NT Writers

[POI]

For the context of this discussion, let's roll with the definition of faith to mean -- "to trust in, or to apply hope in anyways, despite inference(s) to the contrary. " Since belief does not seem to be a choice, as I cannot simply chose to believe in fairies without proper demonstration, the term faith looks to be the work-around.

Further, many will also argue faith in Jesus is necessary, because all humans fall short. But if this is THE case, then 'morals' also look to become superfluous and/or irrelevant. Which then looks to be contradictory and/or illogical, as the NT expresses the need to follow a certain 'moral' code....

For debate: Were the NT writer(s) savvy enough to recognize that many would read this collection of writings and not believe -- (due to contradiction and/or illogic)? Hence, the workaround term faith was implemented?

[POI]

Nobody cares what you disagree with, now do they care what seems silly to you. They care (or should) what you can debunk with good arguments, not deny with unsupported dismissal.

Looks like the code for 1213 has been cracked, in post #4 here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41906)

I don't want to talk about people when they aren't present, but the whole Christian apologetic, Cult or religion - think and tribal human think and human thought in general interests me. because i have done religion in general and it is like a round earth or moon landings - dealing with the denial

And there is so much denial and conspiracy theories from 9/11 to Martian Aztecs sculpting monster faces.

And so much depends on ignorance and even wilful ignorance. Questions are fine. Denial of good answers is not. It works both ways. In the UFO world, I saw both culthink, science denial and wilful ignorance on the UFO side, but dismissal and mocking on the skeptical side. I know why, 'If you can't explain every claim I make you must accept my claim'. It doesn't work like that but cult -think imagines it does. So the skeptics had to shove it all away. We know how well 'I don't know the answer, but it must be perfectly natural' (materialist default) will go with the Believers.

Because Faith and Faith not only moulds and models thought in religion (how often do they spout the same slogans - even in Buddhist culture, they seem to have been taught what to say - but is in every darn discussion I had from mocking and sneering at something they personally didn't like, to various work colleagues with entrenched positions over everything from sport to politics, and using every trick in the book to win from getting red in the face and shouting to talking and talking - the Gish gallop and watch a Matt Dillahuntuy phone in to se how theists just want to rattle on and forget discussion.

I'll refer back to a debate first off on my other forum on Plantinga and instinctive or revealed knowledge. The upshot was that human instinct is evolved for survival not to tell us what is really out there, and the protagonists on the Theist side would not accept that even when they had said it themselves, and instead went on various side issues. It started putting in place faithbased thinking which is beginning with the faithclaim and then fiddling the evidence (in that case, instinctive problem solving and fight or flight reaction) and trying to make it evidence for god.

But there is more Once it was clear that innate instinct proves evolution, not God, you'd think they would drop that and try something else. But they kept banging away at the proverbial dead horse. That was when I realised that Jesus' face on the temple veil is the concealed entrance to Oz and it is not Jesus, the Bible or Christianity they are fighting for, but their own rightness, just like all the others.

That is the clue - politics, sport, music - it was never about that, but about themselves.

Here endeth the lesson, and I'm in the mood for music...

As with the other thread I mentioned, I fully admit that myself, along with most/all others, carries a, or some, cognitive dissonance(s). My position is that cognitive dissonance is required to remain on team-Christianity. Just like cognitive dissonance is required to remain a meat eater, depending on your position about other cognitive living things. To no longer harbor a cognitive dissonance, would be to become a vegetarian.

I carry no cognitive dissonance for the Bible. Why? I'm no longer on their team. I read contradiction, and thus, must discard these pages. I can now read its pages with more objectivity. And when I do, without bias, I see many examples of collection of writings, where the authors objective is to gain converts. To do so requires "Pascal's Wager". Pascal's Wager emphasizes blind faith, reinforced by fear. This is how believers attempt to gain new converts. The Bible itself expresses the story of 'doubting Thomas'. He would not believe until he gains hard evidence. However, the Bible expresses how blind faith is revered higher than the ones who receive hard evidence. I think this is because the authors knew, full-well, that most-all aren't going to have such hard evidence. Blind faith receives more reward, and is more-so greatly encouraged. Further, the fear of eternal torment is presents throughout the Bible, to coerce others onto the team.

