Hedwig

I suppose. That's why I went back and edited to clarify my statement a bit.

Rational BAC

This has turned into a real cat fight.

Very entertaining really. Lying. Libel. Chips on shoulders. Goodness gracious what a brouhaha hah!.


What was the original post anyway? Or does it make any difference?

EGGO

Way back then, at page 1, Magus55 was asked if he's going to cling on to faith.

Magus replied basically saying yes, despite what he sees as 'blinding' evidence, he will go with (blind) faith.

Warcraft3

Oh yeah I forgot about that. Sorry Wont happen again.

Rational BAC

Well that is what faith is for anyway, isn't it?

I would agree that Magus takes on faith a whole bunch more than I do, but still and all it is the same thing--------believing without evidence.

Warcraft3

Perhaps not.

Because he proabaly disagrees with you that the are actual errors or contradictions....and I would probably agree with him in most cases even though I am not a big inerrantist.

Someone is lying only when they knowingly misrepresent something.

I remember being involved in a long discussion on camels feet on another board where it was a supposed error in the Bible. I debated this issue along with several other people from both sides for an exhausting 20 pages or so. And after hearing all the argument I do not think it is an error.

Am I lying? No. I am disagreeing with the charge of error itself.
I would only be lying if I truly thought it was an error and spoke to the contrary.


Russ

The_Unknown_Banana

Well, it just came across to me that you didn't place much importance on the truth, providing your belief in God was truth. I get that from the following:
This just seems... well, like it's just not enough! If you are truly seeking the truth about things, then you can't believe your interpretation of a book no matter how good the opposing evidence is. If you really seek the truth, then you can't blindly believe something just in case it goes against what God might've told us, so that you have a higher chance of being judged generously. At the very least, you should consider that it is possible to be a fully fledged christian whilst not being a bible literalist.

Lastly, a bible verse I happen to like:

Heathen Dawn

It can still be an allegory of mankind's plight and salvation. Adam can be an allegory for mankind as a whole, meaning we are all sinful (not by one man's eating of the fruit - just our nature), and Jesus can be the allegory for ultimate trust in God to deliver us from such predicament.

Of course, I'm an atheist and don't believe this stuff, but this allegorical interpretation of mine just goes to show you needn't take everything literally to have the Christian gospel intact. The problem with you literalists is your inflexibility.

How much of the world does the Bible mention? Near East, Mediterranean, westermost to Spain, eastermost to India, southermost to Ethiopia, northermost to the Black Sea. No mention of Scandinavia, nor China, much less the Americas and Australia. So the Bible saying the "entire world" was flooded is a local flood in our picture of the world. That makes sense, and it doesn't run counter to the evidence. It's like the part that says the Gospel has been preached to the whole world - the "whole world" being the Roman Empire.

King Rat

Well, I guess I'm starting to understand how you mentally and ethically resolve contradictions found in your beloved epic fiction. The problem is, Magus has been presented with much evidence contradicting his claims of inerrancy. I would submit that continuing to spout inerrancy in the face of contrary evidence is worse than lying.

There are much better examples of errancy in the bible than camel toe. The biggest ones for me would be umm, I dunno, virgin birth, the whole resurrection thing maybe.

No, what you are doing is far worse than lying. You are being willfully ignorant, this is a betrayal of your intellect. I find that to be far more repugnant than a mere lie.

TomboyMom

Rene