Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can “confidence in what we hope for”
and an “assurance about what we do not see”
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[Clownboat]

How in the world can you be looked at as revering something when you can demonstrate you "wish it had never been composed?"

Since you asked, like a drug user that wishes their drug was never created/discovered.

How can you make this make sense in your mind?

Easy, the majority of Christians revere the Bible. You wish it was never composed. This is not hard to understand. Hard to believe, yes...

Now, please explain how one can make an idol out of something they wish would have never been in existence.

Already did. See the drug user.

Facts and evidence hits you in the face?

This sentence is incoherent.

If the Bible had never been composed, we would still have the content which is contained in the Bible,

This sentence seems illogical. Where would the contents of the Bible be contained if there was no Bible?

If the Bible had never been composed, we would still have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, the letters of Paul, and all the rest.

Please inform us where all these letters are currently.

So exactly what did Paul mean when he said, "we take every thought captive"?

Try to stay on topic. Paul is talking about what we allow to take hold in our minds. For many Christians, the theory of evolution would be one such thing that they would argue to take captive. There is no Christian unity on this though.

So then, how in the world can letters addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already believed, be considered "promotional material"?

You seem to be at war with the English language.
pro·mote
/prəˈmōt/
verb
1.
further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.

Your replies is getting very emotional it seems.

You simply continue to demonstrate one who does not have a clue about what you are so critical of, which you were once convinced of?

This sentence is framed a bit odd, but if you are asking me if I was once a convinced Christian, then the answer is 'yes'.

Do you have any idea at all what year the Bible was compiled?

Yes.

I mean, this fact alone demonstrates that Christianity was well organized long before the Bible.

I have never once argued that Christianity didn't exist before the Bible. It being well organized is a bit of a stretch. Take keeping all of the Jewish commandments for one. Something Paul and Peter are said to have argued about.

Please show that numerous dead bodies got out of their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem appearing to many. Such a historical event would surely be in evidence, right?

Another example of sloppy thinking.

On your part perhaps. Do you not recall making the claim about historical events and countless folks who believed these reports? I'm simply asking for the evidence for this event as I doubt you will be able to show that people actually believed that it happened. I await your dodge.

Allow me to demonstrate just how sloppy the thinking is above, by giving a real-life example. I had two different folks come into my office at two different times. Both of these folks told me the same exact story almost word for word. The only difference was the fact, they were both using the word "I" in the same place. In other words, they both were attempting to take credit. Now, does this fact have any bearing upon whether the event took place?

Derp. We are talking about dead bodies reanimating to life. Not some mundane work claim.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
If two people were claiming that they resurrected Craig from the dead. Certainly we would know that at least one of them is not being truthful, with the possibility that both are lying since they are claiming that something seemingly impossible happened.
Believe them both at your own folly.

Well no. The fact of the matter is, the reports are in fact pretty strong evidence the event did in fact occur, the only question is, who is responsible?

Which reports are you referring to and where are they found so we can view them? Surely not in the Bible, the book you claim you wish was never written.

In the same way, even if the report you refer to is an embellishment, false, made up, or a lie, does not in any way demonstrate everything else in the report would be false.

It would be foolish to enter into a business transaction with a person known to embellish, make up stuff and lie. You know this and only pretend otherwise here to protect a belief you wish to maintain.

Another example would be the fact that scholars examine ancient letters because in these they believe they can know what occurred in those times by reading these letters.

Please provide a specific example of what you are referring to.

Please explain to me what these other religions would have to do with whether or not Jesus rose from the dead?

If religions and the gods are creations of men, then religions and the gods are creations of men. You employ special pleading to your preferred gods/religious concept, just like believers in other religions do for theirs.

How in the world is my repeating exactly what you have said about yourself, a "defense mechanism"?

You accuse me of things I have not said, not to mention you are debating the person and not the arguments.
Copy/paste: "I think what we are beginning to see is one who was a convinced Christian with no facts and evidence to support what they were once convinced of who has now convinced themselves that anyone else who is a Christian must and had to use the same sloppy logic."
This is just a defense mechanism and an ad hominem.

The Bible makes no claims at all.

Jesus, if we can believe the Bible made many claims, including:
Sharing "glory" with God before the world existed
Being sent from Heaven
Sending His angels
Having the authority to forgive sins
You should amend your thinking on this matter.

The author of Matthew makes claims, the author of Mark, as well as the authors of Luke, Acts, John, along with Paul.

