Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christianity makes sense to me. God reaching down to man, et al.
Romans 10:9 is backed up by multiple other Biblical writings, including Christ's own words.
Even if that were true, why would it still hold such importance to you? Isn't it really just one man's opinion in the end? We're not even sure if that part was not altered by the church, or even what it might have literally meant.
Even if that were true, why would it still hold such importance to you? Isn't it really just one man's opinion in the end? We're not even sure if that part was not altered by the church, or even what it might have literally meant.
The apostle Peter (who walked with Jesus) confirmed Paul's words as gospel. Plus, as I said, it is confirmed by other passages.
The apostle Peter (who walked with Jesus) confirmed Paul's words as gospel. Plus, as I said, it is confirmed by other passages.
You can't "confirm" something in a book by something else in the same book put together by one organization.
Come on Jimmie! Could anyone with any kind of sanity use such a ridiculous argument for anything in a court of law today? Don't act like it makes sense because you know it doesn't.
Is is any wonder people feel compelled to ridicule fundamentalist Christians if they try to use such arguments as this? It deserves ridicule and you know that it does.
You can't "confirm" something in a book by something else in the same book put together by one organization.
Come on Jimmie! Could anyone with any kind of sanity use such a ridiculous argument for anything in a court of law today? Don't act like it makes sense because you know it doesn't.
Is is any wonder people feel compelled to ridicule fundamentalist Christians if they try to use such arguments as this? It deserves ridicule and you know that it does.
Absolutely correct (both factually and morally/ethically), OzzyRules. I mean look, my fellow humans, even as one who respects science and the scientific method (if validly and correctly practiced and implemented through-and-through), I myself do not even just trust the words of, say, Albert Einstein or Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking just because any one of them alone said or says whatever in a book or other form of communication . . . for they too, among certain others over the course of history, have stated or may have stated things here-and-there that may not have been the most well-phrased or well-thought-out or conveyed information (which did or may have conveyed that which wasn't quite what they meant to imply or convey if they chose their wordings more carefully . . . or that said statements made by some of them were outright incorrect and they later realized it or had it pointed out to them by others). And even when they did state things that can be credibly and definitively deemed to be sound and correct, what they said is not sound and correct simply becausethey alone said so but because it has been vetted, duplicated, et al at considerable length by a host of others (even others who are or were not committed or not necessarily committed to the very same way-of-thinking or school-of-thought as the original claimant) and found again and again and again to be verified as being correct.
In other words (as OzzyRules has stated here), you don't take ANY singular source regarding ANY debatable issue and use that sole singular source as the basis for the validating of itself. You shouldn't even just take MY OWN word alone in accepting a proposition or assertion on my own part as valid; it must be able to be discerned and tested as objectively valid by ALL other investigators of relevant background experience who are otherwise committed to true intellectual honesty. This applies to any claims or assertions or propositions from any school-of-thought. To assert otherwise is to make one validly meriting of dismissal by the other side. Sorry folks, life won't be that easy for any of us. Our pronouncements and propositions, from either side of the issue, must be vetted by ALL others of relevant background experience who are otherwise committed to true intellectual honesty.
I guess they they have the same chance as everybody else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
