>>That is simply ridiculous. That something cannot be proven empirically does not in any way imply equal weight to all possibilities. I've never seen you, but I don't think the odds of your being 10 feet tall are 50-50
>
>Funny, now that you bring this up, I am indeed 10 feet tall. I would send you a picture, but there was an article in the local Newspaper yesterday that mentions my name and that I am the record holder of the biggest person in Aruba.
>
>But although I am telling you this, and even if you would find the newspaper article, it would only be a 50% chance that this is true, unless you would see me with your own eyes.

But that's the point. If Aruba Newspaper, or the Bible, said you were 10 feet tall or you lived for 200 years I would not think that changed the probability of it being true unless I had reason to believe this was a reliable source. Since I have no reason to believe the truth of the Bible other than the Bible and those who believe it to be true, I hardly think it is dispositive.

You mention corroborating evidence from sources who did not rely on Biblical texts. In fact there is very little Egyptian corroboration for Moses, the flight from Egypt etc and no matter how much Christian apologists would like to twist Josephus, he confirms nothing more than the fact that Jesus existed, was crucified by the Romans and what his followers claimed of him., That may win arguments against those who might claim there was no Jesus but it certainly does not certify anything else that cannot be confirmed other than the beliefs of early christians - probably relying on much of the same source text.

If I wrote that Joseph Smith lived and was murdered as is common knowledge and then briefly mentioned LDS beliefs as told in the Book of Mormon I don't think 2000 years or a week from now that could be seen as any kind of independant validation of LDS doctrine or should mean that now there is a 50-50 chance the Book of Mormon is literally true.

As early as 630 AD Islam understood some of the theological and philosophical problems with Christianity. The Qu'ran is valid only in the original language. It is single-sourced and only is the word of God when the Prophet is told "Recite". There is no trinitarian silliness which then has to be defended with arguments that mock logic and language and the prohibitions against idolatry are taken seriously. Like Christianity it later has to deal with very human politics and questions about the line of succession. The Sunni/Sufi split, like the suppression of the Arian Heresy and countless others, shows that humans are humans and hardly in the image of the God they claim.

But to a more interesting point - I was definitely off base on associating things you were saying with Calvin, much to my relief as I agree about pretty obvious flaws in the logic of Calvinism. On re-reading your posts your self-identification as an independant Baptist seems to be more coming from the Blaurock and Hutter traditions - i.e. Anabaptist in the Swiss/German line - than what I think modern Americans may think of as Baptist.

That resonates with me a lot more than the evangelical stuff Rick is spouting. Adult baptism should be, I think, obvious ( I always thought the Methodism I was raised with had that one very wrong) . Baptists don't hold with transsubstantiation either, I think, and disdain hierchies and intermediaries relying on the community of believers, so that makes a lot of sense as well.

You are also describing in another thread a conception of God that is far less in man's image than what I thought you were originally arguing so I thinking I am understanding better why you are comfortable with your faith and remain flexible in dealing with the world.

I know many people - including in my own family - who hold very sincere Christian beliefs and there was a time in my life when I accepted the same beliefs. I no longer share them but I do not disdain them and most importantly do not disdain those who hold them. I can recite the Apostles' Creed - I just can't believe it.

And I see those Protestant (or Reformist) traditions as at odds with the kind of fundamentalism with a very historically shallow background that I see Rick and much of the modern evangelical movement espousing. Sort of the difference between Billy Graham and Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell.

I see the same thing in Islam. The Islam I came to know through some people I respect was of a decidedly Sufi bent and to the takfiri / Wahabbi / Deobandi true believers they might as well be Zionists.

Of course, the Scientologists are pretty sure I am a suppressive person, so my chance of getting invited to Tom Cruise's place are pretty slim :-)