What is your strongest reason for believing in Christianity?

[bluegreenearth]

What is the single strongest reason that supports your belief in Christianity?

How could we determine if that reason is reliable or unreliable?

Note: Discovering you have an unreliable reason would NOT mean your belief is false; only that you require a more reliable reason to justify a high degree of confidence in the validity of the belief.

[1213]

How could we determine if the Bible's accounts of supernatural events are reliable or unreliable?

It depends on what supernatural event. Do you have some specific event in your mind?

[For_The_Kingdom]

What is the single strongest reason that supports your belief in Christianity?

How could we determine if that reason is reliable or unreliable?

Note: Discovering you have an unreliable reason would NOT mean your belief is false; only that you require a more reliable reason to justify a high degree of confidence in the validity of the belief.

The truth value of the resurrection is the only argument for Christianity, correct?

[sorrento]

1213 has asked for a specific biblical supernatural event that can be examined to determine whether such an account was reliable or unreliable.
The account in Luke of Jesus healing the ten lepers seems rather iffy to me.
Modern medicine can cure leprosy in as much that it can halt the progress of the disease, but any damage already caused, such as deformity and blindness, remains.
A story that says ten people were cured of leprosy simply because someone told them that they were now cured is not an account I would consider to be reliable.
Supernatural stories are for people who use faith to determine the validity of those stories, not for people who use reason and logic.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 99 by bluegreenearth]

I asked

What do you mean by, "not necessarily"? Does this mean they may have been, but, "but not necessarily"?

To which you reply,

Yes

Now, let us recall what your original point was here,

The gospels were not necessarily historical accounts nor were they intended to be

So then, when you answer "yes" above, this means the gospels could necessarily be historical accounts, correct? In other words, it seems like you are saying we do not know? My question is, what would be the evidence which would suggest they may not be "historical accounts"?

My point is, we can demonstrate the writings in the NT were not intended to be fiction. So then, if the authors were not intending to give historical accounts, then what was the intent, and what would be the facts, and evidence to support such an idea?

The gospels were not necessarily historical accounts nor were they intended to be

You seem to be saying things two different ways in this one sentence? First if, "the gospels were not necessarily historical accounts", would this mean they absolutely could have been? You then go on to say, "nor were they intended to be", as if this is a known fact? If this is the case, then how did you determine the gospels were never intended to be, "historical accounts"?

Because you see, I gave you two letters contained in the NT, in which the author most definitely assures his audience that what he is reporting would indeed to based upon historical events. So then, what would be the evidence which may support the idea this author, never intended his letters to be historical accounts?

They might describe what the authors claimed to be events they believed occurred

Okay, you seem to be giving us, only possibilities? With this being the case, would it be possible the authors were giving an accurate account of real historical events? If not, then could you please explain how this can be demonstrated?

but the purpose of the texts were to evangelize an emerging religious belief; not to "necessarily" write a professional historical account using the same methods, style, and format as trained historians did during that time.

You see, you go from making statements as if they are simply possibilities, into a definite statement all in the same sentence.

If "the purpose of the text were to evangelize" then why is the overwhelming majority of the NT letters addressed to those who would already be believers? In other words, the overwhelming majority of the letters in the NT state clearly who the author is addressing, and all of those being addressed would have been believers.

There would only be a few letters in the NT which does not identify the audience being addressed. With the fact that the letters which do indeed address an intended audience, and all these would have been believers already, could it in fact be the case that those letters in the NT which do not address a particular audience, could have actually been intended for those who were already believers as well?

The point is, the letters in the NT, which clearly identify their audience, and we know this audience would have already been believers, then how can this be said to be an attempt to, "evangelize". Next, if you concede that it may be possible that the few letters which do not identify an audience, may have been intended for a believing audience as well, then it is possible that the whole of the NT would have been intended for a believing audience, which would indeed demonstrate that the authors could not possibly have the intent to evangelize, since their audience would have already believed.

In anticipation of the potential objection you might have to this assessment, I will acknowledge that not every historical account must be written by trained historians to be considered reliable.

You are correct. I do not look at the authors in the NT, as "trained historians". Rather, I look at them as authors of letters to audiences at the time, and I attempt to understand what all would have to be involved for what they report to their audience at the time to in fact be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved for the reports to be false.

I also understand that this is exactly what "trained historians" do. In other words, we claim to know a lot about events which have occured in history, based upon letters just like the ones we have in the NT, and many of the letters these "trained historians" use would not have been authored, by "trained historians" themselves, and the "trained historians" are able to analyze the information in these letters in order to determine what all would have to be involved for these things recoded to be accurate, as opposed to being inaccurate.

However, because the historical account in question contains claims of supernatural events, it would be irresponsible to ignore the fact that these texts were written by leaders of a religious movement with a motivation to convert other people to their faith and not written by unbiased historians.

Okay, one of the things you failed to address in my previous post, and you need to address here again is the fact that you acknowledge, "the authors were anonymous", and you make this point, because this demonstrates that we cannot know who the authors may have been.

Ergo, since I concede this fact, how in the world can we determine these authors would have been, "leaders of a religious movement"? Moreover, my question in the previous post was, since they were anonymous, how can we know they would not have been eyewitnesses? The fact of the matter is, if we look at the evidence contained in the 2 letters to Theophilus, this author begins to use the words "we", and "us" when describing the events of the travels of Paul, and he seems to simply be a follower, and not a leader at all?

Moreover, and again, the audience which is being addressed in these 2 letters, would have already been a believer. Therefore, how could these 2 letters possibly be an attempt, "to convert other people to their faith"?

With these 2 facts, how can we know these folks may not have been regular common folk, who were simply writing to friends, and or family? In other words, since we do not know who the authors may have been, then how do we know they may not have been someone like myself, who is far from being a religious leader?

Next, while I will agree that it would be "irresponsible" to simply believe these things, it would not be because there are "supernatural events" contained, but rather the fact that we should not simply accept what other folks have to say, without analyzing what they have to say, in order to determine if there may be any evidence to support what they say.

With this being said, would it be "irresponsible" to simply dismiss the claims being made because there are "supernatural events" contained? Or would this only apply with accepting them?

I somewhat agree. The author may have believed he was describing a historical account but failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the information was credible because he was communicating with people who already shared his religious faith and weren't demanding proof.

Excellent point! So then, if I as a believer write to other believers, it is assumed they already believe much the same as I do, and therefore I would have no need to attempt to persuade them with the same sort of evidence I may use if I may be writing to others who may not believe, since I understand that my audience has reason to have some sort of trust in what I am saying.

If this is the case, and the evidence certainly seems to suggest this is the case with the 2 letters to Theophilus, then how in the world could we possibly suggest, "the author's motivation would have been to convert others to the faith" when the audience would have already been a believer?

Moreover, if we understand this to be the case, then when we read these letters, we should keep in mind that we are reading letters which were addressed to someone else, and the author is not attempting to convince us, nor anyone else, since we understand the audience would have already believed. With this being the case, the author owes nothing to us.

In fact, the formal concept of healthy skepticism and critical thinking is relatively modern and didn't even exist in the minds of most average ancient people.

This seems sort of strange? Where would you get this idea, because it certainly seems to go against what we read in the NT. The first point would be, then why did so many at that time, doubt the claims the Apostles were making, if they did not think critically?

Next, the Apostles certainly seem to use words which would demonstrate differently. Let's look at some to the words they used in defense of what they were claiming. They used words like, defense, witness, eyewitness, judge, judgement, testify, testimony, convict, evidence, and even proof. These are just some of the words they used in defense of what they were claiming. So then, where would you expect to hear such words? That's right, in a court of law, which sort of demonstrates these men, along with those around them certainly seem to possess the ability to think critically.

They were not "necessarily" intended to serve as "professional" historical theses. The evidence for this is exposed through a comparison of the style and format of those letters with the style and format of contemporary historical accounts of other events documented by professional historians of the time using their standard methods.

You are not making a very good point here at all. First, we have already acknowledged the fact that one does not have to be a historian in order to convey accurate historical information.

Next, no one is suggesting these authors were intending to write a history book. Rather, these authors sat down in order to write letters to different audiences at the time, and there is no doubt that accurate historical information can be communicated through personal correspondence. It happens every day!

Allow me to give you an example. I bought my first house from an aunt, and uncle. Because we were family, they ask if they could leave a few things in the attic, and get them at a later date. Of course I obliged, and of course they never came, and got them.

At any rate, one day when I had some things to do in the attic, I got to looking around at some of the things they left. One of these things was what look to be a tiny file cabinet. I opened this cabinet, and saw hand written letters dated in the 1940's which were addressed to my aunt, from her sister, who lived far away.

