The Christian Rationale for Retaining Belief

[POI]

For debate:

1) Aside from the claims for a Jesus resurrection, what otherwise falsifiable (events/claims) from the Bible must also be demonstrated accurate and correct to retain faith?
2) If any of the above stated/given (events/claims) were to instead be falsified, (to your own personal satisfaction), would you then logically denounce your Christian faith, or, would you instead pivot/adject and remain in faith?
3) Are you willing to have any of these expressed/given (claims/events), from the Bible, challenged?

[Carnivalfaces]

Thanks for the 'lecture' and the gaslighting. However, interlocutors, including the owner of this forum website, has stated that if the Exodus was proven to be false, it would present as a problem. But hey,.. you do you boh

“A problem…” for what? Having been in debates with this forum’s owner I would be surprised if he said that the entire Christian hangs on the Exodus.

You may call it “gaslighting” if you wish. As I have said before on this site, when non-Christians say that they know what Christians believe better than Christians do, then no amount of evidence or reason will ever change their minds.

What are you calling "evidence" or "reason"? Seems you're claiming to know those concepts better than atheists, which would be gaslighting.

I, a Christian, tell you what I believe. A non-Christian says, “No, that’s not really what you believe,” and you accuse me of gaslighting?

I cite the two most influential creeds in the history of the church; creeds which are still used by more than 80% of Christians as foundational statements of faith. A non-Christian says, “No, just because Christians say that’s what they believe, it’s still not what they really believe,” and you accuse me of gaslighting?

Do you genuinely not see the problem here?

You indicated an atheist won't respond to your apologetics no matter how much "reason and evidence" you use. So naturally I asked what are you calling reason and evidence? Is that a problem?

[bjs1]

Who says it is necessary, and what do they say it is necessary for?

Otseng is THE reason I created the long-running "Exodus" thread in the first place. If the Exodus was a fictional tale, then the rest of the storyline, there-after, is in deep doo doo.

Okay, Osteng is the reason you created the “Exodus” thread. However, did Osteng say that all of Christianity is false without the Exodus, or are you putting words in his mouth?

Please provide a link to Osteng’s comment that “if the Exodus was a fictional tale, then the rest of the storyline, there-after, is in deep doo doo” (or something along those line).

The OT is valuable for Christians. It tells us more about who our God is and how He has interacted with His people throughout the ages.

Yes, and some expressed events must be literally true for the rest of it to make any sense. "The Exodus" is one of them.

1. If a person never had any access to the OT, that would not diminish the truth of Christ or the essence of the Christian message.

My point is that the Exodus has to be an actual event in history. If it is not, then believers are in trouble.

2. If the Exodus, in part or in whole, did not happen exactly as recorded in the second book of the OT, that would not diminish the truth of Christ or the essence of the Christian message.

I'm not quibbling over minor details of the claim. I'm instead stating that if the event was fiction in reality, then you are in deep doo doo.

You have repeatedly and without any evidence insisted that the book of Exodus being literal is an essential Christian belief.

I have provided evidence – both from my personal statement as a Christian, and from foundational Christian statements of faith – the essential Christian beliefs do not include the Exodus.

Can you support your claims? Would it help you if I started a new thread asking if the Exodus is an essential Christian belief?

[bjs1]

You indicated an atheist won't respond to your apologetics no matter how much "reason and evidence" you use. So naturally I asked what are you calling reason and evidence? Is that a problem?

No, I said that atheists who thinks that they know what Christians believe better than Christians do will never respond to any amount of reason or evidence. I stand by that statement.

This is not an example of someone challenging the evidence or reasoning. This is not even just a strawman, where the non-Christian makes a mistake about Christian doctrine. This thread is an example of a Christian stating his beliefs, and then a non-Christian attempting to correct the Christian about what the Christian believes.

This is true in every area of life: If I think that I know what someone else believes better than that person does, then no amount of evidence or reason will ever change my thinking.

[Carnivalfaces]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #23]

I understand your point about those atheists who think that they know what you believe better than you. And that you believe it makes them closedminded in some way.

