SkyHigh

You can believe anything you want do you have any scholarly support to these claims

Hmmm so there's your opinion and my opinion, mine is supported by virtually all of credited biblical scholars Who said one was better? I was making a direct comparison between the two

So you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus?

Well if you want to share the view only supported by the most fundamental Christians go ahead, but since we don't even know the actual authors of the gospels, hard to say who they "spoke with" particularly when some were written dozens of years after Jesus was crucified, go ahead. As one example the mikmaq used a symbolique language pre contact with Europeans

First hand accounts? Quick question, are you a bible believing Christian or just haven't done any research on how we got the Bible? Other than Paul (and not even all of his letters are considered authentic) there are zero eyewitness accounts in the new testament, and that is according to scholarly consensus both Christian and secular

First I said where he worked. Now if you decide that because you think you know how things were "in those times" is a more reasonable then a trusted persons first hand account. Power too you. Sounds kinda silly to me though

I can only respond to your first point now as I have real life things to get to First you do realize many indigenous languages were never written right? The bible is written history? Well it is now but that's based on oral traditions For the old testament this is pretty easy to prove unless you think Adam or Eve wrote Genesis. The new testament is almost easier to prove Jesus and his crew spoke Aramaic ,the first gospels were written at best 30 years after the crucifixion in Greek(which is a different language) based solely on oral traditions they called creeds. Science has proven many of these stories to be pure fiction, well on the other hand many of the indigenous oral traditions have been authenticated by both anthropological and archeological studies. I lived and worked in the north west territories and was afforded the opportunity to sit on band councils. I took the time to try and understand their reality and did my best to study some of their culture

Therefore by his logic you're smarter than every single Arab that can't speak Spanish fluently. Congratulations

Whatever you need to tell yourself

Dude How can you call me delusional then explain my point exactly My point was to differentiate between spiritual claims and actual history of the First Nations. Maybe you confused me being wrong because you're illiterate

I can pretty sure my grandfather's grandfather worked without any oral history telling me so How?

Translating nonsense doesn't make coherent

I'm not sure I disagree. I was simply trying to explain the concept of "indigenous knowledge" in a vocabulary a fundamental religious zealot might understand. Then I just attempted to clarify that not all "indigenous knowledge" was supernatural, sometimes they were just about things like how, where and when to hunt I personally don't think any kind of spirituality should be used in politics

What??? I speak French as well if English isn't your first language

Well those with metaphysical claims, yes. But no all oral traditions are based in the supernatural, some are just geographical or agricultural information etc .. Ie: if your grandfather tells you were his grandfather worked, even without seeing a pay slip you can be pretty sure what he's saying is true and that could represent Almost 200 hundred years of " oral tradition"

"Yet apparently nobody is able to define what indigenous knowledge is." Let me try and explain this to someone with your specific beliefs. The knowledge of the indigenous is much like your Bible, a bunch of oral traditions passed on from generation to generation. The difference is the indigenous knowledge pre dates what your bible claims to be the beginning of time and has not suffered from as much political interference in the last few thousand years

Or maybe because everywhere else you mentioned was colonized by the French

If you don't know what the words "reasonable" and "expectation" mean you are ill-equipped for these kind of conversations. Period.

Although I'm no longer surprised, it still never ceases to amaze me how it's always those who claim to have the moral high ground that are always the ones to debate dishonestly But please don't stop spouting your ignorance and lies, people like you and blackbird do more to pull people out of their indoctrination and brainwashing than any scientist or atheist could ever, so thank you

My proof that reason uses logic? It's Are you going to be honest about the fact that faith and reason aren't the same thing, or are you okay with not being truthful

Ok I'll repeat myself since you ignored it before Egypt kept very good historical records: no mention of millions of Hebrews escaping, not to mention anything about the plagues. It was also around the 13th century Modern archeology has done numerous digs and found zero evidence that millions of Israelis wondered the desert for decades, as well as examining the bottom of the red sea and again found zero evidence of hundreds of Egyptians being swallowed by the sea I could do the same for many bible stories

My proof that reason uses logic? It's literally the definition

Believe what you choose, just admit you have no evidence of any of it I gave evidence there was no exodus ( the only claim I've made) prove me wrong

Is English not your first language? Reasonable uses reason and reason uses logic

No I'm not You just admitted my point Faith is used when there is no proof of the claim you're making, therefore not a path to truth in any circumstance