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!

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #19]

I really do not know what you intend to say here. What I do know is that we do in fact have evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and for one to deny such a thing is for one not to be in touch with reality. The fact that we have scholars who attempt to give alternative explanations for the facts, and evidence we have, surely demonstrates this to be the case. Of course, you and others may come to different conclusions concerning the facts, and evidence we have, but this again demonstrates there is indeed facts, and evidence. Therefore, one does not have to employ faith in order to believe in the resurrection, but can rather base this belief upon the facts, and evidence we have.

Well. I'll make it plain. On examination, the reliability of the resurrection account collapses (faithbased denial aside) and I Corinthians doesn't help much.

So for me (and others must decide) the evidence of the resurrection contradictions bring down that Kingpost in the church roof, and of course I have argued this and will do so again, and I have found that the faithbased case relies on denial and invention of stuff not in the Bible.

This is Faith, not Evidence and is not the way I reckon to get at the truth of the matter, though clearly it is a way to maintain the Faith.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #19]

I really do not know what you intend to say here. What I do know is that we do in fact have evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and for one to deny such a thing is for one not to be in touch with reality. The fact that we have scholars who attempt to give alternative explanations for the facts, and evidence we have, surely demonstrates this to be the case. Of course, you and others may come to different conclusions concerning the facts, and evidence we have, but this again demonstrates there is indeed facts, and evidence. Therefore, one does not have to employ faith in order to believe in the resurrection, but can rather base this belief upon the facts, and evidence we have.

Well. I'll make it plain. On examination, the reliability of the resurrection account collapses (faithbased denial aside) and I Corinthians doesn't help much.

So for me (and others must decide) the evidence of the resurrection contradictions bring down that Kingpost in the church roof, and of course I have argued this and will do so again, and I have found that the faithbased case relies on denial and invention of stuff not in the Bible.

This is Faith, not Evidence and is not the way I reckon to get at the truth of the matter, though clearly it is a way to maintain the Faith.

Well then, it seems that we agree. You seem to be acknowledging that there are facts, evidence, and reasons involved in the resurrection, but you simply look at these facts, and evidence in a different way, and you are convinced your opinion of the facts, and evidence is correct. If I am correct, then I have no problem with your position in the least. My problem comes in when there are those who seem to want to insist there are no facts and evidence concerning the resurrection, and then want to go on to give us some sort of alternative explanation for the facts and evidence they claim we do not have.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #19]

I really do not know what you intend to say here. What I do know is that we do in fact have evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and for one to deny such a thing is for one not to be in touch with reality. The fact that we have scholars who attempt to give alternative explanations for the facts, and evidence we have, surely demonstrates this to be the case. Of course, you and others may come to different conclusions concerning the facts, and evidence we have, but this again demonstrates there is indeed facts, and evidence. Therefore, one does not have to employ faith in order to believe in the resurrection, but can rather base this belief upon the facts, and evidence we have.

Well. I'll make it plain. On examination, the reliability of the resurrection account collapses (faithbased denial aside) and I Corinthians doesn't help much.

So for me (and others must decide) the evidence of the resurrection contradictions bring down that Kingpost in the church roof, and of course I have argued this and will do so again, and I have found that the faithbased case relies on denial and invention of stuff not in the Bible.

This is Faith, not Evidence and is not the way I reckon to get at the truth of the matter, though clearly it is a way to maintain the Faith.

Well then, it seems that we agree. You seem to be acknowledging that there are facts, evidence, and reasons involved in the resurrection, but you simply look at these facts, and evidence in a different way, and you are convinced your opinion of the facts, and evidence is correct. If I am correct, then I have no problem with your position in the least. My problem comes in when there are those who seem to want to insist there are no facts and evidence concerning the resurrection, and then want to go on to give us some sort of alternative explanation for the facts and evidence they claim we do not have.

The thing is evidence is not necessarily Facts. Genesis is Evidence of a creation, Flood and Ark, but is it Fact? That is what is arguable.

So yes, the gospels are evidence for a resurrection, but is it Factual? Of course my argument is justmy view and opinion, but I argue that the accounts are so discrepant and contradictory that they cannot possibly be reliable fact.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #23]

So yes, the gospels are evidence for a resurrection, but is it Factual?