Funny! Just above you made this claim: "The Bible makes no claims at all."

All these authors made these claims orally long before they wrote them down, and when they wrote, they were addressing audiences at the time who would have already believed the miraculous claims.

Really? So the author of Matthew, made claims orally before the author of Mathew wrote them down? Who wrote Matthew again, I forgot?

This is exactly why I have said that "I wish the Bible would have never been composed", so that folks like you could not say, "the Bible makes claims".

You mean like you!
"The author of Matthew makes claims, the author of Mark, as well as the authors of Luke, Acts, John, along with Paul."
You're all over the place it seems.

There are indeed facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection. Now, does this fact demonstrate the resurrection occurred?

Woops, you allude to fact and evidence that justify believing a dead body reanimated. Please present the facts and evidence so we can determine if they justify believing that a dead body reanimated back to life. Ty.

I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, because there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe this to be true.

Neato! Once again, please present the facts and evidence that factually and evidentially show that a Jesus was resurrected.

Allow me to end by saying that I understand that I come across as rude,

This is true, but I cut out a lot of your ad hominem arguments.

With that being said, I am really not attempting to be mean here, but your arguments are extremely weak.

Your slander is noted. How are those fact and evidences coming that show that a Jesus was resurrected? I would hate to find out that your reasoning is extremely weak.

Do you seriously believe I have not thought about these other religions?

Yes, I don't believe you have. You have failed to address a mechanism for how ancient religions came about and also said this: "Quite the contrary my friend. I have no idea what "Bhagavad Gita" is."

My friend, it does not take a whole lot of thinking to understand that I do not have to know a thing about any of these other religions in order to know, and understand there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected.

I have provided mechanisms for how and why humans created religions. You dodge this for fear that it might apply to your own I'm guessing and you can't have that due to special pleading. I find this illogical. I'm guessing readers may as well.

These other religions do not even enter into that equation.

When analyzing why humans created religions like I have done, all religions in fact do enter the equation. I have first hand knowledge as to why this is an uncomfortable thing to consider when trying to also maintain a religious belief. I am no longer saddled with such a thing and happen to find this topic fascinating. You likely would as well if you are ever freed from your current belief.

I can assure you that I know far more about the Bible than you do

That is to assume a fact that is not in evidence, but either way, Neato! Do you happen to admire, love or revere it?

I continue to read the Bible,

Why don't you read the original claims/letters and instead read the Bible, a book you claim to wish was never compiled?
'I continue to read this thing I wish didn't exist' is odd to me. Especially if there is no other sources available.

I would also advise you to be careful when using Biblical text because you will get yourself in trouble when you run up against one who happens to be a true student.

I'm going to guess this will get some giggles out of some reading here.

My point is this issue is far more complex than you make it out to be and your arguments are elementary.

Again... When the debate is lost, slander become the tool of the loser. - Socrates

[Difflugia]

While you think on this, allow me to give you the evidence that the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus was actually a traveling companion of Paul. First, the author begins to use the words "we" and "us" when describing the actions of Paul, as if he is there to witness the events he is recording. Of course, there are scholars who want to insist the author was using some sort of literary device and did not intend to be understood as being present. However, this is not something which has been demonstrated, and the natural reading of the text would naturally lead one to believe the author was indeed present. In order to believe the author was not present, one would have to jump through all sorts of mental hoops.

Without attempting to demonstrate anything in particular, I'm going to reproduce here a paragraph from the introduction to Winnie the Pooh, by A. A. Milne. I'll leave it to the reader to evaluate just what the "we" and "us" passages mean and who is a travelling companion of whom.

You can’t be in London for long without going to the Zoo. There are some people who begin the Zoo at the beginning, called WAYIN, and walk as quickly as they can past every cage until they get to the one called WAYOUT, but the nicest people go straight to the animal they love the most, and stay there. So when Christopher Robin goes to the Zoo, he goes to where the Polar Bears are, and he whispers something to the third keeper from the left, and doors are unlocked, and we wander through dark passages and up steep stairs, until at last we come to the special cage, and the cage is opened, and out trots something brown and furry, and with a happy cry of ‘‘Oh, Bear!’’ Christopher Robin rushes into its arms. Now this bear’s name is Winnie, which shows what a good name for bears it is, but the funny thing is that we can’t remember whether Winnie is called after Pooh, or Pooh after Winnie. We did know once, but we have forgotten... .

