lol.

i nominate this for post of the year

I'll choose the testimony. I think its God's front door method into faith.

He's said several places in his book not to test him.

Plus without other evidence DNA is worthless.

What if someone is dead and has blood on their clothing. You think its the

murderer's. You run a test. It's cow blood. Somebody did kill the person but (the dead guy)

he works in a meatpacking plant. You're back to square one.

You need to firstly brush up on your grammar and then secondly ask yourself this question with the apostrophes in the correct places.

It is man's word that you believe. The books within the Bible were written by men.

And yes, this bit was awesome!

I think the question was more supposed to be about the fact that DNA doesn't lie, whereas a human could.

You are jumping to conclusions Splendour. He may have been murdered by a cow on his way home from the meat - packing plant.

I stand corrected in the use of my words. Yes they were written by men, holy men of God that were moved by the holy spirit.

In other words they were inspired by God to write what God wanted them to write in the way in which He wanted them written.

God was the Author they were the writers.

So yes they were mens words but the words that men used to write were authored and given to the men so that they could write them.

If I were to quote your words "You need to firstly brush up on your grammar and then secondly ask yourself this question with the apostrophes in the correct places." I would be quoting you, your heart, your will, your belief, you in general. You Authored the above statement but I wrote it and quoted it.

So when men write what God inspires them to write they are writing the words but they are God's authored words, written by men inspired of God.

I think you get the point. I hope you do, because any one with a sane logical mind should be able to understand what I just wrote.


Pletho

Of course I understand what you are saying. What I find hard to comprehend is how a "sane logical mind" could come to such an unsubstantiated and indeed illogical conclusion.

Anybody can write anything and claim it to be the word of God. Indeed anybody can claim that another person's work is inspired by God. Such claims made by humans are fallible. How can you jump to such a conclusion about all 66 books. I feel that anybody with a logical and uncorrupted mind would not jump to such a conclusion but instead would look at the claim objectively and in doing so would see that it is completely unfounded.

lol another snide remark from Pletho. Surprise, surprise.

Good to know that God authored the words that tell us women are inferior to men. And he likes slavery too!

Where did you read that at?

Really?

You're denying the fact that the Bible tells us slavery is okay and women are inferior to men?

Devilset666 I honestly understand your doubt. I was at one time not so convinced in my beliefs. I did believe that there was a GOD and I believed that there was a man named Jesus Christ who supposedly was God's son. But as far as that I didn't know anything and the things in life that happened seemed to point to the fact that if GOD was there he didn't really care much about things going on here.

But what I learned since has opened my eyes to alot of things that I had never before even thought about.

I doubted that any one could have the truth. My reasoning was HOW does anyone know that what they believe is actually the one and only truth?

That was actually explained to me, but not in a forum because it took genuine sincere desire from me to really want an answer. And time to explain things.

People question the validity of Christianity and the things that are done under the guise of Christianity and they have a 100% right to be disgusted and somethings that are being done and have been done.

I did and still to this day see the majority of Chritians doing things that do not advance their cause but actually turn people off to Christianity and God and The Bible.

So again my point is that the anwers are there, it just takes someone who is willing enough to let down the walls around their heart and really listen to someone explain things. Without interruption. This is seldom done.

Sure questions can be asked but what seems to happen is that one question is asked and before that one is fully answered or resolved people want to move on to another question.

When it comes to understanding spiritual matters certain foundational principles have to be learned and then believed and built upon one after the other and as you move along anything added can only compliment the first principles.

This takes time and a willingness from two people to have a civil conversation which rarely happens in a forum.

Pletho

Show me in the bible where it says that slavery is okay and that women are inferior to men. I would like to see those exact words please.

im not surprised you would say this. youre a ****ing idiot that is clueless about real world matters...such as the unreliability of eyewitness testimoy. study after study has shown eye witness testimoy to be extremely unreliable. take a Psych 101 course for ****s sake.

or read http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html

or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification
"Eyewitness identification evidence is the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States."

or http://www.nynd-fpd.org/evidence/rel...0testimony.pdf

there are literally hundreds of studies showing how stupid you are splendour.

Yes but without motive and circumstances and witnesses you've got no case. Physical evidence can be tampered with and God didn't supply just one witness he supplied multiple ones. Paul even says God witnessed himself (when the dove descended on Jesus the witnesses heard God say "This is my Son with whom I'm well pleased" (Matt 3:17). So you have a dual witness: spiritual (God) and natural (men).

If you're actually serious then I can only assume that you hear only what you want to hear, and no matter how many versus from the Bible I post you will still somehow suggest it doesn't say the things it does.

Google search the bible and slavery and the bible and women and you'll find a lot of versus supporting what I'm saying. I'm not going to waste my time over something that is akin to saying, "show me in the bible where it say God created the world."

I really could care less if you agree with my opinion or not but its based on experience while yours is mostly wishful thinking to win an argument you're biased about.

I've worked in prosecution, taken a criminal investigations course from a certified crime scene investigator and also a criminal law course from a County Public Defender.

Yes people lie. But that only reinforces the bible's contention that the nature of man is corrupt.

Still you build cases around motive, witnesses and evidence. You don't isolate on physical evidence alone anyone that goes to a movie can tell you that. The whole point is to get as much evidence as possible to get a clear picture of what happened. No cherrypicking allowed.

Not one word of this explains the "alternative" to logic and reasoning that you claimed the religious use. In fact, you are implying that you use you reasoning to analyze the Bible etc etc, which is the opposite of what you claimed earlier.

You only build cases around witnesses because it's extremely convincing to juries, despite being consistently demonstrated to be inaccurate. How could you work in prosecution and not know this? (I guess because prosecutors delude themselves into thinking this is not the case).

NO.

You have to establish motive. DNA doesn't do that.

Are you seriously this dense? I am talking about which method for gathering evidence is the most reliable, not which works best with a jury. Nothing in my last post was factually inaccurate, so a giant "NO" seems a little odd as a response.

This is sloppy over generalizing.

You stick all witnesses in the same category. They're not they are individuals.

Obv some people are much more reliable than others. They pay attention more and have closer proximity to what actually happened and many have better hearing and/or memories than others.

Greenleaf's assesses the Apostle's witness in The Testimony of the Evangelist and finds them highly reliable when he originally set out thinking he'd disprove the Gospels.

But even without Greenleaf we can form our own impressions.

I said witness testimony is not very RELIABLE. This implies that it's a trend that I'm referring to, not an absolute rule. What role did you play in assisting prosecutors?

Gawd, everything that comes out of your mouth is false. Motive is not an element that needs to be proven in any crime. That's only in TV land. The fact that you supposedly worked in the field and do not know this is frightening.

And just keep on spouting your drivel about apostles, testimony, and Greenleaf, even though that's all been proven to you to be ******ed before (starting at post 80).

LOL