betsy

Francis S. Collins Francis S. Collins (born April 14, 1950), M.D., Ph.D., is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes, and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He was director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of the 27 institutes and centers that make up the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland until August 1, 2008. Tapped to take on the leadership of the HGP, Collins accepted an invitation in 1993 to succeed James Watson and become director of the National Center for Human Genome Research, which became NHGRI in 1997. As director, he oversaw the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium and many other aspects of what he has called "an adventure that beats going to the moon or splitting the atom." Collins' accomplishments have been recognized by numerous awards and honors, including election to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. On Monday, November 5, 2007, he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from U.S. President George W. Bush. He was also present at the bill signing for the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in the Oval Office, in recognition of his work in genetics, and his early papers and commentary on the need for such protections.[6] Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He became an evangelical Christian after observing the faith of his critically ill patients and reading Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis.[9] In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and Intelligent Design. His own belief system is Theistic Evolution which he prefers to term BioLogos. During a debate with Richard Dawkins, Collins stated that God is the explanation of those features of the universe that science finds difficult to explain (such as the values of certain physical constants favouring life), and that God himself does not need an explanation since he is beyond the universe. Dawkins called this "the mother and father of all cop-outs" and "an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain", to which Collins responded "I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as "Why am I here?", "What happens after we die?" If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.[11] In reviewing The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine by Alister McGrath, Collins says "Addressing the conclusions of The God Delusion point by point with the devastating insight of a molecular biologist turned theologian, Alister McGrath dismantles the argument that science should lead to atheism, and demonstrates instead that Dawkins has abandoned his much-cherished rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism."[12] Note: Theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are similar concepts that assert that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with much or all of the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that he is (in some way) the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God created and employed to help life grow and flourish. Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science —that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. In describing early proponents of this viewpoint, it is sometimes described as Christian Darwinism.[1] A very similar view is evolutionary creationism.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)

Alister Edgar McGrath Alister Edgar McGrath (born January 23, 1953) is a Christian theologian, with a DPhil in molecular biophysics, as well as an earned Doctor of Divinity degree from Oxford, noted for his work on historical, systematic and scientific theology. In 2004 McGrath suggested in The Twilight of Atheism that atheism was in decline. He has been highly critical of Richard Dawkins, calling him "embarrassingly ignorant of Christian theology". His book: The Dawkins Delusion? – a response to Dawkins's The God Delusion – was published by SPCK in February 2007, and the two had public debate on the topic, "Does religious belief damage the health of a society, or is it necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society?"[4] McGrath has also debated with Daniel Dennett, at the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum (February 2007) in New Orleans.[5] He was interviewed by Richard Dawkins about his book Dawkins' God and faith in general for the television documentary The Root of All Evil? McGrath's interview was not included in the final cut, but the unedited footage is available online.[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_McGrath Dawkins and McGrath Debates http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAurSX6WA3U...feature=related

I rest my case.

I'm back! That felt good! Hey, what did they say, laughter is the best medicine! Anyway, back to the discussion... You've given no indication that you know what you're talking about. If you can't support your arguments with a rational thought-out opinion - and you obviously can't - at least, produce some evidence, even if you just find it in wiki....you know, cut-and-paste. Wasn't this you who said this? Or do you have grandchildren?

Molly....Molly....Molly...<shaking head> Molly....Molly...Molly.........oh Molly! ...got to grab kleenex....in tears....my belly....need time out.........

I am in awe of these three who embarked on a quest that would've proved that God did not exist. Theirs is a very different experience....different from Christians who'd always believed....because when they started, they were absolutely non-believers. I wonder at that very moment how it must've felt when they came to their realization. That moment when they found God.