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #0]

My friend, you are demonstrating the point that you have to perform a whole lot of mental gymnastics in order to come to the conclusions you have. First, you want to suggest that Eusebius may have been the author of two long and detailed letters addressed to one individual, and this would have been impossible. Now, you want to suggest that it may have been those who were not working from Luke, but rather "from the synoptic original they all three used" as if this was an established fact. My friend, this is not an established fact in the least. I mean, let us think about what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that not one but two of the authors had a copy of the first Gospel. Do you understand how rare copies would be at that time? I mean, it is not like there would have been folks walking around with their own personal copy of these things. Copying in those days would have been a long-drawn-out process, and the few that were had would have been kept more than likely by the Churches at that time.

However, those who came up with the idea these folks copied from another, understand this does not explain it all, and therefore, they are forced to come up with the idea of them all having a copy of another source we have no idea about which they call Q. So now, we not only have all these folks having their own personal copy of a synoptic, but we also have each of them with a copy of another source no one is even aware of. Do you wonder why I refer to this as mental gymnastics? I mean, which is really easier to believe? Would it be the natural evidence we have from the text itself that the author was a traveling companion of Paul? Or is it easier to jump through all these hoops in order to avoid having to believe what the natural reading would be? I am not in any way suggesting that we should simply believe what is easier to believe. What I am saying is, it speaks volumes for one to go to the extent to jump through all the hoops in order to avoid having to read the text naturally.

Have you really thought about what you are saying? I mean, it would be extremely involved. We know Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and this would be a fact. We also know that Paul would have known the original apostles and would have known the claims they were making from their very lips. So then, what we have is the fact that we can know the apostles were making claims which caused Paul to be a persecutor of Christians, only to become the reason for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time, spending the rest of his life traveling around planting Churches. We know for a fact that Paul did and would have to have others traveling along with him, and we know for a fact that Paul authored letters to these Churches, along with the fact that the letters of Paul we do have would not be all of the letters he wrote, because we know he wrote more. Now, do you suppose that Paul would have been the only apostle to write letters? Would it be hard to imagine that one of the traveling companions of Paul would have been compelled to chronicle the travels of Paul since he would have been a witness to these travels? I mean, this is exactly what the evidence suggests, and we are to ignore the plain evidence, and go with the idea that Paul was the only one from whom we have letters, and even some of his letters are questioned, and none of the rest of the folks involved would have written anything at all, and what we now have in written form would be what others wrote decades later who would not have been alive at the time, and were simply passing on what had been passed on to them.

I could keep typing for days, but let us think about the fact, that it would be a fact that the apostles were making the claim of the resurrection. With what you are saying, these folks would have been making false claims for whatever reason, all the while making these claims they were being persecuted for making the claims, and then sometime later there are folks who decide to carry on these claims, by writing material to promote the claims they were making. Do you even understand what all would have to be involved for all of this to be fact? GOOD GRIEF! It is making my head swim. On the other hand, all I have to do is to read the text just as it is in order to believe the author was a traveling companion of Paul.

Let us also think about the fact that the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus addressed these letters to one individual. OH? But we can have none of that now, can we? No not at all. We absolutely cannot have one who sits down to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, in order for this individual to "know the exact truth". Rather, someone thought of the fact that the meaning of the name Theophilus is "lover of God" and therefore the author was using the name Theophilus in order to appeal to a wider audience. GOOD GRIEF! It is not at all shocking to me that someone would come up with this idea. What is shocking is the way in which many folks eagerly grab ahold of what the scholars have to say, when there is no way any of these folks would have come close to this conclusion on their own. So again, we cannot possibly read the text just as it seems to read. NO! We have to jump through all sorts of mental hoops, in order to ensure one can continue to hold on to any sort of doubt at all.

and I see no reason at all to suppose that the writer of Luke or Acts actually was named Luke or was a companion of Paul.

GOOD GRIEF! You do not have to suppose in order to believe the author was Luke or that he was a traveling companion of Paul, because I have demonstrated there are facts and evidence in support of this so one can build this belief upon these facts and evidence as opposed to having to jump through all sorts of mental hoops in order to doubt. Now, you may look at these facts, and evidence and come to a different conclusion, but it is certainly intellectual dishonesty to accuse those opposed to you as having to suppose when there are facts and evidence in support. I mean, there are indeed Christians who assume the author is Luke, and there are those who were at one time convinced Christians who supposed this to be the case, but simply because there are those who do suppose, does not in any way demonstrate one must suppose this to be the case.

it isn't surprising that someone pretending to be Luke would write as he supposed a companion of Paul would do.

