Science v Religion BBC Debate

Pointless arguing about the NT accounts (which, despite what Mackenzie believes, the contradictions can't all be explained by differing perspective) We've no idea who wrote them

Early Christians differed hugely on who and what Jesus was. What became orthordoxy was merely one group of early christians eventually outnumbering/outmuscling/outpropagandising the others.
We don't have the originals.
We have copies of copies of translations of copies or copies or copies of translations or copies of... I don't think people understand how easy it would have been for simple mistakes in the scribing process to completely alter the message of the writing, especially when the following is added to the equation.
When the Bible was put together we did not have the modern linguistic and analitical tools available which we do now and so letters, books, and other writings were kept, thrown away or edited on the basis of the beliefs of those doing the sorting.
This is why, as we now know, the NT is rife with obvious forgeries (people claiming to be people who they were not), blatant copy & pastes (see the gospels) and in general very, very untrustworthy accounts (of accounts)

Arguing over it as tho it has any meaning is like arguing over a game of chinese whispers and not having access to the first 20 people in the line
 
ElanJo said:
Pointless arguing about the NT accounts (which, despite what Mackenzie believes, the contradictions can't all be explained by differing perspective) We've no idea who wrote them

Early Christians differed hugely on who and what Jesus was. What became orthordoxy was merely one group of early christians eventually outnumbering/outmuscling/outpropagandising the others.
We don't have the originals.
We have copies of copies of translations of copies or copies or copies of translations or copies of... I don't think people understand how easy it would have been for simple mistakes in the scribing process to completely alter the message of the writing, especially when the following is added to the equation.
When the Bible was put together we did not have the modern linguistic and analitical tools available which we do now and so letters, books, and other writings were kept, thrown away or edited on the basis of the beliefs of those doing the sorting.
This is why, as we now know, the NT is rife with obvious forgeries (people claiming to be people who they were not), blatant copy & pastes (see the gospels) and in general very, very untrustworthy accounts (of accounts)

Arguing over it as tho it has any meaning is like arguing over a game of chinese whispers and not having access to the first 20 people in the line
Click to expand...

As you point out EJ, the bible has been heavily scrutinised by experts who did not compromise their academic principles. I've made the same point myself.

These people have identified that people like St Paul used other writers, but also wrote greetings at the start and finish in their own hand.

Also the same experts have identified that letters such as to the Philippians are actually 3 - not 1 - written at different times and circumstances.

You're correct about the nature of Jesus and books like the acts of the apostles have many of the arguments and the letters as well.

As you assert, it depends on the motivation of the people involved in the composition of the bible.

EDIT: It sounds like I agree with your conclusions. I don't.

Interesting that SWP hasn't replied to my earlier post.
 
I found a shortened version which was also mentioned on Radio 4 Sunday programme on Sunday ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiIaErxzGSE#![/youtube]

Enjoy :)
 
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/no ... -rise.aspx</a>
 
I don't really care about what other people believe in, its completely there choice, but it confuses me why people who believe in science point fingers at possible floors in the bible...

Do these people not realise there a 3 different types of carbon dating that all say the world and things on it are different ages. Just because people choose to believe one type of carbon dating is the same as people listening more to Matthew than Luke?


Another point I would say is people saying its far fetched that god created everything on the planet including the billions of flies or ants on the planet, which I agree is far fetched, but isn't it more far fetched that these were just formed out of two atoms (that couldn't have existed because there was nothing to create them) hitting each other and forming a whole universe?

Just because we are taught certain things in school doesn't mean they are true, and just because someone is passionate about their religion doesn't mean people should try and poke holes in it. Let people believe what they want to believe.
 
Loukas said:
I don't really care about what other people believe in, its completely there choice, but it confuses me why people who believe in science point fingers at possible floors in the bible...

Do these people not realise there a 3 different types of carbon dating that all say the world and things on it are different ages. Just because people choose to believe one type of carbon dating is the same as people listening more to Matthew than Luke?
Click to expand...

You can't possible 'believe in science'. Science is a fact based, every proposed idea must be backed up with logical and empirical evidence. If the empirical evidence is not there, you better make sure you logical arguments are solid and based on proven concepts. Carbon dating is not a myth, there are different types of dating techniques. When something is dated, many factors come in play ( different techniques are applied), and if all the techniques have an overlap, small differences in age ( small depends on what you are sampling), then the age is clear. This is not some mythical dating process. Its a process that has been proven over and over again.

Loukas said:
Another point I would say is people saying its far fetched that god created everything on the planet including the billions of flies or ants on the planet, which I agree is far fetched, but isn't it more far fetched that these were just formed out of two atoms (that couldn't have existed because there was nothing to create them) hitting each other and forming a whole universe?
Click to expand...

Total lack of understanding. But lets ignore that, and ask "How was god created?", "What was the universe before god?" and this comes back to the endless circle of pointless questions. We don't know the exact "cause" of the universe creation, but what we do know is that empirical data is supporting the model described in the Big Bang Theory.


Loukas said:
Just because we are taught certain things in school doesn't mean they are true, and just because someone is passionate about their religion doesn't mean people should try and poke holes in it. Let people believe what they want to believe
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but their belief becomes harmful when they attempt to dumb down science and other fact based disciplines.
 
don't know if anyones already said about this, but great debate on youtube, Atheism v christianity, Dr william lane craig v frank zindler
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top