In case you haven't realized, there's something very special about these 3 apologists. They all have a few things in common. 1. They were all Atheists. 2. They were not just your run-of-the-mill atheists. They were/are learned atheists. Highly educated. Accomplished in their fields. Published. 3. They were not just passive Atheists. They're "activists." If they were Christians then, they'd be called the most "fundamentalists of all fundamentalists!" So it's safe to assume that these are not people who would be easily convinced. 4. They did their own investigations...their own probings...looking for conclusive evidence(s) that could and would de-bunk the Bible and the Resurrection. 5. No matter what motive they had for embarking on those quests, had they been successful....they knew that it would mean the end of Christianity. 6. They all found evidence(s) that for them, was enough to make them realize they were wrong. 7. They did not just quietly throw their hands up in the air, give up and move on to other things. They did not just quietly fade away in the hope that no one will notice their errors or failures... 8. They all bravely came out into the open, exposing their "shame" in what some would've tauntly called it their "defeat." 9. These learned men swallowed their pride before God and all. 10. They all converted to Christianity. They embraced the faith... 11. ....and did not stop at that! They actively carried/carries the torch of Christianity. They became "activists" and defenders of Christianity.

A.N Wilson British A.N Wilson, author of the 1990 atheistic book called, “Jesus: A Life“, which denied the divinity of Jesus and the miraculous aspects of his birth, life and death, has now recanted his previous views as an atheist and got back to the fold. “Why did I, along with so many others, become so dismissive of Christianity? Like most educated people in Britain and Northern Europe (I was born in 1950), I have grown up in a culture that is overwhelmingly secular and anti-religious. The universities, broadcasters and media generally are not merely non-religious, they are positively anti. To my shame, I believe it was this that made me lose faith and heart in my youth. It felt so uncool to be religious. With the mentality of a child in the playground, I felt at some visceral level that being religious was unsexy, like having spots or wearing specs. This playground attitude accounts for much of the attitude towards Christianity that you pick up, say, from the alternative comedians, and the casual light blasphemy of jokes on TV or radio. It also lends weight to the fervour of the anti-God fanatics, such as the writer Christopher Hitchens and the geneticist Richard Dawkins, who think all the evil in the world is actually caused by religion. The vast majority of media pundits and intelligentsia in Britain are unbelievers, many of them quite fervent in their hatred of religion itself. The Guardian’s fanatical feminist-in-chief, Polly Toynbee, is one of the most dismissive of religion and Christianity in particular. She is president of the British Humanist Association, an associate of the National Secular Society and openly scornful of the millions of Britons who will quietly proclaim their faith in Church tomorrow. ‘Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to?’ she asked in a puerile article decrying the wickedness of C.S. Lewis’s Narnia stories, which have bewitched children for more than 50 years. Or, to take another of her utterances: ‘When absolute God-given righteousness beckons, blood flows and women are in chains.’ The sneering Ms Toynbee, like Richard Dawkins, believes in rational explanations for our existence and behaviour. She is deeply committed to the Rationalist Association, but her approach to religion is too fanatical to be described as rational. Perhaps it goes back to her relationship with her nice old dad, Philip Toynbee, a Thirties public school Marxist who, before he died, made the hesitant journey from unbelief to a questing Christianity.” http://bluepanjeet.net/2009/04/19/4490/ath...s-christianity/

Bernard Nathanson Bernard Nathanson (born July 31, 1926, in New York) is an American medical doctor and pro-life activist from New York. Nathanson graduated in 1949 from McGill University Facility of Medicine in Montreal.[1] He has been licensed to practice in New York state since 1952.[1] He became board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology in 1960.[1] Nathanson says in his autobiography that his grandfather committed suicide when Nathanson's father was a child. (Hand of God, p.6). Nathanson's sister committed suicide at the age of 49 (Hand of God, p.6). As a younger man, he had been strongly pro-choice, and he states that he performed an abortion on a woman who had become pregnant by him.[1] He later gained national attention by then becoming one of the founding members of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America. He worked with Betty Friedan and others for the legalization of abortion in the United States. Their efforts essentially succeeded with the Roe v Wade decision. He was also for a time the director of the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health (CRASH), New York's largest abortion clinic. Nathanson has written that he was responsible for more than 75,000 abortions throughout his pro-choice career. The development of ultrasound, however, in the 1970s led him to reconsider his views on abortion. He is now a staunch supporter of the pro-life movement. In 1984, he made the documentary The Silent Scream, which showed an abortion from the perspective of ultrasound. His second documentary Eclipse of Reason dealt with late-term abortions. He has written the books Aborting America and The Hand of God. Although he grew up Jewish, he described himself as a "Jewish Atheist"[2] and later converted to Catholicism in 1996 through the efforts of Fr. C. John McCloskey. Before that conversion, he had been divorced three times.[citation needed] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson

William J. Murray William J. Murray is the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition, a socially conservative organization, in Washington, D.C. He has been active on issues related to aiding Christians in Islamic and Communist nations. William is the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair,[1] an American atheist activist who came to national attention in Baltimore, Maryland, when she filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court of the United States, saying that compulsory prayer and reading of the Bible in schools was unconstitutional. Murray converted to Christianity in 1980. His mother reportedly stated, upon learning of his conversion, "One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times...he is beyond human forgiveness." [2] He felt similarly negative toward her - some have compared My Life Without God to Mommie Dearest,[3] (written by Christina Crawford about her mother Joan Crawford), as he made allegations such as: "She was just evil…She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents' inheritance."[4] William J. Murray is the author of several Christian and conservative books including Let Us Pray and The Church Is Not For Perfect People. His most recent book is The Pledge: One Nation Under God, for which the foreword, "A Washington, DC insider", was written by Congressman Todd Akin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Murray_(author)

I've never even heard of this before. The first time I came across the word "apologists" I confused it with apologizing for what professed Christians had done in the past using the name of Christ. I was dead wrong. Just to clarify what Christian Apologists are: Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views. [1] Christian apologetics have taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul of Tarsus, including writers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, and continuing currently with the modern Christian community, through the efforts of many authors in various Christian traditions such as C.S. Lewis. Apologists have based their defence of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and other disciplines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics Casual research on the few names listed above had openend up more information about other Atheists who embraced Christianity. Some are quite interesting.

These were Atheists who tried to dis-prove Christianity....only to find themselves converted and believing of the faith they initially sought to dis-prove. Not only did they end up embracing the faith. But they did more than a lot of Christians who've always believed had done (that includes me). Who knows what compelled them to want to actively prove Christianity, for I haven't read any of their books. Perhaps it is self-atonement.... trying to undo what they've preached...said...and done... when they were Atheists, atoning for their acts and words that helped sway, influence or convince people away from God.

Yes, this is a public forum, and I'm entitled to my opinion. I think I have the same right and privilege like anyone else who come to this site - regardless of my faith - to freely express what I believe and what I don't believe in. I thought, gee Atheists are freely expressing their views, their arguments, their thoughts. Wow, Atheists are freely dishing their scorn and insults and derision to Christ....which as a Christian I should find deeply offensive (but of course silly me, I should realize that for a lot of people in society today, Christians can be freely insulted), but I digress for this is not really about me. I am on the right board, "Religion," discussing and presenting my arguments, defense and views. I am right now in the topic of "REJOICE ON THIS DAY!" A topic that I created, btw. I'm sure. I double-checked to make sure...so there can be no mistake about it. I am, indeed on the right place. Are you? The title alone speaks for itself! It's going to be about Christ! And my name as the author is prominently displayed. Everyone is warned the topic was from me! And you know me! Didn't you say I tend to "proselytize?" So no false advertising there! You can't say you were duped into coming here. Anyway, who isn't proselytizing? You are proselytizing...everytime you post something that you think...and hope....will change my mind about my belief. Isn't your opinion against my belief a way to persuade me to abandon mine? To join your "religion" of Atheism? To be a believer of non-God? You see derision where you want to see it. You fully lay that accusation on my doorstep...wifully ignoring the derision that comes from others. Oh, most especially when I "don't see it their way." Editorializing? Actually, it is you who wants to play "editor!" If you have a re-butt, then re-butt. Post your articles and source to re-butt mine. I hope you're not suggesting I must post my arguments/defense...and also post my opponents' arguments refuting mine? What, I'll argue with myself? So you can accuse me of monopolizing the discussion? Hah! I'll not fall for that! You're trying to trick me! What has to work both ways? You came to my topic! You read my posts. You don't like them. You don't agree with them. You find me offensive. You don't find anything joyful in my joy because the very source of this joy is that One that you say don't exist. What's stopping you from leaving? Leave! It's just a click away. No need to get up and walk. Your finger will do the walking. It's that easy! It's the right thing to do! Actually by your reaction and reasonings, I don't think this is really about me. More like, this is about you. Perhaps you need some soul-searching. Now I want to get back on topic. If you want to continue your fit, start your own!

