"Ok, like King Arthur was a king in Brittian?"
Speaking as a Briton (who lives in Britain, mayhaps there was a king of a place called 'Brittian'; care to point out on a map this country called 'Brittian'?!). Just as there was a talking snake in the 'Garden of Eden'.
"He was a king towards the end of the Mideivl period? He had a wife named Gueinevere and a knight named Lancelot?"
You were clearly 'hoemskuled', considering your spelling. In the Holy Britannian Empire in the anime series "Code Geass" , there was Guinevere su Britannia, the First Princess:
http://codegeass.wikia.com/wiki/Guinevere_su_Britannia
Just as there was actually a talking snake, as described in the Bible. Amirite?
"None of that contradicts reason or common sense."
But it's purely legend (and which still carries great cultural power here in the UK).
"But its all false."
Even Arthurian scholars wouldn't contradict you. Just as professors of theology - who know infinitely more about your beliefs than you do, Rom831 - would acknowledge that the 'talking snake' in the Garden of Eden was merely metaphor.
Y'know. 'Metaphor'. As in not real. Thus the Bible isn't literal. So if one thing in it isn't real, all of it is complete bollocks.
"King Arthur was a minor king in Scandanivia (not Brittian) at the begining of the period (not the end)."
And you know more than said Arthurian scholars to say this... how? Prove it or be subjected to the ignominy of [citation needed].
"He did have a castle"
'It's only a model.'
'Ssssh!'
-"Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
"and a wizard (probablly a mere magician)"
The Disney animated film "Sword in the Stone" and the film "Excalibur" are not documentaries. Neither are the comics "Camelot 3000" or "Slaine" in "2000 AD" factual historical documents, but just fantasy. Rather like the Bible, hmmmmm?
Frankly, the anime series "Fate/Stay Night" (featuring a female reincarnation of Arthur, a.k.a. 'Sabre') would blow your mind.
"and that's about as close to the Legend as it comes. What's my point? You cannot use your own discernment to gather the truth."
Your point: 'The Bible is about as factual as the Arthurian legend, but I daren't admit it, or be proved the failure I am. After all: 'Truth' is purely subjective. Fact is objective'.
"You will be wrong."
A definite case of:
image
"so how can you believe in parts of the Bible and not other parts?"
Oh, just the notion of a talking snake renders any credibility the so-called 'Bible' has to be completely invalid. You & your ilk can't even produce one piece of physical evidence for the existence of Jesus (PROTIP: The Turin Shroud was proven years ago to be just a medieval fake).
Like I say: If one part of the Bible is mere 'metaphor', then all of it is lies.
And you don't need to be a professor of theology to discern that. After all:
'Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever conceived'
-Isaac Asimov
But you keep waiting for your J-man to blow his horn and suck you (& everyone on Ruptured Retards) off. Frankly, there's more chance of King Arthur returning from Avalon, in Britain's hour of need. Which will happen, going by your logic eh, Rom831? If you disagree, then you admit your Jesus won't come and (C)Rapture you because he doesn't exist.
Catch-22 can be such a bitch, eh?