My friend, it is not simply the reports we have contained in what we call the Gospels, it is also what we can know by reading this material. As an example, many of the scholars have now come to the conclusion that the early followers of Jesus at the very least believed they had seen the risen Christ. The reason they are coming to such a conclusion is, the evidence for this is overwhelming. Okay, with this being the case, there must, and has to be some sort of explanation for why this would be the case. In other words, the evidence tells us these earlier followers were not at all being intentionally deceiving, because they truly believe they had seen Jesus alive after death. This also means the earlier followers were not involved in any sort of hoax. The question then becomes, what would have caused the early disciples of Jesus to actually believe they had seen Jesus alive after death? What best explains this fact? I can tell you this, there are scholars now who will not even attempt to come up with any alternative explanations because they understand that none of the alternative explanations explain the facts, and evidence we have.

This brings us to what you refer to as "discrepant and contradictory", and I will agree that there are discrepancies, and contradictions in the reports. This reminds me of an episode of a show called "Brain Games" in which they staged a crime in the middle of a busy place where there would be a good number of witnesses. The staged crime was a thief snatching a purse. In the end when they gathered all the witnesses for questioning, there were a good number of discrepancies and contradictions, in which the witnesses remembered some of the events differently, while all agreeing there was indeed a crime. The question is, were these discrepancies and contradictions, evidence that there was no crime committed? Absolutely not! We all know there was a crime. The point is, simply because there are contradictions, and discrepancies in the reports, is not evidence the reports are unreliable.

And this brings us to the fact that there are many folks who complain that the reports in the Gospels are so closely aligned that they accuse the authors of copying each other. So then, on the one hand, the contradictions and discrepancies, are evidence the reports are unreliable, and on the other hand, the fact they report the same exact events so closely they are accused of copying, and this becomes evidence the reports are not reliable. So, what would cause us to believe the reports to be reliable? I mean, if they report the same exact events in the exact same way, this is evidence the reports are not reliable, but if there are any discrepancy or contradiction, this is evidence the reports are unreliable as well.

However, here in the real world, as evidenced by the show "Brain Games" when you have actual reports of a known event which many folks witnessed, you expect there to be contradictions, and discrepancies while also expecting other events to be described in the same exact way. Therefore, it seems as if we have exactly what we would expect to find in reports from the different folks contained in what we call the Bible. It is really quite comical! If they would have reported the same exact events in the same exact way, then they would be suspect. On the other hand, if there are any discrepancies at all then this would call the reports into question. However, in the end the Gospel reports have both, which is exactly what would be expected.

It seems to me we have those who are going to believe what it is they would rather believe, no matter the facts and evidence. Moreover, many of these folks who are complaining, are the very same folks who claimed to have been once convinced Christianity was true, who now want to insist there would be no reason to believe what they were once convinced of. This certainly demonstrates one who is willing to believe what they would rather believe no matter the facts, and evidence. The only thing which seems to have changed is the mind, because they are continuing to evidence one who believes what they would rather believe, and will do whatever they must in order to continue to believe what they would rather believe.

[wkt_1]

because they are continuing to evidence one who believes what they would rather believe, and will do whatever they must in order to continue to believe what they would rather believe.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #24]


The response is simple. Brain games is irrelevant IF the stories are made up; invented, and thus, discrepancies cannot be waved away by appeal to 'Witness error'.

Appeal to expert consensus has to be challenged. It may seem like arrogance, but 'Here I stand, I can do no other'. It looks to me like the gospels are demonstrably Christian fabrication laid over an undoubtedly real Jesus- story. The shift in viewpoint has to start somewhere and it looks like it starts with me.


Let me give one 'Clue'. The blaspemy charge at a supposed Sanhedrin trial makes no sense other than to a Christian. No Jewish sanhedrin would bring a charge of a messianic 'Son of God' until Christianity had made such a doctrine known. On top of that, John has no such trial, but a grilling in the house of the priest. This is invented material, not a slip of the mind. And I seem to be the only one who has noticed it, out of all those 'Experts'.

In all due false humility I can prove that one of the Nativities is fake. Provably, and likely both (as neither make sense). The experts got close but missed vital pieces in plain sight This is a precedent for the Resurrections, which are nearly as bad and demonstrably fabricated to anyone not already determined to believe it and damn the evidence.

This is a debunk of even honest Expert analysis, some of which have got close but never the full picture.

John refuted the Bethlehem birth (in all reason) and also the angelic message at the tomb. This cannot be waved away by mind games.

