Something Completely Different:

quote:

---

Which one of the esteemed "experts" informed you of this? And how do we know he is right and the Bible is wrong?

---

I think you have misunderstood. I was saying that Larson’s conjunction was after Herod died. The Bible does not mention Larson’s conjunction.But I will add that Luke tells us that Jesus was born after Herod died. Luke dates Jesus’ birth to the census of Quirinius which occurred after the Romans’ deposed Herod Archelaus, son of Herod the Great.

I have no problem with the Trinity, but I think you are a bit arrogant and snippy with me in claiming superior Biblical Knowledge. I could care less how much research you have done---I too have read a lot of stuff, and have reached differing conclusions which are all tentative. You refuse to even consider the possibility that you are wrong, and I think that your condescending attitude towards fellow Christians who have received as much revelatory knowledge as you have might be a strike against you come judgment day. What good does it do to advertise our "product" when we look stupid and stubborn?

Why not if the pastor is wrong?

I always thought that was your "product". BTW, misspelling was made necessary by some stoopid forum setting; maybe I should substitute German or Spanish words when that happens again.But seriously, that is my primary message to creationists: it does not serve your cause, but rather is counter-productive and contrary to Christian doctrine, to depend on creationist lies and deceptions.

Because non-believers cannot correct believers based only on consensual evidential data. Of course, I do not know this, but you do not absolutely know that the Pastor is wrong either. Feel free to go to Stephen Hawking's church, however.

I can tentatively agree with you, Duane. The reason I like this forum is that I have developed basic trust in the wisdom, evidential logic, and overall internet personality characteristics of the members here. And I see that jar has returned as my foil and resident critic, always keeping me off balance and away from complacency regarding my beliefs. That's just it, though. The whole paradigm and dynamic of Evolution vs Creationism is that one side is willing to throw away evidence in light of new evidence and has no need to hold to any final conclusion on a matter, while the other side---my side---does, in fact, have an emotional need to hold on to belief despite its irrationality.Look, I will freely admit that your side has all of the basic facts that can be objectively proven. I continue to argue with everyone here because I continue to get subjective confirmation that my beliefs are valid (at a basic emotional level).The data can show that prayer doesn't make a difference...but I have experienced repeated confirmation that it does. The data can show that Jesus Christ likely never existed or that if so, He was an ordinary man...but I meet Him every day through others. The evidence that we have is the believers themselves and that is really all of the evidence that we ever will have. Even though I am admittedly just like Faith, I get mad at her for being a bad advertisement for our brand---our Jesus--our purpose. And what's sad is that I am no better. In fact, it is the atheists and secular humanists at this forum that keep me here. I believe that there is more evidence forthcoming. It will come from the believers themselves.Either signs and wonders will follow those who believe or, as Tangle says, religion will continue to fade away and have less and less social relevance as time goes on.

I thought I was just being factual, not "snippy" but sorry you took it that way.

Both of you have read a lot of extra-Biblical "stuff" - which is a polite word for it. Too bad neither of you pays any attention to the actual Bible.

of course they can.

I might have an opinion on this thread except I can't decipher what "consensual evidential data" entails.Evidential and data are kind of redundant aren't they. And consensual? What happened? After some discussion did the two of them consent to this liaison of redundancy?What is consensual evidential data?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I took it as a consensus about what the evidence is. It isn't evidence unless we all agree what it is.

So Thug is saying we cannot correct a preacher based on facts we all know and agree to?

It's ok. Maybe it is I who am snippy. I've been quite feisty lately. It's just that I feel a battle in the air...Nothing personal against you, Faith

I pay attention and will take you on quote for quote. The problem is that you attribute the source as human authors rather than divine authorship. It is why we can never agree. Your side essentially settles on human wisdom as the final arbitrator. Our side settles on divine inspiration, though we cannot prove it to the standards that all people would and should agree on... yet. The jury is still out and it may be a hundred years before a verdict is reached.

That's how I took it - because believers have "higher knowledge" that is not constrained by mere facts.