Of course these letters were none of my business, but because of the age of the letters, I could not resist reading a sentence or two. However, before I knew it, I had spent several hours right there in my attic, devouring these letters.

My point is, when I finally came to my senses, I realized that I had just read history. I understood I could write a book, or make a movie based upon a true story because of these letters I had just read. Now of course these letters were not intended to be written as history, but they certainly contained a whole lot of history.

In the same way, simply because these authors were not professional historians, and were not necessarily intending to write as a historian, would not in any way mean that what they wrote did not in fact contain historical information, or that this historical information would not be accurate.

Actually, it is not a fact according to the consensus of New Testament scholars from both the Christian and secular communities who acknowledge that the earliest known manuscripts of Luke-Acts are anonymous. Many modern scholars challenge the traditional view you've presented (Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 267–8. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.) (Metzger, Bruce; Coogan, Michael (1993). The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 'Acts of the Apostles', "Luke, The Gospel According to"). Of course, this doesn't disprove the traditional view but justifiably calls it into question.

The first thing I will point out here is, you seem to be relying heavily upon the "scholars?" This seems to be no different than the many Christians who simply believe because of what others have to say.

While I have read, and considered what the "scholars" have to say, I do not simply take their word for it, nor do I accept something to be a fact, because of the opinion of the majority of these, "scholars". Rather, I attempt to determine if they may be correct, by analyzing the evidence for myself.

My point is, I am not presenting the "traditional view" as you suggest. Rather, I am simply reading the letter exactly the way in which it is written, and attempting to determine if there would be any reason we should not read it exactly as it is written, and comparing what is written in these letters, with things which may be written by someone else, to see if there may be evidence to be had.

So then, simply from the letters we read that this author begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events concerning the travels of Paul. Notice, that he does not do this in the first letter, and he does not use these words in the second letter until these journeys of Paul begin. He uses these words, all the way, and up until Paul travels to Rome to stand trial, and he ends this second letter with Paul being under arrest, waiting to stand trial, and he says this wait lasted some 2 years.

Now, as we move our attention to Paul, we have a letter written by Paul addressed to Timothy that would have clearly been written while Paul would have been under arrest. In this letter, Paul tells Timothy, "only Luke is with me."

So then, while the author of these letters never identifies himself to Theophilus, we have solid evidence from his second letter, along with the letters of Paul (because Paul mentions Luke in more than one letter) that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have in fact been Luke, since the author claims to have traveled with Paul, all the way, and up until Paul was under arrest, coupled with the fact that Paul says that at that time, "only Luke is with me".

This all means you would be correct to say, "Of course, this doesn't disprove the traditional view". However, I do not see how it would even qualify as, "justifiably calling it into question" with the evidence we have?

This is why one needs to analyze what the "scholars" have to say, instead of simply taking their word. In fact, many of the critics suggest that Paul would not have been the author of the letter to Timothy I referred to. Can you imagine why? Well, it is because they clearly understand that if Paul did indeed author this letter to Timothy, then it is pretty strong evidence in order to come to the conclusion that Luke was indeed the author of the two letters to Theophilus, and would have been alive during the life of Jesus, known the original Apostles, and would have known the claims they were making first hand.

So then, while there may be those who attempt to defend the content of the Bible who may hold a bias, or prejudice, and may also attempt to slant the evidence, I would suggest there may in fact be those who are opposed who may in fact be attempting to protect a bias.

Nevertheless, even if we assume for the moment that Luke-Acts was written by a companion of Paul, it doesn't conclusively demonstrate the author was alive during the time of Jesus. The consensus of scholars agree that Luke-Acts was probably written between 80-90 AD

Again, you seem to be relying upon the "scholars" very heavily? Again, how would this be any different than the Christian simply taking the word of others? You are pinning your conclusion on the "opinion of the scholars" that these letters were indeed "written between 80-90" when in fact it clearly says, "PROBABLY"!

Moreover, we have just analyzed evidence which would suggest the author did indeed travel with Paul, and as we couple this with what you say below concerning the age folks lived to at that time, this alone would be evidence that these "scholars" are grossly incorrect.

