Hi,
Finding a university isn't difficult, enrollment and years of study is another story.
Oh I see, so we won't bother finding out the truth about a particualr subject because it too difficult and takes too long. Don't you think that one of the purposes of a forum like this is to help educate people who may not have the time or inclination to go to university, or some other eductational establishment?
You should thank your God that some of us are dedicated and motivated enough to enrol and study. Isn't it strange how an awful lot of people can devote the majority of their lives to following a 2000 year old myth, yet when it comes to devoting yourself to a particualr academic subject you suddenly cannot be bothered. You have enough time to waste on following Christian myths, you dedicate probably the majority of your day to following Jesus, yet you think it too much effort to open a text book!
Finding the "Lord" isn't difficult, becoming a member of Christ's body is another story.
It isn't difficult, you just need to disengage your brain. Being a Christian is easy, you just trust in the Lord and trust that His word is true, you do not want to confuse issues by becoming familiar with up to date academic information.
Given societies current academic essentials, a prior certified education is a perquisite in attending university.
Well this depends on which country you are from, I can only speak for the universities in Scotland. In Scotland every university has to keep places for mature students, granted these mature students need to have a certain level of education to get on to the degree courses. However, many univerities provide access courses whereby a potential student can gain the entry requirements by studying at their own pace. These courses consist of continual assessments which allow the student to tackle a small part of a subject at a time. Once they have passed that small part they are assessed, if they pass they move on, if not, they get another two attempts at it, then they are supposed to fail but most institutions Ihave heard of allow more than three attempts. Also, many many university courses require no prior knowledge of the subject to be taught, there are basic entry level courses that virtually anyone can take and the student will find that there is plenty of help if they are having problems.
So access to a degree qualification had never been easier, the financial side of it is another story, but if you are committed to a goal in life then you have to make sacrifices. I bet you wouldnt mind giving a percentage of your income to your church if they desperately needed it.
Becoming a member of Christ's body isn't certifiable by any university that I know of.
Although many of Jesus' follower's do indeed need certified.
Students of university are inclined to demonstrative/provable realities.
Are they really, so you haven't been to a philosophy lecture then, or a theology lecture?
I'd say your statement is misleading and erroneous based on biased speculation,
My statement is based on fact.
lacking specific instances and somewhat demeaning towards those having faith in the Lord and an unspecified bible.
I didn't have to give any specific examples. This is the free for all forum where you can let your hair down and have a wee rant if you wish to.
If I had posted this in any other forum then it would have been more detailed. I really do not have to give specifics either as many people recognise exactly what I am on about.
Take Kent Hovind for example. He is held up as an authority by numerous posters here. Now how qualified is Kent to lecture scientists on evolution or archaeologists on archaeology? He isn't. The guy has a phoney PhD, his area of study was religous education yet he thinks that he knows everything about science. How many times do people correct the false information that Hovind's followers spout here, and do they take any notice at all, no. There are people here who have had evolution explained to them on a daily basis for years and they still depend on Hovind's fantasies.
Having such a " impression", do think it's wise to make such prior definitive conclusions?
If the conclusion is based on my impression of a person then yes. Of course my impression could be incorrect, but the evidence strongly suggests that I am correct, who is to say that my impression is wrong?
Most people will listen,
Most listen, but very few take anything on board. They have made ther minds up by accepting the poor research on a poor quality website as being 100% accurate because it fits in with the beliefs of the fairytale they so desperatlet want to be true. These people will never change their minds because to do so would be to admit that they maybe wrong abut more than just the accuracy of the Bible.
I'd say the defining criteria is that some probably have rejected the data/information of the studied topic under discussion.
Hey I wouldn't mind at all if they produced counter arguments from respected scholars, but using the work of people like Wyatt, Hovind, Brown, Baugh, Morris and others, people who are fringe lunatics as reasons to reject the years of dedicated research by scientists and archaeologists is absurd.
