I do....as well as dogs.
I do not believe religious zealots that use religion as a mask to kill each other do though.
and like GH2001 said I do not concern myself with them, I worry about getting my own self into heaven
So why are agnostics and atheists your only exception to this rule? Why is there a difference in Options B & C is what I'm asking.
...Who can separate reality from goofing around.
Didn't answer the question, either.
I'm not the only agnostic/atheist in this thread, let alone the entire world. I don't get your point. Furthermore, only one faction of those people are "right". Despite what most people here have suggested, the popular belief within all of these religions is that only "their" religion has any validity, and the rest is fairy tale nonsense...and other believers go to hell or its equivalent. At best, Christianity is "right", and that means 2/3 of the world were wrong and going to hell. Then there are many of those who believe that only their denomination is "right", so that makes even less people who are safe from the flames of hell, no matter what the truth is.
Beyond that, portions of the Bible were written hundreds of years after the events described took place.
Take, for instance, the contention that certain Biblical figures were hundreds or thousands of years old. It's possible -- likely even -- that they were just remembered as very, very old and someone with my flair for hyperbole said "that guy was 900 years old!" That became part of the story and lived on.
Maybe I'm wrong, but what you're supposed to get from the Bible (at least my opinion) is the overarching theme. If you try to bury yourselves in the details you (again my opinion) become hopelessly lost. I know people like that. People who can spout it line for line and will try to shout you down if you attempt to make a rational argument against, say, the six days theory. Six days by what measure? Six Gregorian calendar days? I don't think so. That's limiting God.
This I can understand. This I can agree with. But again, your view on this is the minority amongst Christians.
For example, even you would probably agree that one cannot be a Christian if they reject the idea of virgin birth. If they think Jesus Christ claiming to be the son of God is no different than David Koresh doing so, because they equally critical of things that take place in the present day as they are to the stories of the Bible (even the central one), then those people certainly cannot be considered Christians, can they? I guess it then becomes a matter of which parts of the Bible do you think are meant to be poetic fables with a moral, and which parts are meant to be taken literally. To me, it seems like it should be all or none, but that's just me.