Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[*Deidre*]

Give an example, if u don't mind.

Example 1. The Bible is God's word because the Bible says it is God's word.

Example 2. Science is a reliable means of learning about the world we live in because science tells us that it is a reliable means of learning about the world we live in.

I need to drink heavily before coming into this thread.

Religious apologetics are defending something that can't be proven. Verified. You know this.

Scientist who defend science are defending something they cannot prove then Deidre. Why? Because you cannot use science to say science is reliable. It is arguing in a circle.

Like you using the Bible, to um...prove that the stories of the Bible were true? (because no other 'reliable' sources exist?)

[Mudhammam]

"Science" is a method of acquiring new facts and expanding or discarding old ideas about related facts. Saying, "science cannot prove science" demonstrates your misconception about what science is and what it does.

Saying the Bible is God's word is just a claim, not a methodology. And it's a claim that has no basis in reality even granting your shoddy approach to historical science.

[truthBtold]

Example 1. The Bible is God's word because the Bible says it is God's word.

Example 2. Science is a reliable means of learning about the world we live in because science tells us that it is a reliable means of learning about the world we live in.

I need to drink heavily before coming into this thread.

Religious apologetics are defending something that can't be proven. Verified. You know this.

Scientist who defend science are defending something they cannot prove then Deidre. Why? Because you cannot use science to say science is reliable. It is arguing in a circle.

Like you using the Bible, to um...prove that the stories of the Bible were true? (because no other 'reliable' sources exist?)

Just wear the hat with two cups connected with the straw... the u can multi task.. da!!

[discipulus]

Example 1. The Bible is God's word because the Bible says it is God's word.

Example 2. Science is a reliable means of learning about the world we live in because science tells us that it is a reliable means of learning about the world we live in.

I need to drink heavily before coming into this thread.

Religious apologetics are defending something that can't be proven. Verified. You know this.

Scientist who defend science are defending something they cannot prove then Deidre. Why? Because you cannot use science to say science is reliable. It is arguing in a circle.

Like you using the Bible, to um...prove that the stories of the Bible were true? (because no other 'reliable' sources exist?)

I am having a glass of Chardonnay.....

[*Deidre*]

I need to drink heavily before coming into this thread.




Like you using the Bible, to um...prove that the stories of the Bible were true? (because no other 'reliable' sources exist?)

I am having a glass of Chardonnay.....

brb...getting a glass (or 5) of Merlot. (so I can cope with st. discipulus.)

[Mudhammam]

No wine in the apartment. Guess I'll have to settle for a bowl of pink bud.

[discipulus]

I am having a glass of Chardonnay.....

brb...getting a glass (or 5) of Merlot. (so I can cope with st. discipulus.)

Back in the day I used to drink Bacardi 151.........

Straight.....

---

No wine in the apartment. Guess I'll have to settle for a bowl of pink bud.

Pink marijuana?

[Mudhammam]

brb...getting a glass (or 5) of Merlot. (so I can cope with st. discipulus.)

Back in the day I used to drink Bacardi 151.........

Straight.....

Wow you were BAD!

[fr0d0]

If every account therein were exact, then we could say it was inerrant and infer that it was thus "the word of God" rather than reports by fallible men of remarkable events.

If they're not, we can't.

That's a big Bastard of a gnat. God doesn't / wouldn't make mistakes.

And yes people, I know there are bigger and more significant contradictions, but none so clear.

I think this best explains where you're coming from. I agree with your conclusions given this proviso. Inerrant to me never involved perfection as God directly authoring the bible. I regard the bible as so far inerrant - being the work of errant man.

[pocaracas]

Don't mind me... I'm just enjoying the show.




To be fair, these past few pages have been dreadful.
Could everyone just try to go back into discussing something of substance?
This bickering gets tiresome to read and causes the audience to lose focus.