Do you believe in miracles?

[ThisYouWillDo]

Tom

Maybe it's because the words came from the mouth of Judas and it is to be expected that an arch-villain like him would attack Christianity: they didn't take it seriously.

TYWD

[TomOfSweden]

Tom

Maybe it's because the words came from the mouth of Judas and it is to be expected that an arch-villain like him would attack Christianity: they didn't take it seriously.

TYWD

Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar is a bit different than "life of Christ" interpretations generally are. His is the voice of reason. What reason did he have to believe Jesus was the son of God? All he had was his word. Judas is the main narrator of the story. We're supposed to identify with Judas. So by coming from his lips, these words are intended to be the thoughts of the onlooker, which makes it so much stronger!

I'm sure that's why Judas is black. The director assumed that racist people are also the same dogmatic idiots who cannot reconcile the idea of reinterpretations of the Bible. By making Judas black, it'll go right over their narrow minded barely functioning heads. Maybe that's why nobody reacted. It's a theory.

I love it BTW. It's the singing and music. I'm not really interested in critique or attacks on Biblical myths. Why bother? Musicals rock!

Maybe I'm a screaming queen at heart... Maybe I'm so far into the closet I don't even notice I'm in it!

[TomOfSweden]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...7d6fa5b5839854

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...c6d8d43fa3d60e

Here's two reports linking belief in the paranormal, (like being a Christian for example) and witnessing miracles with predisposition for schizophrenia.

So if you've met God, you might want to get yourself checked.

For me it wasn't a surprise. Schizophrenics see things that aren't there and religious people see things, I'm convinced aren't there either. Sounds pretty similar, doesn't it?

[ThisYouWillDo]

I wondered why He and I are so alike!

[rabbit111]

There are miracles around us every day if only we take the time to notice. The things I feel and the joy that we experience in our lives every day is a miracle. Can you wander along a street and see a miracle? I can and do every single day.
How can you not look at the wonder in a childs eyes and not see a miracle. To see the love that people feel for each other reflected in their eyes and smiles, surely that's a miracle of all. Don't listen to the media and all those who tell us what's wrong with our world and our loves, instead open your own eyes, see things for yourself and enjoy the thousands of miracles that surround you every single moment.
It's all in the way you look at life. I feel sorry for those who don't see miracles.

[TomOfSweden]

There are miracles around us every day if only we take the time to notice. The things I feel and the joy that we experience in our lives every day is a miracle. Can you wander along a street and see a miracle? I can and do every single day.
How can you not look at the wonder in a childs eyes and not see a miracle. To see the love that people feel for each other reflected in their eyes and smiles, surely that's a miracle of all. Don't listen to the media and all those who tell us what's wrong with our world and our loves, instead open your own eyes, see things for yourself and enjoy the thousands of miracles that surround you every single moment.
It's all in the way you look at life. I feel sorry for those who don't see miracles.

I totally agree, but the thread is rather about the supposed supernatural origin of those miracles.

[ThisYouWillDo]

In a godless universe (multiverse?) there is only one miracle: chance.

[Thorne]

It's all in the way you look at life. I feel sorry for those who don't see miracles.

I'm much more comfortable seeing reality than trying to visualize things that aren't there. Don't feel sorry for me, though. I feel sorry for those who try to block out reality by sentimental musings and pseudo religious visions. Sooner or later the real world will break through and knock them for a loop.

[markus_valtion]

i do believe in miracles. i would be dead if they didnt exsist.
i have had so many close calls in my life. but to me its not god that makes them.
its weird but i believe that something or someone is watching over me.

[TomOfSweden]

In a godless universe (multiverse?) there is only one miracle: chance.

Isn't that a bit narrow definition of Miracle? How about miracles as "the incomprehensible"?

[Thorne]

i do believe in miracles. i would be dead if they didnt exsist.
i have had so many close calls in my life. but to me its not god that makes them.
its weird but i believe that something or someone is watching over me.

I hear this kind of thing all the time after some sort of catastrophe. Something happens and someone doesn't get killed and right away they claim it's a miracle, that they prayed and God saved them. So why didn't God save the other 29 people who died that day? I'm sure they were praying, too.

No, I'm with TYWD on this one. (Talk about MIRACLES!!!) Chance plays a much larger roll in our lives than any of us want to admit. Miracles let us assume that we have at least some form of control: if we pray hard enough, or lead good lives, or do SOMETHING, then we'll be protected. Chance is completely beyond our control. It either hits you or it doesn't.

