(March 23, 2015 at 8:24 am)Nestor Wrote: Sounds like an appropriate moment to quote Peter Medawar:
"In all territories of thought which science or philosophy can lay claim to, including those upon which literature has also a proper claim, no one who has something original or important to say will willingly run the risk of being misunderstood; people who write obscurely are either unskilled in writing or up to mischief."
So what does that say about moderate Christian claims that the Bible is the inspired Word of God but it can't be read literally, that it must be carefully interpreted to understand its true meaning? The question is rhetorical and the reason this particular counter-argument against my early critiques of the Bible sounded more than a little flat.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
