Summations Only

On the subject of the bible being infallible.. I still remember once example.I've seen a account(evid3nc3 from youtube) to be exact, who read the bible assuming it was inerrant, but stumbled on the death of Judas.Matthew 27:1-1: Did he get the reward , but got consumed by guilt, and he hung himself. The silver was used to bury him on a field, that's why that field was called the '' field of blood '' ?Acts 1:18 or: did he buy the field himself with the silver, fell,his intestines bursting out, the gruesome death being heard in all of jeruzalem, and naming the field the ''field of blood'' because of this?I've seem attempts to reconcile this, but the different uses of the silver, the orgin of the naming of the field of blood, and the lack of any reason why the two authors would each omit crucial details the other gives? I fail to see how this is not a contradiction, and it's very much supposed to be a reliable account by both authors.

Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'? Will you be willing to participate in this thread if it gets promoted?

Oh, that one is easy.He used the money to buy a field where he hung himself, hanging there until the cheap rope he bought to save money for the field purchase rotted and he fell bursting his intestines with such force that it was heard over Roy and Dale singing Happy Trails and spraying blood all over the field Triggering the naming of the field.

The following is a link to a youtube video of a speech given to a crowd of skeptics by speaker Dean Radin. Not sure if I know how to link to you tube but here is the url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9QiwqewThe speech he gives on this video is a summary of what is contained in his book "The Conscious Universe".Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Hi foreveryoung, Understandable.Read about Cognitive Dissonance, then, when your eyes unglaze, go back to Message 105.Enjoy.

I see that many, perhaps most, of Mr Radin's publications are in support of the reality of reincarnation. Surely you, then, must think that in this respect at least he's a gullible fool who's been duped into believing in a paranormal phenomenon which does not actually occur.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I don't believe Radin actually believes reincarnation is a reality. He is simply saying there is something there to look into that might actually be different than the standard view of reincarnation.

You understand that absolutely no evidence was presented in that video that supports either unnatural or supernatural causes.The video is a great example of "Testimony", making unsupported assumptions and assertions; of "I can't explain this therefore supernatural."

Below is a excerpt from Wilkipedia in re Dawkins.In Re Richard Dawkins:In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's statement in Lila that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."[4]Shadow71 writes:
As usual he is playing to his public and book buying followers, hoping for more converts.He is a phony.

Also, from his FAQ: "Psi phenomena suggest [...] that assumptions about the divine nature of "miracles" may have been mistaken."Still, you may cite him if you like. I'm not going to watch his speech, because his ratio of rhetoric to substance seems unnecessarily high, but can you refer me to any of his actual papers that you found convincing?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And as I have already explained to you, this is by the by, since we were talking about scientists, not metaphysical naturalists or Richard frigging Dawkins. I was trying to talk to foreveryoung about his apparent belief that science is inherently untrustworthy. I mean, foreveryoung thinks that the world was made in six days. I'm pretty sure that you don't believe a word of that nonsense, so I'm at a loss to understand why your so keen to muddy the waters here. You're not helping.Your point is at best irrelevant, in truth both irrelevant and wrong.Mutate and Survive

And what do you think this excerpt from wikipedia shows that countermands the man's words? Even if that was the case, what has this to do with my refutation of your claim?

Hi Percy. I've recently done an in-depth study of chapter two, thought and prayed about it. I believe I can explain it all, but have so much on my plate business wise now that it may be a spell before I can do a thread on it.It seems that there is a thread in the archives on that. I'll see if I can search it out.

Make up your mind.

naaaah this place is still too amusingly funny. liberals are the best comedians whether they are trying to be funny or not.