[TRANSPONDER]

Nobody cares what you disagree with, now do they care what seems silly to you. They care (or should) what you can debunk with good arguments, not deny with unsupported dismissal.

Looks like the code for 1213 has been cracked, in post #4 here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41906)

I don't want to talk about people when they aren't present, but the whole Christian apologetic, Cult or religion - think and tribal human think and human thought in general interests me. because i have done religion in general and it is like a round earth or moon landings - dealing with the denial

And there is so much denial and conspiracy theories from 9/11 to Martian Aztecs sculpting monster faces.

And so much depends on ignorance and even wilful ignorance. Questions are fine. Denial of good answers is not. It works both ways. In the UFO world, I saw both culthink, science denial and wilful ignorance on the UFO side, but dismissal and mocking on the skeptical side. I know why, 'If you can't explain every claim I make you must accept my claim'. It doesn't work like that but cult -think imagines it does. So the skeptics had to shove it all away. We know how well 'I don't know the answer, but it must be perfectly natural' (materialist default) will go with the Believers.

Because Faith and Faith not only moulds and models thought in religion (how often do they spout the same slogans - even in Buddhist culture, they seem to have been taught what to say - but is in every darn discussion I had from mocking and sneering at something they personally didn't like, to various work colleagues with entrenched positions over everything from sport to politics, and using every trick in the book to win from getting red in the face and shouting to talking and talking - the Gish gallop and watch a Matt Dillahuntuy phone in to se how theists just want to rattle on and forget discussion.

I'll refer back to a debate first off on my other forum on Plantinga and instinctive or revealed knowledge. The upshot was that human instinct is evolved for survival not to tell us what is really out there, and the protagonists on the Theist side would not accept that even when they had said it themselves, and instead went on various side issues. It started putting in place faithbased thinking which is beginning with the faithclaim and then fiddling the evidence (in that case, instinctive problem solving and fight or flight reaction) and trying to make it evidence for god.

But there is more Once it was clear that innate instinct proves evolution, not God, you'd think they would drop that and try something else. But they kept banging away at the proverbial dead horse. That was when I realised that Jesus' face on the temple veil is the concealed entrance to Oz and it is not Jesus, the Bible or Christianity they are fighting for, but their own rightness, just like all the others.

That is the clue - politics, sport, music - it was never about that, but about themselves.

Here endeth the lesson, and I'm in the mood for music...

As with the other thread I mentioned, I fully admit that myself, along with most/all others, carries a, or some, cognitive dissonance(s). My position is that cognitive dissonance is required to remain on team-Christianity. Just like cognitive dissonance is required to remain a meat eater, depending on your position about other cognitive living things. To no longer harbor a cognitive dissonance, would be to become a vegetarian.

I carry no cognitive dissonance for the Bible. Why? I'm no longer on their team. I read contradiction, and thus, must discard these pages. I can now read its pages with more objectivity. And when I do, without bias, I see many examples of collection of writings, where the authors objective is to gain converts. To do so requires "Pascal's Wager". Pascal's Wager emphasizes blind faith, reinforced by fear. This is how believers attempt to gain new converts. The Bible itself expresses the story of 'doubting Thomas'. He would not believe until he gains hard evidence. However, the Bible expresses how blind faith is revered higher than the ones who receive hard evidence. I think this is because the authors knew, full-well, that most-all aren't going to have such hard evidence. Blind faith receives more reward, and is more-so greatly encouraged. Further, the fear of eternal torment is presents throughout the Bible, to coerce others onto the team.

Yes. The trick is not to be in denial about it. This comes with the atheist position of 'we don't know' (but that doesn't mean God) .

I have been (and still am) in a lot of cognitive dissonance positions. Carnivore is a very good one. I am about 80 % in favor of Vegetarians, but I must have me bacon, sorry. The trick is, i am aware it is a position of dubious validity and don't lie to myself that it is justified.

