Hey DAC

[The Terrible Sweal]

I was hoping you'd reply to this, my earlier reply to you...

(DAC @ Jun 30 2004, 03:38 PM)

... The secularist as much as the religious person has beliefs which underlie his thinking. Both secularists and religious people can be utterly irrational. And both can also be very rational.

The difference between them does not lie in the way they reason, but in their presuppositions.

Let me illustrate with the two views of origins (I realize there are many variations on the theme, but I'll use the two most common).

Christians and those of other major religions believe that God (whichever God they serve) created the universe, and gave it certain rules by which it operates. Modern science rose in the West, largely because Christians believed it was a good thing to examine [1] the orderly world God made and try to understand it. Many of the best scientific "reasoners" in our history, right up to the present day, have been fervent Christians. [2]

Secularists believe that the universe began with a primordial atom, which then exploded (the big bang). [3 & 4] They have no idea where that atom came from, or why it exploded ... ...have no evidence to say that the formation of life was not guided by intelligence (God). It’s a blind faith assumption. [5] ...

Tell me what is more rational about the secularist approach than the religious approach. [6] My Christian understanding does not have an irrational beginning, an irrational orderliness, nor an irrational origin of life. [7] Nor for that matter am I irrational in deciding to believe in God. He has given ample evidence to make that decision completely reasonable. [8] He’s also explained why so many people do not want to consider that evidence. [9] So what is more rational about secularism?

Well, you started strong, but came up short, I'm afraid. As you see, I have inserted some markers to refer to my comments in reply...

1. Indeed, it was people who were Christian who did this, but you can hardly claim it was because of Chrisitanity that they did so. Usually it was opposed to Christianity's organized face that any progress was acheived.

2. It's obvious that people who profess Christianity (and other faiths) can and do reason. However, the do not reason (by my definition), through, by, or about religion. Religion requires specifically the suspension of disbelief in a dogma structure. I.e. the suspension of reasoning. To the extent that one exercises true reason in relation to the dogma structure of one's religion, one is failing to be religious.

3. Your harangue against 'secularists' seems to miss the point you were responding to. In fact, I was actually distinguishing 'secularism' from the belief system of science which you criticise. Secularism is a policy choice resulting from the adoption of reason as the prefered meaning-making system for society. Reason is preferable because it invokes objective principles rather than those based on the more or less arbitrary preferences of religious partisans. Accordingly, your long list of complaint about the belief system of science is not really on target of the explanation of 'secularism' I was making.

4. Notwithstanding 3, I do also argue that reason is more useful than religion for making choices, and that religion and reason are essentially incompatible, and in consequence that a reasonable state cannot admit religious imperatives into its decisionmaking and execution processes.

5. Much of what you wrote in this passage is incorrect. Science is very much based on evidence and most of the items you attacked are in fact supported by substantial amounts of evidence. Are the assumptions correct? Is the information sufficient to support their conclusions completely? Science itself answers: "We don't know." And that is what makes it more reliable and useful than religion. Contrary to you assertion, it is not 'blind faith', it is blind groping.

6. To be specific, the religious method goes at the world with an Answer, the rational method goes at the world with a Question.

7. Well, it's difficult to address this point, because of course I have no specific idea what you mean by 'your Christianty'. But look, even if it is granted that the existence of order is evidence of a designer, you need to go a lot further than that to support the dogma structure of Christianity. How, exactly, does Christ's death atone for the sins of someone else? What are the mechanisms and/or moral criteria that make that possible? I don't mean to be offensive, but the central story of your religion lacks explicative content, and so you fill the gaps with Belief. But belief is not reason; it is the opposite.

8. In my opinion you have asserted evidence which doesn't exist -- what evidence has 'he' provided that you invoke?

9. Which IS very convenient.

I'm interested in your reactions.

[DAC]

I'm glad you opened this thread, because I had missed that reply of yours in the other thread. My excuse, Last week was terribly busy, and I've been trying to catch up on all the threads I'm interested in - & I just missed. it.

I can't take the time right now to respond well, but I will as soon as I can.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I look forward to it at your convenience.

[DAC]

1.

Modern science rose in the West, largely because Christians believed it was a good thing to examine the orderly world God made and try to understand it.

Indeed, it was people who were Christian who did this, but you can hardly claim it was because of Chrisitanity that they did so. Usually it was opposed to Christianity's organized face that any progress was achieved.

Why can I hardly claim that is was because of Christianity? Let me paint a picture in broad strokes. Eastern religion tends to say the material world is an illusion, not something to be studied. General polytheistic paganism has no base for assuming the world is orderly. Many gods lead to conflict, contradiction, a measure of chaos, even if one happens to be stronger than the rest. Christianity, Islam to a lesser degree (Islam can be seen as a Judeo-Christian heresy; undeniably it shares some of the same roots) and Judaism affirm that this world is a meaningful place, not part of the divine. It was that valuing of this world, without making it divine & so too holy to study, which moved Christians to science. Furthermore, biblical teaching led them to embrace logic. The Bible declares that God does not contradict himself; which establishes the basic principle of logic.

Nor is it true that scientific advance was usually opposed by the organized church. No question that it sometimes was, by some parts of the church, but not normally.

2.

Many of the best scientific "reasoners" in our history, right up to the present day, have been fervent Christians.

