Come on, if they were actually interested in "THE TRUTH" they would not believe in the bible as fact....but more a bunch of stories giving a moral outline.....which, I think it succeeds at....far more than that crap they call the Koran.Actually the real truth about the formation of the New Testament as we know it today would shock and astound many Christians.
I'm sure you still believe that there were no political motivations involved in its formation...
DD
The council of Nicea:
1) Rejected Arianism and affirmed that Jesus Christ is fully God and not created by God.
2) Affirmed the Trinity
3) Developed the Nicene Creed (later appended in 381)
4) Set the date for Easter
There were other resolutions regarding clerical rules, schisms, the readmission of apostates, and ceremonial ranking of patriarchs.
At your belief that the article somehow negated the point I had made.
Subatomic particles aside...
Carbon is still carbon,
Oxygen is sill oxygen
Hydrogen is still hydrogen
Nitrogen is still nitrogen
Phosphorus is still phosphorus
Sulfur is still sulfur
Silica is still silica
Sodium is still sodium
Potasium is still potassium
Calcium is still calcium
Iron is iron
Magnesium is magnesium
etc....
Not to be missed was the fact that those species represent the most common atoms found in biological molecules.
From the council.....yep....non political....ROFLMAO...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refuses to endorse the Creed will be exiled. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus refused to adhere to the creed, and were thus exiled, in addition to being excommunicated. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and consigned to the flames.[20] Nevertheless, the controversy, already festering, continued in various parts of the empire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Books left out of the approved Cannon..for various political reasons.
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/noncanon.html
DD
Can you expound on this?
Who said I was comparing it to a cult? I made no such claim.
Science is one of mankind's ultimate tools.
It has managed to create an increasingly expanding, dynamic knowledge library, that attempts to define what we know about our universe. It's always growing, always changing.
Unfortunately not everyone is that openminded. They are inherently biased against those things they don't understand, wish to understand, or fear.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-23-2008 at 11:19 AM.
Yeah I guess I fell victim to you big worded posts. You lost me mission accomplished.
At your belief that the article somehow negated the point I had made.
Subatomic particles aside...
Carbon is still carbon,
Oxygen is sill oxygen
Hydrogen is still hydrogen
Nitrogen is still nitrogen
Phosphorus is still phosphorus
Sulfur is still sulfur
Silica is still silica
Sodium is still sodium
Potasium is still potassium
Calcium is still calcium
Iron is iron
Magnesium is magnesium
etc....
Not to be missed was the fact that those species represent the most common atoms found in biological molecules.
Regardless the point still remains the same. You think science is faith based when in fact its the polar opposite. You think a law is a law to science when it fact its the polar opposite. You think science is incapable of understanding the supernatural when in facts thats exactly what it seeks to explain.
Obviously I'm not as good as you at posting important sounding information relevant or not to sound smarter.
The point specifically (not in generalities), was that the mainstream theory of how life began requires as much faith as my belief that a supernatural being created all things. Furthermore, the burden of proof is immaterial... unless of course you have access to Doc's DeLorean.
After all, if abiogenesis has been disproven with countless of scientific experiments. A few more (by the reflexive principle) won't hurt... The atheistic sector of the scientific community would love nothing more than creating life from scratch... I say have at it. Just for the record, though, I prefer the biologically ordained method.
You do not know what you are talking about and apparently have no interest in knowing. For you to lecture me about how educated I need to be about the church councils makes you look like an absolute fool. Your mind is every bit as closed as are the caricatures of religious people you fabricate to justify yourself.
Believe me, I am extremely familiar with canon development, and no, Wikipedia does not have it right, and neither do you. No, the Gnostic texts were not in common circulation in the self-called 'orthodox' churches prior to Nicaea. By Constantine's time, the Gnostics were separate, with their own texts, largely written in the second and third centuries. The dispute in 325 was between the 'orthodox' and the Arians, and that dispute continued for centuries thereafter.
