Romans 4:21 is about Abraham being fertile at 100 years old. How does Abraham being persuaded that God will make him fertile at 100 years old translate to being able to validate religion in the face of scientific evidence?
Take it in context man...God had promised Abraham that he would be the Father of a great nation. As the verse says, he was fully persuaded of this because of the things that had happened in his life. My point was not that Abraham was fertile...But rather that we are not meant to believe in something simply because it is convenient or 'nice', but rather we are called to believe based on evidence.Paul says, when talking about eyewitness accounts he has recorded, "These things are given that you may believe." In other words, Christian beliefs are meant to be based on evidence.
Like I said though, read the books, and then talk.
Eyewitness testimony is not scientific evidence. It may get you a prosecution in a murder case, but only after your story has been corroborated by the police, and you have been grilled by the defence attorney. It is used solely as the basis of a conviction only when forensic evidence is nil.
Fair enough, I took a jab at you. I have read plenty of books, including the bible, and I am quite confident in my attempt to consider theology in an objective manner. The closest I can come is a god who does not care about our silly religions or our social affairs at all but instead is busy making new stars and black holes in the corners of the universe.
It is one type of evidence though and that's more what I am getting at. The point is that we are asked to analyze, not blindly believe.[Fair enough. I respect that, at least you have obviously given the topic some heavy thought, and that is admirable in itself.Anyway, I'm struggling to keep my eyes open now and I have Uni tomorrow. I'm outa here.
You'll find that the 'mainstream' Bible translations (and I say that in the same broad sense I said for science) are very similar in their words (and almost identical in their meaning. The translations that are significantly different in their content are ones that don't use all the same scrolls for translating. For instance the King James Version was published in the early 1600's, and a large number of original scrolls have been rediscovered since then.
There is no doubt that Jesus was a real person.
Quoting from a book of moral fables is not evidence. As far as I can follow your arguments , they seem to be on a par with claiming that travelling at speeds faster than the speed of light is possible because it says so in "Starship Trooper"If I write " And then the flying spaghetti monster spoke, saying thou shalt not eat false pasta before me", In 2000 years time, that will not be evidence for the existence of the one true pasta god.Biblical quotations are not any sort of evidence at all. If the Bible is a piece of evidence for anything, it's the absurdity of the Xtian god
so, you will claim that christian belief has not changed since the early 1600's and will never change as there is a clear guide in what god wants us to do/think?or - the case in which i am right - the bible can be interpreted in many ways and is constantly re-interpreted to suit what ever agenda a particular person want to put across?
Actually the Bible is completely historically accurate (and seeing as that is how we are using it, as a chronology of Israel and early Christianity), it is a perfectly appropriate piece of evidence.
Link Not exactly relevant, but still useful:LinkHmmm, that Ngati-Grim was handy at times! I'm sorry, but I must take issue with the above bolded statement. Can I say 'Genesis' at this point?...or the Noachian Flood?, or myriad other episodes. Allegory perhaps, but complete historical accuracy is not the case!
Actually the Bible is completely historically accurate (and seeing as that is how we are using it, as a chronology of Israel and early Christianity), it is a perfectly appropriate piece of evidence.Whether you believe in the underlying principles is another matter....But that's not what I'm pushing here so...The King James was missing historical details and some finer points of theolog, due to the missing scrolls, but the core message remains the same, and has done so for 2000 years.If you really want substantial and complete answers I suggest you go read a book by a Professor of Theology. If you don't actually want answers, then you're just trolling in which case there is no point in me posting anyway...EDIT: Sorry Duck, kinda lost Net connection. I'll pull out what I'm referring to when I get home tonight (if I get home...lol)EDIT: See this for starters. Not what I was talking about but it does a reasonable job of summarizing a few good points.
im still waiting on all the science that people dont agree on, unless you were just trolling and making stuff up.....
can you answer why - if as you claim that there is a clear document what god wants, there is no unity amongst the churches in what they claim is gods will? the fact that there is not unity doesn't make sense if what you are claiming is true
also - you dont find it strange that "god" is using a book to communicate with man, which is pretty identical to the way a made up god would communicate - not using some of his magic and doing all those tricks he apparently used to do as documented in the historically accurate bible
I should have really said that the New Testament is historically accurate...My mistake.
Dude I've said it enough times, he gave us free choice, so if anything, a lack of unity only reinforces the point (unfortunately). Just because God is all powerful does not mean he is going to force the world into conformity
Is 'Revelations' part of the New Testament?
I don't buy it.Why isn't God an interventionist any more?Saul?Saul?Saul?
you claim god speaks to you
In fact, lets play a fun game - how about the 'atheists' here start providing some proof that God definitively does not exist, other than just spitting the same-ole "Christianz are fagz" rhetoric, filled with mindless speculation regurgitated from Richard Dawkins, and based around using logic to explain something which - by the admission of anyone practicing it who is honest about it - cannot be explained logically. Anyone keen?
My post is really aimed at Cobra, who is making the same mistake (imo) by continuing to imply God is disproved.
In times of idle speculation I've often wondered what the response would be if some unequivocal message arrived saying " Hi I'm Tharg, I created all of you and the universe you live in as a school project. This is just a warning that the science fair finishes in 1 fnarg, at which time I'll be switching the display off and you'll all cease to exist. Don't worry, that's a billion years in your time"
ffs, what do you guys get paid for? Sit arount creating walls of text?So basically what everyone, bar a couple, is saying is that religion is less scientifically accurate than science, therefore it is inferior? And since that majority so insist on viewing everything with respect to science, the couple of defenders of religion are then roped into doing the same?WD everyone. You scientists should be well up with the circular reasoning, which I suppose is how this thread has gone on for over 200 pages.
By the way:I'm still waiting for you to present a post where I said I believe God speaks directly to me.Kinda like you waiting for the other guy right ... :chuckle:
..... and I heard an audible voice that I couldn't attribute to anything other than God (if you want, I'll share the whole story, even though I'm sure I already have somewhere).....
