Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
584 bytes added ,  00:38, April 14, 2007
Line 120: Line 120:  
::Ironically, it was one of the YECs on this site who insisted on the section being in because it was literal Bible, and then one of the liberals agreed because he thought it put YEC in perspective. My motives are more along the lines of practicality (it seemed agreeable at the time, there haven't been any edits for a while before now) and also because, although I love the Bible, I think it is important to understand that some parts of it, such as these passages and ones on slavery, etc. suggest that the Bible is also a product of the times in many ways, and excessive literalism can be a double edged sword. Are you YEC? A literalist? I'd urge you to read the paper and think about it before changing the article back. But that's just my opinion. Is there any reason you have to disagree with the citation? Any contradictory evidence or citations?[[User:Orlenzia|Orlenzia]]
 
::Ironically, it was one of the YECs on this site who insisted on the section being in because it was literal Bible, and then one of the liberals agreed because he thought it put YEC in perspective. My motives are more along the lines of practicality (it seemed agreeable at the time, there haven't been any edits for a while before now) and also because, although I love the Bible, I think it is important to understand that some parts of it, such as these passages and ones on slavery, etc. suggest that the Bible is also a product of the times in many ways, and excessive literalism can be a double edged sword. Are you YEC? A literalist? I'd urge you to read the paper and think about it before changing the article back. But that's just my opinion. Is there any reason you have to disagree with the citation? Any contradictory evidence or citations?[[User:Orlenzia|Orlenzia]]
    +
== Belief vs. fact ==
    
One does not "believe" in a fact. Ask any first-year philospphy student - something can be a fact ("this computer is beige") or it can be a belief ("G-d exists" or "The Yankees are the best baseball team ever") , but it can't be both.
 
One does not "believe" in a fact. Ask any first-year philospphy student - something can be a fact ("this computer is beige") or it can be a belief ("G-d exists" or "The Yankees are the best baseball team ever") , but it can't be both.
 +
 +
:One ''does'' believe in facts.  I believe (because I can see it with my own eyes) that my computer is beige.  I also believe (because of the overwhelming evidence) that God exists.  Both are facts.  Whether or not the Yankees are the best baseball team ever (without defining something measurable, like winning the most games) is an opinion.  But you can believe in both opinions and facts.  See my comments on this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment#.22Belief.22 here] [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254

edits

Navigation menu