Summations Only

You forget that Faith's judgement of other views is less than rational. Or honest.

How sad. Anyone who cannot rely on their own reading of the Bible should be feared and pitied. Stop listening to those who tell you what the Bible REALLY says and read what is actually written. They are called apologists for a good reason. They simply make shit up instead of teaching what is really written in the Bible.What you describe is not education but indoctrination and brainwashing.

Can't win for losing at EvC. Either I'm relying arrogantly on my own private judgment of the Bible or I'm an ignorant fool for considering the opinions of the many preachers and teachers ordained by God to know more than the rest of us.Since there is a lot of disagreement among them I can hardly be accused of uncritically swallowing a single point of view.Oh but one way or another I'll be accused of something. There's no way to avoid that here.

OK, you'e considered other's interpretations of the Bible. But not reality.Could your interpretation be wrong?

Personally I see no issue with consulting other sources than our own mind. I recommend it.

Some is history, some isn't. Really,? What research have performed to support this claim? What other religions' holy books have you studied? Zero? I see. when the Bible describes all sorts of supernatural phenomena, it's strong evidence for the reality and nature of your God. When other religions do the same, it's meaningless. Exactly what experience do you have?

First, ordination has nothing to do with what someone knows.Second, when you believe people that lie to you constantly, tell you things like "The Bible has no errors" or "There are no contradictions in the Bible" or "There was special creation" or "The Earth is young"; things that actually reading what is written in the Bible or looking at reality shows are a best absurdities, willful ignorance or in many cases utter dishonesty, then you are uncritically swallowing a single point of view.

This is a very dishonest post, a complete moving of the goalposts. The topic I responded to was young earth. I pointed out that there is no evidence for a young earth--that it is flatly contradicted by the evidence and is not a valid "starting point."Now you are back to your high-horse going on about the first cell, while totally ignoring the subject of my post.You're either a very confused debater, a very dishonest creationist, or a complete troll.*And in any case you have shown that you have no answer to the lack of evidence for the young earth belief.* Or all three.Edited by Coyote, : Added footnote.

I'm not talking about human "ordination" which is what you seem to be talking about. When God ordains someone He calls him to a specific task such as preacher or teacher, equipping him with all the necessary education for the task.What makes you think I or anyone just believes such statements as you claim we do? I suspect you don't bother to learn anything and it certainly shows, but most of us study for ourselves what we come to believe to be true.

When I started investigating religions before I was a believer in anything, a project that eventually led to my becoming a Protestant, I read a ton of stuff from other religions, Hinduism and Buddhism in particular, a lot of Catholic mysticism, also books about Gnosticism and other occultic and cultic stuff. I had long conversations with practitioners of Buddhism and followers of Hindu gurus.The Bible describes supernatural events in the context of history, which is what makes it evidence-based. The Bible isn't ALL history, but the parts that are history are intended to be evidence of God through His doings in the world. The parts that are teachings and other forms of literature are not meant to be evidence, and since other religions are primarily teachings they aren't evidence-based. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, dumkopf. The Bible describes supernatural events in the context of history, which is what makes it evidence-based.

---

No, it makes it like other ancient writings, and no more evidence-based. Especially when the "history" is myth or legend, and all of Genesis comfortably fits into those categories.

quote:

---

The Bible isn't ALL history, but the parts that are history are intended to be evidence of God through His doings in the world.

---

They certainly aren't good evidence for that. Not least because they aren't very trustworthy as historical documents - even the better parts like the Books of Kings.

The other ancient religious are all obviously mythical, the Bible is not.

The Creation stories, the Flood, Babel are all obviously mythical. But if you think other ancient writings only feature the Gods in myths you are mistaken.To give just one example, isn't the siege of Troy at least as historical as Joshua's invasion? Doesn't the Iliad contain genuine information about the times it concerns (e.g. The use of boars-tusk helmets)

No I do not. I acknowledge that my view depends on evidence. You, on the other hand, claim to have special importation from God to recognize what is absolutely true.

You are atheist to all other gods. If you were born in Afghanistan you would be saying the exact same thing about the Koran.You are living proof that your beliefs about Gods and religions comes from the location of your lineage. It is powerful evidence of indoctrination and how it leads you down the road of racism, tribalism, deception and denial of reality. Edited by Porosity, : Doh!