Jesus and Barrabbas were contrasting avatars of the same messianic image, one Christian, the other Jewish zealot. This was an experts realisation, but he didn't go all the way.

Luke refutes the claim by Matthew that the women net Jesus. Beyond any attempts to wave it away with imperfect recollection.

Luke refutes John over doubting Thomas. Demonstrably, to any reasonable person. Beyond efforts to wave it away with witness error.

That is just the start and, precedent made, (no clean hand in court) the other contradictions look also fake, even if some kind of excuse can be made up. Such as the totally invented 'Women split up' excuse.

Of course I don't expect you to credit what I say, but I'm happy to discuss it (again) on a relevant thread. I'm just explaining why expert consensus and witness error will not do to wave away problems of contradiction.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #26]

You really have not given me a whole lot to sink my teeth into here. The bottom line is, either way we go, we are left with the most incredible tale the world has ever known. The evidence either points to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or it is based upon some sort of falsehood which has caused this event to be the most significant event in the history of the world. And by the way, this event does not in any way compare to any other religious claims. In other words, this is in no way the same as someone going into a cave, claiming to hear from God, and then being able to convince millions to believe this to be the case. Nor is it the same as one claiming to be in possession of some sort of golden tablets, in which others claimed to have seen, who then go on to change their story. No, what we have here is, different folks, writing to different audiences, reporting the same exact event, in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to it, and these folks somehow are able to cause such events, to be the most significant event in the history of the world, and the evidence reveals those involved had nothing whatsoever to gain but rather lost all continuing to proclaim these things. Again, it is the most extraordinary tale known to man.

So, you are free to examine the evidence we have, and come to any conclusion you wish, and I have no problem with your conclusions. The problem comes in when there are those who want to insist there is no facts, and evidence in support of the resurrection when they are attempting to give some sort of alternative explanation for the facts, and evidence they are claiming we do not have. Moreover, it is not as simple as attempting to come up with these alternative explanations. Rather, one must go on to attempt to discover what all would have to be involved in order for these other explanations to be true. This is exactly why there are scholars today who do not attempt to give an alternative explanation, because they understand there is no other explanation which can explain the facts, and evidence we have, when one goes on to attempt to discover what all would have to be involved in order for that particular explanation to be true.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's like this. We have many religions; the great ones, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and minor ones like LDS, Scientoligy, Sikkhism. If Christianity is true, all those are false. Yet they have millions of followers and had to start somewhere.

Why then is it so incredible that Christianity had a start and developed and attracted millions of followers and had a great effect on the world , and yet could be false?

None of that makes a scrap of difference to whether Christianity is true or not. It comes down to whether the Gospel accounts are true.

There is a good case to show they are fabricated.. There have always been erudite persons who doubted the stories and others who accepted them. On the face of it, they look factual and based on the times. One could say the same of Muhammad and Buddha. But Christians simply reject those as true, even if those persons were real.

I already said that the nativities are demonstrably false, or one tale must be and probably both as neither make sense (willing to examine them) and the resurrections are nearly as bad. Yet I do believe Paul was a real person. Somebody had to take the resurrection - belief (which i do accept) and make it suitable for gentiles, leaving Jewish Messianism behind.

The Christian (Pauline) overpainting of what could be a real Jesus is demonstrable. I explained how the Sanhedrin trial and Blasphemy charge cannot be credible. One flop, and there are others. David and the shewbread cannot possibly be a real discussion with the Pharisees. They would rip that to shreds. It is a Christian argument for Christians, and that is what the gospels are.

I have a hypothesis. Could be wrong, but it is a hypothesis. Paul was originally against the Jesus party because he was a loyal Roman and the Sanhedrin was pretty much pro - Roman. Why did he flip? I suggest because he believed in Pharisee teachings and that the end days were coming. He wanted his fellow Romans to be saved, too. but they would never accept Judaism. So take the messianic resurrection and make that the ticket to salvation; Scrap Mosaic law. That is essentially the message of the book of Romans.

And it worked. Of course, the Greeks turned Jesus into a sort of Greek Demigod that Paul never intended, but it worked. And worked so well it wiped out all the other Roman - adopted religions. and has been working to wipe out all other religions ever since, and let's have that video again.



I love this because the time when the West was interacting with the old cultures of Asia is fascinating. The map is not quite right. Japan was West of the line, not east, while the Philippines were East of the line and a Spanish conquest, Like the Americas other than Brazil, which fell to Portugal.

