Summations Only

But ignorance is not the fault of the Bible and it can be cured.The Bible is not the problem, education is the problem.The Bible certainly is at least partial truth and it doesn't take much to determine which parts are truth. The problem is that "truth" has no singular definition or meaning.I'm even pretty sure that even you could learn the basics.

Well the bible is riddled with outright errors, contradiction and absurdity. So it certainly has fault.
The " truth" is not what the words say. One has to " interpret" where it may be right. The only way that can be done is by knowing history outside the bible. The bible can not be trusted. So maybe I could learn the basics, but I wouldn't accept anything from the bible without outside support. ( and that is the inherent bible issue)

Can you not use reason, logic and reality as some of the tools needed?Is outside support needed for something that makes reasonable and logical sense?

The evidence given in the Bible for all the miracles is stronger than you ever get for any other religion or miracle claim outside it. It really takes some kind of mental deficiency to miss this fact if you have a real knowledge of the Bible. The people in the Bible and the people who wrote it are far from superstitious, and it takes as consummate idiot to think they were, somebody who has absolutely NO clue about people. A real blockhead. The contradictions are the product of blockheaded readers, not the text, and what the witnesses say they witnessed is written with an integrity beyond your capacity to judge. You fail at reading and blame the text. In this folly you will of course find congenial company at EvC. Bleagh to postmodernist reductionist idiocy.

Yes, wow. The real reality is truly wowing.

That is amazing. You managed to not say one accurate thing in that entire paragraph. I'd go through all the superstitious in the bible if I thought it would matter, but it wouldn't. But you could start by studying Jonah and the whale and figure out what " casting lots" means in that story and why it's such a classic example of ancient superstition universally believed at the time. Then ask yourself why the character Jesus believes the tale.
Oh, there are no eye witness writers. If there were, it still wouldn't matter. You can interview people right now who have been abducted by aliens. You need outside evidence as fantastic claims need proof beyond the writings of superstitious people.Edited by Golffly, : Added point

Something reasonable and logical, there is always outside evidence.
One can apply reason and logic to the bible and it leads to complete debunking.

Yet you have posted in this very thread that that is not the case.Do the Laws not reflect the laws at the time?Is outside evidence need to know that parables are reasonable or that allegory is an apt way to teach?

I am not convinced the ridiculous laws were universally applied. More likely, they were conveniently applied according to some other motivation. But I granted you those anyway.
If one can identify a parable or allegory and have it accepted as such, if it's not too stupid, maybe there is a lesson. Like Noah is a lesson that if god is pissed at a few people, he kills everybody. So they don't always say what Christian cult of ignorance want them to say, even if it's a parable or allegory and there is never agreement on that anyway.

What's amazing is your ignorant bias against the truth. Casting lots is an ancient method for discovering the will of God. In those days God allowed it among His own people and did reveal His will through it, though not to people who misused it. Satan would answer them Today it is regarded as occultic and should be disregarded because we have direct access to God by prayer, if we are believers of course. It's like many oracles such as Tarot cards, the I Ching and that sort of thing, where people expect to get answers from God or some other entity or deity. Properly speaking, it shouldn't be called superstition but occultism. Superstition is more like thinking you have some kind of connection to God if you collect "relics" you call the bones of some saint, as the RC Church does, or pay money to get somebody out of purgatory, or count a certain number of repetitive prayers and call it a penance for sin, or are afraid of stepping on cracks or try to avoid black cats crossing your path or cross your fingers or knock on wood for luck or avoid anything with the numbers 13 or 666 and so on. Because He is God and it was God who was directing Jonah, but even if He spoke only as a man it was out of the true faith in God that we are to have through knowing His word. It takes arrogance to say such things about other people you have no reason whatever to distrust. Not only are you calling these worthy people superstitious but you are calling them liars, since Peter and John both claim to have been eyewitnesses, and Luke claims that what he wrote was based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, and he wrote the most complete description of the birth of Christ. Their testimonies are consistent on all the important points and it all adds up to extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims: As for alien abductions, when a lot of people say similar things about an experience they all claim to have had, I would be respectful of their honesty and assume that they are describing something that really happened, that they all happened to experience. You might come to a different conclusion about what they experienced if you did your best to learn what they had to say, but you have no right to call them superstitious or liars and they deserve a fair and careful hearing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, in that case it would be accurate to say that you believe the flood is a fiction. I understand you believe that is non-standard terminology, and you understand that I believe it is not, so we'll just have to disagree about that, too.--Percy

I think that what most fair minded sceptics would say, is not that Peter and John are liars, but that they might well be.We know that people lie - about religion as well as everything else - any number of disgraced evangelist preachers will bear testimony. So until there is worthwhile, corroborating evidence that their (reported and much translated) words are true, we see no reason to trust them (as distinct from having a reason to distrust them).You have that trust - that faith - but in all honesty, you have no way of demonstrating to anyone that your faith is founded on the words of people speaking the truth.

Casting lots is essentially rolling dice and god determines the outcome. If you believe god use to do that and no longer does- you are going to have prove that one. ))You are now making up excuses for superstition, that you claim the writers weren't. )) Incidentally, there is fortune telling, astrology, necromancy in the bible. Does this also follow the made up logic, that god use to work like that but doesn't anymore? If you can just make up anything in your noodle, you could go through Harry Potter and clearly show it really happened.
The ancient people were very superstitious.

This sums up the problem. A natural conclusion to an eye witness claiming to be abducted by aliens is that person was hallucinating, deluded or lying. We start with the most logical and await evidence. You on the other hand assume the story is true until someone disproves it. That is what is referred to as gullible.

As if we haven't gotten to this point several time so far and suggested that we agree to disagree at least twice.