Summations Only

How does she reconcile it with those who "know" but with evidence that supports that knowledge and contradicts what Faith claims to know?

Sorry but dying for some God have to be the ultimate in stupidity.

That does not surprise me Faith, but it is still utter stupidity.Dying for some God serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever but dying for a fellow human or the environment or your nation or social justice or equal rights or to save another, such acts could be worthwhile.If someone decides to die rather than diss some God I can see absolutely no way it could ever benefit the God, unless of course the god is some insecure little bling bling pimp daddy who gets pissed when it's dissed.And again, if you had ever read the Bible you would know that Jesus wasn't the kind of person to get bent out of shape just because one of the entourage denied him.

HUH?What does dying for some God do?Why do you think a God would be so insecure as to appreciate worshipers dying rather than denying the God?

But Protestants also tortured folk who would not recant and join the Puritan chapter of Club Christian and even went so far as to repeal the limited Freedom of Religion laws that were in place.

LOLLearn history of Protestant behavior faith, not just the propaganda. Look up the Protestant Revolution in Maryland.Maryland had been established as a safe haven for Roman Catholics fleeing from the Protestant oppression in England but in 1649 passed the second freedom of religion law to be found in the Colonies. It was limited to cover only Trinitarian Christians but it was a first step and protected Puritans moving into Maryland.However after the Protestant Revolution the Puritans outlawed Roman Catholicism.It was acts of oppression like that that lead to the inclusion of full religious freedom in the Constitution.

I agree, there is very little similarity. The former seems to have value and worth but what is the value or worth of dying rather than recanting some faith?Didn't Jesus accept Peter's denial of his faith?Gave you ever actually read the Bible Faith?How would someone dying for some faith provide any support for the concept of Inerrancy?

Jess gets funner and funner.The 1954 changes where almost totally driven by a Knight of Columbus 1951 initiative. The Knight of Columbus is, as most folk might know, the largest Roman Catholic fraternal organization and as WE all have been told on very high authority, Roman Catholics are not even Christians.The only possible reasonable conclusion from those facts is that the phrase does not refer to the Christian god.

Well, as a Christian, I understand that the norm throughout the existence of Christianity have been to impose membership by force and Christian killing Christian for Christianity not at all unusual.A corollary to that is related to the topic. It seems that it is those factions that most strongly claim biblical inerrancy that also do not accept that the words in the Bible actually mean what is written but rather mean what they say it should mean.

I'm sorry but revolution, whippings, driving folk out of the colony are not torture? Sure the iron maiden had gone out of style by then as had burning at the stake, but still, Protestants, particularly Puritans were and still are a force to be feared.Funny how the Catholics could support religious tolerance but Puritans not only tried to take power by force but also outlaw Roman Catholicism.

Shit Faith, not only do you seem to not know what the Bibles says or the history of protestantism you don't know US history too.Most of the colonies were founded as business enterprises, prisons, or various chapters of Club Christian trying to avoid persecution by the other chapters of Club Christian.Maryland was one example of the latter. It was founded to provide sanctuary for Roman Catholics fleeing persecution by Protestants in England but it did allow limited religious freedom until the Puritan Revolt.AbE:But let's try to get back towards the topic.Do you have any evidence that the Bible sould be considered inerrant?If inerrant then how do you decide which of the many conflicting and contradictory passages is inerrant?Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Nice bare link Faith. Did you actually read any of it? Did you notice the first sentence?

quote:

---

The situation of the Catholic Church in the Thirteen Colonies was characterized by an extensive religious persecution originating from Protestant sects, which would barely allow religious toleration to Catholics living on American territory until the country obtained its independence from the United Kingdom in 1783.

---

Note it was Protestants persecuting Roman Catholics.When Puritans in particular ever gained power they immediately outlawed other religions which is why the Puritans were rightly feared (and should still feared).It was fear of Puritans that lead to the inclusion of religious freedom in the First Amendment.But what does that have to do with the topic or the questions I asked?

Thank you for explaining why Calvinists and Puritans should be feared even today. Maryland was established as a place of refuge from Puritan intolerance and oppression until the Puritans gained power.But what does that have to do with the topic or the questions I asked?

But not all testimony is equal.In the case of the Bible the testimony is pretty weak and I'm not sure that any would be admissible as evidence of fact.First, the earliest is from 20 years after Jesus death and much written 60 to 75 years after Jesus death.Many of the source have no direct experience with any of the events and are simply reports of what they were told by unidentified other people. In addition there is almost no testimony that carries verifiable attribution.There is additional evidence that some of the testimony has been revised by persons unknown and after the fact.Given the above should the scripture be considered evidence of anything other than what people believed?Is any of it evidence of inerrancy?

Are two fowl and seven fowl the same number of fowl?