>
>In short, if christians of all strips can't handle observational data
>correctly, how can one know that Christianity is correct?
>
>I will sit back and listen to the responses, if any.
>
Glenn,
Well you seem to be absolutely positive that your interpretation of the
facts it the correct one. I care to believe otherwise. I would be hard
pressed to grant you that much authority. Trust me it has nothing to do
with you personally, but rather the fact that we as humans don't have all
the facts, and until we do, which IMHO won't happen, no one can claim to
know the truth.
Philosophically speaking I do believe in objective truth, however, I don't
think that humans are capable of understanding or acquiring it.
Now you seem to base you premise on the "fact" that Christians can't handle
observational data. Let me ask you, are Christians the only ones that can't
handle observational data? I would venture to say that even among the most
scientific of people there will always be a reluctance to avoid or disregard
evidence that is contrary to ones opinions.
You finish by asking how we know that Christianity is correct, well that one
is quite simple. Christianity doesn't rely on facts, it relies on faith.
There is no objective way to know that Christianity is correct, however, the
people that are Christians accept the claims of the Bible by faith.
Scientist may want to argue as much as they would like that their discipline
is faithless, but I care to think otherwise. Science is based as much on
faith as Christianity is. How is science based on faith? Well as was
illustrated in an earlier post that I made there is no way for science to be
100% sure that everything will continue tomorrow as it has in the past. The
fact that the laws of science work today, don't prove that they will work
tomorrow. So in essence when scientist make predictions, they are
exercising their faith in the laws that they have made.
Now I would like to ask you something Glenn. You have given me the
impression that you are a pretty devoted Christian, however, there is
something that strikes me inconsistent. You argue that we can't take the
Bible literally all the time, and that there are some things in the Bible
that are inaccurate. Now let me ask you this, if there is one thing that is
inaccurate in the Bible, then how can we be sure that any of the Bible is
right? How do we know what parts of the Bible are correct and which ones
are not? Personally I think that either we accept the whole of the Bible as
true and admit that there are things that we can't understand, or we
attribute the whole text to the imagination of man in an attempt to find
purpose to his life. To argue for a middle ground is like walking on
quicksand.
Best Regards,
J.D. Guzman