Banjo,

<<Religious faith is not based on logic and comprehension. It is based solely on trust.>>

The gospel (good news) of faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (John 3:16) certainly is based on logic. We can have no gospel sentences to understand without logic. Logic is used in every sentence, paragraph, chapter and book of the bible.

James Cook University's Graduate Research School confirms this: "Grammar and syntax have a logic - if the reader is to understand the meaning of the sentence then that logic has to be followed", http://egrs.jcu.edu.au/workshops/academic-writing-workshops/sentence-logic-and-punctuation.

I use logic in reading the Bible, understanding Christian faith, reading the JCU statements regarding logic, reading your post and the Bible.

It is a fanciful statement to state religious faith is not based on logic.

As for understanding, "How can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them?" (Rom 10:14). Hearing infers the need to understand.

What is this gospel content for understanding? "I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said" (1 Cor 15:3-4).

Faith without understanding is not genuine faith but a leap of faith. Faith in Jesus is founded on facts that need comprehension.

<<What about yourself, do you feel the need for a “logical” explanation in order to believe ? Or, like most devotees, do you simply rely on your faith too ?>>

My faith is not a nebulous faith, but founded on fact. I had a basic understanding when born again, thanks to my parents' faith in Jesus and becoming born again, through proclamation of the late Billy Graham in his 1959 Australian crusades. Since then, I've grown in the faith through study of Scripture, history and culture of Bible times.

Your patience in explaining and exposing Ozspen is commendable. You seem to have a very good grasp on the Scriptures.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

You can't argue with someone who takes the Bible
literally. You pray for them. You may try to discuss
Biblical interpretations with them and the Church's
official stance - which is that every word in the
Bible is true in its proper context. However it should
be pointed out that the Lord spoke in parables. He told
stories to make a point.

If someone thinks the Bible is inerrant - that it has
no errors - again, are they talking about the Revised
Standard Version, the Catholic edition? Certainly not.
It is just a translation of a translation of scrolls
that have been lost to history for hundreds of years.

Is the King James Version literally true? Of course not.
Then we would have to believe all kinds of nonsense
that is demonstrably fake and no one was around back
then to back it up.

But God was there. He is still here, talking to us.
To you and me. That message is indeed infallible.

"Judge not ..."

"Love thy neighbour..."

"Do unto others..."

Foxy,

<<You can't argue with someone who takes the Bible
literally. You pray for them.>>

What is your understanding of 'literal interpretation'?

Did you want me to read your post as a literal piece of writing or to interpret it parabolically, allegorically or symbolically

Foxy,

<<If someone thinks the Bible is inerrant - that it has no errors - again, are they talking about the Revised Standard Version, the Catholic edition? Certainly not. It is just a translation of a translation of scrolls that have been lost to history for hundreds of years.>>

This demonstrates your ignorance of the biblical teaching on inerrancy (i.e. infallibility). It has NEVER referred to the inerrancy of any translation, whether that be the Douay-Rheims, KJV, RSV, NRSV or NIV.

I suggest you do some study into the biblical teaching of inerrancy so that you can present accurate information on this forum instead of giving us a Strawman Fallacy: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy.

A basic view of biblical inerrancy is explained by Dr D A Carson in 'Understanding the doctrine of inerrancy': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kfs1_0LlZA, and it doesn't agree with your statements.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrote :

« Logic is used in every sentence, paragraph, chapter and book of the bible … Faith in Jesus is founded on facts that need comprehension … My faith is not a nebulous faith, but founded on fact »
.

All narrative, whether it be fiction or non-fiction, has to be perfectly logic for it to be comprehensible. The fact that it is logic does not mean that it is necessarily founded on fact. It could be perfectly logic but the pure fruit of the imagination of the author – and not contain an ounce of fact.

The New Testament is full of narratives purporting to relate to the life of Jesus of Nazareth (which is what interests us here) but although virtually all Christian scholars agree that Jesus existed, the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

These are the only facts relating to Jesus that may be considered as having been established historically. All the rest is highly contested and simply a question of personal faith in Christian dogma.

Either you have faith and adhere to that dogma or you do not. You obviously do and that’s fine with me. I, personally, see no reason to do so. I am quite happy to acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth probably did exist, that he was baptised by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontus Pilate.

I consider that all the rest is simply the fruit of the imagination of a few enlightened individuals, an appreciable system of collective psychotherapy, wishful thinking and hearsay, as well as an effective instrument of sociological cohesion and control.

My mind remains open to a more credible explanation that may possibly be forthcoming anytime during the future.

That said, I expect to die. I do not expect to be born again and I see no reason to believe in eternal life :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

.