> From: Reggie Bautista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > JDG wrote: > > > > > >From Greg Easterbrook: > > > > > Among other things, this book maintains that accounts of > >resurrection > > > >or walking on water should not put any rationalist off from faith, > >since > > > >who can say what is possible from the standpoint of higher knowledge? > > > > > > > > > Rationalists of previous centuries would have considered the Boeing > >747 > > > >forbidden by physical law, or declared reports of heart transplants to > >be > > > >absurd superstition. > > > > > > The Fool replied: > > > >And Rain really does come from "doors" in the firmament, and there > >really > > > >are storehouses for snow up there. And giants, dragons, cocatrices, > >and > > > >satyrs really exist! And the Earth really IS flat, holding up the > > > >firmament on pillars, and being held up by pillars, and has seven > > > >corners. And worldwide global flood did occur, in 40 days no less > > > >(30.3FT /Hour). And All the saints really were reserected and marched > > > >through jerusalem despite the fact that no historian ever knew about > >it. > > > >And insects really do only have four legs. And some people really > >will > > > >believe any bullshit thats in a 'sacred' book. > > I responded: > > > Way to address JDG's actual argument, The Fool. Nice to know that you > >would > > > never resort to the strawman argument of using examples that the other > > > person never used. > > The Fool replied: > >Fuck me if I didn't mention the biggest so-called ressurection in the > >book of lies. I walk on water all the time, it's called ICE. So where > >is the proof that someone could walk on liquid water 2000 years ago? I > >havn't seen it. His argument is worthless. > > If you think the argument is worthless, then attack the specifics of the > argument. For example, you could have said that the comparison is faulty > because the examples listed (airplanes and heart transplants) involve > technology, and Jesus (and Peter) were not depicted as using technology when > they walked on water. That would have been a useful argument that actually > addressed what he posted, as opposed to being a strawman.
The Bible makes all kinds of verifiably false assertions. So why should any one particular absurdity that he is putting forth merit any more consideration that than any of the of the other absurdities? People don't walk on water without really advanced technology. It's absurd. And it fits in with other absurdities, like giants and satyrs. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
