Record few Americans believe in Biblical inerrancy.

[Jehanne]

You need to spend some quality time on this website:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/

It will introduce you to the consensus views of modern scholarship.  In short, there is little, if anything, that is unique to the four canonical gospels.

[vulcanlogician]

Agreeing that logic leads to better conclusions while reaching opposing conclusions through logic...is that logical? Also, we have the majority vote issue again. One thing theists tend to agree on is the existence of at least one god, but that doesn't mean much to you.

Okay, so I think I need to show you what I mean when I say logic is consistent:

Let's say that you adopt the conclusion "God is the author of moral law." I'm going to assume you do accept this, but it doesn't matter if you do or do not accept it. It's just an example. I'm going to demonstrate how (through logic) you can reach this conclusion. I disagree with your conclusion here, but that doesn't mean your logic is bad. The argument for divine command theory is put thusly in my ethics textbook:

1. Every law requires a lawmaker.
2. Therefore, moral law requires a lawmaker.
3. Humans cannot be the author of moral law (since we are imperfect in so many ways).
4. If humans cannot be the author of moral law, the God is its author.
[Conclusion]: Therefore, God is the author of moral law.
(Russ Shafer-Landau)

Now, you and I have different opinions about the conclusion "God is the author of moral law" but that doesn't mean the logic of the above argument is fallacious. As far as I can tell, the logic is good. So why do we disagree? Well, let's take a look at the first two premises:

1. Every law requires a lawmaker.
2. Therefore, moral law requires a lawmaker.

Premise #2 is a mini-conclusion that follows from the first premise. So far, I agree with premise 1 & 2. So we both agree (for sake of example) that the first two premises are true. Every law does require a lawmaker. Because premise 1 is true, so is premise 2. So far so good. Let's look at premise # 3:

3. Humans cannot be the author of moral law (since we are imperfect in so many ways).

Oops! I do not accept that this premise is true. But you do. Because I think that imperfect beings CAN be the author of moral law, we disagree on this premise. The fact that I disagree with premise 3 alone means that I don't accept premise 4 (premise 4 follows from premise 3). Even if I did agree with premise 3, however, I could still reject premise 4 on the grounds that God does not exist.

BUT!!! If I did accept the third and fourth premises, then I would accept the conclusion of the argument-- just like you.

This is what I mean when I say logic is consistent. It doesn't mean that every logician reaches the same conclusions because there may be disagreement on the premises used to reach any given conclusion. However, (in a sound logical argument) if we DO agree on the premises, we WILL agree on the conclusion, each and every time. There is a word for that: "Consistency."

If you don't see where I'm coming from, I could offer more information, like how scientists use logic to draw conclusions about the validity a particular scientific theory. I would say it here, but I feel like my answer is already more long-winded than you'd like. (I'm really working on being more concise in my writing, bear with me.)

You're comparing apples to oranges. Philosophers don't make up all secular thinkers, yet you compare them to theists in general. Theologians do the same thing as philosophers.

And also, many philosophers (at least historically) have been theists who tried to logically argue for the existence of God. My comparison was between inerrantists and philosophers, not theists and philosophers. I slipped up there, and you were right to call me out on it.

And I've had plenty of secular educators who put things out to be believed rather than tested.

So? Some people suck at their jobs.

In a science class this may be excusable. You don't want to waste time on the validity of Newtonian physics when you are trying to teach the nuts and bolts of gravity. Then again, advanced physics should explore the validity of the theory. In a philosophy class, everything ought to be subject to rigorous questioning. No excuse for that. If a philosophy teacher ever told you what to believe, he/she let you down.

Point being that you've already asserted that logic is better than faith in such regard, but you don't know if it's true. The assertion just flows from your materialist worldview.

George Berkeley was a theistic philosopher who utterly rejected materialism. He called his philosophy "immaterialism"-- ie. the opposite of materialism. However, he also used logic to reach his conclusions. To value logic in no way makes you a materialist by default.

[Minimalist]

I have many problems with the nativity.
Not least of which is the requirement to go to their place of birth for a census instead of having it as a question on the form.

The bible doesn't say that was a Roman requirement. It says Joseph did that. We don't know why. 

If Luke were making this up and wanted the birth in Bethlehem, there were much simpler ways of accomplishing that than inventing an event which would have been public knowledge and would have shot his credibility right from the start if not accurate.

Do you even read your own bullshit?

2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.

Luke 2

Do you understand what the fucking word "everyone" means?

Fucking apologist bastards make me sick.

---

And then there is dripshit still pouring out his own inimitable brand of utter fucking nonsense!

We have more hand written manuscripts of Christ than of any other figure in history nearly 25K different examples all of them consistent.

None from the first century.... when you shitheads claim your godboy actually lived and virtually none from the 2d.  Yes, by the second millennium the xtian hand-written copy machine was in full bloom but do you really think that if you take a document to a Xerox machine and make 500 copies of it that it then becomes 500 times more correct?  Even you, Dripshit, cannot be that stupid.

As for consistency?  They are consistent only in their inconsistency and in the number of scribal error which have been detected. 

The third century church father Origen, for example, once registered the following
complaint about the copies of the Gospels at his disposal:

The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either
through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse
audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have
transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or
deletions as they please.

