Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

[bluegreenearth]

For example:

Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

There are numerous verses following the one above that equally proclaim, "By faith," something is understood or known to be true. Therefore, in this context, "faith" is being encouraged for use as an epistemology. How does "faith" function to reliably distinguish true claims from false claims or does it fail in that regard? What would demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Christian community that "faith" is not a reliable tool for discovering what is true or false?

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 201 by EarthScienceguy]

I am way to (sic) cynical to have that much faith in science.

Im curious: why did you take the username EarthScienceguy then? It seems incongruous to this statement.

[Zzyzx]

.

Naturalist have much more faith than I could have. I am way to cynical to have that much faith in science.

Is cynical the right descriptive word?

Cynical (defined as: believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity; concerned only with one's own interests and typically disregarding accepted or appropriate standards in order to achieve them)

Perhaps

Credulous (defined as: ready to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence)

The latter seems to best describe those who, after reading ancient texts or listening to sermons, convince themselves to believe that invisible, undetectable supernatural characters inhabit the sky.

[Tart]

For example, can you support this assertion with the evidence?
"Pauls character, his theology, and various events from his life are described differently in the letters to Theophilus than they are from his own autobiographical accounts. They also depart from each other on important issues such as the Law, Pauls own apostleship, and his association with the Jerusalem church."

This isn't an exhaustive list but here you go:

In Acts 15:20, James instructs that Gentiles should abstain from the consumption of "food polluted by idols." However, Paul isn't concerned about the consumption of food taken from sacrificial alters and never mentions this decision by James. See Paul's thoughts on this matter in 1 Corinthians 8:7-8 and 10:19-29.

In Acts 15:7 Peter states that "God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel." However, in Galatians 2:7, Paul indicates that Peter had been tasked with teaching the Gospel to the Jews, not the Gentiles.

Paul proclaims himself to be an apostle of Jesus in Galatians 2:8, 1 Corinthians 9:1-2, and in several other instances. However, according to Acts 1:21, one must have "been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us" to be granted the tile of apostle.

Paul indicates the other apostles added nothing to his message (Galatians 2:6). However, Acts 13:31 has Paul acknowledging "those who had traveled with Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem to be of greater importance.

Acts 25:8 has Paul describing himself as a Jew who was doing nothing wrong against the law of the Jews or against the temple. In his own letters, however, Paul frequently denies the significance of Jewish law. At one point, he admits to not having a righteousness of his own that comes from the law but through faith in Christ (Philippians 3:9).

Acts portrays Paul as a great orator. However, Paul indicates that people describe his speaking capability as being unimpressive and amounting to nothing (2 Corinthians 10:10).

Acts 8:1-3 records that, before his conversion to Christianity, Paul set out to destroy the church at Jerusalem by removing persons from their houses and imprisoning them. Nevertheless, in Galatians 1:22, Paul states that he "was personally unknown to the churches of Judea."

Acts 9:26 indicates that Paul was brought to the apostles in Jerusalem after his conversion. To the contrary, in Galatians 1:16-17, Paul indicates that he did not go to Jerusalem and "did not consult any man."

Acts 16:1-3 mentions that Paul required a disciple named Timothy to be circumcised "because of the Jews who lived in that area." This would seem to contradict Galatians 2:7 and 2:9 where Paul decided he would preach "to the uncircumcised." Paul's companion, Titus, was not "compelled to be circumcised" in Galatians 2:3. In 1 Corinthians 7:20, regarding circumcision, Paul declares that "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him." Finally, in Romans 2:26, he asserts the irrelevance of circumcision to faith.

In Acts 18:9-10, God assures Paul that he will not be hurt. However, in 2 Corinthians 11:23-25, Paul enumerates many occasions on which he was injured.

In Acts 22:23-29, the commander learns of Paul's Roman citizenship after he is removed from the crowd. However, in Acts 23:27, the commander claims that he rescued Paul because of prior knowledge of his Roman citizenship.

Acts 5:29 has the apostles stating, "We must obey God rather than men!" Meanwhile, in Romans 13:1-3, Paul recommends submitting oneself to the earthly authorities.

Chapter 1 of Acts identifies eleven apostles that saw the resurrected Jesus (Acts 1:13). However, in 1 Corinthians 15:5, Paul indicates that "he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve," for a total of thirteen apostles.

First of all, if you are going to use someone words, you should give them credit for their work. It looks like, at least some of this, is pretty much plagiarizing a bias source called rationalwiki (that we are all aware of), which doesnt look good for you.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Con ... ns_in_Acts

This is simply listing what contradictions they say are in Acts, and it doesnt even look like they are making a case for biblical authorship at all. Im looking for Biblical authorship arguments that you said is specifically for "the Two Letters Written for Theophilus", which are the 2 Epistles of the Thessalonians, right? In which case you have not mentioned any evidence at all for.

