The Mariana Trench

[durangodawood]

I don't think New Yorkers would would agree with you calling it two different understandings of faith.

They had a terrible tragedy occur, with a great loss of life and limb, and the last thing they need is some academian analyzing what understanding of faith was employed to get the job done.

???

No offense to the victims of 9-11. But their needs have absolutely zero to do with this discussion.

 

[Belk]

So if you and I were debating each other on the John Ankerberg show, and you said the Mariana Trench was 6.78 miles deep, and I asked you where you heard that; what would you say?

I would say "From AV1611VET". Why?

 

[Waterwerx]

According to Wikipedia, the Mariana Trench reaches a maximum depth of 6.78 miles.If you accept this as factual, without going there and measuring it yourself --- even if everyone on earth goes there and measures it (except you) and comes back with the same figure --- then I contend that you're taking it on faith that the Mariana Trench has a maximum depth of 6.78 miles.

Faith in the written documentation and/or eyewitness testimony and/or anecdotal testimony --- either way --- it's still faith.

And I don't care if you're a taxi driver, a chef, a ballerina, or an oceanographer looking at computer printouts and sonar graphs; if you haven't gone there yourself, then you're [correctly] accepting the written documentation.

This is as it should be --- and it's called 'walking by faith'.

I feel pressured to comment on this deep topic that physically going there would indeed be a crushing experience.

 

[Kylie]

Yes.

And of the two, which do you think is the most reliable?

The source that has data to back up the claims? Or the source that people only believe because it's been around for a very long time?

 

[Kylie]

No.

So if a bunch of people skilled in the area they are studying all perform tests and they all get results that agree, do you think it is likely that they got the right result or the wrong result?

And of those 7 billion, how many think evolution is true (or even heard of it)?

Given that evolution is a matter of science and relies on evidence, it doesn't matter how many people believe in it. If everyone but you believed 2+2=5 and only you believed that 2+2=4, would you be wrong? Why or why not?

And the truth isn't yours, is it?

First of all, you missed my point, which was that if you were going to argue that lots of people believing in Christianity makes Christianity true, then even more people believing that Christianity is false means that Christianity is NOT true.

Secondly, The truth isn't mine, it's reality. Reality by definition is correct. So that's why I base my views about reality on an investigation of reality.

 

[Kylie]

With fewer than a dozen or so major differences between them.

And yet the different sects have been perfectly happy to kill each other over those differences.

But yeah, this religion divided up into lots of different versions with differences that people from other versions view as being worthy of violence, bloodshed and murder, yeah, that's obviously true.



If Christianity really was the inspired word of God, there wouldn't be ANY differences!

 

[Kylie]

So if you and I were debating each other on the John Ankerberg show, and you said the Mariana Trench was 6.78 miles deep, and I asked you where you heard that; what would you say?

Do you realise that argument from authority is not a logical fallacy if the authority is a relevant authority?

When I have problems with my laptop, I take the word of a computer technician as more relevant than the word of a dentist.

 

[AV1611VET]

So if a bunch of people skilled in the area they are studying all perform tests and they all get results that agree, do you think it is likely that they got the right result or the wrong result?

We live by a rule that academians don't like:

Romans 3:4a God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;

 

[AV1611VET]

When I have problems with my laptop, I take the word of a computer technician as more relevant than the word of a dentist.

And if the dentist doesn't agree, he can take a hike, can't he?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

We live by a rule that academians don't like:

Romans 3:4a God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;

Paul was a man, therefore he was a liar. Hmmm, do you see a problem here?

 

[AV1611VET]

Paul was a man, therefore he was a liar. Hmmm, do you see a problem here?

Nice try.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Nice try.

You didn't answer the question. I'll take that to mean you recognise the problem but choose to ignore it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And yet the different sects have been perfectly happy to kill each other over those differences.

But yeah, this religion divided up into lots of different versions with differences that people from other versions view as being worthy of violence, bloodshed and murder, yeah, that's obviously true.



If Christianity really was the inspired word of God, there wouldn't be ANY differences!

Which Christian denominations are killing each other today?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Secondly, The truth isn't mine, it's reality. Reality by definition is correct. So that's why I base my views about reality on an investigation of reality.

Reality on a personal level is probably the most subjective and changeable thing in life. And thank God it is as the reality others have made for us stinks.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Which Christian denominations are killing each other today?

Catholics and Protestants until extremely recently in Northern Ireland.

There is a lull in interdenominational violence. But a quick look at Christian history shows there is a definite proclivity for violence against those who hold differing beliefs. These days it's aimed at wider population groups, irrespective of religious beliefs (India, China, US are prime examples).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Catholics and Protestants until extremely recently in Northern Ireland.

There is a lull in interdenominational violence. But a quick look at Christian history shows there is a definite proclivity for violence against those who hold differing beliefs. These days it's aimed at wider population groups, irrespective of religious beliefs (India, China, US are prime examples).

A "lull", or an end? Most of the differences between Christian religions are being argued bloodlessly on forums such as this one.

Differences will remain in Northern Ireland but I believe the bloodshed of a generation ago is over.

That said if you examine the bloodshed within the nominal Christian church you will find one denomination at the center of nearly all of it going back to the fourth century.

 

[AV1611VET]

Catholics and Protestants until extremely recently in Northern Ireland.

There is a lull in interdenominational violence. But a quick look at Christian history shows there is a definite proclivity for violence against those who hold differing beliefs. These days it's aimed at wider population groups, irrespective of religious beliefs (India, China, US are prime examples).

In spite of the Bible, or with respect to It?

 

[AV1611VET]

Differences will remain in Northern Ireland but I believe the bloodshed of a generation ago is over.

Kinda like the Beatles chanting GIVE PEACE A CHANCE while funding the Irish Republican Army.

 

[Belk]

In spite of the Bible, or with respect to It?

Are you claiming that Christians should follow agnostics view of the bible? If not your question is pointless. They followed their view of the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you claiming that Christians should follow agnostics view of the bible? If not your question is pointless. They followed their view of the bible.

If you want to claim this:

But a quick look at Christian history shows there is a definite proclivity for violence against those who hold differing beliefs.

Then I'm going to ask you if it was done in spite of the Bible, or with respect to It.

Why is that such a hard question to answer?