I noticed that you didn't deny that you had not actually read it nor could answer why it being true would contradict your worldview.
I know a bunch of new-age Christians believe that all that stuff in the Bible is about England and America. It seems like that's a big part of what the Church of God believes. It's just more Protestant inventions that have little to do with traditional Christianity. It's the sort of thing that young earth creationists believe.
I have to use some filters for separating fact from fiction.
Besides, what does it really matter to the average Christian? Most Christians don't need further proof as to the validity of the scriptures or God's promises.
Right, I've said it 1000 times. Religious arguments always come back to revealed truth. All objective evidence is on the side of the Atheists. Theists only have "revealed truth." If the Koran really is the perfect word of God then forget the evidence. God can do whatever he wants.
It finally comes down to solipsism. But that can be used to prove or disprove anything.
Today at 12:08am, phinehas wrote:I noticed that you didn't deny that you had not actually read it nor could answer why it being true would contradict your worldview.
I know a bunch of new-age Christians believe that all that stuff in the Bible is about England and America. It seems like that's a big part of what the Church of God believes. It's just more Protestant inventions that have little to do with traditional Christianity. It's the sort of thing that young earth creationists believe.
I have to use some filters for separating fact from fiction.
*I woudn't consider it a New Age belief, just like young earth creationists is not a New Age belief. All that stuff in the Bible is not about England and America, just the stuff the relates to specific people after a specific time. Why is it an invention to search out and explain what scripture means? If there are phrophesies that have shown to have not been fullfilled yet, there is nothing wrong in posing the questions and looking for the answers. You say you use a filter to separate fact from fiction but what is your basis for that filter? Is your basis that something is not main stream, therefore it can not possibly be correct and you don't bother to even check for yourself? Now I know you are an atheist, so it woudn't be in your best interest, in order to hold to your ideology, to look at something that may add one more reason to validate the thruth in the Bible. From a purely historical purpose, the study of who the people are that settled England, Ireland, Scottland, France, Germany, etc. is a valid study.
Today at 12:08am, phinehas wrote:
Besides, what does it really matter to the average Christian? Most Christians don't need further proof as to the validity of the scriptures or God's promises.
Right, I've said it 1000 times. Religious arguments always come back to revealed truth. All objective evidence is on the side of the Atheists. Theists only have "revealed truth." If the Koran really is the perfect word of God then forget the evidence. God can do whatever he wants.
It finally comes down to solipsism. But that can be used to prove or disprove anything.
This is were you are wrong. There is plenty of historical facts in the Bible, objective evidence, that has been verified by archeology and substaniated by ancient historians. Forget what evidence? There has been no evidence yet that has disproved anything in the Bible.
solipsism:
Nothing exists
Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it, and
Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others
How is it possible for "nothing" to state that "nothing" exists?
Nothing can be known about something? I know that the sun will hurt my eyes if I look at it directly for very long.
I am telling you that the sun will hurt your eyes if you look directly at it for very long...I guess if you do it, you can then think back to when I told you and realize that I communicated this knowledge to you.
I'm not asking you to consider something that exists in my mind only. All I am asking is that you actually read the evidence that I presented. If your not interested in whether it is true or not, then don't. But I see no logical point in you debating me on a subject where you have not looked at the evidence.