Evidence For Belief

I want to select this statement of Percy's last reply in rapture thread and reply to it. This seems to be a bit of a sticking point, so if I'm wrong, (just can't see that happening ), then I can learn from it. I contend that we objectively know that The Bible exists. We objectively know that the NT claims that Jesus was resurrected. We objectively know a fair bit about what has been written about the 1st century world that Jesus lived in. We objectively know that the Jesus movement spread beginning in that 1st century.You and I can look at that objective evidence and form our own subjective conclusions about it. We can believe that it is all contrived. We can believe that some of it is accurate or we can even believe that God dictated it to the writers and it is 100 % accurate.Incidentally in regard to my Anglicanism I am pretty much middle of the road. There is a very wide diversity of belief within the Anglican church and it seems the conservative branch think I'm liberal and the liberal branch think I'm conservative, which is not meant in any way to validate my views.

Yes I am a Christian and certainly one of the reasons that I am is the culture I grew up in. However, there are people all over the world who adhere to religions that were not part of their culture. However, that does not exclude the possibility that Jesus was resurrected.I also don't think that God didn't reach out to all cultures, and I am prepared to listen to and learn from holy books other than the Bible. However, each of the books you mentioned are quite different. The Koran is the creation of one man. This man had an estimated 25 wives, with the youngest being 9 or 10 when the marriage was consummated and when Mohammed was 53. Just the same is doesn't mean that there aren't things to be learned in the Koran.The Torah as you know is part of the Christian Bible as well as being the sacred text for the Jewish faith. There are conflicting understandings of the nature of Yahweh in the Torah and as I have said elsewhere this understanding does narrow down to a large degree within the Hebrew Scriptures. Certainly we can learn from the Torah.I don't know a lot about the Vedas except to say that it is a rather disconnected book of various material and dates back to about 1000BC when the book was compiled. I have only read about it, but I would not doubt that there is wisdom to be gained from reading that as well.The Bible is obviously the book I am most familiar with. It contains the work of no doubt hundreds of authors in its 66 books. There is however a loose narrative that runs through all of it and climaxing in Jesus.The various holy books aren't always conflicting. Yes there are always parts that will conflict, however as I posted earlier to Percy the Golden Rule is common to all of them.Bottom line is is that I believe that the Bible is the book that best represents God and His desires for our lives, but I also have no problem with the idea that He can speak to the members of other faiths through their holy books as well. Most of those myths existed well before the time of Jesus and weren't part of the Jewish culture. The Jesus story is a Jewish story and has to be understood within its Jewish context. They knew that as well as we do but they still vehemently claim that it happened, although not in a body that was subject to the entropy of this world but in a transformed body that seemed to move freely between God's universe and our own. Well, not really. You have given an explanation as to why you reject the authenticity of the historical resurrection of Jesus. However, that is still your subjective conclusion. We are still left with the objective knowledge that the NT accounts exist and claim that Jesus was resurrected.

That's pretty silly. Obviously A i W was written to be read as fiction. It is just as obvious that the NT wasn't.

I would agree with all that except for one thing. It all hinges on whether or not the resurrection is an historical event. If it is trying to convey a truth through mythology or metaphor then I agree that you are correct. If however the physical resurrection of Jesus into a renewed physical form of life is historical, then that changes everything. My firmly held belief is that the resurrection is historical.

Quite possibly, but that doesn't tell us anything about the truth or falsehood of either belief, or for that matter, what truth is common to both faiths. I would dispute the idea that there weren't people who studied the Scripture 300 years ago that couldn't have held my views but it isn't worth the time to argue about it. Actually my views that you call liberal are pretty middle of the road in Anglicanism. The Christian writers who have had the greatest influence on my thinking are all Anglican, (all Church of England for that matter). They are C S Lewis as a Christian philosopher, N T Wright as a New Testament scholar and John Polkinghorne as a scientist/theologian.If you really want liberal read some of jar's posts. Certainly we are influenced by our cultures, but that doesn't mean that our conclusions are false. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by special. I suppose as we are all "I" then we consider are selves special. Personally I think that all of creatures are created by God and are special in their own right. I'm certainly no more special than an atheistic Brit.

That is not a coherent thought. Fiction is quite differnt than allegory or delusion. Fiction is understood as a story to be read primarily for entertainment although there often is an underlying message, but it is not historical. An allegory, like a Biblical parable, is a story that is truthful but not in a historical sense but that it represents a literal truth. A delusion is is meant to be understood as truthful but where the author was duped. Of course it could also just be a lie.The Gospels, as pointed out specifically by both Luke and John, were written to be accepted as truthful. That of course isn't evidence that they are historically accurate, but it is evidence that they were not written as fiction, but were written to convey an account of events, that were intended to be understood as historically accurate.

Dawkins came up with the FSM simply to ridicule religious belief. Even those who use the term recognize that there are no FSMians around but that there are millions of Christians.I'd keep in mind that ridicule is not a convincing way to debate, and if anything demonstrates the lack of a cohesive argument for their position.

No. One could be 100% correct and the other 100% wrong, they could both be partly correct and they could both overlap which in fact they do. That is your subjective belief. I've had maintained all along that our understanding of deity in general is a progressive revelation. As we interact with our neighbours either locally, in other cultures and religions or even here at EvC we gain understanding of our humanness which leads us to a closer understanding of God.I believe that there is a modern reformation in the Christian church that is largely caused by going back into the world of Jesus and understanding Him from His historical context as fully man. The church has rejected that line of thinking for centuries I think partly because the church was afraid of it. In the end, you can't go wrong with the truth. Well for a start it should show that there is more to learn. I think in answered that in the last paragraph. I have addressed this a number of times. I agree that as Christians it is the biggest problem we face. Those like Faith and ICANT address it easily, as there is no contradiction between suffering and a God that is prepared to command genocide. It is a much bigger issue for Christians like myself.Yes, I have to rationalize suffering. I can partially answer it by the usual concept that we can not choose to have hearts that love, if we can't also have hearts that are all about the self. That explains suffering brought about by humans rejecting God's inner voice that calls us to follow the Golden Rule.There is also the issue of creatures eating other creatures, suffering from natural disasters etc. (BTW, I do believe that as Christians we should be vegetarians but unfortunately that isn't happening in my life. )The best I can do is this. Linear time for whatever reason has as a component;
entropy. The result of an entropic world is that natural disasters occur. God does though provide mankind with the motivation and the ability to mitigate the problems of those in distress from natural disasters.As far as creatures eating creatures is concerned I have no answer except that ultimately the Bible says that the wolf will lay down with the lamb. Also as I said earlier I do believe that ultimately there will be perfect justice in a renewed creation. By faith I accept that things are the way they are because this is how it has to be. I realize that this isn't enough for you but I would like to add this.Your rejection of a deity because of the suffering that exists in the world is more of a Christ like position than those who are prepared to accept a genocidal deity. I have to assume that as an atheist you also take the Christ like position of doing what you can to alleviate suffering.Edited by GDR, : missed a word

There are a lot of us religio-nutcases gone wacko out there. Be very careful - we are watching you.