And id like to point out, isnt it funny you list a supposed contradiction in Acts, from a later chapter in the same book of Acts... Do you also believe the Book of Act's has two authors? And would you like to retract your statement about Theophilus?

Here is your words, am i not reading this right? or have you given an explanation for this "Fact" (in bold) you have made?

Fact = Despite their commonalities, there are significant incongruities between the two letter written for Theophilus and the authentic Pauline letters. Pauls character, his theology, and various events from his life are described differently in the letters to Theophilus than they are from his own autobiographical accounts. They also depart from each other on important issues such as the Law, Pauls own apostleship, and his association with the Jerusalem church.

[Danmark]

Im looking for Biblical authorship arguments that you said is specifically for "the Two Letters Written for Theophilus", which are the 2 Epistles of the Thessalonians, right? In which case you have not mentioned any evidence at all for.

And id like to point out, isnt it funny you list a supposed contradiction in Acts, from a later chapter in the same book of Acts... Do you also believe the Book of Act's has two authors? And would you like to retract your statement about Theophilus?

You are displaying your ignorance of the subject. "Theophilus /ifls/ is the name or honorary title of the person to whom the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are addressed (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_(biblical)
Further the text quotes the many contradictions between what Paul wrote and what 'Luke' wrote. You may be "looking for Biblical authorship arguments," but that is your issue. The key point is that according to Christian doctrine, both "Luke" and Paul are writing the 'words of God.' Yet they contradict each other. Is this 'God' a fool? Does he not know he is contradicting himself? Or can we conclude these men in "God's clothing" are just that, men, fallible and wrong and there is nothing holy about the "Holy Bible?"

[Tart]

Im looking for Biblical authorship arguments that you said is specifically for "the Two Letters Written for Theophilus", which are the 2 Epistles of the Thessalonians, right? In which case you have not mentioned any evidence at all for.

And id like to point out, isnt it funny you list a supposed contradiction in Acts, from a later chapter in the same book of Acts... Do you also believe the Book of Act's has two authors? And would you like to retract your statement about Theophilus?

You are displaying your ignorance of the subject. "Theophilus /ifls/ is the name or honorary title of the person to whom the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are addressed (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_(biblical)
Further the text quotes the many contradictions between what Paul wrote and what 'Luke' wrote. You may be "looking for Biblical authorship arguments," but that is your issue. The key point is that according to Christian doctrine, both "Luke" and Paul are writing the 'words of God.' Yet they contradict each other. Is this 'God' a fool? Does he not know he is contradicting himself? Or can we conclude these men in "God's clothing" are just that, men, fallible and wrong and there is nothing holy about the "Holy Bible?"

Yes apparently i have misinterpreted the argument... which is a shame becuase im not really interested in these contradictions, and more interested in biblical authorship... I personally think contradictions listed by atheists are just unfounded for the most part, nit picking stupid things that i dont care to even discuss.. When i read it, though there are some things that seem to contradict, perhaps the linage of Christ or soemthing like that, but the vast majority of these things pointed out are just dumb...

[benchwarmer]

I personally think contradictions listed by atheists are just unfounded for the most part, nit picking stupid things that i dont care to even discuss..

It's not surprising that many theists don't want to discuss contradictions in their source material for their beliefs. What difference does it make if it's an atheist pointing them out? If non-Christian theists point them out does that make it more bearable?

[Clownboat]

Im looking for Biblical authorship arguments that you said is specifically for "the Two Letters Written for Theophilus", which are the 2 Epistles of the Thessalonians, right? In which case you have not mentioned any evidence at all for.

And id like to point out, isnt it funny you list a supposed contradiction in Acts, from a later chapter in the same book of Acts... Do you also believe the Book of Act's has two authors? And would you like to retract your statement about Theophilus?

You are displaying your ignorance of the subject. "Theophilus /ifls/ is the name or honorary title of the person to whom the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are addressed (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_(biblical)
Further the text quotes the many contradictions between what Paul wrote and what 'Luke' wrote. You may be "looking for Biblical authorship arguments," but that is your issue. The key point is that according to Christian doctrine, both "Luke" and Paul are writing the 'words of God.' Yet they contradict each other. Is this 'God' a fool? Does he not know he is contradicting himself? Or can we conclude these men in "God's clothing" are just that, men, fallible and wrong and there is nothing holy about the "Holy Bible?"

Yes apparently i have misinterpreted the argument... which is a shame becuase im not really interested in these contradictions, and more interested in biblical authorship... I personally think contradictions listed by atheists are just unfounded for the most part, nit picking stupid things that i dont care to even discuss.. When i read it, though there are some things that seem to contradict, perhaps the linage of Christ or soemthing like that, but the vast majority of these things pointed out are just dumb...