Thank you.

LEE STROBEL Atheist-turned-Christian Lee Strobel, the former award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, is a New York Times best-selling author of nearly twenty books and has been interviewed on numerous national television programs, including ABC’s 20/20, Fox News, and CNN. After a nearly two-year investigation of the evidence for Jesus, Lee received Christ as his forgiver and leader in 1981. He joined the staff of Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, IL, in 1987, and later became a teaching pastor there Described by the Washington Post as “one of the evangelical community’s most popular apologists,” Lee shared the prestigious Charles “Kip” Jordon Christian Book of the Year award in 2005 for a curriculum he co-authored about the movie The Passion of the Christ. He also has won awards for his books The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, The Case for a Creator, and Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary. http://leestrobel.com/LS_bio.htm

Sir William Ramsay Sir William Ramsay of Oxford University in England, one of history’s greatest archaeologists. He was an atheist. He spent 25 years doing archaeological digs to try to disprove the book of Acts, which was written by the historian Luke (who also wrote the gospel of Luke) ... “Instead of discrediting Luke’s account, Ramsay’s discoveries kept supporting it. Finally, he concluded that Luke was one of the most accurate historians who had ever written. Influenced by the archaeological evidence, Ramsay became a Christian.” (p68-69) http://www.bethanychurch.info/html/case_for_christ.html Ramsay was very skeptical of the accuracy of the New Testament, and he ventured to Asia minor over a century ago to refute its historicity. He especially took interest in Luke's accounts in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, which contained numerous geographical and historic references. Dig after dig the evidence without fail supported Luke's accounts. Governors mentioned by Luke that many historians never believe existed were confirmed by the evidence excavated by Ramsay's archeological team. Without a single error, Luke was accurate in naming 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands. Ramsay became so overwhelmed with the evidence he eventually converted to Christianity. Ramsay finally had this to say: I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth3. Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians4. The classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White collaborates Ramsay's work regarding the Book of Acts: Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted5. Discoveries ranging from evidence for the Tower of Babel, to Exodus, to the Walls of Jericho, all the way to the tombs of contemporaries of St. Paul, have greatly enhanced the believability of the Bible. Though this vast archeological evidence does not prove God wrote the Bible, it surely must compel the honest skeptic to at least acknowledge its historical veracity. For the believer its yet another reassuring testimony to the reliability of the Bible. In the words of the University of Yale archeologist Millar Burrows: ...Archeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archeologist has found respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine6. http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm

C. S. LEWIS Clive Staples Lewis (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963), commonly referred to as C. S. Lewis and known to his friends and family as Jack, was a northern Irish novelist, academic, medievalist, literary critic, essayist, lay theologian and Christian apologist. He is also known for his fiction, especially The Screwtape Letters, The Chronicles of Narnia and The Space Trilogy. Lewis was a close friend of J. R. R. Tolkien, the author of The Lord of the Rings. Both authors were leading figures in the English faculty at Oxford University and in the informal Oxford literary group known as the "Inklings". Raised in a church-going family in the Church of Ireland, Lewis unfortunately became an atheist at the age of 15, though he later paradoxically described his young self (in Surprised by Joy) as being "very angry with God for not existing". He returned to his Christian beliefs at age 33. His separation from Christianity began when he started to view his religion as a chore and as a duty; around this time he also gained an interest in the occult as his studies expanded to include such topics. Lewis quoted Lucretius (De rerum natura, 5.198–9) as having one of the strongest arguments for atheism: Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam Naturam rerum; tanta stat praedita culpa "Had God designed the world, it would not be A world so frail and faulty as we see." Influenced by arguments with his Oxford colleague and friend J. R. R. Tolkien, and by the book The Everlasting Man by Roman Catholic convert G. K. Chesterton, he slowly rediscovered Christianity. He fought greatly up to the moment of his conversion noting, "I came into Christianity kicking and screaming." He described his last struggle in Surprised by Joy: You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. [10] In addition to his career as an English professor and an author of fiction, Lewis is regarded by many as one of the most influential Christian apologists of his time; Mere Christianity was voted best book of the twentieth century by Christianity Today in 2000. Due to Lewis's approach to religious belief as a skeptic, and his following conversion, he has been called "The Apostle to the Skeptics." Lewis was very much interested in presenting a reasonable case for the truth of Christianity. Mere Christianity, The Problem of Pain, and Miracles were all concerned, to one degree or another, with refuting popular objections to Christianity, such as "How could a good God allow pain to exist in the world?". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.S._Lewis#Th...stian_apologist

