Dealing with ignorant people

[fr0d0]

I can apply an allegorical approach to the whole thing, as because as I say, that's the real point of it. If you want finer...

I use common sense mostly, but you could also use these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_he...rmeneutics

What exactly is the common sense that says it a more solid belief that a man rose from the dead and bodily ascended into the sky than it is to believe that the waters of the sea were parted or that a snake could speak Hebrew? None of them have any grounding in objective reality so what makes you think one is more valid than the others? I'm yet to see you demonstrating the steps of your process, so please give us all some enlightenment fr0d0.

You obviously disregarded the link then. I'll wait for you to get back to me with reasoned response to that.

Why is the story of the resurrection of Jesus any more appropriate to believe than the story of the parting of the red sea, or the burning bush or the taking snake?

Only Jesus' resurrection would require belief. The others can be understood without belief.

I can understand the idea of a resurrection just as clearly as the idea of a talking snake - they both require Faith to believe, so why do you accept one and not the other? What specifically is your standard?

The snake requires no belief being pure allegory. That'd be like saying you needed to believe in the existence of the invisible pink unicorn to get the point of the analogy... you don't.

Moses (who didn't actually live) tripped himself out - I can buy that, but i don't see how your hallucinatory insights are valid teachings for a world view.

Yet it is accepted valid teaching, and is in my mind, pretty awesome.

The parting of the Red Sea seems fantastical.

More fantastical than the entire world going dark for 3 hours because a man was resurrected 4 days after he died and was pulled into the sky? It seems a much more mundane event to me.

& we take a holiday in the ridiculous isles...

Those stories, from my position of ignorance, I take as grossly embellished.

So you chose to believe that these stories are embellished but the story of the resurrection is not, and you have absolutely no evidence favouring either? As long as you admit you don't have any reasoning behind your decision we can move on.

Yes, lets be ignorant together...

I don't like to speculate

It would do you a world of good. Time to start thinking for yourself mate.

..and this.. is la la land...

, but I guess it could mean something like a low tide enabled one group to cross then the tide came in and the following group drowned.

Have you seen photos of this ocean?

Did you get that from answers in genesis?

That is where the leading theologians who have studied it believe they crossed... Yeah, really likely the tides.

Listen to you getting all theological on me

It's like the evidence for god in creation... if you accept 'God' then everything is proof.

If you in future have nothing but appalling logic and want to use it to support a claim please don't bother, it's really rather irritating to have to point it out time and time again.

And what would that be You disagree with the conclusion. I don't use the argument personally but to counter equally appalling logic that because there is no God there is no evidence.

The specific Christian (my) concept of God is not specific enough to formulate an accurate enough description to attribute 'being' to.

Saying "The Christian God exists" in not meaningless as It has been given the attributes such as omnipotence, omnipresence, omni-benevolence, transcendent etc which are absent from simply stating "God Exists"

Seems you're arguing with yourself on that one.