The fact of the matter is, there are "scholars" who hold to the idea that these letters would have been written somewhere in the late 50's to early 60's, and we have evidence to support this idea, so what is the evidence which would support the idea that these letters would have been written much later? It is not the idea that I have heard from any "scholar", but it is my idea that Luke would have used the two years Paul was awaiting trial in order to write these letters.

My whole point is here, you seem to be banking on these "scholars" getting it correct, while I am not taking the word of any "scholar" pro, or con, but rather analyzing the evidence for myself.

This would have been around 50 years after the Crucifixion and at least 35 years after Paul begin his missionary work. So, if the author of Luke-Acts was old enough to pal around with Paul at the start of his missionary work in approximately 45 AD (lets say 20 years old to be liberal), he would have been at least 60 years old when he wrote Luke-Acts.

This all hinges on "IF" your "scholars" are correct, and keeping in mind the evidence we have seen, they more than likely are incorrect, which means the "scholars" who hold to a much earlier date, late 50's to early 60's could in fact be the correct view.

In any case, we must ask why the author felt it was necessary to draft a completely independent account if there were other known attempts that already accomplished that task.

Okay, let's think about this? The author does in fact say that others had written accounts. Okay, so who did these other authors write their letters to? Who would they have been addressing? This means, the audience these other authors were addressing would have been in possession of that letter.

Let's keep in mind how painstaking, and time consuming copying these things would have been at this time. It is not like they would have had a "Kinkos" on every corner, in which to go in to make quick copies. This demonstrates that if there would have been more than one copy of any of these letters at the time, there could not possibly be very many, which would mean that everyone would not have the luxury of having their very own copy.

This goes on to demonstrate that the "scholars" who hold to the idea that Mark would have been the first gospel written, and Matthew, and Luke copied from Mark, is not very likely at all, since as I say, copies would be hard to come by.

With this being the case, since Luke would not have a copy of these other writings he is referring to, but knows about these writings, because he knows the folks who wrote them, and knew the original Apostles, along with Paul, and since he had the ability to "follow all these things himself from the beginning" he would have had no need to copy anyone, and he could give his own account as he knew it, since there would be no way for Theophilus to have a copy of what these others had written. Would this be a possibility?

A clue to the author's potential motivation comes from the line, "so that you may know for certain the things you were taught." It seems the author had some reason to believe the recipient(s) of the letter needed to be made certain of the established teachings. One motivation may have been that the author believed his intended audience was exposed to what he believed to be forged accounts designed by competing Christian cults for the purpose of winning converts. As such, he was sending his own account to restore the recipient's confidence in the established teachings of their own Christian cult. However, if the author's letters were actually the forged accounts designed to compete with the other popular versions of Christianity which are known to have existed during that time, then this would qualify as religious propaganda.

Or, it could be just as it sounds which is, this author knew Theophilus had been taught, and believed, but he also knew Theophilus did not have all the information he needed, and since there would be no way for Theophilus to be in possession of one of these other letters he refers to, and since Luke would have known all these things himself, since he says, "I have carefully followed all these things from the beginning", Luke decides to sit down and, "write an orderly account" for Theophilus, just as he says? Would that be possible?

We cannot yet rule-out this possibility.

I am not ruling this option out. However, we also cannot rule out what I have said either. I have supplied reasons, and evidence in order to back my conclusions. So then, what would be the evidence to support your conclusions other than, "the scholars say so"?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 99 by bluegreenearth]

I am not ruling this option out. However, we also cannot rule out what I have said either. I have supplied reasons, and evidence in order to back my conclusions. So then, what would be the evidence to support your conclusions other than, "the scholars say so"?

Thank you for acknowledging that my hypothesis cannot be ruled-out. I also agree that we cannot rule-out your assessment either. You have, indeed, supplied your reasoning and evidence in support of your conclusion. Meanwhile, the scholarship I referenced may not be absolutely conclusive but neither is your personal opinion. However, the fact that the scholarly assessments I referenced are supported by a consensus of experts in those fields demonstrates they are at least considered to be reliable. Since I do not have reasonable access to the resources available to the consensus of scholars, I have no choice but to rely upon their best professional judgement and expertise in the same way that I rely upon the expertise and judgments of medical doctors in diagnosing and treating a variety of medical conditions.

