cclepew

I have a bookcase in my room. It contains various books of literature, science, history, mythology, poetry, and philosophy. In my collection of books, some are factual and some are not. A fictional book of literature is not automatically true because it is next to a factual book of science. A factual book of history cannot be dismissed as false because it is near a book of imaginative poetry.

If the Bible is a collection of books, possibly similar to the types of books on the average person's bookshelf, how can anyone consider it entirely true or entirely false?

The concept of being a "non-practicing [insert religion here]" really bugs me. The logic escapes me: If you are not practicing the religion, but call yourself a "non-practicing ____", then you are still associating yourself with the religion you are not actually practicing.

So.... isn't "practicing" all the customs and rituals of a religion the entire point of being part of that religion in the first place? I mean, you either are or you aren't. You can't be both.

I recently got into a big debate over this. Any other thoughts?