Soliciting Intellectually Honest Conversations...

[bluegreenearth]

I appreciate having productive and non-confrontational conversations with Christians about the reliability of the reasoning they use to justify their beliefs. The goal of these discussions is not to try and disprove or ridicule Christian beliefs but to honestly consider critical thinking questions about the method that was used to acquire these beliefs. So, I invite Christians to post one of their favorite theological claims along with a description of the method they use to justify belief in the specified claim. I also insist that anyone responding to those posts refrain from engaging in counter-apologetic arguments and ad hominem attacks. Instead, responses should be in the form of critical thinking questions regarding the Christian's specified reasoning process rather than the theological claim.

Note: If it is determined that a Christian's reasoning is unreliable, that result doesn't demonstrate the associated theological claim is false. However, that outcome should hopefully motivate the Christian to search for a more reliable reason to justify the specified belief. At the same time, having a reliable reason for holding a Christian belief does not demonstrate the associated theological claim is true. Nevertheless, having a reliable reason could at least serve as a justification for believing in the specified theological claim.

As an example, consider the following hypothetical conversation:

Christian: I believe Jesus is the one true God because it was only after becoming a Christian that I was able to recover from alcoholism.

Response: Are Christians the only people who recover from alcoholism? Are there Christians who don't recover from alcoholism?

Christian: People from a variety of religious backgrounds are known to recover from alcoholism, and there are also Christians who don't recover.

Response: What does that say about the reliability of your specified reason for belief in Jesus as the one true God?

Christian: As an intellectually honest person, I must acknowledge the specified reason is not very reliable. However, I still believe the claim is true.

Response: Is there another reason you use to justify this belief that we might examine together?

[Tart]

Do you have any science education?

Science has always been the focus of my life. Even before I thought of it as "science" I was always interested in learning how things work. As a child my favorite toys were erector sets and chemistry sets. And if things didn't come in pieces I would usually take them apart to see what makes them work.

When I finally did study science in school I never took the word of any teachers or textbooks. I always had to do the actual experiments myself to be sure they were right.

Pre-college studied electronics and auto mechanics. I also worked in a machine shop.

I actually attended college a bit later in life. For academic reasons I won't go into I was free to choose to take whichever courses I wanted to take without restriction. I didn't need to adhere to any specific programs. I chose to take all the major courses in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. I was the only student in the university taking all major courses. Even my professors would often comment that the don't know how I was able to keep up. But in truth, it was actually easier for me to take only courses I was interested in and not get bogged down in courses that I felt were boring.

So yeah, I'm quite well educated in the sciences.

In fact, even when I wasn't attending college my favorite pastime was reading physics books. So it was a hobby as well as an academic study. Even today I never watch regular TV. I only watch serious science documentaries or online college lectures. So yeah, I'm a fully saturated scientific nutcase.

Cool man... I'm starting to drift into philosophy and law myself... Science is ok, I suppose I appreciate the ability to calculate the motion/time/distance of an object being fired into space... Or the exact nature of a falling building... What causes a building to fall, what holds it up.. I mean, it's good to know i suppose.. But what good is it to me???? I mean if I'm working a Civil Engineering job, and erect a building, in that case it is valuable... But the knowledge itself, in the brain, may be completely useless without purpose...
Though perhaps in a discussion about "what we know", we can discuss what we know...

What good is knowledge, if men are dead spiritually? Give a man all the knowledge in the world, and if he is a dead man inside, it is of no value whatsoever...

Science is an ok subject, but no life comes from science, instead it studies how life comes to life, it doesnt give life to things...

[Tart]

Though i like to debate about the exact nature of a "rebirth"... and if it actually exists... It's nothing i can deny though... A black hole on the other hand... i certainly question their existence... lol... And i started to deny them, just becuase i can. im free to deny it.. Because i can.. And oddly enough I find joy in denying black holes...lol


its freedom man (pot head voice)... break free from the wall (pot head voice)


I could actually give you my exact philosophies on the subject too.. im serious about this...

