Okay, I wasn't planning on posting to this thread any more after I posted. However, since you totaly misunderstood what I posted and twisted the words in such a manner that it justifies your position (major reasoning fallacy), I'm not just going to stand by and let you do it.
If nothing else, the Bible had a lot more time to mature and be well thought out.
I'm going to ignore the last statment in that as it's totally irrelevant. However, you could follow the adventrues of Tintin and learn quite a bit from it. However, it doesn't cover nearly as many individual lessons as the Bible does.
Why not? Are you refutting the morality of the 10 Commandments or anything else taught in the Bible? People accept it as a moral guide because they believe what it teaches is right and good.
This isn't to say that you can't refer to other sources to guide you as well. You'll certainly never hear me tell anyone that the Bible should be their only guide to life. Some of the stories simply don't apply to us now and we should appeal to new sources of moral literature that covers more modern issues (issues that didn't exist 100's or 1000's of years ago). Fortunately, most of this type of literature is consolidated and can be found in most Christian book stores.
(That's not to say that Christian literature is the only source for good moral literature, because it isn't. Other religous texts are also a good source of good moral literature).
No, but that could be a good enough reason for some people. It depends on the person.
It's not the only difference (read above). This is where the "faith" part comes in. The ultimates test. Can you truly love and follow a being that you can not prove exists? That is the heart of what "faith" is.
I know, I thought I made that quite clear. In fact, I specifically stated that he doesn't create the disasters, but mearly uses the natural events as an opportunity to test our resolve.
There's no such thing as a 'moral parallel.' There's right and there's wrong. No hazy or grey 'in between' stuff.
Not entirely. If you recall, Noah actually went out and warned everyone of the approaching storm and flood.
That's probably the most ignorant political statement I've ever heard. Yes, you can blame citizens for trusting the institutions set up to help them. In fact, that's the largest problem with the United States (and other countries) today. The citizens allow the "institution" (aka Government) babysit them and set up "protection laws" (ie, seatbelt laws). That's not how a government is supposed to operate. It's the citizens fault for allowing the government (aka "institution") to have that level of control and for the citizens to have that much "overconfidence" in them.
And no, people wouldn't 'perpetually live in a state of paranoia' if they stayed on top of things and made sure what their government (local or otherwise) was telling them was true and not the spoon feed crap they ussually give to make citizens feel all warm and cozy.
It doesn't matter, they're both natural disasters and Katrina was a better example as compared to the Noah flood story. So the fact you were talking about the earthquake is irrelevant.
I wanted to break this from the rest of the paragraph just point out that you are using an opinion (yours) and stating it as fact. This is a terrible reasoning fallacy and argument. Most scholors would surely disagree with you (and no, it's note because they hate pictures interupting the natural flow of text in their readings).
Not to mention that the Bible sells far more copies each year then Tintin.
It was an uncorridinated effort from the beginning. You CAN find versions that have rearranged the flow of the Bible so that it is more natural. However, for the sake of tradition, the original flow is used. Some find it quite artistic.
Please feel free to point out any inconsistancies you've found in the Bible. Firefox used to try to pull the "inconsistancy" card all the time in the old Religion Forum...I never let him get away with it though.
I disagree. I think you've never really given the Bible a chance. Although, I think you really meant to say, "Who would accept God? Why, only the ignorant and the foolish." To that I say, "Who wouldn't accept God? Why, only the ignorant and the foolish."
Knowledge is not only power...it's understanding. You can not accept what you don't (or refuse to) understand.