Hello everyone

Yes, it should and in fact it often does, but if there is an unresolvable contradiction you go with what you KNOW is true and for me that IS the Bible. It's proved itself to me over and over again, I know it is God's own word, and archaeology is the work of fallible human minds. The "evidence" for anything in the unwitnessed past is nothing but the guesswork of fallible human minds. There can never be anything hard and fast about knowledge of the past put together only from the standpoint of the present. This is why evolution and other sciences about the past are not really Science the way laboratory sciences are, where theories can be replicated and tested over and over.As for "something" being taken "dogmatically as truth" it depends on what that something is and whether you are able to rightly judge it. The Bible has been recognized as inspired by God by all believers in all generations. When you are born again you are changed, you have a new "faculty" as it were, a new spirit that recognizes the Bible as God's word. A mere intellectual judgment can be lost, a spiritual judgment can never be lost.

We're talking about certain old books aren't we? Who else has read them that you are talking about? How do you know their verification is different from mine? I could certainly find plenty of people who share my verification. Why are you making such a big mystery out of something so ordinary?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith, you can't pick and choose though when it comes to evidence -- I mean you can but it's not the honest approach. Archeological evidence may point to an existence of a variety of different Biblical characters but it also points to a completely different reality in many other aspects about the origins of the Bible and the climate of the area. You can't see this if you aren't willing to take that first step and ask yourself that difficult question that I put forth to you: Do you really know 100% with every intellectual fiber of your being that your God and your faith are "the truth". It has to be on par with looking at a tree and touching and feeling it and knowing that it's there. Even if I wanted to deny the existence of trees or buildings or anything else, the evidence is belying my denial.Science, which you ridicule as guesswork, is why we have all of the advancement in life that we do -- only science gets this credit, not a far east religion, not christianity, not hinduism. Science has been a process yielding TRUTH which has translated into so many things you benefit from every day. If it weren't for science you would still believe that weather is caused by your version of God and not natural processes, you might even still think that illness is because of a lack of devotion to God. Ever degree of superstition held by humans is wiped out a little more each time science finds the real answer to how something is or why it works the way that it does. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Well said. Again, good questions and well put.The answers, of course, are dependent on each person.Personally, I think enough time has been wasted on searching for the evidence of a God. At this point, I think we should leave it as "does not exist" and simply update that stance if we happen to stumble over some evidence in the future.Thousands of years (possibly even tens of thousands of years) have been spent looking for evidence of a God. That's a lot of time and searching.But, that's just my take. I'm sure there's plenty of things I do that other folks would think of as "strange" or "a waste of time." I like to stock bird feeders and have a bunch of them in the backyard. I bet there's a huge group of people who would consider buying birdseed for out-door wild birds to be "a waste of time and money." But I like it, so it's my choice, and I'm thankful to be allowed to continue to do so.Therefore, it's only fair to allow other people to make their choices based on what they "like." Perhaps "having evidence" isn't very important to them when considering whether or not God exists. That in itself doesn't make sense to me... but it does make sense to allow them the freedom to pursue their own ideas about such things. Of course, if they want to teach their stuff in schools to kids... in science class... then there's going to be an issue if they don't have any evidence.There's a time and a place for different things.I have no problem with other people continuing the search for God... as long as they're using their own resources and time.
It could even be helpful to me personally, if they actually do uncover some real evidence.

Not only do I admit that my belief system may not be true, I admit that my belief system must contain some things that are not true. You really need to drop the dogmatism. I have a religion and I make the admission. You're wrong. I don't doubt what you say is possible, I'm telling you that it isn't necessary. If the evidence was something that I could show you, like that for gravity and evolution, then it would be knowledge and not just a belief. Sure, its unnecessary. But its here. No, but I'd be more inclined to actually consider it. Oh well. That's no biggie. Why? Is your reasoning based on evidence or dogmatism? Can you?. Seriously, can you really choose to believe in a flat earth? I don't think you can. The evidence against it is too compelling.You can say that you believe it, but I don't think that you can really believe it. That would be just posturing. If that's what you want. I don't think you actually hold yourself to that standard though. Take your dogmatic stance on the requirements of religion, for example. I'm trying...The first step is to drop the dogmatism.

Of course I'm not going to deny there were indulgences, but how much do you actually know about indulgences? That is what the Christian Cult of Ignorance preaches however reality is far more complex that bumper stickers. Again, that is the fiction. Actually they were as intolerant and violent as the RCC. Of course it is mostly fantasy and propaganda. Both sides were really to blame; both sides were intolerant, both sides committed genocide.

I'm just saying that not everybody who has read those books has the same insane hatred of Catholicism that you have. Since you seem to be using the same methods of scholarship as everybody else, your insane hatred must come from somewhere else.

Sorry it is not like every other religion in the world, and that would take so much time to discuss it's beyond us here.Yeah if I grew up in India I might have been a Hindu, though if I was blessed I'd have heard the gospel and changed my religion. So what. I'm not a Christian because I grew up in a Christian country by the way. I went to church as a child but I never really understood the gospel at all. I was in my forties when I suddenly believed in God, and I believed because of what some Hindu gurus wrote in some books, speaking of Hinduism, but after reading and reading and reading about lots of religions over the next couple of years I recognized the gospel of Christ as the truth given by God Himself and all the other religions as fallible human searching for God that could never get it right because we're fallen. That's why we need God's revelation and that's why He mercifully gave it.So, sure, you may make a different decision. I'm not going to argue forever with someone who's made up his mind in a different direction.I believe the first FIVE books of the Bible were written under the authority of Moses, and some of it probably by him personally too.

You should start a new topic on that. I think it would be an interesting discussion.What evidence can you show that it wasn't Moses who wrote those books?

I know the history was complex but why do you deny that the desire for common folk to read the Bible in their own language was the driving force behind it? If they had not attempted to contradict the RCC Protestantism wouldn't have happened and there would have been no conflict. The conflict arose because the Catholic Church didn't want Protestants to have access to the same knowledge they could obtain and the Protestants decided to stop at nothing to get it...The whole thing arose as a type of liberation movement. After that things got ugly with politics and both sides killed each other and persecuted one another... But why? Because the Catholic Church wanted to keep things "as is" and a number of common folk (as well as nobility) wanted differently. The Protestant movement played well with a lot of kings such as Henry VIII where he used it for political purposes. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Archaeological evidence is pure speculation without the possibility of independent verification or independent witness. They make guesses about when things happened that can never ever be proved, they make guesses about what particular finds mean, all a matter of interpretation by fallible human minds. I'm as honest as you are, friend.I respect true science, and the sciences about the unverifiable past are NOT science.

I've only made up my mind to stop pretending that I have to answers and to be willing to look at evidence that people would like to show me for things. I'm not adamant against Christianity at all, au contraire, I'm always open and willing to see if it can come up with evidence to justify a belief in it.As far as Moses' role in the first 5 books of the Bible, I think you could at least concede that he didn't write Deuteronomy (at least starting at Chapter 34), after all, it describes his death and he couldn't have written about his own death.

Oh an honest reading of the books I'm talking about could only lead one to have a hatred of Catholicism as the lying murderous antichristian religiopolitical system it is. Only through preconceived bias AGAINST what those books say could you come up with some other opinion, but if you read them honestly even you would come to the same conclusion. John Adams wrote a book against the Jesuits. It if exists anywhere it would probably cost a fortune to possess it but he might persuade even you that they are nothing but Murder Incorporated in the service of the political power of the Vatican.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But why talk about "independent verification" and "independent witness" as though you even value those things at all as a prerequisite for believing in anything? After all, you don't have anything of the sort to justify your own belief system and yet you're going to completely discard a process looking for truthful answers that at least yields SOME evidence rather than nothing at all? Do you not see the contradiction here in your whole view of truth seeking? You're willing to hold ideas with no evidence above ideas with partial evidence and then say that the reason you discard the latter is because there isn't enough 100% evidence based verification...but it's clear you don't value evidence or verification at all. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

I don't deny that it might have been a minor point but it was just one very small factor.As I mentioned earlier, have you read the 95 Treatise?