No probs. I have to confess that when I read it first, I assumed you must be a non-believer, despite your signature. Indeed, reading one or two of your posts in isolation may also have led me to that conclusion. However, the ”literal bible’ line suggested I should err on the side of caution and accept what I read as 'gospel'.
i'm something of a walking contradiction, i know.
As for the ”literal bible’ aspect, I’m not so interested in what may be seen as the inconsistencies within the texts, that has been done so many times before. It’s more to do with what can be inferred from the divine/human interface that led to the compilation of the bible. However, I’m not sure how well I could formulate such an argument, so it may never see the light of day.
actually, i think the contradictions are a good key to understanding that sort of thing.
One of the things I’m learning very quickly on here is that lack of clarity of thought or precision of expression can be mercilessly exposed.
Which is probably the main reason I am here - for the mental stimulation.
yeah, me too. i'd get lazy otherwise.
It started a couple of months ago when I read a magazine article about ID. I’d heard all the arguments before, so was taken aback at some of the responses in the letters page the following month. Quite frankly, some of them bordered on being offensive. This led me onto the net, and I quickly found this site.
it's a good place to work out the frustration with the idiocy expressed in other forms of media, and feel like you're making a difference. but be careful, if you get to involved, you'll just lose your mind. (*cough
brennacough*)
Rather than respond to your answer on the ”qualification criteria’ issue, I’ll deal with it in a response to jar if I may, as he has also ”pulled me up’ on it and I feel it’s important to try to deal with as many direct responses as is possible.
alright, i'll look back a bit and see what you said (i'm just getting back from being out of town)