This is the trick - to stand aside from personal preference and look at the argument as a problem or puzzle and not as something upon which my street cred depends. I may find I am unjustified, like in meat - eating, but I have opted for a personal preference without telling myself it is justified when it isn't.

That is something the bod in the street doesn't learn because we don't teach it, and for Believers, it is something to be regarded as a bad thing and Faith is good in itself and cognitive dissonance only validates faithbased denial as even more praiseworthy.

[POI]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #83]

[TRANSPONDER]

1) You are missing my point in this thread... I cannot simply "will" myself to believe without already being convinced by evidence. Just like you cannot simply 'will' yourself to believe in something for which you are not convinced about.

2) I'm simply saying the Bible gives readers a (do's and don'ts) list.

3) We all know your position by now 1213. If something in the Bible "looks" to be wrong, the reader is mistaken. The Bible is flawless.

***********************

Now can we explore the topic I created?....

The objective of this topic is to explore IF the NT authors were aware that these storylines are not very believable for many. Hence, the emphasis of the term faith. Which-is-to-mean, for many, "hope for it anyways, despite not being able to see it".

1) I can convince myself to believe things, if I want so.
2) Interesting, I see it differently. I think Bible rather gives a be and don't be list.

I think you understand the meaning of faith wrongly. It is about being faithful, loyal to God. Even a person who doesn't believe God, can be loyal to Him by keeping His word.

Also, I think Bible is not really about believing, but more about right understanding. Believing is not useful, if you are evil and unrighteous.

I doubt that you can believe or not just like that even if you wanted to. In fact I am sure, deep down, you know you are mistaken, which is why you kept trying the various excuses for the daylight before the sun, denied that you reposted the resurrection with the contradictions left out (i am sure you did that ) and then posted a rewritten combined gospel to try to fit what you wanted to prove. You Wanted to validate but you don't make yourself really believe it.

Deep down

Which is why we know about cognitive dissonance and faithbased denial. The Bible apologist thinks we don't know, but we do.

You may of course invent your own dogmas and doctrines. For all i know you may be right - anyone doing something that aligns with God's directives even if a Hindu or Atheist may be doing His will. Since I don't believe in any religion, doctrine or Holy Book, I don't much care.

I disagree about your last, of course, not just because i think you confuse morals with Believing. You recognise hypocrisy and the doctrine of (perhaps) losing grace by sinning (if it is too bad for a televised show of repentance to put right)but I don't care about doctrines, religious interpretations of human social ethics or Faithbased attempts to foist God, religion and the Bible on a society that really has outgrown them.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

For the context of this discussion, let's roll with the definition of faith to mean -- "to trust in, or to apply hope in anyways, despite inference(s) to the contrary. " Since belief does not seem to be a choice, as I cannot simply chose to believe in fairies without proper demonstration, the term faith looks to be the work-around.

As I have said before, I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real historical figure, (nor do you) because we have evidence for this. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was crucified, because we have evidence for this. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus died, because we have the evidence. Moreover, I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, because we have evidence for this, and I can look at, study, analyze, and weigh the evidence in order to come to a conclusion. What I would need faith in order to believe, is that these events somehow atone for my sin. Because you see, I cannot look at, study, analyze, feel, or weigh forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have facts and evidence in support of the rest.

Further, many will also argue faith in Jesus is necessary, because all humans fall short. But if this is THE case, then 'morals' also look to become superfluous and/or irrelevant.

BINGO! You are exactly correct! A true Christian is not concerned with the chase after morality because a true Christian understands they could never measure up to any sort of morality. So then, the Christian has been set free from the chase after morality which they could never measure up to, and they are now free to go out and get in the ditch with those in need, not out of any sort of obligation to some sort of morality, but rather out of love for others. This is exactly what the parable of "The Good Samaritan" was about. If you will notice, all those who passed by the man in the ditch was tied to some sort of law (morality) which prevented them from getting in the ditch to help their brother. In other words, they could not afford to make themselves unclean by getting in the ditch with the one in need. On the other hand, the Samaritan was not tied to any sort of laws and was free to get in the ditch to do what needed to be done.