I would even take a pro-bible stance here for a minute and present a maximalist archaeologist in William Dever as a respected scholar who would laugh at anything Ron Wyatt presents as being true. Christian archaeologists have
HAD to change their opinions of the Bible's view of events when faced with the archaeological data because that data disproves the vast majority of the primary history books of the Bible. Do you think that William Albright, Nelson Glueck, Anson Rainey and all the other Bible believing archaeologists went to excavate in Palestine with the intention of disproving the Bible? Of course they didn't, but they had to reinterpret the biblical text because it doe not fit in with the archaeological evidence. Collectively, these guys have clocked up a few hundred years of research between them and did they find Sodom and Gomorah, did they find Chariot wheels in the Red Sea, or the Ark of the Covenent, or Noah's Ark, or Jesus crucifixion site? No they didn't but Ron Wyatt found all of these in a couple of years!
So it isn't about rejecting the data because it has been proven incorrect, it is about burying their head in the sand because they do not wish to hear what the real data says.
Once again I'd say your statements are froth with inaccuracies and generalizations.
You can say what you want, that doesn't change the fact of the matter.
Hardly the calibre advocating the clarities of an university education.
Who said I have a university education?
I'd say a more accurate description is, some tend to rely on faith based on verse over research.
This is my point entirely, why mix up faith based stances with that of secular research? The two do not belong together, you can take Wyatt's word for everything if you want but what he used to do is
NOT archaeology, so why bring it into an archaeological discussion?
The supporters of Wyatt are bringing to an archaeological discussion information that is not archaeological, claiming that chariot wheels in the Red Sea proves the Exodus is embarrassing, I am bored to tears telling people that the Bible doesn't claim that the Red Sea was crossed by the Israelites, so Wyatt's claims do not even get off the ground.
Why spend your life or a portion therein at university trying to determine what happen at the beginning/start (or even if there is one) of existence when by faith you can believe,
Maybe because some people are interested in finding out the truth. Your statement implies that you are too lazy to educate yourself, what if everyone shared your beliefs here, we would still be living in the dark ages!
You are asking people to ignore their inquisitive nature and blindly follow a collection of ancient literature, we should just follow the Bible because actual study is to much of a hassle, give me a break.
"Gene 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. " DBY version.
Yes, I am familiar with Hebrew creation myths thanks. But this is all that the stories in Genesis are, myths to explain origins, myths to explain God's relationship with his chosen people, yet modern day people seem completely ignorant of this fact.
Once again you apply qualifications to statement you made earlier. For the sake of accuracy wouldn't it be wise to apply those qualifications on the onset of your prior statement?
Many people know how accurate my statement is, many people here have encountered the exact same things as I have, I didn't need to qualify anything.
In fact why not just give specifics to which person you are referring instead making broad sweeps in general.
The OP wasn't a critique of the inerrantist position, it was a rant to get some of my frustration out. If I wanted to give an in-depth analysis I would have done so in another forum. I posted it in the Free For All because this is the place to make generalisations and let off some steam. You are treating my OP as if it was supposed to be some detailed outline of my consclusions, it wasn't.
Is this certain poster using faith in what Ron claims or does this certain poster have proof from Ron? Depending on the correct answer could preclude the relative worth of the rest of your post.
There are in fact many people who use Ron Wyatt as an authority, not just one. These people believe that what Ron presents is archaeological proof of biblical events, they invariably say that Ron's finds prove the accuracy of the Bible, and these people are not restricted to this website, the Internet is full of them.
I'd say, essentially that statement is incorrect. Archaeology can prove the prior existence of the subject matter.
And thus showing your ignorance of what archaeology can do.
Archaeology does not prove
ANYTHING , what if 'they' did find a large boat in the mountains of Ararat, what does it
PROVE
Apparently there is a time and place for faith and and a time and place for proof.
And there is a time for getting off your butt and making an effort.
It is hardly appropriate to bring your faith into a discussion that is based on observable data. Can you imagine a discussion between a group of doctors who are struggling to diagnose a condition that a patient is suffering from and one of them suggests that the condition may be caused by a demon? This may be an extreme example but I can imagine what some archaeologists would say if one of them suggested that God has hidden all the evidence of the Conquest of Canaan by Joshua in order to confuse the wise.
Brian.
™ Version 4.2