[Christian topic] Greg Laurie - Page 25

Post a Reply

Prev 1 23 24 25 26 Next All

XelNaga

162 Posts

April 19 2007 12:48 GMT

#481

On April 19 2007 21:45 bine wrote:

Dude you can't next the hot guy when you're the one on the bus.

What?

Hosanna

United States8 Posts

April 19 2007 12:49 GMT

#482

Wow.. infidels.org is like "Send in your own bible contradictions! Although very educated scholars haven't found one, maybe the intelligence of todays society with find one and I'll make a website about it!"

yisun518

Canada480 Posts

April 19 2007 12:50 GMT

#483

jee u reply too fast, i have to keep copying my own quote cuz i have updates in it while u reply

On April 19 2007 21:41 yisun518 wrote:

Show nested quote +

On April 19 2007 21:26 Annor[BbG] wrote:

On April 19 2007 21:21 yisun518 wrote:

On April 19 2007 21:14 Annor[BbG] wrote:

On April 19 2007 21:05 yisun518 wrote:

On April 19 2007 21:00 XelNaga wrote:

On April 19 2007 20:55 yisun518 wrote:

constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.

dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem

And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old

Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption.

you are not getting my point.
u believe in the bible b/c it says so (ur reasoning),
someone can believe in ANYTHING b/c their group says so, which can be very destructive to our world. this is why there are ppl saying religions can be very negative, b/c most ppl who learn bibles lack the capability of logical reasoning.

mind you, there are a lot of good constructive logical argument out there for religion (such as argument of design, which nonetheless has flaws), and also some very good ones against religions. but the insights your providing is not helping religion.. most arguments have flaws when put under certain thought experiments, and ppl try to improve and refine the argument to avoid flaws after thought experiments.

let me remind you again of how our world work today, how our justice system work. you need to understand this.

Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt.

There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.

So after all these posts you dedicated to trying to prove Xel wrong, you came to the conclusion of you believe what you want I'll believe what I want. If that's the case, please stop wasting everyone's time with your countless pointless posts.

Also the justice system doesn't necessarily work on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Although that is popular in your major cases, over 90% of our justice system goes on 'majority of the evidence'. Don't make up things off of Law and Order on TV, some people here might actually be law students.

the bolded part is IN FACT the reasoning to avoid, as you have clearly misunderstood my logic.
evidence is justice system is in fact about supporting evidence claimed as KNOWLEDGE. and our best definition of knowledge is in fact TRUE JUSTIFIED BELIEF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (why? b/c u can never be 100% sure of anything, hence beyond certain doubt, it may be true, but you could be saying it without justification, example: "i know Bob stole a book" when i did not see Bob stealing a book and nobody told me of so, but when he in fact did really steal a book, this is NOT knowledge, simply b/c i am not justified to believe so. And most importantly, u must believe it, otherwise its not knowledge) (and this is not off a TV shows. its off philosophical studies)

please do not post things without a clear understanding of the reasonings, read everything i wrote again in the last 2 pages to grasp a better picture.

All I was commenting on was the lack of your ability to use the Justice system correctly, if you can't even get the Justice system's process right, how can I expect you to get anything else even remotely right.

Everything else you said is common sense, which is completely wasted on most of the people replying to this thread.

my point: justice system is based on knowledge + what is knowledge

your point: majority of evidence to support the case

these are in no way contradictory to each other.

you seriously need to think twice before you post please, it just seems like you are bashing others for the heck of it.

even if i have commited an illogical argument, you are saying "you cant get one thing straight, therefore YOU CANNOT GET ANYTHING RIGHT"
this is a perfect example of inductive thinking, which in itself commits a fatal logical phallacy. plz only use proper deductive thinking

Show nested quote +

you need to keep the word together, only "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not knowledge. cases are based on evidence as knowledge. and knowledge is.... + Show Spoiler +

open up the nested quote and look at the underlined piece

and again, you have commited a logical phallacy, by taking only part of a COMPLETE definition out, to support your very own claim.