[Thorne]

Isn't that a bit narrow definition of Miracle? How about miracles as "the incomprehensible"?

No, incomprehensible means just that: we cannot comprehend it. That doesn't make it a miracle. Just unknown.

The Bible claims that Jesus walked on water, and proclaims it a miracle. A thousand years later if someone walked on water they would be executed as a witch. Now, if you see that it's probably David Blaine. Where's the miracle?

[ThisYouWillDo]

I'll stick with "chance".

Assuming a multiverse, it's inevitable that this universe would have come into being. Assuming a universe, the chances of everything falling into place the way they did are mind-boggling (but not impossible), and it does tend to make you wonder if there's a place for a higher power.

TYWD

(And I think Thorne's a perectly reasonable man when he sees things my way! But I'm sure I just alienated him.)

[Thorne]

Assuming a multiverse, it's inevitable that this universe would have come into being. Assuming a universe, the chances of everything falling into place the way they did are mind-boggling (but not impossible), and it does tend to make you wonder if there's a place for a higher power.

Why? As you state, there HAS to be a universe, or we couldn't be here. But it didn't HAVE to turn out this way. If it were different, then we would be different, or at least beings in that universe would be different. And they would undoubtedly be standing around wondering how they could have gotten so lucky to have the universe turn out perfectly to suit them!

No, chance plays its part, but it is WE who are attuned to this universe, not the other way around. If it is possible for life to exist on a world without water (and that means ANY kind of life, not just life as we know it) then there is a possibility for that life to advance to a point of intelligence, or what we would recognize as intelligence. Their universe would be much different than ours, but it's still the same "multiverse."

(And I think Thorne's a perectly reasonable man when he sees things my way! But I'm sure I just alienated him.)

Alienated? Not at all! You're right: I am a perfectly reasonable man when you see things my way. I also happen to be a perfectly reasonable man when you DON'T see things my way.

By damn, that makes me perfect! Where are all the ladies?

[Thorne]

You know, I just thought of a way to put it. Let's say that 29 people take a test but only two pass. Just like 29 people boarded a train that crashes and only two survive. Why only two? The other people prayed the other people studied. My answer is that only the two people who understood the rule survived or passed the test. If you don't understand that 2 + 2 =4 you won't ever pass but the rule was always true and always there. If you don't understand that God governs every moment and that you are spiritual and not material then you will have to learn that lesson another way. Jesus prooved that there is no death and so the 26 who passed on did just that; they didn't die just passed on. They awoke to realize that death never touched them, that they did not get off at a station called death. Did God love them any less? No. Does your math teacher love you any less? No.

Okay, I'm going to jump in with both feet here, and the hell with the consequences.
Is it possible that only two people passed the test because the teacher (God) grades on the curve? Chances are my math teacher doesn't love me, or care how I do, as long as his statistics show he's doing a good job. (And by the way, I know my math: two survivors plus 26 who passed on makes only 28 people! WHERE'S THAT LAST ONE HIDING???)

Do you honestly believe that a God who would destroy peoples lives, or allow peoples lives to be destroyed, is worthy of any kind of adoration? A God who inflicts vile diseases upon innocent children? A God who seems to have absolutely no pity for some people who try their damndest to please him? Is it possible that you can truly believe that those people who don't do or act precisely the way YOU think they should act can not be saved?

No, a loving and merciful God, which all those preachers claim he is, wouldn't give a rip HOW we worship, or even IF we worship. He would only be concerned with how we LIVE! How we use the life he gave us. Using your math analogy, when the teacher gives you a complex problem, the good teachers don't really care HOW you get to the solution, so long as you get there. The bad teachers require you to get there in only one way, and if you don't, you fail, regardless of whether or not you got the right answer!

And as for Jesus rising from the dead, I challenge you, or anyone else for that matter, to show me positive evidence, which doesn't ultimately arise from the Bible or the teachings of his disciples, that Jesus even existed, much less rose from the dead. It's my understanding that it can't be done: there is no evidence anywhere, except in the Bible, that the Jesus portrayed in the Bible actually existed. Hell, even the Bible contradicts itself about far too many important portions of his supposed life. There is ample independent evidence that Pilate existed, and Herod, and even Caiphus, the high priest. But there is nothing independent to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was ever tried, convicted or crucified.

