So potentially two generations later. You can understand how non-believers can be sceptical about the accuracy of these texts. Hey I get that it's a matter of "faith" in believing these stories. But to me by using that logic any story can be true if you have faith in it. Why for example are scientologists considered crazy for believing what they believe, it was written down after all. Yet it's apparently not as crazy to believe a dude walked on water, turned water into wine, fed 4-5k people with a few loaves of bread/couple of fish and came back from the dead. What I'm saying is, let's say I'm a potential religious convert, what makes one religion more legitimate then another (genuine question)?Originally Posted by joel31
Reply With Quote