Charlie Coleman wrote:
> At 03:02 PM 3/11/2008 -0300, Ricardo Araoz wrote:
>
>> I see. I did a similar research on Superman. I concluded that if
>> Kryptonite were to fall to earth it would consume itself before hitting
>> ground. It was not until then that I could have a full night sleep.
> ...
>
> It sounds more and more like you're desperately frightened of thinking the
> Bible may be true and God may indeed exist: you repeatedly use these kinds
> of ludicrous comparisons as if they had some merit.
I'm also afraid of the Kuran and of the Book of the Dead etc, etc.
I fear soooo many books I don't know if I'll ever be able to enter a
library or a book shop.
>
> But in case you were really earnest
Of course I was "really earnest", as earnest as George Bernard would
require me to be. It's obvious, isn't it? I was talking about
kryptonite, what can be more earnest than that?
> , lets show just 1 point where your
> analogy falls down. The Superman story was intentionally created as fiction
> as can be seen from it's inception. The Bible was intentionally written
as fiction and IS seen from it's inception (my belief is as important
and has as many chances to be "right" as your belief).
>> So you base your beliefs in what a book SAYS on what other people SAY
>> about it. Whatever happened to FACTS? Or don't they apply in your
>> life.... well, if that is so I have a beauuutiful bridge to sell you,
>> right here in Argentina.
>
> Yes indeed facts are critically important. For example, in the 1800's
> (maybe earlier), there were many Bible critics that reasoned that all
> Biblical accounts were purely fictional, drawing from other myths and
> religions. However, archeology disproved these theories.
That's true, when they opened that pyramid they found this Jesus guy
still dancing.
>>> And yes, I believe Noah's Ark also literally existed. That one I've not
>>> researched as much yet.
>> You mean you believe it literally existed because you have not researched it?
>> Well, anyway I also think it "literally" existed. It's in a book, isn't it?
>
> Maybe I need to learn your native language and try to talk to you that way.
> So, to be clear, the term "literal" in this context means "actual" or "in
> existence" or "true." I think you knew this, but based on some of your
> other comments maybe you didn't.
Bingo! So you finally understood that in my "native language" we can be
ironic. Man, you'll be a linguist in no time.
>
> The first question in this thread was why do I believe in a literal Adam
> and Eve. So I provided several sources of information that I used.
Of course, in a pre-historic and pre-stone-age event you have trust
worthy sources of information. Is there any way I can convince you of
using that crystal ball and tell me what will the Lottery numbers be
next year?
> You then
> brought in the question of Noah's Ark and I said I believe that was also
> literally true. However, I have not done the same amount of researching
> into that event as I did into Adam and Eve. I was trying to be honest about
> my approach to what is in the Bible.
>
> Do you have a list of resources you have used to research and prove to
> yourself that Adam and Eve and the Ark did not exist?
Only way to prove something does not exist is through reductio ad
absurdum, just what I'm doing.
©2008 Ricardo Araoz |
