Science today
-
John Carson wrote:
The Biblical narrative leaves little doubt that the Eden dwellers were indeed the first people.
I'm not so sure about that, actually. It's fairly vague, which is odd considering it's supposed to be the unambiguous guide on how to live your life.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's fairly vague, which is odd considering it's supposed to be the unambiguous guide on how to live your life.
Are you suggesting that who Cain married gives you direction in life ? Well, that could be true, in that I am certain that inbreeding is forbidden under the law, but, broadly speaking, the trouble the young earth folks come into IMO is simply that the Bible is not meant to be about paleontology, archeology, or molecular physics. As such, the record it gives of things such as Gen 1, is very vague. Just like if I read a cookbook and look for advice on how to decorate my kitchen. There may be the odd photo or comment in there, but I won't get a treatise on the subject. It's still a perfectly good cookbook.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Ilíon wrote:
Translaton Translation: You know that fact, Fact, FACT thingie that we "Darwinists" have been going on about seemingly forever? Well, NOW it is!
Tell me, do you believe in mutation and genetic variation? Also, do you believe in heredity? Finally, do you believe that weak animals tend to die more than strong ones?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Finally, do you believe that weak animals tend to die more than strong ones?
Well, to be fair, what evidence would he see of that ? Look around you. The weak no longer die, they get welfare.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
How else are you supposed to take it if not literally?
I take it you also find the Illiad and the Odyssey without merit?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I take it you also find the Illiad and the Odyssey without merit?
I never said that it was devoid of merit. But people don't kill each other over two ancient poems because they can't agree on certain aspects of them.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's fairly vague, which is odd considering it's supposed to be the unambiguous guide on how to live your life.
Are you suggesting that who Cain married gives you direction in life ? Well, that could be true, in that I am certain that inbreeding is forbidden under the law, but, broadly speaking, the trouble the young earth folks come into IMO is simply that the Bible is not meant to be about paleontology, archeology, or molecular physics. As such, the record it gives of things such as Gen 1, is very vague. Just like if I read a cookbook and look for advice on how to decorate my kitchen. There may be the odd photo or comment in there, but I won't get a treatise on the subject. It's still a perfectly good cookbook.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
the trouble the young earth folks come into IMO is simply that the Bible is not meant to be about paleontology, archeology, or molecular physics.
But it could've been, at least in part, had the authors really been communicating with God. There was only one thing the Bible had to do to prove itself to the world, and that is to genuinely demonstrate knowledge ahead of its time, something that the authors couldn't possibly have known. If, for example, it had mentioned unambiguously that oxygen is paramagnetic, or had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or had a diagram of haemoglobin somewhere in there, there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
Christian Graus wrote:
Just like if I read a cookbook and look for advice on how to decorate my kitchen. There may be the odd photo or comment in there, but I won't get a treatise on the subject. It's still a perfectly good cookbook.
The cookbook doesn't tell me to worship someone. OK, if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book?
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Finally, do you believe that weak animals tend to die more than strong ones?
Well, to be fair, what evidence would he see of that ? Look around you. The weak no longer die, they get welfare.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, to be fair, what evidence would he see of that ? Look around you. The weak no longer die, they get welfare.
You should know Troy well enough by now to know that he neither needs nor accepts evidence, and he laughs at those who do. Valiantly laughs.
-
Oakman wrote:
I take it you also find the Illiad and the Odyssey without merit?
I never said that it was devoid of merit. But people don't kill each other over two ancient poems because they can't agree on certain aspects of them.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But people don't kill each other over two ancient poems because they can't agree on certain aspects of them.
Make up your mind. You are now criticising the bible because there are people who are overly passionate about it, not because it contains some internal inconsistencies?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
Did Christian read it in the original Aramaic?
Dunno. Don't care. I would be surprised to discover that he isn't aware of the problem of taking the English translations as perfect, though. Usually it's the guys who think they are proving something who need do that - True Believers both pro and con.
