Your missing the point.
It was a reality to me and I wasn't making it up, the issue is not with the perception of reality, but rather the cause of that perception of reality. Your accept the 'conversation' to be with god and dismiss out of hand any other possible explanation.
As such your findings are not findings, they are anecdotal observations that you refuse to explore the possible causes of, and as such carry nothing but bias.
You know I find it interesting that you have no problem with your bias, only mine.
Likewise you reject and dismiss any possible causes that don't fit your bias.
So my findings are already prediscredited in that case.
In the entire history of human existance (100,000 years+) they have all produced the exact same level of evidence, which is zero.
As such they all currently carry the exact same level of validity, all one has to do to change that balance if provide evidence that meets a falsifiable standard. None have ever done so.
Evidence by your standard, yes that is correct.
However a possibilty does not require any evidence.
So you haven't answered the question.
Do you believe its possible,
one could be more valid than another?
If they are open to interpretation then they are not facts.
All things are open to interpretation, repeatedly and forever.
The history of science even shows that.
Granted it may be an effort in futility at times, but some of the facts of today may not all be facts tomorrow.
You used the tax office as a (poor) analogy for discussions with god, I said that I had managed with the former (tax office) and asked what objective means you could provide to do the same with the later (god).
Actually my analogy was likewise authority based, and while not perfectly the same, it was quite adequate to show that authorities, do not consider their origins, any excuse to ignore their directives.
Since God has already judged the situation and declared the judgement, and there is no appeal process, there is no objective means process.
However, he has provided a way for your payment to be made, even though you are unable to pay it.
Which kind of makes the bible quite removed from the claims you made in its regard.
Not at all.
Some have done many good things under Biblical influence.
And some not so good, claiming the same influence.
Both sides of the civil rights fence believed they were acting with the authority of god, they can't have both been right, yet the bible is written in such terms that both managed to interpret it way. The exact same can be said of many other conflicts (including WW1 and WW2).
Yes to some extent that is true.
Although, I think both can be right, but one more right than the other.
The U.S. Civil War is a good example.
Possibly the most unique event in the history of man.
Where New Testament, gospel of grace, covenant people took up arms to kill one another, over primarily a interpretational covenant difference.
The South was right lawfully in that it had the Constitutional right to secede, and as has been pointed out, the Bible did not forbid slavery.
However the North was more right morally, in that slavery was a evil institution, and should not be allowed to continue, particularly under the claims of our founding documents, (All men are created equal) and Christian precepts.
Not to mention, once slaves got saved and became Christians, they became spiritual brothers with their Masters.
Obviously, it would be the height of hipocrosy for them to continue in a slave relationship.
Of course there were other factors that were influential in this situation as well, but it is still quite unique.
And yet the OT doesn't (and can't be removed from Christianity).
As far as god not getting involved after creation! As you really serious in regard to that point, what about the flood? Parting of the Red Sea? And that's without the biggest intervention of the lot, banging up a virgin and launching his son on the world. If sending your son (who is also you) to earth is not an intervention then I fail to see what is, given that your entire faith would not exist had it not occurred.
Yes the OT is historically and spiritually connected, but bears little in common with Christianity.
I did not say he did not stay involved.
I said he cannot just do anything he wants without observing the rules he established.
The flood was a last resort measure and for good reason.
As I said before, had he not made a change to that, we would not be here.
The others were done through a covenant with Israel, that afforded him the right to exercise some intervention.
BTW Mary did not object to being impregnated with the Saviour of the world, knowing it was a tremendous honor and privilage, afforded to only one woman in all of history. Of course it turned out to be quite grevious as well.
In other words the OT requires the direct slaughter and enslavement of numerous groups of people and you write it off as simply being needed.
Oh and this was done under god direct instruction, which would, once again, be an intervention.
Intervention under covenant, yes.
And there was not another necessitation for a flood, to wipe out everyone, as with the non intervention period.
So it could be said, some progress was made.
I disagree, as given the lack (again) of evidence to back this up, we would all still be here as this is simply the collected stories of numerous bronze age tribes gathered together to form a monotheistic religion from a pantheon of gods, with the various wars being little more that a series of exercises in ethnic cleansing.
I'm not surprised at your assessment.
Not ethnic, but I would call it religious cleansing to a degree.
) If you answer only based on the evidence at hand (and not a predisposition as to the existence of invisible Moose), and your choices are Yes/Maybe/No, what can you go for?
