There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Trailblazer]

I believe I knock heads with a lot of false interpretations.

I also believe I knock heads with a lot of false interpretations.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe too much study can confuse a person.

That you find it necessary to rail against intelligent enquiry in order to sustain your faith speaks volumes.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe too much study can confuse a person.

Just a couple days ago I was reading this article in Psychology Today suggesting that American anti-intellectualism is the reason so many Americans come across as stupid. If anyone is interested, you can read it here:

Are Americans Just Stupid?

American culture sometimes seems to exude ignorance, but we aren't a nation of dummies.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe that is what Jesus says about it.

I'll take that as a YES, your blind faith that the gospels are accurate.

 

[GoodAttention]

Just a couple days ago I was reading this article in Psychology Today suggesting that American anti-intellectualism is the reason so many Americans come across as stupid. If anyone is interested, you can read it here:

Are Americans Just Stupid?

American culture sometimes seems to exude ignorance, but we aren't a nation of dummies.

www.psychologytoday.com

Another article by the same author is also a good read, which I suggest to read in tandem.

We Are Wired for Moral Cowardice

It takes true moral courage to stand up against the crowd.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[Brian2]

Scientists do not say that. They point out that there is no reliable evidence that God did anything and they put the burden of proof upon theists if they want to make such claims. Far too many people misinterpret showing that God was not needed for a particular event as an attempt to refute God. Properly if one is a theist and a scientist one would view it as getting answers to how God did it.

I don't think that it is necessary for a theist and scientist to always side with science. IOW God does not need to do things in a natural way. IOW science can be just plain wrong in how it thinks something in the past may have happened.

 

[Brian2]

The Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence. If you want to use it as evidence you would need to demonstrate that it is reliable.

People have been trying to show for centuries that the Bible is full of lies. Most of it seems to be no more than opinion and speculation. But if people prefer that to what the Bible tells us, people are free to choose.

 

[Brian2]

That is not quite accurate. The council of Jerusalem determined that Gentile believers in Jesus did not need to become Jews, meaning to be circumcised and come under the law. It never said anything about Jewish believers not needing to observe the Law.

The answer indicates that keeping the letter of the law was not for Christians.
Christians have the guidance of the Law and of the Spirit of God and are to fulfill the requirements of the law through loving God and our neighbour.
For a Jew I suppose that it is keeping the law that shows someone that they are loving God and neighbour.

 

[Brian2]

I'll defer to you concerning ChatGPT.

I'll also suggest that by "good theologians" you mean "those who disagree with me."

No good theologians don't necessarily agree with me but at least they can think rationally and not just repeat what they hear.

 

[Brian2]

Nope, you do not understand skepticism. Skepticism is just following the evidence.

So is everyone, including Christians.
Maybe skeptics want to follow only the scientific evidence and say that it is more believable to them than any evidence of the supernatural. IOW the faith in how to determine the truth is there already and evidence of the supernatural is ignored.

That is the claim, but I have never seen proper evidence supplied to support such a belief. I have seen all sorts of bad evidence. So let me make my statement about skepticism clearer. Skeptics follow only reliable evidence. And science does not "try" to show that a god is not needed, but that is often the results of scientific advances.

Show me where scientific "advances" have shown that a god is not needed and that will show you a person who has put faith in science and ignored other evidence.

Science is not always right. But it is far more than educated guesses. It is knowledge that is repeatedly tested. That allows errors to be discovered and corrected. It is a pity that no religion follows the scientific method. It is almost as if people know that their gods do not exist. It would be interesting to see if someone found a way to test and refute or confirm (remembering that confirmation is not absolute proof) of religious claims. By the way, you cannot have confirmation of any value without a way to refute.

Yes that is right, nobody has found a way to test and refute or confirm religious claims, so wanting that sort of testing is just a silly ask.
Scientism is not a belief I am happy with when I look at evidence to the contrary.

 

[Muffled]

I also believe I knock heads with a lot of false interpretations.

I don't believe you are capable of that.

 

[Muffled]

That you find it necessary to rail against intelligent enquiry in order to sustain your faith speaks volumes.

My faith is built on nothing less then the sure foundation and cornerstone. Intelligence is far inferior to that.

 

[Muffled]

Just a couple days ago I was reading this article in Psychology Today suggesting that American anti-intellectualism is the reason so many Americans come across as stupid. If anyone is interested, you can read it here:

Are Americans Just Stupid?