Now, you tell me who is doing the supposing? So then, we have the facts and evidence I have supplied which would support the belief that Luke was indeed the author, which means one would not have to suppose, but we are simply to go on the idea that "it wouldn't be surprising someone may have been pretending to be Luke"? GOOD GRIEF! What evidence do we have that someone pretended to be Luke? If there is no evidence this is the case, then one would have to suppose. And again, we have to jump through all sorts of mental hoops to avoid taking what was written at face value.

I am not impressed by Luke declaring his research.

No one is asking you to be impressed. Heck! I am not impressed by this. However, if we are impressed or not, this would be part of the evidence this author was alive at the time of the events he records, and unless we have some sort of evidence this would not have been the case, we would simply have to suppose that it would not be the case. It is not supposing for one to look at this as evidence the author may have been alive at the time of the events recorded. What would be supposing is, if one were to look at this evidence and say something to the effect of, "I am not impressed with the author making this statement" along with saying something like "it wouldn't be surprising for someone to pretend to be Luke" with no evidence in support. Can you see the difference? If one can point to facts, and evidence in support, there is no supposing. If one is simply pointing to what they would prefer to believe, that is what is supposing.

So my pointing up of the fiddling and fails of the Acts doesn't bother you?

What I am attempting to tell you is, even scholars who do not believe the material to be reliable, are coming to the conclusion that the early followers were somehow convinced they encountered the risen Christ, by reading the material they do not believe to be reliable. You are attempting to attack the credibility of the author and the fact is, even if the author is not credible, there are certain things we can know to be fact by reading the material. I am not attempting to argue the author is credible, nor am I attempting to claim that what is contained in the Bible is without error. I am simply saying that there are things we can all know by reading the material, just like the scholars who do not believe the material to be reliable are convinced by this material that the early followers of Jesus at least believed they had encountered Jesus alive after death.

Now, let's think about this. If these earlier followers were not convinced they saw Jesus alive after death, then what exactly occurred? If they did, what would cause them to believe this? I can tell you this. I cannot imagine any explanation which would not involve the extraordinary. In other words, there is no denying the fact that whatever occurred some 2000 years ago, the events have had the most significant impact the world has ever known and counting. Therefore, one is not going to eliminate the extraordinary (meaning out of the ordinary). Rather, one can only exchange one extraordinary tale for another. Or they will have to suppose what they believe to be the least extraordinary and go with that.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #43]


That is awfully long, and I'm sorry if I just give first impressions. I in no way suggested that Eusebius wrote Paul's letters and I don't even think Marcion did. I this Paul wrote them.

Eusebius isn't something I'm sure about. It's just a fancy I have and I'm quite prepared for it to be wrong.

However the synoptic original Mark, Matthew and Luke (the writers who used those names) based their gospels on is pretty sure. The common text is seen in all the gospels, with their own additions and alterations. This is why they are called the synoptics. Just look at the baptism or the parables of the kingdom. Not only is it what Jesus said and did (supposedly) but descriptive text looks like the three had a common origin.

I'll have a look at your other points, but I would like to check a few other posts.

I had a look at the last bit and I have to question your assumption that we can know certain Facts from Acts. Not just because they are in Acts, we can't. The death of Herod Agrippa is, as I said, lifted from Josephus with alteration to make it more Christian, but one even has to doubt the story in Josephus. The escape from Damascus and council of Jerusalem are simply taken from Paul, but the writer of Acts changes them. There are several stories that don't convince me, like the hammock of wrigglies or the eunuch in the chariot. I am highly skeptical of the miraculous escape from prison, and i see no reason to credit the stoning of Stephen even. I am suspicious of Paul up before that Roman governor. It sounds too much like it was borrowed from Pilate.

I do find reasons to credit 'Facts' in the gospels. An invented Jesus would have been killed by Jews, not Romans, who then have to be excused, so the Jews are really to blame, I believe that Jesus really was a Galilean and then nativities have to be invented to show that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem, which Mark does not (arguably) know and John pretty much denied.

There are a few things I do credit in the Gospel story, but nothing in Acts, unless borrowed from Josephus and Paul. And even then....

I believe Paul fled Damascus, but not the reason he gives I doubt Aretas had even heard of him let alone invaded Syria just to get him.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #41]

I really see no need in continuing this conversation for two reasons. One is the fact that you do not want to really address the facts and evidence we have, and like one who was a convinced Christian at one time, you simply continue to do whatever you can to hold on to what you would rather believe.

