Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Religion vs Science debate: bring it in here
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RDJ" data-source="post: 13391523" data-attributes="member: 5905"><p>this is not quite accurate. we are not able to show physical proof that the religious tennants are true. there is ample evidence that the bible as a history book is certainly true. not necessarily every facet of it but enough to show that by and large the history is fairly accurate. </p><p></p><p> this is where the religious realists separate themselves from the so called gawd squad. faith is not accepting everything without question. Faith requires you to question to continually seek answers. </p><p></p><p> the bible certainly contains metaphore and ideas that are absurd when taken literally. righteous faith helps one discerne what is litteral and what is metaphor IMHO. the gawd sqaud will now proceed to tell me how I am wrong and the bible is 100% litteral and God now hates me. </p><p></p><p> the first part of your post I generally agree with. This part not so much. there are HUGE differences between modern day "translations" of the bible. and there are dozens if not hundreds of books that were determined by a bunch of catholic clowns that left a bunch of stuff on the floor. some of it was left on the floor because it contradicted catholic dogma and for no other reason.</p><p></p><p>the 'bible' did not exist as a single book until after the catholics got hold of it. until then it was a series of writings by different people which religions and people gave creedence to.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RDJ, post: 13391523, member: 5905"] this is not quite accurate. we are not able to show physical proof that the religious tennants are true. there is ample evidence that the bible as a history book is certainly true. not necessarily every facet of it but enough to show that by and large the history is fairly accurate. this is where the religious realists separate themselves from the so called gawd squad. faith is not accepting everything without question. Faith requires you to question to continually seek answers. the bible certainly contains metaphore and ideas that are absurd when taken literally. righteous faith helps one discerne what is litteral and what is metaphor IMHO. the gawd sqaud will now proceed to tell me how I am wrong and the bible is 100% litteral and God now hates me. the first part of your post I generally agree with. This part not so much. there are HUGE differences between modern day "translations" of the bible. and there are dozens if not hundreds of books that were determined by a bunch of catholic clowns that left a bunch of stuff on the floor. some of it was left on the floor because it contradicted catholic dogma and for no other reason. the 'bible' did not exist as a single book until after the catholics got hold of it. until then it was a series of writings by different people which religions and people gave creedence to. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Religion vs Science debate: bring it in here
Top