Hi Dragan,

>>Well, when you begin to examine the teaching about God's sovereignity you are absolutely correct. Given He made the universe I suppose He has the right to decide what to do with it and those in it. That He would choose to give us life when we fully deserve death - after totally screwing up our priviledge of choice is astounding to me. The pot has no right to argue with the potter.
>
>Pot is not self aware. The comparison is flawed. And then, "deserve death" by whose criteria? Human or divine? OTOH, the whole idea of dying when you deserve it may be entirely wrong, if he actually doesn't care, or doesn't exactly watch everything at all times. IOW, you can't know how much of the scripture is right, and how much was added by priests in latter centuries.

Well, I'd disagree. The point of view is from the maker of the pot. IOW, sovreignity is not dependent upon our approval.. <g> Why some die when from our POV they do not deserve it is a mystery, no doubt. When we lost our 6 year old a few years back I certainly asked that question. I came to the conclusion that I probably would never know in this life the full scope.. I can accept that.

As far as knowing the accuracy, or internal integrity, of the scriptures I would point you to Josh McDowell's book, "Evidence That Demands a Verdict". There is a science of studying documents and the Bible is the most accurate of any ancient set of manuscripts when you apply this science to it.

>
>>>I'd rather discuss the matters over a dark (see my taglines). Know of someone who'd pay well to an old Fox in your area?
>>
>>Well, while I have never cultivated a taste for alcohol I am led to believe that there are some very good breweries around here. I guess that's why I'm always the designated driver.. <g>
>
>I'm also not much of a drinker. I drink very little, but when I do, I want something really good. That's why I usually go for European brews, or a local brewery.

Well, the offer stands. Should you ever get this way I'd be honored to drive you to one.. <g>

>
>>>Logic is just an empiric set of rules of thinking. It gives you a way to know when you're about to come to a conclusion which can be proven wrong by other means as well.
>>
>>Sure, but my point was that man has limited his 'scope' here..
>
>Logic is just the way of thinking, according to formal rules discovered, more or less, by ancient Greeks, as formulated by Aristoteles. You may choose to use it or not in any given occasion.

Sure. My point is that mankind has limited himself by insisting that he be able to view everything this way. What I'm suggesting is that this: If there is a God and He is infinite (a part of the definition <g>) then it is plain that there will be knowledge, logic and understanding betond the scope of finite thinking beings. The flaw is presuming that because we can know something that this is the same as thinking we can know everything.

>
>>Dogmas do not need logic but to use these as a justification to tell people, "Just believe, do not ask questions" is IMO flawed at best.
>
>But that's where they fail, when they "use these as a justification to tell people" - at some point, they have to skip a logical fallacy, or to demand from the audience to take something for granted. But then, the agents of spreading were always chosen among those who have a way with words.
>
>>Well, this whole issue about a "leap of faith" is something of a false choice. I have never been asked to believe something that was irrational.
>
>Taking a note here and leaving it for later.
>
>>Let me give you an example. In the Old Testament there are some 300 +/- specific prophetic utterances concerning the first coming of Christ. If memory serves having only 8 of these happen as predicted was the equivilent of hollowing out the Earth's crust, filling it with silver dollars, marking a single silver dollar, blindfolding someone and having them take one pick from the entire group and getting the right coin.
>
>You mean, the probability for each one was infinitesimal?

No, statistics, as I understand them, do not work that way. It would probably be more accurate to say something like this: "Having 8 prophetic statements come true; the odds of the ninth also coming true would be [the statistical number goes here]." IOW, you have to determine the chance of the next one.

I have a buddy who knows the formula. I'll get it if you like.

>
>>Now, after looking at these several prophecies at some point it becomes absurd not to believe as the numbers are so overwhelming. That's what I was meaning; issues such as this.
>
>All of that, of course, assuming the prophecies were unaltered, and the record of them is really older than the event they predict :)

Sure but that's been proven. One example. In the book of Isaiah, which predates the birth of Jesus as determined by the 1948 'find' at Qumran by the shepard boy, points to several of these prophetical statements. BTW, A fellow by the name of Josephus, a non-believing Jewish historian also wrote of these events. The point being that there are so many 3rd party supporting documents there is no doubt that what we read is essentially what the authors wrote - barring minor typographical and cultural issues.

>
>>>OK, back to the point of logic being applied to dogma: how many people has god created?
>>
>>I wouldn't have a clue as to how many God has created - unless you mean the issue of the GHarden of Eden. Two in that case.
>I never heard of other cases being mentioned, that's why I'm asking (plus the intention to show what happens when you apply logic). Anyway, if there were only these two, how many children did they have, and how did the whole population come into being?

Well remember that the gene pool at that point would have been entirely clear/clean so borthers and sisters marrying wouldn't produce the problems we now see. Additionally what most folks fail to understand is that the record in the Bible has never been intended to be comprehensive; only a genealogy of the blood line of Christ, which is an interesting study in itself. As people lived much longer and presumably they were of a healthier stock than we are it isn't hard to think that a woman would have many many children. Goodness knows we have records of some women giving birth to 12 or 17 children, and that's with what we consider a normal lifespan. Whay not 50 or 75 if you live to be 5-600 years old? The numbers get pretty big very quickly so there wouldn't be any problems.