However, the main reason is the fact that I have continued to demonstrate over, and over, you have no clue about what is contained in the Bible which you are so critical of, and the fact that you utterly, and completely failed the challenge proves this beyond any doubt whatsoever. I mean let's think about this for a moment before we demonstrate how wrong you are. We have one who wants to tell us he was a convinced Christian, and since they were a convinced Christian, they want to ensure us that they know quite a lot about the Bible. For one to be a convinced Christian, one would think they would read and study what is contained in the Bible almost daily, and if this is the case then you would not think they could be stumped by one simple verse which all Christians should have read over, and over again. The fact of the matter is, no one who has read this passage over, and over, in the context of the whole chapter could ever come away with the idea that when Paul says "we take every thought captive" that he would have in mind,

Paul is talking about what we allow to take hold in our minds.

GOOD GRIEF! This is nowhere close to what Paul was communicating. This was a letter addressed to the Corinthian Church and when Paul tells the Corinthians "we take every thought captive" he is not in any way telling the Corinthians to "take every thought captive". Rather, this is a clear warning to the Corinthians, that if they did not straighten up their act, they would discover that Paul and those traveling with him, "do not fight with the weapons of the world". So again, this is a clear warning to the Corinthians that they better straighten up before they discover that Paul and company have "divine power to demolish strongholds". This becomes abundantly clear when we arrive to verses 10 and 11 where Paul warns the Corinthians,

For some say, “His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing.” Such people should realize that what we are in our letters when we are absent, we will be in our actions when we are present.

It is as plain as the nose on your face that Paul could not possibly be commanding Christians to "take every thought captive" because it would be impossible to make this make sense in the rest of the context.

So then, what we have is one who claims to have been a convinced Christian at one time, who claims to know quite a lot about the Bible, who cannot even explain 5 little words contained in the Bible, which demonstrates plainly they do not know much of anything at all about the Bible.

Now, I understand that you are more than likely pretty upset, and mad with me at this point, but I encourage you to go to 2 Corinthians chapter 10 and read the whole chapter in the way in which I have described, and you will clearly see this was in no way a command to us as Christians but was rather a warning to the Corinthians, and reading it in this way just may help you understand how to read the rest of what Paul has to say and when you begin to read the content correctly you just may find that you have not rejected Christianity at all, but have rather rejected a very faulty understanding of Christianity.

My friend, if you are that far off on 5 little words this tells me about all I need to know. The thing is this should be telling you something as well in that you do not know near as much as you let on and it is scary to think that you are risking truth based upon this little bit of knowledge. Seriously! You became convinced Christianity was true based on very little knowledge of Christianity, and you have rejected Christianity and continuing to demonstrate very little knowledge of what you claim to have rejected, which means you are risking truth based upon very little knowledge.

With all the above being said, allow me to say that there are some very dangerous Christians out there who are using this passage in the very same way that you are, and they are called "Christian nationalists". I am here to tell you that they are intending to overthrow our democratic republic in order to replace it with a theocracy. These folks use this passage in order to rally Christians by telling them that Paul has commanded us to "take every thought captive" and when he says "every thought" this also means the thoughts of those in society. Therefore, they have convinced many Christians that this passage is commanding us to engage the culture by taking over culture.

I cannot stress enough just how dangerous these Christians are, and I am telling you that I am convinced that they just might have the ability to actually pull it off. If one does not believe these folks are serious, all one has to do is to look at the events of Jan. 6th, and the fact that there were some very strong and wealthy Christians behind it, and I can tell you the aim is to take over the country. Again, these are very dangerous Christians, but the thing is, folks like you are just as dangerous, because instead of you gaining the knowledge in order to refute these folks, you are actually encouraging them, by agreeing that the interpretation they are giving this verse is the correct interpretation when it is nowhere close.

What I am saying is, if one is going to engage in the exchange of ideas then one needs to have the knowledge required to participate, because misinformation is not only dangerous coming from ignorant Christians, it is just as dangerous coming from those who are opposed.

[Clownboat]

I really see no need in continuing this conversation for two reasons.

No one is forcing you to participate. You can bow out at any time.

One is the fact that you do not want to really address the facts and evidence we have,

You should have supplied the alluded to facts and evidence here for us to examine. Why didn't you?

and like one who was a convinced Christian at one time, you simply continue to do whatever you can to hold on to what you would rather believe.

This is gold! What is it that I believe?

