that's true IR ppl need to not solely rely on what other ppl tell them but maybe rather they need to try to gather info from (3) sources

1. a Bible

2. a semi trustworthy source or Church (though this part can even be dangerous)

3. and most important follow their "own heart" where Gods words are written silently

Doreen was responding to your prior post IR (you're a fast typer!) hehe

well me knows nadda so I ain't getting stuck on trying to answer questions over here just to blow time when I need to be busy on other things (these msg boards are evil traps!)

heh heh ...elsewhere I should be...

Anything that bleeds for a week and doesn't die has got to be evil

Or divine...SC
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]

The watch analogy is fundamentally flawed as a context for evolution. Unlike watch parts, atoms and molecules have an innate characteristic that helps them to form into more complex substances.

Without boring everyone to death with the fundamentals of chemical interaction, atoms forming molecules is not a completely random event. For each type of atom, there are only so many ways that they can interact with another given atom. The same is true of molecules. As long as there is enough energy in the system to allow the molecules to move around and brush up against one another, the odds are relatively good that some will brush together and form something more complex. And so on.

Given enough time, very complex forms can occur.


As for faith, at some level, we all take things on faith. Unless you personally investigate and verify every single thing you're exposed to and accept, there is some level of faith involved. The problem that I have with what most people call faith is the idea that you aren't allowed to question it, especially as regards faith in God.

Being unwilling to question the basis of your faith is laziness. Being told you can't question the basis of your faith is immoral.

No matter what you believe, if you're unwilling to critically examine the fundamentals of that belief, you are doing a grave disservice to the object (or subject) of your belief, because without critical examination, you will ultimately allow yourself to believe almost anything.

Go look and see ...thats not faith,thats assumption and expectation.

Aleatoric -...you say pretty much exactly what I think...only gooder.

I have faith that if I jump off a roof I will hit the ground.



I choose not to investigate that one!

Yes, I think blind faith is not a good idea. In fact, I think it is rather unwise to do and does not offer too much in the way of meaningful enlightenment.

You have to doubt and question and be able to openly do it as well.





So what have we learned today?
[Message Edited]

Thats still not faith,faith is believing in something you cant prove.

oops ... refering to #187, thats supposed to be refering to # 175

The Case for Christ - The Hearing
Is there a case for Christ? If there were to be an arbitrary legal hearing - a court case to determine whether or not Jesus Christ is in fact the only begotten Son of God - would He be vindicated by the evidence, or exposed as a fraud?

The Case for Christ - The Prosecutor
Has anybody ever compiled the evidence to determine the case for Christ? As a matter of fact, Lee Strobel, an atheist at the time he undertook this endeavor, decided that he would prove Jesus Christ to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. Strobel was certainly qualified to undertake such a task, compiling the case against Christ. He has a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School and was an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. Strobel's area of expertise was Courtroom Analyst and he rose to the rank of Legal Editor of the Chicago Tribune. Furthermore, Strobel was not biased towards defending Christ - he was an atheist!

The Case for Christ - The Findings
Strobel divides the case for Christ into three basic sections:

1. The Historical Record:

The eyewitness evidence (can the biographies of Jesus Christ be trusted, and do they stand up to scrutiny?)
The documentary evidence (were the biographies of Jesus reliably preserved for us?)
The corroborating evidence (is there credible evidence for Jesus Christ outside of His biographies?)
The scientific evidence (does archaeology confirm or contradict Jesus' biographies?)
The rebuttal evidence (is the Jesus of history the same as the Jesus of Christian faith?)
2. A Profile of Jesus Christ:
The identity evidence (was Jesus really convinced that He was the Son of God?)
The psychological evidence (was Jesus crazy when He claimed to be the Son of God?)
The profile evidence (did Jesus fulfill the attributes of God?)
The fingerprint evidence (did Jesus - and Jesus alone - match the identity of the prophesied Messiah?)
3. The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ:
The medical evidence (was the death of Jesus Christ a sham and His resurrection a hoax?)
The evidence of the missing body (was Jesus' body really absent from His tomb?)
The evidence of His appearances (was Jesus seen alive after His death on the cross?)
The circumstantial evidence (are there any supporting facts that point to the resurrection?)

The Case for Christ - Examining the Evidence
In trying the case for Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of experts and recognized authorities in their own fields of study. He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism. Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book he entitled, The Case for Christ, which has won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ.

If you are really wondering, pondering, debating these issues in your own life, I strongly recommend these books. The guy that authored these books sounds exactly like a lot of your posts. He did not believe in a God(s) The God, or any type of religious association period. He was as a reporter for the Chicago Tribune and an avowed atheist that he first investigated the greatest news story of all--the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, in The Case for Christ, he presents compelling evidence and expert testimony for the claims of Christianity. As a seasoned journalist with a Yale law background, He systematically tracks down his leads and asks the blunt, tough questions readers themselves would want to ask--questions that can make or break the Christian faith. He refuses contrived, simplistic answers. Instead, he pieces together hard facts through interviews with the most educated top scolars known. I think it will really be worth your while....what your outcome may be. Not trying to push on anybody, just wanted to share with fellow skinners cause I Love ya guys and gals.

"My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others."

--Bertrand Russell

My views precisely.