John Carson wrote:
I am responding on the same playing field.
Not from where I sit. He's saying that the Old testament is not to be taken literally. You then find a contradiction in the OT that does what? Prove that the OT isn't to be taken literally?
John Carson wrote:
"Does Genesis not give an indication of the age of the earth?"
And the proper answer is: from my limited experience, the third-hand translations that I have read indicate that the world was created in 4004 BC. Obviously this is does not gibe with current archeological findings which demonstrates that the translations may be imperfect, my understanding of those translations may be imperfect, the scribes who set down the verbal histories of the Tribes of Judah may have not remembered the timespans correctly, or that God created the world then, but also created millions of years of prehistory at the same time. Since any and or all of these answers may be wholly, partially, or not at all true, the question is moot.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
He's saying that the Old testament is not to be taken literally.
Mm..."However, careful reading of the Bible makes this impossible." I would take this to mean that the Bible should be read carefully in order to understand it accurately. The position still seems fairly literalist, just a more sophisticated variant of it.
Oakman wrote:
You then find a contradiction in the OT that does what? Prove that the OT isn't to be taken literally?
Actually, I called it an "apparent" contradiction and was rather assuming that Christian wouldn't think it really was a contradiction. Thus I moved on to a literalist perspective. <edit> I see from Christian's later reply that he is not as literalist as I was assuming. </edit>
John Carson
-
Christian Graus wrote:
the trouble the young earth folks come into IMO is simply that the Bible is not meant to be about paleontology, archeology, or molecular physics.
But it could've been, at least in part, had the authors really been communicating with God. There was only one thing the Bible had to do to prove itself to the world, and that is to genuinely demonstrate knowledge ahead of its time, something that the authors couldn't possibly have known. If, for example, it had mentioned unambiguously that oxygen is paramagnetic, or had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or had a diagram of haemoglobin somewhere in there, there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
Christian Graus wrote:
Just like if I read a cookbook and look for advice on how to decorate my kitchen. There may be the odd photo or comment in there, but I won't get a treatise on the subject. It's still a perfectly good cookbook.
The cookbook doesn't tell me to worship someone. OK, if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
If, for example, it had mentioned unambiguously that oxygen is paramagnetic, or had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or had a diagram of haemoglobin somewhere in there, there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
Well, sure. The basic issue here is that just because you think you can say 'if there is a God, He should have done this', doesn't mean there isn't a God who disagrees with you.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
OK, if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book?
Without the supernatural aspect, specifically, without God being able to change people to enable them to live up to the moral instructions of the Bible, it would be less effective. That's kind of the whole point of the old testament. And, obviously, Christianity promises life forever, not just how to live life here. But, the 'how to live life here' aspects, would be just as true if taken in isolation. In fact, that's what plenty of churches seem to do nowadays.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Christian Graus wrote:
the trouble the young earth folks come into IMO is simply that the Bible is not meant to be about paleontology, archeology, or molecular physics.
But it could've been, at least in part, had the authors really been communicating with God. There was only one thing the Bible had to do to prove itself to the world, and that is to genuinely demonstrate knowledge ahead of its time, something that the authors couldn't possibly have known. If, for example, it had mentioned unambiguously that oxygen is paramagnetic, or had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or had a diagram of haemoglobin somewhere in there, there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
Christian Graus wrote:
Just like if I read a cookbook and look for advice on how to decorate my kitchen. There may be the odd photo or comment in there, but I won't get a treatise on the subject. It's still a perfectly good cookbook.
The cookbook doesn't tell me to worship someone. OK, if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But it could've been, at least in part, had the authors really been communicating with God.
I see, now you are criticising the bible for what it isn't.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
There is no doubt. Many people are sure it is, many are sure it isn't. No doubt at all.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book
Do you actually think that question was worth asking? Will the answer change your mind about anything?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But people don't kill each other over two ancient poems because they can't agree on certain aspects of them.
