Quote:
Originally posted by IROC
I think what Stuart is saying (and what my position essentially boils down to) is that major tenets of Christianity comprises what is - by any standard - events that most people would find to be unbelievable (e.g. virgin births, miracles, rising from the dead, etc) and yet with the exception of *one* book (the bible - whose authors are unknown and authenticity is hard to independently verify), there is *no* evidence to substantiate these extraordinary events.
|
If the separate books had not been collected into one bound collection (as was certainly the case prior to the council at Nicea), would that have made them more persuasive? If not, how many books would it take?
Bottom line -- short of seeing an event with their own two eyes (and even that isn't necessarily reliable as many illusionist have shown), everyone needs to interpret the information that they have available to them, both physical and witness, and make a choice. This applies to everything from science, to CNN to religion. That's free will. The curious thing is the very uneven standard that people use from one subject to another.