My question primarily concerns what you mean by "evidence and reason" when you say no matter how much you use they won't hear you. So what is it they won't hear?

I'm asking because I've known Christians and atheists and it's a common occurrence for say the atheist to know the bible more than the Christian, for example.

[POI]

Okay, Osteng is the reason you created the “Exodus” thread.

However, did Osteng say that all of Christianity is false without the Exodus, or are you putting words in his mouth?

Please provide a link to Osteng’s comment that “if the Exodus was a fictional tale, then the rest of the storyline, there-after, is in deep doo doo” (or something along those line).

LOL!. Can you locate every single response an individual has ever posted, from anyone, from a couple of years ago (to boot)? If you can, please tell me how to do that? Otherwise, you are going to have to take me at my word, that (paraphrased) "the Exodus needs to logically be a literal claim, as opposed to a fictional claim".

You have repeatedly and without any evidence insisted that the book of Exodus being literal is an essential Christian belief.

Are you going on record to say then that if the Exodus storyline was found to be completely fictional, it does not matter? If so, what claims/events need to be factual events (in part or as a whole), as opposed to purely deemed (mythical/allegorical events), besides the Jesus storyline -- for which cannot be falsified BTW?

Are there any deemed literal claims from the Bible, that are questionable, that are actually also falsifiable, that a skeptic can explore?

I have provided evidence – both from my personal statement as a Christian, and from foundational Christian statements of faith – the essential Christian beliefs do not include the Exodus.

I certainly believe you, when you say that the "the Exodus" could be a complete BS fairy tale story, and it still would not matter for (you). Oteng, who is not a Biblical literalist, thinks the Exodus storyline needs to ring truth, at least in part. Which is, in part, why we traded blows regarding the 'Hyksos.'

Can you support your claims? Would it help you if I started a new thread asking if the Exodus is an essential Christian belief?

Otseng can chime in, at any time, to correct me. But I'm pretty sure that the Exodus needs to be somewhat truthful, at least in some parts, for him. If you want to start a new thread, be my guest.

[bjs1]

Can you locate every single response an individual has ever posted, from anyone, from a couple of years ago (to boot)? If you can, please tell me how to do that? Otherwise, you are going to have to take me at my word, that (paraphrased) "the Exodus needs to logically be a literal claim, as opposed to a fictional claim".

I fully understand that it would require considerable effort to find the evidence that supports your claim. I hope you can forgive me if I do not simply take your word for it that the evidence is out there.

Are you going on record to say then that if the Exodus storyline was found to be completely fictional, it does not matter?

I have very clearly stated that the Exodus being literal is not essential to the Christian faith. It can be important, and it can be more or less important to individuals, but Christianity on the whole does not fall if the Exodus is allegorical.

If so, what claims/events need to be factual events (in part or as a whole), as opposed to purely deemed (mythical/allegorical events), besides the Jesus storyline -- for which cannot be falsified BTW?

Are there any deemed literal claims from the Bible, that are questionable, that are actually also falsifiable, that a skeptic can explore?

You asked what the essential beliefs of Christianity are – the ones which, if proven false, would result in the fall of the Christian faith. I have told you. If you are skeptical of those beliefs, or don’t have a response to those beliefs, then that is fine. That doesn’t change what Christians believe.

[POI]

I hope you can forgive me if I do not simply take your word for it that the evidence is out there.

You are one of the moderators and can just simply ask him. Further, this post has been here for quite a while. Otseng owns the whole shebang. If I am completely in error, he had plenty of time to chime in as well. Just to recap, if the claim to "the Exodus" was a complete fictional tale, like the 'Adventures of Spiderman' are for example, Otseng admits this would be a big problem for his beliefs in Christianity.

I have very clearly stated that the Exodus being literal is not essential to the Christian faith. It can be important, and it can be more or less important to individuals, but Christianity on the whole does not fall if the Exodus is allegorical.