In the mean time, what neither of us have supplied is a demonstration of how these hypotheses could be reasonably falsifiable. Any test we might imagine that would falsify the supernatural claims from the Bible cannot be reasonably conducted by anyone at this time. We cannot travel back in time to witness the claimed events, and we cannot reproduce the claimed events under controlled conditions. The reason for this is because some historical claims and all supernatural claims are unfalsifiable. They can be neither proved or disproved. As such, even the most reliably supported historical claim about a supernatural event retains the possibility of being false. Likewise, the least reliable supernatural claim retains the possibility of being true. This brings the entire discussion back to my original point; intellectual honesty demands that we remain open to the possibility that our personal beliefs about the unfalsifiable supernatural content of the Bible has every chance of being incorrect. Of course, one of our personal beliefs has every chance of being correct, but we have no way of knowing which belief it is regardless of how much evidence exists to support it.

The reason this concept must be embraced and the main reason I debate with Christians is because beliefs inform actions, and actions have objective consequences which are demonstrable in the reality we all experience unlike the supernatural claims from the Bible. So, when we can confirm an action will cause objective harm, the belief justifying the deployment of that action better be demonstrably verifiable. Does dogmatic belief in the unverifiable supernatural claims of an ancient text justify taking an action that has been previously demonstrated to cause objectively verifiable harm? Are you prepared to take that risk? I am not prepared to take that risk. Would you approve of someone else taking an action that would cause you objective harm based on their unfalsifiable belief in the supernatural claims of the Bible? I would not approve. In fact, I think you would respond to that person in exactly the same manner as I have responded to you.

I wouldn't bother debating the Christian belief at all if it informed actions that were always objectively beneficial to the well-being of the most people, but this is sadly not the outcome we observe. Some Christian beliefs or at least some beliefs motivated by Christianity are informing actions with objective consequences that are irrefutably harmful despite the best of intentions. In many cases, the actions taken by Christians in compliance with their unverifiable but non-negotiable religious beliefs not only bring additional harm to an already difficult situation but introduce harm where none would otherwise exist. I would certainly think more than twice before acting in a way I know will cause harm; especially if the only justification I had was faith in an unverifiable and extraordinary supernatural belief regardless of the quantity and quality of evidence supporting it. This is because I value and respect the well-being of other people who I know objectively exist more than I value and respect a pre-scientific extraordinary idea of a God that cannot be known to exist or not exist.

You are welcome to believe whatever you like or whatever you feel the evidence best supports because it is none of my business as long as it doesn't compel you to act in a way that causes harm to me or other people. However, when you or other Christians take unjustifiable actions to impose your beliefs in ways that cause objective harm to others, it becomes my business and the business of all who do not share your unverifiable beliefs.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 104 by bluegreenearth]

My friend, I would have to say, "you are preaching to the choir on both points here". To demonstrate one point, allow me to share with you a true story.

I do not know how old you are, but a good number of years ago, "Disney World" announced that it would be supplying insurance coverage for the partners of their employees who were in same sex marriages. If you know anything about this, then you will know that this got many Christians up in arms, and there were a number of Christians denominations which announced they would be boycotting, "Disney World".

I happened to be a member of a particular denomination at the time, and of course at our statewide conference there was a motion on the floor, that we as a state conference write a letter of protest to "Disney world". Well, when the motion hit the floor for discussion, I stood up and ask this question.

My question was, "what in the world to we have to do with, "Disney World"? I went on to say, "Disney World does not name the name of Christ, so what do we expect from these organization"? I continued by saying, "now there are a number of organization who do name the name of Christ, and we would all agree that some of these organization are preaching a completely different Gospel, and I would be very much in favor of writing them letter of protest".

I understand there are many Christians who do such things, but I am not sure where they get such ideas? It certainly is not from the Bible. So then, I am in agreement with you that we as Christians have no business attempting to govern the behavior of those outside the Church.

To the next point, we seem to be in agreement that neither of us can demonstrate what we believe concerning the letters contained in the NT, but can only give the reasons, along with the evidence to support what it is we do believe concerning these things.

I have never insisted there would be no reason to doubt the claims in the NT. My problem comes in when there are those who make the claim, "there would be no good reasons, facts, logic, and evidence to support such belief".

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 104 by bluegreenearth]

My friend, I would have to say, "you are preaching to the choir on both points here". To demonstrate one point, allow me to share with you a true story.

I do not know how old you are, but a good number of years ago, "Disney World" announced that it would be supplying insurance coverage for the partners of their employees who were in same sex marriages. If you know anything about this, then you will know that this got many Christians up in arms, and there were a number of Christians denominations which announced they would be boycotting, "Disney World".

I happened to be a member of a particular denomination at the time, and of course at our statewide conference there was a motion on the floor, that we as a state conference write a letter of protest to "Disney world". Well, when the motion hit the floor for discussion, I stood up and ask this question.

My question was, "what in the world to we have to do with, "Disney World"? I went on to say, "Disney World does not name the name of Christ, so what do we expect from these organization"? I continued by saying, "now there are a number of organization who do name the name of Christ, and we would all agree that some of these organization are preaching a completely different Gospel, and I would be very much in favor of writing them letter of protest".

I understand there are many Christians who do such things, but I am not sure where they get such ideas? It certainly is not from the Bible. So then, I am in agreement with you that we as Christians have no business attempting to govern the behavior of those outside the Church.

To the next point, we seem to be in agreement that neither of us can demonstrate what we believe concerning the letters contained in the NT, but can only give the reasons, along with the evidence to support what it is we do believe concerning these things.

I have never insisted there would be no reason to doubt the claims in the NT. My problem comes in when there are those who make the claim, "there would be no good reasons, facts, logic, and evidence to support such belief".

Thank you for sharing that story and for providing a reasonable response. Although I am skeptical of the reasons, facts, logic, and evidence you provided in support of your belief, I can understand why you would find them acceptable from within the Christian worldview. Nevertheless, I will warn that there are behaviors and actions occurring within your church and other Christian churches that are directly responsible for causing objective harm to Christians as well as non-Christians outside the church. Where such harms have been identified, I encourage you and other Christians to recognize the irresponsibility and immorality of endorsing the use of faith as a justification for maladaptive behaviors and actions. In anticipation of your potential objection to my use of the term "maladaptive behaviors and actions," I will only suggest that I am at a loss to find more appropriate language to describe what I observe.

[1213]

1213 has asked for a specific biblical supernatural event that can be examined to determine whether such an account was reliable or unreliable.
The account in Luke of Jesus healing the ten lepers seems rather iffy to me.
Modern medicine can cure leprosy in as much that it can halt the progress of the disease, but any damage already caused, such as deformity and blindness, remains.
A story that says ten people were cured of leprosy simply because someone told them that they were now cured is not an account I would consider to be reliable.
...

Ok, thank you for the example. I think it is impossible to prove what has happened in history. So, in this case it depends on, do we think the writers were reliable or not. I believe they are, because I don’t think they would have any good reason to lie about the matter.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 104 by bluegreenearth]

My friend, I would have to say, "you are preaching to the choir on both points here". To demonstrate one point, allow me to share with you a true story.

I do not know how old you are, but a good number of years ago, "Disney World" announced that it would be supplying insurance coverage for the partners of their employees who were in same sex marriages. If you know anything about this, then you will know that this got many Christians up in arms, and there were a number of Christians denominations which announced they would be boycotting, "Disney World".

I happened to be a member of a particular denomination at the time, and of course at our statewide conference there was a motion on the floor, that we as a state conference write a letter of protest to "Disney world". Well, when the motion hit the floor for discussion, I stood up and ask this question.

My question was, "what in the world to we have to do with, "Disney World"? I went on to say, "Disney World does not name the name of Christ, so what do we expect from these organization"? I continued by saying, "now there are a number of organization who do name the name of Christ, and we would all agree that some of these organization are preaching a completely different Gospel, and I would be very much in favor of writing them letter of protest".

I understand there are many Christians who do such things, but I am not sure where they get such ideas? It certainly is not from the Bible. So then, I am in agreement with you that we as Christians have no business attempting to govern the behavior of those outside the Church.

To the next point, we seem to be in agreement that neither of us can demonstrate what we believe concerning the letters contained in the NT, but can only give the reasons, along with the evidence to support what it is we do believe concerning these things.

I have never insisted there would be no reason to doubt the claims in the NT. My problem comes in when there are those who make the claim, "there would be no good reasons, facts, logic, and evidence to support such belief".

Thank you for sharing that story and for providing a reasonable response. Although I am skeptical of the reasons, facts, logic, and evidence you provided in support of your belief, I can understand why you would find them acceptable from within the Christian worldview. Nevertheless, I will warn that there are behaviors and actions occurring within your church and other Christian churches that are directly responsible for causing objective harm to Christians as well as non-Christians outside the church. Where such harms have been identified, I encourage you and other Christians to recognize the irresponsibility and immorality of endorsing the use of faith as a justification for maladaptive behaviors and actions. In anticipation of your potential objection to my use of the term "maladaptive behaviors and actions," I will only suggest that I am at a loss to find more appropriate language to describe what I observe.

I am fully aware to the fact that there are horrific things done in this world by humans, and I am also aware of the fact that the Church would not be immune to these sort of things occurring in the Church. In other words, we all know there have been folks abused by those in their own Church, and many of those causing this abuse would in fact be leaders, just like there is abuse in other organizations, like the "boy scouts", along with just about any other organization. As I said, I am not under the impression that the Church would be immune to this sort of thing.

However, I am curious as to how you can be so certain as to say,

I will warn that there are behaviors and actions occurring within your church that are directly responsible for causing objective harm to Christians as well as non-Christians outside the church.

Could you please explain to me how you could be so certain, this would be occurring inside, MY Church?

Where such harms have been identified, I encourage you and other Christians to recognize the irresponsibility and immorality of endorsing the use of faith as a justification for maladaptive behaviors and actions.

It may be best if you give me some sort of example? However, I can tell you I have been on the forefront, and outspoken, on this site and elsewhere, against what I call "reckless theology" which may in fact lead to some of the abuses you talk about?

In anticipation of your potential objection to my use of the term "maladaptive behaviors and actions," I will only suggest that I am at a loss to find more appropriate language to describe what I observe.

My friend, I can tell you that I know some horrific behaviors which involve those inside the Church, and I cannot imagine, (maybe I am wrong) that I would be shocked to hear the stories you can tell, because I can assure you that I have heard things I would love to forget.

At any rate, I cannot see as to how any of these things would have anything at all to do with whether Christianity may be true, or false? In other words, even though these things do occur inside the Church, what would this have to do with Christianity being false?

[bluegreenearth]

1213 has asked for a specific biblical supernatural event that can be examined to determine whether such an account was reliable or unreliable.
The account in Luke of Jesus healing the ten lepers seems rather iffy to me.
Modern medicine can cure leprosy in as much that it can halt the progress of the disease, but any damage already caused, such as deformity and blindness, remains.
A story that says ten people were cured of leprosy simply because someone told them that they were now cured is not an account I would consider to be reliable.
...

Ok, thank you for the example. I think it is impossible to prove what has happened in history. So, in this case it depends on, do we think the writers were reliable or not. I believe they are, because I don’t think they would have any good reason to lie about the matter.

Technically, it is possible to demonstrate some types of historical events happened. For example, the empirical evidence provided by a solidified lava flow trending from a volcanic crater would demonstrate that an eruption must have occurred some time in the past. Nevertheless, if it is impossible to empirically demonstrate that some other types of claimed events occurred in history like the assent of Mohammed to heaven on a winged horse, then all similar supernatural claims including those from the Bible must also be impossible to prove. Since this means Christians cannot objectively demonstrate that the extraordinary claims of the Bible are true, they are forced to rely on arbitrary faith as a justification for their belief.

I use the term "arbitrary faith" not to be glib but because the motivation for placing faith in one unfalsifiable claim as opposed to another unfalsifiable claim must be entirely arbitrary since the possibility of ruling-out any one of them is not eliminated by any amount of supporting evidence. The most reliably supported unfalsifiable claim has every chance of being incorrect while the least reliably supported unfalsifiable claim has every chance of being true. Because the quantity and quality of supporting evidence makes no difference to whether an unfalsifiable claim is actually true or false, any decision to "trust" or have faith that the claim is true or false must be arbitrary or motivated by some form of bias.

This wouldn't be a problem except that beliefs inform actions. Actions have objective consequences which are demonstrable in the reality we all experience unlike the supernatural claims from the Bible. So, when we can confirm an action will cause objective harm, the belief justifying the deployment of that action better be demonstrably verifiable. Does dogmatic belief in the unverifiable supernatural claims of an ancient text justify taking an action that has been previously demonstrated to cause objectively verifiable harm? Are you prepared to take that risk? I am not prepared to take that risk. Would you approve of someone else taking an action that would cause you objective harm based on their unfalsifiable belief in the supernatural claims of the Bible? I would not approve. In fact, I think you would respond to that person in exactly the same manner as I have responded to you.