So then, unlike the religions of the world, Christianity does not teach folks how to be moral, rather it teaches us that we are immoral and that we are in need of the righteousness of another. Again, this means that Christians are free from the chase after morality, and we have been freed in order to be able to serve others, not out of any sort of obligation to some sort of morality, but rather out of love, and great gratitude.

What all this means is, the true Christian leaves the chase after morality to others. I mean, do you have any sort of moral standard? Do you always live up to the moral standard you have? In other words, do you fail at times to live up to your own moral standard? If you have never failed to live up to your own moral standard, then good for you! You are a moral person. As for me, I understand that I could never live up to any moral standard, even one I may make for myself. At any rate, if you are chasing a moral standard, good luck with the chase.

[POI]

I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real historical figure, (nor do you) because we have evidence for this. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was crucified, because we have evidence for this. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus died, because we have the evidence. Moreover, I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, because we have evidence for this, and I can look at, study, analyze, and weigh the evidence in order to come to a conclusion.

Are you saying I believe in all the above claims, especially the one in red?

What I would need faith in order to believe, is that these events somehow atone for my sin. Because you see, I cannot look at, study, analyze, feel, or weigh forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith

I would agree here. Assuming someone truly believes a Jesus character died for them, this someone would need faith that Jesus will forgive them, as this someone has not died yet to find out if this individual actually will be forgiven.

I have facts and evidence in support of the rest.

This would depend on (your) standards for the words 'facts' & 'evidence'.

1) What is your definition for these two terms?
2) Are these defintions acceptable for all to inherit?
3) More importantly, do you apply these two terms consistently across any/all claims?

Further, many will also argue faith in Jesus is necessary, because all humans fall short. But if this is THE case, then 'morals' also look to become superfluous and/or irrelevant.

BINGO! You are exactly correct! A true Christian is not concerned with the chase after morality because a true Christian understands they could never measure up to any sort of morality. So then, the Christian has been set free from the chase after morality which they could never measure up to, and they are now free to go out and get in the ditch with those in need, not out of any sort of obligation to some sort of morality, but rather out of love for others. This is exactly what the parable of "The Good Samaritan" was about. If you will notice, all those who passed by the man in the ditch was tied to some sort of law (morality) which prevented them from getting in the ditch to help their brother. In other words, they could not afford to make themselves unclean by getting in the ditch with the one in need. On the other hand, the Samaritan was not tied to any sort of laws and was free to get in the ditch to do what needed to be done.

So then, unlike the religions of the world, Christianity does not teach folks how to be moral, rather it teaches us that we are immoral and that we are in need of the righteousness of another. Again, this means that Christians are free from the chase after morality, and we have been freed in order to be able to serve others, not out of any sort of obligation to some sort of morality, but rather out of love, and great gratitude.

What all this means is, the true Christian leaves the chase after morality to others. I mean, do you have any sort of moral standard? Do you always live up to the moral standard you have? In other words, do you fail at times to live up to your own moral standard? If you have never failed to live up to your own moral standard, then good for you! You are a moral person. As for me, I understand that I could never live up to any moral standard, even one I may make for myself. At any rate, if you are chasing a moral standard, good luck with the chase.

For clarification....

In essence, are you speaking about Jesus' stated two greatest commandments? -- (Paraphrased) -- 1) Love him, and then 2) love all others as you love yourself, (which would reflect in treating all others like you would want yourself treated)? An analogy might be... When a doctor comes into a room, and a family member states to the doctor, "please take care of my daughter like you would take care of your own daughter." Your argument looks to be... Always treat all others like you would treat yourself, or like you would want all your closest loved ones to be treated. And if you cannot do that, in some cases, then your love for Jesus, or the greatest commandment, protects you anyways?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #86]

Are you saying I believe in all the above claims, especially the one in red?

No. What I am saying is, we have facts and evidence for all the above, and all the above can be believed based upon the facts and evidence, no faith required. Faith is believing in something there would be no facts and evidence to examine.