Response: It's obvious that people who profess Christianity (and other faiths) can and do reason. However, the do not reason (by my definition), through, by, or about religion. Religion requires specifically the suspension of disbelief in a dogma structure. I.e. the suspension of reasoning. To the extent that one exercises true reason in relation to the dogma structure of one's religion, one is failing to be religious.

If I am bound by your definition, there is no argument. But I reject your definition. Roman Catholic doctrine requires “implicit faith”, acceptance of the dogma without question. My church confesses that the call for such implicit faith is sin. “the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 20:2. That may mean that my your definition, my Christianity is not religion, but I reject implicit faith in your views, too!

People in my tradition do not reject reason. In fact we believe that rejection of God is actually an irrational rejection of truth that is visible. The Bible tells us that those who fail to see in the creation sufficient evidence of his eternal power and Godhead “suppress the truth” (Romans 1:18-22).

I do not deny that there are Christians who throw out reason and think they are doing well. Far too many take that route. But in my opinion they are being unfaithful to some of the teaching of the Bible.

Your point 4 depends on the same faulty limitation of religion to irrationality.

3. I’m not sure I understand your distinction of secularism from atheistic science. Generally secularism is seen as rejection of any religious explanations, including such things as origins. That’s why I highlighted some problems in them, pointing out that secularism is not free from blind faith. However, if your use of the word is different, perhaps you could explain it more for me.

5.

most of the items you attacked are in fact supported by substantial amounts of evidence

I question that. What is the evidence that the primordial atom originated in some “secular” way? The common views of the development of the universe extrapolate back to such an “atom”. There is some data which appears to be direct evidence of the first seconds of the big bang. But what evidence tells you that there is a naturalistic explanation of the origins of this atom? What is the evidence that life formed by accident? And developed by accident? There is evidence that it formed. There is evidence (though there are a lot of problems with that evidence) that it developed. But where is the evidence that this happened in a naturalistic way (i.e. without a designer)? Those are the questions I asked.

I have no inherent problem with the big bang. I have no grave problem with the idea of life as we know it forming in a developmental process. But my reason bucks hard at the idea that these things happened naturalistically, accidentally. Believing that is worse than buying a lottery ticket and believing I’ll win. At least there is some meaningful chance of winning the lottery, though I’m far too good a mathematician to waste my money seeking it.

I’ll stop with that, and comment on your last points another time. If I don’t crawl into bed I won’t get my work done tomorrow, and there’s a lot waiting for me.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Why can I hardly claim that is was because of Christianity? Let me paint a picture in broad strokes. Eastern religion tends to say the material world is an illusion, not something to be studied. General polytheistic paganism has no base for assuming the world is orderly. Many gods lead to conflict, contradiction, a measure of chaos, even if one happens to be stronger than the rest. Christianity, Islam to a lesser degree (Islam can be seen as a Judeo-Christian heresy; undeniably it shares some of the same roots) and Judaism affirm that this world is a meaningful place, not part of the divine. It was that valuing of this world, without making it divine & so too holy to study, which moved Christians to science. Furthermore, biblical teaching led them to embrace logic. The Bible declares that God does not contradict himself; which establishes the basic principle of logic.

But that's mere opinionating. And again your argument proceeds from an irrelvant negative: The deficiencies of eastern religion are not in dispute here.

If I am bound by your definition, there is no argument. But I reject your definition. Roman Catholic doctrine requires “implicit faith”, acceptance of the dogma without question. My church confesses that the call for such implicit faith is sin. “the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 20:2. That may mean that my your definition, my Christianity is not religion, but I reject implicit faith in your views, too!

Well, you define reason as whatever you interpret to be god's will. I define reason as the discerning faculty operating in accordance with the laws of causation and relevance (logic). Let us then talk about the relative merits of Reason(DAC) and Reason(Sweal). I take it from your reference that you are, correct me if I'm wrong, Anglican (if I may call it that) -- a denomination which I do grant you gives substantial ambit and importance to reason. However, you're next comment throws that all out the window...

People in my tradition do not reject reason. In fact we believe that rejection of God is actually an irrational rejection of truth that is visible.

I'm sorry, but that is a meaningless statement, built around fallacy. You believe that the rejection of God is irrational, therefore you do not reject reason. Nonsense.

The Bible tells us that those who fail to see in the creation sufficient evidence of his eternal power and Godhead “suppress the truth” (Romans 1:18-22).

Well, that's just ... just ... whatever. The Bible says the Bible is true. That may hold up under Reason(DAC), but under Reason(Sweal) it doesn't. Appeal to authority (especially one's own) is not a valid argument.

I do not deny that there are Christians who throw out reason and think they are doing well. Far too many take that route. But in my opinion they are being unfaithful to some of the teaching of the Bible.

But that's just it, don't you see. They would say YOU are being unfaithful to it. And who then is to judge? By what criteria?

3. I’m not sure I understand your distinction of secularism from atheistic science. Generally secularism is seen as rejection of any religious explanations, including such things as origins. That’s why I highlighted some problems in them, pointing out that secularism is not free from blind faith. However, if your use of the word is different, perhaps you could explain it more for me.

My original post was a meandiring swipe at expressing the idea that the adoption of secularism by states is not because there is a free standing 'secularist' philosophy or agenda at work. 'Secularism' in this sense is not a plan, but a result of the need for a common meaning-making system that doesn't rely on archaic arbitrary superstitions.