American culture sometimes seems to exude ignorance, but we aren't a nation of dummies.

www.psychologytoday.com

I believe foolish people call people stupid without justification and judging by appearances.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think that it is necessary for a theist and scientist to always side with science. IOW God does not need to do things in a natural way. IOW science can be just plain wrong in how it thinks something in the past may have happened.

Scientists have never been shown to be wrong by theists. They have only been shown to be wrong by other scientists. And science does not refute God, but it can refute false versions of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My faith is built on nothing less then the sure foundation and cornerstone. Intelligence is far inferior to that.

No, you have a foundation that is weaker than sand. You have demonstrated that far too often. Believing because you want to believe is not a pathway to the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People have been trying to show for centuries that the Bible is full of lies. Most of it seems to be no more than opinion and speculation. But if people prefer that to what the Bible tells us, people are free to choose.

I would not say "full of lies". But I would say definitely wrong. Genesis is wrong if read literally. So is Exodus. The morals of the Bible are wrong if read literally. That is not shown by science. Parts of the Bible are shown to be wrong historically if read literally. The Bible is a very general guide at best. Calling it the "word of God" appears to be blasphemy as a result.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So is everyone, including Christians.
Maybe skeptics want to follow only the scientific evidence and say that it is more believable to them than any evidence of the supernatural. IOW the faith in how to determine the truth is there already and evidence of the supernatural is ignored.

No, most Christians do not even understand the concept of evidence. Skeptics like scientific evidence quite a bit since it has been shown historically to be the most reliable form of evidence that exists today. But there are other forms of evidence as well. A skeptic will accept all proper evidence. They will reject ad hoc explanations since those are not supported by evidence.

Show me where scientific "advances" have shown that a god is not needed and that will show you a person who has put faith in science and ignored other evidence.

Really? You have no idea of the history of religion or science you are telling us. Way back when even weather was thought to be caused by the gods. As were diseases. Also how man came to be is a favorite when it comes to myths. Right now there does not appear to be a need for a god anywhere. You asked the wrong question.

Yes that is right, nobody has found a way to test and refute or confirm religious claims, so wanting that sort of testing is just a silly ask.
Scientism is not a belief I am happy with when I look at evidence to the contrary.

No, that is not true. First one has to define "God". One of my favorite questions is "Can God lie?" If he cannot then many versions of God can be eliminated. And remember, when you raise the false accusation of "scientism" you have already lost.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

My faith is built on nothing less then the sure foundation and cornerstone. Intelligence is far inferior to that.

I'd still like to know if you are familiar with Romans 10:9–13.

I asked you about this in another thread a week ago, but you haven't answered me yet.

A Christian believes --------------------------------?

b) You do not see God everywhere!

www.religiousforums.com

 

[CG Didymus]

foundation that is weaker than sand.

I would not say "full of lies". But I would say definitely wrong. Genesis is wrong if read literally. So is Exodus. The morals of the Bible are wrong if read literally. That is not shown by science. Parts of the Bible are shown to be wrong historically if read literally.

Born Again Christians need the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, and they need to take it as literally as possible. But they still interpret some verses in a way to point to Jesus and even a trinity.

But this thread was started by a Baha'i. Baha'is don't need the Bible nor want the Bible to be literally true. That doesn't work at all for them. So, Baha'is have a bunch of symbolic interpretation to make some of the Bible stories fit into the Baha'i beliefs. But they still are dependent on some things being literally true. The main ones being that God is real and their prophet was sent by that God. And anything he said is literally true.

So, both of them have unprovable beliefs at their foundation. The big one being God is real. So, they both take it on "faith". They both believe that their foundation, that they have taken on faith, is rock solid. And they both proceed from there to tell people what they must do to be saved or what they must do to build a peaceful world.

Both of them "know" that their God is real. And I'm sure they feel him in their hearts and minds. They can read their Scriptures and think that such things can only come from an almighty and all knowing God... But each believes in a different version of God.

With such a weak foundation... could it all be in their minds? But again, they tell me, "no"... they "know" it's true... God is real.

And of course it is the doubters and skeptics that are wrong.

 

[Brian2]

What you are calling evidence is not evidence at all, or is simply very bad evidence at best. I have seen very bad logic. I have seen appeals to scripture, which is circular reasoning. I have seen appeals to personal experience, which is unreliable by nature because humans notoriously misinterpret what they sense.

It is evidence enough to rest rest a faith upon.
Denying the evidence seems to come from a place of wanting to say that anything other than the supernatural is a better explanation.