I would guess this is going to piss off a lot of people, but I don't care anymore. This "holier-than-thou" attitude really drives me up the wall. And it's not just Christians. There are very few, if any, religions which accept the idea that other religions can be just as right as their own. And they are all based on suppositions, stories, fables and outright lies. The world would be a whole lot better place without all those religions fighting one another.

I've got it! Let's send all the priests/ministers/rabbis/mullahs out to battle one another. And may none of them come back alive.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I agree with Thorne almost entirely, but I would prefer to think that a good Maths teacher would care little about whether the final answer was right, so long as the correct method was used to solve the problem, while a bad teacher wouldn't care about your understanding if you guessed the answer correctly.

I have always wondered why a god needs to be worshipped and praised. Does it make him feel good? Is there a heavenly opinion poll carrried out each week to see if Jehovah is more popular than Shiva, Vishnu, or Jupiter.

It also seems to me that a "jealous" god is probably also a very insecure god, and his motives are suspect, especially if he tries to "buy" adoration by promising one particular race of people preferential treatment over all others.

And why do we have to "deserve" salvation, when our imperfections are of his making? I am at a loss to understand why, if they prayed and studied, god would desert your 26 or 27 failed mathematicians in their moment of need. That certainly goes against what many Christian preachers suggest.


TYWD

[ThisYouWillDo]

Why? As you state, there HAS to be a universe, or we couldn't be here. But it didn't HAVE to turn out this way. If it were different, then we would be different, or at least beings in that universe would be different. And they would undoubtedly be standing around wondering how they could have gotten so lucky to have the universe turn out perfectly to suit them!

No, chance plays its part, but it is WE who are attuned to this universe, not the other way around. If it is possible for life to exist on a world without water (and that means ANY kind of life, not just life as we know it) then there is a possibility for that life to advance to a point of intelligence, or what we would recognize as intelligence. Their universe would be much different than ours, but it's still the same "multiverse."

You're mixing universes and multiverses up. But I understand what you say. Life may be very common in this universe, and if it had come into existence in another way, life forms might still have been tenable. But it seems far more probable that it would have been absolutely sterile. For that reason alone it is not surprising that we think we see the hand of some greater being at work.

With a multiverse, there will be countless numbers of universes each having its own separate existence and its own set of scientific laws. It seems likely to me that many, many of them will support life in one form or another, but that many, many, many more will be utterly devoid of anything even remotely resembling life. The Hand of God will not be so obvious.

By damn, that makes me perfect! Where are all the ladies?

Sitting at my feet with rapt adoration.

TYWD

[Thorne]

You're mixing universes and multiverses up. But I understand what you say. Life may be very common in this universe, and if it had come into existence in another way, life forms might still have been tenable. But it seems far more probable that it would have been absolutely sterile. For that reason alone it is not surprising that we think we see the hand of some greater being at work.

I don't think this is accurate. More and more, scientists are finding that life seems to thrive under absolutely horrible conditions. There is evidence that life may have existed on Mars, even if it doesn't now, and there MAY possibly be life on some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Even here on Earth they have found life existing in environments which, just 30 years ago, they would have assumed to be sterile.
My point is, though, that just because man is the only intelligent species on the planet (as defined by ourselves: I'm not forgetting the cetaceans or other apes) we should not make the assumption that there must have been a higher being to create us. If that asteroid hadn't wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, is it possible that a saurian intelligence could have arisen here, rather than mammalian?
Let's face it: so far, 100% of the stellar systems we are able to study have intelligent life. The odds are good that there is more out there, somewhere, and it doesn't have to be mammalian or saurian or even carbon-based.

By damn, that makes me perfect! Where are all the ladies?
Sitting at my feet with rapt adoration.

Hmm, I guess I'll have to bring myself down to your level, then.

[Thorne]

Well shit Thorne I don't know I was just playing devils advocate. I'm as atheist as they come. That's the religion I grew up with. I think if there is a God then I would worship this God because he is not the creator of sin, sickness and death. That means he never did anything on earth that you claim as it does not exist. I don't even believe in God at all. I just have to live with the fact that those three experiences are beyond explanation. You weren't there for any of them so you don't understand but still you want to say fuck God then fuck him, who cares, he doesn't exist anyway. I bet you didn't peg me for atheist huh? I believe in evolution that makes more since to me.

Well, DAMN, Pro Dom, you had me going there. I'm from the dead center of the Bible belt and I've heard local nuts who weren't as eloquent about there religion as you seemed to be. The last thing they need is a Devil's advocate. In fact, that's the last thing they would want!