Make up your mind. You are now criticising the bible because there are people who are overly passionate about it, not because it contains some internal inconsistencies?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Make up your mind. You are now criticising the bible because there are people who are overly passionate about it, not because it contains some internal inconsistencies?
I'm criticising it because it demands that people be overly passionate about it.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
If, for example, it had mentioned unambiguously that oxygen is paramagnetic, or had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or had a diagram of haemoglobin somewhere in there, there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
Well, sure. The basic issue here is that just because you think you can say 'if there is a God, He should have done this', doesn't mean there isn't a God who disagrees with you.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
OK, if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book?
Without the supernatural aspect, specifically, without God being able to change people to enable them to live up to the moral instructions of the Bible, it would be less effective. That's kind of the whole point of the old testament. And, obviously, Christianity promises life forever, not just how to live life here. But, the 'how to live life here' aspects, would be just as true if taken in isolation. In fact, that's what plenty of churches seem to do nowadays.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, sure. The basic issue here is that just because you think you can say 'if there is a God, He should have done this', doesn't mean there isn't a God who disagrees with you.
I just think that there's a simpler explanation than 'there is a God who co-authored a book that's only vaguely trustworthy and who makes every effort to avoid being believable'.
Christian Graus wrote:
Without the supernatural aspect, specifically, without God being able to change people to enable them to live up to the moral instructions of the Bible, it would be less effective. That's kind of the whole point of the old testament.
The question is, why would he need to change people? Why would he change people? If Heaven is the reward for being faithful even given the free-will to not do so, would someone he made faithful be rewarded? Furthermore, do you believe in free will? If God can see into the future, then that means that the future is already determined, which means that we don't have the freedom to save ourselves from eternal damnation.
-
John Carson wrote:
So an apparent logical inconsistency in the Biblical account means that the Bible doesn't imply that the world is 6,000 years old??!! That is strange reasoning indeed.
Actually, there's a lot more. For starters, Gen 1 repors God creating men and women. Gen 2 says he formed one man and one woman after that.
John Carson wrote:
As for Cain "finding" his wife, he didn't go out to find a wife, he was expelled for killing his brother.
*grin* I hope you realise that I knew that. But, he was expelled, and in his expelled state, he found a wife.
John Carson wrote:
The usual interpretation from the Biblical literalists is that Cain married an unnamed sister (or a niece --- but some son of Adam and Eve would have had to marry their sister).
And this is significantly more far fetched than assuming that there were other men and women on the earth, especially given that it's clear from the fossil record that this was the case.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
And this is significantly more far fetched than assuming that there were other men and women on the earth, especially given that it's clear from the fossil record that this was the case.
I find this hybrid of the Bible and science very unsatisfactory intellectually. The problem is that, as far as I am aware, noone can say in advance what parts of the Bible should be taken at face value and what parts shouldn't. Instead, literalist interpretations of selected passages are abandoned ex post as and when scientific evidence dictates. But why then believe any of it, since much that was once believed has subsequently proved unreliable?
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
Make up your mind. You are now criticising the bible because there are people who are overly passionate about it, not because it contains some internal inconsistencies?
I'm criticising it because it demands that people be overly passionate about it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm criticising it because it demands that people be overly passionate about it.
No, it doesn't. High priests may, but that's just job security. The strongest passion in the Old Testament is the Song of Soloman. The New Testament appears to think quite highly of the meek, the humble, and the peace-makers. Reading between the lines, one might also get the impression that Jesus wasn't too thrilled the Rome or their Jewish satraps, but it's muted enough that it would be hard to call it a passionate appeal for rebellion. There is the bit where Jesus says that one should give one's wealth to the poor if one wishes to follow in his path, but I haven't noticed too many people getting passionate over that course of action, or even taking him seriously.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But it could've been, at least in part, had the authors really been communicating with God.
