Well, I should say, my COMMENT that was too long to actually submit on BorgLord's Blog, How Do I Know?. It was really in response to the comment thread and not to BorgLord's Post. I don't care if he is an atheist. I do care that "fighters" see everything as an opportunity to engage in what they love: THE FIGHT.
Do nonbelievers come to believe when fighters fight and argue? I think it's counter productive. Knowing that fighting to convince someone of your point of view, even if you just KNOW that God would agree with you, only turns them off from what you are trying to get them to believe, means that your only goal in arguing is to FIGHT. Sometimes I want to fight. =P But, to do it as a representative of God, makes me against God. Right? Wanna fight?
I did post two or three sentences from the last paragraph on the comment section.
"Faith is the evidence of things NOT seen. Science is man trying to understand the physical or the things seen, or observed. I think it's wrong to use the Bible as a science text or to tweak scientific observations based on its literal translation.
Those who argue that the bible is the word of God have to admit that it was physically penned by men who had limited scientific knowledge. The message to them was not one of science. Even if that message was of science, they would not have understood. They would have a roach-like understanding.
I love the synagogue-explanation of trying to explain creation/evolution: "It would be like trying to explain the internet to a roach." Humans have such limited knowledge before the Creator. Imagine the roach trying to explain how the internet works to other roaches. There wouldn't be comprehension so an accurate picture wouldn't be shared.
An example: in the bible it says that the earth stands still and it can not be moved. For years that made good scientists, ones that admitted to belief in a heliocentric solar system, "heretics." That type of literal translation stunts us.
Recently, a lady stood up during a lecture by Bill Nye and shouted, "We believe in God!" because he said that the moon (the lesser of the two lights) was not actually a light source, but a reflectant.
I think that if you want science (physical) to line up with or prove your faith (things not seen) it's a sign that you have no faith, unless you think that the message of the bible was one of science. I don't let "the inspired word," as shared by humans thousands of years ago, dictate my understanding of modern day science."