Can you be religious and pro science and technology?

[Andylusion]

That's funny, because they specifically compared the current day, in my hands, Bible, to the fragments in the dead sea scrolls and they matched up.

So you say they are not the same... but the fact remains they are.

The earliest fragments of the bible is dated to several generations after the facts where supposed to have happened.

So, you are repeating yourself. So I will repeat myself.

The fragments dated 400 BCE, match exactly what I'm reading in my Bible today. Word for word.

This is 'fact'.

I'm talking about the NT. Written several generations after the facts.

You said Bible. That means..... the Bible.

Further, there is no reason to assume that if the old testament, which of course is much older, is accurate to 400 BCE, that somehow the new testament, which is not nearly as old, is less accurate.

Moreover, the oldest semi-complete text is Papyrus 46, which is currently at the University of Michigan. This text contains all of Paul's letters, Hebrews and other parts of the New Testament Bible.

P46 is dated at 200 CE. That means it was only 130 years removed from the authors, since Hebrew was written 70 CE.

Now compare that to any other text of history.

The Gallic Wars By Julius Caesar: Written 75 BCE. Oldest manuscript 900 CE.

The Histories of Herodotus: Written 400 BCE. Oldest manuscript 900 CE.

Homer’s Iliad: Written 800 BCE. Oldest manuscripts 400 BCE.

Annals by Roman historian and senator Tacitus: Written 100 CE. Oldest manuscript 1100 CE.

Are you claiming that Herodotus, The Gallic Wars, Homer, and Tacitus are all discredited? You would be laughed off the planet. No one anywhere would take you seriously.

Moreover, we only have 640 manuscripts of Homer. That's considered a lot.

We have over 5300 manuscripts of the Bible.

For you, or anyone to question the integrity of the Bible we have today, is ridiculous, because you would also have to completely write off every other ancient text we have.

5300 written in Greek. More than 19,000 in other languages.

Oh yes of course. Most of the original documents are written in Greek, and thus Greek manuscripts are the ones listed.

But if you also look at all the translation made into other languages, honestly it's hard to put a number on how many there are, but tens of thousands is very accurate.

Regardless, most of the ancient texts we consider beyond doubt, have only a few manuscripts that exist.

In fact there are some Shakespeare plays that we have barely anything left of them, and yet we still consider all of them genuine Shakespeare.

The whole idea that "we can't trust the Bible" is, from an intellectual, professional, and scientific stand point, is simply an indefensible claim. End of line. Game over.

 

[Mudda]

The earliest fragments of the bible is dated to several generations after the facts where supposed to have happened.

So, you are repeating yourself. So I will repeat myself.

The fragments dated 400 BCE, match exactly what I'm reading in my Bible today. Word for word.

This is 'fact'.

I'm talking about the NT. Written several generations after the facts.

You said Bible. That means..... the Bible.

Further, there is no reason to assume that if the old testament, which of course is much older, is accurate to 400 BCE, that somehow the new testament, which is not nearly as old, is less accurate.

Moreover, the oldest semi-complete text is Papyrus 46, which is currently at the University of Michigan. This text contains all of Paul's letters, Hebrews and other parts of the New Testament Bible.

P46 is dated at 200 CE. That means it was only 130 years removed from the authors, since Hebrew was written 70 CE.

Now compare that to any other text of history.

The Gallic Wars By Julius Caesar: Written 75 BCE. Oldest manuscript 900 CE.

The Histories of Herodotus: Written 400 BCE. Oldest manuscript 900 CE.

Homer’s Iliad: Written 800 BCE. Oldest manuscripts 400 BCE.

Annals by Roman historian and senator Tacitus: Written 100 CE. Oldest manuscript 1100 CE.

Are you claiming that Herodotus, The Gallic Wars, Homer, and Tacitus are all discredited? You would be laughed off the planet. No one anywhere would take you seriously.

Moreover, we only have 640 manuscripts of Homer. That's considered a lot.

We have over 5300 manuscripts of the Bible.

For you, or anyone to question the integrity of the Bible we have today, is ridiculous, because you would also have to completely write off every other ancient text we have.

5300 written in Greek. More than 19,000 in other languages.

Oh yes of course. Most of the original documents are written in Greek, and thus Greek manuscripts are the ones listed.