What is the evidence that the primordial atom riginated in some “secular” way?

The evidence for that is the accumulated knowlegde of astrophysics and quantum mechanics, incomplete, possibly wrong, always to be amended when better information comes into play.

The common views of the development of the universe extrapolate back to such an “atom”. There is some data which appears to be direct evidence of the first seconds of the big bang. But what evidence tells you that there is a naturalistic explanation of the origins of this atom?

In addition to the accumulated knowledge of astrophysics and quantum mechanics? Well, there's the statistically accumulating fact that most other phenomena have a naturalistic explanation, so likely the universe does too. Plus while explanations of 'design' vs. 'emegence' are at least equally untestable the later at least has parsimony in its favor.

Here in fact, we come to another serious difficulty with your position which you have yet to satisfactorily address ... if you challenge science on the basis that something cannot proceed from nothing, how do you meet that same charge from you side of the fence? If God can come from nothing, why couldn't the universe come from nothing?

What is the evidence that life formed by accident? And developed by accident? There is evidence that it formed. There is evidence (though there are a lot of problems with that evidence) that it developed. But where is the evidence that this happened in a naturalistic way (i.e. without a designer)? Those are the questions I asked.

Begin with the accumulated knowledged of geology, biology, botany and paleontology. Then add the fact that we can observe the process of evolution in lower animals during the length of a human lifetime -- living proof, if you will. Furthermore, other than intricate complexity, nature shows no signs of an intent of the kind typically attributed to God. If such an entity has a plan, why not get about it?

I have no inherent problem with the big bang. I have no grave problem with the idea of life as we know it forming in a developmental process. But my reason bucks hard at the idea that these things happened naturalistically, accidentally.

That's not your reason bucking. It's your sensibilities -- In proof of which, I point out that you have yet to offer any of the positive 'evidence' for your position which you have mentioned.

[DAC]

Response continued ...

6.

Tell me what is more rational about the secularist approach than the religious approach.

To be specific, the religious method goes at the world with an Answer, the rational method goes at the world with a Question.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. “The rational method” so called (you will remember that I deny that secularists have exclusive use of reason, or even as good use of it as serious Christians) does not begin with a blank slate, as you would like to believe. As you use the term, it begins at least with the assumption that there is no God. It usually makes the assumption that everything worth knowing can be found out by measurement, experimentation, observation of repeatable events. You did not start with nothing.

Please remember that I did not just ask a blank question. The question I asked pointed to particular problem points. To affirm that your secularist approach is more rational without answering those problems is just a blind faith statement.

7.

My Christian understanding does not have an irrational beginning, an irrational orderliness, nor an irrational origin of life.

Well, it's difficult to address this point, because of course I have no specific idea what you mean by 'your Christianty'.

If you have read what I wrote leading up to that statement, you should know enough about my Christianity to answer that question. It wasn’t a vague generality. It specifically addressed the existence of matter, the existence of life and the development of order from “random” events. In all three cases, our normal science and study runs against the secularist assumption that there is no god. If someone came to a science conference and proclaimed, “I just watched a lump of sterile dirt produce bacteria”, the response would be “Get lost. Everybody knows life comes from life. You could not have maintained sterile conditions.” But rather than admit to God, the secular scientist says that somewhere back when that’s what happened. Blind faith. That is NOT rational.

From a Christian viewpoint, you can argue the details, but the origin of matter makes sense, the origin of life makes sense and the existence of order makes sense. A God of all power arranged it all. Please keep in mind what I am saying. I am not at this point presenting evidence for my God’s existence. I am simply saying that my “theory” is more consistent and therefore more rational than yours.

But look, even if it is granted that the existence of order is evidence of a designer, you need to go a lot further than that to support the dogma structure of Christianity. How, exactly, does Christ's death atone for the sins of someone else? What are the mechanisms and/or moral criteria that make that possible? I don't mean to be offensive, but the central story of your religion lacks explicative content, and so you fill the gaps with Belief. But belief is not reason; it is the opposite.

Of course I need to go a lot farther. But I have not seen much point in doing that while you keep on making dogmatic statements about my views and the Bible’s teaching without even knowing them. You tell me the central story of my religion lacks explicative content, and so I fill the gaps with Belief. But four sentences earlier you affirmed that you have no specific idea what I mean about my Christianity. I think that is just a little irrational! If you don’t know my beliefs, how can you assert so boldly that they lack “explicative content”?

I suspect the administrator of this site would tell us that a detailed lesson in Christian theology, as such, is not appropriate, unless it applies specifically to politics as well, but if I’m wrong, I’ll be glad to lay out the logical structure and to try to answer any questions you raise about it. If I’m right, I’d also be glad to do the same with you directly, rather than on this site.

8.

In my opinion you have asserted evidence which doesn't exist -- what evidence has 'he' provided that you invoke?

The fundamental evidence is Jesus Christ.

But we have to start with the Bible. The Bible is the most studied, most criticized, best attested ancient writing we have.