Gee, Dripshit.  He spotted it in the 3d century and here you are 18 fucking centuries later acting like you know what you are talking about.

[Jehanne]

It also needs to be pointed out that the medieval Church destroyed a number of manuscripts that were deemed to be "heterodox".

[Minimalist]

Didn't even have to wait that long.  As church doctrines evolved....the fuckers hate that word...Origen and a bunch of others were anathamatized by the fucking church.

The anathema against Origen in his person, declaring him (among others) a heretic, reads as follows:

If anyone does not anathematise Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematised by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematise] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.[76]

As a result of this condemnation, the writings of Origen supporting his teachings in these areas were destroyed. They were either destroyed outright, or translated with the appropriate adjustments to eliminate conflict with orthodox Christian doctrine. Therefore, little direct evidence remains to fully confirm or disprove Origen's support of the nine points of anathema against him.

Poor Dripshit will never understand that the bolded part means some church douchebag edited those which could not be burned!

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Didn't even have to wait that long.  As church doctrines evolved....the fuckers hate that word...Origen and a bunch of others were anathamatized by the fucking church.

The anathema against Origen in his person, declaring him (among others) a heretic, reads as follows:

If anyone does not anathematise Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematised by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematise] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.[76]

As a result of this condemnation, the writings of Origen supporting his teachings in these areas were destroyed. They were either destroyed outright, or translated with the appropriate adjustments to eliminate conflict with orthodox Christian doctrine. Therefore, little direct evidence remains to fully confirm or disprove Origen's support of the nine points of anathema against him.

Poor Dripshit will never understand that the bolded part means some church douchebag edited those which could not be burned!

Sometimes sources are just pure BS.  

Here's an example = "If anyone does not anathematise Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematised by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematise] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.[76]"

Now that word salad sounds impressive with a lot of $20 words but there's no way in hell nitwits in the 6th Century used words that were not invented until the 14th & 16th Centuries.

[John V]

Do you understand what the fucking word "everyone" means?

Fair enough. So, let's note that a record of a Roman census in Egypt ~100 AD has been found which required people to go to their homes to register:

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/census.html#2

The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their nomes be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them...

[Jehanne]

Do you understand what the fucking word "everyone" means?

Fair enough. So, let's note that a record of a Roman census in Egypt ~100 AD has been found which required people to go to their homes to register:

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/census.html#2

The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their nomes be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them...

No classical scholar believes the story in Luke; of the 300 or so major colleges and universities in the United States, change you name a single Roman scholar who believes the account in Luke 2?  Here's an account from the Acts of Peter:

IX. As Peter spake thus with great sorrow of mind, many were added unto them that believed on the Lord. But the brethren besought Peter to join battle with Simon and not suffer him any longer to vex the people. And without delay Peter went quickly out of the synagogue (assembly) and went unto the house of Marcellus, where Simon lodged: and much people followed him. And when he came to the door, he called the porter and said to him: Go, say unto Simon: Peter because of whom thou fleddest out of Judaea waiteth for thee at the door. The porter answered and said to Peter: Sir, whether thou be Peter, I know not: but I have a command; for he had knowledge that yesterday thou didst enter into the city, and said unto me: Whether it be by day or by night, at whatsoever hour he cometh, say that I am not within. And Peter said to the young man: Thou hast well said in reporting that which he compelled thee to say. And Peter turned unto the people that followed him and said: Ye shall now see a great and marvellous wonder. And Peter seeing a great dog bound with a strong chain, went to him and loosed him, and when he was loosed the dog received a man's voice and said unto Peter: What dost thou bid me to do, thou servant of the unspeakable and living God? Peter said unto him: Go in and say unto Simon in the midst of his company: Peter saith unto thee, Come forth abroad, for thy sake am I come to Rome, thou wicked one and deceiver of simple souls. And immediately the dog ran and entered in, and rushed into the midst of them that were with Simon, and lifted up his forefeet and in a loud voice said: Thou Simon, Peter the servant of Christ who standeth at the door saith unto thee: Come forth abroad, for thy sake am I come to Rome, thou most wicked one and deceiver of simple souls. And when Simon heard it, and beheld the incredible sight, he lost the words wherewith he was deceiving them that stood by, and all of them were amazed.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/actspeter.html
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/actspeter.html

Do you believe the above account to be historical, that is, to have actually occurred?  If not, why not?  If so, was the dog in question a Great Dane?

[Mister Agenda]

[quote=Minimalist]
Do you understand what the fucking word "everyone" means?
Fair enough. So, let's note that a record of a Roman census in Egypt ~100 AD has been found which required people to go to their homes to register:

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/census.html#2

Quote:
The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their nomes be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them...

Their homes, not the village where they were born if they were born somewhere else. They were required to go to where they lived.

[GrandizerII]

Who cares about the census? Luke's nativity story is suspect because it and Matthew's nativity story clearly contradict (or fail to harmonize) each other on every single detail of their respective stories, except for the part about the virgin birth and Jesus being born in Bethlehem, both explicable by these beliefs being sort of mainstream sometime before the nativity stories were written probably due to common interpretations of the Old Testament verses. The rest of the stories were "made up from scratch", without either "Matthew" or "Luke" being aware of each other's works (or maybe they did but didn't care to support each other), and that's why the two stories have nothing else in common with each other.