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!

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #216]

You respond by attacking

Not sure what you are referring to with that comment fredonly.

I critiqued.

Fair enough- you didn't attack me. But you've been resistant to hearing facts. I had answered a question you asked, then you jumped to conclusions and argued against the conclusions to which you jumped. This gives me the impression you are resistant to trying to understand the framework I've been presenting. Whether you choose to believe it, or not, there are good reasons to think Jesus existed, engaged in some preaching that led to some people following him, and that this developed into a movement that blossomed into the early Christian Church.

It's perfectly reasonable to reject Christianity without really understanding the history, but it isn't reasonable to then jump to the conclusion it's all fiction. You may not care what history can be discerned from the flawed Christian sources, but if that's the case, don't bother to engage with those of us who ARE interested in the topic.

If you ARE interested in a secular, historical analysis- ask questions, and refrain from jumping to conclusions and reacting to those conclusions.

Okay then. Re the actual topic, can we start with how historical analysis relates to the thread topic and provides any answer to the question asked?

If we have a real character in Jesus, what did Jesus say about faith and is it fiction or fact or unable to be answered through secular, historical analysis?

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]
I can tell you this, I have heard many, many alternative explanations for the facts and evidence we have, and I have of yet to hear any which would explain all the facts and evidence.

Not debating... just submitting the following content for your awareness. The resurrection-free explanation described at the link below is claimed to account for all the facts and evidence we have:
Minimal Witnesses Hypothesis

Bible apologists are very evasive and disingenuous. How they do it is by taking the claim(which is questioned because of the contradictions) and pretend the claim is validated by the claim and the problems can be dismissed as excusable error. Mimimal witnesses is just the old Con repackaged.

[Replying to Difflugia in post #213]

There are different levels of fiction and they should be treated differently, but it's not always straightforward deciding which is which.

This is why I use the word "useful" in relation to "fiction".

Of course, that branches out into morality and personal preference, but I am meaning it in an overall way.

Being Culturally Christian, I agree with Richard Dawkins that given the choice of the cultures in the world, being in a Christian culture is my preference so "I no complain" in that regard and this is symbiotic of what I am meaning by "Useful" re "Fiction".

If (asking the atheists) the main problem between atheists against Christianity and Christians is that Atheists think Christians shouldn't believe that the bible characters (God overall and God-claimers in general) are real/speaking the truth et al, then would atheists be able to agree that the stories are at least, Useful Fiction?

No. Or we wouldn't be arguing at all. it is because Christianity is (a) not true and (b) more a social problem than an palliative is why we are doing this at all. As for myself, I found Buddhism a sign more agreeable than Christianity.

The 'we need it, true or not' ploy was one of the first Christian polemical ploys to be kicked into the gutter, along with morality and inverted logic.

If I see all atheists hereabouts liking your post, I will consider it more than just your personal opinion and will delve more into the claims you have made.

[bluegreenearth]

Bible apologists are very evasive and disingenuous. How they do it is by taking the claim(which is questioned because of the contradictions) and pretend the claim is validated by the claim and the problems can be dismissed as excusable error. Mimimal witnesses is just the old Con repackaged.

I didn't quite follow your response. Your critique would seem to be in reference to the "Minimal Facts Hypothesis," not the Minimal Witnesses Hypothesis. If I am mistaken, then please clarify.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]
I can tell you this, I have heard many, many alternative explanations for the facts and evidence we have, and I have of yet to hear any which would explain all the facts and evidence.

Not debating... just submitting the following content for your awareness. The resurrection-free explanation described at the link below is claimed to account for all the facts and evidence we have:
Minimal Witnesses Hypothesis

Bible apologists are very evasive and disingenuous. How they do it is by taking the claim(which is questioned because of the contradictions) and pretend the claim is validated by the claim and the problems can be dismissed as excusable error. Mimimal witnesses is just the old Con repackaged.