Start with its attestation. We have literally thousands of manuscripts and scraps of manuscripts of the Bible, with old testament portions dating back to before the time of Christ, and new testament portions going back to the life time of those who knew the apostles. Some think some of them were even earlier than that. There is no other ancient writing (other than those scraps appearing on carved stone) which exists in more than a handful of copies dated hundreds or even thousands of years after its purported origin. There are many variations in those copies, but almost all of them are meaningless. They are things such as a phrase being repeated twice, or a synonym being set down for a word, or a misspelling. One of most extreme critics of the Bible, a century ago, admitted that there was not 1 word in a thousand in the new testament which was in doubt, and less in the old testament. He also admitted that the most extreme differences were not enough to change any Christian belief. There is no reasonable doubt that the Bible text we hold today is for all practical purposes that which existed in the time of Christ or was produced in the time of the apostles. If you want to pursue this, I’ll be glad to give you references to books dealing with this issue.

Christians have been known through the centuries as people of the Book. Believing that God has given us this book, we’ve studied it with care. Opponents have also studied it, and sought to discredit it. In the last several centuries, especially, many archaeologists have sought to discredit the accuracy of the Bible. One of the great middle eastern archaeologists of the last century was Sir William Ramsey. He went out to the middle east as a young man with the intent of proving the Bible was inaccurate. As he compared the Bible to his archaeological discoveries, he was forced to change his mind. He became a Christian. He claimed, for one example, that Luke proved to be so careful a historian that he gave the proper technical name for the Roman ruler in each place mentioned in the book of Acts.

Ramsey was not alone in this. There have been hundreds of alleged discrepancies between the Bible and archaeological claims over the years. I’ll mention one example because it happened to come into my own special area of study. In the late 1900s a book was written declaring that the Bible history was imaginary, because it spoke about a widely known people called the Hittites. Archaeology could find nothing of the Hittites. At the time the book was published, the first dig discovering Hittite remnants was being made. Today, Hittite treaty forms are a central element in understanding the old testament covenants (which by the way are a critical part of the answer to your question about how Christ’s death could atone for sin).

There have been hundreds of alleged discrepancies, and one by one they have toppled. There are new ones all the time. I recently read one archaeologist who claimed that King David never existed. But they fail and fail and fail ... after a time, with further investigation.

What does all this prove? It demonstrates that the Bible is as reliable a historical source as we can hope to have at least for the time of Christ and some time before.

Having seen this, we look to what it says about Jesus Christ. It makes one remarkable claim, which is critical to a rational understanding. The clear biblical record is that Jesus told the people of his day that he was God. He said it several times in different ways. The Jewish people understood it clearly, and responded by trying to kill him for blasphemy. That claim shapes the way a person can look at Jesus.

Most people today outside the Christian church either deny Jesus existed or think he was a wonderful teacher or prophet (the Muslims hold the latter). The claim that he did not exist is not credible. The claim that he was only a wonderful teacher or prophet is also not credible, given that he claimed to be God. The Muslims of course believe that the Bible was corrupted - and ignore the manuscript evidence that they are wrong. But a great teacher or prophet does not claim to be God. The person who does this is either insane, or evil (seeking to lead people astray at the most critical point), or speaking the truth. I doubt that anybody can honestly read the gospels and say that Jesus was evil or insane. That leaves the option that he was telling the truth.

He gave us a test. He said the final and ultimate test would be that he would die, crucified, and rise from the dead the third day. And he did. Of course this is much disputed too. If you want to dispute it, I can do no better than suggest you read a small book, Who moved the stone, by Frank Morison. The first chapter, entitled the book that couldn’t be written, or something like that, tells how as a keen young lawyer he decided to write a definitive study of the world’s most famous trial, and in so doing prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead. He prepared, and by the time he came to write had concluded that no reasonable being could look at the evidence and deny that Jesus rose from the dead. I agree.

The resurrection of Christ testifies that his claim to be God was true. That takes us into a different territory. Now we look at the Bible as it is described by Jesus, and he says it is not just good history, but it is God’s book. He tells us that everything it says is true (that’s not everything people may try to read out of it).

Please note that this is a summary statement of the evidence. It draws it together in brief. If you want to challenge it, then we would have to go through all the manuscript studies, or all the archaeological studies, or all the things said in the Bible about Jesus, depending what parts you want to challenge. The point I want you to see, aside from the broad argument, is that I am going on evidence when I put my trust in Jesus Christ. It is not blind faith, but reasonable faith, faith in someone who has given me abundant reason to believe in him.

9

He’s also explained why so many people do not want to consider that evidence.

Which IS very convenient.

Yes it is, because otherwise I would go up the wall trying to figure out why people can so blindly believe something someone who knows nothing about the Bible has told them, while refusing to listen to answers to those false statements. I’ve had people tell me confidently the Bible can’t be believed because of what it says about Lilith – who appears nowhere in the Bible. They question everything that may be said in the Bible and in favour of the Bible, but accept any stupid criticism as attested fact.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Thank you for taking the time to respond in such depth.

6. First, I never said the rational method begins with a 'clean slate'. If you cannot capture my comments correctly, please avoid attempting to characterize them at all.

Second, 'as I use the term', reason does not begin with any assumption about the existence or non-existsnce of God.

You asked what is more rational about the secularist rather than the religious approach. My response indicated that the 'secular' approach is more rational because it does not presume the certainty that religion presumes. Unfortunately your response has not addressed that point.