Eh? Come again? What do you think all the nay-sayers and the fence-sitters have been doing ever since Christ died.... all the way to the present day? Didnt you question it? Why didn't you? You've had ample opportunity trying to prove the Bible wrong...trying to knock down belief in Christ...and yet you didn't question the one single most important event that holds the Christian faith together! Some non-believers and atheists of high education, some of whom practiced law did. Why wouldn't they question it? If they can prove there was no Resurrection, it means Christians believe in a dead God! It means Christians don't have anything to really believe in. So of course, that's the main focus of attacks on this belief: Prove that Christ did not rise. In fact, they not only questioned it but have taken it upon themselves to gather evidences and do their own investigations....and in the process, only ended up BELIEVING! That alone, should make anyone to stop and think and ask: WHY? Why did they end up embracing the faith they sought out to destroy? They gathered evidences! Did their own investigations! Embarked on a fact-finding mission! These were not just ordinary atheists! Not only were they learned. But for them to have devoted great time, thoughts and energy to try to de-mystify the Christian Faith (and affirm their own belief in non-God)...these atheists were what you'd call fundamentalists! They were serious and firm believers of atheism! Not someone to easily be convinced. Activists! What did they find? I do believe the Resurrection is true....not just because the logical conclusion is that obviously these atheists had found the evidences and proofs that convinced them without any doubt that the Resurrection did happen...which means Christ is the Son of God, and the Bible is true. I say without a doubt...because they didn't just say "maybe" and left it at that....or these atheists did not abandon their research and moved on to other things....or quietly faded away. THEY CONVERTED! Could you imagine the implication of that? Their conversions to Christianity clearly support that they've seen evidences that made them believe. Not only that, they did not just embrace the Christian Faith.....but have instead became vocal about it! They were not just passive believers! The most important evidence for me is the way the Apostles and disciples reacted and behaved after the Resurrection took place. All throughout the New Testament...to the moment of death and Resurrection....the Apostles' faith wavered and conflicted. They were beset with doubts. Uncertain sometimes although they tried to cling to their faith. Putting myself in their shoes, I could almost understand the questions that must've occasionaly nagged at them (whether they were doing the right thing leaving family and livelihood behind to become a disciple? Is Christ for real?) They didn't fully understand some of the teachings that were given in Parables. Christ had to explain several times the meaning of the Parables. They had witnessed numerous miracles (healings, feeding the thousands, etc..,) and yet question of faith still plagues them every now and then. Very human tendencies I suppose....which Christ understood, for He was ever patient with them. When Jesus was arrested, Peter, out of fear of being arrested too or lynched, denied Christ three times. When Christ was dead and buried, the Apostles maintained a low profile, went into hiding. It's understandable. They saw the frenzy of the mob who persecuted Christ. And now that their leader was dead, they feared that they'll be the next ones to be rounded up. If they felt fear, it must mean their faith was not so solid. But after Christ had risen, the change in the Apostles and disciples was so dramatic! Suddenly they were brimming of faith that they feared not death! They ventured out to preach! They were threatened by the rulers and yet defiantly they preached! Two Apostles were thrown in prison, and miraculously got out of prison...where did they find them the next day? In town, in the synagogue, preaching! A lot of them have been MARTYRED! The first one was Stephen. This is not just being "adamant." This is belief! Pure and simple Faith! How did they get that kind of faith when all throughout the time Christ was with them their faith flickered like candles? And after the Resurrection...suddenly they had the zeal! Not one or two or three of them. All of them! Then, there's the small detail of a question: Where is the Body? And another question: With all the advancement, why hasn't anyone come up with an answer that proves the Resurrection did not happen? This is all I'm going to devote on this debate with Cybercoma. I've presented the proofs. If you're truly keen in being objective about this discussion the least that you could do is read the link I gave you. And please don't ask me why God made the Bible hard to understand. I have my own theory on that but I'm sure it's something you wouldn't accept. So there's no point in discussing it. NOTE: I corrected a mistake. I accidentally wrote Phillip as the first martyr in the Book of Acts. It was Stephen.

