> I nowhere claimed as Issachar supposes I might be about to that there are "inaccuracies"and "contradictions" in the Bible. Firstly, because I do not claim that the Bible disproves the existence of God, and secondly because I am not so well familiar with the work that I could pretend to be an authority.
>
My apologies. I didn't mean to directly implicate you in that statement, but was simply thinking of other times when I've had the experience of discussing these issues with non-believers. Many of them have stock accusations and favorite examples of Sciptural fallacies ready to hand, though they don't welcome any further examination of those points.

> Neither am I schooled in the Qur'an, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita or any of the other religious texts - and I would therefore not have the gall to claim as Sam does that of these only the Bible has the ability 'to legitimize itself on its own'.
>
It actually doesn't bother me to hear that what Sam displays in his post is "gall". After all, Paul himself wrote in the New Testament that the gospel of Christ is an "offense" where the rest of the world is concerned. He fully recognized that the sort of claims he and the other early evangelists made about the divinity of Jesus Christ did not leave room for conciliatory stances or the acceptance of religious relativism which is so easy and comfortable to the modern mind. I'm not confrontational by nature, and dislike having to refer to someone else's cherished views as flatly wrong, but if I truly respect another person, the best I can do is to engage their religious beliefs and have an honest stance of opposition to them.
There is also a sense, you see, in which your remarks later in the post to the effect that it's just fine for people to believe in Jesus as God, or Allah, or whatever works best for them, are equally as galling as Sam's (and my) assertions about the divinity of Jesus. The relativist, in his/her attempt to respect the right of each person to believe what they will, usually ends by implicitly rejecting the beliefs of all as false. Those who hold to religious convictions, by very definition, make propositions about reality which can only be either true or false. The relativist's suggestion that the truth or falsity of those beliefs is irrelevant, that only their effect on the psychical well-being of the believer is of value, is the utmost form of condescension. The devout Muslim does not appreciate being told that he and the Trinitarian Christian are equally correct in their views, because this conciliatory position negates his attempt to make important truth-claims about the world. The relativist does better to claim atheism (or whatever belief he/she holds) and relate to religious people as a sincere adversary, rather than overtly condoning and covertly undermining all forms of religious belief.

> All that said, I'm sure Jesus was a cool guy and if it serves people well to believe he was part of a Holy Trinity then that's fine for them. Though that Old Testament version of God - I wouldn't want him for a flatmate (I feel a comedy sketch coming on).
>
> All the best,
> en'doomed for all eternity'ile

You say this lightly, but I can only take it all too seriously. This is a good enough example of what I've attempted to explain above. Eternity apart from God is a sober thing for me to contemplate. If it is not a serious matter for someone else, they are free to treat it as they will. But it is better that the difference of belief be straightforward and honest instead of couched in the language of "okay for me" and "okay for you." Clearly, if we have an eternity to look forward to at all, every attitude towards it is not okay for you or me. It is better to take the position of unbelief openly in that regard, than to take it covertly, under the guise of acceptance towards all.

Iss "I *do* have a sense of humor, y'all" achar