7. Christianity is not monolithic. Excuse the heck out of me for not intuiting what your particular flavor of it implies. The point we were discussing was your claim that your understanding of the origin of life is not irrational. Nothing you have said so far supports that, however. You believe that 'God' got the ball rolling. OK, stop trying to knock science and explain what actual valid evidence supports that idea? Unless something does, you must admit that it is at least as irrational as the scientific answers you so despise.

As to whether the central story of you religion lacks explicative content, please don't waste my time with prevarications. Do you or do you not believe more or less that 'Christ died so that the sins of the world might be forgiven'? If your answer is that you do, then please tell me ... HOW did Christ's death accomplish this?

8. When you say something like 'the fundamental evidence is Jesus Christ', you:

-make an utterance which has no meaningful content; and

-appeal to the authority of your faith to support the authority of your faith.

It is worthless as argument or for further discussion. HOW is Jesus evidence? Evidence of what?

As for the Bible, the features you cite on its behalf (venerability, most studied, etc.) don't go anywhere logically. You add appeals to the authority of the mob to appeals to the authority of the Book. Once again -- appeal to authority is not a valid argument.

Moreover, we know that the Bible is not the unaltered word of 'God' unless you are asserting a meaning of God's will that includes every human action. (Which leads you to different philosophical problems.) Inasmuch as the Bible was created at least in part by the work of humans, then surely it is fallible in the same way as humans.

9. See my earlier comments about appeals to authority. When you have learned the essential elements of rational debate, it may be worthwhile hearing more from you on these matters. Until then I doubt that further exchange will be particularly fruitful.

[DAC]

I’m afraid you are just what your name says, terrible.

The point we were discussing was your claim that your understanding of the origin of life is not irrational. 

Actually, the point we were discussing was your claim that secularism is more rational than religion, and my response that secularism has to make a blind faith claim at the same fundamental points that it complains of religion doing this. Further, my argument has been that secularism’s blind faith claim goes against the normal views of the “rational” science to which it holds, where religion’s claim fits with its normal views. Look at the earlier thread if you have forgotten this.

As to whether the central story of you religion lacks explicative content, please don't waste my time with prevarications. Do you or do you not believe more or less that 'Christ died so that the sins of the world might be forgiven'? If your answer is that you do, then please tell me ... HOW did Christ's death accomplish this?

I’ll stick my neck out and hope the site administrator doesn’t scream at departure from the general theme of politics.

Bear in mind, the authority for this is the authority for my beliefs, the Bible. While you may not like it, it is the base for my religious views. I am giving a very summary statement, a doctrinal structure, which in this form cannot be easily demonstrated by single texts. If you want the whole pattern, with support, I can probably send you a study on the topic which you can check against the Bible.

The Bible tells us that God assigns guilt to us for sin on the basis of a covenant made with the first man, Adam. Adam was a federal representative for all his people. The word “federal” comes from the Latin “foedus” which means covenant. As Canadians, with a federal government, we are in good state to understand what that means. Adam represented us in much the same way the PM or perhaps better, the Governor General represents us. The PM or GG is our federal head or representative. When a law is signed by the GG, it is binding on all of us. He or she officially acts for the whole country. If a treaty is signed, such as the much debated NAFTA, we all share the benefits or costs. It’s our treaty, whether or not we like it.

God appointed Adam as the federal head of all mankind, and made a covenant (read contract or treaty) with him, requiring perfect obedience on condition of death, and offering unending life if that obedience was given. Though we tend to look at it from the side of disobedience and complain, it was a gracious gift to us, offering us life to which we had no claim for obedience which we owed our maker anyway.

God also appointed his Son as a surety or guarantor for Adam. The Son agreed that if Adam failed, he would stand in Adam’s place to give the perfect obedience which Adam & his descendants owed, and to pay the penalty of the covenant on their behalf.

Adam failed. Fast forward through human history as God gradually set out in writing and taught his people more and more of his plan and the way of life we should live. At the proper time, God the Son took on our human flesh, to fulfil his commitment on our behalf. As true man he gave the obedience we owe, for us (being God as well, he was not indebted on his own behalf). As true man he died for us. Because he is also God, his death was of such weight that he could in one blow pay completely for all the sins of all who would follow him.

Illustration of that last point. Jack owes a $10 debt at 5% interest ($.50 per year). He only has pennies to work with & can only pay one coin a year - so the debt can never be paid. Joe would like to help, but he has the same limits. Jesus, however, can pay with a $20 gold coin, in one payment.

Now note. You may not like the arrangement. But it is clear, consistent, and explains exactly how Jesus can pay for our sins. He can pay because he is our covenant representative in the covenant under which those sins are condemned.

I hope you will withdraw the prevarication insult.

8. When you say something like 'the fundamental evidence is Jesus Christ', you:

-make an utterance which has no meaningful content; and

-appeal to the authority of your faith to support the authority of your faith.

Not true. What I did was introduce a theme, showing where I was going. Then I set down step by step the evidence. If you actually read what I wrote, you would have seen that my conclusion was that given evidence that Jesus is God, his statements then become absolute authorities on which we can rest.

As for the Bible, the features you cite on its behalf (venerability, most studied, etc.) don't go anywhere logically. You add appeals to the authority of the mob to appeals to the authority of the Book.

Where is there an appeal to the mob in anything I wrote? Or even to the authority of the book, without first showing that there were grounds for granting its authority?

