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.
Nuclear physicists, doctors and attorneys do not use reference books that were written 2500 years ago...unlike Christians.
The point is that they do use reference material.
But the doctor must learn the code of ethics as given by Hippocrates (died 360 B.C.) so his writings are almost 2,500 years old.
Attorneys law is based on the ten commandments of Moses (If you notice, many higher courts show Moses with the ten commandments on their buildings. And don't attorneys study the laws of Hammurabi?
The point is that the reference material they use is not 2500 years out of date.
Quote:
But the doctor must learn the code of ethics as given by Hippocrates (died 360 B.C.) so his writings are almost 2,500 years old.
The Hippocratic Oath has nowt to do with 'explaining to their patients what their problem is and the proper procedures.' To do THAT they would use a reference book that is constantly updated.
Quote:
Attorneys law is based on the ten commandments of Moses.....
Perhaps in your country. In other civilised countries they practice secular law.
The point is that the reference material they use is not 2500 years out of date.
The Bible is never out of date.
Quote:
The Hippocratic Oath has nowt to do with 'explaining to their patients what their problem is and the proper procedures.' To do THAT they would use a reference book that is constantly updated.
True, nonetheless they must take the Hippocratic oath. Being thousands of years old, it is not out of date also.
Quote:
Perhaps in your country. In other civilised countries they practice secular law.
Righto, bingo.
But the point is, that attorneys are allowed to go to their reference books and cite those references in a court of law to a judge to show precedence in a case. As a matter of fact, they must know how to do this to pass their bar exam.
Christians are allowed to go to their books and prove their points. Anything else would be uncivilized.
I'm not trying to pick on Christians here & I don't want this to become a big fight. I really would like to know. However I never never understood why some can't defend thier faith without mentioning the bible. If your strong in your faith then why not use your own words?
This also irritates me. When I start threads on Christianity/Catholicism to debate a certain topic, I specifically ask that people DO NOT quote the Bible. Then, I get some posts that show people can't read instructions. They provide 1/2 a page of Bible quotes. I don't read them. Too boring. I think that most people are not creative enough to explain things in their own words, and that most people think quoting gets them brownie points toward Heaven. I also think that most "quoters" tend to be Bible Thumpers and are cattle prodded into mega-churches. Most Catholics DO NOT quote the Bible, and we use the same Bible that Protestants/fundies do. They read it at Church (3 parts of it) at each service.
I think it's ok, though, to talk about Biblical events in your own words to defend your point of view. Quoting passages to play "teacher" to someone is annoying.
This also irritates me. When I start threads on Christianity/Catholicism to debate a certain topic, I specifically ask that people DO NOT quote the Bible. Then, I get some posts that show people can't read instructions. They provide 1/2 a page of Bible quotes. I don't read them. Too boring. I think that most people are not creative enough to explain things in their own words, and that most people think quoting gets them brownie points toward Heaven. I also think that most "quoters" tend to be Bible Thumpers and are cattle prodded into mega-churches. Most Catholics DO NOT quote the Bible, and we use the same Bible that Protestants/fundies do. They read it at Church (3 parts of it) at each service.
I think it's ok, though, to talk about Biblical events in your own words to defend your point of view. Quoting passages to play "teacher" to someone is annoying.
Believe it or not you and I do agree on the part about quoting the sacred book all the time. It's as if those who are quoting can't think for themselves, a lack of imagination or free thought. Among my people we have a saying; "You Christians read from the same book, why do you not all agree."
I'm not trying to pick on Christians here & I don't want this to become a big fight. I really would like to know. However I never never understood why some can't defend thier faith without mentioning the bible. If your strong in your faith then why not use your own words?
I have offered many times to share my faith. And I don't need to quote scripture to do so.
In fact, my faith preceded my appreciation of scripture.
Nevertheless, I don't need to "defend" my faith.
Defend it from what?
My faith is not threatened by anyone, or anything.
However, I would defend one's right to have faith.
Believe it or not you and I do agree on the part about quoting the sacred book all the time. It's as if those who are quoting can't think for themselves, a lack of imagination or free thought. Among my people we have a saying; "You Christians read from the same book, why do you not all agree."
They don't all agree because they are all at different levels of maturity. The apostle Paul was always dealing with immature believers.
He taught us so we could all attain to maturity. But, *sigh* each new generation of believers starts the process of maturation all over again. It's really not a bad thing. It is just that we need to be prepared to help them along the way. Being a parent, if you ever were one, I don't know, but I am a parent, and know the struggles of dealing with bringing a child to maturity. So, that is why we don't all agree. Not to mention there are different translations out there, some of which characterize God as the most despicable, hate mongering being in the universe.
True, nonetheless they must take the Hippocratic oath. Being thousands of years old, it is not out of date also.
Righto, bingo.
But the point is, that attorneys are allowed to go to their reference books and cite those references in a court of law to a judge to show precedence in a case. As a matter of fact, they must know how to do this to pass their bar exam.
Christians are allowed to go to their books and prove their points. Anything else would be uncivilized.
I have to agree. The Bible is the ONLY authority for Christianity, its claims, beliefs and tenets. While (like law, medicine or politics), one can refer to other areas as support, the basic texts of accepted authority are what they refer to. Thus (for me) the answer to "Why can't some Christians explain their faith with out quoting the Bible?" is that it would be like asking someone to explain any field of knowledge without quoting the relevant textbooks. Even if one could carry all the expertise in their heads, the books provide the validated authority.
In a curious way there is a parallel between documents published by those in the field which are not of that authority because their contents have not been verified, checked, validated and agreed and are not accepted reference, and those scriptural documents which are not considered authoritative.
That said, of course, one has to ask WHY the Bible and its penumbra of authoritative texts are valid. The answer is that there is no good reason other than that the believers believe that they are and deny all the arguments to show that they have no good reason to be believed.
That said, of course, one has to ask WHY the Bible and its penumbra of authoritative texts are valid. The answer is that there is no good reason other than that the believers believe that they are and deny all the arguments to show that they have no good reason to be believed.
Well, of course we would deny all the arguments that people THINK show there is not good reason for us to believe the Bible, because to us the arguments are not believable.
But do you really think there is not even one good reason for a believer to the biblical texts are valid? I mean, really?
It isn't as simple as that . As you probably well know and are trying to wangle me into some statement you can pounce on and quibble about in search of a cheap point... sorry, but I find some theist modes of thinking fascinating....well, the Bible contains much material and obviously has engaged my attention since I have spent so much time on it.
The basis is that the God claims are without credibility, the history doubtful or at least highly biased, Paul a highly flawed source and -as you know - - the gospels a Christian polemic with little factuality.
The sack of Lascheish is true though.
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.
. As you probably well know and are trying to wangle me into some statement you can pounce on and quibble about in search of a cheap point... 
sorry, but I find some theist modes of thinking fascinating....well, the Bible contains much material and obviously has engaged my attention since I have spent so much time on it. 
