Boaz,

Whats happening in Palestine today totally deconstructs your theory.
They just turned guns on each other killing 19 people in one day. Its tribalism my friend, there is no place for religion or faith in politics.

PS: I never asked you to accept me 'king' Boaz!
All I asked you to do is to practice what you preach, don't incite fear and hate towards people who follow and practice my faith. It creates division and disharmony.

People have choices of being part of the solution or part of the problem.

Peace,

TR, Thank you for expanding on your views. You say –

“because these events are so EXTRAORDINARY and UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE according to every single concept of science and rationality the evidence needs to be just as EXTRAORDINARY and OUTSTANDING”.

I have two comments:

1) Scripture. Like George, I don’t approach the scriptures as a literalist. This is because I believe God is not a literalist and that the way in which he “inspired” scripture requires me to work with it, not swallow it whole.

I’ve noticed that Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris (the only new atheists I’m at all familiar with) seem to speak only to Christian/theistic literalists. In fact they rebuke people like George and me with “Why would I stoop to talk to you: you don’t even accept your own scriptures!” This is very convenient, of course, because the literalists are such a delightful target for Dawkinsian derision.

An example of the positive point of non-literal reading: “an eye for an eye”. This is typically critiqued as very harsh. Today, it certainly seems so. In OT times, it involved a softening of current thinking: people would kill at the drop of a hat, and the message was “ONLY any eye for an eye”.

We know this now because we know more than we used to. The era we speak of is obscure but not invisible, and modern biblical scholarship is probably way ahead of the anti-biblical scholarship. The difference is that we Christians do it with an entirely different agenda. The bible is open and still producing. God, I believe, is still speaking.

(I am less clear on whether or not this reasoning applies to the Qur’an. The revelation claimed there is far more direct (God-Gabriel-Mohammed), occurring over a far shorter period (1 or 2 decades) than the Old or New Testaments and addressed entirely to one man. This makes it a lot “tighter” and possibly more resistant to exploratory interpretation.)

(Second comment in next post.)

Pax,

TR et al, the second thing I wanted to say:

2) The connection between evidence and rationality. You say that faith is “an intellectual cop-out”. Naturally enough, I say it isn’t. In fact, I would say that empiricism is.

You seem to be assuming that reliance on empirical evidence is the only means of being rational. You have not established this, or tried to. You just assume it. I assume some things too: God and the bible. My assumption is explained as “faith”. Your assumption is not yet explained.

I would say we have each taken a leap of faith – I to God, and you to empiricism. Once the leap is taken, each of us seems to proceed fairly rationally, wouldn’t you say?

How to compare these different leaps of faith? Well, for a start, I remain consistent with mine. I’ve taken a leap of faith to God, and I’m prepared to recognise it and even to recommend it. The empiricist takes a leap of faith to empiricism and spends the rest of his life saying that leaps of faith are irrational.

By the way, I do rely on my senses. I know that "seeing is believing". But, I think "there's more to this than meets the eye". I see empiricism as an unwarranted voluntary limitation on one's ability to know.

Anti-green, I’m early days pondering the probability point (and I may not get far), so I can’t respond to it now except by saying that probability strikes me as somewhat artificial, mysterious, unprovable and not very interesting. Improbability is no barrier to existence. Wouldn’t a scientist typically say that, for example, life is improbable. Yet, once we know (or confidently believe we know) how it came about, its improbability is no longer of interest. Yet, it really “was” improbable: it just happens that it also exists. Same with human beings, till evolution explained it all to us.

Pax,

The background to the Old Testament may be better researched than you think. A significant flood did exist, Jericho suffered an earthquake. It had are several writers, and a lot of the stories such as the flood appear in earlier mythologies.

These stories are presented in such a way as to illustrate a moral development. Thus the flood becomes an example of the importance of living a good life. With Judaism the important thing is not the Bible but the Rabbinical interpretations that followed (the Talmud) using the Bible as an inspiration. Orthodox Jews (I am not one) never refer directly to the Bible when considering a moral position they always refer to the Talmud and other later commentaries, which continuously evolve.

You will find that Islam does the same thing. Whether or not Mohamed was actually spoken to by Gabriel is less important to me than the morals developed by the Islamic legal schools. And I am sure that they are subject to change with time, like everything else.

Boaz is the expert on Christianity, he can expound on their interpretations. However Catholics seem to be at variance with his views, I sometimes wonder what Christianity actually is.

A problem with all faiths is that power politics often intervenes and abuses the faith for its own ends. But Hitler and Stalin did not need an established religion for their own brand of hate, they invented their own.

As an agnostic I cannot dismiss any long standing faith out of hand.

Dear_Logic, thats toooo juicy_to_resist :) "I sometimes wonder what Christianity is"

and

"He (Boaz)seems at variance to the Roman Catholic Position.

and one more.

"I'm more interested in the evolution of the moral position" (for both Judaism and Islam)

B4 I say another word.. Me the expert on Chrisianity? :) hardly,... I'd tip the hat to goodthief I think. I'm "knowledgeable" but I limit my 'expertise' the crucial and most important. There are many things about which (re the Bible) I am a total dwarf. I only know a smattering of Koine Greek, and about 2 words of Hebrew "Boker tov" :)
and when you pick on me I sometimes 'Ani margish ra' (thank google for that:)

To your points. Catholicism perfectly illustrates the danger of 'evolving human traditions' and interpretations. From that we were blessed with 'forgiveness for sale' i.e. "Indulgences" which Martin Luther railed against. Totally unBiblical but very lucrative for a powerful church treasury. P.S. they are STILL part of Catholic doctrine today. They even call it a 'sacrement' and RC's have argued its merit to me on line.

As goodthief points out. There is no room for this 'evolving' in true Islam. "Sent down" is.. sent down!

Now.. my favorite part.. what IS...Christianity?

So simple... so free, yet so costly.

Paul argues "All have sinned" Jew first then also the Gentile. (Romans chapters1-6)
Christ paid the price.

Isaiah 53:6
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

-for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. Romans 3:23

G-d invites us to embrace the Lord Jesus as our Savior and Lord.

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me" Rev 3:20

Christianity is 2 things.
1/ Repent from sin
2/ Faith in Christ.

Boaz

Thank you for your reply, I enjoy debating with you.

But how do I know what is sinful?

I think the devil is in the detail.