Do you mean you want me to accept that the geocentric model is wrong? I do. And of course it's not in the Bible. It developed between the second and fourth centuries AD. most significantly through the influence of Greek philosophy on church leaders such as Origen and Augustine. But that's another story.

Agreed. Faith is essential to the human condition. We haven't the capacity to know everything but we know things exists that we can't explain. In fact, life would be meaningless without faith. Christians know that and have a specific faith. And you're right. Others do have faith in other matters.

Actually, this is your original question: But to respond to your new question... First of all who says the Bible is not literally true? Do they say the whole Bible is not literally true? Or what parts of the Bible are true or not literally true? I know of no one who says that all of the Bible is literally true. I do know that there are many who believe that the Word of God, as expressed in the Bible - both Old and New Testament - is literally true. What are your sources? Furtrher, what scientific advancement are you talking about? At least, give examples of these proofs. Many scientists are beginning to realize the truth lies in the Bible. Because some disagree is hardly proof.

It must be a perpetual frustration...you're living with it. No offense to your wife. Quite apart from the mutual admiration society that seems to be developing here, neither of you really has any idea what you're talking about. I'm not sure whether you'll remember, I'm not sure how old you are....when I went to school, we learnt that Columbus discovered America. A few years later, we were told that he didn't "discover" America - air quotes abundant in every converstaion - because people were already there. Modern liberalism rears its ugly head. And now it appears we have another "duh" - don't you hate that expression -it's almost as irritating as the post-affirmative NOT. But I digress. Because Newton noticed (was he really the first - that's unbelievable ) that apples fell to earth, it twigged on him that some force must have compelled that action - you know, cause and effect. I'll try a few experiments, he thought. He might have pushed a few sheep over a cliff, maybe he tried flying again - scientists in those days liked to try to fly - who knows. But we can be sure he thoroughly tested his theory to ensure there were no holes (just like Darwin would do many years later). We do know that soon he was convinced and went out and told his friends. Cool they said. And thanks Isaac - we were just about to be hurled off into space! So in the nick of time, Isaac "discovered" gravity. Or did he - you know it was actually already there. Anyway there is a happy ending. Some of Isaac's friends were "scientists" and THEY decided to make it a law - the Law of Gravity. Isaac proved his theory, the scientists got their law and everyone lived happily ever after - pretty much anyway. BTW, where did that gravity come from, you know the force that keeps us in our exact position relative to the sun and keeps the moon and other stuff where it should be and my Masarati on the highway (well it would if I had one). Thank God for Isaac Newton.

I guess it must be science that worked out gravity. Without science we wouldn't have gravity. Is that what you're trying to say?

Interesting theory.

gravity isn't a theory. It is a law. So they pointed it out. They're pointing in the wrong direction. What parts of the Bible are you talking about that have been proven scientifically, let alone in any other way, to be un-true? Is this a trick question? Maybe the parts that haven't been scientifically proven to be un-true. None of the human interpretations should be believed IF none of the Bible is literally true. Translation: If you're just gonna teach what I believe, that's okay. But if you also want to teach what you believe, then better let everybody talk. Suddenly free speech is important. Fine.