It's usually interpretations of history.
History tends to have so many elements that writers have options about what to focus on. In the modern age there is no reason to assume the Gospels, and Bible as a whole, relays accurate history at face value. That some stories include real places, and even real people, does not mean or suggest it's all true. Dickens A Tale of Two Cities is fictional but is set in both London and paris. For Whom The Bell Tolls follows fictional Characetrs during the Spanish Civil War. The book The Cauldron is about a fictional British unit during the battle of Arnhem in September, 1944.
I'm not as important as that. However what you said highlights the fact that people of different beliefs probably start with different assumptions and don't realise it and make logical fallacies without realising it. And of course Christians do that also.
Thanls for this confession. Now, will you allow yourself to apply it to your thinking and belief? I doubt it, as you have been told these things before and it made no difference.
It is my belief, and your belief is that it was not the supernatural and that people somewhere along the way lied about it, exaggerated it or however else you want to put it.
Why do you need and/or want to believe in a supernatural at all? It's been explained to you that tere's no evidence of any supernatural phenomenon existing.
As you admit, it's your belief. But you seem powerless to change your decision. It appears to be like an addiction to belief in this set of ideas, and being afraid of what you might be without it. This is how Christianity and Ilslam have exploited the natural naivte of humans and manipulated their fears. Religious belief is how these manipulated folks cope with the fears religion inflates.
That sounds like an assumption, based on your beliefs.
This is projection. Sorry, it's a fact that no supernatural phenomenon is known to exist. Feel free to offer actual, verifiable expamples. No beliefs, no assumptions, no dogma, actual examples. If you can't offer any examples of real supernatural phenomenon, then there is no reason for anyone to believe it's real.
Scholars seem trapped into rejecting the supernatural even when they are to be neutral about it.
This is your dogma talking. Typical to vilify experts and fact-finding by theists who feel threatened. Why not be self-aware of your fear of being wrong and adjust your religious beliefs instead?
Critical thinkers also reject the supernatural and evidence for the supernatural until the existence of the supernatural is proven.
I asked you for examples, and if you have none, then it is sound thinking to reject the claims of a supernatural existing. And you are dead wrong to assume it too.
Any supernatural in the Bible is assumed to have been caused by lies, and this includes prophecies that appear to have come true.
No, ancient people often wrote in an embellished and abstract form. The Enlightenment exposed thos form of writing as more prose than history. And the only liars are modern believers who insist the ancient texts are true at face value, and any critic is flawed in some way for acknowledging reality. You can place yourself in that category if you prefer.
So critical thinkers are trapped into rejecting the truth of scriptures.
More projection. How is being a rational thinking that seeks truth trapped in any way? As I noted, the trap is the religious dogma that believers can't escape from.
And let's note that you reject the truth of the Quran, yes?
True, Christians have not proven the truth of the gospels imo. It is a matter of faith. In like manner, non believers have not proven that the gospels are not true, it is again a matter of faith.
Then how can you write the statement in the previous quote by referring to the scriptures as "truth" that is rejected by critical thinkers? You admit it's accepted on faith which isn't what critical thinkers do. See how you have very sloppy and careless thinking?
You might demand proof from believers but that is just a game or proselytizing while of course acting innocent of that.
You are being evasive and making exuses.
That is not how "faith" works, but that is probably a dirty word to you and you like to think that if I cannot prove the gospels that means they are not true. This of course is not logical at all and neglects the fact that you cannot prove your world godless world view but are prepared to live a life as if that world view is true.
Yet you offer no clarity of what you think faith is. I suggest that I'm correct and you don't like that faith is unreliable and non-rational. Muslims have faith too, and they can justify anything they want since faith offers no standard to distill truth from irrational dogma.
However I did arrive at and stay in it by seeing that attacks against it usually have no basis in fact.
Notice you didn't say that you remain committed because the dogma you were taught is fact based. And as one indoctrinated in dogma can you concede that you might be biased against any criticism, and the facts against your dogma?
It's just a statement against a false understanding of the Gospel and against using that false understanding to attack the truth of the Gospel.
Which of the many thousands of Christian sects has the "true understanding"of the Gospels? And what is your interpretation of the Gospels, and what facts support your conclusion? Critical thinkers don't assume the stories are true at face value, and their inconsistency is not ignored.
Critical thinking dogma could be that the supernatural is to be rejected until proven to be true.
Are you labeling critical thiking as dogma? More projection. What your comment tells us is that you acknowledge that dogma is a negative thing. You don't deny having dogma, just try to impose it onto critical thinking. This is an obvious rewactionary mistake on your part, and reveals you are not taking your time to understand the critisms and considering valid retorts.
I believe the story of Jesus is true and you cannot show it is not true. OK.
Why do you believe it's true? Remember, the logical default is to reject claims until they can be demonstrated as true, or at least likely true.
You believe the story of Jesus is not true and I cannot show it is true.
Bad wording, as I have no such belief. The Bible itself has many fantastic elements that aren't factual, so can be doubted at face value. The Jesus myth is not plausible, and requires an assumption of a supernatural working behind the scenes, of which there is no evdience. And the theoology of the Jesus story is absurd, as why would a God need to impregnate a women, so the son grows up, only to be executed later so God can have a sacrifice that allows the forgiving of the sins of mankind? God could just have forgiven the sins without all that drama. What was the point of torturing some poor guy when God didn't really need to? So if a person believes all this it surely does not leave a very good impression of Yahweh. Oh, and let's not forget that Yahweh was an old Cannanite god that was part of a system of other gods, including his partner Ashera. Whatever happened to her?
Sounds like a draw and we are both entitled to our beliefs.
You face off with critical thinkers like it's a gunfight at high noon. But you forgot bullets. Oh, and you forgot your gun, too. Yeah, go ahead and call it a draw. You seem to need to comfort of even more irrational belief.
