|
|
#12
04-02-2006, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: you can take one of 2 options
Understood and agreed. I should have caught this in the original post (i.e. I should have read the preview option before hitting o.k.). I've never gotten a clear read from any evangelical types I know what their feeling is on these works.
On an unrelated note, I have also never gotten a clear read on why they don't follow Kosher, Leviticus, etc. I know the (or at least one) historical reasoning is that Paul dropped these to make the church more palatable to the Greeks and there was some dissent on this matter. The only argument I have heard is based on the "new covenant", but in this case I think Christians (or at least evangelicals) should drop all arguments based in the Old Testament, as they are selective in following the laws specified therein. Sorry this is a bit off of the thread. 
|
|
#14
04-02-2006, 07:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: you can take one of 2 options
[ QUOTE ]
ok not many people will say that Jesus never existed-OK thats been proven [/ QUOTE ] I'm no historian so I don't really feel qualified to comment on this. Except to say - I remember people used to actually debate this issue. It seems to have slowly been accepted as undisputed fact. I find it hard to believe that new and compelling evidence has been found over the last decade or so - what's up with that?
|
|
#16
04-02-2006, 08:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually, NO, you are WRONG
on your first point. If he was a good person but what he said wasn't true (assuming that could be proved) that doesn't make him amoral. He could in fact have been just crazy---which doesn't not at all mean he was amoral, as is indicated by your use of the phrase "unmoral lunitic." Why does being crazy necessitate (I don't know if I spelled that correctly.) being amoral??? If you can provide a good answer to that, then you can MAYBE give us those options and expect a reasonable anser. Of course, there is no way to prove/disprove god, so it really doesn't matter.
You cannot disprove that lobsters are flying to Jupiter every night at near light speeds unbeknownst to and with technology superior to man. That doesn't make it reasonable to believe. So you see in fact there is plenty of inbetween on just this one issue--one of many dealing with this situation.
|
|
#17
04-02-2006, 08:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Actually, NO, you are WRONG
>You cannot disprove that lobsters are flying to Jupiter every >night at near light speeds unbeknownst to and with technology >superior to man. That doesn't make it reasonable to believe.
This might explain why so many UFO sightings are in the area of oceans (and at night)! But what do they want with Jupiter?...
|
|
#18
04-02-2006, 09:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: you can take one of 2 options
Holy crap - i posted this same topic like 5 minutes ago without seeing this one. so yeah sorry about the double topic.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
