I want to believe in evolution

[loinburger]

Kid, have you ever read anything about the history of the Bible, or are you talking out of your ass as usual? If as I suspect it's the latter, then I recommend picking up a copy of Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.

[Kidlicious]

The book of John was written around 100 years later. Agreement on canon was somewhere between very late second century and mid fourth century.

And I'm fairly sure that an awful lot of other religions would readily dispute your argument that only Islam was nearly as thorough. Only Islam was nearly as modern, but that's hardly relevant except insomuch as it conforms more to our expectations being ourselves modern. Hinduism has an extremely vast tract of sacred works, for example, that date back thousands of years. Buddhists have thousands of sutras, teachings that are not dissimilar to Jesus' teachings (by far the most important part of the New Testament, I'd argue) and date back several thousand years as well.

Frankly I've never understood literalism in any of these texts, and most religions aren't nearly as literal as Christianity these days. The teachings are what matter, acting in a moral fashion is what matters, and the rest is pretty much irrelevant. Believe in God/creationism/whatever, don't, I don't think even God cares. Act morally and do unto thy neighbor as you would have him do unto you, and you're 99% of the way there already.

For one christianity goes farther than the golden rule, which other religions share. The command given by christ, is to love each other, as I love you.

[Kidlicious]

Kid, have you ever read anything about the history of the Bible, or are you talking out of your ass as usual?

Try your trolls somewhere else. I can't be bothered.

[loinburger]

If you speak with authority on something that you know nothing about, then would you consider this to be dishonest?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kid, have you ever read anything about the history of the Bible, or are you talking out of your ass as usual? If as I suspect it's the latter, then I recommend picking up a copy of Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.

I really didn't see anything objectionable that Kid wrote in posts #208, #209, or #210.

Obviously there were other Gospels floating around, but the canonical 4 were pretty much decided and given strong weight early on in the process. Much before Nicea.

[kentonio]

Idk if you think they are liars. That doesn't make it fiction. If I right a book about posting on forums on the internet, and I lie, that doesn't make it fiction. It makes it bad non-fiction, and it makes me a liar.

I'm actually quite intrigued now, if someone writes about something fantastical like dragons or magic or resurrection but thinks its true, is it actually fiction? This could keep a philosopher busy for years!

[loinburger]

Obviously there were other Gospels floating around, but the canonical 4 were pretty much decided and given strong weight early on in the process. Much before Nicea.

The canonical 4 were derived from earlier texts (and from each other) - Mark is the earliest gospel that we have at hand, but is not the earliest that we know of. This obviously doesn't mean that the caconical 4 are completely wrong or anything, but it does mean that they're far from inerrant or authoritative.

[Kidlicious]

If you speak with authority on something that you know nothing about, then would you consider this to be dishonest?

Yes, you are a liar.

[Kidlicious]

I'm actually quite intrigued now, if someone writes about something fantastical like dragons or magic or resurrection but thinks its true, is it actually fiction? This could keep a philosopher busy for years!

Yes, there are non-fiction books about dragons and magic. Anything else? You also suck at philosophy btw.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The canonical 4 were derived from earlier texts (and from each other) - Mark is the earliest gospel that we have at hand, but is not the earliest that we know of. This obviously doesn't mean that the caconical 4 are completely wrong or anything, but it does mean that they're far from inerrant or authoritative.

Perhaps not inerrant, but I wouldn't say they aren't authoritative. And yes, I've heard of the Q Gospel (though that is said to influence Matthew and Luke's Gospels, but not Mark's).

Furthermore, the vast majority of Biblical scholars today would say that Mark IS the earliest gospel we know of, along with Q.

[loinburger]

I guess it depends on what you mean by authoritative. For example, which text(s) is or are the authority on Jesus's last words, and why? My answer is that each of them provides a viable interpretation of what his last words might have been, but that none is authoritative.

[Jon Miller]

With all due respect sir, you repeatedly saying something does not make it so. Not when you don't back up your assertions with anything concrete.

You could start with reading wikipedia!

I can't force you to read my words or any others. I can't force you to accept what historians and scholars say. You can choose to believe that they were all invented in the 4th century AD if that pleases you.

Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, and other 2nd century Christian leaders considered the 4 gospels the story of Christ. All gospels are thought by liberal and conservative scholars to be written before 90 AD (as early as 50 AD).

By definition the gospel story is not legendary and so not a myth in the 1st sense.

No, that doesn't mean it is true... you can still disbelieve it if you choose to. See COckney.

You are making no sense now. You're fine with it being an 'any invented story, idea, or concept' but not with it being 'a traditional or legendary story'.

Because it doesn't fulfill the definition of 'a traditional or legendary story'!

It could be a lie, I am not interested in discussing that with you right nw.

C0ckney is making a lot of sense. You, not so much.

We are saying the same thing.

Then explain the point you were trying to make for goodness sake, and preferably without all this pitiful 'you must just hate Christianity' nonsense.

I am just saying that you have said that you considered and were interested in religion and yet you seem to have no knowledge of Christianity. Not even the most basic that anyone who would make the accusations that you have in this thread would seek to acquire.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

You'd have to be willing to vest them with authority, like any other historical text IMO . Take them together as a whole... not like he couldn't have said more than one phrase when on the cross (he was likely up there for 3 hours according to tradition after all).

[Jon Miller]

I guess it depends on what you mean by authoritative. For example, which text(s) is or are the authority on Jesus's last words, and why? My answer is that each of them provides a viable interpretation of what his last words might have been, but that none is authoritative.

All the gospels considered canonical were written when people from the generation which had seen Christ were still alive.

All of those are much more valid as far as being a true history than the ones written well afterwards, which counter the ones written soon afterward, and counter the words/etc of the disciples of those who knew and followed Jesus.

JM

[Robert]

It's not a proper analogy. Evolution does not require the big bang theory (or any other specific theory of how the universe came to be) to be verifiable or complete. It only requires the interpretations of the fossil record to have been correct. (Which seems extremely likely to be the case in general.)

"God did it" requires itself to be verifiable, which it isn't, and thus is a whole other ballgame.

I think you are trying for a different analogy along the lines of, "if the big bang (or whatever other theory you like) is why the universe is here, what caused it?" That would be a valid analogy to "if God created the universe, what created God?" It doesn't prove your point though, since science's current answer is "we don't know yet", not to assume an answer. Again, a whole other ballgame from "God did it".

If you own a bike, and after much scientific research you conclude that it has been made in a factory, but then you're unable to track the origins of this factory and if it was made in a factory as well, does that then mean that your first conclusion (bike was made in a factory) is wrong?

Perhaps bikes need a factory, but factory have completely different reasons to exist.

If you own a bike that's 100% red, if you tear it into pieces, all pieces are 100% red. Then you can conclude in the end: the bike is red and all parts of it are red as well.
Does that then also lead to the conclusion that the bike factory has to be red as well?

So now we have a universe, and all pieces we know of the universe do need a cause in some way. It also needs 'space' in which it can exist. So we can safely assume that, with our current knowledge, it seems like our universe needs a cause and a space to exist in. (how small that space might have been at starters).
Does that mean that we must conclude that the cause of our universe also need space and cause? No, of course not.

The computer programs I'm writing as a programmer consist of bits. All of them.
Does that mean that the programmer also must consist of bits? No, not at all. A computer program is a completely different then a human being. It needs a computer to run on. If there's no power, it can't run. Human beings exist outside a computer and we do not need power. We need food.

So while the universe needs a cause and space, anything that caused the universe may exist under completely different laws, rules and circumstances that are totally alien to us.

Saying that God needs a cause if the universe needs a cause is pure bollocks.