However, the main reason is the fact that I have continued to demonstrate over, and over, you have no clue about what is contained in the Bible which you are so critical of, and the fact that you utterly, and completely failed the challenge proves this beyond any doubt whatsoever.

The record will show that I met your challenge.

I mean let's think about this for a moment before we demonstrate how wrong you are. We have one who wants to tell us he was a convinced Christian, and since they were a convinced Christian, they want to ensure us that they know quite a lot about the Bible. For one to be a convinced Christian, one would think they would read and study what is contained in the Bible almost daily, and if this is the case then you would not think they could be stumped by one simple verse which all Christians should have read over, and over again. The fact of the matter is, no one who has read this passage over, and over, in the context of the whole chapter could ever come away with the idea that when Paul says "we take every thought captive" that he would have in mind,

What Does It Mean To ‘Take Every Thought Captive’?
As a way of life, taking your thoughts captive means choosing what you allow to take root in your mind. This looks like asking for God’s guidance, turning from sinful sources or behaviors, and maintaining a continual relationship with Scripture.
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/chris ... 0Scripture.
Seems I was pretty spot on after all with my 13 word reply.
Feel free to make your own thread about making the Bible mean what you want it to mean. That is off topic here.

GOOD GRIEF! This is nowhere close to what Paul was communicating.

Yes, it is as I have demonstrated. Take it up with your own please.

<Snipped more dodging of the actual topic in place of discussing a passage in Corinthians that Christians apparently cannot agree on as to what it means>
You should make your own thread about the division in Christianity if that is something you with to discuss.

It is as plain as the nose on your face that Paul could not possibly be commanding Christians to "take every thought captive"

Correct, he is cautioning.... You know what, I'll just quote from Christianity.com again:
"choosing what you allow to take root in your mind"

So then, what we have is one who claims to have been a convinced Christian at one time, who claims to know quite a lot about the Bible, who cannot even explain 5 little words contained in the Bible, which demonstrates plainly they do not know much of anything at all about the Bible.

I met your challenge. That you want to discuss one verse in place of the debate topic is very telling though.

Now, I understand that you are more than likely pretty upset, and mad with me at this point,

You actually don't even enter my thoughts, outside of me forming replies here. Your understanding is once again misplaced.

My friend, if you are that far off on 5 little words this tells me about all I need to know.

Isn't it funny that Christianity.com agrees with me and you still want to discount this in place of addressing the mechanism for how and why humans created god concepts. Arguing about what the Bible is saying is something that Christians do with themselves. I don't care that you Christians cannot agree, I am curious about how and why humans have created god concepts and the faith that is required in order to believe in one of the available gods. You know, like the topic of this thread.

The thing is this should be telling you something as well in that you do not know near as much as you let on and it is scary to think that you are risking truth based upon this little bit of knowledge. Seriously! You became convinced Christianity was true based on very little knowledge of Christianity, and you have rejected Christianity and continuing to demonstrate very little knowledge of what you claim to have rejected, which means you are risking truth based upon very little knowledge.

You have no idea just how little these words mean to me. They reek of desperation. I assume you slander me because that is easier when compared to discussing how humans created the gods and how faith is required. I do hope that you feel better getting this off your chest though.

<Snipped irrelevant words about dangerous Christians>
<Snipped more irrelevant words about dangerous Christians>

What I am saying is, if one is going to engage in the exchange of ideas then one needs to have the knowledge required to participate, because misinformation is not only dangerous coming from ignorant Christians, it is just as dangerous coming from those who are opposed.

Super cool! What are your thoughts about how religions came about in the Americas? What do you think was the mechanism for say the American Indians and South American civilizations for how they arrived at their god concepts and do you think they would still worship their gods today if their civilizations were not destroyed by Europeans?

[otseng]

you have no clue about what is contained in the Bible which you are so critical of, and the fact that you utterly, and completely failed the challenge proves this beyond any doubt whatsoever.

Now, I understand that you are more than likely pretty upset, and mad with me at this point

you have rejected Christianity and continuing to demonstrate very little knowledge of what you claim to have rejected, which means you are risking truth based upon very little knowledge.

Moderator Comment

Please debate without the personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #44]

That is awfully long

It really is not!

I in no way suggested that Eusebius wrote Paul's letters

No, it was not the letters of Paul, I believe it was the two letters addressed to Theophilus you were referring to when you said, "I have long suspected it was Eusebius" and this would be impossible.

Eusebius isn't something I'm sure about.