I see, now you are criticising the bible for what it isn't.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
There is no doubt. Many people are sure it is, many are sure it isn't. No doubt at all.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book
Do you actually think that question was worth asking? Will the answer change your mind about anything?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I see, now you are criticising the bible for what it isn't.
I don't think that there's a difference.
Oakman wrote:
There is no doubt. Many people are sure it is, many are sure it isn't. No doubt at all.
You mean there isn't a single person in the world who's lost someone despite fervent prayer and is now questioning whether God simply refused to help this person, or was unable to?
Oakman wrote:
Do you actually think that question was worth asking? Will the answer change your mind about anything?
It might. Should all inquiry cease at the merest possibility of the answer not swaying me?
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm criticising it because it demands that people be overly passionate about it.
No, it doesn't. High priests may, but that's just job security. The strongest passion in the Old Testament is the Song of Soloman. The New Testament appears to think quite highly of the meek, the humble, and the peace-makers. Reading between the lines, one might also get the impression that Jesus wasn't too thrilled the Rome or their Jewish satraps, but it's muted enough that it would be hard to call it a passionate appeal for rebellion. There is the bit where Jesus says that one should give one's wealth to the poor if one wishes to follow in his path, but I haven't noticed too many people getting passionate over that course of action, or even taking him seriously.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
There is the bit where Jesus says that one should give one's wealth to the poor if one wishes to follow in his path
Is that before or after he instructs his followers to sell their clothing to buy swords?
Oakman wrote:
No, it doesn't.
Ah, haha, I'm pretty sure it does.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
If, for example, it had mentioned unambiguously that oxygen is paramagnetic, or had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or had a diagram of haemoglobin somewhere in there, there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
Well, sure. The basic issue here is that just because you think you can say 'if there is a God, He should have done this', doesn't mean there isn't a God who disagrees with you.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
OK, if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book?
Without the supernatural aspect, specifically, without God being able to change people to enable them to live up to the moral instructions of the Bible, it would be less effective. That's kind of the whole point of the old testament. And, obviously, Christianity promises life forever, not just how to live life here. But, the 'how to live life here' aspects, would be just as true if taken in isolation. In fact, that's what plenty of churches seem to do nowadays.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, sure. The basic issue here is that just because you think you can say 'if there is a God, He should have done this', doesn't mean there isn't a God who disagrees with you.
No, but 1. Anyone who makes a claim and says "I could give you proof but I choose not to" invites scepticism regarding the truth of the claim. 2. Anyone who claims to have the key to everlasting happiness but isn't willing to even provide potential recruits with clear evidence of his existence (belief in which is part of the aforementioned key) has a hard time credibly claiming to be a god of love.
John Carson
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, sure. The basic issue here is that just because you think you can say 'if there is a God, He should have done this', doesn't mean there isn't a God who disagrees with you.
I just think that there's a simpler explanation than 'there is a God who co-authored a book that's only vaguely trustworthy and who makes every effort to avoid being believable'.
Christian Graus wrote:
Without the supernatural aspect, specifically, without God being able to change people to enable them to live up to the moral instructions of the Bible, it would be less effective. That's kind of the whole point of the old testament.
The question is, why would he need to change people? Why would he change people? If Heaven is the reward for being faithful even given the free-will to not do so, would someone he made faithful be rewarded? Furthermore, do you believe in free will? If God can see into the future, then that means that the future is already determined, which means that we don't have the freedom to save ourselves from eternal damnation.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
'there is a God who co-authored a book that's only vaguely trustworthy and who makes every effort to avoid being believable'.
Well, I agree. I don't think anyone is putting that theory forward except belligerent athiests who don't take the time to understand what they are attacking. Present company excepted, of course. :rose:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The question is, why would he need to change people?
Because we need it ?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Why would he change people?
Because we asked for it, and because we need it ?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
If Heaven is the reward for being faithful even given the free-will to not do so, would someone he made faithful be rewarded?