I presented evidence that what we have now is for all practical purposes the same as the original new testament and the old testament as it was held in Jesus’ time (which Jesus accepted). You choose to bypass that with a scream of mistaken complaint against something I didn’t do. I presented evidence that it is as reliable as any history book - more than most. I then looked at the history of Jesus it gives, and showed that it leaves you three choices. Perhaps you wish to claim that Jesus was insane or a wicked deceiver. Have fun supporting that! The only real choice is that he is God, as he claimed. Given that conclusion, we can go a lot further.

Moreover, we know that the Bible is not the unaltered word of 'God' .... Inasmuch as the Bible was created at least in part by the work of humans, then surely it is fallible in the same way as humans.

That is a blind faith assumption if I ever heard one. There is no rational reason to assume that an all powerful God could not arrange things so that the people he chose to write his word accomplished exactly what he wanted. That’s what the Bible says he did.

When you have learned the essential elements of rational debate, it may be worthwhile hearing more from you on these matters. Until then I doubt that further exchange will be particularly fruitful.

Your definition of rational debate is rather strange. I present arguments and use some logic. You just cry out, “irrational”, and say I’m wrong. Oh, you do say that I’m appealing to authority, where, if you had read what I wrote you would see that I am not, or at least not to the authorities you think I am. I have appealed to the authority of evidence and people who have studied that evidence.

Bottom line.

Secularists cannot explain the existence of anything without taking a blind step of faith beyond their science.

Secularists have no explanation of the existence of order

Secularists cannot explain the existence of life.

Christians have a consistent and sufficient explanation of all of these things and more. Included in that more, Christians have a reasonable explanation of the corruption in government with which we all struggle, and of the differences in our views of how we should govern ourselves (just to return to the broad topic).

[The Terrible Sweal]

The point we were discussing was your claim that your understanding of the origin of life is not irrational. 

Actually, the point we were discussing was your claim that secularism is more rational than religion, and my response that secularism has to make a blind faith claim at the same fundamental points that it complains of religion doing this.

Regarding the particular portion of our discussion involved, I believe you are mistaken abou the point and suggest you re-read, if it really matters.

Further, my argument has been that secularism’s blind faith claim goes against the normal views of the “rational” science to which it holds, where religion’s claim fits with its normal views. Look at the earlier thread if you have forgotten this.

I am well aware that is your argument. I have addressed your argument to the satisfaction of any sane neutral observer. Science does not rely on 'blind faith' no matter how often you may say so. Science doesn't know how where the universe came from. That is not blind faith, that is an admission of ignorance. Recite all you wish, it isn't 'blind faith'.

Furthermore, you persist in ignoring the point that deficiencies of scientific knowledge provide no support for the posits of religion.

... Do you or do you not believe more or less that 'Christ died so that the sins of the world might be forgiven'? If your answer is that you do, then please tell me ... HOW did Christ's death accomplish this?

... the authority for this is the authority for my beliefs, the Bible. While you may not like it, it is the base for my religious views.

...

The Bible tells us that God assigns guilt to us for sin on the basis of a covenant made with the first man, ...Adam represented us in much the same way the PM or perhaps better, the Governor General represents us. ...binding on all of us. ...we all share the benefits or costs. It’s our treaty, whether or not we like it.

God appointed Adam as the federal head of all mankind, and made a covenant ... requiring perfect obedience on condition of death, ...

God also appointed his Son as a surety ... The Son agreed that if Adam failed, he would stand in Adam’s place ...

Adam failed. ...God the Son took on our human flesh, to fulfil his commitment on our behalf. As true man he gave the obedience we owe, for us (being God as well, he was not indebted on his own behalf). As true man he died for us. Because he is also God, his death was of such weight that he could in one blow pay completely for all the sins of all who would follow him.

...Now note. You may not like the arrangement. But it is clear, consistent, and explains exactly how Jesus can pay for our sins. He can pay because he is our covenant representative in the covenant under which those sins are condemned.

Thank you again for taking the time to delineate your views in such detail. This has indeed taken us away from the forum's political focus. Nevertheless, acknowledging your preface to this passage, I would nevertheless comment as follows:

You have provided a certain amount of explicative content around Jesus role as saviour, but from whence does it come? Who extruded this extensive legalistic relationship from the simplicity of the Bible? What is their authority for these claims?

From an ethical point of view, I must say I don't find the structure presented to be proper, praiseworthy or sensible. And it makes even less sense if you posit an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. What gives God the authority to appoint Adam to represent us? What ethical basis is their to punish us for the deeds of a representative we did not select, or indeed for the deeds of a representative at all. God says we are 'federated' to Adam-the-God-Made-Loser, so forever more we must be? A Being that would impose such a system wouldn't be worship-worthy.

I hope you will withdraw the prevarication insult.

I hoped it would be taken as a provocation rather than an outright insult, but certainly, consider it withdrawn.

If you actually read what I wrote, you would have seen that my conclusion was that given evidence that Jesus is God, his statements then become absolute authorities on which we can rest.

Oh, I read it. And I found it to be utter, unadorned nonsense, just like that. I'm sorry, but whenever you resort to the 'Whatever I say the Bible says is True' routine you are no longer in the mode of a meaningful exchange.

