What makes your faith true?

[The Valkyrie]

"For the blessed and the meek will make peace with the Flock of Percy, but may drive them away by any means if they get bloody annoying."

**When pressed for clarification of this statement, a representative of the Church of Percy said, "I don't know! Our holy book is 3,000 years old. The writers had no idea what sort of weaponry would be available now!"

[vorlon13]

[Fake Messiah]

Yeah, reformed Baptist, you're talking about GC and his notion of "true faith" but even by his own definition he is worshiping devil because few posts ago he quoted king Solomon and his teachings. King Solomon is described in Bible as polytheist, meaning that he worshiped other gods and we all saw GC saying that other religions are governed by devil so when you follow teachings of a polytheist like Solomon, who also built temples for other gods, you are by GC's definition following devil.

[Nay_Sayer]

Yeah, reformed Baptist, you're talking about GC and his notion of "true faith" but even by his own definition he is worshiping devil because few posts ago he quoted king Solomon and his teachings. King Solomon is described in Bible as polytheist, meaning that he worshiped other gods and we all saw GC saying that other religions are governed by devil so when you follow teachings of a polytheist like Solomon, who also built temples for other gods, you are by GC's definition following devil.

I think you may have missed the joke, badly

[Odoital77]

Obviously question for religious people.

What makes your faith true?

Because it corresponds to reality, is coherent, makes sense of itself, etc...  It's for the same reasons that other things are true.

[The Valkyrie]

I agree with this entirely.  The Reformed Baptist Congr-

Wait!

1915??

Burn, heretic!!

[The Valkyrie]

Obviously question for religious people.

What makes your faith true?

Because it corresponds to reality, is coherent, makes sense of itself, etc...  It's for the same reasons that other things are true.

Which parts?

The contradictory bits or those which have been proved scientifically not to have happened?

[Odoital77]

Because it corresponds to reality, is coherent, makes sense of itself, etc...  It's for the same reasons that other things are true.

Which parts?

The contradictory bits or those which have been proved scientifically not to have happened?

I'm not aware of contradictory bits or those which have been disproven scientifically.  For example, I don't hold to a literal 6 day creation view.  The Bible is filled with multiple kinds of literature written from various perspectives, both gentile and Jew, which have to be taken into account.  Most of the time, when I run into apparent contradictions or asserted scientific disproofs, I'm usually looking at misapprehensions on the part of the objector or worse, outright straw men that the objector knows to be false characterizations of the Christian point of view or my point of view.  So I really would have to ask for some kind of clarification as to what you mean, specifically?

[The Valkyrie]

Which parts?

The contradictory bits or those which have been proved scientifically not to have happened?

I'm not aware of contradictory bits or those which have been disproven scientifically.  For example, I don't hold to a literal 6 day creation view.  The Bible is filled with multiple kinds of literature written from various perspectives, both gentile and Jew, which have to be taken into account.  Most of the time, when I run into apparent contradictions or asserted scientific disproofs, I'm usually looking at misapprehensions on the part of the objector or worse, outright straw men that the objector knows to be false characterizations of the Christian point of view or my point of view.  So I really would have to ask for some kind of clarification as to what you mean, specifically?

One contradiction is the witnesses to the empty tomb.  One source, I believe, is a couple of women, in another it's a couple of disciples.  The book had bad editors.

Things that have been disproved?  Genesis.  The Flood.  Exodus.

There are just too many to list here.

[Odoital77]

I'm not aware of contradictory bits or those which have been disproven scientifically.  For example, I don't hold to a literal 6 day creation view.  The Bible is filled with multiple kinds of literature written from various perspectives, both gentile and Jew, which have to be taken into account.  Most of the time, when I run into apparent contradictions or asserted scientific disproofs, I'm usually looking at misapprehensions on the part of the objector or worse, outright straw men that the objector knows to be false characterizations of the Christian point of view or my point of view.  So I really would have to ask for some kind of clarification as to what you mean, specifically?

One contradiction is the witnesses to the empty tomb.  One source, I believe, is a couple of women, in another it's a couple of disciples.  The book had bad editors.

Things that have been disproved?  Genesis.  The Flood.  Exodus.

There are just too many to list here.

Well, all I would tell you is that your first objection is what is called an apparent contradiction, of which there are many.  But apparent contradictions are "apparent", not real contradictions.  Keep in mind that the Biblical texts were written by different individuals and were not collected into a book until many years later, so it wasn't as if someone got them together and edited them so that everything matched up tightly.  In fact, this is one reason why historical scholars tend to give considerable veracity to the Biblical documents, as historical documents.  The kind of apparent contradiction you cite is exactly what you'd expect if people were writing an account of the same event from different perspectives.  Christ had both male and female followers or disciples.  So to say that a couple of women found the empty tomb versus a couple of disciples is no contradiction, if we're talking about acouple of Christ's female disciples.

With regard to most of the rest, I would simply remind you that an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.  Many things were still true states of affairs even when we had no evidence for them.  For example, the Earth was still revolving around the sun long before we knew anything about astronomy.  With regard to the flood narrative, there is evidence for that, depending upon how you take the story and date it.  Many cultures have global flood stories, which could count as evidence of some fain historical memory of a long ago event.  In addition, the sense in which the flood was global can be different.  If water covered all of the land where human beings were, rather than all of the earth, from the perspective of the humans, it would have been covering the whole earth.  And keep in mind that you're reading this account.  The literature has to be taken seriously.  We often use hyperbolic language to describe extraordinary events.  What if I was watching a baseball game and I was describing an exceptionally speedy fastball by saying, "he's throwing that ball like a million miles and hour!"  I obviously wouldn't mean that the ball was traveling at a speed of 1,000,000 miles per hour.  In any case, depending upon how you understand the "global nature" of the flood, there is evidence for it.  And at the very least, it has not be proven false in any case.  There are books and people who address these topics.  I would encourage you to look into them further.  You may find far fewer contradictions and disproofs than you actually believe exist.  In fact, I'm certain of it.