Originally posted by Dolos
Because I'm skeptical, not schizophrenic.It is a rational choice to believe the first president existed, I agree.
If you think I'm not skeptical enough, then you don't to know just how many commonly accepted facts about what is really happening within the governments around the world I call into question in my other threads.
And because I don't care to find evidence for myself. The archaeologists themselves, however, are a different story. They've provided evidence for the like of Alexander the Great, who predated Jesus by hundreds and hundreds of years.
Actually, I'd be willing to believe George was a cover up for the first King of the Colonies, whose descendants now rule behind the facade of the US Government.
You on the other-hand, won't question the notion that the earth was created in 6 days; you won't question a collection of manuscripts written by many different people over the course of 300 years.
How do you know?? Oh, the ancient authors told you.
Who do you think wrote the bible. I know you think they were in commune with God, or that you saw God. But you really need to call that into question.
That really has nothing to do with this but...
If I was a liar as you accuse me, what value does my answer hold?
Lol, you shouldn't believe anything anyone tells, you should rely on your own experiences. I'm not an atheist, and I'm not religious, I will not impose an atheistic or a theistic belief-system on you. But I will attempt to make you question everything.
I'm skeptical as to whether or not his resuscitation was an act of the Christian God, I'm also skeptical if his vision wasn't an hallucination, I am skeptical that this event doesn't have a scientific explanation somewhere.
You define God, you attribute everything understand to his existence, yet this existence is not understood to you the same way it is understood to billions of other theists -- yet it is unscientific to do so.
I think that you misapplied the word skeptical to this discussion.
Skeptical means that you doubt that something is true.
So what you are saying is that you doubt the veracity of historical-archaeological evidence concerning George Washington's existence correct?
Alexander the Great (sighs).
You haven't heard a word that I've said (or rather written).
Your only proof that Alexander the Great existed is the testimony of another person who is dead i.e. not alive to attest to his existence.
This means that you are taking someone else's word because you don't have first-hand knowledge.
Hence, you are taking by faith that Alexander the Great actually existed because you've never met him.
Manuscripts written over a period of 300 years?
I don't know where you get your information from.
Dolos, The Bible is a collection of 66 books written by 40 different authors, on three different continents, in three different languages, over a period of 1500 years, from several walks of life (i.e. some were kings, prophets, a physician, a shepherd, a priest, a cupbearer, immediate disciples/apostles of Jesus Christ, a tax collector, fishermen, a Pharisee, murderer of Christians, Moses' successor, judges, etc.)--and yet retains harmony, consistency, agreement, and unity from the first book to the last book without errors, or contradictions.
The Bible--not the Qu'ran, Guru Granth Sahib, Vedas, or Mystic Law of the Lotus Sutra--is the number one bestseller of all time.
You know why?
Because it is God's Book.
I am not accusing you of being a liar.
I merely asked you if you have ever lied.
There's a difference.