"Blind faith" versus "choosing to believe"

[bhsmte]

That is not the same as claiming that they were not written by the traditional authors. But when you ask that question, it's mostly just the liberal skeptical NT scholars who hold tight to that claim.

You can try to convince yourself it is only the liberal scholars, but you would only be wrong.

And if scholars agree the gospels are anonymous, that would mean they don't believe they were written by the names that were attached to them hundreds of years later by the powers at be.

 

[Joshua260]

And if scholars agree the gospels are anonymous, that would mean they don't believe they were written by the names that were attached to them hundreds of years later by the powers at be.

You are simply incorrect. As I said, even though John did not identify himself, most NT scholars take the author to be John.

Not to mention you keep avoiding the other NT documents I cited. But hey! This is not the topic! Please address the post!! Otherwise, start your own thread.

 

[Joshua260]

Great. Show me. And remember, they have to be the same atheist making both claims.

No one you know.

Evidence is a poor word here. I would say influence. That influence may be some sort of evidence, but not necessarily so.
Yes, but "subjective evidence", and "imaginary evidence" are not really evidence in the way we use the word. That's why influence is a better word. Plus, influence includes things like community or social influence, emotional influence, biological influence, geographical influence. If I tell you that the moon is made of green cheese, and you believe me, there is no actual evidence in shaping your belief, but lots of influence involved.

Unbelievable. You're actually now saying that personal testimony is not really evidence but only "influence"? Tell that to a judge. Desperate times call for desperate explanations, eh?

 

[juvenissun]

I don't want you to say nowhere, I want you to either explain where "Christianity" makes the claim, or tell me that Christianity doesn't make the claim.

To refresh your memory:

This lead me to believe that the claim that there is no human anywhere else but on Earth is found somewhere in the Bible. If that's not true, then on what basis do you believe that Christianity makes this claim?

One aspect of this thread is the idea of "Blind Faith". I explained, that I hold blind faith to be when someone has faith, without really knowing what they believe, or why they believe it. Can you explain to us why you believe that "Only Christianity says that there is no human anywhere else but on the earth"?

Claimed at where? There is no other formal Christian document except the Bible. Every pastor is preaching something on every Sunday. Do they all make some "claims" or not? You are digging-in to treat an understanding of the Bible as a legal record. In such a way, you may legally defeat the Bible thousands of times. But it is meaningless. Does the Bible say any word about computer? Absolutely not. But the Bible DOES give prophecy about computing and the information age. Do you expect one treat this as a "claim" and is supported by the exact wording in the Bible? If you do, then you can forget about Christianity all together. You are not blind, but you can not see.

I have explained to you. A Christian can see (understand) this by the message of Gen. 1 and 2. Based on that, AND the related doctrine, the most reasonable explanation is that there no other human being in this universe but on the earth. This is a believe derived from the Scripture and scientific knowledge.

I don't like the term "blind faith". To me, faith is blind by definition. If we can see, then there is no need of faith. (This is not my "claim". In fact, there is indeed such a wording in the Bible)

 

[JGG]

No one you know.

So it is safe to say that no atheist has ever uttered those words ever in the history of mankind and the universe?

Unbelievable. You're actually now saying that personal testimony is not really evidence but only "influence"? Tell that to a judge. Desperate times call for desperate explanations, eh?

Yes. In a court room eyewitness testimony is about the least powerful form of evidence available. When such testimony is used, it must corroborate existing evidence, not exist as sole evidence. Even expert witnesses, whose statements can be backed up by peers, get cross-examined by the opposing side, to say nothing of eye-witnesses. The witness is under obligation to be truthful under charge of perjury. Beyond that, witness' testimony is often discredited by hard evidence as our own testimony is often influenced by a number of factors including ignorance, narrow point of view, emotional bias, personal motive, cognitive dissonance, leading questions, leading statements, and a whole lot more providing false memories, false impressions, and ultimately false testimony. On top of that, the power of the testimony is subject to the credibility of the witness. In short, personal testimony on it's own is not real evidence.

 

[juvenissun]

So if jellyfish and worms are not alive, what are they?

Good question.
They are things do not bear any meaning of life. From this point of view, grass, or bacteria, or rock can be classified in the same category.
Unfortunately, they are called life by scientist according to some specific criteria (debatable). If so, I can also "claim" that rock is alive by some good reasons.
.

 

[JGG]

Claimed at where? There is no other formal Christian document except the Bible. Every pastor is preaching something on every Sunday. Do they all make some "claims" or not? You are digging-in to treat an understanding of the Bible as a legal record.

No. As a reliable, consistent source of some kind of information.

In such a way, you may legally defeat the Bible thousands of times.

Thank you, I will.

But it is meaningless.

No, it isn't.

Does the Bible say any word about computer? Absolutely not. But the Bible DOES give prophecy about computing and the information age.

This, I want to see.

Do you expect one treat this as a "claim" and is supported by the exact wording in the Bible? If you do, then you can forget about Christianity all together.

I'm well aware of that.

You are not blind, but you can not see.

Or, you are not blind, and hallucinating.

I have explained to you. A Christian can see (understand) this by the message of Gen. 1 and 2.

How? Just by being a Christian? I would say that the source of information is not the Bible at all, and in fact the Bible is useless as a text of any kind.

Based on that, AND the related doctrine, the most reasonable explanation is that there no other human being in this universe but on the earth.

There is related doctrine? What's that? Where does that come from?

This is a believe derived from the Scripture and scientific knowledge.

But it doesn't come from scripture, we've established that. If this claim comes solely from scientific knowledge then Christianity has nothing to do with it at all. Agreed?

I don't like the term "blind faith". To me, faith is blind by definition. If we can see, then there is no need of faith. (This is not my "claim". In fact, there is indeed such a wording in the Bible)

Do you yourself claim that all Christians have blind faith?

 

[JGG]

Good question.
They are things do not bear any meaning of life. From this point of view, grass, or bacteria, or rock can be classified in the same category.
Unfortunately, they are called life by scientist according to some specific criteria (debatable). If so, I can also "claim" that rock is alive by some good reasons.
.

By the scientific definition rocks are not alive. How would rocks be categorized as alive?

 

[juvenissun]

But it doesn't come from scripture, we've established that. If this claim comes solely from scientific knowledge then Christianity has nothing to do with it at all. Agreed?

According to science, we can not say that. Perhaps we can not say that forever.
According to science AND Christianity, we can say that.
You do not want to see. That is your business. I guess this discussion should end.

 

[juvenissun]

By the scientific definition rocks are not alive. How would rocks be categorized as alive?

A rock fits the majority, if not all, of the criteria used to define a life.
This is off topic. But if you like to learn, we can continue.

 

[bhsmte]

No one you know.


Unbelievable. You're actually now saying that personal testimony is not really evidence but only "influence"? Tell that to a judge. Desperate times call for desperate explanations, eh?

Personal testimony is evidence, as flawed as human testimony can be.

But you know how courts of law deal with this right? They allow cross examination of testimony to determine if the testimony is credible. Also, if other evidence goes against their testimony, it tends to lose credibility.

 

[bhsmte]

A rock fits the majority, if not all, of the criteria used to define a life.
This is off topic. But if you like to learn, we can continue.

According to you, rocks are alive and worms and jellyfish are not. Would that be correct?

 

[JGG]

According to science, we can not say that. Perhaps we can not say that forever.
According to science AND Christianity, we can say that.

How? Based on what? Not the Bible. So we cannot say that based on science. We cannot say that based on Christianity. How are we making this claim?

You do not want to see. That is your business. I guess this discussion should end.

That's a poor explanation. If you can present evidence of your claim (of a clam) then it doesn't matter what I want to see. However, if you are just making up this story, by all means, tell me it is because I do not want to see.

 

[JGG]

A rock fits the majority, if not all, of the criteria used to define a life.
This is off topic. But if you like to learn, we can continue.

Don't worry, we're not off topic. We are doing a great job of demonstrating how belief is based on far more than evidence if it is based on evidence at all, and what blind faith is.

Please outline what the criteria used to define life is, and how a rock fits the majority of them (usually it would have to fit all of them).

 

[bhsmte]

Don't worry, we're not off topic. We are doing a great job of demonstrating how belief is based on far more than evidence if it is based on evidence at all, and what blind faith is.

Please outline what the criteria used to define life is, and how a rock fits the majority of them (usually it would have to fit all of them).

This should be interesting.

 

[Joshua260]

Personal testimony is evidence, as flawed as human testimony can be.

But you know how courts of law deal with this right? They allow cross examination of testimony to determine if the testimony is credible. Also, if other evidence goes against their testimony, it tends to lose credibility.