[Divine Insight]

Here is a good example. If I at one point, am uninterested in God, big foot, or what the guy next door is doing, then they would be in the same category, as something that I am not interested in. If I am not interested, then I am also not interested in, what either of them may be doing.

There you go again. Reinforcing your position that you see God as having no more to do with your eternal fate then big foot or the guy next door.

If that's the case they you clearly do not believe that a God who will decide your eternal fate exists. Big foot and the guy next door have nothing to do with your eternal fate.

So clearly it's you who does not see the extreme problem with your analogies.

You've just equated God to having more more power than big foot or the guy next to. This can only be true if you are convinced that the God does not exist.

My friend, we have testimonial evidence, there was a resurrection. This evidence is not written in the form, of announcing these things to the world, but are rather letters written to different audiences at the time, and two of these letters were addressed one particular individual named, Theophilus.

So what? That's not evidence for anything more than the fact that people were shearing superstitious beliefs with each other.

Would letters between people who claim to have seen big foot be evidence that big foot exists? Of course not. And you can rest assured that such letters most certainly do exist. As well as letters between people who believe they had seen Elvis after he had died as well, yet another "resurrection" superstition.

So letters between people who gossip about superstitious beliefs is not evidence for anything beyond the fact that they were obviously convinced of their own superstitious beliefs.

We already know that the fables cannot be true for a myriad of other reasons anyway.

In the second letter addressed to Theophilus, the author begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events of the travels of Paul, as if he is there to actually witness the events he is describing, and we also have very good evidence from the letters of Paul, that this author would have indeed traveled around with Paul for decades on his missionary journeys.

So what? Are you aware that in today's world there exist large groups of people who believe and support utter nonsense?

The Flat-Earthers actually have annual meetings. Yet we know beyond any rational doubt the the world is not flat. Heck, modern airlines fly around the globe daily.

There are groups of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax.

There are large groups of Jews and Muslims that believe that Jesus was not "The Christ".

I mean, gee whiz, large groups of people supporting the same beliefs is meaningless.

What this means is, this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known, and spent time with the Apostles, and would have clearly known the claims they were making, and would have heard these claims from their very lips.

Same would be true of people who claim to have seen Elvis after he died. So there's nothing there. It's certainly not evidence for anything other than some people were confident in their beliefs.

Humans are well-known to exaggerate and even make up lies to support what they claim to believe. This is a well-known fact about human behavior. So the fact that people believed a bunch of superstitious stuff about Jesus isn't evidence that it has any merit.

And as I have said, we already have overwhelming evidence that these superstitious rumors can't be true anyway. In fact, the proof that the OT can't be about any actual God is overwhelming long before we get to the rumors of the NT.

After all the events, and decades, this author is compelled to sit down to write, not one, but two long, and detailed letters to one individual, out of concern for this individual "knowing the exact truth", and we have overwhelming evidence, that this author would have indeed had the ability to, "investigate everything carefully from the beginning" as he ensures Theophilus that he had, on top of the evidence we have which would demonstrate that this author would have indeed witnessed much of what he wrote.

Sorry to disappoint you but you actually don't h ave any evidence for any of this. You have no clue what the author's motives or experience might have actually been.

Clearly you are trying to convince yourself that you have undeniable evidence, but you should know that realistically this can't be true for if it was true, historians would be in agreement with you. They are not. To the contrary no unbiased historians thinks that the New Testament Gospels represents credible historical events.

Can you see now, the difference between one using the facts, and evidence, as opposed to one who simply shares their opinion, by simply saying things like, "No there are not facts and evidence that support this belief"? But again, we should expect this sort of thing from one who would have committed their life to something, to the point they agree to teach others this same something, that had not already convinced their own mind.

You have not offered any evidence that the Gospel rumors represent "facts".

If you think you have then you are only kidding yourself.

If that were the case historians would be teaching these stories as credible history. No historians ever do that unless they have ulterior religious motives.

This right here seems to demonstrate one who seems to have trouble thinking for themselves, and therefore they must appeal to those they believe are in some sort of authority. However, what the "historians" do, would have no bearing whatsoever upon the truth of the matter. This seems to be no different whatsoever from the Christian who simply appeals to the Bible.

