critical at 40,000 feet? That's a big picture and not a detailed look. At 40,000 ft my artwork can match Picasso.TexasScientist said:I don't hate "scripture." Actually, I find it rather interesting and intriguing. When I first heard some of these issues raised and pointed out by the religion department when I was at Baylor, I reacted the same way that you react to my views. I took umbrage because it went against everything I was taught to believe. Yet it was that dissonance that pushed me to critically examine what was truth and what was not truth. It wasn't until I began to consider all aspects of life, science, and critical analyisis of scripture or biblical criticism, and all religion in general, that I change my views. I realized that my beliefs should conform to the evidence of reality, instead forcing reality to conform to a tradition of religious beliefs. When you step back and view religion objectively (from the 40,000 feet analogy), it just doesn't hold up to critical analysis.Oldbear83 said:
TS is trying really, really hard to pretend the experts on Scripture agree with his Scripture-hating assumptions.
Sad, really.
Sam and others have given you a really good detailed analysis of portions of Luke. You accept what agrees with you and reject what doesn't. That is hardly scientific.