Rational Vs. Rationalized Faith

[Roadtoad]

(Since this is my 1000th post, I thought I'd open up something different....)

I would suggest, in light of several recent threads, that there is a difference between Rational Faith, which requires a strong adherence to Fact, and Rationalized Faith, which requires Personal Revelation.

Permit me to suggest the following:

Scripture has proven to be a significant source of information for the field of Archaeology. Much of what has been written about can be traced back, and the ruins of ancient civilizations located. Volumes have been written in regards to Biblical finds.

That said, we're also learning a great deal about our world through Genetics, Biology, Physics, and the like. We are not at the center of the Universe, nor were we ever. As a planet, and, in fact, as a species, we're pretty insignificant. Further, it forces a reevaluation of ourselves in light of both Scripture and Science.

I would suggest that Rational Faith bases a great deal on Scripture, in regards to man's relationship to God, (and no, I don't think the Earth was made Just For Man; don't be so damned arrogant, folks), but REQUIRES of me, as a believer, to seek out greater information, through the Scientific Approach. It is a mechanistic response, but we're dwelling in a mechanistic world. If things are on Earth as they are in Heaven, I have an obligation to understand the Earth as it is, not as I want it to be.

I may not like the fact that my earliest ancestor had a small brain, and that he/she spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how to keep from being eaten, but that's what the facts say happened.

Why would God choose to do this? If I think of it when I meet Him, I'll ask. But for now, it's more important that I know this is what happened. Since greater wisdom is what made it possible for Man to survive as a species, it makes perfect sense for me to take the time to understand, to learn, to (dare I say this) evolve to higher state. This requires a RATIONAL response, rather than a RATIONALIZED one.

When we listen to Falwell/Robertson/Roberts/etc. claiming that evolution is a chimera, a lie promulgated by atheists, we're watching Rationalized Faith in action. The Bible is a divinely inspired Book, and one with value for generations, but it remains a Book, and should be interpreted in light of Fact, which is subordinate to Truth. (You can't interpret the Book in a vacuum.) If, as we claim, we serve a living God, you must interpret the Book in light of God's actions. Those actions are the primary revelation, and the only one of irrefutable value.

I may not like the law of Gravity, (given my weight, and my increasing fight with arthritis), but it's still there. If the Bible were to say I can fly, I would need to interpret this in light of Fact. This is Rational Faith. (Yes, I can fly, with the use of fixed or rotary wings. This is evolution in action. I see, I think, I plan, I do.) Rationalized Faith would have me standing on a cliff flapping my arms.

I'd like to hear what others have to say, especially atheists and agnostics.

 

[triadboy]

[BScripture has proven to be a significant source of information for the field of Archaeology. Much of what has been written about can be traced back, and the ruins of ancient civilizations located. Volumes have been written in regards to Biblical finds. [/b]

The latest archaeological finds suggest the 'taking' of Canaan by Joshua was a lot tamer than suggested in the bible. It appears they just kind of - moved in peacefully and settled down.

I may not like the fact that my earliest ancestor had a small brain, and that he/she spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how to keep from being eaten, but that's what the facts say happened.

How does this jive with Adam and Eve? If there was no Adam there doesn't have to be a Jesus.

The Bible is a divinely inspired Book,

I disagree

and one with value for generations,

I hope not

but it remains a Book, and should be interpreted in light of Fact, which is subordinate to Truth. (You can't interpret the Book in a vacuum.) If, as we claim, we serve a living God, you must interpret the Book in light of God's actions. Those actions are the primary revelation, and the only one of irrefutable value.

God's actions in the bible are so disjointed, how can you identify what kind of god he is?

If the Bible were to say I can fly, I would need to interpret this in light of Fact.

So you will admit the bible is wrong in several instances (bat is a bird, insects with four legs, earth is flat, the moon is a light, PI = 3, etc, etc).

The crux of this question is the bible. Whether rational or rationalized - belief in a pseudo-historical, mythological text is ridiculous for an intelligent 21st century man or woman.
You must be asked the question. And boil it down carefully: What in the bible is true to you? If there is no historical fact, then Aesops fables would be a much better teacher of morals.

 

[Roadtoad]

The latest archaeological finds suggest the 'taking' of Canaan by Joshua was a lot tamer than suggested in the bible. It appears they just kind of - moved in peacefully and settled down.