Wow! This raises a logical follow-up question... If "the Exodus" was found to be completely fictional, meaning, it never happened at all, then how in the heck could you still piece together all the rest of these tales? You see bjs1, Otseng acknowledges that this would be extremely difficult to do. Maybe you can enlighten us?

You asked what the essential beliefs of Christianity are – the ones which, if proven false, would result in the fall of the Christian faith. I have told you. If you are skeptical of those beliefs, or don’t have a response to those beliefs, then that is fine. That doesn’t change what Christians believe.

Yes. And I even thanked you, in that your response required the need for me to offer more clarification in the OP. The OP now clarifies events which could possibly be falsified. Instead debating unfalsifiable claims gets no one nowhere. Do you have any falsifiable claims for challenge, which are also pivotal to the Christian belief system?

[OneJack]

For debate:

1) Aside from the claims for a Jesus resurrection, what otherwise falsifiable (events/claims) from the Bible must also be demonstrated accurate and correct to retain faith?
2) If any of the above stated/given (events/claims) were to instead be falsified, (to your own personal satisfaction), would you then logically denounce your Christian faith, or, would you instead pivot/adject and remain in faith?
3) Are you willing to have any of these expressed/given (claims/events), from the Bible, challenged?

Just asking POI,

If the bible were not the right source of the Christian faith, how would it have impacted the three questions you have premised above?

[AquinasForGod]

For debate:

1) Aside from the claims for a Jesus resurrection, what otherwise falsifiable (events/claims) from the Bible must also be demonstrated accurate and correct to retain faith?
2) If any of the above stated/given (events/claims) were to instead be falsified, (to your own personal satisfaction), would you then logically denounce your Christian faith, or, would you instead pivot/adject and remain in faith?
3) Are you willing to have any of these expressed/given (claims/events), from the Bible, challenged?

I don't believe because of anything the bible says. I believe because God revealed his existence to me such that I can't even doubt it. He later did the same for his incarnation and resurrection. The only other thing he granted me the supernatural ability to know, is to follow the RCC. I didn't want to do this. I did it out of obedience. I cannot think of anything that would change my mind to keep being obedient to the church.

But supposing that it were possible to prove that Christ did not resurrect, that would cause a contradiction in my experience. God revealed to me that Jesus rose, and then proof says he didn't. I am not sure what I would do with that. It would cause great spiritual distress, I am sure. However, it is impossible to provide reasonable evidence that Christ didn't raise. It is impossible to provide evidence that God didn't exist, or that he didn't incarnate.

I then cannot think of any evidence that could cause me to denounce my faith. However, I know it is possible for one to lose faith. I hope that never happens to me because losing faith in Christianity doesn't mean Christianity is false.

[OneJack]

For debate:

1) Aside from the claims for a Jesus resurrection, what otherwise falsifiable (events/claims) from the Bible must also be demonstrated accurate and correct to retain faith?
2) If any of the above stated/given (events/claims) were to instead be falsified, (to your own personal satisfaction), would you then logically denounce your Christian faith, or, would you instead pivot/adject and remain in faith?
3) Are you willing to have any of these expressed/given (claims/events), from the Bible, challenged?

I don't believe because of anything the bible says. I believe because God revealed his existence to me such that I can't even doubt it. He later did the same for his incarnation and resurrection. The only other thing he granted me the supernatural ability to know, is to follow the RCC. I didn't want to do this. I did it out of obedience. I cannot think of anything that would change my mind to keep being obedient to the church.

But supposing that it were possible to prove that Christ did not resurrect, that would cause a contradiction in my experience. God revealed to me that Jesus rose, and then proof says he didn't. I am not sure what I would do with that. It would cause great spiritual distress, I am sure. However, it is impossible to provide reasonable evidence that Christ didn't raise. It is impossible to provide evidence that God didn't exist, or that he didn't incarnate.

I then cannot think of any evidence that could cause me to denounce my faith. However, I know it is possible for one to lose faith. I hope that never happens to me because losing faith in Christianity doesn't mean Christianity is false.

How did God reveal His existence to you? How sure were you that He is really God?