Replies

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The leaders of the day laughed Jesus to scorn.

The whole problem is that the infidels are working from the perspective that anything outside of Scripture that they have investigated themselves is true. It's the same old argument that when there's a conflict between *science* and Scripture, that science is by default correct and Scripture is wrong. That's presuming, with no basis, that what mankind has discovered outside of Scripture is true and right, when we've all been told often enough, that truth has no place in science.

There's simply no reason to assume that *science* is right and Scripture is wrong by default, except the desire is to make out parts of Scripture to be a lie so as to make all of it out to be a lie.

There are people in every avenue of life who don't know what they're talking about and are an embarrassment to who or what they represent, science included. After all, you guys have Dawkins representing you and the people who have written the articles which ECO has been posting to show what your history is.

But to blame the occasional person who is a bad representative of Christianity for the infidel not believing is just blame shifting and intellectually dishonest. It also does not say much for the intellectual prowess of the infidel if he can't distinguish between the message and the messenger.

Anyone who rejects Christianity because of the behavior of or intellectual ability of a person who calls themselves a Christian, is just looking for an excuse to reject it.