I don't remember the Bible saying that the years it took to take Canaan was one long drawn out conflict. I could be wrong. (Considering I've been wrong about lots of things, this is nothing new.)

How does this jive with Adam and Eve? If there was no Adam there doesn't have to be a Jesus.

Or, "Adam" could easily have been a metaphor for the first Homo Sapiens.

There would have to be a historic Jesus who physically rose from the dead in order for Christianity to hold water in the first place. If not, faith is in vain, as Paul said.

Also, you disagree with the Bible being divinely inspired. No surprise, given your theology. (No, this is not a slam. It's a simple statement of fact. If there is no God, the Bible has no inspiration at all.)

You hope it has no value. Given what you've seen of Christianity, if that were what it was truly about, then, yes, I would have to agree. (But I think you knew that. )

God's actions in the bible are so disjointed, how can you identify what kind of god he is?

Well, so are mine, until you consider them in the context of the time. If you, simply for the hell of it, slugged me, I'd knock your ass out. If you bumped into me accidentally, I'd accept your apology, and we'd move on. Two different actions, in two different situations. In character, actually. (An oversimplification, I know, but perhaps that was an error on my part at the start of the thread.)

So you will admit the bible is wrong in several instances (bat is a bird, insects with four legs, earth is flat, the moon is a light, PI = 3, etc, etc).

It's accurate as people understood thing at the time. What other evidence did they have?

The crux of this question is the bible. Whether rational or rationalized - belief in a pseudo-historical, mythological text is ridiculous for an intelligent 21st century man or woman.
You must be asked the question. And boil it down carefully: What in the bible is true to you? If there is no historical fact, then Aesops fables would be a much better teacher of morals.

I'd say reconsider the Bible in the light of what we know now, and review it carefully. Aesop was a fine teacher, and should be regarded as a wise man, with an intuitive eye. He understood people as they were.

So, too, did Isaiah, Joshua, Ezekiel, and their bretheren. Just because God through Samuel told Israel to annihilate the Amelekites down to the last stone sitting on stone doesn't mean this was the best choice, or even God's primary desired choice. (Remember, God originally wanted to dwell among the Israelites, who instead, chose to live by the Law.) You're dealing with a legalistic answer to sin, which is not what God originally wanted according to the Bible. Believe me, that's NOT what I want. I'd have been stoned, burned, and buried far more times than I want to admit.

(Which is one of the points of Paul's statement that ALL have fallen short. How dare I point out that you've made mistakes when I have, too.)

 

[arcticpenguin]

So you will admit the bible is wrong in several instances (bat is a bird, insects with four legs, earth is flat, the moon is a light, PI = 3, etc, etc).

It's accurate as people understood thing at the time. What other evidence did they have?

So you acknowledge that the bible was written by people, and not by God?

 

[Roadtoad]

So you acknowledge that the bible was written by people, and not by God?

People who were prone to mistakes, yes. Divinely inspired does not mean God took pen to paper himself. Truth to tell, I'm still confused about what "divinely inspired" means myself. After hearing so much prattle on the subject, from different schools of thought, I'm not sure anyone can give a definitive example. If I had to point to anything today which would fall into that category, I'd have to say Hawking's A Brief History of Time. It's the best we have at the moment. On the other hand, I could be completely wrong.

People are prone to mistakes. Just as they still are. You go back, reread, and try to figure out what was said in the first place. Sometimes you can fit it together, sometimes you can't. You do the best you can with what you have at any given moment. If Moses called a bat a bird, it was because he knew nothing about bats, that they had hairy bodies, that the mother's used mammary glands to nurse their young, and that their young were born alive. His first goal was to keep people from eating them, getting sick, and dying. (Having seen the little suckers up close, I don't blame him. Ick...)

I put forth an idea, looking to hear what others have to say. I might be right, I could be wrong, but I'm also not going to claim knowledge I don't have. That's all. I'm willing to ask the tough questions, and willing to listen to what others have to say. I don't do well with hit and run posting.

No, I'm not trying to convince you to change your views, Penguin. I'm trying to hear what you have to say. We will probably disagree, but I don't think I'd have much respect for you if we were in complete agreement. You might have a stronger grasp of some things than I do. What value is communication if we cannot use it to learn from one another, and in turn, grow, evolve, and mature? (Just had a thought: Isn't that the goal of "divine inspiration" in the first place? I would hope.)

Your thoughts, amigo...?

 

[Fun2BFree]

Rational implies that reason, logic, evidence . in other words proof, exists to support a certain approach.

Faith by Webster (and by Paul and by Kant it should also be understood to mean) "firm belief in something for which there is no proof "

Roadtoad wrote:
"The Bible is a divinely inspired Book"

There is no proof for such a statement. The proof that Roadtoad has misunderstood the meaning of Rational and shown the oxymoronic quality of the notion of Rational Faith is in the earlier statement:
"I would suggest that Rational Faith bases a great deal on Scripture"

Basing it on Scripture is to believe that Scripture is truth-or reveals the truth-- (something you have already said you do not believe)--and believing in something that is unproven as true, accurate or even relevant beyond the needs of woman-hating, power-seeking men of the past and small minded power-seeking men of the present.

So where is the rationality? Don't go looking for it. Truth is found by following logic, proof, evidence, not Scripture.
There can be no rational faith. If you seek to convince people by reason you are implying that reason is the way to truth. You believe it is or you would not come on here arguing by reason for one view or another...you just fail to realize how any faith cannot be supported by such a logical process. Faith is irrational.

 

[triadboy]

If I had to point to anything today which would fall into that category, I'd have to say Hawking's A Brief History of Time. It's the best we have at the moment.


If Moses called a bat a bird, it was because he knew nothing about bats, that they had hairy bodies, that the mother's used mammary glands to nurse their young, and that their young were born alive.

RoadT,

You're freaking me out! You mention Hawkings as someone you admire ...and yet you think Moses (who I don't think existed) wrote the first five books of the OT. It is obvious (even in English) that there are several authors in these books.

 

[Ladewig]

I understand your explanation of rationalized faith, but I am still unclear on rational faith. You say it is based on facts. Many people I meet say that their faith is based in facts and then they divide up the Bible by saying these parts are facts and those parts are misunderstandings, outdated, poetic license, mistranslations, mysteries, sybolism, confusion, or superseded by later verses.

Can you elaborate on the rational faith side of it?

 

[Roadtoad]

I understand your explanation of rationalized faith, but I am still unclear on rational faith. You say it is based on facts. Many people I meet say that their faith is based in facts and then they divide up the Bible by saying these parts are facts and those parts are misunderstandings, outdated, poetic license, mistranslations, mysteries, sybolism, confusion, or superseded by later verses.

Can you elaborate on the rational faith side of it?

I'm still working on it. It's not perfect, but I'm trying.

I'll put it like this: If I read a verse that makes sense, in light of what I've learned from other sources, then that's something I consider "rational." If archaeological evidence says there was a Jericho, and that certain events happened at that site, then, when I read through the Bible, that which jibes with what evidence has revealed is what I hold to. The rest of it, you lay aside.

When I first logged in here, one of the first things I said was that I was here to learn. I'm no teacher. I don't have any earthshaking revelations for anyone. I don't have any special insights. I'm just one grumpy trucker who's trying to make some sense of what I see. Sometimes, it works. Other times, it doesn't.

I don't sleep well, so I read a lot. Usually things about current events, sometimes about politics, lots of theology and philosophy, and sometimes, fiction. In light of what I read, some of what I read in Scripture makes a weird sort of sense. (Read Family of Spies and Confessions of a Spy by Pete Earley, and then read about Absalom's betrayal of his father, King David, and you get some interesting perspectives about what happened.) Add to this something else I've said before: when I live by what I read in Scripture, things work. When I don't, things don't work.

It's easy for me to ask another believer who shares a similar view of what I believe to tell me why things work out. The problem with this is that I'm getting the answer I expect, and it's usually the same pat answer that I've gotten in the past.

But this is not why I'm here. If I wanted pat answers, I'd have stayed clear of someplace that would have challenged me. The pat answers don't work. Ultimately, they're legalistic, and have no grounding.

If you want easy answers, I ain't got 'em anymore. I don't want and don't need them. Past experience says the easy answers are usually wrong. When I took the easy route out, I got into more trouble than it was worth. When I took a harder route, things might have been difficult, but the thought required to get through forced a more thorough examination of the problem in the first place, and I learned a lot more from it. (I'm not talking about reinventing the wheel, but facing real problems head-on, rather than trying to skirt through, as I see too many people do.)

I hit 1000 posts. I think I've gained a great deal, so far. I'm not where I need to be yet, but I think I've made a start. It's not a big start, but it's a start, nonetheless.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The Bible is a divinely inspired Book, and one with value for generations, but it remains a Book, and should be interpreted in light of Fact, which is subordinate to Truth.

This is an excellent summary of your point. For the religious believer, you don’t willfully blind your self to facts (like evolution) or worse yet embrace lies (like Kent Hovind, et. al.) if you wish to be able to maintain any credible claim to rationality. Your truth about the need for salvation, and Jesus being said salvation’s conduit, isn’t really effected if the Flood Narrative is only a morality tale, if God never nuked Sodom or if Eve never had a craving for an apple. It’s o.k. for a rational believer to accept parts of their holy texts as metaphor and life lesson.

A rationalized believer needs their book to be 100% true and will go to any length to make it so. Thus, Kent Hovind has several hundred appearances a year.

You could get away calling yourself a Christian if you only held as factual the last few chapters of the Gospels (maybe a few parts of Act too ) and considered the entire rest of the Bible as metaphors, bit’s of factual but embellished history and prophecy. I’ve never encountered anyone like that however, but I’ve met many who are completely comfortable with considering Genesis to be nearly completely metaphorical. Some might argue that if you reject Eden as a metaphor, then there’s no need for salvation and hence Jesus is irrelevant even if he did raise from the dead. But that’s not necessarily the case. If you consider man to be inherently sinful and that it’s a byproduct of free will, the Eden narrative just served put that “truth” into an easily understood story.

I think Roadtoad’s appellations for the different types of believers are accurate and appropriate.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Roadtoad,

I think maybe your terminology is a little mixed up.

I would suggest, in light of several recent threads, that there is a difference between Rational Faith, which requires a strong adherence to Fact, and Rationalized Faith, which requires Personal Revelation.

It seems to me that what you are describing as "rational faith" is actually rationalized faith. Rationalization is when you attempt to use logically invalid methods (such as ad-hoc explanation, circular logic, and question begging) to reconcile your preconceived beliefs with the available evidence. This is exactly what you are doing when you say things like

The Bible is a divinely inspired Book, and one with value for generations, but it remains a Book, and should be interpreted in light of Fact, which is subordinate to Truth.

You are starting with the preconceived belief that the Bible is a divinely inspired book, and then attempting to interpret it in the context of what we currently know, even though you know full well that this isn't what the original authors believed it meant when they wrote it!

That is rationalization.

What you are describing as "rationalized faith", isn't even an attempt at rationalization. It is simply blind acceptance, in spite of evidence to the contrary. It is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" whenever anybody tries to explain why you are wrong.

I have no idea what "rational faith" could even mean. It is self-contradictory. Faith is a belief without reliable supporting evidence. Such beliefs are inherently irrational. A rational belief is one which you have a logical reason for holding (by definition), and if you don't have reliable supporting evidence, then you can't possibly have a logical reason for believing it.

Dr. Stupid

 

[EdipisReks]

i was going to say something along the lines of this being rationalized instead of rational, but the esteemed doctor beat me to it. in order for the faith to be rational, the irrational foundation (in this case the belief that the Bible was divinely inspired) would have to be removed. if this were to be done, it would no longer be faith.

 

[triadboy]

I'll put it like this: If I read a verse that makes sense, in light of what I've learned from other sources, then that's something I consider "rational." If archaeological evidence says there was a Jericho, and that certain events happened at that site, then, when I read through the Bible, that which jibes with what evidence has revealed is what I hold to. The rest of it, you lay aside.

Here is one of the deceptions in the bible that is very effective to the casual reader. (and the bible uses this often) Here is the actual time line:

- Jericho was a city (very old)
- Jericho was destroyed (Huge walls lay in ruin)
- hundreds and hundreds of years elapse
- The Israelites moved into Canaan
- Years later glorious stories were written about Joshua's military victories (Jericho included)

Here is the Israelite time line:

- The Israelites moved into Canaan
- Jericho was destroyed by the Israelites
- Glorious stories were written about Joshua's military victories (with mention of the huge walls at Jericho)

Here we have a military victory 'just so' story. Jericho was already in ruins when the Israelites entered Canaan! The story must have been assembled years later, because the current generation/population knew damn well the Israelites had nothing to do with the demise of Jericho. It would have been a story developed to frighten an enemy a generation or two later. ("See those ruins? We did that")

'Just so' stories are supposed to be froggy little childrens tales to explain unknown phenomenon. However, the bible takes 'just so' stories into a whole new realm - history.

