"I get frustrated at the attitude still held by some that the Bible must be literally true or otherwise everything is called in doubt."

Then all you have to do is provide a simple, clear, objective way by which we can tell which is literally true and which is not. Is it literally true that Jesus was born of a virgin? Is it literally true that Jesus was born at all? Given that the evidence for the existence of Adam and Eve is no better or worse than the evidence for the existence of Moses, should we believe in both, or neither? Unfortunately, once you let the harsh light of human reason shine on the claims made in the Bible, they all tend to evaporate equally rapidly.

I've heard and read many assurances that some of the Bible is literally true and some is only metaphorical, but nobody has yet indicated how they know which is which, and why they disagree with the Christian down the road who believes in a totally different set of 'literal' Bible truths. Explain clearly and plausibly how ordinary people can attain this knowledge, and you have a Templeton Prize in your future. Till then I will continue to regard it as self-serving weaselry.

Why is it that all evolutionists run from the Genesis Expert, and spend their time debating those that don't understand the Genesis text? The correct opposing view to evolution, is the "Observations of Moses". Avoiding a true confrontation with the Bible proves humanists have an evil agenda, and want to mislead the public into their false belief system.

Herman Cummings
ephriam7@aol.com

Chris Middleton’s assertion that ‘Catholic theology certainly sees no fundamental conflict between faith and reason’ overlooks that much of Christianity’s reasoning is based on the writings about its founder.
There is huge doubt about both the existence of an actual Jesus Christ, and the factuality of the writings about him found in that religion’s textbook, the Bible.
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus. No artifacts, evidence of his dwellings or carpentry, nor self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of that doubted person.
Research shows that, despite a preponderance of historical writers in the time and place of complex Roman record keeping during which Jesus is reputed to have lived, writings about Christ came from unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.
This raises difficulties with Chris’ assertion that the relationship between faith and reason - particularly between faith and science - goes to the credibility of being a Christian in the modern world.
To me the question is: do you place your faith in fact or fiction?

Jesus wept! I am close to tears myself after reading the title of this article.

Between Sells, Singer and now Chris (the Thinking Christian?) I am going mad at a rapid rate of knots.

In a world that is filled with all manner of dilemmas, approaching confrontations, the strong chance of nuclear wars, Global Warming, Financial Crisis, we really don't have time to consider frivolous issues.

Yet we do. Issue after issue on OLO contains more and more frivolous issues. At the rate we are going, soon we'll be considering whether the Pope wears nappies, whether FIJI is developing a nuclear bomb, whether the U.S. will disappear up its own orifice in a puff of smoke, whether Tony Abott heralds the Second Coming, whether Bill Shorten can conquer his lisp, and whether Julia Gillard will again become our Prime Minister only to be stabbed by Julie Bishop and, wait for it, Malcolm Turnbull.

Friends, we on this August Forum need to deal with serious issues, with life-threatening issues, the survival of our country issues, the survival of our world!

We are not adolescent schoolboys. We are serious citizens.

If I read another proclamation from Singer demanding someone answer his inane questions or mindless religious-justifications from Hasbeen threatening fire and brimstone, I'll just go quietly mad.

Please be gentle with me!

`oh and the clever..swallow the spin?
TAKING JUST WHAT..ON FAITH.[NO GOD DESIGN?]

please mr expert explain your science
name first LIVING GENUS..
NAME THE EVOLUTION [NEW GENUS]..IT MUTATED INTO.
macro evolution [into new genus is the lie]
micro evolution is falsifiability fact..[within genus]

SCIENCE CLAIMS METHOD..REPEAT THE FIRST LIFE

present proof of thesus..what chance event[thus not intelligent..GOD..NOR../science design]..

what first random events made this firsT SINGLE CELL..OR MULTI-CELL IE A CELULAR LIVING GENUS..[WHAT FIRST LIVINF GENUS?]

LIVING GENUS..AS ONLY LIFE CAN MAKE LIFE
IE MAKE life..SHOW THE FACT..NOT YOUR FAITH..[IN THE THEORY/OF EVOLUTION..OF GENUS.]

cause i know you got nuthin but SILENCE
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305&page=0

I have no problem accepting the bible as both word of god, exposition of a religion and as a story. There is no need to pick which parts are in which category as I see the whole work fitting (potentially) completely into all three categories.

I read it as a story, especially the old testament, of a people and how they came to an understanding of 'their' god and their distinctness from others. I see it entirely as a story with parts based on real people and facts. It could easily be a story inspired by god if he/she/it exists. I read the story as a struggle to answer the questions that the new testament very clearly asks and answers names who is my neighbour and how should I treat them (and by implication have them treat me).

For me there is no conflict or non reconcilable bits. To me it is very human. Describing how to be good yet recognising the humanness of people not living up to the ideal.

DKit