Quote:
Originally Posted by gunmum
According to Michael Lind, "a worldview is a more or less coherent understanding of the nature of reality, which permits its holders to interpret new information in light of their preconceptions. Clashes among worldviews cannot be ended by a simple appeal to facts. Even if rival sides agree on the facts, people may disagree on conclusions because of their different premises."
Pretty much my first point, in different words.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I was just sayin' that sometimes its futile in arguing on who's right about this or that when its a persons preconceptions that drive their beliefs. So no matter what I say, you may think it wrong.
Did you hear what he said about the skeptical man? Sound familiar? It's too bad that some people try to pick the bible apart using this sentence here and that sentence there without reading it in context. If that's what you need to prove your point, it just reiterates what I'm saying.
|
It intrigues me that proponents of the bible as literal fact and history are the first to quote chapter and verse. Most have never read the whole thing, nor studied concordances of the whole. Their "knowledge" is based on oft repeated readings by priests/preachers and internet searches.
Hardly an indepth knowledge, isn't it?
As the
Pew Forum study shows, and I quote from the executive summary,
"Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions."
Perhaps if apologists were more knowledgeable about what they are proselytizing about, one could take them more serious.
It is only when anyone else suggests there are contradictory inclusions in the bible, that your argument of "your talking it out of context" comes up.