Sorry buddy, but it's you who need the scholars to be wrong in order for you unsupportable claims to be true.

You are demanding that you are superior to the historians.

Not only this, but I have already demonstrated that what you have been calling "evidence" does not even qualify as evidence anyway. So you aren't even able to make a compelling argument.

You see, all you continue to do is to share opinions.

Oh please. It's you who is trying to pass your opinions off as "evidence".

And I've already demonstrated the fallacy of your arguments anyway.

It seems as if, the one who was intending to teach others of something their own mind would not have been convinced of, and rejected it when they began to study, should have went on to study a little further, in order to be a little more informed concerning the religion they now claim to have rejected, because it is hard to imagine one can really reject something which they demonstrate to have very little knowledge of?

Your accusations toward me are totally false and without merit. It would be impossible for me to study the Bible any "further". You can only study the whole thing and then there's nothing left to study.

Not only did I consider all of it, but the more I read of it the more it proved its own fallacy.

Unlike you, I actually believed that this God existed in the beginning and that's why I wanted to know the truth of this God. It simply turned out the the entire theology is nothing more than extremely poorly-thought-out fables that are highly self-contradictory in their claims.

Keep in mind that you weren't even interested in whether this God even existed by your own admission?

What turned you to start believing in this God? Evidence that he might be real after all? If that's the case then according to Christian theology you turned to this God for all the wrong reasons anyway. According to the theology you are supposed to turn to this God to ask forgiveness for you sins. NOT because you were finally convinced that the God must exist therefore leaving you NO CHOICE but to do as the God demands.

So your theological arguments actually reveal that you became a believer for all the wrong theological reasons. You wouldn't believe in this God until you had compelling evidence that he actually existed.

I believed in this God BEFORE I had the evidence that he existed. It was only after I began to study "His Word" that it became clear that the entire dogma is nothing more than a very poor man-made religious superstition.

The Bible is not the word of any God, and Jesus cannot possibly have been the Son of Yahweh sent to offer mankind undeserved amnesty for their sins. That's the ultimate truth.

[Divine Insight]

What good is knowledge, if men are dead spiritually? Give a man all the knowledge in the world, and if he is a dead man inside, it is of no value whatsoever...

What do you mean by "spiritually"?

Are you suggesting that atheists are dead spiritually?

I think not. In fact, believing in ancient religious mythologies doesn't make any one "spiritual".

There is no difference between a secularist and a theist other than the theist thinks of themselves as being somehow "special".

It's long past time to get over that one.

[Divine Insight]

Though i like to debate about the exact nature of a "rebirth"... and if it actually exists... It's nothing i can deny though... A black hole on the other hand... i certainly question their existence... lol... And i started to deny them, just becuase i can. im free to deny it.. Because i can.. And oddly enough I find joy in denying black holes...lol

Why do you feel that you can deny the existence of black holes? Because you feel that you can argue that we have never been able to exam one up-close and in-person?

Exactly what do you feel that you are free to deny? Are you free to deny that the earth is a sphere? Are you willing to fly in a jumbo jet around the globe to attend a Flat-Earth meeting?

Yes, you are free to deny anything you want from a legal perspective. But denying obvious truth isn't going to convince others of your ability to think rationally.

I could actually give you my exact philosophies on the subject too.. im serious about this...

Why would anyone be interested in hearing your philosophy on anything after you have just told them that you can deny anything just because you can and that you actually find enjoyment in doing so?

I certainly have better things to do with my time than listen to someone 'philosophize' based on denying facts and known truths.

Why would I even care about such fantasies? Unless I'm just interested in being entertained with silliness.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 96 by Divine Insight]

Of course you haven't. To know for a fact that you have not offended God (which is the basic meaning of sin) you would have to first know for a fact what he thinks. Do you claim to know what God thinks?

It has to do with the simple fact that I am not "in bondage to sin". Period.

How did you establish the {quote} "fact" (rather than a belief) , did you meet him/her/it and ask them?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 74 by Realworldjack]

Yes, it is possible for people to have unreliable reasons for not believing Christian theological claims.