On April 19 2007 21:44 Annor[BbG] wrote:
Fine, if your going to leave the definition to my interpretation, I'll pick this one.

11. to one's knowledge, according to the information available to one

Gee whiz, will you lack at that, that definition says knowledge is relative to the user. Maybe you should be more clear or concise. Go the extra mile, give a definition to make sure people know what you mean.

the definition of knowledge i presented is within philosophical contexts rather than a dictionary.
and philosophically defined knowledge is in fact SHARED but i do not want this to branch off in another way with why is knowledge shared kinda of debate....

you certainly have your expertise in law, but your knowledge of law does not contradict with what im presenting here (knowledge+deductive thinking+avoiding inductive thinking) as part of the fundamental reasoning in knowledge/belief/faith.

P.S> I AM GOING TO SLEEP, no flaming so far against my reasonings, which is good! More constructive arguments are very welcomed!

intotherainx

United States504 Posts

April 19 2007 12:52 GMT

#484

-_- oh dear. I come back to this thread a day later and it has 10 pages added on to it, mostly of flaming.

Can't we just all get along? =/

Hosanna

United States8 Posts

April 19 2007 12:53 GMT

#485

On April 19 2007 21:52 intotherainx wrote:
-_- oh dear. I come back to this thread a day later and it has 10 pages added on to it, mostly of flaming.

Can't we just all get along? =/

...No
<3

Annor[BbG]

United States55 Posts

April 19 2007 13:00 GMT

#486

On April 19 2007 21:38 testpat wrote:

Show nested quote +

On April 19 2007 19:37 Annor[BbG] wrote:

On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote:

On April 19 2007 18:04 Annor[BbG] wrote:

On April 19 2007 17:47 testpat wrote:

On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:

On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote:
At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.

And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?

Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.

Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases.

Its very strange how bible literalists assume that because they take things as faith without investigation, science must be the same way. They seem unable to understand that if you ask a scientist why X?, he should be able to provide reasons & documentation to support X rather than "god says so". These events can be investigated themselves, experiments should be repeatable.

For example, only a literalist would take the statement "Apples are better than oranges - and you would only agree with this if you like apples", and assume that this has any meaning at all. That's a bizarre faith based argument: A is better than B because C says so, I agree with A, therefore C is right". A scientific argument would be A has a better(=longer gestation period) than B because of experiment C. I/others have reviewed/repeated experiment C which confirms/denies A has a longer gestation than B.

On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:

On April 19 2007 15:51 testpat wrote:

On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote:
Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark?

Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out.

You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water.

You still here? Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary?

I'll even give you the penguin - they don't have to be on the ark now. Just 57,999 more pairs (your count) or 4 million (see last post) to go. But if you just piped in to let us know you agree god hates penguins - find your own reason for saving them from the flood.

First off here is where 58,000 comes from. There are 58,808 vertebrates, half of which are fish, leaving us with 29,000, two of each would be 58,000 again. Hence 58,000 animals.

Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back?

Yeah, I already answered all these questions about 6 pages ago last night.

Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark?

No fishing was the answer to how they could have fed the penguins you were hooting and hollering about. I think they were smart and stored food for the couple of months they were on the boat.

Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2?

Gee sounds a lot easier to repopulate from a number of 2, then to start at 0 like evolution and then populate.

Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary?
Last I checked, when it rained I could still see outside. Hence light.

Wow, you are a dense person. An amazingly dense person. An amazingly dense person who hasn't even read the biblical passage, even though we've been discussing this for two days. They are on the ark for more than a few months, the ark has 3 levels, lighting is necessary. These are in your expertise - the bible.

Other than Feed, clean poop, disperse animals, I'm missing where you've expanded on this well thought out plan for caring for the animals. Other than stating you believe in Evolution, cause there were no polar bears before the ark, I'm not sure what further data you've provided. For that matter, I don't see a post after my post that futher illuminates your thoughts an the myriad of problems i outlined.

From the new information of where you pulled 58,000 from, I'm guessing invertebrates are made later by god pulling out the skeletons, since they aren't on the ark. I'm guessing insects must be imaginary - because they are all dead if they aren't on the ark. I'm guessing that your concept of animal hasn't really considered that all other life is wiped out - and therefore everything needs to be on the ark. That's why your 58,000 number is really just silly. Why is it that every additional postulate you make, and the support for it, makes your ark look less planned out?

+ Show Spoiler +

How long were they are on the ark?

Can't you read it yourself? See if you opened to the chapter of the Bible and read what it said, I wouldn't have to explain a thing.

So far you've told me only clean animals are on the ark, failed to understand the ark is in water for a year, failed to understand that the ark has 3 levels. Now you add that they are only on the ark for a few months. Noah's account is a few pages of the bible, how tough is it to read it?

Finally, another well thought out article of how they repopulate "Gee sounds a lot easier to repopulate from a number of 2, then to start at 0 like evolution and then populate.." So your argument is "it sounds easier than evolution, it must be true. For you to make this argument means you believe in evolution correct? Otherwise its complete nonsense.

Even if you do believe in evolution, your logic doesn't follow. Evolution is not the origin of life, its the changing characteristics of large populations over time. There is no evolutionary change in populations of zero. If you just mistook origin of life for evolution with your normal sloppy thinking. I would state that in the time periods involved < 10k years, the earth could not be populated with its current genetic diversity if the first signs of life occurred 10k years ago.

I would further state that given a set of species, numbering 2 in each case, that the genetic diversity we see today would not be possible, in addition, most species would die out because of lack of diversity in the genes of the original population. Conservation biologists estimate a minimum size of fifty for a species's survival, with 150 or more being a more realistic figure. How about .... honey bees? you do realize that 2 bees cannot create a colony, certain plants can't pollinate without bees.

Your useless. I've answered your ark questions 3 times now, and all you do is tell me to go reread it after you don't quote anything, don't respond with anything new. You just keep saying the same things over and over. I'm done responding to your questions until you think of some new ones.

You fail to understand that you haven't answered the questions with any sort of consistent explanation of how it happened. Eat Poop Disperse is not a valid description of the difficulties of the ark. In fact, other than Eat Poop Disperse, you have only said you answered the questions before - that's just one answer repeated. Unlike a multiple choice exam where you choose once, and never look back again if its right or wrong, this is an argument. I have stated that Eat Poop Disperse is not a valid argument in my eyes. If you cannot get any more detailed than that, i have to conclude that you cannot construct a rational argument for the mechanics of the ark. Let's try again: Fill in the details of what is necessary for the ark to sustain life during the voyage. Describe the animals onboard, their care, their maintainence, Describe how the ark was built, given the difficulties I've mentioned. Describe how fish survive in the ocean, describe how the earth is repopulated. Describe how plant life survives. Describe why life isn't found 1) spread across the earth (pre flood) and 2) centered around one point, expanding outward over time (post flood) in the fossil record. Describe how islands are populated. Describe why there is no geological record of the flood. If you cant expand past Eat Poop Disperse, i'm just going to start calling you that.

Show nested quote +

Actually, we are not discussing Evolution, we are not discussing origin of life - we are discussing why Noah's animals do not survive after landing - and i'm using arguments based on transfer of traits among species. Why isn't origin of life needed?- we have live animals - two of each. Why is transfer of traits important? because animals DNA is combination of their parents - variety comes over time from animals mating with different animals that have different dna than them. This is the problem with the ark. After the ark lands, you do not have a wide enough sample of DNA to mix and match and create the genetic diversity that we see in DNA today.

I get the whole "God created the animals" at Genesis. If he can do that, he can make sure they have variations in their dna. But after that, the flood kills them all off, and we have a bunch of near clones going around. 1) All species show more variation than is possible if they sprung from a common parent 10,000 years ago. 2) For species with population sizes of less than 150, survival is unlikely - you can look up conservation biology for problems that occur in species with smaller numbers.

I answered everything you asked. Its not my fault you asked about food, pooping, and dispersing 4 times now. I've answered everything else, when I say the sun gives off light, you ignore it and say all I'm saying is about food. I mean seriously, here we go again, answering all your questions.

Describe the animals onboard,
29,000 different species of vertebrates.

their care,
As in like do they take their doggies for walks? Everything on board is trying to survive a flood, I don't think they are too concerned about hygiene. Elaborate on what you mean by care, (note: I already answered your poop question 3 other times).

their maintainence,
Isn't this the same as care? I'll hold it as the same answer unless you elaborate this one farther.

Describe how the ark was built
God gave Noah plans on how to built it, Noah got his family to help, they cut trees for wood, they built a big boat.

Describe how fish survive in the ocean
Why would fish need to survive in the ocean? If the world was covered in water, by RAIN water, it would be FRESH water. So all the fresh water fish would be near the top and the salt water fish would be on the bottom (Salt water is more dense than Fresh water).As we have seen with some sharks and salmon, fish can go from salt water to fresh water still today.

describe how the earth is repopulated
Its called Bisexual reproduction, 1+1 = 3+ (repeat)

Describe how plant life survives.
Seed pods can float, Drop a maple tree's helicopter into water and it floats on the top, along with pine cones and many other seed types. Before you go there, I've already established that the water they are floating in is rain water, therefore fresh water, not salt water.

Describe why life isn't found 1) spread across the earth (pre flood) and 2) centered around one point, expanding outward over time (post flood) in the fossil record.
I don't even know how to expound on something like this. They don't find fossils around the world now? I would think the same way the animals got to the Ark (God brought them) they got away from the Ark.

Describe how islands are populated.
Well, humans can now build boats, (take the ark for example). Believe it or not birds can fly O.o
Oh Oh Oh, and then deer, tigers, and other animals like that can swim! Lets not forget ice and walking across it, or fording through the water.

Describe why there is no geological record of the flood.
Says who? Earth is 70% water. And there have been fossils of sea plankton found on mountain tops.

Also the survival of a species with less than 150 is very slim, which I agree with. However, that is based off of having 6 billion people in the world and tons of irreverisble pollution.

TheosEx

United States894 Posts

April 19 2007 13:01 GMT

#487

On April 19 2007 19:04 XelNaga wrote:

Show nested quote +

No that would be pointless, we have better forums to argue over religion. Just so happens we like these kinds of threads.

Show nested quote +

They are just going to jump all over you ;(

Lol... Jump all over me. In a real debate, I would rape these chumps... whether I debated for or against whatever the hell you guys are debating about. And that's just it. You're the only one with a solid argument consisting of a real and unified point-of-view. I'm not even going to bring in my thoughts on this subject, but they are just playing the "what-if" game, which is an ignorant way of avoiding answering real questions that would force them to admit or even truly defend their point of view... if they even had one.

Like I said, I'm not going to say what my views are, but one thing I will say... that it's admirable the amount of faith people have in the "big bang theory" or evolution itself. Whether you like it or not, you can't prove it and simply, you need faith to believe it. Evolution or Creation... they both take faith. It takes more faith, in my opinion, to believe evolution. Why? Evolution is illogical. You wouldn't expect a Ferrari Enzo to come out of an explosion in a junk yard, would you? How much more infinitely complex is the universe than a car?

Annor[BbG]

United States55 Posts

April 19 2007 13:01 GMT

#488

On April 19 2007 21:50 yisun518 wrote:
jee u reply too fast, i have to keep copying my own quote cuz i have updates in it while u reply

Show nested quote +

you certainly have your expertise in law, but your knowledge of law does not contradict with what im presenting here (knowledge+deductive thinking+avoiding inductive thinking) as part of the fundamental reasoning in knowledge/belief/faith.

P.S> I AM GOING TO SLEEP, no flaming so far against my reasonings, which is good! More constructive arguments are very welcomed!

As I've said 3 times now, my point wasn't to attack the meaning of knowledge, my point was that you were misusing the Justice System in your examples.

Hosanna

United States8 Posts

April 19 2007 13:09 GMT

#489

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

Well, in 2 Kings 8:26, Ahaziah is apparently said to be 22..
In 2 Chronicles, he is said to be 42..
MY bible however, says differently.

2 Kings 8:26 - "Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri king of Israel"

2 Chron 22:2 - "Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri."

Funny huh?
Infidel.org is just a ridiculous site..

evanthebouncy!

United States12796 Posts

April 19 2007 13:12 GMT

#490

On April 19 2007 22:01 TheosEx wrote:

Show nested quote +

Lol... Jump all over me. In a real debate, I would rape these chumps... whether I debated for or against whatever the hell you guys are debating about. And that's just it. You're the only one with a solid argument consisting of a real and unified point-of-view. I'm not even going to bring in my thoughts on this subject, but they are just playing the "what-if" game, which is an ignorant way of avoiding answering real questions that would force them to admit or even truly defend their point of view... if they even had one.

Like I said, I'm not going to say what my views are, but one thing I will say... that it's admirable the amount of faith people have in the "big bang theory" or evolution itself. Whether you like it or not, you can't prove it and simply, you need faith to believe it. Evolution or Creation... they both take faith. It takes more faith, in my opinion, to believe evolution. Why? Evolution is illogical. You wouldn't expect a Ferrari Enzo to come out of an explosion in a junk yard, would you? How much more infinitely complex is the universe than a car?

Haha that's because he's the only one on that point of view and nobody's standing with him T_T
THus his voice is most unified.

Bah give evolution some credit! Imagine all the brain juice it takes to come up with such theory... almost as hard as writing the bible don't u think? It merits some applaus at least. :D

TheosEx

United States894 Posts

April 19 2007 13:15 GMT

#491

On April 19 2007 21:48 XelNaga wrote:

Show nested quote +

What?

That's a reference to an MTV show, where people take turns "dating" someone from a bus and get "Next"...ed... if they aren't what the person likes...

But LOL... seriously, this is what I'm talking about. A completely unrelated ridiculously silly statement once faced with a real solid fact. Bine, you got owned.

XelNaga

162 Posts

April 19 2007 13:17 GMT

#492

On April 19 2007 22:15 TheosEx wrote:

That's a reference to an MTV show, where people take turns "dating" someone from a bus and get "Next"...ed... if they aren't what the person likes...

But LOL... seriously, this is what I'm talking about. A completely unrelated ridiculously silly statement once faced with a real solid fact. Bine, you got owned.

Oh, huh. I don't watch much TV, sorry.

evanthebouncy!

United States12796 Posts

April 19 2007 13:18 GMT

#493

As to religion or science, well they're both faith. I take it.

However, they are both trying to explain the world arn't they? Why something falls, why people die, ect. In the dark ages the bible probably explains everything ever need to know. I mean, why would you believe in bible if it doesn't do something useful? Why would you believ ein science if it doesn't do something useful?

But alas, there is only 1 Holy bible. Brilliantly constructed, but it meets the same fate as science for it too ages and obsoletes.

Science is growing, it is getting stronger and bigger. Even as fervent religious men types away at their computer they are using the athiest's made computer, bulit with science. It is growing because science accept that it can be wrong. It can change theories much more quickly than religion. If this does not explains the world adaquently, fine, here's a new theory, it might fits better. Let's use that theory instead.

Bible is not growing. Everything on it is sacred text and cannot be changed. Manytimes the bible's proven wrong, just read history. It cannot adapt nearly as well as science. Sure you can interpret bible in a gazillion ways by different interpretors, but they are interpreting the same o' text. Bible is a haughty entity that refuse to be wrong, and it hinders its approvement for it deems itself already perfect.

