How is the Bible the Word of God?

[1robin]

And you completely take it out of its 1850 context.

What I am doing is not the issue. The word with the definition I provided exists in modern dictionaries. I did not invent the word, I made no claim about it's pedigree beyond the fact it exists, I did not give the definition for it.

Why cant you use the term evolutionary biologist instead????????????

I never refused to nor commented on what word should be used at all and that is not the subject. The subject was whether the word exists, and that was an irrelevant subject which derived from the off ramp from another irrelevant subject. I don't care what we call that group of people, but I do care that I claimed the word existed and it does, actually I don't even care about that. Despite being correct in each case I have not cared about a single issue you have mentioned until the medical knowledge post.

 

[outhouse]

In numerous instances the Bible contains medical information that far predates man's actual discoveries of related principles in the field of medicine. The medical instructions given by Moses to the Israelites some 3500 years ago were not only far superior to the practices of contemporary cultures, they also exceeded medical standards practiced as recently as 100 years ago. Where did Moses get this advanced information? Following are some examples of the medical knowledge afforded the Israelites in biblical times:

Sanitary Practices

For centuries doctors denied the possibility that disease could be transmitted by invisible agents. However, in the late 19th century Louis Pasteur [a Christian as usual] demonstrated in his Germ Theory of Diseasethat most infectious diseases were caused by microorganisms originating from outside the body. This new understanding of germs and their means of transmission led to improved sanitary standards that resulted in an enormous drop in the mortality rate. Yet these core principles of sanitation were being practiced by the Israelites thousands of years earlier.

The Israelites were instructed to wash themselves and their clothes in running water if they had a bodily discharge, if they came in contact with another person's discharge, or if they had touched a dead human or animal carcass. They were also instructed to wash any uncovered vessels that were in the vicinity of a dead body, and if a dead carcass touched a vessel it was to be destroyed. Items recovered during war were also to be purified through either fire or running water. In addition, the Israelites were instructed to bury their human waste outside of camp, and to burn the waste of their animals (See Numbers 19:3-22, Lev. 11:1-47; 15:1-33, Deut 23:12).

These sanitary practices without question saved countless lives in the Israelite camps by protecting them against infection caused by unseen germs. Meanwhile, their Egyptian peers were dying by the thousands due to "remedies" that almost always consisted of some amount of human or animal dung1. As mentioned earlier, the sound sanitary practices that we take for granted today only began to flourish about a 100 years ago.

Bacteria

Some time after I wrote these web pages, a Bible skeptic unwittingly showed me yet another example of advanced scientific/medical knowledge in the Bible. He posted a message on a discussion board that ridiculed some verses in Leviticus 13 and 14 that mention leprosy on walls and on garments. [Not just this guy many in the medical field did the same] He felt this was silly and an error since leprosy is a human disease. What this skeptic was unaware of is the fact that leprosy is a bacteria, a living organism, that certainly can survive on walls and garments! In fact, the Medic-Planet.com encyclopedia notes that leprosy "can survive three weeks or longer outside the human body, such as in dust or on clothing"2. It is no wonder that God commanded the Levitical priests to burn the garments of leprosy victims! (Leviticus 13:52)

Laws of Quarantine

In the same Med-Planet encyclopedia cited above we read that "It was not until 1873 that leprosy could be shown to be infectious rather than hereditary."2 Of course God knew this all along, as His laws to Moses reveal (Leviticus 13, 14, 22, Numbers 19:20). His instructions regarding quarantine to prevent the spread of leprosy and other infectious diseases are nothing short of remarkable, considering that this life-saving practice was several thousand years ahead of its time. Infected persons were instructed to isolate themselves outside the camp until healed, and were to shave and wash thoroughly. The priests that administered care were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly after inspecting a plague victim.

It should be re-emphasized that the Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the last century, when medical advances finally demonstrated the importance of sanitation and isolation during plagues. The devastating black plague of the 14th century that claimed millions of lives was not broken until the church fathers in Vienna began encouraging the public to start following the guidelines as set forth in the Bible. The promising results in Vienna compelled other cities to follow suit, and the dreaded plague was finally eradicated3.

The First Antiseptic

Hyssop oil was charged by God to Moses to be used as a purifying agent. Hyssop oil has been shown to contain 50% antifungal and antibacterial agents (Numbers 19:18, Psalm 51:7).

