Siegswife,
>>How can you assert that the sources that you use are facts?<<
All sources use the same facts. Facts are facts. They are only interpreted differently.
>>Did you come to these conclusions by your own physical research into these things, or are you basing your assumptions upon the research of others?<<
All research is built from the research of others. You weed out the wheat from the chaff by objectively examining all sides of an issue an selecting the position which best fits the universally accepted facts.
>>If you didn't actually do the research (other than reviewing the research of others) aren't you putting your faith in the words of others also?<<
Not really because other's research can be verified. The facts that I value the most are usually universally accepted - that means that both sides accept the validity of the fact. It is only the interpretation of the facts that must fit. This is difficult to figure out objectively without honestly researching all sides of an issue. This argument does not give your side any support anyway.
>>Can you provide me with irrefutable facts that are based on your own observations and arrived at AFTER you have a complete understanding of that which you are refuting (the Bible)? <<
I don't suppose there is anything that is irrefutable. There are only varying degrees of likelihood. After objectively looking at the data and calculating the likelihood of certain interpretations of facts, a position can be taken. I know many facts about the Bible. Do I have a complete understanding of the Bible? Probably not. Neither do you. I understand it fully as a creation of man - you see it as a creation of god. I say the facts are in my favor.
>>How can you disprove something if you don't fully understand it?
I don't have to understand every theological argument to see that most of the books of the bible were not written by their namesakes. Do you need to completely understand the Book of Mormon to disprove it? I think not.
>>Why should I be first to prove the basis of my faith if you can't first provide the basis of yours? <<
We have provided the basis of our understanding. It is not based on faith but evidence. This has been shown countless times in previous posts. Never have we seen the same from Christians. Why are you afraid of discussing factual information and evidence? There is no fear on the non-Christian side.
>>Why should I have to read the writings of other men to understand your position? <<
You don’t, but you will see more detail and be shown references to look up the facts yourself if you do. You don’t need to take my word for it, the information is out there.
>>If I don't believe the words of other men, aren't I being more skeptical and inclined to want REAL proof more than you? <<
What is real proof to you? What make the words of the men you do believe better than mine? Because they “feel” right? You don’t know what being skeptical is. You can’t be skeptical if you don’t at least look at the other side of the coin. You are confusing skepticism with stubbornness.
>>It appears to me that we ALL base our beliefs on just that - belief. How are you different than me in that respect? <<
There are beliefs based on facts and there are beliefs based on myth. That is the difference.
>>Do you claim to have a complete knowledge of the Bible, as your starting point, that you can then disprove it? <<
I know enough to know that it is false. Ask yourself the same question regarding the Book of Mormon, or the Koran.
>>And are you claiming that you have FACTS that have not been otherwise refuted by other secular sources?<<
I certainly have facts in which people have unsuccessfully tried to refute. There are others that are not so clear cut, but are still very convincing. Those are not really facts, though, but interpretations of facts. I think it’s a good thing that people try to refute things. It keeps us all honest.
rem
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell