- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,325
- 52,689
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And like any other science, it at least allows for people to try to prove it wrong. They did, and in so doing, discovered the right answer.
What's that called? Trial and error?
[bible]Isaiah 41:21[/bible]
A far more reliable method than communing with mythological figures.
That's right --- I take communion with what you call a mythological figure.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful here, but may I suggest you hurry up. You sound like an intelligent man.
How would you equate what happened in the physical world in 1948 with what Amos wrote from the spiritual world in 9:15?
You constantly retreat to this kind of tactic, are you so insecure in your own beliefs that you continually have to point out the flaws in other people?AV1611VET said:How's this for bearing false witness?
No, I believe it should make one question what one sees and hears and imagines as possibly flawed. GOD is not flawed.Whats this supposed to mean? Are you saying that Id better get started on evaluating all of the worlds religious texts, in order to have time to determine which of them is true during my lifespan?
If I remember correctly, Im less than half your age. Youre in your fifties, and as of today Im 24 years old. Ive also already spent several years trying to determine which of the worlds religious texts are divinely inspired, and this was after living as a Christian and believing the Bible for around 18 years. However, the conclusion I eventually reached is that God hasnt directly revealed himself directly to humans in any of these books, which is why Im a Deist.
I can explain why I concluded that if you like, but thats a topic for another thread, and it should probably go in General Apologetics rather than here.
Youve told me before that fulfilled prophecies are your reason for trusting the Bible, and Im not going to argue with that. But youre still missing my point. In order to see that these prophecies have actually been fulfilled, you still have to observe whats going on in the physical world, and determine logically that this is what the prophecies were referring to. In the case of Amos 9:15, for example, this reason for trusting the Bible requires you to understand enough about world history to know that Isreal was created as a country in 1948.
In the example you described, your reason for trusting the Bible is because based on your observations of the physical world, the Bible seems to be accurately describing it. What Im saying is that if this is your reason for trusting the Bible, then when you see an example of the Bible appearing to condtradict the physical world, then that isby definitionsomething that makes your reason for trusting the Bible weaker. If your reason for trusting the Bible is based on its consistency with the physical world, how is it that when you find out that there are some examples where they appear to not be consistent, this causes you to mistrust the physical world rather than the Bible?
And our understanding of God is very flawed. There is no way that any one person could actually understand God.But your holy book is.
GOD edited it. It exists ONLY to suit HIS will and not mine.But your holy book is.
That is exactly why GOD designed HIStory. To inform and point, but not decieve.And our understanding of God is very flawed. There is no way that any one person could actually understand God.
He seems to have designed quite a few Histories. I have no particular reason to feel that yours is any more correct than any of the others.That is exactly why GOD designed HIStory. To inform and point, but not decieve.
It sounds like you're trying to place more value on the words of men than their words actually deserve. It sounds like you're trying to get a free pass for those words, let them pass through the normal critical analysis by claiming that we can't question them because they're actually God's words. It sounds very, very dishonest.GOD edited it. It exists ONLY to suit HIS will and not mine.
Special pleading is the Creationists most favoritest logical fallacy.It sounds like you're trying to place more value on the words of men than their words actually deserve. It sounds like you're trying to get a free pass for those words, let them pass through the normal critical analysis by claiming that we can't question them because they're actually God's words. It sounds very, very dishonest.
Tell me what is wrong with the Bible, and let's see if it needs fixing....It sounds like you're trying to place more value on the words of men than their words actually deserve. It sounds like you're trying to get a free pass for those words, let them pass through the normal critical analysis by claiming that we can't question them because they're actually God's words. It sounds very, very dishonest.
Me, I fail to see how any being greater than man could be, let alone would want to be, associated with the creation of a text so full of internal contradictions and incorrect statements.
There is no such word as "favoritest." Something is either one's favorite or it is not. It is like "more better." It is either good, better or best.Special pleading is the Creationists most favoritest logical fallacy.
Lighten up a little, kiddo. It's called a joke.There is no such word as "favoritest." Something is either one's favorite or it is not. It is like "more better." It is either good, better or best.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?