Where/how do believers draw the line and why?

To be taken literally it has to make sense, be plausible, sound, not too unrealistic and feel right to me. Now, realizing that god has magic powers, plasusibility and realistic-ness are a grey area, but if whatever unrealistic thing god supposedly did doesn't look like it really happened, then I won't turn god into Loki by saying that things don't look like they really are. Did this contention just pop into your head and now you are advancing it or did you actually look into the beginnings of the various sects and try to figure out why they really came about?

.|.. ^.^ ..|.

You're ridiculous.

quote:

---

I want them all to stop lying to themselves and killing people in the process.

---

I don't lie to myself and I don't kill people. Basically, you're just exposing your bigotry. Are you racist too?

---

No. No.Now, troll, why do you ignore my honest answer to the OP, Message 46?

---

Also, you're just making stuff up and not substantiating things:From message 53:

quote:

---

The unitarian sect of Christianity believes that Jesus was a prophet but not God himself. The rest of Christianity believes that Jesus is in fact God. This dispute of ideas is a prime example of the OP.

---

From the OP:

quote:

---

My contention is the biblical writings are so open to interpretation that it has caused the many sects within the primary faith itself.

---

So you think that the openness of the interpretations of the bible are the cause of the formation of the Unitarian sect?

quote:

---

where do believers make the distinction between what parts of the bible to take literally and what parts not to, and why?

---

You also seem to think this is an issue with literal vs non-literal.So then, what are the passages that, depending on their literal-ness, caused the formation of the Unitarian sect?If you can't bring forth evidence of your assertion, and are, in fact, just making shit up, then, like it has been said too many times on this thread:WHAT IS THE POINT?

So the whole point was to express your opinion that you don't like religion. Whoopty-fuckin-doo. You really didn't have a point the whole time, did you troll?Why the attempt to make assertions and dress them up, albeit miserably, like an argument if you weren't simply trolling?If you weren't trolling, then you failed miserably at properly participating in a thread without people thinking that your an idiot without a point.But whatever, just have fun with it.But at least I won the trolling game by making you personally attack me first. C.S. = 1

​

Spektical = 0You lose.