The New Testament canon as it is known was accepted informally by consensus by the middle of the second century. As I have already explained, were you interested in learning rather than just issuing ignorant polemic, four epistles at the end of the New Testament were somewhat disputed, and some ancient eastern Christian churches from Syria to India (which we never talk about because we're Eurocentric) still treat them as second-canon. The books which didn't make it also are well-known, and they are not the Gnostic writings. They are:
1) The First Epistle of Clement
2) The Didache, or the Teaching of the Twelve
3) The Epistle of Barnabas
4) The Shepherd of Hermas
There was never a global e enical council that ever formally defined the Biblical canon. The Roman Catholic Church claims that the Council of Carthage in 397 did so, but none of the other four patriarchies at the time accepted that synod as valid. Yet the Eastern Orthodox church uses the exact same 27-book canon, not because some bishops defined it, but because those were the consensus books everyone was using.
Feel free to convince yourself you know what you're talking about, even though I've studied it and you haven't. You have a sensationalist book and a Wikipedia article on your side. Just spare me your insistence that you care about "objective truth." You believe what you want to believe and you have your own agenda.
If you have studied it, as you claim, then how in the world can you believe it?
I mean did you study the histories of the stories? The connection between the Jesus mythos and Horus?
The taking of the Winter solstice from pagan rituals and making it Jesus birthday?
How can you support this stuff, if you are as learned as you say you are....
DD
my 4th grade daughter can't even use wikipedia as a source.
I'm not calling out science I like science and science has already proven through science that it can't prove everything. My argument is in that original quote that he argues that we believe in something that we have no proof exists, when it's existence has yet to be disproven. So instead of believing in something they take the easy way out and play the "we don't know" card and then hate on the people that feel that they do.
Ok, so I have been reading this thread for days, and finally decided to find out what my password is so that I could comment on this particular subject. First off, Extra Stout, I have to say that among my group of friends and coworkers, I am the guy who everyone says is "so smart" and "go ask him, he knows everything," and I dont proclaim to know everything. I only said that to say this, WOW it is extremely enjoyable to read your posts here because I learn a lot. I think you are "so smart" and if I had a question, I would have no qualms in asking you because it seems "you know everything." - ha Also, I really enjoy reading your views on your personal belief system, because it seems closer to what I understand Christianity to teach. These arguements about "you and your kind" come out of the fact that either you are in the minority among Christians, or your belief system is being hijacked by an extremely LOUD and powerful minority that professes exactly all of the things that you are now having to answer for (even though it is not right, or even what you believe). Shoot, I grew up in a Catholic Church, went to a Catholic School, and I must have had the coolest parish of all Catholicism, because of the whole host of issues I have had to answer for (even now when I struggle with the issue of if there is a God or not) is ridiculous. My Catholic school, even encouraged me to question my faith, and the reason behind it was that if faith is question, then proved (yes it would be a personal proof, not objective proof), that same faith would grow that much stronger. I tell people that and their jaws drop. That's just how I grew up.
Anyway the original point of the post was this:
Your idea that science is built on faith is preposterous. You state that scientists take a theory and accept it (or parts of it) on faith, that is patently untrue. When a theory is presented to the scientific community, the peers of the creator of the theory get busy trying to disprove it. If, eventually enough peers are unable to disprove it, then it is seen as a law. Now while a law sounds concrete, it is not, more like wet concrete. The reason for this is that all scientific laws come with the caveat that this is a law only under the cir stances in which it is observed (The laws of gravity and all that comes out of these laws break down under certain conditions, etc.). I really suggest you read Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. The first several chapters are devoted exclusively to the scientific method, how it is used by scientists, and why it should be utilized more in everyday life. The rest of the book are specific examples of how it can be used to enrich your life. Also, when something is "disproved" Sagan encourages the reader to not see it as disproved, but to admit it still may be possible, but that there is insufficient evidence. I would think from reading your posts that you might specifically like that last part. Anyway, gotta get back to work.
First of all, it doesn't matter that you're half black. What Manny said is completely plausible.
