(February 13, 2013 at 6:36 pm)TheLameMayWalk Wrote: It's both. Why couldn't it be both? The Bible, has we both have mentioned, has been heavily revised over the years. Is it not possible that this was the Word of God, until it was revised as man?
I acknowledge that the Bible today is not the Bible from thousands of years ago, but I also acknowledge the main points made by the Bible are still the same. But you are right, but are wrong about me having to choose between those two options.
Then how do you know what parts are a reliable reflection of 'God' and which parts aren't?
What heuristic do you utilize in order to figure out that the parts you think are the main points made in the 'original' Bible that are still the same?
Isn't interesting that there are over 30,000 Christian sects because no one can figure out which are the main points? And you have a method to figure that out where millions of Christians have failed before you. How convenient...
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
