RE: A Book?
May 22, 2009 at 6:05 am
(This post was last modified: May 22, 2009 at 6:06 am by lilphil1989.)
Fr0d0, let me try to understand your position a little better. Are you saying that the bible itself has always been the absolute truth, and that it's man's interpretation that has been wrong?
e.g. the joshua verse I referred to. You're saying that that was always meant metaphorically, and if in the past it was interpreted literally, that's a fault of the interpreter?
As for your reasoning, perhaps we have a semantics issue?
When I say "rational reasoning", I mean thinking, and coming to a conclusion based on the available evidence.
What exactly do you mean by it? Because you've used the phrase, despite admitting there is no evidence.
I don't want to think you mean one thing, and argue against it, if you actually mean something else.
Personally, I'd say a god for which there is no evidence is an irrelevant distraction
e.g. the joshua verse I referred to. You're saying that that was always meant metaphorically, and if in the past it was interpreted literally, that's a fault of the interpreter?
As for your reasoning, perhaps we have a semantics issue?
When I say "rational reasoning", I mean thinking, and coming to a conclusion based on the available evidence.
What exactly do you mean by it? Because you've used the phrase, despite admitting there is no evidence.
I don't want to think you mean one thing, and argue against it, if you actually mean something else.
fr0d0 Wrote:A better chance of living for the moment and not being distracted by irrelevant shit. Being aware of stuff that's detrimental to that.
Personally, I'd say a god for which there is no evidence is an irrelevant distraction
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