(on a second look, I was wrong, Japan IS inside the Portuguese section on the map).

The Portuguese (as the video says) took Macao, also Goa in India, Malacca in Malaya and made inroads into Sri Lanka, but the Dutch and English pushed them out, also in Japan. But Blackthorne (Will Adams) is right in what he tells Toronaga (Hideyoshi). The Portuguese want to take over all countries and make them Christian.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Angry Ukulele Girl in post #1]

Faith is a belief in something one has no evidence to evaluate. With this being the case, I do not have to have faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real man, who walked the face of the earth in real time, and in real space, because we have evidence this is the case. I do not need to employ faith in order to believe that this same Jesus had a great following and got himself in trouble with the authorities and was crucified, dead, and buried, because we have evidence for this. In fact, I do not need any sort of faith in order to believe that Jesus was resurrected, because we have evidence for this as well.

With this being the case, I can look at, weigh, analyze, and study the evidence we have and come to a conclusion based upon such evidence. What I would need faith in order to believe is, that these events somehow atoned for my sin. In other words, I need faith to believe in the forgiveness of sin. Because you see, I cannot see, weigh, analyze, or feel forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have facts, and evidence in support of the rest.

I encourage you to read the New Testament in order to determine if the authors ever encouraged their audience to accept the resurrection by faith, as opposed to pointing to the evidence.

This is what happens with idol worship.
When one makes an idol out of a book, like seems to be happening above with the Bible, they can look at, weigh, analyze and study the said book and then claim that it is evidence. Making an idol out of a book does not therefore make the words in the book true or even evidence. See the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita and suddenly the Christian will agree. Just leave their idol (which is also a book) out of it and don't make comparisons to the very same idols of other religions. Even for religions that existed long before their own which doesn't seem to give them pause.

It seems that many have faith in an idol the rest of us acknowledge as the Bible. That's not really something to be respected if we are being honest.

Want to believe in Bigfoot or Nessie? Faith is required as there is no evidence for these things.
Want to believe that the sun will appear to rise tomorrow morning? I can supply an evidenced reason/mechanism as to why such a thing will happen. There is no faith being employed here unlike what is require in order to believe that Allah is the one true God and Muhammed was his prophet for example.

This make faith something that is required in order to believe that something that is not real, is real.
Faith could lead to a real belief I admit. Perhaps bigfoot will be discovered and found to actually be blurry for example. Until that happens though, faith is required to believe in bigfoot.
I don't see a mechanism like faith, that is necessary for believing in a falsehood (like Allah being the one true God) as something that should be praised. Faith in all things in our life should be avoided IMO. If any of the gods are real, or bigfoot/Nessie, let the evidence be examined. Faith claims in themselves cannot be trusted even if the source has been made into an idol though.

Idol - a thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #29]

When one makes an idol out of a book, like seems to be happening above with the Bible

Again, this is quite comical, because I can demonstrate from right here on this site that I have stated, "I wish the Bible had never been composed". Does this sound like one who is making "an idol out of a book"? The reason I wish the Bible was never composed, is because I understand that the authors contained in the Bible had particular audiences at the time in mind as they wrote, and had no concern, nor any idea that anyone else would ever read what they had to write other than the intended audience at the time, and they certainly had no idea that what they were writing would be contained in what we now call the Bible. If the Bible had never been composed, we would still have the content which is contained in the Bible, which means we would have different sources, addressing different audiences at the time, reporting on the same exact event, which means we would not have folks like you who have no clue about what is contained in the Bible say things like, "all the evidence is coming from the same source".

The fact of the matter is what is contained in the Bible is from different sources, and I would love to hear you explain how these sources are somehow tied together. How are they connected to each other? I mean, either they were tied together, or we have no idea who the authors would have been, and therefore we have no way to tie them together. The ball is now in your court. Either you can demonstrate how these folks were tied together, or we have no idea who the authors were.

But I can tell you this. From what we have contained in the Bible, there are certain things we can know for certain, whether one is a believer or not. One of the many things we can know for certain is, we have four accounts of the same exact event, from four different sources, addressing particular audiences at the time, who had no idea that what they were writing to the audience at the time, would have been contained in a Bible they had no idea about. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the New Testament can be demonstrated to be letters addressed to particular audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing would have been read by anyone else besides the intended audience at the time. In other words, this material cannot be considered religious propaganda intended to persuade the masses, when it can be demonstrated the material was intended for a particular audience at the time.