I love atheistic word games. They are fun. Being changed by God means being empowered to live a good life. It doesn't mean not having a choice in the matter anymore. For example, I tried to quit drinking before I became a Christian. 20 years ago, when I became a Christian, I stopped wanting to drink. Drinking was a destructive force in my life, one I could not control on my own. I could still choose to drink if I wanted to.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Furthermore, do you believe in free will?
Yes. um... no. um.... Of course I do.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
If God can see into the future, then that means that the future is already determined, which means that we don't have the freedom to save ourselves from eternal damnation.
Given that our brains are basically a chemical stew, and that even the most random decision we make, is probably only random because we can't see the state of our brain influencing the decision, I tend to think that He knows what will happen, at least in part, because, while we appear to have free will, it's also true that our every action is a product of our brain chemistry. But, of course, the point is moot, and meaningless, it's just a word game that atheists love to play. It means pretty much nothing.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have
-
Christian Graus wrote:
And this is significantly more far fetched than assuming that there were other men and women on the earth, especially given that it's clear from the fossil record that this was the case.
I find this hybrid of the Bible and science very unsatisfactory intellectually. The problem is that, as far as I am aware, noone can say in advance what parts of the Bible should be taken at face value and what parts shouldn't. Instead, literalist interpretations of selected passages are abandoned ex post as and when scientific evidence dictates. But why then believe any of it, since much that was once believed has subsequently proved unreliable?
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The problem is that, as far as I am aware, noone can say in advance what parts of the Bible should be taken at face value and what parts shouldn't.
I can. If a passage is telling you about the nature of God, or what God would like you to do, then that's the core message.
John Carson wrote:
But why then believe any of it, since much that was once believed has subsequently proved unreliable?
The Bible was written by people of the day. It is filtered through their understanding, when it comes to natural things. I am not saying it's not inspired by God, I am saying that if God told someone to write down the sort of science you're asking for, they would not have understood it, and others would have seen no value in keeping it around.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, sure. The basic issue here is that just because you think you can say 'if there is a God, He should have done this', doesn't mean there isn't a God who disagrees with you.
No, but 1. Anyone who makes a claim and says "I could give you proof but I choose not to" invites scepticism regarding the truth of the claim. 2. Anyone who claims to have the key to everlasting happiness but isn't willing to even provide potential recruits with clear evidence of his existence (belief in which is part of the aforementioned key) has a hard time credibly claiming to be a god of love.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Anyone who makes a claim and says "I could give you proof but I choose not to" invites scepticism regarding the truth of the claim.
Absolutely. And God is in the business of giving proof to the individual, but not the collective. Why ? That's His business, really.
John Carson wrote:
Anyone who claims to have the key to everlasting happiness but isn't willing to even provide potential recruits with clear evidence of his existence (belief in which is part of the aforementioned key) has a hard time credibly claiming to be a god of love.
As I said, proof is there, on an individual level. Not on the 'let's make a TV documentary level'.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Oakman wrote:
I see, now you are criticising the bible for what it isn't.
I don't think that there's a difference.
Oakman wrote:
There is no doubt. Many people are sure it is, many are sure it isn't. No doubt at all.
You mean there isn't a single person in the world who's lost someone despite fervent prayer and is now questioning whether God simply refused to help this person, or was unable to?
Oakman wrote:
Do you actually think that question was worth asking? Will the answer change your mind about anything?
It might. Should all inquiry cease at the merest possibility of the answer not swaying me?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I don't think that there's a difference
Really? What are they teaching over there in OZ? Obviously not formal logic.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You mean there isn't a single person in the world who's lost someone despite fervent prayer and is now questioning whether God simply refused to help this person, or was unable to?
Nope, I mean that there's no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion. The person you describe is questioning their faith in God, not their espousal of a particular religion. Now you may not know enough about religion, or faith, to understand the difference, but rather than just telling me again that you think there's no difference - go do some studying.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin