Well Cello and Extropy, we were following the topic from around page 145 (the main line of argument that may be useful to you developed in the several pages following that), but I after debating that for a while, I was forced to where I had to defend the Bible from false accusation. I was arguing with pure reason on the topic, not scripture, yet the Bible was attack anyway.
Cyracuz said: "Run 4fun, who's to decide which parts are what? You? The pope? Elvis?"
Cyracuz, poetry is a recognizable literary style. It is obvious that the Psalms are poetry and that 1 Kings, the Gospels, etc. are not. I don't get what you're going for.
Cyracuz said: "I think run 4 fun is primarily centred around christianity and how it is the best way of life, unless I missed something. He's not saying anything we haven't heard before."
If you had heard it before, then you would already know that those scripture were not contradictory. But you attack them anyway knowing your accusations were false (yes, I know it was Cicerone, but you added some and said nothing else)? Wouldn't that show that you are not as much devoted to reason as you are blatantly opposed to Christianity?