One thing we can be sure about and that is the fact that Eusebius could not have possibly had anything at all to do with the authorship of the letters addressed to Theophilus.

However the synoptic original Mark, Matthew and Luke (the writers who used those names) based their gospels on is pretty sure.

I am afraid not! Moreover, even if it was "pretty sure" this is a long way from being sure. However, the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus reports to Theophilus that "many" had undertaken the task of writing out accounts of the life of Jesus. This means the author would have known of the other accounts, and I would think we all today would believe this to be sound reporting to rely upon what another had reported. Therefore, even if they did rely upon another's version, this does not in any way demonstrate that the author would not have been alive at the time of the events recorded, or that he did not witness some of the events.

The fact of the matter is, we have very strong evidence the author of both Luke and Acts would have been a traveling companion of Paul, which means he would have conversed with the original apostles, and more than likely known which if any of them had written out an account and could have very well relied on such an account. However, with all these folks being closely tied together and spending much time together, telling, and hearing these same stories over, and over, as they are telling these stories to others, they may have heard these things so many times that they could recite it word, for word. At any rate, whether they happened to use the account of another does not in any way demonstrate the reports would not be reliable.

I had a look at the last bit and I have to question your assumption that we can know certain Facts from Acts.

Allow me to share with you just a few things we can know by reading Acts. We can know beyond any reasonable doubt that whoever authored the first letter addressed to Theophilus, also wrote the second. We can know the author tells this Theophilus that he had "carefully investigated everything from the beginning". We can know this author tells the story of how Paul was persecuting the Church. We can know this author tells of how Paul was converted. We can know this author reports on how Paul was traveling the known world at the time planting Churches. We can know this author begins to use the words "we" and "us" when describing the travels of Paul. We can know this author begins his second letter describing the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem. We can know that for some strange reason that when Paul comes on the scene and begins his journeys, we no longer hear of what the apostles in Jerusalem are doing but begin to hear of only what Paul is doing until, or unless Paul comes back in contact with them again. We can know this author ends the second letter with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years. These are just a few things we can know by reading the author of Acts. Now let us consider just a few things we can know by reading the letters of Paul.

We can know that Paul claimed to have persecuted the Church. We can know that Paul claimed to have been converted. We can know that Paul traveled the known world at the time planting Churches. We can know Paul wrote letters to the Churches he planted. We can know that Paul referred to certain folks who were traveling with him. We can know that Paul mentioned one by the name of Luke as being with him in more than one letter. We can know that in a letter addressed to Timothy, Paul was clearly under arrest at the time. We can know that in this same letter Paul tells Timothy, "Only Luke is with me".

These are just a few things we can know by reading the letters addressed to Theophilus, along with the letters of Paul, and as we look at these things we can know, what we discover is, we have facts, and evidence, (not proof) the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus was a traveling companion of Paul, which means we have evidence (not proof) this author would have been alive at the time of the events recorded, and we have evidence (not proof) that Luke would have been the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus.

Now, you may look at this same evidence and come to a different conclusion, and you may have facts and evidence in support of the conclusions you have, and I have no problem with the facts, evidence, and reasons you may have for doubt. My problem comes in, when there are those who want to insist, there are no facts, evidence, or reasons to believe that this author would have been a traveling companion of Paul.

As far as the rest of what you have to say, you make statements as if they were fact, and they have not at all been demonstrated to be fact. You then go on to simply tell us what you believe which is fine as long as these beliefs are based on some sort of evidence. However, this leaves room for those to believe differently as long as there are facts and evidence in support. But I can tell you this again. No matter what either of us believe, whatever explains the facts and evidence we have concerning the resurrection of Jesus, it is the most extraordinary tale the world has ever known, which has had and continues to have a most extraordinary impact.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #46]

GOOD GRIEF! There are some folks who make it almost impossible to bow out of a conversation because the "hits just keep on coming", and they make it to easy and amusing to leave the conversation.

So then, let us imagine........ Well before we go on to "imagine", the reason we have to "imagine" is because we cannot use reality, because we may hurt someone's feelings, and we certainly do not want anyone's feelings hurt, so let us simply keep it at "imagining". So again, let us "imagine" we have one who feels the need to announce to everyone they were at one time a convinced Christian, and this "imaginary" person then goes on to tell us there is no facts and evidence to support what they were once convinced of. Let us go on to "imagine" this person tells us that they simply took the word of others in order to be convinced. Therefore, when one appeals to any sort of authority in debate, this person is quick to point out this fallacy.