I would agree here. Assuming someone truly believes a Jesus character died for them, this someone would need faith that Jesus will forgive them, as this someone has not died yet to find out if this individual actually will be forgiven.

Well no. One can be convinced of the events described above based upon the facts and evidence. There are no facts and evidence to examine as far as forgiveness goes, and therefore one would have to accept forgiveness upon faith.

1) What is your definition for these two terms?

It would be the same definition the majority of scholars use (whether Christian or not) to come to the conclusion that the earliest followers of Jesus were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death. In other words, they have become convinced of this based upon the same facts and evidence to the point they do not believe this fact can be denied. The reason for this is because the facts and evidence supporting this is overwhelming. If the scholars are correct (and again the facts and evidence heavily support this to be the case) this needs some sort of explanation, and thus far there is no explanation for this which could explain all the facts involved which would not include the extraordinary (meaning out of the ordinary). Now of course, you may look at the facts and evidence and come to the conclusion that Jesus did not rise from the dead, and I have no problem with this, but one cannot rightly look at the facts and evidence and come to the conclusion there would be no reason to believe the claims.

3) More importantly, do you apply these two terms consistently across any/all claims?

If this is heading in the direction I think, which is do I apply this same method to the religions of the world, your problem here is the fact that I do not have to know a thing in the world about the religions of the world in order to determine if there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the Christian claims. One would have nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

For clarification....

In essence, are you speaking about Jesus' stated two greatest commandments? -- (Paraphrased) -- 1) Love him, and then 2) love all others as you love yourself, (which would reflect in treating all others like you would want yourself treated)? An analogy might be... When a doctor comes into a room, and a family member states to the doctor, "please take care of my daughter like you would take care of your own daughter." Your argument looks to be... Always treat all others like you would treat yourself, or like you would want all your closest loved ones to be treated. And if you cannot do that, in some cases, then your love for Jesus, or the greatest commandment, protects you anyways?

Not at all. You have completely missed the point. The point is, the Christian has been set free from the law (morality) and gives up on the chase after morality, and they have been set free from the chase after morality, in order to better go out and serve those in need, not out of any sort of obligation to a moral code, but rather out of love and great gratitude. In other words, it is about the motivation. You see, the difference is, you are calling what Jesus said to be a command, and it was. The problem is, the Christian understands they do not measure up to the command, because we fail at times to obey the command which demonstrates are inability to keep promises. Therefore, when a Christian serves others, it is not in order to live up to a command, but rather simply out of love and gratitude. Again, Christianity is not about teaching folks how to be moral, but rather about teaching folks that they could never live up to any sort of morality. Therefore, the Christian leaves the chase after morality to those who believe they know what morality would be.

[POI]

No. What I am saying is, we have facts and evidence for all the above, and all the above can be believed based upon the facts and evidence, no faith required. Faith is believing in something there would be no facts and evidence to examine.

If what you say is correct, then the term "blind faith" would be completely indistinguishable from just stating "faith" alone. Aren't there instead levels to the term 'faith'? Meaning, the less evidence obtained for the claim, the more faith needed/required to hold to the claim anyways, and vice versa?

Well no. One can be convinced of the events described above based upon the facts and evidence. There are no facts and evidence to examine as far as forgiveness goes, and therefore one would have to accept forgiveness upon faith.

This is essentially what I said.

It would be the same definition the majority of scholars use (whether Christian or not) to come to the conclusion that the earliest followers of Jesus were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death. In other words, they have become convinced of this based upon the same facts and evidence to the point they do not believe this fact can be denied. The reason for this is because the facts and evidence supporting this is overwhelming. If the scholars are correct (and again the facts and evidence heavily support this to be the case) this needs some sort of explanation, and thus far there is no explanation for this which could explain all the facts involved which would not include the extraordinary (meaning out of the ordinary). Now of course, you may look at the facts and evidence and come to the conclusion that Jesus did not rise from the dead, and I have no problem with this, but one cannot rightly look at the facts and evidence and come to the conclusion there would be no reason to believe the claims.

