OK, Ive read the first quarter, Im gonna write out my notes;

First note; I understand that different rituals are often applied to the same name. That does matter, and I read up on that.

There are however, certain terms that condescend all definition. Terms like birth, virginity, death, are not vague terms left open to interpretation.
The birth of a mythical figure is usually not up for debate; there are almost always clear stories on the births of mythological figures, is that not true?

Emmaculate conception is not vague either. Someone was impregnated by someone other than a human, a God's seed being transplanted into a human.

whoa whoa, just came across something;
so when Paul's teachings are brought forth, about death and rebirth (terms that are vague and do have many different connotations), the article stated that the common use of this was not decided until later in the Christian ideology, correct?
Then how in the world can we say for sure what Paul's teachings meant?
Do you use the Bible? How? In historical study, taking the Bible at face value is a practice that is not looked well upon. You know that.
We know the Bible was transcribed by man, how can we come to the conclusion that Paul's teachings are different from those of ancient mythology? Because the rituals do not match up? Well, who decided the rituals? Christians.

Gotch I see lots of words that do not lead me to take all this as fact; may have, possiblity, more plausible,etc..

Take baptism. That is a word that has NUMEROUS meanings, although Christians have their own specific definition, but in ancient times, people being cleansed of evil and reborn is very prevalant. Correct?
So how can we be assured what was REALLY meant in Christian ideology? There is no possible way, correct?

My point here is, that religion takes FAITH, blind, unwaivering faith. We do not disagree on that, true?
So how is it even remotely fair to take someone's faith as fact? How can it be possibly 'right' to take myths from thousands of years ago and proclaim them as fact, without no shred of evidence? Its not, correct? Then why should we use teachings and morals, no matter if they are good, when there is no way to prove its the true meaning of life? Its blind faith.

Then how can it be justified to let blind faith interwind with facts, in the setting of governing a set of people? Thats my whole point is that letting religion seep so far into our government has took a huge chunk out of our credibility as a country of religious freedoms and ideals.