Summations Only

Would you agree then that the Book of the Dead is equally strong evidence of Toth and Seth?

Well the only requirement to be a "True Christian" is that the person is a member of any chapter of Club Christian; even the small unrecognized splinter chapters.An honest Christian though must acknowledge that there is no external to the Bible evidence that Jesus ever existed while there is external evidence that the Buddha existed even though the Buddha lived and taught about 500 years earlier than Jesus.An honest Christian must admit that any belief that Jesus existed is solely a matter of faith and unsupported by any more evidence than is available for the existence of Toth or Seth or Raven or Thor or Coyote or Ganesha or hundreds of other deities.An honest Christian must admit that his beliefs, even if strongly held, might well be wrong.

The latter gets into an area that I think requires elaboration; if there is evidence that contradicts a belief and the person wants to remain honest I believe they must also openly acknowledge that the evidence contradicts the belief. They would have to say that their belief is held in spite of all the evidence that refutes such a position.If they try to wave away the evidence or deny the evidence exists then I do not see how they could be considered as honest Christians.The former though is, I believe, a pretty accurate description of what faith means when it comes to things like religious beliefs; a belief in things unseen and unevidenced.

Rationality plays almost no part in beliefs. There's no rational reason that I love ice cream but hate pudding, love beef but hate liver.

Why not? The tradition certainly goes back thousands of years before Jesus and the worship of Toth and Seth went on for longer than Christianity has been around.Why is it not equally strong evidence?

You kinda lost me there. What contradictions and absurdities do you find in John?

ah, perhaps. But there is beer and lite beer, often there I cannot even tell a difference by taste.

Maybe you are just showing your bias and ignorance again but that's certainly curable. Jesus constantly refers to stories the audience would find familiar when teaching, and had you been raised as a Jew those stories would be familiar to you as well. That is no different than someone today using a reference to stories or mythos that would be familiar to their audience nor does it mean the speaker thinks the reference is factual.In addition you make the classic mistake or thinking that the Bible is one book and not an anthology of anthologies. Just because something is said in one story does not imply other stories must agree. The contradictions you point to only exist if you, like the fundies, assume a single book with a single purpose and single theme.Part of Jesus teachings (remember the Talmud? ) is teaching reason. Remember the passages I posted earlier from the Talmud related to working on the Sabbath? Jews struggled with such concepts and remember that Jesus, John and the author of John were Jews, not Christians. Jesus asks simple questions related to working on the Sabbath...if you ass falls in a crack on the Sabbath do you wait until Sunday to pull it out?Also, remember the Gospel of John unlike the others portrays Jesus as a mystic and makes claims not found in the Synoptics.But none of these are errors or contradictions or even absurdities within the context of religious scripture. You call them errors, or contradiction or absurd but what you need to say is that YOU find them to be errors, or contradiction or absurd. It is not a matter of fact but just your knowledge and bias.Edited by TrueChristian, : fix sub-title

LOLSorry but that is just silly.If I am not aware of any measurable differences then how can my decision be rational?Sheesh!

I think faith is always irrational, illogical and usually unreasonable.Edited by TrueChristian, : fix sub-title.

Yes, it would be both wrong and silly to have faith they would live. You can hope they will live but I cannot see how faith could enter into the subject.

Ah, God the flunky. Got it.Hey God, do this.What good are you if you don't do for me God?What does any of this have to do with the topic Phat?Edited by TrueChristian, : fix sub-title

Not quite.A test like that might work if the action were involuntary.But what if the action is voluntary; God could heal but does not or God does intervene but does so in a way that cannot be differentiated from other means?Edited by TrueChristian, : fix sub-title

But I don't know what effect it will have on me.Isn't that obvious?

Now that has to be one of the stupidest posts yet.I mean really, really stupid.Why must I know that?Since a six-pack of beer usually lasts me more than a week, why is lite beer less likely to get me drunk than any other beer?