Your assertions above directly parallel, or, are directly analogous to UFO sightings -- (see link below). 'Facts' and 'evidence' suggest such humans believe they had such true claimed experiences as well. But getting back to the OP, is where I would like to go with this... Most DO NOT have these direct experiences with a Jesus or UFO's. Hence, when reading the Bible, one can also put forth the assertions that the authors knew most won't have such experiences. Hence, the push to gain converts was by propping up 'faith' (as defined in the OP), and also fear, by the threats of eternal torment - (ala, a derivative of "Pascal's Wager"). In essence, the authors knew that pushing "faith" and "fear" would gain more converts, as one of the intentions of the Bible was to bring as many over to this belief system as possible.

https://www.artangel.org.uk/witness/ufo ... und-world/

3) More importantly, do you apply these two terms consistently across any/all claims?

If this is heading in the direction I think, which is do I apply this same method to the religions of the world, your problem here is the fact that I do not have to know a thing in the world about the religions of the world in order to determine if there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the Christian claims. One would have nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

No. I'm asking if your use of the epistemological tools for which you possess, are actually applied consistently across all known claims for which you reject? I happily admit I compartmentalize and apply cognitive dissonance(s) for some of my current political affiliation(s), or the 'justifications' for why I continue to eat meat, or protecting my children above all else, etc... Do you admit you harbor a special set of rules for the 'religion' you defend? Alternatively, where 'religion' is concerned, I instead reject them all, as they all lack sufficient evidence and logic.

the Christian has been set free from the law (morality) and gives up on the chase after morality, and they have been set free from the chase after morality, in order to better go out and serve those in need, not out of any sort of obligation to a moral code, but rather out of love and great gratitude. In other words, it is about the motivation. You see, the difference is, you are calling what Jesus said to be a command, and it was. The problem is, the Christian understands they do not measure up to the command, because we fail at times to obey the command which demonstrates are inability to keep promises. Therefore, when a Christian serves others, it is not in order to live up to a command, but rather simply out of love and gratitude. Again, Christianity is not about teaching folks how to be moral, but rather about teaching folks that they could never live up to any sort of morality. Therefore, the Christian leaves the chase after morality to those who believe they know what morality would be.

I honestly do not see any difference, versus what I said. But to your response, I then say....

Can one be genuinely motivated to still apply the 'golden rule', (the listed second greatest Commandment), without believing in a postmortem Jesus? You see, many do not believe a postmortem Jesus is above watching all. And yet, still apply the golden rule where they can - (me for instance). If all that really matters is the belief, morals are completely superfluous or irrelevant, whether one believes or not. Which begs the question... Why give any moral law at all, outside, "believe in me and worship me"?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #88]

If what you say is correct, then the term "blind faith" would be completely indistinguishable from just stating "faith" alone. Aren't there instead levels to the term 'faith'? Meaning, the less evidence obtained for the claim, the more faith needed/required to hold to the claim anyways, and vice versa?

You are making this way more complicated than it has to be. Faith is belief in something of which there would be no facts and evidence to examine. Where there are facts and evidence to examine, no faith is required.

Your assertions above directly parallel, or, are directly analogous to UFO sightings -- (see link below).

My friend, I and my wife have witnessed a UFO, simply meaning we both saw a flying object which we could not identify. I am not suggesting this had anything to do with outer space or aliens, I am simply saying we both saw a huge object in the sky which we could not identify. This is nothing like the reports contained in the NT in which even scholars who are not Christian are convinced based upon the facts and evidence involved that the earlier followers were not making the story up but rather truly believed they had encountered the risen Christ. I'm just telling you that attempting to compare Christianity to Santa, UFOS etc. is not helping your case.

Hence, when reading the Bible, one can also put forth the assertions that the authors knew most won't have such experiences. Hence, the push to gain converts was by propping up 'faith' (as defined in the OP)

But this is not what the authors contained in the NT did. In other words, they never asked their audience to believe the resurrection upon faith, but were rather pointing to what they claimed to be historical events, and most scholars are convinced these earliest followers were truly convinced they had seen Jesus alive after death, which would go against the idea they were "propping up faith". When talking about these earliest followers, what in the world did they have to gain? I mean just take Paul for example. Paul was leading the way in Judaism and could have had a very good life, However, for some strange reason he gives this up in order to travel the world and preach what he was once attempting to stop, which led to his stoning on more than one occasion, along with prison more than once. So, what was it that Paul or any of the others had to gain?

