- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 17 2008,18:18) Hi Stu,
The Word is truth.
All else is fantasy until proved otherwise.
You yourself have admitted how unstable is your fund of 'knowledge'
Why follow Stephen Hawkins or Einstein?
Well Nick, the challenge is there for you to compare and contrast the biblical account with the Hawkins-Einstein model, pointing out mathematically where these two gentlemen have it wrong.Then we really would have something to consider.
Good luck!
Stuart
Hi Stu,
The bible is truth.
But it is not understood because the truth is presented in different ways.
I'm sure your utter devotion to the scientific model will last at least till the next theory arrives.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 17 2008,18:43) The bible is truth.
But it is not understood because the truth is presented in different ways.
It is not understood because it is meant to dazzle by talking nonsense, just like Benny Hinn and Creflo Dollar do.
StuartHi Stu,
Anyone can pontificate loud and long on how they think the life began
but you will always be faced with the problem as God said to Job
“Were you there?..”Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 17 2008,18:55) Hi Stu,
Anyone can pontificate loud and long on how they think the life began
but you will always be faced with the problem as God said to Job
“Were you there?..”
When you are called for jury service on a trial that relies on forensic evidence, I assume you will be voting to acquit the accused automatically on the grounds that no one else was there to see the crime.I assume also that your claim of divine creation means you were there to see it. Please tell us about it. Perhaps you could combine that account with your mathematical disproof of Einstein and Hawking.
stuart
Hi Stu,
First hand evidence is given more credibility than that which is circumstantial.
God has offered us many witnesses to Himself and His son. Jesus Christ.
But folks prefer to scratch around for inferences than listen to them.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 17 2008,19:22) Hi Stu,
First hand evidence is given more credibility than that which is circumstantial.
God has offered us many witnesses to Himself and His son. Jesus Christ.
But folks prefer to scratch around for inferences than listen to them.
This is why we have to be skeptical of Paul, the inventor of the biblical Jesus. He was not a 'first hand' witness, yet his influence is overwhelming. None of the canonical gospel writers was an eyewitness. Are you consistent with your distrust of 'circumstantial' evidence? By the way, forensic evidence is not the same thing as circumstantial evidence.Stuart
Hi Stu,
Why oppose Paul?
He met Jesus first hand on the road to Damascus and was transformed by a renewing of his heart and mind such that Christ lived thorugh him.
But you despise Christ so why should you admire Christ in Paul?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 17 2008,20:34) Hi Stu,
Why oppose Paul?
He met Jesus first hand on the road to Damascus and was transformed by a renewing of his heart and mind such that Christ lived thorugh him.
But you despise Christ so why should you admire Christ in Paul?
I think you have it the wrong way round. We cannot tell if Jesus was a remarkable person, or a non-existent one because of the fantastic spin Paul helped to put on early christianity.As for Paul actually physically meeting Jesus, if you believe that you will believe anything.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2008,04:08) As for Paul actually physically meeting Jesus, if you believe that you will believe anything. Stuart
Quite profound knowing that they do believe many unbelievable things.Hi tow,
You do not know the power of God and have denied all His miracles so real ones?
What are they
and
Who decides
and
How?Why should He? So people will believe in Him? He's not that selfish. He gave us many wonders AND our lives, I'm surprised you requite so much more to believe in Him.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