Circumcision and Blood Clotting

For centuries scholars must have been perplexed by God's law of circumcision which required the procedure to be performed on the 8th day after birth (Gen 17:12, 21:14, Lev 12:3, Luke 2:21). Medical researchers recently discovered that the two main blood clotting factors, Vitamin K and Prothrombim, reach their highest level in life, about 110% of normal, on the 8th day after birth. These blood clotting agents facilitate rapid healing and greatly reduce the chance of infection. You can verify with any Obstetrician that the 8th day of life is the ideal time for a circumcision, and that any circumcision done earlier requires an injection of Vitamin K supplement.

Dietary Guidelines

By the 1980s, all the health organizations of the United States had adopted low-fat, high fiber dietary guidelines. This was the culmination of numerous scientific studies that had demonstrated that diets high in vegetables, fruits, and grains reduced the risk of heart disease, cancer, and many other diseases. Secular physicians generally agree that these dietary guidelines that were producing longer life spans were first developed by religious movements founded in the 1800s, particularly by the Seventh-day Adventists. Where did the Seventh-day Adventists get their guidelines? From a meticulous and careful study of the Bible4.

1. [word in bracket are mine]
2. I thought that this post would be the one that I called it quits on but since you finally mentioned a topic with some relevance I will carry on for a bit, however if you start up with your "any site that states anything inconvenient" is biased claims that will end it. This same information can be found in ten thousand sources including the bible.
3. I only gave a couple of relevant examples, there are countless biblical commands defied today that have left a trail of human wreckage in their wake.

This is not credible research. Its not from a credible source.

Its mistakes to numerous.

 

[1robin]

Well yes. Your freewill, my freewill... If determinism really breaks when intentional agents are involved, then I think we need to analyze whether that is plausible.

That is where this all started. I think I showed billions of exception to determinism and then the trolley went off the rails and I could not get it back on track by any means possible.

This goes far beyond moral responsability.

The only reason moral responsibility came up is because the context of the encyclopedia article was from that point of view which caused me even more confusion because your newly defined compatibilists believe free will is determined and yet we are morally accountable. In fact compatabalism as you define it may be the most self contradictory position I have ever heard of. It doubles back on it's self so many times I lose track. Do me a big favor and whatever we discuss lets keep compatabalism out of it. The position is so incoherent it is if I stare into it's eyes too long I will lose my sanity.

A defeater of determinism, by leaving open the future, has significant physical consequences, since determinism-breaking free will would be able to cause the motion of objects and bodies in a way that is not deducible, not even in principle, by prior physical conditions.

Will does not have a physical property. Will is a strange thing and I think it would be easier to explain what it is not. The result of will would not be a break with physical laws, once will is transformed into an action the action would be confined to natural law. IOW initial conditions cannot explain why I chose to throw a curve ball instead of fast ball. However once that decision was actualized it was bound by the laws of physics. Natural law can explain why the ball curved not why I decided the throw a curving ball. That is if I understand what you were trying to say.

If you think of causes having two aspect, mechanism and agency it is easier to see. Physics is a description not a prescription, will would be more of a prescription or agency and physics more of a mechanism.

So, you seem to claim that your decisions, or will, is such that no further explanation can be given for it. Is that equivalent to saying that your will is such that no further CAUSE can be given for it? If not, and only if not, what is the cause of your will?

I do not mean to say no further explanation exists, my prior statement claim the exact opposite, my claim is that no one or at least I am not able to adequately describe it. Now this is true in some ways for every one. I do not need to be able to explain how combustion works to believe it explains how we went to the moon, no one knows how gravity works yet everyone believes it cause masses to attract.


Let me cut this short so I can ask you something. I saw a documentary on relativity, specifically your curved space idea. To summarize Einstein predicted that if space was curved light would bend while passing large masses like the sun. To prove it is an interesting story but to cut it short he saw light bend around the sun during an eclipse. However would not the Newtonian idea of gravity attracting objects produce the exact same evidence? IOW whether I pushed the bar or pulled it in order to bend it the end result would be the same, so how do I find a bent bar and claim it is proof it was pushed not pulled?


BTW your entire post seems to be able to be summed up by saying if freewill exists it is meaningful. I agree but don't see anything to analyze. I believe free-will exists (and it is actually free) and I believe it's existence makes a coherent and consistent model of reality and validates our general human intuitions like moral responsibility. To deny it is to dismiss that thing that harmonizes the sum total of human experience and intuition.

 

[viole]

That is where this all started. I think I showed billions of exception to determinism and then the trolley went off the rails and I could not get it back on track by any means possible.