The bible is dripping with 'just so' stories taken as fact. This causes death! (Isn't that strange?)

 

[triadboy]

Iwhen I live by what I read in Scripture, things work. When I don't, things don't work.

RoadToad,

I think you just hit a period where things worked and you happened to have a crutch to explain it. Things go good and things go bad. If you were to look, you would see it happens whether you are being religious or wearing your favorite socks.

All you can do is try to be a good human. I don't think belief in a talking snake is any help at all.

The weight that was lifted off my shoulders when I finally realized the truth was amazing. Once I realized the myth...once I realized there was no heaven...no hell...no god...no satan... We are here on this planet through a wonderful accident of planetary position and time. This is it. Live your life and have a ball and be mighty happy you're here.

 

[Roadtoad]

I have to admit, the answers I've been getting have been surprising. I can't say I always like the answers I get, but if you can't handle the heat from something like this, you probably shouldn't ask the question. (Or, for that matter, you shouldn't even sign in here.)

Maybe there's a better way to describe this:

If I flip on the light switch, I know the lights should come on. Past experience tells me there's electricity flowing through the wires, and the light bulb should work. (If they don't, then I know I either should have paid the light bill, or changed the bulb.) The act of using the light switch is an act of faith. I can't see the electricity, I can only see the effect of it. That would be rational faith.

Irrational faith would be holding out my hand over the switch and saying, "Let there be light!" It don't work. Not even for Sylvia Browne.

Like I said, I'm working on this. I ain't there yet. It's going to take some time to figure this one out. When I write, I write to learn, not simply to groove on seeing my words on the screen. Frankly, I thought Stimpy's and triadboy's responses had a lot to them, as did US's. Lots to consider.

But then, that's what I was after in the first place.

Billiefan, in the event you're reading this, take note: This is called INTEGRITY. People here are giving honest answers to honest questions. We may not like what the other has to say, but there's a willingness to confront that, and a willingness to deal with one another with respect. You may want to take a few lessons from triadboy and others here. Hit and run is for the cowards on the freeway.

 

[arcticpenguin]

RoadToad,

Your original question seems to be: how should a believer and man of faith consider the Bible in relation to other sources of information, or something like that. As I am not a man of faith and not a believer, I have tossed out certain assumptions you still hold.

Look around you today. Who are the people who claim to have direct communication with God? They are people like Jim Jones, David Koresh, Oral Roberts. I prefer to think that these people are kooks (some more dangerous than others) and not actually people with direct communication with God (whom of course I do not believe in anyway).

When you read the Bible, why do you believe the people who wrote that actually had a 'divine inspiration', instead of considering that maybe they were kooks as well?

Having tossed out the bath water long ago, I search the basin thoroughly, but I find that is no baby there, and never was.

 

[Roadtoad]

RoadToad,

Your original question seems to be: how should a believer and man of faith consider the Bible in relation to other sources of information, or something like that. As I am not a man of faith and not a believer, I have tossed out certain assumptions you still hold.

Look around you today. Who are the people who claim to have direct communication with God? They are people like Jim Jones, David Koresh, Oral Roberts. I prefer to think that these people are kooks (some more dangerous than others) and not actually people with direct communication with God (whom of course I do not believe in anyway).

When you read the Bible, why do you believe the people who wrote that actually had a 'divine inspiration', instead of considering that maybe they were kooks as well?

Having tossed out the bath water long ago, I search the basin thoroughly, but I find that is no baby there, and never was.

An interesting point. I look at David Koresh, and read what he said, compare it to what I read in the Bible, and know Koresh is a liar. Ditto Jones and Roberts.

This is scary business all the way around. You put a foot forward, seeking to know what God wants, and there's plenty of people out there ready to tell you. Funny thing is, once you really take the time to listen to what they have to tell you God wants, you realize God hasn't spoken to them, not at all.

Divine Inspiration isn't easy to figure out. I can't, myself, really. I can read certain books in the Bible and say, "Yes, this works." I can read others and say, "HUH?" Someone smarter than me read all this, and hopefully, ignored their own agenda long enough to say: "This will have value in another day beyond my own."

I can't tell you where the baby is, or was, or if the baby existed. I can only tell you what makes sense to me. And there isn't much that does.

