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.

Pastimes : Understanding Islam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Calladine who wrote (141)	10/9/2001 5:26:44 PM
From: David R	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2926

RE: your connection to Jesus would be strengthened, not challenged My connection to Jesus Christ is based on truth, therefore, I must necessarily segregate truth from fiction. When a book, such as Urantia, distorts and redefines Jesus Christ, and Christianity, then I am only interested to the point where it can be shown to be true or false. Once shown to be a lie, what profit is there? One even must question the motive of the true authors who use deception to undermine the faith of believers. I do not object to skeptics who rely on reason. But there is no place in my life for liars, charlatans, and con artists of any creed. This applies equally to the authors of Urantia, and the "Christian" huckster televangelists. RE: The comments you make about that book could (and have been made) by many others about both the Old and New Testaments. But I hold the OT & NT to the exact same standard of truth. Much of the claims can not be "proven or disproven". However, the historical claims certainly can, and the prophetic ones can be tested for accuracy (if it can be shown that the prophecies were actually made prior to fulfillment). To this day, archeology has proven the accuracy of OT history. Certain books (i.e. Isaiah) have been proven to have existed at least 150 years before the prophecies came to pass (i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls contained a book of Isaiah dated at least 150 B.C.). Again, my position is that truth and reason must go hand-in-hand, and truth must be absolute. Religion is not to be judged on whether it suits yours or my needs, or purposes, but whether or not it is true. I then welcome any serious reasoned objections to my faith, and consider a necessary requirement of a true believer, to be able to defend his faith with reason (not weapons). If a person’s faith can not withstand a respectful challenge of reason and truth, then it is certainly not faith at all, but rather blind foolishness. SInce we are not likely to come to agreement, let us now respectfully agree to disagree. Best regards, David