Allegorical. But it's interesting that the basic sequence is how most scientists describe how the earth was created and life came into existence. Interesting how thousands of years ago they had figured that out.
That goes all the way around. I'm a Christian who believes Jesus is "the door" of the New Testament and that dinosaurs once ruled the earth for millions off years. Not preaching--stating my point of view.
Just like Thomas, because they haven't observed things for themselves, they reject other evidence as mysticism. Jesus existed, I don't think that there's any rational historian that disputes that. So the rest, about his life and miracles are either believable or a mass hoax perpetrated on billions of people.
I don't know who gave you that 0, ameyer. I'm giving you a +1 despite disagreeing with you. It's not because I'm a Christian. A famous forefather once said "I disagree with what you said but I'll fight to the death for you to say it" --something close to that." (I left to look it up) Correction: Not a forefather but-- aw, heck, read it yourself--
There is no place for faith in the world. Faith is the opposite of reason. To quote Mark Twain: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so". Faith is the source of all evil in the world because if you have faith in something, no reason in the world will stop you from doing something wrong because you think you are doing something good. The Islamic terrorists are the final product of true faith.
It was a well-earned point. Your questions are part of the search for a meaning in life, very much like Job had to do in the Book of Job. It is highly noteworthy that his so-called friends/advisors were not of much comfort or help to him either. What you will find is that the search for the meaning of life has its own rewards, as you find almost daily in Galt's Gulch Online.
This is a fair statement. It begs several logical follow-up questions. What is/are the standard(s) of proof? Does one require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or is a preponderance of the evidence sufficient? If there is evidence, how is it collected, analyzed, scrutinized, accepted, dismissed, etc.? At what point does one have a hard time rejecting multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence, or does all circumstantial evidence just get readily dismissed? These questions do not have to be answered in a religious context. They can be purely answered in a legal context.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 7.
Will continue target mission below.
Wingman out.
It. Just. Plain. Can't.
I'm a Christian who believes Jesus is "the door" of the New Testament and that dinosaurs once ruled the earth for millions off years.
Not preaching--stating my point of view.
Full Definition of FAITHFUL
1 obsolete : full of faith
2 steadfast in affection or allegiance : loyal
3 firm in adherence to promises or in observance of duty : conscientious
4 given with strong assurance : binding <a faithful promise>
5 true to the facts, to a standard, or to an original <a faithful copy>
I see nothing oxymoronic about the use of faithful with Objectivist.
Really, are you so put off with anything remotely resembling religion that even a term that merely means a true adherent causes you such distress?
It's not because I'm a Christian.
A famous forefather once said "I disagree with what you said but I'll fight to the death for you to say it" --something close to that."
(I left to look it up)
Correction: Not a forefather but-- aw, heck, read it yourself--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beat...
Albert Einstein
If you meant "obedient" then no, that's not what I said.
Load more comments...