You wanted me all to yourself?
You made two important statements that i focussed on; "I do not expect to ever convince anyone by means of logic that the Bible is authentic...for me it is a matter of hope" & " Faith is a very personal matter".
All i was doing re-logic was pointing out how ridiculous the abdication of logic was. Nobody who dismisses the use of logic in convincing somebody of a particular argument or belief that you hold dear can be taken seriously. By doing that your admitting that your views are completely illogical. That they are governed by emotions and gut feelings only. Since that is the case you should be embarrised to share them and to judge other's based on them. Which is what you do whether you admit it or not, since the very fact that you believe these peasant myths means they effect your judgement during everyday life. The alternative is that you do not really believe in them and this is more about self image than anything else. Perhaps you feel guilty about what you have done in your life and this is a way of releaving your withered brain of that guilt?
You say; "So many people make so many assumptions, just because I believe in God.". Well of course they do you silly bitch. The very fact that you believe in God (let alone the fact that you believe in a specific religion) can tell anybody a good deal about your character. It shows us that you are an illogical human being (as you have admitted too), a sheep, and somebody who chooses to worship a supreme leader, whom if they existed (and if they existed in the form you claim) would be considered a narcistic cunt. Anybody who does that should be rightly judged.
You also say that i'm not worthy of a well-reasoned response, at least partly because i spell badly. Although i'm not sure what spelling has to do with the content of somebody's argument your response does not suprise me. In fact you've already dismissed the use of reason (or logic) several times so why would you use it now when you could just continue to be a crazy religious bitch who quotes peasant tales 1000's of years after they stopped being relevant?
The Bible is one of the most historically accurate, reliable documents from all of antiquity. Hundreds of scholars have carefully studied thousands of extant manuscript copies, whereas other ancient manuscripts, such as Homer’s Odyssey, have dozens- at most. The earliest copies we have are virtually identical to the most ancient document witnesses. The historicity of Jesus has been well-established by several extra-canonical sources. You say that the Bible is "irrelevant" today, but its teachings remain efficacious and pertinent for millions of people, thousands of years later, so your statement is factually incorrect.
I said that I would not use logic as a means by which to validate the authenticity of Christianity, because a belief in God transcends logic. Faith is informed by a myriad of influences, both cognitive and emotional. I have never understood people who deify logic whilst rejecting other valid sources of information and enlightenment- be they derived from literature, history, culture, or religion.
It is not any more “logical†to believe in God than it is to believe that billions of galaxies, containing billions of stars, powered by the nuclear fusion of trillions of atoms, emerged- at random- in a universe so large that it appears infinite, for no particular purpose, out of nothing. Nor is it not particularly "rational" that the constants in our universe should be so exquisitely fine-tuned to support the emergence of life, in the face of odds so astronomical that they require the invention of a theoretical multiverse to account for them!
To accept such theories- be they scientific or religious- requires belief, because they cannot be proven. That is why I said that I do not expect to prove the existence of God using logical, scientific means- any more than I might expect you to disprove it. Neither of us can. You are foolish to use that as a point of debate.
Have you ever heard of quantum entanglement? This observable physical phenomenon is seemingly illogical too- but only because we do not have the benefit of understanding how the universe works at a very discrete, microscopic level. There are many things about the nature of the Universe and reality as we know it that remain shrouded in mystery, because we do not yet have enough information to understand them fully. Until then, an acceptance of these ideas requires a measure of faith.
You are making this argument personal by repeatedly calling me a stupid bitch for being illogical enough to believe in God, but I could just as easily call you foolish for disbelieving, given the immense complexity and algorithmic elegance of creation, which- to my mind- provide evidence of vast creative genius and intelligent design.
Your calling Jesus a narcissistic cunt proves to me that you are- at best- completely misinformed about who he was and what he taught. But I won’t judge you for being a self-righteous ass who attacks from a platform of ignorance, whilst making sweeping assumptions about who I must be, in order to hold beliefs that you do not approve of. :P
I am not plagued by feelings of guilt or shame. I am, however, gifted with a sense of wonder, and an intellect sound enough to realize that I don’t know enough to claim certainty about anything. By transforming this issue into a podium from which to launch personal attacks, you reveal the insecurity and weakness of your position, and prove that you merely wish to disparage me, as opposed to engage in meaningful debate. That is why I considered you unworthy of a well-reasoned response, spelling be damned.
But you got one anyway. You owe me a joint. :P