I have noticed that most Christians are either unaware or don't care about the contradictions in their Holy Book.
I would assume this is common throughout all religions though. I would expect this behavior myself.

Would anyone really expect a Muslim to fuss over their religious contradictions? Nah, they would probably just poison the well and say something like they are just stupid and atheists are just nit picking.

[bluegreenearth]

First of all, if you are going to use someone words, you should give them credit for their work. It looks like, at least some of this, is pretty much plagiarizing a bias source called rationalwiki (that we are all aware of), which doesnt look good for you.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Con ... ns_in_Acts

This is simply listing what contradictions they say are in Acts, and it doesnt even look like they are making a case for biblical authorship at all. Im looking for Biblical authorship arguments that you said is specifically for "the Two Letters Written for Theophilus", which are the 2 Epistles of the Thessalonians, right? In which case you have not mentioned any evidence at all for.

Your request was exactly as follows:

I'm really interested in this, can you be more specific and give us the verses and passages used to determine these "facts"?

For example, can you support this assertion with the evidence?
"Pauls character, his theology, and various events from his life are described differently in the letters to Theophilus than they are from his own autobiographical accounts. They also depart from each other on important issues such as the Law, Pauls own apostleship, and his association with the Jerusalem church."

The list I posted provides examples of verses and passages that were used to determine the fact that incongruities exist between Acts and Paul's letters as per your request. Since the requested information directly references Bible verses and passages that anyone can review from any source they choose, the secular perspective of my chosen source is completely irrelevant. Feel free to open your Bible and look up those verses and passages for yourself if you don't approve of the summary that was provided in my post. Also, because this is an informal debate forum, I don't always feel it is necessary to include citations for information that is widely and freely available. Furthermore, in a subsequent post, your expressed impatience in waiting for me to provide those verses and passages was a strong motivation to expedite the acquisition of the requested material by consulting an external source rather than drafting original content.

As for the implication that these "contradictions" are debatable, I never used the word "contradiction" to describe their relationship. The word I used was "incongruities" meaning the two sources are inharmonious or incompatible with one another in a few critical ways. When we examine the verses and passages in question, they are not reasonably harmonious with each other and are incompatible in some circumstances. Christian apologists recognize this fact, and it is precisely the reason why post-hoc theological arguments were developed to try and harmonize Acts with Paul's letters. So, even with convoluted but clever apologetic strategies designed to force compatibility between Acts and Paul's letters, these incongruities give us good reasons to doubt that the author of Acts was Paul's long-time traveling companion.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 206 by bluegreenearth]

Are you sure you know what a equivalent fallacy is?

It is fact that there is not solution to the creation problem in science.

If anyone holds some type of naturalistic position, they would have to have faith that science will solve the creation problem.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 216 by Clownboat]

No im just not interested in responding to hyper sensitive skepticism. Like for instance, here in this thread of Biblical Creation Mythology, we have discussed interpreting an error in the creation story.. And the atheists have insisted on a radically literal interpretation, even on a word that have been translated from the original Hebrew... Was it a contradiction? No, it was a translation error, and if you read post 40, it bring to light this kind of radical interpretations you guys make.
viewtopic.php?t=36282

Another example would be the people who claim the Bible has a contradiction of calculating Pi, becuase it is calculated as "3" in the Bible... In 1 Kings 7:23, if we take these numbers and have C/d=Pi, Pi comes out to 3. And we had a huge mass of nonbelievers going and calling the Bible wrong for this calculation. But this is a perfectly reasonable calculation to make. It is just rounding Pi to some value...

I just dont think a lot of these atheists read the Bible the way an independent source would read it. They are intentionally trying to pick it a part at every word, and they miss the real meaning of a lot of it becuase of that. Now i agree there are some areas where the words seem to be contradictory, but the vast majority of nonbelievers radical criticism in these areas is unfounded.

It is almost like we are not even reading the same book. I dont see these errors in Act's when i read it, I just take the story as is... And i suppose ill take 1 example, even though this has never been a contradiction in my mind. Lets take for example when people pointed out that Peter said in Acts 15:7 that Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.".. And this is taken as a contradiction becuase Paul later says "they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised."

I have never seen this as a contradiction.. Why cant Peter talk about his beliefs, and Gentiles hear it? Do you think if a Gentile was in the same room with Peter, that he would have to hide his message? I believe Peter WAS meant to go to the Jews, but that doesnt limit him only to Jews. In fact Peter was the one who had the vision of eating unclean animals, which was symbolic for Gentiles.. I just dont read this as an error like you guys do.


Im just not interested in refuting all these supposed contradictions, becuase I simply dont read it like you guys read it... I dont think you guys are trying to make sense of its words, usually you guys try to make nonsense of its words.