I'm both surprised and disappointed that you are #3 in taking this vacant approach.

Let me ask you this: Suppose a presidential candidate said that he/she believes that an ordinary man walked on water? Would that bother you?

Ugh. Just because you hold irrational beliefs doesn't mean that you need to be ok with other people having all sorts of irrational beliefs. Is there no belief stupid enough for you to object?

It sounds like Tex believes in live and let live.

You make a valid point. This is like Santos arguing that if you believe God has a church and it is the LDS church it's a bably step to believing God intervenes in the outcome of BYU football games. Demonstrably, believing the world is 6,000 years old is not qualitatively different from believing a man walked on water.

But, as Archea points out, presidential candidates lie all the time out of pure exigency and literal belief in the Gospels' Christ is one of the signal lies a presidential candidate must espouse in our country. That these subjects are even seriously addressed in our elections just goes to show you how messed up we are.

Agree. It's embarassing that our candidates for President of the United States are subjected to "debates" that consist of 10 candidates giving crappy 30-second answers to crappy questions. As if anything can possibly be gleaned from these debates, except for who can say something not stupid and who can remember the zinger their handlers wrote for them. Now we have to hear them bear testimony of a topic, Biblical innerancy, which most Americans haven't given real thought.

You failed to answer my question. Typical.

As to your question, I can't think of any way someone could definitively prove that Jesus did not walk on water. It's ultimately a matter of faith. On the other hand, saying that the earth is literally 6000 years old is to ignore undeniable, overwhelming, and definitive evidence otherwise. Should a person ignorant enough to promote such a belief be entrusted with the most powerful office in the world? Not in my opinion.

Actually, you answered your own question via mine, which was my intent. You're cherry-picking.

So far as I know, we've got "undeniable, overwhelming, and definitive evidence" that man cannot of his own accord walk on water. And if that's not palatable enough for you, I've got a whole slate of others. How about a guy who parts a sea, so a few million Hebrews can walk across the seabed on dry ground? How about a guy who is cured of leprosy by skinny dipping in a dirty river? How about a guy who satiates a few thousand on a handful of bread and fish?

Or how about a supernatural being appearing to a teenager, giving him a gold Bible, and telling him to start his own church? Could a guy ignorant enough to promote such a belief be entrusted with the most powerful office in the world?

Not in your opinion.

I agree with Tex here. Moroever, the NT is worse than hearsay while pretending to be written by apostles forty years after Christ's death, as the authors repeatedly disclose their modus operandi of ripping off the OT, citing alleged OT prophesies or sayings that the NT authors are making come true!

How ironic that you and SU end up following the same line of reasoning: in for a penny, in for a pound. Any level of belief is equally irrational.

Bottom line is that there are some beliefs that I find extreme and overly irrational. I am sure there are beliefs that you would classify the same way, you just aren't honest enough to admit it.