But if you also look at all the translation made into other languages, honestly it's hard to put a number on how many there are, but tens of thousands is very accurate.

Regardless, most of the ancient texts we consider beyond doubt, have only a few manuscripts that exist.

In fact there are some Shakespeare plays that we have barely anything left of them, and yet we still consider all of them genuine Shakespeare.

The whole idea that "we can't trust the Bible" is, from an intellectual, professional, and scientific stand point, is simply an indefensible claim. End of line. Game over.

So your proof is that other books have just as shady a provenance than the bible does, so the bible must be true. Um...no.

 

[Mudda]

That's funny, because they specifically compared the current day, in my hands, Bible, to the fragments in the dead sea scrolls and they matched up.

So you say they are not the same... but the fact remains they are.

The earliest fragments of the bible is dated to several generations after the facts where supposed to have happened.

So, you are repeating yourself. So I will repeat myself.

The fragments dated 400 BCE, match exactly what I'm reading in my Bible today. Word for word.

This is 'fact'.

I'm talking about the NT. Written several generations after the facts.

You said Bible. That means..... the Bible.

Further, there is no reason to assume that if the old testament, which of course is much older, is accurate to 400 BCE, that somehow the new testament, which is not nearly as old, is less accurate.

Moreover, the oldest semi-complete text is Papyrus 46, which is currently at the University of Michigan. This text contains all of Paul's letters, Hebrews and other parts of the New Testament Bible.

P46 is dated at 200 CE. That means it was only 130 years removed from the authors, since Hebrew was written 70 CE.

Now compare that to any other text of history.

The Gallic Wars By Julius Caesar: Written 75 BCE. Oldest manuscript 900 CE.

The Histories of Herodotus: Written 400 BCE. Oldest manuscript 900 CE.

Homer’s Iliad: Written 800 BCE. Oldest manuscripts 400 BCE.

Annals by Roman historian and senator Tacitus: Written 100 CE. Oldest manuscript 1100 CE.

Are you claiming that Herodotus, The Gallic Wars, Homer, and Tacitus are all discredited? You would be laughed off the planet. No one anywhere would take you seriously.

Moreover, we only have 640 manuscripts of Homer. That's considered a lot.

We have over 5300 manuscripts of the Bible.

For you, or anyone to question the integrity of the Bible we have today, is ridiculous, because you would also have to completely write off every other ancient text we have.

5300 written in Greek. More than 19,000 in other languages.

So if I make 19,000 copies of a Superman comic, you'll think he's god too?

 

[ding]

The earliest fragments of the bible is dated to several generations after the facts where supposed to have happened.

So, you are repeating yourself. So I will repeat myself.

The fragments dated 400 BCE, match exactly what I'm reading in my Bible today. Word for word.

This is 'fact'.

I'm talking about the NT. Written several generations after the facts.

You said Bible. That means..... the Bible.

Further, there is no reason to assume that if the old testament, which of course is much older, is accurate to 400 BCE, that somehow the new testament, which is not nearly as old, is less accurate.

Moreover, the oldest semi-complete text is Papyrus 46, which is currently at the University of Michigan. This text contains all of Paul's letters, Hebrews and other parts of the New Testament Bible.

P46 is dated at 200 CE. That means it was only 130 years removed from the authors, since Hebrew was written 70 CE.

Now compare that to any other text of history.

The Gallic Wars By Julius Caesar: Written 75 BCE. Oldest manuscript 900 CE.

The Histories of Herodotus: Written 400 BCE. Oldest manuscript 900 CE.

Homer’s Iliad: Written 800 BCE. Oldest manuscripts 400 BCE.

Annals by Roman historian and senator Tacitus: Written 100 CE. Oldest manuscript 1100 CE.

Are you claiming that Herodotus, The Gallic Wars, Homer, and Tacitus are all discredited? You would be laughed off the planet. No one anywhere would take you seriously.

Moreover, we only have 640 manuscripts of Homer. That's considered a lot.

We have over 5300 manuscripts of the Bible.

For you, or anyone to question the integrity of the Bible we have today, is ridiculous, because you would also have to completely write off every other ancient text we have.

5300 written in Greek. More than 19,000 in other languages.

So if I make 19,000 copies of a Superman comic, you'll think he's god too?