[Replying to Difflugia in post #213]

There are different levels of fiction and they should be treated differently, but it's not always straightforward deciding which is which.

This is why I use the word "useful" in relation to "fiction".

Of course, that branches out into morality and personal preference, but I am meaning it in an overall way.

Being Culturally Christian, I agree with Richard Dawkins that given the choice of the cultures in the world, being in a Christian culture is my preference so "I no complain" in that regard and this is symbiotic of what I am meaning by "Useful" re "Fiction".

If (asking the atheists) the main problem between atheists against Christianity and Christians is that Atheists think Christians shouldn't believe that the bible characters (God overall and God-claimers in general) are real/speaking the truth et al, then would atheists be able to agree that the stories are at least, Useful Fiction?

No. Or we wouldn't be arguing at all. it is because Christianity is (a) not true and (b) more a social problem than an palliative is why we are doing this at all. As for myself, I found Buddhism a sign more agreeable than Christianity.

The 'we need it, true or not' ploy was one of the first Christian polemical ploys to be kicked into the gutter, along with morality and inverted logic.

If I see all atheists hereabouts liking your post, I will consider it more than just your personal opinion and will delve more into the claims you have made.

more than just liking my post, I should like to see their personal opinion along with mine., as your post was really asking what we thought about it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Bible apologists are very evasive and disingenuous. How they do it is by taking the claim(which is questioned because of the contradictions) and pretend the claim is validated by the claim and the problems can be dismissed as excusable error. Mimimal witnesses is just the old Con repackaged.

I didn't quite follow your response. Your critique would seem to be in reference to the "Minimal Facts Hypothesis," not the Minimal Witnesses Hypothesis. If I am mistaken, then please clarify.

A fair point. Minimal fact (as i understand it) is the minimum we can take as fact, which is that Paul and the disciples believed the resurrection, and the tomb was found empty. The minimum witness argument would, I suppose, be that what is claimed to be eyewitness is itself part of the 'minimum facts'.

If you see those as anything else, please feel free to say how you see it.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]
I can tell you this, I have heard many, many alternative explanations for the facts and evidence we have, and I have of yet to hear any which would explain all the facts and evidence.

Not debating... just submitting the following content for your awareness. The resurrection-free explanation described at the link below is claimed to account for all the facts and evidence we have:
Minimal Witnesses Hypothesis

Bible apologists are very evasive and disingenuous. How they do it is by taking the claim(which is questioned because of the contradictions) and pretend the claim is validated by the claim and the problems can be dismissed as excusable error. Mimimal witnesses is just the old Con repackaged.

[Replying to Difflugia in post #213]

There are different levels of fiction and they should be treated differently, but it's not always straightforward deciding which is which.

This is why I use the word "useful" in relation to "fiction".

Of course, that branches out into morality and personal preference, but I am meaning it in an overall way.

Being Culturally Christian, I agree with Richard Dawkins that given the choice of the cultures in the world, being in a Christian culture is my preference so "I no complain" in that regard and this is symbiotic of what I am meaning by "Useful" re "Fiction".

If (asking the atheists) the main problem between atheists against Christianity and Christians is that Atheists think Christians shouldn't believe that the bible characters (God overall and God-claimers in general) are real/speaking the truth et al, then would atheists be able to agree that the stories are at least, Useful Fiction?

No. Or we wouldn't be arguing at all. it is because Christianity is (a) not true and (b) more a social problem than an palliative is why we are doing this at all. As for myself, I found Buddhism a sign more agreeable than Christianity.

The 'we need it, true or not' ploy was one of the first Christian polemical ploys to be kicked into the gutter, along with morality and inverted logic.

If I see all atheists hereabouts liking your post, I will consider it more than just your personal opinion and will delve more into the claims you have made.

more than just liking my post, I should like to see their personal opinion along with mine., as your post was really asking what we thought about it.

You appear to be admitting that your words were more fiction than fact...perhaps useful to you in some way, but not to others...

[fredonly]

If we have a real character in Jesus, what did Jesus say about faith and is it fiction or fact or unable to be answered through secular, historical analysis?

I'm not aware of critical (historical) scholars making the case that Jesus said anything specific about faith. The evangelists (writing decades later) claimed he did (implying the evangelists believed faith important), but none of that passes the criterion of dissimilarity, so it's of low credibility on its face.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]
I can tell you this, I have heard many, many alternative explanations for the facts and evidence we have, and I have of yet to hear any which would explain all the facts and evidence.

Not debating... just submitting the following content for your awareness. The resurrection-free explanation described at the link below is claimed to account for all the facts and evidence we have:
Minimal Witnesses Hypothesis

Bible apologists are very evasive and disingenuous. How they do it is by taking the claim(which is questioned because of the contradictions) and pretend the claim is validated by the claim and the problems can be dismissed as excusable error. Mimimal witnesses is just the old Con repackaged.

[Replying to Difflugia in post #213]

There are different levels of fiction and they should be treated differently, but it's not always straightforward deciding which is which.

This is why I use the word "useful" in relation to "fiction".

Of course, that branches out into morality and personal preference, but I am meaning it in an overall way.

Being Culturally Christian, I agree with Richard Dawkins that given the choice of the cultures in the world, being in a Christian culture is my preference so "I no complain" in that regard and this is symbiotic of what I am meaning by "Useful" re "Fiction".

If (asking the atheists) the main problem between atheists against Christianity and Christians is that Atheists think Christians shouldn't believe that the bible characters (God overall and God-claimers in general) are real/speaking the truth et al, then would atheists be able to agree that the stories are at least, Useful Fiction?

No. Or we wouldn't be arguing at all. it is because Christianity is (a) not true and (b) more a social problem than an palliative is why we are doing this at all. As for myself, I found Buddhism a sign more agreeable than Christianity.

The 'we need it, true or not' ploy was one of the first Christian polemical ploys to be kicked into the gutter, along with morality and inverted logic.

If I see all atheists hereabouts liking your post, I will consider it more than just your personal opinion and will delve more into the claims you have made.

more than just liking my post, I should like to see their personal opinion along with mine., as your post was really asking what we thought about it.

You appear to be admitting that your words were more fiction than fact...perhaps useful to you in some way, but not to others...

It is a hypothesis, based on observation and reason. I have confidence in it, but others must judge. Whether 'we need it', even if not true, is a valid argument or not. I argue that atheists say no, but that is up to them.

[TRANSPONDER]

If we have a real character in Jesus, what did Jesus say about faith and is it fiction or fact or unable to be answered through secular, historical analysis?

I'm not aware of critical (historical) scholars making the case that Jesus said anything specific about faith. The evangelists (writing decades later) claimed he did (implying the evangelists believed faith important), but none of that passes the criterion of dissimilarity, so it's of low credibility on its face.

I agree. Another hypothesis of mine, but I have confidence in it, is; a surprising amount of what Jesus supposedly did, according to the gospels, might be what he actually did. Especially since a reconciliation (removing serious discrepancies) agreed those practical basics.

What Jesus supposedly said went down the tube immediately. Mainly John's sermons and quarrels with 'Jews' are not known to the synoptics and the teachings and parables seem unknown to John. Thus i am confident that almost all of what Jesus is supposed to have said, is Christian invention, and he said none or almost none of it.

So pronouncements on Faith, like everything else is just the beliefs of Christians and not of Jesus, who lived and died a Jew, and a Pharisee Jew, I am sure.

[fredonly]

How can you be sure Jesus was a Pharisee? Certainly he wasn't Saducee, since he wasn't an elite. But some scholars think he may have been Essene, or was at least influenced by them.
My understanding is that 1st century Judaism was pretty diverse, and we know few specifics (Josephus probably wasn't exhaustive on the subject).