On the other hand, she just called me the stupidest person on EvC.
But you're used to being a lightning rod.
One thing discussion with Faith makes apparent is that she approaches the debate with pretty much the same attitude we do. She believes all the facts are on her side, and that once she makes us aware of those facts that we'll be persuaded. In her view, denying the obvious truth of the Bible after all the information she's provided is simply stubborn and perverse. In her eye we're just mindlessly arguing for our viewpoint even though we must know by now that it's wrong.
Persuading Faith (which, let's not kid ourselves, is unlikely) is going to be a two step process. First, she's got to be convinced of the nature of true evidence. The opinion of fifty billion Christians *can* be wrong, but more importantly, it doesn't mean squat as evidence. Second, she has to be presented the evidence for geology (not evolution, since she doesn't seem actively involved in that topic right now) and be provided the means of interpreting it properly. While old rivers and streams should occasionally be preserved in the geologic column, in general erosion is like sandpaper - it smooths and levels. And we must realize that as she learns more her misconceptions will increase, not decrease as we might expect, because she's driven by the need to preserve consistency with the Biblical stories.
If Faith decides to stay it should be quite an interesting battle. Faith is willing to explore the logical implications of evidence, but her innate ingenuity often finds implications we hadn't anticipated.
I know, I know ... but I've got to post this somewhere
In Message 101 Admin posted Faith's image. I guess she (is that settled?) is asking why we don't see that sort of thing. The answer is that we do see that sort of thing, in radar images and seismic images and satellite images and borehole chains and what-not ... and these observations are obviously incompatible with a global flood. Faith's just tremendously overestimating the likelyhood of such features breaking through to view in a place like the Grand Canyon.
I would be cautious about the corrolaries between the U.S. and right/wrong, and also about the corrolaries between Christianity and creationism. Beyond that, I agree with you wholeheartedly about Jesus being a real person (and alive today!) and I am impressed, BTW about your presentation of knowledge from varied sources.
One thing that I need to find out, as I glance up at the topic: Who is Ham or Ross?? :)
The opinion of fifty billion Christians *can* be wrong, but more importantly, it doesn't mean squat as evidence.
In regards to creationism and straight up literalism, I agree with you.
In terms of God Himself and Jesus Christ, the experience of fifty Brazilian Christians, whom we knew well, would count as something in the evidence department, would it not? I mean, is EVERYTHING empirical? By the way...before I drift us off topic, I really MUST find out who Ham and Ross are! :)
I know what you mean. :) In the end though, I think that only matters if the money raised by a ministry is for the ministry or the minister. I'm not prepared to lump him in with Benny Hinn without more knowledge about him.