I do not need to know the facts of someone's life to decide whether a question is worth answering. I do not care about whether the asker had good intentions or bad intentions. I just care about the answer. So if anyone would actually like to answer the question as though it were asked by an innocent agnostic seeking truth, I would like them to do it because I'm also quite interested in seeing an intelligent answer.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
While I obviously am not an atheist, I don't feel the need to "defend" God. An attack on God is so absurd as to be laughable. I Don't see where God needs or wants me to defend him.
. . .
Exactly. And I have never attacked God. Not once.
What I do here (or used to... I'm not really "back". Just passing through.) is challenge thinking. To prod. I don't have faith in the Bible anymore. To me, it just isn't actually true -- not in total -- though there are obviously true and interesting, even inspirational, things in it. Never said it didn't.
And to me, it's absurd to say, as some believers to, that it is either ALL true or NONE of it is true. That should be obvious. I don't even know why anyone would claim that.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
What I do here (or used to... I'm not really "back". Just passing through.) is challenge thinking. To prod. I don't have faith in the Bible anymore. To me, it just isn't actually true -- not in total -- though there are obviously true and interesting, even inspirational, things in it. Never said it didn't.
And to me, it's absurd to say, as some believers to, that it is either ALL true or NONE of it is true. That should be obvious. I don't even know why anyone would claim that.
Because if PARTS of it are false, then it cannot be "the Word of God". The reason people say all or none is because the doctrine of inspiration requires it.
__________________ "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
~Declaration of Independence
Last edited by Evang.Benincasa; 05-12-2016 at 10:21 PM.
Then why trash the bible when a prayer isn't answered for healing for a brother?
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Because if PARTS of it are false, then it cannot be "the Word of God". The reason people say all or none is because the doctrine of inspiration requires it.
ya, but many search the Bible for facts, rather than truth.
ya, but many search the Bible for facts, rather than truth.
truth is not non-factual.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
no, i agree, but facts are not truth. For instance, we are coming to understand that "the whole earth" flooding may have only been the whole earth that Noah could see, and one might choose to either dismiss the entire Bible, remain in denial of the increasing evidence for local flooding of the area, or see how the facts may not essentially change the truth.
Facts issue from a point of view, and while a different point of view might produce different and even conflicting facts--native americans now known to be in the SW at the time of Noah experienced no flooding, per the geological or archeological records--the essential truth in our flood account--which is acknowledged to be mythology anyway--is likely maintained.
Flood mythology is apparently universal, in every culture and continent, even in areas that never had a Great Flood. Weird, huh? So, not putting facts down, but they can be misleading. We say "The truth is..." when what we mean is "i have a factoid that i take to be truth, and so my mind is closed on the issue" more or less.
no, i agree, but facts are not truth. For instance, we are coming to understand that "the whole earth" flooding may have only been the whole earth that Noah could see, and one might choose to either dismiss the entire Bible, remain in denial of the increasing evidence for local flooding of the area, or see how the facts may not essentially change the truth.
Facts issue from a point of view, and while a different point of view might produce different and even conflicting facts--native americans now known to be in the SW at the time of Noah experienced no flooding, per the geological or archeological records--the essential truth in our flood account--which is acknowledged to be mythology anyway--is likely maintained.
Flood mythology is apparently universal, in every culture and continent, even in areas that never had a Great Flood. Weird, huh? So, not putting facts down, but they can be misleading. We say "The truth is..." when what we mean is "i have a factoid that i take to be truth, and so my mind is closed on the issue" more or less.
I understand your overall point.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Linear Mode
