Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (4377)	12/7/2000 2:04:05 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 28931

No I was just questioning the value of arguing the merits of your position where there is not much darkness. There are many lost souls but they don't seem to be on this thread, IMO. I appreciate your input here and while I'm not fervently anti-Christian, there tends to be an undercurrent of "if you just knew what I knew we'd agree." I've often said, I think that such fundamental agreement is impossible for you and me. At most we can hope for detente and a respect for each other's positions. I could argue till the (my) cows come home (which they appear to have done) but ultimately you have accepted a document whose validity and verity, IMO, has real problems. As for truth, I doubt the DMV or CalTrans (two of my state's bigger bureaucracies) would spend a lot of time discovering and releasing to the general public how they were ineffective, were implementing the wrong policies, procedures and projects, or that their work was shoddy compared to a private business doing similar work. Similarly, the RC church and other biblical scholars who "seek truth" have already committed to an article of faith which limits their objectivity. You've made this same claim for science. In a way, your criticism is valid. Science is not looking to support articles of faith. The belief is that logic takes you closer to the truth. This, as you are fond of pointing out, is a belief. Finding documents that support ones position while ignoring ones that don't is not how investigations of truth are supposed to work though it is frequently how they ARE done. When the police get a suspect, they frequently feel the need to get a conviction as opposed to find the real perpetrator. Stats are kept on convictions and not false arrests. So in a similar way, your bible scholars are seeking a conviction. It is a conviction of faith and not of truth. They don't want to find errors so they seek documents and interpretations that support their belief. There are many verses in the bible (Solon has pointed out many, I a few) that really don't communicate well and seem to be sending wrong messages without a lot of interpretation. Because there is so much in the bible that is contradictory you can find something that supports the position you want to take. That is why I was asking about your positions on Mormons and Jehovah's Witness type religions which only seek to build upon your testaments. This stuff is just weird sometimes. For example, why on earth would Jesus be mad at a fig tree for not bearing fruit? It seems like someone scraped all the old parchiment from every source imaginable and patched it together into a document, and now wants the lay-person to believe it's all true and ONLY this stuff is true.