I know they existed because there is a direct biological line.
So you do have a sample of their DNA.. Otherwise your statement should read: I have
faith they existed, because we should share a direct biological line.
I shouldn't have to remind you that "faith" is not proof.
Pair the faith you have in your linage, with the faith we have in God, and you have a razor that cuts both ways. You believe because you are here you share genetic material with someone who lived in your family 4 to 8 generation before you..
We believe the reason we are here is because God created us.
Depending on what you choose to believe for whatever reason, your particular explanation will cut out the other.
This leads me to believe that Occam's razor can be as biased as the person who wields it, therefore it is not a good tool to use when trying to logically plot out a line of reasoning.
No. But I would consider that perhaps a number of sources that all told the same story maybe had some reliability. I would consider such agreement to be strong evidence that they were truthful accounts.
So no matter what, you have decided that the bible is untrue, and nothing it can possibly say will make it true, only that it may or may not contain strong evidence that it may be true... That sounds a little closed minded, don't you think?
If all of those in the past entrusted to faithfully reproduce the manuscripts did not believe this was indeed the word of God, they would have seen the need to bring all accounts into uniformity. Or do you seriously think you are the first to ask these questions?
I don't think anyone would use a map that said Australia is north of Canada.
According to science Australia has been north of Canada several times in the past. What makes north, north is the location of our northern magnetic pole, not the way map makers decide to draw their maps. We evidently have evidence that the earths magnetic pole has shift positions a few times in the earths history.. "North" is just a matter of perspective, and can/has changed..
So just because a map doesn't necessarily have all of the most current information, latest roads, and newest rest stops, it doesn't mean it can't tell you how to get where your going.
You missed my point entirely. 0.9 is not how much evidence anything I was talking about has. I was talking about 0.9 recurring, which is a never ending string of 9s after it (it would look like 0.9999999999999999999999999 with the 9s repeating forever) and how there is mathematical proof that it is equal to 1. As in exactly equal.
..And apparently being so anxious to prove your point you have indeed missed mine. My argument was not to the value of 0.9, but to the person who would refuse proof that 0.9 was not good enough. I spoke of a version of the bible who's accounts could not be disputed, because no one could label any evidence it offered as being anything but absolute..
One can examine the infinite without elimiting the infiniteness of that thing.
A finite vessel can not contain the infinite. Once you start to label or once you start to describe the infinite, you start placing limitations on something that has no boundaries. Being finite and having limits we must in turn place limits in order to comprehend or to completely understand. You want to comprehend God before you worship Him. I say if you could "he" would not be God.
To me, this is saying that once you are convinced, you interpret any inconsistencies in the Bible in a way that is compativble with your pre-existing beliefs. You cannot see these inconsistencies as evidence that the Bible is not what you believe it is.
I believe that when someone who has never studied scripture or even read it, outside of another's commentary see "inconsistencies" He is only seeing what it is he is looking for. In turn when a faithful believer comes across an inconsistency he will research until he finds a better understanding of that passage.
You are in fact doing what it is you are accusing the whole of the Christian community of doing. In that your efforts stop when your needs are satisfied. In other words: "You have interpreted the bible in a way that is compatible with your pre-existing beliefs."
Most of us look a little deeper when we come across something that we do not understand. we take the Greek/Hebrew and break it down, we look into historical accounts found outside of scripture, we look into the culture in which all of this was written.. This could mean we have a pre-existing belief reinforced, and other times we have to rewrite doctrine as we know it.
Christianity does not have the luxury of closing it's mind to what is in scripture, because we are held accountable to everything we can comprehend, even if it doesn't jive with out current way of worship.
No, not at all. But I do believe that our current level of knowledge (not just me, but the knowledge of people who have studied this in depth) is the best bench mark we've ever had.
The current level of knowledge YOU personally have, saw an inconsistency with moses and the burning bush, and it could not comprehend how God's words could still be God's words when sent through a messenger.. And according to you it was because you had sourced one of those who have studied all of this in depth... So truly if this is the best man has to offer, then you are no better off, than if you had a simple blind faith. Either way, Just know Faith in yourself and your fellow man is still a measure of faith.. It is to this level of "faith" that you have, that you will be judged.
You can "think" to your hearts content, but in the end your knee will bend and your tongue will confess the Jesus is Lord..
If i am wrong then please find me when this life is over and tell me "I told you so."
A fool? Be careful. Would you think you were a fool if you failed to be convinced when a Muslim quoted the Koran in an effort to convince you that islam is true?
The fact that it appears in the Bible is not proof that God wrote it. The passage could easily have been written by people who realized it would be a difficult story for some to believe and thus included a bit that said, "There will be some people who won't believe it, but they're wrong."
I said that your last statement concerning this specific topic was a fools argument. I did not call you a fool, you made that connection yourself. The reason I called it a fools argument was because you said that you could not see the bible being written in a manner that was not easy to comprehend, then i showed you where in the bible you could find the explanation as to why it was not written in a way that was easy to comprehend.. (this is the foolish part.) No matter who you think wrote the bible it was written, and with in the pages of the bible itself (Meaning no matter who wrote it) It explains that it was written in a way that was not easy to comprehend. this refutes your earlier argument despite who you think wrote the bible. So if you are confronted with proof and yet you continue to argue your point despite proof to the contrary. then your words can be called a fools argument. (BTW you don't have to be a fool to argue a fool's argument, just passionate about what it is you believe/passionate about your faith.)
I thought my point was clear - if the evidence shows me that there is the Christian God, then I will become a Christian. All I want is a solid reason for having that belief.
That's just it. If the evidence was clear, then there wouldn't be any faith involved in this process. without faith you can't be a "Christian."
This is why I said we are told
that even the demons believe.. (They have evidence) and yet that doesn't make them a Christian.
The "blind"
passion and faith you have in your fellow man ability to reason above and beyond God, has to be turned over to God to the same degree you follow your current system of belief. earlier i show you that you do indeed have faith, just not faith in God. If you want to be a Christian, then know "belief or acknowledgment" will not enough. You must commit yourself to Him, as you have to your current system of belief.
Have a listen.