Now let us "imagine" this person assures us that because they were at one time a Christian, they know quite a lot about the Bible. Then, let us "suppose" another were to challenge this person's claim of Biblical knowledge by challenging them to give an interpretation of a Biblical passage. As we continue to "imagine", let us "suppose" this person fails the challenge miserably because it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the interpretation given would be impossible. Continuing on with the "imagination" let us "suppose" that when this is pointed out, this "imaginary" person actually appeals to what they believe to be an authority and insisting that since they can demonstrate where another has the same interpretation, then this somehow demonstrates the interpretation is legitimate, when it has been demonstrated from the text itself this interpretation would be impossible. In other words, this "imaginary" person, who is quick to point out the fallacy of an appeal to authority does exactly that.

I am certainly glad that all the above was "imaginary" because if it were not, it would be hard to believe one could actually do such a thing. Then again, we have to think about the fact that, you can't make this kind of stuff up, which causes us to believe it may in fact be real, because no one can think up a story in which one would be quick to point out the fallacy of appealing to authority, and then go on to do exactly that. Again, you can't make this stuff up. Although the story seems unreal, we have to keep in mind no one would make such a story up, because no one would ever believe that one could point out the fallacy of an appeal to authority and then in a matter of days this very same person makes an appeal to authority.

However, let us continue to "imagine" how it may be possible for this "imaginary" person to cause a passage to say what it has been clearly demonstrated not to be saying. We can do this if we were to "imagine" this same "imaginary" person, were to accuse another poster on this site of finding some sort of "painful experience" they may have had to be "hilarious" when this poster said no such thing, and it could not have even been possible for this poster to have done such a thing when this poster could not have possibly known about any sort of painful experience they may have had. If we could demonstrate where this "imaginary" person has made such an accusation and can go on to demonstrate the poster could not have possibly known about any sort of painful experience, then this may well explain how this "imaginary" person can make a passage say anything they wish.

It seems we have demonstrated that our "imaginary" person who claims to have been a convinced Christian at one time, who freely admits that when they were a Christian, they simply took the word of others, and regurgitated what they were told, (authority) continues to do just that.

Let us now leave "imagine land" and get back to the real world. As I have said, there are Christian nationalists who are using this passage in the same exact way you are, and I have debated one of the most prominent Christian nationalists here in the United States on his interpretation of this passage, and he was forced to admit that the passage was a warning to the Corinthians, and Paul had no intentions of instructing us as Christians to "take every thought captive". Notice carefully that I said he was forced to admit this. I can assure you that it was not at all because he was being intellectually honest, because I can assure you that he is not. This goes to demonstrate that even one who is not in any way intellectually honest had to admit the passage was in no way communicating what he had been claiming. It is impossible to make the passage be anything other than a warning to the Corinthians, and it does not matter what authority you appeal to, and it does not matter how many Christians misinterpret the passage. All that matters is if it is even possible to make the passage mean anything other than a warning to the Corinthians, and this would be impossible. However, if we go back to our "imaginary" person who was able to accuse another poster of finding some sort of painful experience they may have had hilarious, when this poster could not have possibly known about any sort of painful experience, then we may just find one who is able to make any passage say anything they like as long as it promotes the agenda they have. But again, even a self-proclaimed Christian nationalist, who was using this passage to promote Christian nationalism, who does not possess intellectual honesty, was forced to admit the passage has to be twisted in order to promote his agenda.

Again, I am here to tell you that this passage can be demonstrated to be a warning to the Corinthians, and there is no way to make it say what you are attempting to make it say, and it does not matter who you appeal to. It speaks volumes that you do not even deal with the text in the least in order to determine if those you appeal to could be in gross error (and they are) and I am willing to put my reputation on the line that you cannot read the whole chapter and explain how it can have anything at all to do with, "Paul talking about what we allow to take hold in our minds". I am confident this would be impossible for anyone to do.

So then, it looks like both of our reputations is on the line here. Either you can demonstrate where those you appeal to are correct in their interpretation, or it stands that this can only be seen as a warning to the Corinthians.

[TRANSPONDER]

False argument. Because we have abstract rules about many things - games, Laws, money, does not mean those things do not exist. The fact is that the claims about gods, religions and their dogmas are based on a claim that we have no good reason to think exists. If you think you have good reason, let us hear it, not try to pull lawyer tricks to try to equate religious claim with things we know exist.

p.s. 90 guests plus Bots. That's not too bad.