This is not exactly what I would have liked you to say, but I will take this to mean that you would agree that those who may be opposed to Christianity can be guilty of, confirmation bias, just a well?

If this is the case, I see no need in bringing this up, which is why I would never accuse anyone of such a thing, since we can all be guilty of this, and it would be extremely difficult to walk through this with someone, when they have put a lot of time and effort into what they happen to believe.

This is why I suggested it may be best for you to take one of the book volumes which would have been dedicated to this sort of thing, and demonstrate how, and if these folks would be guilty of confirmation bias, and you would not have to be able to correspond with the authors, but could instead explain to us how, and if these folks would have been guilty?

However, now that I have thought about it, and now that you may agree that those opposed to Christianity can be guilty of confirmation bias, then why don't you demonstrate to us how you have come to your conclusions, avoiding confirmation bias?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 96 by Divine Insight]

Of course you haven't. To know for a fact that you have not offended God (which is the basic meaning of sin) you would have to first know for a fact what he thinks. Do you claim to know what God thinks?

I know precisely what the Biblical God thinks becasue the Bible tells me so. Plus I've already explained that it's absurd to even think that a supposedly benevolent, loving, mature, intelligent God would throw immature emotional temper tantrums casting people into eternal damnation simply because they had supposedly offended him.

You're entire argument is based on accepting utterly absurd theological claims.

Why in the world do you accept the claim that you were created by an immature jealous egotistical God who casts people into hell who offend him? Clearly that's a faith-based belief on your part.

Why in the world do you chose to place your faith in the idea that you were created by such a petty God?

It has to do with the simple fact that I am not "in bondage to sin". Period.

How did you establish the {quote} "fact" (rather than a belief) , did you meet him/her/it and ask them?

Because it's a fact that I have no desire to do "bad" things that any sane intelligent human would consider to be "bad".

Look at how much you need to twist your theology on its head to try to keep it afloat.

Instead of talking about what's "good" or "bad' you have chosen to twist the meaning of the ill-defined theological term "sin" to simply mean anything that might "offend" an ill-defined immature jealous God.

I think there are some assumptions that are rational to be made.

To begin with, any supposedly "moral" God had darn well better have higher moral standards than me, a mere mortal man. Yet you demand that your God's moral standards aren't anywhere near as good as mine.

I would never consider casting someone into a state of eternal damnation simply because they have offended me. Yet you expect me to view God as a low-life jerk who would?

Sorry JW, but the God of your imagined theology isn't even as mature and moral as me. Why should I believe in a theology that has a God who's character is far beneath my own?

He casts people into eternal damnation simply because he feels that they have offended him?

That's a pretty sad theology you have there JW.

[Divine Insight]

those opposed to Christianity

I see this as the greatest obstacle in having an intellectually honest conversation with you.

Your view appears to be that anyone who doesn't buy into Christianity is "opposed" to it.

As a theology I'm not opposed to Christianity at all. I have simply come to recognize its fallacy. Recognizing its fallacy is not the same thing as being opposed to it.

Do I oppose Christians who do mean and hateful things in the name of Jesus? Yes, but that's a totally different issue entirely.

Do I oppose indoctrinating innocent children to believe in the religion when in fact there isn't a shred of evidence to support it? Yes.

Am I opposed to Jews, Muslims, and Christians being constantly at Holy War with each other over this ancient theology? Yes.

But I'm not opposed to the theology itself. I simply recognize its fallacy. That's all.

Just as I'm not opposed to Greek mythology. I simply recognize its fallacy.

By the way, look in this thread where Christian mythology has gotten us. It has gotten us to the point where Christians are determined to proclaim that I must be "in bondage to sin" just so the fallacy of their theology is not revealed.

That's a seriously sad theology right there. The theology can't even survive without making derogatory accusations toward people. That should give you a clue right there how ungodly the theology truly is.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 102 by Divine Insight]

There you go again. Reinforcing your position that you see God as having no more to do with your eternal fate then big foot or the guy next door. If that's the case they you clearly do not believe that a God who will decide your eternal fate exists. Big foot and the guy next door have nothing to do with your eternal fate. You've just equated God to having more more power than big foot or the guy next to. This can only be true if you are convinced that the God does not exist.

This is really beginning to become redundant. It is not that you and I simply disagree, but rather it is the fact that you would be completely in error. If one is unconcerned as to whether the Biblical God exists, it is not as though they "see this God as having no more to do with their eternal fate than big foot, or the guy next door", but rather they are unconcerned with attempting to understand if this God may in fact have some sort of impact on their eternal destiny. Maybe he does, maybe he does not, I am simply uninterested either way.

You continue to attempt to force your way of thinking upon others when you were a convinced Christian, which blinds you to the realization that there can in fact be those, who are simply uninterested either way.

Does one who is uninterested in the debate over "global warming" have to be under the impression that "global warming" is not occurring? No! In fact, there are examples of folks who are completely convinced the Biblical God exists, and have decided to ignore what they are convinced of.

Would letters between people who claim to have seen big foot be evidence that big foot exists? Of course not.

Of course this would be considered evidence of the existence of big foot. It would be no where close to proof, but it would indeed be considered evidence, until, or unless this evidence is successfully demonstrated to be fraudulent, and, or, unreliable. You seem to be confusing evidence, with proof?

And you can rest assured that such letters most certainly do exist. As well as letters between people who believe they had seen Elvis after he had died as well, yet another "resurrection" superstition.

Ummmm? I wonder why such letters would not exist? Because you see, I would think that if there were enough folks who believed they had seen Elvis, along with others who may have been convinced by the reports of these folks, then we would indeed have something along these lines?

On the other hand, as far as the claims made in the letters contained in the NT, what we see are those who claim to have witnessed, and investigated these claims, and we have these letters which demonstrate these folks continued to make these claims, and continued to live as if these claims would have indeed been true, well into their old age.

Moreover, these letters which these folks wrote among each other, some 2000 years ago, continue to consume folks even to this day, including folks such as yourself, who were even considering teaching others concerning the content of these letters, and they have gripped you so much, that you continued to be consumed with them, day, after day. So you would be correct that it would be a waste of time attempting to make the comparison between claims such as the Elvis sightings, to the claims in the NT, because as we can see, there is no comparison whatsoever.

So letters between people who gossip about superstitious beliefs is not evidence for anything beyond the fact that they were obviously convinced of their own superstitious beliefs.

Again, you are confusing evidence, with proof.

We already know that the fables cannot be true for a myriad of other reasons anyway.

You continue to make these sort of dogmatic statements as if they were fact, but in the end we can see that all you have to offer is opinion. Again, this kinda makes one wonder how there have been very well educated, and intelligent folk who were at one time opposed to Christianity, and were out to demonstrate the belief to be false, who became convinced Christianity would indeed be true, when examining the facts, and evidence, in order to demonstrate it to be false?

Of course, this would not be proof that Christianity would be true, but it would certainly be evidence.

The Flat-Earthers actually have annual meetings. Yet we know beyond any rational doubt the the world is not flat. Heck, modern airlines fly around the globe daily.

And here is another example of making comparisons which would not even compare. Moreover, if all these things you were attempting to compare to Christianity were to be determined to be false, beyond any doubt, this would not have a thing in the world to do with Christianity being true, or false, and therefore folks who think carefully understand this to be the case.

I mean, gee whiz, large groups of people supporting the same beliefs is meaningless.

The thing is, I have not said a word about, "large groups of people supporting the same beliefs". This must be something in your imagination? Rather, I am pointing to the fact that we have one who would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the Apostles, and the claims they were making, would have traveled with Paul on his missionary journeys for decades, all the way, and up until Paul would have been arrested, and then sits down to write not one, but two long and detailed letters, not intended for the world to read, but rather addressed to one individual, and claims that these letters would have been written out of concern for this individual, "knowing the exact truth". My friend, this is a far cry from appealing to a "large group of people supporting the same belief".

What would be "meaningless" is to make such comparisons, when there would be no comparison.

