[SlipperyJim]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

This is the essential premise that must be laid down before leaders can develop a militant "us vs them" mentality. You call non-believers "fundamentally different", but between the two quotes provided here, and your rationale to support them, you mean that non-believers are "inferior". Beyond that, non-believers are not just inferior, but expendable, and perhaps worthy of direct and violent retribution for their disbelieving ways. To me it seems that this is a good example of scripture that you can interpret to your heart's delight, you can dress it up and sugar coat it all you want - and it's still just wrong, and no matter how you try to bury it, it is filled with malice and dischord.

I said we were fundamentally different, and that's what I meant. What have I said that would lead you to believe that I meant "inferior"?

Unbelievers are not inferior to believers, and no Christian should claim so. Jesus died to save the whole world, not just a chosen few. Each human being is worth the life of God's own Son. That's a lot of value....

In a sense, unbelievers may be worth even more than believers. If I die today, I'm going to heaven. If an unbeliever dies without accepting Christ, he goes ... somewhere else. Therefore, an unbeliever's earthly life is (in a sense) more important than mine, because it's the only chance he has.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

But the bible itself states that it is the word of god. It seems illogical to assume that an essentially infallible being would deposit its teachings into people who were so horribly flawed that they would contradict each other, and make such horrible and glaring errors as are seen. Hence, the basic disagreement between logic and faith ensues.

That's why Marcionism was rightly condemned as heresy. If God is God, then we must take His entire Word. We must interpret it correctly, but we must accept it. Picking apart the Bible will only lead a person astray. We can see the clear danger of picking apart the Scriptures in Christ's warning to the church of Laodicea:

"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

And again, it seems terribly illogical to claim that part of a religious scripture is directly literal, while another part is figurative. I find it amusing that when religious believers are confronted on certain points, they argue that the "word of god" must be taken literally word for word. Confronted on other points, and they will figuratively construe the message in whatever convoluted way necessary to support their own point of view. It is worth noting that this particular point of view may not mesh with many other factions of the religion, who will interpret that particular portion of the bible in a different way.

In one sense, you're mistaken. But in another sense, you're very correct.

It is a mistake to conclude that one cannot believe in the truth of Scripture without taking it literally word-for-word. Not all of Scripture is meant to be taken word-for-word. Scripture contains history, biography, poetry, and prophecy. Some of those events (such as Jesus's biographies, AKA the Gospels) are clearly meant to be understood as the literal truth. Other passages of Scripture are poetic, and they must be understood as metaphor. Much of Scripture works on multiple levels. The Song of Solomon is a good example of beautiful (erotic!) poetry that praises married love between a man and a woman, while it also gives us an analogy for the relationship between God and His church.

On the other hand, you're very correct to spot that there are some logical inconsistencies in Christians who want to dismiss the Old Testament as a mere fairy tale. Christ came to earth as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. We cannot dimiss those prophecies without dismissing Christ Himself. The miracles in the Old Testament also point to Christ. If we dismiss those miracles, how can we maintain any consistency in our belief about Jesus?

For example, the parting of the Red Sea is frequently dismissed as a fable, even by modern Christians. But God's power over the elements is an integral part of His divinity. He made the waters, so He can certainly order them to part. Power over the elements was part of how Christ proved His own divinity, when He calmed the storm on the Sea of Galilee. More importantly, the parting of the Red Sea (and the entire Exodus) is a foreshadowing of how Christ saved us from sin. Just as the power of God created a passage in the Red Sea, so the power of God through Christ created a passage through sin and death.

There's another point to consider. The crowning miracle of Christianity is the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, the entire faith falls apart. It seems to me that raising a dead man back to life is at least as big a "trick" as parting the sea. So why would I believe in the Resurrection, yet reject the rest of the miracles? If the parting of the Red Sea is too improbable for me to believe, then the Resurrection is also going to be a problem....

Finally, there's the credibility of God's Word, which comes back to the credibility of God Himself. Not all of Scripture is meant to be taken literally, but there is no sign that Exodus is meant to be understood in any other way. It's not poetry. It's not prophecy. Clearly, it's meant to be a literal history. If we don't believe it as such, then we're challenging God's honesty.