lapwing wrote: Qu'ran Surah 86 "loins and the ribs"
This is another case where the Moslem scholars have different views -
see for instance http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an_and_Semen_Production_(Qur'an_86:7
It appears to be using poetic, not scientific language.
I don't think one should judge such texts using a modern scientific mindset.
This idea can be used to justify just about any idea out there. How can one tell the sense in which that passage was to be read say 1000 years ago? Or do we conclude that it is poetic language because we now know it to be false?
lapwing wrote: Mormonism and the Book of Mormon
It is apparent that this religion cannot be considered as normatively Christian. Polygamy (now rejected by CofLDS), humans becoming gods, rejection of the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, baptism for the dead. Much of the Book of Mormon is denied by archaeology -
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon
However, I'm not sure this is the way forward for our discussion.
One could always produce one more religion which has miraculous claims.
What would that prove or disprove? The existence of religions with false claims of miracles does not invalidate the truth of Christianity. Anyone can make up a false religion anytime. I could make up a false theory of relativity
but that wouldn't, of itself, invalidate Einstein's theory.
What I've done shows the problems with the sorts of stories found in religious texts. Sure the existence of religions with false claims doesn't invalidate Christianity but why should the fantastic stories in the Bible be believed while that of other religions discarded? Is there some other method of deciding which stories are believable?
lapwing wrote: "Talking donkey" i.e. Balaam's donkey
There are other difficulties in this passage (Num 22:22-35) with an apparent change of mind by God from v20 to v22. Some commentators hold that this passage comes from a different tradition about Balaam, a person for whom there is archaeological evidence at Deir Allah. However, the meaning of the whole passage is clear: Israel's enemy Balak sent for Balaam (from the Euphrates area - Iraq?) to curse Israel but Balaam could not comply and so go against God's will.
I think one should be wary of having a modern hierarchy of believableness for miracles. So Jesus healing the sick might be considered more acceptable than Balaam's ass or Jonah's whale. An almighty creator God is clearly capable of doing any miracle. It is better to consider the context, meaning and nature of each passage.
One thing that is clear is that we understand the world better now than 2000 years ago so why should one be more accepting of those things that we would be skeptical of now? I see no reason why I should consider Jesus' miracles as being more believable than Jonah's whale or Balaam's ass.
Sure an almighty creator is capable of doing any miracle but is there a reason for one to be reasonably justified in saying that he performed a particular miracle?
lapwing wrote: Lot's wife - Josephus (Antiquities I:12) claimed to have seen this in his time, but clearly one could say it was a natural formation such as occur in the Dead Sea area. The above argument applies.
Maybe he too was wrong? After all, he was partly Jewish and maybe he too believed in that myth. If it was a natural formation, then it wasn't Lot's wife and thus more cracks appear in those stories too. Unless of course you wish to now turn it into poetic language.
lapwing wrote: "The differences show that there isn't really a way to know which doctrine is right."
But maybe you're being too scientific. Theology is not like double entry book keeping and there are bound to be differences of opinion. If God were to prescribe the exactly-right-set-of-Christian-beliefs (and I'm not convinced that such a concept is necessarily valid) would that not vitiate man's free will and use of his own mind. God asked Adam to name the animals
i.e. to think for himself.
I don't see anything wrong with being scientifically minded (in the general sense) especially when we consider how successful it has been. The problem with the differences of opinion in theology is that there is no way to solve them because even the subject of discussion is questionable.
If God were to make those prescriptions, I don't see how it affects free will. After all, he is said to have given moral, dietary and clothing prescriptions. These don't seem to have affected free will have they?
lapwing wrote: Witches, leprechauns and faeries
The Bible describes evil spirits so some of these manifestations may be those. One has to weigh the evidence in each case. Witches are human beings who claim magic abilities - there are instances of this in the Bible but they are rare. Medieval witch trials - there are cases where such charges were trumped up in order to settle more mundane disagreements.
But do you believe in them? If there are witches, then according to the Bible, they have to die. Have you considered that maybe leprechauns and faeries are mythical creatures just like unicorns and fire-breathing dragons?
lapwing wrote: I've just finished Letters and Papers from Prison by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. A refreshing read from a theologian who was not afraid to tackle the difficulties of Christianity and think outside the box, but who clearly found support through his faith. A good book for you to read I would think.
Hmm. I don't think I'll be able to read it though I'll be willing to discuss the ideas he presents in the book that you find convincing.