Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
the origins of the bible
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="drich0150" data-source="post: 53615293" data-attributes="member: 218229"><p>So what.. My "faith allows me to pick and choose what i wish to believe.. I don't have to sell my soul to an Idea or a process to have respect or reverence for it. I simply choose to keep the good stuff and ignore the foolishness. I'm not so locked into "God" that I can't use a computer. (your thinking of the Amish) But at the same time can you say the same thing about your religious beliefs? Can you doubt any part of science, or does your form of "enlightenment" require an unwavering faith in facts?</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>According to the article i left on the 2nd or 3rd page of this thread from the National Academy of Science there are different versions. It states that Changes in the theory are to be expected... these "changes" in fact make the old version different from the new version... It's like saying that the 19641/2 Mustang is the same as the 2010 Mustang... Other than the Name and the shared History the refinements over the years make the 2010 a completely different car... By your logic because they share a name and both are considered to be a car they must be the same..</p><p> </p><p>Why do you think are we revisiting this? why do think you have a need to refortify this position when it is evident that your beliefs are incorrect? (According to the NAS)</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>You didn't seem to have issue lumping all facts into the truth category just a few posts ago.. Look at you rigorous defense of <em>facts </em>in my Innocent man being convinced by untrue facts, analogy.. What do you think happened between then and now?</p><p> </p><p>I can tell you what i saw, you were confronted with a truth that you could not spin or ignore, so you simply went to a point in your argument before you were completely committed to this line of reasoning, and then took it in a completely different direction.. you did this by trying to change the argument from "facts" to "Scientific fact."</p><p> </p><p>Which makes this whole exercise pointless, which is why all of my efforts here are coming to a close.. Truthfully all I'm trying to do here is simply show you the faith you, yourself use, in your belief of <em>science</em>. Which even if you can't admit it to me or yourself, you have acknowledged through your attempts to re define your position of "fact" to "scientific fact", and your re-fortification of the stability of your favorite <em>ever changing theory</em>. Even if the face of an official article to the contrary.</p><p> </p><p> I believe you know if you gave ground in either of these two points you would have to concede the idea of your usage of Faith in your beloved facts.. The fact that you are struggling or scrambling here shows me that you are well aware of the points I'm trying to make. So again I have completed what it is i set out to do. If nothing else you are aware of the argument.</p><p> </p><p>that said, all i have set out to do it complete. I'm not looking to be right in your eyes nor am i obligated to explain away every question or comment you have made.. So unless you have any other questions or comments as to "The origins of the bible" I am finished with this topic.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="drich0150, post: 53615293, member: 218229"] So what.. My "faith allows me to pick and choose what i wish to believe.. I don't have to sell my soul to an Idea or a process to have respect or reverence for it. I simply choose to keep the good stuff and ignore the foolishness. I'm not so locked into "God" that I can't use a computer. (your thinking of the Amish) But at the same time can you say the same thing about your religious beliefs? Can you doubt any part of science, or does your form of "enlightenment" require an unwavering faith in facts? According to the article i left on the 2nd or 3rd page of this thread from the National Academy of Science there are different versions. It states that Changes in the theory are to be expected... these "changes" in fact make the old version different from the new version... It's like saying that the 19641/2 Mustang is the same as the 2010 Mustang... Other than the Name and the shared History the refinements over the years make the 2010 a completely different car... By your logic because they share a name and both are considered to be a car they must be the same.. Why do you think are we revisiting this? why do think you have a need to refortify this position when it is evident that your beliefs are incorrect? (According to the NAS) You didn't seem to have issue lumping all facts into the truth category just a few posts ago.. Look at you rigorous defense of [I]facts [/I]in my Innocent man being convinced by untrue facts, analogy.. What do you think happened between then and now? I can tell you what i saw, you were confronted with a truth that you could not spin or ignore, so you simply went to a point in your argument before you were completely committed to this line of reasoning, and then took it in a completely different direction.. you did this by trying to change the argument from "facts" to "Scientific fact." Which makes this whole exercise pointless, which is why all of my efforts here are coming to a close.. Truthfully all I'm trying to do here is simply show you the faith you, yourself use, in your belief of [I]science[/I]. Which even if you can't admit it to me or yourself, you have acknowledged through your attempts to re define your position of "fact" to "scientific fact", and your re-fortification of the stability of your favorite [I]ever changing theory[/I]. Even if the face of an official article to the contrary. I believe you know if you gave ground in either of these two points you would have to concede the idea of your usage of Faith in your beloved facts.. The fact that you are struggling or scrambling here shows me that you are well aware of the points I'm trying to make. So again I have completed what it is i set out to do. If nothing else you are aware of the argument. that said, all i have set out to do it complete. I'm not looking to be right in your eyes nor am i obligated to explain away every question or comment you have made.. So unless you have any other questions or comments as to "The origins of the bible" I am finished with this topic. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
the origins of the bible
Top
Bottom