RE: Whats even attractive about Christianity anyway that people want to stay in ignorance
March 4, 2012 at 11:39 pm
"...can you demonstrate that Gen1 is not literal?" - Rhythm. I think you and others here have already have demonstrated that it could not be literal using current scientific evidence.
" What may be possible to conclude and what is are often not the same thing." - Rhythm. Fair enough. But my appeal was primarily to Chipan using church-speak, not my preferred dialect, as you've learned.
The temple where Jesus is said to have drove out the money changers was the most elemental example I could make. As references become more specific they become more speculative an open to dispute. I do not believe they are as conclusively refuted as you would like to claim. A spring fed pool recently discovered MAY likely have been the pool of Bethesda. That's a step up from the previous assertion the because no pool fitting the description had yet been discovered then the story must have been fabricated. Likewise, the absence of a site for Sodom and Gomorrah was used as evidence that the story was pure myth. Recently however a site fitting the description was found. Does that mean that site actually was the buttsex towns? No, but it allows for the possibility.
" What may be possible to conclude and what is are often not the same thing." - Rhythm. Fair enough. But my appeal was primarily to Chipan using church-speak, not my preferred dialect, as you've learned.
The temple where Jesus is said to have drove out the money changers was the most elemental example I could make. As references become more specific they become more speculative an open to dispute. I do not believe they are as conclusively refuted as you would like to claim. A spring fed pool recently discovered MAY likely have been the pool of Bethesda. That's a step up from the previous assertion the because no pool fitting the description had yet been discovered then the story must have been fabricated. Likewise, the absence of a site for Sodom and Gomorrah was used as evidence that the story was pure myth. Recently however a site fitting the description was found. Does that mean that site actually was the buttsex towns? No, but it allows for the possibility.
