Linear, here is the question from Russ that you wouldn't answer in another thread due to it being off-topic. I will re-post it here so people are clear what was asked:
Russ said:
Quote
I'm sorry LinearAQ. I'm not sure where you're coming from.
You claim to be a Christian but you tear apart the integrity of the Bible and believe in evolution, a religion that is mutually exclusive with the Bible, except that you've accepted the "new" evolution twist claiming that it is only natural selection, and you claim that IT is NOT contradictory to the Bible.
This part is not a question but a statement. It really has no purpose except to put the idea in any reader's head that if I don't suddenly agree that the writings in the Bible are literally, historically true then I am not really a believer. Additionally, it is a statement that, puts me in the position of denying that I agree with the theory of evolution, otherwise I am not a "true" believer in Christ.
Quote
OK. We'll get back to that.
I never received an answer from you on this previous question:
QUESTION: If the Bible is unreliable (as you said), then how can you believe that Christ is who He said He was? What is your basis for evidence supporting Christ's claim?
My basis for believing Christ is who He said He is (not "was") resides in my own experience within my faith and the fact that there is no evidence showing that He didn't exist. That's all I have, but it is enough. There is no conclusive evidence that Christ existed but some of the historical context and the testimony of His disciples concerning His resurection. They apparantly died for the testimony that they saw Christ risen from the dead. For me that is beyond reasonable doubt. For others it may not be. So be it.
However, this does not make the rest of the Bible factually and historically accurate. These were men relating their experience and insight about the nature of their Lord. Some of the "history" in the Old Testament has been shown to be incorrect by scientific investigation. If you don't choose to believe that then that is your right to do so. However, the methods by which scientists try to find out the truth withing the natural world, follows a logic that I agree with and could repeat if I disagreed with their results. If you can point to scientific evidence, that I can look at and test, that shows the Earth is only 10,000 years old then I will actually consider changing my mind. That doesn't mean I won't question the heck out of the evidence. That's what science does to evidence that appears to change the reigning paradigm.
Quote
Know that I don't mean to offend you. I only have found that you seem to contradict yourself and this has—understandably—cast doubt on your integrity, which should be expected in this circumstance.
If he doesn't mean to offend anyone then why succeed at offending them so readily? Does he really think that questioning and demeaning someones beliefs should be taken so lightly when he is so easily offended when someone questions his? I only seem to "contradict" myself and thusly "understandably-cast doubt" on my integrity when my actions are judged against his "evolution contradicts Christianity and the Bible" requirements that were stated in the set-up of this inquisition.
A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke
