Quote:
Quote by: Chimera  Guess God.... |
What a lame answer. No explaination, no support, no evidence. What an interesting debate tactic
Quote:
|
And science can provide NO real evidence to disprove religion....my point stands....
|
The two don't have to disprove each other to see that they are not on equal ground. Science can provide EVIDENCE for its CONCLUSIONS. Religion can provide NO EVIDENCE for its conclusions. Therefore, they are NOT equal. Your point fails.
Quote:
|
1. God, when he gave humans free will. 2. God, when, instead of using his omnipotence to write the Bible himself in completely concrete terms that cannot be debated, let humans write it, in vague terms.
|
There is more biblical support for the idea that the bible was not meant to be reinterpreted over and over. Furthermore, the bible was meant to be historicaly accurate. Take Genesis for example, a volume of the bible that many contend is not meant to be a literal account of the creation. If it was not literal, why are Genesis accounts quoted litleraly throughout the bible? The story of Cain and Able in Genesis 4 is litleraly quoted in Hebrews 11:4. The flood account in Genesis 7 is literally quoted in Matthew 24:39. There are other books that are literaly quoted as well. Jonah and the great fish in Jonah 2 is literaly quoted in Matthew 12:40. There is a lot of biblical support for a literal bible.
Now show YOUR support that the bible was meant to be endlessly reinterpreted.
Quote:
|
Why would they not interpret it?
|
Uh...I said REinterpret, genius.
Quote:
|
Your questions are ridiculous.
|
I've shown biblical support for my so called rediculous conclusions. Now it's your turn.
Quote:
|
And they are exclusively Christian?
|
I don't have the information on the makeup of those organizations, but they do have christian followers. This thread is about Christianity, so it is them that we are discussing. Whether there are non- christian followers in those organizations is irrelevant to this thread.
Quote:
|
I'm sorry but no scientist would make the the assumption you just made.....This post contradicts everyting you've said up to this point.
|
It was a simple rubuttal to one of the weakest arguments available. How did it contradict any of my claims?