Quote Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV View Post
Well, one could argue that.

How many popes would have disagreed with you?

How many priests?

Not to mention all believers in history.

"True" <- sorry, but that is just laughable.
All of them until fairly recently, then the Pope became infallible and now you don't have to accept all the minor points of doctrine to be saved.

Anyway, I have hardly ever heard anyone today say you have to believe the earth is 6,000 years old to be saved. Remember, I was talking about saving principles. They might not be correct to think the earth is not 6,000 years old, but it doesn't mean they can't be a Christian, it's just a minor flaw.

Quote Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV View Post
Sure, it follows the modern style of the christian belief. As the believers kind of had to agree science was correct after being intellectualy smacked around for some couple of hundred years.

But, and this is a huuuge but... Some of us, like me, respects Zain much more than the type of Christians you represent.

He has (or rather had) the guts to stand up against science because of his belief, while main stream christians retreat step by step when proved wrong.

One wonders how many steps it will take before the whole house falls in on itself

I agree with Zains initial post. Either you believe in the bible, all of it, or you do not. The bible should not be some "pick and choose whatever parts you like".
Well this makes a pleasant change, normally I'm the crazy fundamentalist round here.

You should really read some of my discussions with Phillipvs. Firstly, you will see I'm not a liberal Christian; but if you read his points you will also see that fundementalism as we see it with US Evangelicals today is not the 'original Christianity', it's a very modern phenomenon and if you look at the earliest Christians, they never had the Bible (or at least the NT) at all!