The courts also look for corroborating testimony. And we have ample corroborating testimony from other documents that made it into the NT, the writings of Jews, the Koran, and even from secular Roman historians and (other less well-known Romans). We have multi-attestation from all of these types of sources that support the following:

1. Jesus was crucified.
2. The apostles were adamant that they had seen the risen Jesus, even on threat of death.
3. The (highly unlikely) conversion of Paul.
4. The conversion of James the skeptic.
5. That the tomb was empty.

Also, you have the embarrassing lack of reputable historical documents that contradict these lines of evidence. Also, there is the archeological evidences that have proved such things as the existence of Nazareth, Pontius Pilot, the census that was taken when Jesus was born, etc....All of these were previously thought to be fabrications. (Lots more from the OT also) Also, the fact that women are said to have discovered the empty tomb...the story would have been more believable (if it was just made up) to men find the tomb empty first. Also, the story fits right in with the historical climate of the times. etc. etc. etc. Good grief...books have been written on this stuff. So there's lots of evidence to consider.

 

[Joshua260]

So it is safe to say that no atheist has ever uttered those words ever in the history of mankind and the universe?

No. I heard them myself. So obviously personal testimony can never be true, eh? Not unless you witness it yourself, right?

Yes. In a court room eyewitness testimony is about the least powerful form of evidence available. When such testimony is used, it must corroborate existing evidence, not exist as sole evidence. Even expert witnesses, whose statements can be backed up by peers, get cross-examined by the opposing side, to say nothing of eye-witnesses. The witness is under obligation to be truthful under charge of perjury. Beyond that, witness' testimony is often discredited by hard evidence as our own testimony is often influenced by a number of factors including ignorance, narrow point of view, emotional bias, personal motive, cognitive dissonance, leading questions, leading statements, and a whole lot more providing false memories, false impressions, and ultimately false testimony. On top of that, the power of the testimony is subject to the credibility of the witness. In short, personal testimony on it's own is not real evidence.

We also have ample corroborating testimony from other documents that made it into the NT, the writings of Jews, the Koran, and even from secular Roman historians and (other less well-known Romans). We have multi-attestation from all of these types of sources that support the following:

1. Jesus was crucified.
2. The apostles were adamant that they had seen the risen Jesus, even on threat of death.
3. The (highly unlikely) conversion of Paul.
4. The conversion of James the skeptic.
5. That the tomb was empty.

Also, you have the embarrassing lack of reputable historical documents that contradict these lines of evidence. Also, there is the archeological evidences that have proved such things as the existence of Nazareth, Pontius Pilot, the census that was taken when Jesus was born, etc....All of these were previously thought to be fabrications. (Lots more from the OT also) Also, the fact that women are said to have discovered the empty tomb...the story would have been more believable (if it was just made up) to men find the tomb empty first. Also, the story fits right in with the historical climate of the times. etc. etc. etc. Good grief...books have been written on this stuff. So there's lots of evidence to consider.

 

[bhsmte]

The courts also look for corroborating testimony. And we have ample corroborating testimony from other documents that made it into the NT, the writings of Jews, the Koran, and even from secular Roman historians and (other less well-known Romans). We have multi-attestation from all of these types of sources that support the following:

1. Jesus was crucified.
2. The apostles were adamant that they had seen the risen Jesus, even on threat of death.
3. The (highly unlikely) conversion of Paul.
4. The conversion of James the skeptic.
5. That the tomb was empty.

Also, you have the embarrassing lack of reputable historical documents that contradict these lines of evidence. Also, there is the archeological evidences that have proved such things as the existence of Nazareth, Pontius Pilot, the census that was taken when Jesus was born, etc....All of these were previously thought to be fabrications. (Lots more from the OT also) Also, the fact that women are said to have discovered the empty tomb...the story would have been more believable (if it was just made up) to men find the tomb empty first. Also, the story fits right in with the historical climate of the times. etc. etc. etc. Good grief...books have been written on this stuff. So there's lots of evidence to consider.

Outside of the gospels, there is very little written about Jesus and especially so by contemporary sources. Contemporary historians, write much more about other figures, than the miniscule amount they write about Jesus.

I won't take this off track anymore though, we just strongly disagree on this one.

 

[juvenissun]

According to you, rocks are alive and worms and jellyfish are not. Would that be correct?

No.

 

[bhsmte]

No.

Change your mind?