|
Yorick,
After reading your last response, I was left with some linger questions that I would appreciate your clarification on.
Are you implying that “ancient source work” is required in order to have consistency within ones faith, and if they do not have documentation to provide, the faith becomes invalidated?
Put aside your personal beliefs in the Bible for a minute, and try to understand that most of the world believes the Bible to be nothing more than a collection of short stories. In addition, those stories are so vague as to leave immense room for interpretation. As such, when you use the Bible as a form of documentation, many people immediately invalidate your comments. Using a collection of works that many believe to be fiction (and there is no dispute to this claim unless you rely upon a blind faith) does not substantiate your claim either. Documentation implies that the work contains fact, so you cannot in all seriousness use the Bible, in a multi-religious discussion, as a source for that documentation.
Your comment pertaining to surface level reading of this book is inaccurate. One can indeed read the Bible while performing an in depth interpretation and still find inconsistencies. Because the bible is based upon a personal perspective, the message contained within can and will change from person to person. Surely you can realize this as a fact.
Edit: Forgot my header. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
[ 10-27-2003, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Maelakin ]
|