Big RR wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2024 2:13 pm
Well, I haven't made a study of it
Did you click and listen to the link that Scooter provided? I believe it showed that women are more likely to be attacked by men than by bears. Given the difference in territory, I think that it's of no relevance to argue that women don't meet up with bears, or that most bears and most men don't attack anyone.
If you take a look at the Appalachian trail (where bears and humans travel), it's a fact that women are less likely to be attacked by bears than by men. (It's also true that men are less likely to be attacked by bears than by another man (or two). And you might argue a woman is more likely to meet a man or two on the trail than ever see a bear. Fair enough.
Even so, in thinking experimentally, I deduce that in a bear's natural habitat, I'd rather meet a bear than a stranger. And in a non-bear habitat, I'd probably still rather meet a bear because they are less deadly - because they are less intentional about it.
I also deduce that I'm going to avoid a bear's natural habitat because I don't want to try it IRL. As I would avoid many obviously risky places of human activity . . .
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts