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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (18156)	7/16/2001 2:56:17 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"Regarding unfairly representing your position, my understanding of your position is that your belief hinges on the resurrection, which you claim can be proven by the historical record of the Bible." My difficulty with your post was not with the facts concerning my position on the resurrection , but rather with your inaccurate, and intolerant, characterization of my views as Illogical, unscientific, and unworthy of your respect. This came across not as curiosity, but as mocking condescension. "I've asked Greg a couple of times about his insistence on arguing his faith as though it were logical or scientific........ I don't know why he tries to do that. It's like trying to play baseball with a frying pan." Lets take these one at a time. First, I'm not sure when you asked, and I failed to answer. It may have been an oversight on my part. However, there is nothing inherently illogical about the belief that the bible is a reliable historical document. Scientific? You will have to be specific about what you are referring to, since we have covered a lot of ground. If you mean by "science" a system that necessarily eliminates even the possibility of God, then that is not what I would call an open minded system. Especially when a lot of the evidence at the very least, points to that as a distinct possibility. As far as the bible "proving" the truth claims of Jesus Christ to be God, His death on the cross for the sins of mankind and His subsequent resurrection from the dead, I don't think I have claimed that. I have said that these things are historical facts, but historical facts are not "provable" in the same way that you might verify that there is a jug of milk in your refrigerator. History deals with events of the past and by their very nature, are not repeatable There is a whole different set of standards for testing historical truth claims, and the bible meets them. "My curiosity centers around why you perceive a need to demonstrate a logical or scientific or historical proof for something that can be justified, with much, much less effort, by just ascribing it to faith." The answer to that is simply that I was challenged by several people here, that what I believe regarding these matters is untrue. Ascribing untrue beliefs to faith may justify them to you, but it doesn't to me. You seem to be saying that what I believe would be acceptable to you if only I conceded that it wasn't true for anyone other than myself. It's either true or it isn't Karen. Do I seem like the kind of person who believes in what they know to be untrue? If God exists, then all your disinterest will not change that, and conversely, if He does not exist, then all the sincerity in the world won't conjure Him up. I find it shocking that a person of your obvious intelligence has never even read the bible. You ought to at least give the New Testament a boo before you dismiss it outright. I accept your apology BTW, and I appreciate your candor. That article was interesting, but it will have to wait. Have a good evening. Greg