Quote:
|
Originally Posted by adysav
I think most of the people here are taking the view that their faith isn't based on a con artist. I'm not arguing against it as if he were a con artist or magician. Obviously he could trick people into thinking he could do some weird and wonderful shit, but the point is that most people believe that this stuff is genuine and actually happened without the aid of waterskis or wires.
Answers that do not match logic? The results are attained by a process of logical deduction and experimentation, how can they not match logic when they are a result of logic?
What you mean is that these things do not match your intuitive view of the world.
Who timed how long the first "day" took? With there being no Earth the concept of the "day" would not exist. I doubt anyone with any knowledge of astrophysics would agree the universe as we know it came into existence in a week.
Also, is it just me or do the next 3 events and their explanation not fit together in the slightest? How could anyone mistake land separating from water as the planets forming.
If in 2000 years time a person dug up a copy of a book or newspaper or poem from today, chances are they would be reading a biased and incomplete account with a distinct touch of sensationalism or political slant. How is it that noone can imagine this is what happened with the stories of the Bible, most of which were handed down orally for several generations before becoming a written history. Even after they were documented they were selectively edited.
If you take the Bible as truth you are just gullible.
|
Let me ask you a question. How do you talk to a sceptic? My answer to that question was to simply think of things in the same way that they might, so that they may better understand your point from a point of view that is closer to their own.
I personally do not believe that Jesus was a con artist. Actually interpreting what I said as meaning a 'con artist' is really a narrrow view.
It would be a mistake to argue logic with you...so moving right along.
And again, we return to how to discuss something with a sceptic. I don't claim to have any idea of how long a day was in the book of genesis is pertaining to the creation. I was simply illustrating a point by showing that there is a possibility that some of Christianity can coincide with scientific theory.
I do not consider myself to be gullible. I consider myself to have a higher goal. Let's say God doesn't exist, for the sake of argument. If one were to believe in a great entity that taught a lot of good morals and lessons and led that person to lead a good and decent life, where is the harm? Gullibility is moot in this case. As for there being a God or not, there are ten thousand reasons there is a God and ten thousand reasons there is not one. Calling someone gullible for believing in God is like calling somone gullible for being a pacifist. It is a life choice.