when a skeptic asks a YEC about dinosaurs the question is rhetorical. the real question is why are you such an ignorant moron.

So, in what way do you believe his is a savior to mankind?

A savior from what?

And why do we need a savior?

No I'm not.
Wrong again.
No neither would I.

As I said, you're ascribing beliefs to me I don't have. It's the same as you being an atheist because obviously you hate god.

I don't know about the tense change (maybe it's not important) but to be clear, what I said was: "As it happens I believe Jesus literally existed..." meaning that I do believe in the historical existence of a man called Jesus. I don't think Jesus 'exists' now in the sense that you or I do.
I think the bible is a tool for understanding our relationship with God. Whether those stories actually happened or not doesnt matter in terms of imputing a message. If Jesus really existed, he said some things which I find useful to think about. If he didnt, someone wrote down some sayings of a mythical character which I find useful to think about.

My spiritual experiences/beliefs/delusions don't answer questions about the physical world - they are purely metaphysical (with the exception of "funny feelings in my head"). As such, there is no belief about the physical world which depends in any substantive way on my religion*.

* The possible exception being my dualism - although that was my view as an atheist also, nonetheless I think dualism and theism reinforce each other in some way I havent quite worked out.

I think he shows us the way to redeem ourselves.
From the bad things we do.
Because God would prefer that we do good.

It's not important. I mean if he existed in any theologically real capacity (he existed and he was the real deal son of God).

Can you answer my question?



But the world would be different if Jesus/God didn't exist, no?

I don't really understand it, I'm not being obtuse. I think he existed as a person and that he taught truths about God.

I don't think 'the son of God' means the same as me being the son of my father.

EDIT: Sorry I forgot your question. I believe Jesus's teachings have value because they mesh well with my personal experiences and musings - not because it's written in the bible so it must be true.
Well yes - but I dont think Jesus=God. If it were to turn out that Jesus never existed and that he was a myth, then it wouldnt substantially change my views on anything of significance. I guess I might think about the stories differently, but I don't think there's anything extra-profound just because he actually physically existed as opposed to being mythological. (My views about nature and the physical world are largely unaffected by whether I believe in God or not, let alone whether I believe in Jesus).

you just said you see the bible as potential mythology with a possibly imaginary relationship to god that you think is subjectively useful as a framework to interpret your spiritual beliefs. you're pretty firmly in make believe land IMO.

Right. I didnt say "the bible validates my beliefs" the way you claimed.
Gosh, really?

You've demonstrated pretty conclusively that you have no idea what I actually believe, yet feel perfectly content to make sweeping statements about how silly those beliefs are. How peculiar.

We do have enough data. It shows that dinosaurs and humans did not ever live together. There's no way that any dinosaur and Noah were alive at the same time.

So "no" then, you don't rely on the Bible at all for the basis of your belief in Jesus? What then do you rely on as your basis for believing in Jesus?

But you would effectively be a Deist without Jesus, no? Nothing in the Bible would be true, they're would be no salvation, no end times, no Heaven would exist, etc. That's a very different reality, no? There is no difference between Deism and Christianity in your mind?

I'm not really sure what you're meaning by 'believing in Jesus' - I am conceding that he might be mythological, does that imply I don't believe in him?

My basis for thinking that the words attributed to him are inspired in some way is purely the fact they accord with my own intuitions about God's nature. Ultimately though, my whole point is that I don't think it matters - I don't claim to have any special knowledge, nor do I think that religious/spiritual statements are the same kind of thing as scientific/empirical statements. This is where I disagree with most theists and atheists (and where I think they usually agree). I don't think my religion has any bearing on how the physical world is - any physical claim is best tested through science, in my opinion and I wouldnt use personal revelation (the basis of my faith) to address any question as to how the physical world is. (I don't consider 'what caused the universe' to be a scientific question although perhaps it is, if I were to be shown some way that such a question could be answered scientifically, I would regard any spiritually derived belief about such things to be unjustified).
I think God is benevolent, so no.
I think the bible is true but, as I've been arguing in this thread, not in the sense that it describes the physical world. (I don't believe in a place called heaven for example - I don't actually believe in any kind of afterlife, FWIW). I think it is making spiritual statements about how we should attempt to relate to God - the truth or otherwise of that is not something you can determine empirically (in fact I think it's not something you can determine - I think the attempt to understand is the important part, even though I think knowledge of God is impossible).
Although I find value in the bible it's best if I describe myself as not being a Christian. As I understand deism it is inconsistent with any personal connection to God - something I think exists. So I'm not a deist either.

I call myself a theist and by that I mean that I believe in a benevolent creator of the universe, able to do everything it's possible to do and able to know everything it's possible to know. I'm also agnostic, as I think knowledge of an entity like that is fundamentally impossible.

In light of your latest post, I think your definition of Christ being the savior is in great conflict with the Christian one, no?

Not if you read the bible as entirely allegorical - as a book containing spiritual teaching rather than literal accounts of events.

However, I don't call myself a Christian, so it isn't particularly important is it?

Yeah, reading the Bible in this way is in conflict with Christianity.

Just saying you calling Christ the "savior of humanity" means something very different than what Christians mean when they say it, that's all.

I'm not really sure where we are now. It is certainly the case that many christians consider me heretical (I dont believe in an afterlife either, so salvation to me is clearly rather a different concept than it is for most christians).

What I found interesting was your claim that the bible was obviously intended to be read as a literal account of creation (I'm not seeking to revisit that, just by way of a recap). My point in entering this thread was that, in my view, the Bible is not intended as a literal account, it is a guide to our relationship with God. Therefore, any omission of or correlation with scientific fact is hardly a reasonable measure of whether it achieves its goal. There are many christians who disagree with me (though good luck pinning down an uncontrovertible 'christian position' on just about anything - there are priests in the Anglican church who dont believe in God) but that is hardly relevant.

Maybe our back-and-forth has been a misunderstanding? Maybe it seemed I have been putting forward some kind of claim like 'mine is the true christian position'. My religious claims are fairly mild - deliberately so, in a sense, since the evidence substantiating them is of the weakest kind. I also allow uncertainty and distinguish (in a potentially nonsensical way) between belief and knowledge.

A point commonly made by atheists is that, in allowing "oh that bit's allegorical" as a pass for potentially troubling passages, the theist opens themselves up to the problem of establishing how they draw the line. The fact that there is a need for interpretation undermines the claim that the bible is some kind of 'infallible answer book'. An argument I've often heard (and this seems similar to your position) is that a theist can only avoid this problem by taking it all literally. I actually think that taking it all allegorically is equally satisfactory, you just have to give up the "I have the answers" position (which I dont think is a big deal, since I think the bible only appears to provide certainty on moral/spiritual issues, the objectivity being merely an illusion).

A bit of waffle perhaps, but I'm a little confused about where this is or has been heading.

You're reading a little bit too much into my last statement I think. I was just noting how different your views/conceptions are from other theists, that's all. And before that I was trying to figure out what those conceptions where.

I suppose this is the probably the end of our journey in that regard as I know what you believe.

All I can really do now is comment that I don't quite understand how you prop up those beliefs, and that you seem to do so with nothing more than subjectivity as the foundation. But then you seem to admit this. So I can't figure out if I respect you or not, because base your beliefs very questionably, which I normally wouldn't respect, and yet you don't defend that. I guess I net respect you as a theist, because unlike so many other theists you admit you have no objective basis for your spiritual views. And that is a refreshing humility and honesty.