[TomOfSweden]

No, incomprehensible means just that: we cannot comprehend it. That doesn't make it a miracle. Just unknown.

The Bible claims that Jesus walked on water, and proclaims it a miracle. A thousand years later if someone walked on water they would be executed as a witch. Now, if you see that it's probably David Blaine. Where's the miracle?

That wasn't convincing. I still don't see a difference. All religious miracles are not only of unknown origin but also undetectable. How more unknown do you want to get?!?

[ThisYouWillDo]

Thorne.

I don't believe there is evidence of life outside Earth, whether past or present. There are indications that life as we know it is/was/might be possible, but no hard and fast evidence.

That said, my point is, while life might be abundant in a universe that permits life to exist, and it would be surprising that no life ever evolved in such circumstances, it seems far more probable that a universe that comes into existence purely by chance will produce conditions that are inimical to all life forms.

TYWD

[ThisYouWillDo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOx...elated&search=

This time Dawkins is having a go at science. Beside being interesting I think It's extremely funny. Among other things he defends belief in miracles. But it's not really about religion so I guess it's just a side note.

I've just come across Tom's post on another thread and thought it'd be an interesting side-note here too.

[TomOfSweden]

I've just come across Tom's post on another thread and thought it'd be an interesting side-note here too.

Good repost. That's one of those classical speeches that will go down in history as one of the most important ones ever. Dawkins may not be the best philosopher in the world, (I'm thinking about the God Delusion), but nobody can criticize him for his absolute understanding of science and it's limits. He's a king.

[wmrs2]

I agree with Thorne that the miracles of our forebearers can be almost entirely explained through scientific inquiry. As Arthur Clarke wrote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Knowing why a rainbow happens does not lessen its beauty. In fact, I think knowing the enormous odds of not only our planet developing in such a way to sustain life but the fact that you (individual) exist, is pretty darn miraculous. Is it the hand of G*d? In my opinion, it doesn't matter. I'm just thankful to have people like you in my life.

Well said Euryeia. To a cave man fire is a miracle. A greater miracle is that the cave man understands by rubbing sticks together fire is made. Knowing what to do with the fire is even a greater miracle. Understanding the scientific method is also a miracle. Finding faith is God is a miracle. Knowing how to make man's situation better by using God is a greater miracle. The amount of evil in the world does not mean we should not believe in God. It does mean we need to use God better just like the cave man learned to cook food with fire and warm himself. Let's do that with God. Let's use him better, as He is a process and the way. To not believe in God because everything does not go our way may not be real smart.

[wmrs2]

Okay, I'm going to jump in with both feet here, and the hell with the consequences.
Is it possible that only two people passed the test because the teacher (God) grades on the curve? Chances are my math teacher doesn't love me, or care how I do, as long as his statistics show he's doing a good job. (And by the way, I know my math: two survivors plus 26 who passed on makes only 28 people! WHERE'S THAT LAST ONE HIDING???)

Do you honestly believe that a God who would destroy peoples lives, or allow peoples lives to be destroyed, is worthy of any kind of adoration? A God who inflicts vile diseases upon innocent children? A God who seems to have absolutely no pity for some people who try their damndest to please him? Is it possible that you can truly believe that those people who don't do or act precisely the way YOU think they should act can not be saved?

No, a loving and merciful God, which all those preachers claim he is, wouldn't give a rip HOW we worship, or even IF we worship. He would only be concerned with how we LIVE! How we use the life he gave us. Using your math analogy, when the teacher gives you a complex problem, the good teachers don't really care HOW you get to the solution, so long as you get there. The bad teachers require you to get there in only one way, and if you don't, you fail, regardless of whether or not you got the right answer!

And as for Jesus rising from the dead, I challenge you, or anyone else for that matter, to show me positive evidence, which doesn't ultimately arise from the Bible or the teachings of his disciples, that Jesus even existed, much less rose from the dead. It's my understanding that it can't be done: there is no evidence anywhere, except in the Bible, that the Jesus portrayed in the Bible actually existed. Hell, even the Bible contradicts itself about far too many important portions of his supposed life. There is ample independent evidence that Pilate existed, and Herod, and even Caiphus, the high priest. But there is nothing independent to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was ever tried, convicted or crucified.