Only if he changes the world with a lasting impact of 2000 years. Not bad for a convicted criminal who only taught for 3 1/2 years and was put to death by the superpower of the day.

 

[Mudda]

So, you are repeating yourself. So I will repeat myself.

The fragments dated 400 BCE, match exactly what I'm reading in my Bible today. Word for word.

This is 'fact'.

I'm talking about the NT. Written several generations after the facts.

You said Bible. That means..... the Bible.

Further, there is no reason to assume that if the old testament, which of course is much older, is accurate to 400 BCE, that somehow the new testament, which is not nearly as old, is less accurate.

Moreover, the oldest semi-complete text is Papyrus 46, which is currently at the University of Michigan. This text contains all of Paul's letters, Hebrews and other parts of the New Testament Bible.

P46 is dated at 200 CE. That means it was only 130 years removed from the authors, since Hebrew was written 70 CE.

Now compare that to any other text of history.

The Gallic Wars By Julius Caesar: Written 75 BCE. Oldest manuscript 900 CE.

The Histories of Herodotus: Written 400 BCE. Oldest manuscript 900 CE.

Homer’s Iliad: Written 800 BCE. Oldest manuscripts 400 BCE.

Annals by Roman historian and senator Tacitus: Written 100 CE. Oldest manuscript 1100 CE.

Are you claiming that Herodotus, The Gallic Wars, Homer, and Tacitus are all discredited? You would be laughed off the planet. No one anywhere would take you seriously.

Moreover, we only have 640 manuscripts of Homer. That's considered a lot.

We have over 5300 manuscripts of the Bible.

For you, or anyone to question the integrity of the Bible we have today, is ridiculous, because you would also have to completely write off every other ancient text we have.

5300 written in Greek. More than 19,000 in other languages.

So if I make 19,000 copies of a Superman comic, you'll think he's god too?

Only if he changes the world with a lasting impact of 2000 years. Not bad for a convicted criminal who only taught for 3 1/2 years and was put to death by the superpower of the day.

Superman changes the world, didn't you read comics growing up? Well... aside from the bible.

 

[ding]

I'm talking about the NT. Written several generations after the facts.

You said Bible. That means..... the Bible.

Further, there is no reason to assume that if the old testament, which of course is much older, is accurate to 400 BCE, that somehow the new testament, which is not nearly as old, is less accurate.

Moreover, the oldest semi-complete text is Papyrus 46, which is currently at the University of Michigan. This text contains all of Paul's letters, Hebrews and other parts of the New Testament Bible.

P46 is dated at 200 CE. That means it was only 130 years removed from the authors, since Hebrew was written 70 CE.

Now compare that to any other text of history.

The Gallic Wars By Julius Caesar: Written 75 BCE. Oldest manuscript 900 CE.

The Histories of Herodotus: Written 400 BCE. Oldest manuscript 900 CE.

Homer’s Iliad: Written 800 BCE. Oldest manuscripts 400 BCE.

Annals by Roman historian and senator Tacitus: Written 100 CE. Oldest manuscript 1100 CE.

Are you claiming that Herodotus, The Gallic Wars, Homer, and Tacitus are all discredited? You would be laughed off the planet. No one anywhere would take you seriously.

Moreover, we only have 640 manuscripts of Homer. That's considered a lot.

We have over 5300 manuscripts of the Bible.

For you, or anyone to question the integrity of the Bible we have today, is ridiculous, because you would also have to completely write off every other ancient text we have.

5300 written in Greek. More than 19,000 in other languages.

So if I make 19,000 copies of a Superman comic, you'll think he's god too?

Only if he changes the world with a lasting impact of 2000 years. Not bad for a convicted criminal who only taught for 3 1/2 years and was put to death by the superpower of the day.

Superman changes the world, didn't you read comics growing up? Well... aside from the bible.

Get back to me in 1950 years.

 

[Mudda]

You said Bible. That means..... the Bible.

Further, there is no reason to assume that if the old testament, which of course is much older, is accurate to 400 BCE, that somehow the new testament, which is not nearly as old, is less accurate.

Moreover, the oldest semi-complete text is Papyrus 46, which is currently at the University of Michigan. This text contains all of Paul's letters, Hebrews and other parts of the New Testament Bible.

P46 is dated at 200 CE. That means it was only 130 years removed from the authors, since Hebrew was written 70 CE.

