Faid
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
| Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,08:53) | hehe-- I do appreciate your light view of life ... I might disagree with you about God being a relativist, but gotta love your wit! Cheers!
Faid-- It's only unsupported HERE in this post. I can't take the time or space right now to support it all. But as I said, if you stick with me, I think you will see that alot of it IS supported very well. |
Besides his joking, hehe actually has a point. According to the eternal laws set by god from the beginning of time, if a man has a vasectomy, is it ok to marry his sister? I ask you in all seriousness- because that's what this theory for Cain's wife seems to imply.
As for not supporting your view here, then you haven't explained anything yet, right? Untill you do, however, think about this: If you weren't trying with all your heart to prove that the bible is inerrant, would you ever be so eager to assume that, in this paragraph:
| Quote | | [...]and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. |
A hundred years have passed between the first and the second sentence? Why does it seem so plausible now, except that you want to believe it?
You may not wish to see it, but everything you do is reverse reasoning. You feel the bible has to be inerrant, so cain's wife must have been his sister. It must have been ok to marry his sister, so human beings must have had some kind of "genetic perfection" whatever that was. There must have been many people for him to build a city for, so that one space on a page, between "she bare Enoch" and "and he built a city" must have been 100 years long (making the book that explains the universe one of the most misleading documents ever).
Would you believe any of these wild assumptions if they were made about any other book than the bible? And yet, it is all your arguments that are like that in your hypothesis.
I only hope that some day you'll be bold enough to admit to yourself that your faith comes from your feelings, not your logic. It has nothing to do with logic.
That is not necessarily a bad thing; on the contrary. It's just that it does not help trying to use logic alone to defend it. Great philosophers have failed to do so in the past: Your faith is not science, and it cannot compete with science in its field. And it shouldn't have to.
--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:
"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"
"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."
|