Same would be true of people who claim to have seen Elvis after he died. So there's nothing there. It's certainly not evidence for anything other than some people were confident in their beliefs.

Again, making such comparisons, is not dealing with the facts. The fact of the matter is, even if the Elvis sightings were to be demonstrated to be completely false, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with the claims in the NT. The one, has nothing whatsoever to do with the other, and the truth of either lies in the facts, and evidence for each, apart from the other. I have come to find that folks attempt to make these sort of comparisons, when they realize they only have opinions, and cannot deal with the real facts we have.

Humans are well-known to exaggerate and even make up lies to support what they claim to believe. This is a well-known fact about human behavior.

And here again, all we do is to make comparisons, that would not have a thing in the world to do with it?

So the fact that people believed a bunch of superstitious stuff about Jesus isn't evidence that it has any merit.

This is not what we are talking about. Rather, we are talking about one who would have traveled with Paul, would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the claims they were making from their own lips, and after decades of travel with Paul which would have included 2 years in prison, this author sits down to write, not one, but two long, and detailed letters to an individual, describing the events, much of which he would have witnessed himself, and he does so out of concern for this individual, "knowing the exact truth".

My friend, it is not as simple as claiming these folks were out believing, "a bunch of superstitious stuff about Jesus", because we have facts, and evidence to support the fact that at least this author would have investigated, and witnessed the things he wrote.

And as I have said, we already have overwhelming evidence that these superstitious rumors can't be true anyway. In fact, the proof that the OT can't be about any actual God is overwhelming long before we get to the rumors of the NT.

Again, you continue to say these sort of things, but in the end we see, you have no proof, nor do you seem to have much evidence. Rather, all you seem to be armed with to demonstrate these things you claim have been proven, is opinions, and not very good opinions, at that.

Moreover, and again, if the whole of the OT could indeed be proven to be false, this would not have a thing to do with the facts, and evidence we have to support the resurrection.

Sorry to disappoint you but you actually don't have any evidence for any of this. You have no clue what the author's motives or experience might have actually been.

Oh really? I have no clue? Well, I think this author, telling his audience at the time what his motives would have been, would at least be a clue, unless you have some sort of facts, and evidence which may contradict what he has to say? Because you see, this author begins his first letter, by explaining to Theophilus his motives for writing,

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Now, this certainly does not prove this was indeed his motives, but it certainly would be a clue. It certainly is not a clue that he may have had any other sort of motives, and unless you have some sort of facts, and evidence that would give us some sort of clue this would not have been his motives, then we have evidence of what his motive would have been, with no facts, and evidence to the contrary.

Moreover, we also have facts, and evidence to support the fact that this author would have indeed been alive at the time, and would have had every opportunity to "investigate everything carefully from the beginning" just as he assures his audience.

So again, we see that I am using, clues, facts, and evidence, while you are simply doing a lot of assuming, with no facts, and evidence in support. But alas, we have come to expect this.

Clearly you are trying to convince yourself that you have undeniable evidence, but you should know that realistically this can't be true for if it was true, historians would be in agreement with you. They are not. To the contrary no unbiased historians thinks that the New Testament Gospels represents credible historical events.

And here we go again, appealing to those we believe have some sort of authority. Many folks do this sort of thing, when they cannot think for themselves, and they are dependent on the opinions of others. I can assure you that I am not sitting back, waiting to see which way the "historians" lean.

Next, it is quite comical, how you reveal your own bias, by insisting that those who may agree with you, must, and have to be "unbiased" while I can only imagine those who disagree with your preferred position, must, and have to be biased? GOOD GRIEF!

Also, I have said nothing about the evidence I use, being "undeniable" but have rather supplied this evidence, and you do not seem to be willing to actually deal with this evidence, other than, sharing your opinion, with no facts, and evidence in support, and, or, simply making comparisons, which would not compare in the least.

You have not offered any evidence that the Gospel rumors represent "facts". If you think you have then you are only kidding yourself.

The thing is, I understand this to be the case, which means I am not at this point insisting that the reports would be fact. Rather, I am demonstrating that there are very good facts, and evidence in support of the belief that the reports would indeed be fact.