 

[arcticpenguin]

An interesting point. I look at David Koresh, and read what he said, compare it to what I read in the Bible, and know Koresh is a liar. Ditto Jones and Roberts.

To dig just a little deeper, I will remoind you that my question was not 'how do you pick out today's kooks', it was 'how do you know that the folks who wrote the Bible wren't kooks'. I.e. how do you know that your yardstick for comparison is accurate?

Cheers,

 

[arcticpenguin]

Divine Inspiration isn't easy to figure out. I can't, myself, really. I can read certain books in the Bible and say, "Yes, this works." I can read others and say, "HUH?" Someone smarter than me read all this, and hopefully, ignored their own agenda long enough to say: "This will have value in another day beyond my own."

So then, your own internal standard is really the one you're using. If this is the case, what good is the yardstick, the Bible, for figuring out God's will? Wouldn't Moby Dick work just as well? Keep what you like, discard what you don't?

 

[Yahzi]

I would suggest, in light of several recent threads, that there is a difference between Rational Faith, which requires a strong adherence to Fact, and Rationalized Faith, which requires Personal Revelation.

Dang, Toad, I'm starting to feel bad for you.

I don't know how to say this without sounding arrogant, but the only way you can retain a Rational Faith is if you remain ignorant. We now have at hand enough facts to make any faith irrational (even if we can't prove it false).

You are trying very hard to retain something of value, while still accepting truth. This is quite noble. Unfortunately, it is also futile.

The only truths the Bible holds are the same truths that all stories told by people hold: truths about people. The insight into human nature, the relationship between power and responsiblity, good and evil, and other human concerns that you gleaned from the Bible are still worth keeping: but you could have got all that from Tolstoy or Hemingway.

The physical truths of the Bible are without merit whatsoever. Even its history is so distorted as to be virtually worthless.

If you follow this path of Rationalism very far, you will inevitably have to surrender faith. If you had been born even 50 years ago this would not be the case: like Shaeffer, you could still hold out that personality and consciousness might be gifts of God, and you wouldn't be irrational. But that was 50 years ago. The God of the Gaps is dead, squeezed to death by science answering the last of the questions that really matter to us.

The only comfort I can offer is that the Christian story, however beautiful it seems to you now, isn't really very pretty. Ultimately the idea that everything we do on Earth is just some kind of shadow-play, some kindergarten that will fade into insignificance after the first few billion years in Heaven, renders life far less meaningful than the pitiful dregs of meaning the existiantialists offer us. When you have completed your journey, I think you will understand that. Making our own meaning might not be very much, but its better than nothing.


My father went through this very same crisis. At one point he was complaining to me about some silly person at his Bible study group, who had asserted that we come back in Heaven as "points of light." Dad started flipping through his Bible, asking her what her references were for that claim, and she just said, "Oh, it's just what I believe." He was most annoyed at her silliness. I laughed at Dad and told him, if you keep on with that kind of rational inquiry, in 20 years you will be me. He didn't think that was funny, and the next time we talked, he had decided that the Bible could not be read without "spiritual discernment." In other words, he just gave up.


Again, I don't mean to sound arrogant, but lots of people have been down this path before, and it only ends in one of two ways: you lose all faith, or you abandon the path. All the things your fellow Christians taught you are false. I know this is an incredible claim, but eventually you will see it is true. I know a number of otherwise intelligent people who just can't believe that all of it was a lie, and yet everytime they put any one fact to the test, it fails. It's very hard to dig out from under so much fluff, but once you do, you realize just how deep it all was. Case in point: my fundy engineer at work came in one day, laughing about how silly Catholics are for believing that Mary was also a virgin birth. Now from his perspective, this makes sense: nowhere in the Bible does it even hint at such a thing, this is something Catholic theologians invented. On the other hand, the rest of us couldn't stop laughing: after all, once you have accepted one virgin birth, really, what's so incredible about two? He didn't get it - he just didn't get it, even when we explained. He was that ingrained in his world-view that he couldn't even see the other side. Because if he could, then his own natural rationalism would destroy his faith: if he could understand why any virgin births at all is just as incredible as two virgin births, then his faith is doomed. Because every single religious fact turns out to be just like that.

Recognizing that the Bible has no validity whatsoever is a big step in dismantling all that supposed authority. A shocking step, too, I would imagine.


In case it wasn't obvious, kudos to you for what you've done so far, and cheers from the peanut gallery.