The only reason moral responsibility came up is because the context of the encyclopedia article was from that point of view which caused me even more confusion because your newly defined compatibilists believe free will is determined and yet we are morally accountable. In fact compatabalism as you define it may be the most self contradictory position I have ever heard of. It doubles back on it's self so many times I lose track. Do me a big favor and whatever we discuss lets keep compatabalism out of it. The position is so incoherent it is if I stare into it's eyes too long I will lose my sanity.



Will does not have a physical property. Will is a strange thing and I think it would be easier to explain what it is not. The result of will would not be a break with physical laws, once will is transformed into an action the action would be confined to natural law. IOW initial conditions cannot explain why I chose to throw a curve ball instead of fast ball. However once that decision was actualized it was bound by the laws of physics. Natural law can explain why the ball curved not why I decided the throw a curving ball. That is if I understand what you were trying to say.

If you think of causes having two aspect, mechanism and agency it is easier to see. Physics is a description not a prescription, will would be more of a prescription or agency and physics more of a mechanism.

I do not mean to say no further explanation exists, my prior statement claim the exact opposite, my claim is that no one or at least I am not able to adequately describe it. Now this is true in some ways for every one. I do not need to be able to explain how combustion works to believe it explains how we went to the moon, no one knows how gravity works yet everyone believes it cause masses to attract.


Let me cut this short so I can ask you something. I saw a documentary on relativity, specifically your curved space idea. To summarize Einstein predicted that if space was curved light would bend while passing large masses like the sun. To prove it is an interesting story but to cut it short he saw light bend around the sun during an eclipse. However would not the Newtonian idea of gravity attracting objects produce the exact same evidence? IOW whether I pushed the bar or pulled it in order to bend it the end result would be the same, so how do I find a bent bar and claim it is proof it was pushed not pulled?


BTW your entire post seems to be able to be summed up by saying if freewill exists it is meaningful. I agree but don't see anything to analyze. I believe free-will exists (and it is actually free) and I believe it's existence makes a coherent and consistent model of reality and validates our general human intuitions like moral responsibility. To deny it is to dismiss that thing that harmonizes the sum total of human experience and intuition.

Yes, but that does not answer the question, does it? At least not clearly. I am a determinist, so I believe that my wills are reduced to a cause, at least in principle, independently from me being able to explain it. So, if you asked me the same, my answer would only contain one word: yes.

But what about you? Is there a cause, at least in principle, to any of your decisions and choices? And does this cause have a cause, that has a cause .... All the way down to a cause existing before your existence?

Yes, no, maybe, or I don't know?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

This is not credible research. Its not from a credible source.

Its mistakes to numerous.

So it is the old appeal to you don't like it so you dismiss it without a hint of justification. Since the article draws from scripture why don't you start by stating what is wrong with the scriptures themselves. Even if God does not exist, those words existed and if followed in far more modern times would have saved a lot of lives and embarrassment who were victims of arrogantly thinking they knew better or were ignorant. That cannot be denied and is the core of my claim.

You know what never mind. This is just a repetition of the same old nonsense that made me end the last debate.

1. I have over and over asked you to back up emphatic claims to knowledge you have made. You have not supplied even a poor attempt to do so in any single case.
2. You have accused me of things which I most certainly did not do.
3. You began the while conversation with a completely irrelevant issue and then kept adding layers of ever more meaningless contentions, almost all of which have been flat incorrect.
4. You have responded to being shown point blank to be wrong and as usually not admitted it and simply changed the subject.
5. You finally mentioned something relevant and then appealed to you time honored tactic of simple dismissal without even the attempt at justification of a single instance, when most of the core claims are historical certainties beyond contention.
6. And you have contended with the most petty and trivial of issues imaginable.

What motivation could I possibly have to continue this sad cycle of events? It is pretty bad when posts do not even meet the requirement of simply killing time. I will once again leave you to it for now.

 

[outhouse]

So it is the old appeal to you don't like it so you dismiss it without a hint of justification.

First your not allowed to copy and paste without providing a link to your source.

Second. Many biblical verses contradict your copied claims. But biased sites cherry pick quotes they know nothing about.

You made claims, yet you cannot back them from credible sources. It has nothing to do my position.

There are websites that claim the earth is only 6000 years old and there was a global flood. That does not make them credible. Their claims like your claims remain unsubstantiated rhetoric.

 

[outhouse]

What motivation could I possibly have to continue this sad cycle of events?

Start to supply credible sources for your claims.

I have sourced my claims with links to credible academia, you never.

Every claim you made is only by biased apologetic website that carry no credibility what so ever in any historical or scientific debate.

 

[1robin]

And yet, with regard to theology, while most papers are discussing centuries old material, we use current understanding.

Of course we use our current understanding. I do not see how there is any other possibility. However the goal of our current understanding is the desperate attempt to determine their original understanding. The best a theologian can possibly ever do is to state what the original authors actually said. IOW the bets possible outcome would be for our scholars to shut up and let the original actors tell their own story.

You say period documents are always used and that is simply not the case.

That is not what I said. Here is what I actually did say:

in history period documents are almost always the prime resource

I did not say the are always used but in fact they are. Some may be eventually deemed inaccurate or incorrect but they are always used. Some are even erroneously dismissed but turn out to overturn current thought at times.

If we wish to discuss archeology, and the import of cultures, then why is it that biblical scholars, speaking here only of Christian scholars, why do they renounce any and all cultural import that does not support their collective views?

Ok now your making an enormous error here.

1. Christianity does not make any kind of judgment or the historical significance of any other culture.
2. In general Christianity does not deny the historical veracity of any event no matter what it's character. The majority of the old testament contains accurate historical accounts of cultures that conflict in every way with the Jewish culture.
3. Your taking a theological validity judgment and assigning to an a historical or archeological veracity context which is incorrect. I may say that Islam is not from the one true God I would never say Islamic history lacks importance or never existed.

I speak here of the overt similarities between Christianity and older faiths, such as Egyptian and the ankh and its similarity to your cross. For the story of Osiris and Horus. Or the stories recounted in the epic of Gilgamesh? Or catal huyuk? And btw, where it pertains to medical science and hygiene; ie: the washing of hands and sterilizing equipment, that largely is credited to nightingale and the Crimean war, among other nursing historical figures.

One of the worst possible arguments you can make is this type. It is called parallelism and will embarrass you every it is used. If you pick any one of these things you think a parallels with Christian concepts I will show you endless evidence why that is absurd. I cannot do so for a laundry list of things at one time so I will await you to take your pick. I advise causation these argument fall to pieces with the slightest study.

The science of th evolutionists is mostly credited to Darwin and his findings on the Beagle. Interesting read, that book.

The majority of evolutionary science is not attributed to Darwin. In fact much of evolutionary science disproves Darwin's rough generalizations. He is mistakenly thought by some to have been the first to consider the Theory of evolution. That is not true, even his father and cabalists much earlier had considered it. Darwin barely got his toe into the ocean of evolutionary science and was not the first. He is however the first one to be widely publicized.

Yes, most fields, including theology and nursing look at th input from history but only you insofar as to compare. For example, I am writing my dissertation on the commonalities of God across various religions and while it does draw heavily from history, it's focus is on the now and therefore my point is to bring it to the present, including much current research. As for the origin of the word, define it as you will be I will say that every dictionary there is is regularly updated with what is newest now. They would not use old English to define computerese.

I thought you said you were in nursing?

Good luck on writing about the God's of human history, there are at least 300 million potential deities in Indian alone. Of all the concepts of God that have come and stayed or disappeared in human history about 99% were formalized or systematized long before you were born and 100% of those that are likely or sound and coherent were systematized hundreds of years before your grand mother was born. If you studying histories greatest concepts of God all your primary sources are very old.

As the commonality of God's throughout history let me add a few notes.

1. God's fill extremely similar roles and so the real and the myriads of fakes would have similar characteristics by necessity.
2. The common questions of man which God's either solve or are invented to solve are all the same, origin, destination, purpose, morality, etc.... so the answers will have similarities.
3. The issues God's resolve are similar sin, forgiveness, heaven or hell.
4. So similarity of either actual God's or false God's invented to fill a desire are of necessity similar. This is not evidence that one truth spawned a thousand mutually exclusive versions of the truth. If a person God exists and had any desire to interact with us he by necessity would give us pure revelation and not hides bits of truth in mountains of inconsistent mutually explosive man made crap. Any God that would is not worth knowing about and either evil or impotent.
5. Whether true or false the core claims of Christianity are emphatically exclusive, they are in no way compatible with any other faith so if you want to build a synthesis out of a thesis and an anti-thesis you better leave Christ out.

 

[outhouse]

Hyssop oil was charged by God to Moses to be used as a purifying agent.

Moses has no historicity as ever existing. No one even looks for the exodus as it is known as the founding myth of Israel.

The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος exodos, "going out") is founding myth of Israel


http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/hyssop_harrison.pdf



The hyssop is one of the more problematical species of herbs mentioned in the Bible. It has

been the subject of considerable controversy on the part of botanists and Biblical scholars

alike in days gone by,1 and even at the present time its true identification is uncertain



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyssopus_(plant)

The name hyssop appears in some translations of the Bible, but researchers have suggested that the Biblical accounts refer not to the plant currently known as hyssop but rather to one of a number of different herbs.


Why is it every sentence and word posted above remains unsubstantiated???


START providing credible sources.

 

[1robin]

Yes, but that does not answer the question, does it?

Probably not because I did not see a question. If the question was.

1. Is determinism as you define it true. I say no, and have given what would be trillions of examples and a harmonious synthesis between the reality of human experience and intuition. You say no but as of yet have given no satisfactory explanation of how so often initial conditions actualize desires it did not contain or care about.
2. If the question is do we have moral responsibility. The answer yes follows seamlessly from the existence of freewill, the answer yes does not follow at all from determinism and the attempt to even think about is so torturous it is painful to even contemplate, if the answer is no (as determinism should result in) then we are left with a situation so opposed to every human intuition and historical precedent and so horrific in application it is only slightly less obnoxious to consider but at least it is consistent.
3. If there was another question asked I can't recall it.

Let me ask you something. If you looked at the sky tonight and the stars spelled out determinism did not cause me would that be enough?

At least not clearly. I am a determinist, so I believe that my wills are reduced to a cause, at least in principle, independently from me being able to explain it. So, if you asked me the same, my answer would only contain one word: yes.

The cause only becomes relevant once you decide if your will is free or not. IOW regardless of the cause if will is free (from being determined) then determinism is dead on arrival. I think I have shown that only truly freewill explains to totality of reality (and so far I recall no significant challenge to them), so while my linking freewill to my God maybe a challenge, but the inability to even link it to a rational theoretical framework with determinism answers the original question. IOW it is easy to see determinism does not explain reality, it is harder to show what does explain it. It is easy to see will is in some respects free it is hard to see why it is free. This is to be expected if God exists, the machinations of a universe created by an infinite intellect are bound to have gaps between a limited intellects ability to comprehend it in totality. Like I said it is easy to see that ascetic value does not explain why an object falls to earth even if it is hard to explain what gravity is.

But what about you? Is there a cause, at least in principle, to any of your decisions and choices? And does this cause have a cause, that has a cause .... All the way down to a cause existing before your existence?

I can't list all of the causes or factors in my decision making but a large portion are abstract and so not a result of physics. I do not think at this time and probably not this side of the dirt anyone will be able to sufficiently explain all the events that go into a decision.

Yes, no, maybe, or I don't know?

That is easy I don't know. It is far easier to eliminate what a thing isn't than to know what it is. I do not know every aspect that composes an elephant but I know an elephant is not composed of golf balls. I do not understand how the Saturn F-1 engines produce thrust but I know cotton candy is not the answer. I do not know why are able to hold rational discussions but I can not even invent a theoretical deterministic fantasy that explains it.

 

[1robin]

First your not allowed to copy and paste without providing a link to your source.

I am not re-opening any debate with you but since this was muy mistake. Here is the link: Bible Evidences - Advanced Medical Knowledge

To the core and undeniable claims. (See Numbers 19:3-22, Lev. 11:1-47; 15:1-33, Deut 23:12). (Leviticus 13:52) (Leviticus 13, 14, 22, Numbers 19:20). (Numbers 19:18, Psalm 51:7). (Gen 17:12, 21:14, Lev 12:3, Luke 2:21).

 

[outhouse]

I am not re-opening any debate with you but since this was muy mistake. Here is the link: Bible Evidences - Advanced Medical Knowledge

To the core and undeniable claims. (See Numbers 19:3-22, Lev. 11:1-47; 15:1-33, Deut 23:12). (Leviticus 13:52) (Leviticus 13, 14, 22, Numbers 19:20). (Numbers 19:18, Psalm 51:7). (Gen 17:12, 21:14, Lev 12:3, Luke 2:21).

Moses has no historicity as ever existing. No one even looks for the exodus as it is known as the founding myth of Israel.