Can you see the difference? One of us acknowledges the fact that we cannot demonstrate what they believe, while the other seems to be under the impression, since they have settled the issue in their own mind, then the issue has been settled.

So then, while I cannot demonstrate the reports would indeed be fact, it would be a fact that we have the reports, and it would also be a fact, that you can in no way demonstrate these reports would be false, and there is no room here to hide behind the "burden of proof" argument. So then, who is it then, who is "kidding" themselves?

Sorry buddy, but it's you who need the scholars to be wrong in order for you unsupportable claims to be true.

This is real conical, "buddy", because it is also you who needs the scholars to be correct, in order for what you claim to believe about these things to be correct. It is really unreal what some folks think pass as an actual argument?

You are demanding that you are superior to the historians.

Yeah! I get this sort of argument all the time with those who really have no idea what the scholars objections are, and then, when they find the objections are not all that legitimate, this sort of argument is all they have left.

Moreover, the scholars will, and have to admit that they are simply sharing their opinion, and they can in no way demonstrate their opinion to be fact. However, there are those who seem to refer to the opinion of the scholars, as if it were fact, and as if this somehow settles the case, when it does not settle a thing. It is just another example of those who cannot think for themselves.

Not only this, but I have already demonstrated that what you have been calling "evidence" does not even qualify as evidence anyway. So you aren't even able to make a compelling argument.

The only thing you have demonstrated, is one who struggles to understand the difference between an opinion, as opposed to fact, which is the only reason you could make such statements.

Oh please. It's you who is trying to pass your opinions off as "evidence".

It is not my opinion that we have the reports contained in the NT. That would be a fact. It is not my opinion, that the author of the two letters to Theophilus, begins his second letter, telling of the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem. That would be a fact. It is not my opinion that, this author begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events of the travels of Paul, as if he is there to witness the events of these travels he is describing. That would be a fact. It is not my opinion that when this author begins to describe the journeys of Paul, using words such as "we", and "us", he says very little, if anything at all concerning the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem, until, or unless Paul were to come back in contact with them again. That would be a fact. It is not my opinion that this author could not have reported on the things the Apostles in Jerusalem may have been doing, if he were indeed with Paul on his journeys. That would be a fact. It is not my opinion that this author ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years. That would be a fact. It is not my opinion that we have letters written by Paul, which would have clearly been written while Paul would have been under arrest. That would be a fact. It is not my opinion that in one of the letters written by Paul, that Paul informs his audience, "only Luke is with me". That would be a fact. It is not my opinion that all of this would mean that this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known and spent time with the Apostles, and would have known the claims they were making first hand. That would be a fact.

Your accusations toward me are totally false and without merit.

Oh really? Well, did you at one time embrace Christianity to be true? Did you not admit you did not reject Christianity until you actually began to study it, in order to teach it to others? Would this not demonstrate one who would be convinced of something they know very little about?

It would be impossible for me to study the Bible any "further". You can only study the whole thing and then there's nothing left to study.

Oh, did we go on to study the whole thing? Well, let us think about this?

You have already demonstrated to us one who would allow his mind to be convinced by what others have to say, and you have demonstrated this by becoming convinced of Christianity without actually studying it, and also in the way you now appeal to the scholars, as if they are some sort of authority.

So then, exactly what lenses were you wearing while studying this Bible? My guess would be that it would have been through the lenses of Pentecostalism, Church of God, Holiness, or one of the other charismatic movements. But hey, that would be just a guess?

If I am correct, and since you have already demonstrated you did not think very carefully, then all you were doing would have been to examined Christianity, through the lenses which were forced upon you by others.

Unlike you, I actually believed that this God existed in the beginning and that's why I wanted to know the truth of this God.

Well, that would be your first mistake, because you should never assume something before you even begin to study, especially if the intent is to teach others.

It simply turned out the the entire theology is nothing more than extremely poorly-thought-out fables that are highly self-contradictory in their claims.

You see, this would be an opinion that you can in no way demonstrate, otherwise, we could shut this site down.

