Phat writes:
I'm just going with Matthew...which you suggested supported your argument.
Again....Matthew 3:7-12 suggests why Jesus was born. Without Jesus, all you have is human-centric definitions of what type of charge we should have. In this regard, why should we trust jar over Paul?
First, Matthew was not written by Paul and so it is irrelevant to a discussion about what is written in Bible stories other than Matthew. It is irrelevant to what Paul wrote.
There are no other definitions than the Human centric ones. The Bible was written by humans, redacted by humans, edited by humans, the contents selected by humans, revised by humans, rewritten by humans, translated by humans ...
Phat writes:
Why should we trust ourselves (internal logic, reason, and reality) over what is written?
ALL of the evidence says there is no one else to trust. All of what you know is filtered by human logic and illogic, reasoning and unreasoning, reality and fantasy.
Phat writes:
Why should we trust what was written in one book within the Bible over what was written in another?
Well we can try to test using reason logic and reality in some cases but when it comes to the Bible in most cases that is impossible; so we should not trust either of them unless they can be tested using reason logic and reality. What we do have to do is acknowledge the differences. For example in this specific topic what is seen, is reality, is that the story changes over time and as retold and it changes from a very simply pretty straight forward story to one incorporating lots of WOO and fantastic powers and increasing benefits.
Phat writes:
Why should we accept our own marketing as sincere while accusing someone else of marketing a new religion? What makes our religion any better?
Whether something is sincere or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is factual, reasonable, logical, based in reality or fantasy. And what makes one religion better? I would say whether or not it is beneficial for the population in general, members and non-members in THIS life.
Phat writes:
And I suppose thinking people are expected to buy your con of making up our own internalized charge, ignoring GOD,(or worse yet assuming that GOD is at best an internalized belief rather than an externalized reality)
No, thinking people are expected to test both positions, look for evidence, check against reality, try to determine if there is any evidence of an externalized reality called GOD.