Thanks Trav,
but when you say, "where is the conflict in accepting that the Bible is, in fact, an "anthology compiled by men" and yet also believing that it contains both 'timeless theological truths and actual history'? [my emphasis]"
This suggests a compromise; you said you believed in a "biblical God", and now you're admitting the Bible is an "anthology compiled by men", and throwing universals and historcism into the mix to boot!

"Why is it irrational to believe that a God who is a personal agent and who valuse some kind of relationship with his creation and who valuse some kind of relationship with his creation would also at times display relational characteristics (and thus appear jealous and vengeful to our human way of thinking)?"

I didn't say it was "irrational", I implied it wasn't 'thinking' in any legitimate, enquiring sense, but merely derivitive. But since you ask, how is it rational (not to mention ethical), for instance, to rationalise that your personal and caring God is preoccupied with spoiled westerners, while simultaneously indifferent to the wholesale suffering, misery and death in the third-world part of his creation? Don't you think he should get his priorities in order?

"So I'm assuming you're looking for a definition of "Believer in the Biblical God", which admittedly is more difficult". No. One that's a thinker too?

"I would simply say that it is someone who takes the Bible seriously and believes that there exists a personal God, in the form of a trinity [why in the form of a trinity? Is that thinking, or dogma?], who lived amongst us on earth in the form of Jesus Christ".

Sorry Trav, I have no wish to take the p!ss, but you can't have it both ways. You're either a believer or a thinker, the two don't mix.

And if I may add, without false modesty, I'm not "someone who prides themself on being a thinker"--and I see the limitations of thought!

You would think food for thought was a blasphemy, and hate! well....if one's hates.....you loose"_) Now since we all are from the soup, whats the way out. If its not coherent to our thoughtful beginnings, love must and can be the only way out for this human-condition.

The zoo or jail if you don't see it. Love will....all that are not, will see the day, and you all live it.....and you do.

I believe every man is worth his salt.....

and with that man, comes the live giver.

And that's why they prize the lord.

Its just an observation by many smart men/people:P) and now time, your up with.

Now. The big question........why us, for all else?

Thats the question i WANT answered....please.

LEA

Ok Ammo, better take a deep breath, or your head may xplode. I got your drift a long time ago. You are a good person who chooses, as is his/her right, not to believe in an all-powerful loving smiter of whatever disturbs the inviolable balance of wit. More power to the ethos.

I have lost count of the number of posts I have made supporting the majority view that RI in non-denominational schools needs replacing with cultural education, and courses in ethics, moral values and mores of acceptable human behaviour - provided by professional educationalists, not outside volunteers. Em tassol.

Jewely, your post reminds me of that old Mae West joke - "When I'm good, I'm very, very good; but when I'm bad, I'm better."

Squeers: In much earlier times, God had a lot of time on His hands, and not a very large flock to look after, and He had provided Man with freedom of choice, so, naturally, He set in place a few tests, to see how His creation might respond and evolve in thought and action. These various tests have found their way into biblical texts in various forms, and in the process various theists have interpreted these in various forms. The intent was always simple - to keep everyone guessing, striving, questioning and evolving. It seems to have worked, because here we are today, still puzzling over intent and purpose. We can't ever know everything, and that's all part of challenge of sentient life. Life was always meant to be a challenge, and so it is, and will be.

Salt....this is what all know as you and others:) I give this song to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx9qUR9P2ZQ

Dont read into the bad bits:) thats what will save us all.

You know:)

If one day we are not afraid,...we will be human in all mighty this:)

All are religious from birth......You know I know this:)

Good night, and may your thoughts see what we are:)

LEAP

OK Salty,

You've had your laugh at our expense. Next time you post something like:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11980&page=0#206895

Squeers, Pericles, AJ Phillips and the rest of us deliberate non believers will know you are just taking the p!ss.

Just a point, though I didn't really 'choose' I admit I gave religion a great deal of thought, but at age 12 found too much unanswered and contradictory in the Abrahamic god. I can't believe, anymore than I could in the tooth fairy.

Now you are attempting to trivialise what I studied and considered carefully at a young age with your 'humour': >> Ok Ammo, better take a deep breath, or your head may xplode. I got your drift a long time ago. <<

I'm sure you are a good person too.

P)

So we have gotten nowhere - I can't hate something in which I have no belief.

Ok, Ammo, as determination of the merits of two diametrically opposed propositions necessarily requires deliberation and an ultimate decision (or else a continuity of uncertainty), it therefore involves a choice being made - or no choice, no decision. The only alternative would be a non-conscious osmotic awareness of a truth, without conscious evaluation - as a sort of instinct?

As we have both considered the options, we have both made a choice.

For myself, in earlier life I simply had faith, and found no reason to deny that faith. In later life, having gained some knowledge of the nature of the universe, I have only found cause to reinforce my faith - as I have concluded that mere chance does not adequately explain our existence or our history. My faith is not based on any religious dogma, it is a matter of conscious choice - I choose faith.

Some posters have contended that having faith means you automatically have to accept and live by all the dogma dished out as part of their particular religious persuasion - like an automaton - and that to do otherwise is a denial of their faith. This may apply in some ultra-restrictive sects, but as a generality it is utter hogwash.

Some have also contended that you either think, or you have faith, as though these have to be mutually exclusive. This is also hogwash - as we have inevitably to make many choices and decisions throughout our lives based on many factors having nothing to do with faith.

Some contend that having faith means taking everything in the bible, or Koran, or whatever texts, literally - with blind faith. This is also hogwash. Most study texts only to find guidance in living a good life.

You know, some people have "found faith, or found Jesus", and have become better people for it.

Of course there is the case of religious fundamentalists or terrorists, who are simply brainwashed for ulterior purposes. Hopefully such misuse of religion will one day be history.