Faith writes:
If it were possible to learn about some of the science without being rudely insulted that would be great, because I'm interested in some of it, but it isn't possible so I'm not interested.
So every time someone has explained some science to you have been rudely insulted? Or is that only after you start citing scripture at them?
Faith writes:
Christian faith is not blind faith, it is based on the testimony of God Himself
Of which, I assume, you have documented evidence.
Faith writes:
No, I'm great with research and real science. The Bible does not contradict real science.
I guess that's the one reason you're so great at it then.
But wait - you just said above that it "wasn't possible" for you to learn about science. We'll have to ask to see your 'cv' at this point.
Faith writes:
The truth science can know is minuscule compared to the truth that is knowable.
I am almost scared to ask, but can you give me an example of a 'knowable truth' that exists beyond the boundaries of scientific confirmation ?
Faith writes:
The testimony of faithful witnesses is a major way we know anything.
... and we also have this infallible test to determine which witnesses are actually 'faithful'.
Faith writes:
I started out believing in evolution and now I believe God.
Ever stop to consider maybe you never understood what you thought you were believing in the first place?
Or is it that believing in God is just a lot more comforting seeing as how you haven't been able to learn any science?
Faith writes:
how can there be truth in it if science says Jesus wasn't God and a man can't come back to life?
Two unrelated contentions in one sentence.
Science takes no position on the status of Jesus as a god.
It might on bringing people back to life, depending on how long their heart has stopped beating.
Faith writes:
One can't believe in a METAPHOR for heaven's sake.
How do you objectively distinguish a metaphor from an accurate historical account of events?
I guess you would have to use... a science of some sort - perish the thought.
But, as GDR implies, doesn't a metaphor have the same heuristic value as an accurate historical narrative if you are simply trying to teach someone something ?
™ Version 4.2