Keep in mind that you weren't even interested in whether this God even existed by your own admission?

Correct! And notice carefully that I was not attempting to study it either.

What turned you to start believing in this God?

Well, that would have been when I began to study the actual evidence for myself. You know, like the many others who have done this very thing, and have been convinced by this evidence, which would include those who were opposed the Christianity, and were studying the facts, and evidence, in order to demonstrate that it would have been false, only to become convinced that Christianity would indeed be true, by the study of this evidence.

If that's the case then according to Christian theology you turned to this God for all the wrong reasons anyway. According to the theology you are supposed to turn to this God to ask forgiveness for you sins. NOT because you were finally convinced that the God must exist therefore leaving you NO CHOICE but to do as the God demands.

My friend, how in the world can one ask for forgiveness from one, of whom they are not even convinced would exist? I'm guessing you can answer this question, since it seems clear this is what you actually did?

However, I would imagine you were indeed somehow convinced this god did in fact exist, and I can only imagine this would have been because you willingly took the word of others, and you continue to demonstrate this sort of mind set, when you appeal to the opinion of the scholars. I really do not see a whole lot of change in thinking here. Rather, the only thing which seems to have changed is the mind, and the mind can change, while the thinking process stays the same.

So your theological arguments actually reveal that you became a believer for all the wrong theological reasons. You wouldn't believe in this God until you had compelling evidence that he actually existed.

This is quite comical! First you share with us a "lame" theological opinion, which would in turn supply you with a "lame" outcome. Because, I am attempting to understand how anyone could ever, believe in anything at all, until, or unless, they had compelling evidence for what it is they believe? You surely seem to be bringing some "lame" theology you were exposed to when you were convinced of something you were not convinced of when you embraced Christianity, and attempting to force this "lame" theology onto the rest of us. NO THANKS!

I believed in this God BEFORE I had the evidence that he existed.

My friend, that surely explains a lot! So let's think about this? We have one who is convinced of something they were exposed to as a child, and has no evidence at all to support what they believe, other than the word of others.

On the other hand, we have one who would have been exposed to the same religion as a child, but when they became of age, they understood they were not convinced either way, and simply decided they were no interested enough either way, to attempt to figure it out.

This would mean, the one who, "believed in this God BEFORE they had the evidence that he existed", could only rely on the word of others, and could do nothing but share opinions, because they would not have any sort of facts, and evidence to rely upon.

And as I have pointed out, the only thing that seems to have changed, is the mind. Because, this person still has nothing but opinions, and continues to rely on the word of others.

As for myself? Well, I surely did not rely on the word of those in the Church, nor my parents, because when I became of age, I understood I was not convinced. When I had a reason to investigate these things, I did not refer to my parents, nor those in the Church, but rather set out on my own, studying these things from both sides of the equation, and still have most all the books I consumed to demonstrate this to be the case.

Moreover, you will never hear me respond to what my parents say, nor what my Church may have said, as some sort of authority, because I have rejected much of what I was taught as a child concerning Christianity. You will also not hear me appeal to the opinion of any sort of scholar, who may agree with me, because I understand the opinion of the scholars, has no bearing whatsoever upon what the truth may be, not to mention the scholars, no matter what opinion they hold, can, and are influenced by bias, just like the rest of us.

It was only after I began to study "His Word" that it became clear that the entire dogma is nothing more than a very poor man-made religious superstition.

Well, as the saying goes, "everyone is entitled to their opinion". The problem is, we need some facts, and evidence to back up this opinion.

The Bible is not the word of any God

I have never argued such a thing, and I cannot see how a letter written to an individual some 2000 years ago, could be considered, "the word of God", so you might need to save such statements, for those making such an argument?

and Jesus cannot possibly have been the Son of Yahweh sent to offer mankind undeserved amnesty for their sins. That's the ultimate truth.

And as all can see, this is just another opinion, stated as if it were a fact, with absolutely no facts, and evidence in support. But hey! We are certainly use to that by now. Especially from one who seems to rely on the word of others, no matter which way the mind may go. The mind changes, the thinking remains the same!