I would guess this is going to piss off a lot of people, but I don't care anymore. This "holier-than-thou" attitude really drives me up the wall. And it's not just Christians. There are very few, if any, religions which accept the idea that other religions can be just as right as their own. And they are all based on suppositions, stories, fables and outright lies. The world would be a whole lot better place without all those religions fighting one another.

I've got it! Let's send all the priests/ministers/rabbis/mullahs out to battle one another. And may none of them come back alive.

Thorne, it is a highly emotional use of logic to blame a God that does not exist for the evil that is in the world. Why not blame mankind for the evil inflected on man. I don't see God killing and bringing sickness to the world. All the evil you speak of, I see man doing it to himself.

As for the proof of God, the Christ, Western Civilization's very existence is evidence that Christ existed. If you will not accept this, nothing will convince you that Christ lived. Myself, I see Christ's mark everywhere.

Think of God as a process. If man would listen to God, observe Him, and learn to use God things would be better for all. God is like a golf swing. It takes a lot of practice to perfect it. If you would practice using God more, you would feel better about the world. (One more thing, God is a Republican.)

[TomOfSweden]

Well said Euryeia. To a cave man fire is a miracle. A greater miracle is that the cave man understands by rubbing sticks together fire is made. Knowing what to do with the fire is even a greater miracle. Understanding the scientific method is also a miracle. Finding faith is God is a miracle. Knowing how to make man's situation better by using God is a greater miracle. The amount of evil in the world does not mean we should not believe in God. It does mean we need to use God better just like the cave man learned to cook food with fire and warm himself. Let's do that with God. Let's use him better, as He is a process and the way. To not believe in God because everything does not go our way may not be real smart.

Actually, evil in the world is proof that God doesn't exist according to Christian doctrine. The Theodicy Paradox, is in a mathematical sense a real paradox, ie the basic theory is flawed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

There are many many more Christian paradoxes. All pose real problems. What the Catholic church has traditionally done is ignore them. Thomas Aquinas penned them all down and hoped future Christian researchers would solve them. This has yet to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

To be Christian today you have to either reject the accuracy of the Bible or reject logic as a valid system to solve problems. I'm not trying to be cheeky or nasty to Christians now. These are real problems for Christianity which they've been struggling with since Constantin decided that Christian faith was a matter for the state and not a question of personal conviction. This is when he ordered the compilation of the Vulgate Bible. Which is the most popular Christian Bible today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate_Bible

Another solution is to read the Bible liberally. But then you'll have the next problem. What is your opinion, and what is the message from God? But the original New Testament was just a bunch of lose pages and articles, so that is going back to the roots. But it'll be very hard to track all of them down. It also makes it very hard to tell what God wants.

These are all extremely hard problems to solve. And need to be solved for the Christian scientific theories to work even hypothetically.

[Thorne]

Thorne, it is a highly emotional use of logic to blame a God that does not exist for the evil that is in the world. Why not blame mankind for the evil inflected on man. I don't see God killing and bringing sickness to the world. All the evil you speak of, I see man doing it to himself.

I do not blame God for anything, as I don't believe he does exist. My point was that IF he existed, I could still not worship him because of the things he ALLOWS to happen. And if he is the ultimate creator of all that we know then he is, in some sense, responsible. Evil could not exist without God's knowledge and acceptance.

As for the proof of God, the Christ, Western Civilization's very existence is evidence that Christ existed. If you will not accept this, nothing will convince you that Christ lived. Myself, I see Christ's mark everywhere.

Yes, this is an old argument: God exists because I KNOW he exists. Western Civilization has nothing to do with the actual existence of Christ, but rather with the existence of the CONCEPT of Christ. My question is about whether the MAN existed. Any culture which develops a religion can "prove" that their gods exist by the actions those gods supposedly take. The crops grow every year, so their must be a god/goddess of fertility; the moon floats serenely overhead and only a god/goddess could do that, ergo there is a lunar god. You can attribute anything that you don't understand or can't control to the actions or inactions of the gods.
And actually, it's Western Law, rather than Civilization, which owes so much to the teachings of the Church. Like it or not, most nations' laws are based in some measure upon the Ten Commandments. But the Greeks and Romans did far more for the advance of Civilization than the Church ever did.

Think of God as a process. If man would listen to God, observe Him, and learn to use God things would be better for all. God is like a golf swing. It takes a lot of practice to perfect it. If you would practice using God more, you would feel better about the world. (One more thing, God is a Republican.)