So, no! I do not hold the Bible up as some sort of idol. All you are doing is to attempt to transpose upon others the way in which you operated when you were a convinced Christian who now admits there are no facts and evidence to support what you were once convinced of.

See the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita and suddenly the Christian will agree.

Quite the contrary my friend. I have no idea what "Bhagavad Gita" is, but as far as the Quran is concerned there are a number of things we can know for certain by reading this material, so then what is contained in the Quran is considered to be facts and evidence which can be used. With that being said, I will be more than happy to compare Christianity to any other religion in the world, as far as the historical evidence is concerned.

Just leave their idol (which is also a book) out of it and don't make comparisons to the very same idols of other religions. Even for religions that existed long before their own which doesn't seem to give them pause.

Not at all. I am not asking you to leave their book out of the equation in the least. Bring it on. The fact of the matter is, Christianity does not really have a book. Rather, Christianity is built upon different sources, reporting upon the same historical events, and there were countless folks who believed these reports hundreds of years before there was any sort of book.

Even for religions that existed long before their own which doesn't seem to give them pause.

Do you seriously believe that you are the only Christian who has thought of the fact that there are countless religions in the world, and that this fact needs to be considered? GOOD GRIEF! The only ones I can imagine who would not have thought about such things, is one who was convinced of Christianity with no facts, and evidence in support of what they were convinced of. However, the rest of us have thought about such things, and have come to realize that this fact has no bearing whatsoever as to whether Christianity would be true or not. I mean, the reason surely is not, "since we know there are false religions in the world, this then demonstrates all religions are false". I mean, this is not an argument at all. Again, I will be more than happy to compare Christianity to any religion you like as far as the historical evidence is concerned.

It seems that many have faith in an idol the rest of us acknowledge as the Bible. That's not really something to be respected if we are being honest.

Again, I can demonstrate beyond doubt that I do not hold the Bible in high regard. I mean, if I can demonstrate where I have said long in the past that, "I wish the Bible had never been composed" this right here demonstrates one who has no regard for the Bible. I think what we are beginning to see is one who was a convinced Christian with no facts and evidence to support what they were once convinced of who has now convinced themselves that anyone else who is a Christian must and had to use the same sloppy logic. Well, more than likely there was no logic involved at all. At any rate, simply because you did not use the mind in order to be convinced Christianity was true, does not in any way demonstrate that one cannot use the mind in order to be convinced. It looks to me as if, the mind may have changed, but the thinking is still the same, if one can convince themselves that if they did not use the mind to be a convinced Christian then this demonstrates that one cannot use the mind in order to believe the Christian claims.

Thus far we have one who seems to be convinced that knowing there is false religions in the world somehow has some sort of bearing upon Christianity being false, along with this same one somehow being convinced that since they did not use the mind to be convinced Christianity was true, somehow demonstrates it is impossible to use the mind to be a convinced Christian. Again, the mind may have changed, but I think we can all see the thinking is still the same.

Want to believe in Bigfoot or Nessie? Faith is required as there is no evidence for these things.

This again is an example of sloppy thinking. Certainly, you are not attempting to compare the evidence concerning "Bigfoot or Nessie" to the evidence we have concerning the resurrection. I mean, I am here to tell you that when you do such things you disqualify yourself from the conversation because one who does such things cannot be taken seriously. Seriously! If you truly believe Christianity to be false, and you have a passion to save folks from believing, these types of arguments are hurting your credibility.

This make faith something that is required in order to believe that something that is not real, is real.

My friend, I do not need to have faith in order to believe that Jesus was a "real" person who walked the face of the earth in "real" time and in "real" space. I do not need to have faith in order to believe that this same "real" Jesus got himself in trouble with the authorities and was crucified. I do not need faith in order to believe that this same "real" Jesus was resurrected from the dead. The reason no faith is required in order to believe these things is because of the facts, and evidence involved, and belief in these things can be built upon the facts and evidence with no faith required. What one would need faith to believe, is when there is no facts and evidence to be analyzed.

However, if one is convinced Christianity is true, and this conviction is not based upon any sort of facts and evidence, then this person would require faith in order to believe, and when this is the case, it is no shock at all to discover this same person may want to change the mind, since the mind was never convinced in the first place. There are indeed many folks who come to believe in Christianity in this way, but this does not in any way demonstrate that one cannot use the mind in order to be convinced.