In essence, the authors knew that pushing "faith" and "fear" would gain more converts, as one of the intentions of the Bible was to bring as many over to this belief system as possible.

You are surely confused here because the authors contained in the Bible wrote hundreds of years before there was any sort of Bible. The point is, the "intentions of the Bible" would have nothing whatsoever to do with the intentions of the authors, since the authors would have had no idea about any sort of Bible. Moreover, let us think about the fact that the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT can be demonstrated to be addressed to audiences who already believed, with the authors having no concern, nor any idea that anyone else would read what they had to write other than the intended audience at the time. The fact of the matter is, the whole of the NT may well have been addressed to believers at the time, and since this is the case, what in the world would what they had to write have to do with converting others? What in the world would Paul's letter to Philemon have to do with converting others? What would any of his other letters have to do with converting others? Paul's letters are the majority of the NT and when we add the two letters addressed to Theophilus to this, we have the overwhelming majority of the NT addressed to those who already believed. What would this have to do with converting others?

Do you admit you harbor a special set of rules for the 'religion' you defend?

I do not. I can tell you that when I started the study of the Christian claims I did not care where I landed. The only reason I even started such a study is because I knew my children would be exposed to Christianity and I knew I had to give them some sort of answer. So, if like you say, you want to protect your children above all else, what makes you think that I would be any different? With this being the case, I simply shared with my children what it is I believe, and why I believe it, and I can assure you they are Christians today, not because their dad is, but rather they know what they believe and why they believe it.

Alternatively, where 'religion' is concerned, I instead reject them all, as they all lack sufficient evidence and logic.

What you are saying here is impossible. There is no way in which you have studied all the religions of the world and found them all lacking. More than likely, you have not really studied any of them at all. More to the truth would probably be that you were a Christian at one time who found what you were taught to be lacking, who then went on to reject Christianity and since Christianity is a religion in your mind, all the rest of the religions must and have to be lacking, but I can assure you that you have not studied all the religions of the world to come to the conclusion that "they all lack sufficient evidence and logic".

Can one be genuinely motivated to still apply the 'golden rule', (the listed second greatest Commandment), without believing in a postmortem Jesus?

Yes.

You see, many do not believe a postmortem Jesus is above watching all. And yet, still apply the golden rule where they can - (me for instance).

Agreed! Does this make you a moral person?

If all that really matters is the belief, morals are completely superfluous or irrelevant, whether one believes or not. Which begs the question... Why give any moral law at all, outside, "believe in me and worship me"?

The moral law was given in order to demonstrate to us that we can never measure up. In other words, the moral law was given to drive us to Christ.

[Difflugia]

You are making this way more complicated than it has to be. Faith is belief in something of which there would be no facts and evidence to examine. Where there are facts and evidence to examine, no faith is required.

That's not necessarily true. Faith is required if the facts and evidence point to a different conclusion than the one that you really, really want to believe in. Alternately, one might not need faith if one is badly mistaken about how to interpret the facts and evidence.

This is nothing like the reports contained in the NT in which even scholars who are not Christian are convinced based upon the facts and evidence involved that the earlier followers were not making the story up but rather truly believed they had encountered the risen Christ.

You've had this conversation too many times and still come away with an incorrect idea of what the scholars believe.

The facts and evidence are that the earliest followers earnestly believed something about a resurrection, but not necessarily that it was physical or that they experienced a risen Christ in the flesh. Instead, you've turned your misconception into a weird feedback loop. You're convinced that the scholars believe something that's fundamentally different than what any of them claims, which means to you that the evidence must be much stronger than it is.

I'm just telling you that attempting to compare Christianity to Santa, UFOS etc. is not helping your case.

The tired claim of "facts and evidence" when referring to gross speculation isn't helping yours.