Personally, I think of God as a convenient fiction which man developed at a time when he needed something to explain the world around him. As for God's political leanings, I must wonder to which God you are referring. Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, is probably a Republican. Christ, the God of the New Testament, is more likely to be a Democrat.

[Thorne]

It also makes it very hard to tell what God wants.
These are all extremely hard problems to solve. And need to be solved for the Christian scientific theories to work even hypothetically.

This is one of the major problems with religion. On the one hand they tell you that one cannot truly know the mind of God, and on the other hand they tell you EXACTLY how God wants you to behave. How can both be true?

Personally, I find it impossible to trust anyone who proclaims that he knows what God wants. They may believe they know, and might even believe they are actually DOING what God wants, but I still don't think they can be trusted to have MY welfare at heart. I always feel they are more interested in my checkbook than my soul.

[wmrs2]

Actually, evil in the world is proof that God doesn't exist according to Christian doctrine. The Theodicy Paradox, is in a mathematical sense a real paradox, ie the basic theory is flawed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

There are many many more Christian paradoxes. All pose real problems. What the Catholic church has traditionally done is ignore them. Thomas Aquinas penned them all down and hoped future Christian researchers would solve them. This has yet to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

To be Christian today you have to either reject the accuracy of the Bible or reject logic as a valid system to solve problems. I'm not trying to be cheeky or nasty to Christians now. These are real problems for Christianity which they've been struggling with since Constantin decided that Christian faith was a matter for the state and not a question of personal conviction. This is when he ordered the compilation of the Vulgate Bible. Which is the most popular Christian Bible today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate_Bible

Another solution is to read the Bible liberally. But then you'll have the next problem. What is your opinion, and what is the message from God? But the original New Testament was just a bunch of lose pages and articles, so that is going back to the roots. But it'll be very hard to track all of them down. It also makes it very hard to tell what God wants.

These are all extremely hard problems to solve. And need to be solved for the Christian scientific theories to work even hypothetically.

Religion is More Personal
People like you are necessary and fun to discuss and converse with. If you want the facts, you have these. Your knowledge of the subject is real and very intellectual. It is real on the personal and subjective level. In any intellectual discussion with me, you would certainly overpower me with your vast knowledge.

What I like to talk about is not intellectual in any academic sense. When the cave man discovered fire, he discovered a miracle which he translated into a basic, primitive religion which improved his life and the life of others. For example, in the Bible the Good Samaritan did did not need theological knowledge to help the sick man in the ditch. Theological knowledge often overlooks the personal needs of mankind. It is this personal knowledge and truth that Christ brought to the religious argument. This the truth that the Bible seeks to enlighten mankind. There is no error or fault in this truth.

Your statement, "To be Christian today you have to either reject the accuracy of the Bible or reject logic as a valid system to solve problems" does not apply The point here in the Bible has been well taken. The truth here is obviously true by any stretch of the imagination. You are correct when you say the Bible needs to be read with a liberal slant. That's what Christ preached also. He was very much a liberal.

What many attack as Christianity is not really Christianity at all. Christianity is more than historical interpretation. It is very much more personal. I hope this helps.

[TomOfSweden]

Theological knowledge often overlooks the personal needs of mankind.

What does this mean? Personal is one person. Mankind is all people. If religion isn't about people and their needs, what is it about?

Religion is More Personal

It is this personal knowledge and truth that Christ brought to the religious argument. This the truth that the Bible seeks to enlighten mankind. There is no error or fault in this truth.

Your statement, "To be Christian today you have to either reject the accuracy of the Bible or reject logic as a valid system to solve problems" does not apply The point here in the Bible has been well taken.

You neglected to explain how. Christian scholars have been fighting with this for centuries, so you'd better back your shit up now

The truth here is obviously true by any stretch of the imagination. You are correct when you say the Bible needs to be read with a liberal slant. That's what Christ preached also. He was very much a liberal.

So how should it be read? How do you know what is God's word and what is just your or your priests personal morality?

What many attack as Christianity is not really Christianity at all. Christianity is more than historical interpretation. It is very much more personal. I hope this helps.

You'll have no argument there. I'm not going to hold what one Christian does in the name of religion toward another.

Just to be clear here. I suspect that you're using the word "truth" as an abstract and empty container, void of meaning. And just using it a lot because it has positive connotations. If the message of Christ is the truth, it's is the message and not the label of truth that is relevant, isn't it? Tell me a Christian truth. Anything? Please give me something concrete to have an opinion about or reply to.