As for the Bible, the features you cite on its behalf (venerability, most studied, etc.) don't go anywhere logically. You add appeals to the authority of the mob to appeals to the authority of the Book.

Where is there an appeal to the mob in anything I wrote? Or even to the authority of the book, without first showing that there were grounds for granting its authority?

'Mob' was my shorthand for everyone who you cited as authorities. I'll defend that usage if you really challenge it. As to the latter, everywhere you mention the Bible you appeal to its authority without showing grounds for granting it.

I presented evidence that what we have now is for all practical purposes the same as the original new testament and the old testament as it was held in Jesus’ time (which Jesus accepted).

I'm sorry, but I don't recall such evidence. Last I heard, the New Testament was not recorded until well after Jesus left.

Perhaps you wish to claim that Jesus was insane or a wicked deceiver.

No, certainly not. That would be Paul (and a conga line of frauds after him).

The only real choice is that he is God, as he claimed. Given that conclusion, we can go a lot further.

There are other choices. One is to dispute the authority of the Gospels. I really do think I've read what you've written, and I really don't recall you proving they record anything with certainty.

Moreover, we know that the Bible is not the unaltered word of 'God' .... Inasmuch as the Bible was created at least in part by the work of humans, then surely it is fallible in the same way as humans.

That is a blind faith assumption if I ever heard one.

Certainly not blind faith. I'm open to your disputing it. Which part ... that humans were involved in the creation of the Bible or that humans are fallible?

There is no rational reason to assume that an all powerful God could not arrange things so that the people he chose to write his word accomplished exactly what he wanted. That’s what the Bible says he did.

I love it. How would the Bible know???

But seriously, this is the same 'all-powerful' deity that demands covenants with people who don't exist and enforces them thru bloody psychodramas rather than simply snap it's celestial fingers? Sorry. I just can't get over the inherent implausibility of these doctrines.

...Bottom line.

Secularists cannot explain the existence of anything without taking a blind step of faith beyond their science.

I don't know who you mean by 'secularists'. But even if true, that puts them equal with religion on this level.

Christians have a consistent and sufficient explanation of all of these things and more. 

Again, we see you reciting rather than discussing. You fault science for attempting to explain how something can come of nothing, but you don't hold religion to the same standard. Where did 'God' spring from?

How is a self-creating God more logical than a self-creating universe?

Even if science hasn't got an answer, why should we accept the answers of religion?

Which religion and why?

[DAC]

Further, my argument has been that secularism’s blind faith claim goes against the normal views of the “rational” science to which it holds, where religion’s claim fits with its normal views. Look at the earlier thread if you have forgotten this.

I am well aware that is your argument. I have addressed your argument to the satisfaction of any sane neutral observer. Science does not rely on 'blind faith' no matter how often you may say so. Science doesn't know how where the universe came from. That is not blind faith, that is an admission of ignorance. Recite all you wish, it isn't 'blind faith'.

Rationality requires you to argue the issue. What I said was specific, that secularism (scepticism about religion according to my dictionary) goes on blind faith about origins. The secular view that this universe came into being by completely natural means runs against the best theories of modern science. As you said, “Science doesn't know how where the universe came from”. That makes the assumption that it did not come from God a matter of blind faith. You may not like that, but it remains true.

Furthermore, you persist in ignoring the point that deficiencies of scientific knowledge provide no support for the posits of religion.

On the contrary, I have repeatedly told you that I do not take the deficiencies of scientific knowledge as support for religious views. What I have said about those deficiencies is to show that anti-religious views are matters of faith, not reason. As your ongoing argument shows, I have offered other support for my religious views.

You have provided a certain amount of explicative content around Jesus role as saviour, but from whence does it come? Who extruded this extensive legalistic relationship from the simplicity of the Bible? What is their authority for these claims?

It comes from the Bible. While the essence of the Bible’s teaching is simple, you are the first person I have met who would call it a simple book. As I said, if you are serious about these questions, and are not just trying to make cheap points, I will gladly send you materials which will allow you to check in the Bible to see if what I have said in summary is in fact there. But be warned; it will take time and thought to follow it through. Unless you are serious about wanting to know whether this is from the Bible, it would be a waste of my time to put that material together for you. Later, when I write a book on the subject (I hope), I could just direct you to the book.

What gives God the authority to appoint Adam to represent us?

Romans 9:20 “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’”

If I’m right, we’re talking about the omnipotent creator of all things. He made us. We belong to him. The Bible in this context and elsewhere compares it to a potter shaping his clay to whatever he wants. To ask, “What gives God the authority ...” for anything, is irrational. With no disrespect intended for God, we might say that the whole ball of wax is his toy to do with as he wants.

I presented evidence that what we have now is for all practical purposes the same as the original new testament and the old testament as it was held in Jesus’ time (which Jesus accepted).

I'm sorry, but I don't recall such evidence. Last I heard, the New Testament was not recorded until well after Jesus left.

I keep making the mistake of thinking you will read what I write in a sensible way. Let me be more careful, more explicit. I presented evidence that what we have now is for all practical purposes the same as the original new testament as it was written in the time of the apostles (who were authorized as Jesus’ spokesmen) and the old testament as it was held in Jesus’ time (which Jesus himself accepted). The evidence is documentary, thousands upon thousands of manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts dating back as far as the time of those who knew the apostles, and possibly even to the apostles’ time.

