hatsoff

Yes. Because you're imposing an impossible standard that can never be met.

Think about it this way: There's no statement which can ever be 100% defended, but that's no reason not to make statements! For example, I am 26 years old. I can never be *absolutely* sure about it, but that's not going to stop me from telling folks that I'm 26 years old, nor should it.

Bible-based assertions work the same way. We aren't going to hold back just because there's a 0.000000000000000000000....0000000000001% chance that we're wrong. Because we're 99.999999999999...99999999% sure that we're right.

mdd344

Hatsoff,
Okay, what is the evidence, and how much exists, (arch. evidence) (and btw, I am not talking about 'age of the earth' stuff. The Bible never gives the age to begin with, not even in the genealogies) that folks are sure to 99.9% that it contradicts, and shows, the Bible to be in error.

EPresence

Translation: You, Diana, are an instrument of Satan spouting lies and deceit... of which the bible warns its adherents. Hypothetically speaking, how did "God-given" critical thinking become lies and deceit?

I am constantly amazed by the (almost) perfect little bubble Christian doctrine creates to shrug off any criticism. And that is not a pre-existing bias "programmed" in me from childhood. As I am yet another former Christian who, after many years of tortured logic to support my beliefs, decided I could be dishonest with myself no longer. Having carefully read your responses to the atheists on this board, I cannot escape the same conclusion I came to many years ago - that the Christian God is no more credible than any other supernatural entity. The major points against your position have been stated so many times it's embarrassing. And the "rock" of your objections is obviously meant for less coherent criticisms. You claim equal and opposite bias, when the actual post contents tell a different story. Thankfully, all it takes is a careful reading to see it.

SC

hatsoff

Sheesh, you're asking about something I'm not very familiar with. You'd have better luck talking to someone like Johnny Skeptic, except that you have to strain out all the bullshit from his posts. Maybe Roger Pearse knows.

I'm more of an internal contradiction guy. If I was to lay out a case for Biblical errancy, it would probably begin with the genealogical contradictions between Matthew, Luke and Chronicles.

mdd344

hatsoff,
Well, you were the one answering politely, so I asked. Now about the records you noted. Do you have enough evidence to draw any sure conclusion from any of them as to what they are, or are not, showing?

hatsoff

Yes--except that there's a difference between "sure" or "certain" and "absolute."

Just look at Matthew and Luke. They're completely different. It's pretty much self-explanatory.

Sauron

I'm not concerned about what other people are reading and deciding, for the moment. Let's review something else, instead:

You accused everyone here of having a preconceived notion about God and the bible, and not being willing to listen to evidence or other points of view.

You see, I reject your claims, because I already know them, and I can show you the reasons why you are wrong. I can cite the sources, and provide the analysis necessary to justify rejecting your statements. So my rejection of your claims isn't random or preconceived. It's the result of research and knowing the flaws in your claims.

You haven't done that with the material I've given you, however. You reject the evidence, but you have given no good reason for doing so. Right above, you've just agreed that I present my arguments clearly and show citations for my arguments and evidence. So we both agree on that point. Yet you persist in your belief that you are right, and I am wrong. And you do so, without any evidence to refute me.

If you can't show why my evidence is wrong, then you are obligated to provisionally accept it -- either that, or you are working from a preconceived notion and are not being open-minded. Which means that you have just accidentally proven that you, yourself, are guilty of precisely what you earlier accused us of doing.

I'm running out to Starbucks for some coffee and a pastry. Have a good think about it, and see if you can be honest enough to admit it to yourself.

diana

This smiley is in order, I suppose: :devil1:

Another question I have implied that also (surprise!) remains unanswered.

Probably because I'm the devil, or something.

Here's the kicker: the COC prides itself on its utterly rational approach to the Bible. (If you don't believe they're rational, just ask them and they'll tell you, of course.)

d

mdd344

hatsoff,
They are different because of the purpose of each. Why do you think that there would be contradictions just because they differ?

diana

I posted a link to my blog expose on them on the Bible Contradictions thread. Fun stuff.

d