(April 24, 2009 at 3:13 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: That makes no sense. If it is invalid for a non-christian to look at the bible, we might as well cease all investigations into it. If your god is actually real, and big, and powerful, then you should have not one problem with anyone looking into the bible, because your god will still be real.You're twisting my words. I didn't say you shouldn't look into it, just that it in no way can make complete sense. Yes you should stop the pointless investigation. The bible itself says it, yet non Christians repeat the experiment infinitely hoping against hope that they're right and the Bible is wrong, but so far...
(April 24, 2009 at 3:13 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: However, if you will assert that I miss the very obvious central point, which is (I'm guessing) that the bible is a strong record on the subject of god. As for it being accurate, no one knows for certain, because no one has seen god. And if it is only a record, and not inspired, then that would mean that we should evaluate everything it says for it's worth to us in this world. What decides what we take from the bible as fact and what we take as fiction?We can't know for certain, but what we can know is that it's extremely heavily substantiated. Of course you need to say it isn't logical, but that denies the truth of the matter.
(April 24, 2009 at 3:13 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: I don't think the bible has consistencies, I am open to the idea. If there is evidence that I can find then I will think the bible has consistencies.The bible is written in a style of opposites. Judaism is full of this. To cry foul at that seems pure ignorance. Taking on the concept, it is entirely consistent. Denying the concept it isn't consistent - well colour me surprised.
(April 24, 2009 at 3:13 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: I'm not playing games Frodo, and everyone else knows it. Stop dodging questions.Empty insults again. What question am I supposedly dodging now? I thought we were talking about your post conclusion justifications?
