You hit the nail on the head with the religion issue. It all falls down to beliefs-no factual evidence needed. There are, and have been, many religions, so are they all right? Are they all Wrong? Who is right? Who is wrong? God only knows-no pun intended. People tend to believe that the one they subscribe to is the "one" that has it best. No bias there huh? I always have said that everyone has a right to their own beliefs but no one has a right to force anyone else to live by their religion's code. It is a dicey topic to discuss for sure because it is tied to the very core of one's personal beliefs and is emotionally affected. But when one takes the emotion out of it and looks at it rationally a lot of organized religion(dogma) makes no sense when you look at it. I for one do not need an old book written by who knows whom to tell me to respect others, work hard, be honest, give of oneself, help those in need, and do not judge. Just my thoughts. Sheesh this smoke is giving me a headache!!!! Pray for rain. LOL

On what do you base your belief that the mortal, fallible men who wrote the Bible were inspired by God?

All we have is their word for it. If that is going to be an acceptable premise, then we would have to acknowledge the possibility that the scriptures of other religions, e.g., the Quran and the Book of Mormon, were also inspired by God. It would then follow that it is very possible that the other religions are just as valid as Christianity and that all the lives that were lost in the battles between the religions were lost in vain.

In his defense, he says he read the entire thing and takes a reasonable stance. While my views are obvious in this thread, you have to give the guy credit for doing the reading. Even in his defense of the scripture he acknowledges that men as the author have their fallacies. I truly repsect a person who approaches this subject in the manner that Phrog presents.

Here's my understanding of the whole thing. The Bible was physically written by men, but inspired directly from God. As Phrog said, kinda like someone telling someone else what to write.

I will say it again - I don't "argue" the bible. Please don't try to drag me into an argument. It won't happen. All I can say is that with the very same skepticism that you have, I actually opened the bible and read it for myself. Originally trying to find all those “inconsistencies” then discovering for myself just how infallible the scriptures are. Yes, the 66 books of the bible were written by over 40 different men from different eras of world history. Here is food for thought. When a judge makes a judgment does he or she write the judgment him/herself? Nope. He/she uses a court recorder and a clerk to issue the writing of his or her judgment. I would just challenge you to read it for yourself. This is my last comment on this issue.

Christians are supposed to consider the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. The New Testament, however, was written by mortal, fallible men. So, which is it? It can't be both.

Well, rrc, I pretty much disagree with your contextual reference. But, that is me and my study of scriptures and allowing the Holy Spirit to give me discernment. I don't "argue" the bible. The bible speaks for itself when an open heart is listening. The Old Testament is relevant when filtered through the New Testament. Jesus himself pointed out many passages from Old Testament that were taken completely out of context by man. In the control of man, the bible is a very dangerous thing. But in the control of the Holy Spirit the bible is very powerful material that can change the hardest of hearts for the better. I know that from personal experience. Jesus is about mercy and grace more than justice. But when justice is required, He will be the one who wields it.

"I often hear Christians refer to Old Testament quotations. Do they like some and ignore others? Are Christians permitted to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they with to observe?"

That about sums it up. I have a few for you rrc. Easy ones too. How did Noah fit 2 of every species on his ship? Where did the dinosaurs sit? How do new species continue to appear? If the Old Testament is to be infallible; how do you explain the science which is powering your computer? How about designer dogs such as the Pug or Chihahau? Cross breeding of Pidgeons? Rainbows being created by sunlight? Extinction?

If any publication encourages men dying at the hands and judgement of other men, it should not be held as an absolute authority. In addition, There is no room for religion in legal matters. It is too subjective. *Note that I am also the brother of a murder victim and believe in God.*

Is not the Old Testament part of the Judeo-Christian Bible? If it is not relevant, then why is it there? If it is a recognized part of the Bible, then why aren't its passages relevant?

Besides, in Matthew 5:17, Jesus is quoted as saying< "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Considering that he was speaking to the Jews, that would mean that the the law and the prophets to which he referred is the Old Testament and its prophets.

I often hear Christians refer to Old Testament quotations. Do they like some and ignore others? Are Christians permitted to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they with to observe?

You and I are pretty much on the same page with this one then. I am not a Libertarian, although I do agree with some tenets of that party-as I agree with parts of both Dem and Repub tenets as well. What I do not like about our two party system is that it has become corrupt, not just in a legal sense (graft, lobbyists influence, etc) but in a larger scope regarding loyalty to country. The party has become the primary group to which politicians have aligned themselves with-in order to get the financial support to get re-elected. They should be in office to do what is best for their constitutency-be it local, state, or national. Now it is get elected, get your party to be in the majority, and then start ramming your ideology into laws that favor your views. That is pathetic at best. Anti-Constitutional at worst-in some cases. A no party system with just limited public funding for elections would be a dream. Right now it is just a nightmare.