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: cosmicforce who wrote (29070)	9/23/2001 8:25:42 PM
From: Poet	Respond to of 82486

Thanks, cosmic.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (29070)	9/23/2001 10:47:13 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Are you asking me for silence, ie not posting, or are you talking about SOCAS? No body is forcing you to "believe" the Bible is the God's inerrant word to man. I'm not sure what your talking about when you say; "I think that these are from potentially suspect sources, with the message carried by people we now know were totally wrong in their metaphysics. You are asking me to align myself with those who have been consistently wrong in the past, especially, in their public policy."....."I can prove that much of my point today, but I digress." No, you haven't proved anything you're just making assertions. I do believe that the Bible is God's revealing of Himself to humanity. The one thing that sticks out with the Bible vs other "claimed" revelations is that the Bible is based in space and time and history, and is open to some degree of verification. Others are not. Try verifying the book of Mormon for instance. Can't be done, because it's a fairy tale. The Biblical documents have been subjected to an incredible amount of scrutiny, and have come through it all with it's integrity intact. The Bible can be verified in several ways, such as manuscript evidence, archaeology, and predictive prophecy. You have already said that there could never be enough evidence to convince you otherwise. OJ would have loved to have a black version of you on his jury. I on the other hand answered your question straight up with no qualifiers, except that the evidence be sufficient. How much study have you done in order to come to such an unwavering position?