I don't have an opinion on ex-creationists because in the same manner there are ex atheist and non-theists becoming theist (not necessarily christians) every day just as well. Thom Rainer, Greg Bahnsen are examples, there are just as many going the other way. I don't know their reasons, I don't know who they are and where they are from so I cannot give account to them. Greg and Tom have publicized their belief and I think I share many views with them. They were both completely against the idea of God, because of the same things that many people have mentioned here. No suprise of course. But what changed them was that study along with the rationalizing of their own arguments began to fail. They both came to a place when they believed that if there is no God, then there is no reason (reasoning/rational thought).Originally Posted by BABY J
Also, again, please take note, that I do not use scripture as a reason to believe and prove Gods existence. I don't believe the Bible is the proof. If that were the case then we would have a huge problem in our hands because there are millions of books out there. You are right, that does not work and I don't believe it to be grounds for any explanation in this kind of discussion.
The problem I have with the statement of the intellectual level, is in the fact that "intellectuals" (assuming we share the same definition) are changing views both ways. I would assume that you agree intellectuals exist on both sides. How do you feel about the intellectual who holds to their beliefs either one way or the other? Is one of them wrong? They can easily be me and you. Subjectivity would say "I am as intellectual as i say, not the SAT, GMAT, or LSAT etc.
I don't want to make statements on science or history, I don't believe either one of these topics will clarify anything in debate as you will see if you read some of my posts. My real arguments are only based on what I believe to be universal or eternal in existence. I only mentioned the science and historical nature of the bible in response to people claiming it was dreamed up. it most certainly was not, and many of the same people who write the history books that we use in our schools would agree. The Bible is full of historical information, letters, accounts, events. And again, I am not talking about the myths that people harp on. I'm talking about the old testament and its writing and how it syncs up with Jewish history. and the new testament and how it syncs with very accurate documentation from districts in Rome.
To say that the bible has not historical validation is to say that.
Kind David, Pharoah, Pontious Pilate, Moses, Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, Luke, Matthew, The Jews, The cities written within,the wars discussed etc etc etc, never happened. that is completely wrong. Find a historian and ask them if the Bible is used in study of historical events.
dont take my word for it. All it takes is for a few historians to use it for me to be correct. If none of them use it then I am wrong. The problem is that I already know non-theist historians who don't believe in the miraculous things, and don't believe in God and think religious choice is the workings of a chemical reaction in the brain, and still reference the Bible when doing study. I know because some of these people taught me.




Reply With Quote