Science accepts it is not perfect, and by doing so it can perfect itself at an immense rate. Look at how the world changed in the past years, the world of science. Eventually it will be just as practical as explaining the world as the bible, and in time surpass it. It might take a long long time, but it will come, for science is growing and the bible is not.

TheosEx

United States894 Posts

April 19 2007 13:19 GMT

#494

No, his point of view is most unified because he has a source for his belief. Sure, it's the Bible and I understand you guys don't believe it. But okay, let's take others for example.

"Let's pull up Wikipedia... it says...." BULLSHIT
"Infidels.org... omg contradiction!" BULLSHIT
"This scholar told me that this other scholar was talking to this other scholar one time and he said..." BULLSHIT
"Okay, this isn't working... let's just start asking 1515135135100513908531 questions that we know he doesn't have the answer to and let's make fun of him when he starts quoting verses!"

And yes, evolution deserves merit. The idea of evolution itself is evolution in progress. Darwin was a Christian... and his ideas of evolution is completely different than what it is today. Like I said, it takes more faith to believe in evolution.

evanthebouncy!

United States12796 Posts

April 19 2007 13:21 GMT

#495

On April 19 2007 22:19 TheosEx wrote:
No, his point of view is most unified because he has a source for his belief. Sure, it's the Bible and I understand you guys don't believe it. But okay, let's take others for example.

"Let's pull up Wikipedia... it says...." BULLSHIT
"Infidels.org... omg contradiction!" BULLSHIT
"This scholar told me that this other scholar was talking to this other scholar one time and he said..." BULLSHIT
"Okay, this isn't working... let's just start asking 1515135135100513908531 questions that we know he doesn't have the answer to and let's make fun of him when he starts quoting verses!"

And yes, evolution deserves merit. The idea of evolution itself is evolution in progress. Darwin was a Christian... and his ideas of evolution is completely different than what it is today. Like I said, it takes more faith to believe in evolution.

Alrite that's a good point : )
Still my point stands that he's the lone warrior fighting a thousand hordes of athiest orcs. Poor chap T_T

Hosanna

United States8 Posts

April 19 2007 13:22 GMT

#496

You're my favorite person on this site

TheosEx

United States894 Posts

April 19 2007 13:23 GMT

#497

You've earned a respect point from me... not that means anything, of course...

Well... a couple couple of you have. Glad to see there's still sane people in this world.

evanthebouncy!

United States12796 Posts

April 19 2007 13:28 GMT

#498

On April 19 2007 22:23 TheosEx wrote:
You've earned a respect point from me... not that means anything, of course...

Well... a couple couple of you have. Glad to see there's still sane people in this world.

Cmon theo the greatest respect is you argue my points! Bring it!

evanthebouncy!

United States12796 Posts

April 19 2007 13:29 GMT

#499

okie maybe sleep first yawwn~~
happie evening m8s

TheosEx

United States894 Posts

April 19 2007 13:35 GMT

#500

Hah, there is nothing to argue. Let's take what you say and take it from there, and you will see what I'm saying.

You say that science is more "adaptive" than the Bible is, and yes that's true. But that statement in itself is saying that science has errors, which you cannot deny as a fact itself.

Now, to argue that the Bible has never had errors would involve much more thought than simply the statement itself. Why? There are many prints and versions of the Bible. Some Arabs consider the Qu'ran the Bible. Even within Christian divisions, the "canonized" Bible is debated, which is another arguement that would have to be settled before this discussion. Since that has been debated for what seems like an eternity, I doubt we can settle than in a TL.net discussion quite so simply in order to further our discussion. There are also many translations of the Bible. Errors? Maybe so, but that isn't so much what I am concerned with.

Either way, if I was a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, or whatever... it is not the growth or "strength" of a belief that makes it right. As a matter of fact, most religions center around the fact that there will be opposition and persuction. So that point is really irrelevant.

Prev 1 23 24 25 26 Next All

Please or register to reply.

[Christian topic] Greg Laurie - Page 25

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming