On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather than >>> 'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding it. >>> Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the scriptures >>> in the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation: >>> >>> https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf >>> >>> >> >> To be fair, you have to allow that if there is a scientific inaccuracy in >> a holy book which is considered the word of God then, unless God got the >> science wrong, that would be evidence against the holy book being the word >> of God. The problem is that even if a believer says they are open-minded in >> this way they don't really mean it because that would be an admission that >> they are willing to test God, which is contrary to faith and therefore bad. >> > > What are you called if you are willing to test god? > A believer? >
Rational. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