Did you know that there are Ultra Orthodox Jews that claim the Holocaust never happened and that if it indeed happened, they deserved it for abandoning God?
You fall into that catagory.
Now, you're proving yourself to be extremely hypocritical. You said that the Anti-Christ would never accept Jesus as his savior. You have been given evidence that Obama has accepted Jesus into his life as his savior.
And, yet, you continue to insinuate that he may be the Anti-Christ.
This irrational fear that you have of him can only be based on what Manny said.
The "I'm half black" card is not going to work.
I never stated that science was faith based. I endorse true science; science that is developed in the name of knowledge alone and not influenced from the distracting agendas that emanate from either side of the religious/atheistic camps.
I did however, state that belief in the notion that life originated from a chemical soup was pretty unfounded. All of our experiments since the 40's have managed to show just how complex even the smallest of biological compounds really is. The discovery of DNA, and with it the field of molecular genetics, has only expounded on that principle. On this specific premise, which happens to be pretty big, and worldview-defining... faith is unequivocally required.
Not good enough. The claim you make is that the Christianity that exists today only exists because of Constantine's politics. Constantine tried to get rid of the Arians and failed. Subsequent emperors in the fifth century were Arians and kicked the Nicenes out of the churches.
But you don't want to hear it, I know. Your reason is impervious to facts.
You have so made up your mind that the reasons were "political" that you didn't even read that article you linked to.
At least TheMadHatter tries to be intellectually honest.
Where is your proof? You can't just say I'm smart, you're wrong. That's not how you effectively debate an argument.
DaDakota may very well be wrong, but at least he is quoting his sources. If you want to successfully argue your point I suggest you get to work and start providing us with references to what you claim.
Religion is all about faith so you do have valid points but for me my faith cannot be shattered in what I believe in. Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe.
Carry on.
Since the USA represents millions of people with different cultures and religions . . . you have to understand that it will never be a single Christian nation dominated by one particular faith.
The Founding Fathers made sure of that.
You want everyone to be part of your faith. Do you understand how absurd this is?
I'm an American. I was born here. I don't believe in your faith. As a matter of fact, due to what you have been posting as of late, I'm disgusted by your so called faith.
I don't want a President telling me that we should be living in a Christian nation. And, there are literally millions more like me.
That is a fact that you have to face and live with the rest of your days. You will never have a President that will make this country into a "Christian Nation", as is your want.
Deal with that.
Accept it.
You have no other choice.
Left to Right
This thread/Phenomanul
She just doesn't want to accept the facts.
Like I said, I strongly believe that she's just repeating the things she hears at church.
Manny was right in his assessment of her.
It doesn't require faith at all. And if you're a scientist as you claim, you're being entirely intellectually dishonest. It requires more research and scrutiny based on sound science. There's no faith involved in that process at all.
But we do create life from scratch. That we have not yet found how that process could have happened outside a lab doesn't invalidate the fact that creation of life is not an exclusive act of the supernatural. The fact that we did create life in a lab, is actually another nail in the coffin for the belief in the supernatural.After all, if abiogenesis has been disproven with countless of scientific experiments. A few more (by the reflexive principle) won't hurt... The atheistic sector of the scientific community would love nothing more than creating life from scratch... I say have at it. Just for the record, though, I prefer the biologically ordained method.
I would even dare to say that when you attempt to include the supernatural into science, you're being intellectually lazy. It's a lot easier to chalk up the unexplained to the supernatural, and be done with it. That's not science at all. Real science takes a lot of work to formulate a rational theory based on previous science, and then it takes a lot of work to scrutinize it and test it. It's actually the opposite of intellectually lazy.
Could you have engineered and built something like the empire state building based solely on faith?
Last edited by ElNono; 10-23-2008 at 11:45 AM.
Thats pretty much exactly what I think as well. She's beyond thinking on her own outside of simple things like chicken or pork for dinner and even then I'm not so sure those decisions aren't based on careful consideration wether the chicken or pork has stronger faith and what her pastor expects her to eat for dinner.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote