No... really. You apparently have never listened to a word I have said on the topic. Yes, I am a Christian. But my faith isn't a faith in a vacuum or blind. It is supported by reason and evidence that is plain as day. But, nobody wants to listen to that, so be it.

I have no issue debating the points anyone wants to make as long as they are argued objectively, without appeal to an untestable, believed/faith basis.

The instant religion becomes the basis of an argument, evidence in fact is relieved, and there there can be no real argument.

You are welcome to religion, faith and the Easter Bunny. You are welcome to form opinions consistent with it.

However, using faith or religion as the basis of an argument, worse, asserting religion should form a basis to limit anyone's freedom, or even implying people not conforming should be ostracized, is wholly inappropriate in the US, unacceptable here, and will cause an immediate reaction from some of us.

I have very close friends that are quite religious. They know well that they do not get to tell me what to do based on wasting their own time with their little fantasy.

"I just pick on christians as a general rule."

That seems an extraordinary admission, Mimi.

Well, all's I can say is, look at my post on this thread linked below... it's currently at -3 for no reason other than it "offends" some people...

http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/14...

I read it many times in the late 70's, and in the years since, we can agree that I've reached a different conclusion.

Not surprised people try to refute him. It's an extremely popular and effective book.

All you can do is read it yourself, look at his references, and come to your own conclusion.

I didn't vote you down, barwick11. However, your claims of "verifiable fact" do "raise red flags in a rational person's mind", too.

Besides, Josh McDowell isn't all he's cracked up to be:
https://www.google.com/search?q=refuting...

The guy in the link seems a bit overboard, yet does make a number of points. But I'm missing his, "demonstrably inaccurate" you quoted.

Can't comment about when ancient texts were really written.

I'm thinking that for the devil to really show Jesus (as a man) all the kingdoms of earth on top of some really high mountain, the earth would need to be pretty flat.

Mat 4:8: "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory."

It strikes me that you're generalizing and playing the 'victim card'. You might make gains on this site if you used more logic and reason. IMHO

Got it, replied to that one already, we'll continue there :)

I did not down vote your post, but I did post a logical disagreement, under a wrong post, above.

I'll put that guy and Josh McDowell in a room any day of the week.

He makes a claim that "the bulk of the ancient scrolls known today as the Bible are mostly demonstrably inaccurate"... he then goes on to prove *none* of what he just said. Proof by hand waving. It's common on this topic.

His claim that the Torah was first written during the Babylonian captivity is completely false. In fact, the Torah and its dating for its being written to the time of Moses ~ 1500 BC, was widely held to be impossible. Until archaeologists found writings that predated even Moses by a few centuries. Whoops... Bible was right again.

His idiotic assertion that the Bible claims that the world is flat, is just that... idiotic. The fact alone that he would claim that should raise red flats in a rational person's mind and make us realize who we're dealing with, and take everything he says with a grain of salt at best.

You see?!? Look at this... someone comes in and downvotes this post... despite the fact that it's true.

No response (unless salta's the one who did it, I don't know, but either way, no response to my points besides random claims about what religious texts were supposedly written for).

If this claim is true then all the other ancient books must be historically dreadful.

I did one quick look-up and it definitely disputes the claim,
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...

Even still, I would not down vote a post just for this.

Surely any religious texts are not "accurate" documents. They were written to get certain lessons across using allegory, which was (and still is) the best way for the human mind to learn anything significant. One of the reasons Atlas Shrugged still sells in high numbers is because its lessons and warnings are encapsulated in a story. Imagine if Rand had written it as a textbook instead.

Edit: (though I can't edit it):

Most of you guys on here don't do this, I get that. It probably came across as if I was blanketing the whole community, and I wasn't.

One of my best friends from college is an Atheist, and we get along just fine. Heck, my business partner and most of my friends and business clients are agnostic at best, and we get along. There's those who disagree, and we just disagree, we talk about it, and we go on. But there's those who are just militant, and they're out there in every community. I had hoped that type wouldn't be here, but, alas, Utopia hasn't been found :)

But what I said in there is verifiable fact :)

You can look it up yourself, like I said, Josh McDowell (I'm reading his book now so it's fresh in my mind) in his book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" covers this extensively.

To dismiss the text of the Bible as not accurate would be to dismiss the text of *all* of ancient history.

RE: "on a board dedicated to the free sharing of ideas"
While we appreciated and welcome debate, the board is actually dedicated to the spreading of Ayn Rand's ideas (http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/about).

RE: "people go through posts and downvote every single one of their posts"
The system prevents mass down/up voting by a single individual. If you see something suspect, let us know and we'll look into it. Just make sure to provide specific links.

RE: "Someone went through that thread and downvoted every single one of [Hiraghm's] posts"
No one downvoted his posts to 0. All comments and posts by muted members start at 0.

I was one of your down votes on that post, barwick11. Not because of your Christianity (I was a fervent believer in the distant past), but because of the assertion: "...the Bible is the most accurate and attested to document in all of ancient history (and has more verifiable sources than most of modern history even)."

I occasionally down vote based on my judgment of what was written, not who wrote it.

Hello khalling,
Quite right. I remember why, but others may not know. Thank you for the clarification.
Regards,
O.A.

Oh I enjoy our conversations. I can talk about those subjects all day.

The reason Christians quote scripture, and use it as a rational argument, is because, if you studied it (not what we're going to get into here), you'd see that there is ample evidence to support it being exactly what it claims to be, the Word of God. And if it *is* the Word of God, then that puts it into a category above anything else.

Hiraghm is not visible to me. Is he visible to you?
I don’t downpoint on general principle unless it’s Maph when he is in one of his "let-me-post-every-income-equality-occupy-wallstreet-left-leaning story-written-for-a--gender-bending-audience I can find" moods. But, even then, I down post one, rarely two, then just log off for a couple days.

I think you and I have had words? I have never down posted you. I just pick on christians as a general rule. I find it sort of rude to introduce scripture as a rational argument. There’s a right way and wrong way. The wrong way?

“God says...”
“God wants us...”
God doesn’t exist for many of us so it’s sort of frustrating to watch a meeting of the minds become a meeting of ‘Jesus Christ our Savior’.
It also goes both ways. Iv’e been down pointed by those of faith.

To each his own; to each his corner.