Now compare that to any other text of history.

The Gallic Wars By Julius Caesar: Written 75 BCE. Oldest manuscript 900 CE.

The Histories of Herodotus: Written 400 BCE. Oldest manuscript 900 CE.

Homer’s Iliad: Written 800 BCE. Oldest manuscripts 400 BCE.

Annals by Roman historian and senator Tacitus: Written 100 CE. Oldest manuscript 1100 CE.

Are you claiming that Herodotus, The Gallic Wars, Homer, and Tacitus are all discredited? You would be laughed off the planet. No one anywhere would take you seriously.

Moreover, we only have 640 manuscripts of Homer. That's considered a lot.

We have over 5300 manuscripts of the Bible.

For you, or anyone to question the integrity of the Bible we have today, is ridiculous, because you would also have to completely write off every other ancient text we have.

5300 written in Greek. More than 19,000 in other languages.

So if I make 19,000 copies of a Superman comic, you'll think he's god too?

Only if he changes the world with a lasting impact of 2000 years. Not bad for a convicted criminal who only taught for 3 1/2 years and was put to death by the superpower of the day.

Superman changes the world, didn't you read comics growing up? Well... aside from the bible.

Get back to me in 1950 years.

Jesus is nothing but allegorical, like the rest of the bible. No proof Jesus even existed.

 

[hobelim]

5300 written in Greek. More than 19,000 in other languages.

So if I make 19,000 copies of a Superman comic, you'll think he's god too?

Only if he changes the world with a lasting impact of 2000 years. Not bad for a convicted criminal who only taught for 3 1/2 years and was put to death by the superpower of the day.

Superman changes the world, didn't you read comics growing up? Well... aside from the bible.

Get back to me in 1950 years.

Jesus is nothing but allegorical, like the rest of the bible. No proof Jesus even existed.

I think that the fact that the greatest world power of the time outlawed every other form of religious worship and replaced it with a strange new religion that desecrates the teaching of a person named Jesus and then eats his God, shows that he actually existed and said and did things that pissed off and embarrassed the people in high places to no end.

No nation ever hated an imaginary person so much that they created an entire religion dedicated to celebrating his murder.

Can you imagine the trouble they went through and how much hatred and threatened the potentates of the ancient world must have felt to have eliminated all other forms of religious expression only to replace them all with a new religion designed from its inception to keep in perpetuity the teachings of some foul mouthed, sacrilegious, rabble rousing Jewish peasant who liked to get buzzed, named Jesus, buried under a mountain of blasphemy?

 

[Mudda]

So if I make 19,000 copies of a Superman comic, you'll think he's god too?

Only if he changes the world with a lasting impact of 2000 years. Not bad for a convicted criminal who only taught for 3 1/2 years and was put to death by the superpower of the day.

Superman changes the world, didn't you read comics growing up? Well... aside from the bible.

Get back to me in 1950 years.

Jesus is nothing but allegorical, like the rest of the bible. No proof Jesus even existed.

I think that the fact that the greatest world power of the time outlawed every other form of religious worship and replaced it with a strange new religion that desecrates the teaching of a person named Jesus and then eats his God, shows that he actually existed and said and did things that pissed off and embarrassed the people in high places to no end.

No nation ever hated an imaginary person so much that they created an entire religion dedicated to celebrating his murder.

Can you imagine the trouble they went through and how much hatred and threatened the potentates of the ancient world must have felt to have eliminated all other forms of religious expression only to replace them all with a new religion designed from its inception to keep in perpetuity the teachings of some foul mouthed, sacrilegious, rabble rousing Jewish peasant who liked to get buzzed, named Jesus, buried under a mountain of blasphemy?

All the accounts of Jesus were written several generations minimum after the events supposedly happened. So nobody really knows what went on. Probably there was a person named Jesus who preached, and some accounts have several guys named Jesus preaching around that time, but religion is all about control, so follow the money, and you'll find the real shit behind all those stories.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Shouldn't surprise anyone that Catholic universities like Notre Dame, Boston College and Georgetown teach science.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Were the ancient Egyptians anti-science or anti-tech? I mean, they made some spectacular advancements in mathematics, writing, machinery and architecture. And they were as religious as it gets

 

[BreezeWood]

Were the ancient Egyptians anti-science or anti-tech? I mean, they made some spectacular advancements in mathematics, writing, machinery and architecture. And they were as religious as it gets

.

Were the ancient Egyptians anti-science or anti-tech? I mean, they made some spectacular advancements in mathematics, writing, machinery and architecture. And they were as religious as it gets

the hierarchy's of all organized religions throughout history have opposed fields of study other than their particular religion as threats to their authority and have worked to minimize their influence. incorporating the sciences as they have is their way of keeping them under control.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Were the ancient Egyptians anti-science or anti-tech? I mean, they made some spectacular advancements in mathematics, writing, machinery and architecture. And they were as religious as it gets

.

Were the ancient Egyptians anti-science or anti-tech? I mean, they made some spectacular advancements in mathematics, writing, machinery and architecture. And they were as religious as it gets

the hierarchy's of all organized religions throughout history have opposed fields of study other than their particular religion as threats to their authority and have worked to minimize their influence. incorporating the sciences as they have is their way of keeping them under control.

Religion was the basis of social hierarchy in ancient Egypt, which in turn led to specialization, which in turn led to scientific advancement.
That was one step in a long process. Doesn't mean we should adopt the Egyptian social order of slavery and privilege. Today we have media to pacify and distract the masses, and organized police forces, and free education for all. But it took a lot of steps to get here.

 

[BreezeWood]

Were the ancient Egyptians anti-science or anti-tech? I mean, they made some spectacular advancements in mathematics, writing, machinery and architecture. And they were as religious as it gets

.

Were the ancient Egyptians anti-science or anti-tech? I mean, they made some spectacular advancements in mathematics, writing, machinery and architecture. And they were as religious as it gets

the hierarchy's of all organized religions throughout history have opposed fields of study other than their particular religion as threats to their authority and have worked to minimize their influence. incorporating the sciences as they have is their way of keeping them under control.

Religion was the basis of social hierarchy in ancient Egypt, which in turn led to specialization, which in turn led to scientific advancement.
That was one step in a long process. Doesn't mean we should adopt the Egyptian social order of slavery and privilege. Today we have media to pacify and distract the masses, and organized police forces, and free education for all. But it took a lot of steps to get here.

.

Religion was the basis of social hierarchy in ancient Egypt, which in turn led to specialization, which in turn led to scientific advancement.
That was one step in a long process. Doesn't mean we should adopt the Egyptian social order of slavery and privilege. Today we have media to pacify and distract the masses, and organized police forces, and free education for all. But it took a lot of steps to get here.

even today in the USA organized religion's are fighting against public education because of their lack of control. it is disingenuous to represent religion as a precursor for science when in most cases they are adversaries.

 

[hobelim]

Only if he changes the world with a lasting impact of 2000 years. Not bad for a convicted criminal who only taught for 3 1/2 years and was put to death by the superpower of the day.

Superman changes the world, didn't you read comics growing up? Well... aside from the bible.

Get back to me in 1950 years.

Jesus is nothing but allegorical, like the rest of the bible. No proof Jesus even existed.

I think that the fact that the greatest world power of the time outlawed every other form of religious worship and replaced it with a strange new religion that desecrates the teaching of a person named Jesus and then eats his God, shows that he actually existed and said and did things that pissed off and embarrassed the people in high places to no end.

No nation ever hated an imaginary person so much that they created an entire religion dedicated to celebrating his murder.

Can you imagine the trouble they went through and how much hatred and threatened the potentates of the ancient world must have felt to have eliminated all other forms of religious expression only to replace them all with a new religion designed from its inception to keep in perpetuity the teachings of some foul mouthed, sacrilegious, rabble rousing Jewish peasant who liked to get buzzed, named Jesus, buried under a mountain of blasphemy?

All the accounts of Jesus were written several generations minimum after the events supposedly happened. So nobody really knows what went on. Probably there was a person named Jesus who preached, and some accounts have several guys named Jesus preaching around that time, but religion is all about control, so follow the money, and you'll find the real shit behind all those stories.

OK, so you admit that he must have existed. Good for you.

If whatever he actually taught was no big deal why would the romans have created and imposed a perverse and superstitious religion about him on the entire empire that effectively nullifies and buries whatever he actually taught under a mountain of blasphemy upon which sits the jabberwocky.

Doesn't it seem more likely that the Romans didn't suddenly fall in love with Jesus but instead created a religion based on desecrating and perverting his teachings to render them ineffective and deliberately take control of, pacify, and subjugate the despised Christian love thy neighbor revolutionaries?

If its all about about control and money, why did a movement that had no control or money threaten those who already had all of the control and money to the core?

 

[Mudda]

OK, so you admit that he must have existed. Good for you.

If its all about about control and money, why did a movement that had no control or money threaten those who already had all of the control and money to the core?

Not "must have" existed, but more like possibly with gusts to probably, lol. But there is no proof whatsoever that he ever did anything. And if he actually got crucified, it was probably because the people with all the money were afraid of those without who would come and take it from them. But they could have just as easily scapegoated Jesus at random and made all the stories about him up.

 

[hobelim]

OK, so you admit that he must have existed. Good for you.

If its all about about control and money, why did a movement that had no control or money threaten those who already had all of the control and money to the core?

Not "must have" existed, but more like possibly with gusts to probably, lol. But there is no proof whatsoever that he ever did anything. And if he actually got crucified, it was probably because the people with all the money were afraid of those without who would come and take it from them. But they could have just as easily scapegoated Jesus at random and made all the stories about him up.

Sure, but why Jesus unless he was the source of the unrest? It would be like you taking some random guy living in a cardboard box screaming gibberish about the end of the world and turning him to a god for no reason..

how likely is that?

They already had the population deluded by an assortment of gods that needed appeasement with gifts of expensive fragrances and offered favors for cash.

 

[ding]

5300 written in Greek. More than 19,000 in other languages.

So if I make 19,000 copies of a Superman comic, you'll think he's god too?

Only if he changes the world with a lasting impact of 2000 years. Not bad for a convicted criminal who only taught for 3 1/2 years and was put to death by the superpower of the day.

Superman changes the world, didn't you read comics growing up? Well... aside from the bible.

Get back to me in 1950 years.

Jesus is nothing but allegorical, like the rest of the bible. No proof Jesus even existed.

There are over 24,000 written manuscripts of proof. The early Christians wrote about Him. Jewish historians have written about about Him and secular historians have written about Him.

 

[ding]

OK, so you admit that he must have existed. Good for you.

If its all about about control and money, why did a movement that had no control or money threaten those who already had all of the control and money to the core?

Not "must have" existed, but more like possibly with gusts to probably, lol. But there is no proof whatsoever that he ever did anything. And if he actually got crucified, it was probably because the people with all the money were afraid of those without who would come and take it from them. But they could have just as easily scapegoated Jesus at random and made all the stories about him up.

Sure there is. Those same 24,000 written manuscripts tell the account. The accuracy between the copies is astonishing.

 

[ding]

Were the ancient Egyptians anti-science or anti-tech? I mean, they made some spectacular advancements in mathematics, writing, machinery and architecture. And they were as religious as it gets

.

Were the ancient Egyptians anti-science or anti-tech? I mean, they made some spectacular advancements in mathematics, writing, machinery and architecture. And they were as religious as it gets

the hierarchy's of all organized religions throughout history have opposed fields of study other than their particular religion as threats to their authority and have worked to minimize their influence. incorporating the sciences as they have is their way of keeping them under control.

Religion was the basis of social hierarchy in ancient Egypt, which in turn led to specialization, which in turn led to scientific advancement.
That was one step in a long process. Doesn't mean we should adopt the Egyptian social order of slavery and privilege. Today we have media to pacify and distract the masses, and organized police forces, and free education for all. But it took a lot of steps to get here.

.

Religion was the basis of social hierarchy in ancient Egypt, which in turn led to specialization, which in turn led to scientific advancement.
That was one step in a long process. Doesn't mean we should adopt the Egyptian social order of slavery and privilege. Today we have media to pacify and distract the masses, and organized police forces, and free education for all. But it took a lot of steps to get here.

even today in the USA organized religion's are fighting against public education because of their lack of control. it is disingenuous to represent religion as a precursor for science when in most cases they are adversaries.

Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin - Wikipedia

Catholic Church and science - Wikipedia

The Catholic Church and the Creation of the University

University - Wikipedia

Cathedral school - Wikipedia