Excellent point.

In fact....one could judge the value of religious text in this way....

If GOD is all knowing....then GOD should be as well the Ultimate in LOGIC.

If a religion introduces ideas in the name of "GOD" which are illogical....then one would have to assume that those ideas are false.


---------

It is my opinion that it is strange. It is not my opinion that the speculation of people that lived 2000 years ago proves that the bible is the word of God or divine in any manner.

Okay, you took the bait. Thank you.



You say that believing anything in the Bible takes faith (or belief, or whatever you want to call it).

But believing Aristotle's writings takes only rational thought?



Wow.

That also is your opinion. Prove to me that the writings of Aristotle are by Aristotle and not some other yahoo or a bunch of yahoos.

Hmm...Alias, or at least any Christian, please answer my questions. This is the second time I've asked for people to answer them...

What question do you want answered. One at a time please.

So you are saying that the opinion of common men 2000 years ago qualifies as proof of the divine? It would be a pretty hard concept to back up with anything but conjecture.

If Aristotle claimed he knew facts about God he would be just as false.

You mocking the messenger without commenting on the message was "bait"?
Obviously we have different interpretations of the word...

Or, more probably, you realized your first effort was totally flacid and flatulent, and you decided to try for something more substantive..
As you keep demonstrating, if at first you don't succeed, fail, fail again...


Do you deny the truth of the statement you pose as a question?
And do you realize that isn't quite what I said?


It's blatantly pathetic how you habitually fail at simple tasks like reading comprehension.
I didn't say anything about "believing" Aristotle's writings.

Keep trying for that cheese ...

You can answer them one at a time if you want...there's absolutely no sense in me asking them one at a time, especially considering I asked them two pages ago .

Again, it was in response to the very first post of this thread.

1. First of all, very little has changed or been lost in translation over thousands of years. You would have to give evidence of that claim for it to be even taken seriously. It is an ASSUMPTION on your part - something you WANT to believe. If you CLAIM that the bible has changed so drastically over the years, you must have some evidence of that.

On the other hand, there are Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and Ancient Languages scholars who have, for years, poured over the THOUSANDS of early biblical writings - both Old and New Testament. These varied scholars do not have some conspiracy going. They end up reaching the same conclusions over biblical passages.

2. What are you looking for as "objective evidence of its claims"? Is a Bible supposed to slap you in the face, grab you by the throat, and say, "You HAVE TO believe this stuff!"?

What do you consider "objective evidence"? You must define the question before you can even think of demanding an answer.

3. You are not forced to believe, or not believe, anything about the Bible. But before you decide to cast it off as wrong and irrelevant - which is something you obviously WANT to do - you really should study introductory & background evidences for the legitimacy of the bible. In fact, you should do that with ANY "sacred" text or religious documents. But you need to be honest in your searching, not blindly bigotted like Hevusa is.