Quote: AGW said: I think the historic credibility and philosophical credibility of the Bible are two different things. I don't think there are many people who would argue against the former.
No, I mean post Biblical happenings. Joan of Arc, St. Francis of Asissi, Virgin Mary and the Dancing Sun, the Lourdes Fountain etc.. Also a few historical accounts parallel to the Bible made by Josephus who confirmed miracle performed by Christ.
Quote: AGW said: It's also no better than using a scientist (or ex-scientists) remarks on evolution to help validate creationism.
They aren't just "remarks" Wednesday. Even though those scientists' findings have been debunked, they're still accepted today--Everywhere--Which was my point. Embryonic Recapitualtion: Proven false, yet still in the biology books. Australopithecus: No evidence of humanity but still in the biology books. Evolution itself: No proof to substantiate it, yet it's still widely publicized.
I never focused so much on the scientists as I did on their research that the science community has takin' to be undisputed truth,
Quote: AGW said: Are you saying that skepticism never figured into you homework on the subject of Catholicism? Also, who were these people you deliberated with?
My point was we weren't automatically skeptical to something simply because it involved extraordinary implications. Essentially I was taught to question and understand why I should believe anything. While my teachers did say that Catholicism was the reight way to go, they would never go into hysterics if we decided to research other religions. And Chant is making a broad generlization that entails the priests and seminaries who taught me religion.
As for who I deliberated with, my mom thought it would be best for me if I spent time at a Christian boarding school, and I got to know the class, you know. Anyway, I just find that Chant's judgemental statement is very.....Well, judgemental.