The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος exodos, "going out") is founding myth of Israel


http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/hyssop_harrison.pdf



The hyssop is one of the more problematical species of herbs mentioned in the Bible. It has

been the subject of considerable controversy on the part of botanists and Biblical scholars

alike in days gone by,1 and even at the present time its true identification is uncertain



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyssopus_(plant)

The name hyssop appears in some translations of the Bible, but researchers have suggested that the Biblical accounts refer not to the plant currently known as hyssop but rather to one of a number of different herbs.


Why is it every sentence and word posted above remains unsubstantiated???


START providing credible sources.

 

[outhouse]

Numbers 19:3–22 (NKJV) - "
You shall give it to Eleazar the priest, that he may take it outside the camp, and it shall be slaughtered before him; and Eleazar the priest..." - Numbers 19:3–22

sprinkle some of its blood seven times directly in front of the tabernacle of meeting. eits hide, its flesh, its blood, and its offal shall be burned. fcedar wood and ghyssop and scarlet, and cast them into the midst of the fire burning the heifer


If that is what you call medicine practice that shows up civil war doctors.

You really have no business discussing anything scientific or historical.


How does that show anything but mythology?

 

[outhouse]

Leviticus 11:1–47 (NKJV) - "
Now the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘These are the animals which you may eat among..." - Leviticus 11:1–47

the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; 7 and the swine,

If that is what you call medicine practice that shows up civil war doctors.

You really have no business discussing anything scientific or historical.


How does that show anything but mythology, and a severe lack of biological knowledge?

The animals claimed unclean, are very tasty and are actually very clean and great to eat!!!

 

[outhouse]

Deuteronomy 23:12 (NKJV) - "
Also you shall have a place outside the camp, where you may go out;" - Deuteronomy 23:12


Nothing of value that even pertains to our discussion.

YOU are desperate.

 

[outhouse]

Luke 2:21 (NKJV) - "
And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called JESUS, the name given by the angel before He was..." - Luke 2:21

ALL YOUR LINKS are worthless to any medical discussion.

This is simple a verse on circumcision

21 rAnd when eight days were completed 7for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called sJesus, the name given by the angel tbefore He was conceived in the womb.

 

[JoStories]

Numbers 19:3–22 (NKJV) - "
You shall give it to Eleazar the priest, that he may take it outside the camp, and it shall be slaughtered before him; and Eleazar the priest..." - Numbers 19:3–22

sprinkle some of its blood seven times directly in front of the tabernacle of meeting. eits hide, its flesh, its blood, and its offal shall be burned. fcedar wood and ghyssop and scarlet, and cast them into the midst of the fire burning the heifer


If that is what you call medicine practice that shows up civil war doctors.

You really have no business discussing anything scientific or historical.


How does that show anything but mythology?

I had to wonder if responding to this poster made any sense when he stated that the core beliefs of chrisitianity were exclusive to that faith. Any credible theologian would admit that chrisitianity borrows heavily from many older faiths.

 

[outhouse]

I had to wonder if responding to this poster made any sense when he stated that the core beliefs of chrisitianity were exclusive to that faith. Any credible theologian would admit that chrisitianity borrows heavily from many older faiths.

We well understand the Canaanite and the Mesopotamian influences while they were in exile there.

But reaching those who already have trouble reaching the conclusion of 1 + 1 = 2 when their religion states 37 can be quite frustrating after holding their hand and explaining it patiently.

 

[JoStories]

We well understand the Canaanite and the Mesopotamian influences while they were in exile there.

But reaching those who already have trouble reaching the conclusion of 1 + 1 = 2 when their religion states 37 can be quite frustrating after holding their hand and explaining it patiently.

Lol....I want to thank you outhouse. That was a really good laugh. I was thinking of a way to respond to that poster about what he/she wrote to me and I really have to admit I don't have the patience for it. Someone who states that there is exclusive Christian ideals at the core is one of two things, a fundie or delusional. Neither of which interests me.

 

[outhouse]

Lol....I want to thank you outhouse. That was a really good laugh. I was thinking of a way to respond to that poster about what he/she wrote to me and I really have to admit I don't have the patience for it. Someone who states that there is exclusive Christian ideals at the core is one of two things, a fundie or delusional. Neither of which interests me.

For me seeing they have the audacity to denounce the civil war doctors for their limited knowledge of the time, and then try and make unsubstantiated biased opinions that Israelites were touched by god so they knew better then these barbaric American doctors is way over the line, when they have to quote mine worthless apologetic website with no credibility to support their unscientific position.

You as being in the medical profession I believe? I thought you would find how they take biblical verses and perversely force the text out of medical context would just be sad that people are this desperate to promote faith beyond its definition.