Spencer

You objected to my comment by citing "the accurate content of Christianity".

It's not irrelevant to ask what this "accurate content" is. But it is a red herring to claim its irrelevant because it's uncomfortable ground for you.

I note you like to accuse others of using fallacious reasoning. But you fail to demonstrate the fallacy - you merely assert it as if your opinion is all that's required. Fallacy: assertion without proof.

Your argument is that the historicity of Jesus proves the "accurate content of Christianity". By no means is this true - the existence of a person does not prove a whole catalogue of metaphysical claims even if that person said they were true. It's plainly ridiculous to claim the Christian belief claims based on the Bible as fact. This is fundamentalism. Do you beleive Genesis literally? Is this what your favored author argues? Do you realise that Genesis has actually been disproven by science? Adam and Eve cannot literally have been the two humans that all others descended from, as we could not have developed the necessary level of genetic diversity. The fact that it would take years and years and still not be resolved does not discredit my objections, but rather, your claim for the accurate content of Christianity.

What you should do is define the limits of this accuracy. Ie. You accept so and so claim as literally true but believe others on faith

Dear Spencer,

«I provided evidence to demonstrate that secularism was a religion»

What you demonstrated is that secularism (and some other isms) conform to some dictionary's definition of "religion". In your words: "However, I suggest here that it [Macquarie Dictionary's (1997, 3rd ed) definition] also could embrace other worldviews or religions, including secularism, rationalism and atheism".

Normally when we arrive at absurd conclusions (for example, that the author of a book had to be minus-15 years old when she wrote it), we backtrack and re-check our assumptions, in this case Macquarie's definition.

It is said that once Einstein (my abridged version) was asked to explain "white" to a blind person. So Einstein said, "it's like how a swan looks", but the blind nodded: "what is a swan?", so Einstein bent the blind-person's neck and said: "it's neck is bent just like that". "Ah." exclaimed the blind - "now I understand what 'white' is!".

- That's as much as dictionaries understand "religion"!

«My understanding, as a Christian, is that you seem to have confused religion with relationship.»

We are all related with God, it's impossible otherwise, but only some of us actively and consciously seek to come closer to Him. 'Religion' is the path that we take to approach God: if the path that we are on does not lead to God, then it cannot be called a "religion" - no matter how many dictionaries say otherwise.

«The way to move closer to God is to be one of his sheep so that one is able to hear his voice, know who He is, and follow Him.»

Beautiful, just beautiful!

«James 1:26-27»

The word translated there to English as "religious" is 'thréskos', or "trembling [before God]" and as "religion", 'thrëskeia', which is used in Colossians 2:18 as "worship". Thus indeed, pure and effective worship involves taming the tongue, visiting the widow and the afflicted, keeping out of worldly pollution, etc.

runner,

Where did God come from?

Don't be silly, Poirot, everyone knows that God was born when a giant snake coiled itself around the Cosmic Nothingness.

The question is: where did that bloody snake come from ?

Just trying to help :)

Joe

Indeed, Loudmouth.

As runner points out:

"the something from nothing brigade are certainly the most irrational believers we have today..."

//Where did God come from?//

//The question is: where did that bloody snake come from ?//

Very clever, guys... but it's turtles all the way down.