George,

You are welcome.

Pericles,

With the greatest respect, when Boazy suggested historicity was arguable it attracted comparisons with a spaghetti monster. Fifteen or so posts back there was no acknowledgement that there is a for argument.

"The main difference will inevitably be that I do not have any inclination to "prove you wrong" on anything you say, with the single exception ..."

And I appreciate it when you pull me up for error. If I'd said the same thing to a Christian I doubt if they would have been motivated to assist me in that way. You believe that I am trying to prove you wrong on anything you say. However rightly or wrongly I believe that I was mainly airing facts because Polycarp's assertions were not given a fair treatment.

"You are fully and unreservedly entitled to your views, beliefs and opinions."

Likewise with one reservation. I am happy to leave the issue of whether all theologically important details in the Bible are correct an open question for the purpose of this thread in spite of my personal opinion that the "against" position is a weaker argument. Nevertheless I draw the line with the unsupportable innuendo that the historicity is about as compelling as a spaghetti monster belief.

"The only time that you and I will come into a discussion is when you say something that is so patently silly and unsupportable that a disinterested layman such as myself simply has to say "hold on there, you cannot twist the facts like that and expect to get away with it"."

There we have a very different perspective. I believe that I entered the discussion to challenge the unsupportable.

"Incidentally - although it isn't really incidental, but very germane here - I commend you to count the number of occasions you have found it necessary to use the word "if" in your last post."

I'm comfortable with talking about circumstantial inferences in that way and believe their merit or lack of merit are irrelevant to that choice of word. I invite you to point out any problem more directly.

But Bugsy...the Lamppost I'm focusing on says

"I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness"

Let that light shine your pathway in life mate.. you will see all things more clearly then.

blessings.

Polycarp wrote:

"I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness"

Let that light shine your pathway in life mate.. you will see all things more clearly then."

You tell Bugsy that he will see things more clearly if he accepts your mumbo jumbo. I think if you see things more clearly there is absolutely no way one can accept that mumbo jumbo without leaving one's brains at the door.

You guys are just trying to get the high moral ground for your side by competing on diplomacy aren't you? Admit it.

Dear Foxy,

I am really sorry I posted that. I get annoyed at the missionary attitude of, "We have the truth, and if you would accept it you would also have the truth." However, I should have kept my annoyance in check as it added nothing to the discourse.

I don't think there is such a thing as religious truth. Belief, no matter how strongly held, is not truth.

davidf,

You apologized to Foxy but as a Christian I'd like to thank you for doing so. Poly may have been sensitive about the tired old emotional crutch innuendo levelled by Bugsy (even though it was a qualified comment). But if he felt so strongly he could have responded to it respectfully. I hope he follows your example.

Sorry about this but:

You said that you think (/believe?) that there is no such thing as religious belief. However you also said that a belief no matter how strongly held is not the truth. The way it reads it sounds like a belief can never be the truth and hence (if applied to the preceding sentence) there is such a thing as religious truth. I'm guessing that is not exactly what you meant...

Do you consider that no religion has associated beliefs that accord with the truth because you believe that the truth is that there is nothing supernatural?