'nuff said, I am going back up to where the air is clean and pure for this "newbie".

Maybe we believe in the Grace taught in the Bible.


Not here...I only used that to demonstrate the "existence" of something we all know to be true that is not material.

To the original question:
I talked with a couple who are Common Christians. They go to mass once a week, they go a little farther and help with the ceremonies when there are vacancies and go to a religious support group twice a month. I knew them nearly six months before I found out they went to church. They aren't hardliners, and take a very relaxed view on a lot of issues especially where choice is involved like gays and abortion. They try to do right in this life and count on mercy and understanding for the next one. When ever they think a big decision through they think on God, but mostly they do what they feel is right in their gut. When pressed the man said "give onto ceaser what is ceaser's" and the woman said that if God wanted her to be a wild eyed fanatic He'd tell her so. What I got out of the conversation was an optimism and trust in God. I figure an absolute devotion to God at the expense to the worldly is what separates saint out from the herd.

I gave examples. If you believe jumping off a building will kill you, you won't do (if you want to live) even if you want to jump around like spiderman.

If you believe god exists and that you will go to Hell forever if you sin, you wouldn't sin.

The example of breaking the law is not valid. Many people break the law and get away with it. It would be logical to believe that you could rob a bank and get away with it. It would be unwise and unlikely, but it has been done.

Has anyone who has not found favor from God ever made it into Heaven? Got past the guard dogs?


Actually, don't answer that.  I know no one knows the answer.


My point is that the proper position of a Theist would be to say "I don't know if a god exists, but I am going to pick the religion that appeals to me, interpret it as I wish and try to feel like I have picked the right one."

There is no test that we can use to test the validity of a religion. Mythology is funny that way, it thrives on contradictions and errors, especially ones that elevate Faith over Reason.

Both Paul and you are entitled to your opinions.

Btw, there is no such thing as a superior witness when that witness never witnessed Jesus.

Have you ever tried to argue with a religious believer? Yes, you have. Remember the Mormon guy? "Truth", I believe he called himself.

I notice you removed yourself from that discussion quickly, once you realized he wasn't going to budge on the truth of Mormonism.

I have no beef with you believing what you want to believe - you can worship Allah all you wish.

But I will also try to divide the argument into to camps:
1. The mythology, its development, the experience of meaning, and the "poetic" nature of the text as opposed to arguing over when one mythology is more true than another: e.g., there are REALLY angels in one, but there's no such thing as Valkyrie.
2. The actual claims made by religion that impact our observable, testable world. This includes calls for teaching the Flood was true, or bringing religion into politics.


So, yes, it is wise of me. You won't find me arguing the finer points of a religion with someone who has an agenda for me to accept all of it as true. I won't be arguing against Muslim Fundi's, or Mormon Fundi's or Xian Fundi's.  They are irrational.

For example, Paul never met Jesus, but you call him a witness. Modern Xians call themselves witnesses in that vein: that if you FEEL you have met Jesus, then you have "witnessed" him. They aren't the same meaning, even though you use the same word.

Plus, Paul was a well-read Jew and from the stories he had heard of Jesus he tried to find parts of the Torah that would justify Jesus being important. It was post hoc rationalization, plain and simple. And the problem between 2 Gal, 1 Gal and Cor. is insurmountable, but you have refused to address it.

So, I hope you can see that you are offering nothing but the standard Xian line that is simply a dogmatic attempt at whitewashing over what the text actually says.

Read Ehrman, he's Xian so you needed be afraid.  But at least be open to the possibility that in the past 2000 years, the church has not always been forthright in trying to make sure that RF gets his Bible as it was written, fresh from the writers hands.

Then ask yourself, why would the church need to create dogma if the text stood on its own?  Read your Bible, RF, its a fascinating insight into the human mind - especially religious extremists who are trying to establish an alternative to the other religions, and you can see them trying to craft it as the ages go by.

Why did you stop debating Truth? He was quite adamant about the truth of his religion. You could have learned the finer points and become Mormon, thus saving your soul, and your families, from eternal damnation.