Starboy

Rational BAC, pointing out parts of the bible that you considered flawed or errant to atheists is like taking coal to Newcastle. What interests me is what makes you only consider the bible as the source of knowledge about your faith when you claim that the Holy Spirit guides you in interpreting it. Couldn’t that same Holy Spirit guide you to holy knowledge where ever it may be, even in the yellow pages?

Starboy

Rational BAC

Sorry--------------

The Yellow Pages just does not cut it as a spiritual advisor.

Unless you happen to believe that capitalism is a religion in and of itself.

Starboy

So the Holy Spirit doesn't guide you when you cherry pick from the bible?

Starboy

Rational BAC

Ricomese---

This is a reply to a very old post. That I just noticed.
No. I have never been there.-----------I am on the Pinellas side so don't always keep up with Tampa doings.

Besides, I am such an old phart that I probably would not fit in anyway.

Abel Stable

How do you know this "Holy Spirit" is guiding you? It could be one of the fabricated parts of the Bible.

Mageth

Anyway Christianity is #1 by a large margin.

Islam is #2--------but not even a close #2

Not that important, perhaps, but if current trends continue, Islam is projected to overtake Xianity sometimes this century, perhaps in the next 50 years.

See here.

Rational BAC

Abel --------that is a faith thing

Something that theists and non-theists could never agree on. Apples and oranges you know. Not worth arguing about since there is no tangible result from it.
------------------------------------------------------------------

OK here is another one I have some problem with.

The virgin birth-------

-------I can live with that. Kind of a neat thing really. God impregnates Man (or actually woman). And the issue is half man half God-------------When you think about it, that is one of the great drawing powers of Christianity. (Not that the Romans and Greeks didn't do that one too.)

But afterwards------------I disagree strongly with the Catholic position that Mary was forever a virgin.

Come on ---give me a break here. Obviously Mary eventually "did it " with Joseph. Hormones and wanting NOT to have an only child must have had its way. So Jesus did have brothers ----------which is well documented in the Bible.

That is OK by me. If a demi-God (which is what Jesus was) came down to Earth to experience all of the conditions of man-------------then of course He would have siblings.-------------if nothing else, then just to live a normal "human" though internally Godly existence. Which was the whole point I suppose of Jesus's time on Earth.

Mageth

Tercel posted, a couple of pages ago:

Literally speaking: Is there anything good those other religions have got which Christianity ain't got already?

He also posted:

1. Just because we reject the snake story as literally false does not mean we reject the doctrine of the Fall.

There's one thing - not all religions, thank Gog, include the concept of fallen, corrupt man.

2. No one denies the sinfulness of man so even were we to reject the doctrine of the Fall we could still posit a need for Christ.

Another, related thing - not all religions have the good/evil dichotomy (considering them complementary aspects of the same existence), or denigrate man as being inherently sinful and thus falling on the "evil" side unless Christ is applied. Further, some religions (Buddhism) see the Christ, or Buddha, as within you, accessible by you for your own enlightenment - not as some external force or being to which one must submit.

Of course we do: Logic. If we accept that Christianity is in general the most true religion (for whatever reason we find justifies this) then we can apply a few truckloads of logic to arrive at various levels of certainty regarding the different Christian teachings.

Here's another thing. Buddhism, in particular, teaches that all paths to enlightenment, if taken correctly, can lead one to a fulfilled, "enlightened" life - to a realization of the Buddha, or of the Christ, within you. There is no "most true religion."

A logical combination of the authority of the Church,...

Another thing. Buddhism, again, leads one to self-realization, and generally rejects the notion of an "authority" such as a church.

And that's just a selection. Other differences are out there - such as the concept that God is not an extant being in "heaven" that passes down laws and meddles in human affairs, but a man-created personification of the universal truths of man's condition.

Mageth

The virgin birth-------

-------I can live with that. Kind of a neat thing really. God impregnates Man (or actually woman). And the issue is half man half God-------------When you think about it, that is one of the great drawing powers of Christianity. (Not that the Romans and Greeks didn't do that one too.)

Romans, Greeks, Hindus....the virgin birth and/or man/god motif appears in many world religions.

Starboy

Rational BAC, your name makes presumptions about you that do not hold up to scrutiny. Here is the problem in a nut shell. The bible is a document that makes claims about reality. Some of the claims even you admit don't make sense based on what we know about reality. One of its major claims is that there are supernatural constructs such as heaven, hell, angels, god, demons, holy spirit and so forth. None of these things that are claimed to be real stand up to the standards of reality that we use today. You may think it is rational to accept these constructs as real, but to do so only on faith is not rational. The fact that you cherry pick the bible is of little consequence, the fact that you take any of the supernatural claims on faith is of consequence especially in the light that you accept them to be real using only faith. IMO you aren't much different than the fundies you seem to hold in contempt, the quibble is only over the particular bits of supernatural nonsense you are willing to take on faith.

Starboy