "history".

No, I didn't. I'm going to ask again: are you high?

C'mon, no need for ad hominem attacks, Taxt.

Stop being a disingenuous fuckwit, and I'll stop pointing out that you're being a disingenuous fuckwit.

 

[Retro Rob]

Ok there are so many things wrong with this I'm starting to believe in miracles, because it's a goddamned miracle you can find your way out from under your bedcovers in the morning, let alone type words on the internet.

Haha...I actually like this criticism.

1.) I did not cite any "evidence virgin births cannot happen." I explained why it's unreasonable to believe vis-a-vis the more parsimonious hypothesis.

Whatever. Your implications were very clear. You basically said "why believe it? It was one single-parent birth, unnatural, with the humans who were there being long dead, unable to be interrogated, and scientifically ignorant".

You are carefully avoiding making, what I call, "a statement of truth" because you know you'd be called out on it for some sort of evidence.

Saying its "unreasonable" is only a opinion, and that effectively absolves you of providing evidence to back your claim.

2.) You are flatly lying about your own statements. You specifically cited "the start of the universe" before, and now you're claiming your argument presupposes a universe without a beginning.

??

Not at all. I was countering you. If its unreasonable for me to accept a virgin birth because it simply didn't have the science behind it, then I can reasonably reject an "ageless" universe because everything in our natural world had a beginning.

3.) Objects in the universe are simply re-configurations of pre-existing matter. The matter that makes up a baseball did not suddenly pop into existence when it fell off the assembly line.

So matter has always existed?

This is particularly wrong-headed. Where "always" represents "all meaningful time values," the universe has certainly always existed. Time is a coordinate system superimposed on the universe. It is senseless to talk about a "time when the universe did not exist."

Ok, I am effectively confused. In what way has the universe always existed? Certainly not in the form it is in now, right?

Quote me doing what you accuse of me.

I didn't accuse you of anything, I asked a question.

I'm not saying that at all, so I won't defend positions I don't hold

Fair enough.

I really have no idea what you're talking about here.

I'm trying to understand what you mean by "snopes.com" didn't exist way back when, or video evidence.

You seem to be saying that since we don't have digital proof (totally disregarding the limitations of the time period), we can say those things recorded didn't happen.

We don't have video evidence fir a TON of things we believe are true...you seem to arbitrarily apply this level of evidence to the Bible.

Can I rightfully say that we cannot believe aliens exist because we have no video, photographic evidence?

This argument is again, inconsistent.

 

[BoomerD]

So...if Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman" wasn't to be believed, the idea of a virgin giving birth is supposed to be believable?

Is it possible? Not by any scientific method I've ever heard about.

 

[AViking]

We don't have video evidence fir a TON of things we believe are true...you seem to arbitrarily apply this level of evidence to the Bible.

Can I rightfully say that we cannot believe aliens exist because we have no video, photographic evidence?

This argument is again, inconsistent.

So are you trying to equate aliens to the bible? Nobody has any proof of aliens and is saying they exist. Outside of a few batshit crazy people who think they have been anally probed.

You're free to apply statistics to the bible though. That has been done to the possibility of Alien life. Jury is still out.

Any other examples? Science in some cases has proven something exists by it's affect on it's environment. Black holes for example. We study them by their accretion discs and how they gravitationally affect other bodies.

Can you apply this to the bible?