There are other choices. One is to dispute the authority of the Gospels. I really do think I've read what you've written, and I really don't recall you proving they record anything with certainty.

You are free to dispute the authority of the gospels. Lots of people do, including people with far more knowledge of the reliability of the text and the content of it than you have shown. The problem, though, is that specific challenges keep running into refutations from archaeology, etc. Do you remember my mentioning that the Bible has been the most studied and most opposed book of all time? There have been untold numbers of attacks on its historical accuracy, and its consistency. Over the years they have been knocked down like tenpins.

It is easy to say the gospels are not reliable. The problem comes in producing evidence to support that claim. It’s easy to say they are not reliable, until you get down to the specifics. Then you run into problems. It’s easy to take it on blind faith that they are not reliable, trusting others who have told you this. But when you examine them with an open mind, it becomes much harder.

There is no question in the mind of anyone who has looked at the evidence that what we have today is essentially what was originally written. Today there is very little question left that the four gospels were written by the apostles or their close associates in the early days of the church. The biggest issue is whether John’s gospel was written, as traditionally held, about AD 90, or if it was actually written by about AD 60.

That doesn’t mean you have to believe they are reliable. You can presume, instead, that the four gospel writers conspired together to write four myths - which just happen to agree with one another. But then you have to assume that the whole early church joined the conspiracy - or at the least, all of those who had any direct contact with Jesus or with those who had such direct contact or who had any way of checking the reports. If you call that rational, be my guest.

But if you don’t take that route, then Jesus’ repeated assertions about who he is, clearly understood by the Jews who heard him, show that he believed he is God. That’s where the dilemma comes, however you try to dodge it.

Moreover, we know that the Bible is not the unaltered word of 'God' .... Inasmuch as the Bible was created at least in part by the work of humans, then surely it is fallible in the same way as humans. 

That is a blind faith assumption if I ever heard one.

Certainly not blind faith. I'm open to your disputing it. Which part ... that humans were involved in the creation of the Bible or that humans are fallible?

Quoting my first sentence and omitting the explanation is not exactly honest reporting, when you then ignore that explanation to assume I’m questioning something else. I already told you what I said it was a blind faith assumption. “There is no rational reason to assume that an all powerful God could not arrange things so that the people he chose to write his word accomplished exactly what he wanted. That's what the Bible says he did.” that does not deny that humans are fallible, nor that they were involved in writing the Bible. Rather it points to God’s ability to guard against human fallibility. Saying, as you did, that “we know that the Bible is not the unaltered word of 'God'” involves a blind assumption that God does not exist, or at least does not have all power.

Again, we see you reciting rather than discussing. You fault science for attempting to explain how something can come of nothing, but you don't hold religion to the same standard. Where did 'God' spring from?

How is a self-creating God more logical than a self-creating universe?

Science makes it clear that matter/energy as we know them cannot come from nothing. But God is not matter energy. We have no evidence to say that God cannot be eternal. Secularists, holding to the view that only the world of matter/energy is real (or that there is no god), have a built in contradiction. Believers in a god who is spirit, not matter or energy, do not. That means the religious view does not have the contradiction a secular view has, and so is more logical. That seems rather straight forward. Why do you have so much trouble seeing it?

Even if science hasn't got an answer, why should we accept the answers of religion?

Which religion and why?

I have not suggested you should just blindly accept the answers of religion. It’s more than obvious that not all religions can be right. I would not even suggest that every religious view is rational or even close to it.

As I said before, I believe the ultimate test is Jesus Christ. That is because he walked this world in historical times, AND claimed to be God. He’s not just a prophet or a teacher who might be mistaken. If his claim stands the test, then what he says is the ultimate authority. My invitation to you is to test by Jesus Christ. Study what the Bible says about him and compare it to reality. If Christ’s claim to be God is not supported - in particular, if he did not rise from the dead - then Christianity is wrong, and you should look elsewhere. But if, as I believe, he is the risen Lord and God, then he is the one you should follow. Since he himself said he is the only way of salvation and peace with God, all other religions are thereby excluded - as is secularism.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Further, my argument has been that secularism’s blind faith claim goes against the normal views of the “rational” science to which it holds, where religion’s claim fits with its normal views. Look at the earlier thread if you have forgotten this.

I am well aware that is your argument. I have addressed your argument to the satisfaction of any sane neutral observer. Science does not rely on 'blind faith' no matter how often you may say so. Science doesn't know how where the universe came from. That is not blind faith, that is an admission of ignorance. Recite all you wish, it isn't 'blind faith'.

Rationality requires you to argue the issue. What I said was specific, that secularism (scepticism about religion according to my dictionary) goes on blind faith about origins.

Say it as often as you like, it is not the case. 'Secularism' does not offer an explanation of origins. Science offers the most probable explanation that scientists can generate and admits that it may be wrong. For you to repetitiously call this 'blind faith' makes a mockery of the meaning of the words 'blind' and 'faith'.

The secular view that this universe came into being by completely natural means runs against the best theories of modern science. As you said, “Science doesn't know how where the universe came from”. That makes the assumption that it did not come from God a matter of blind faith. You may not like that, but it remains true.

There is NO "assumption" that the universe didn't come from "God". There is an assessment of the probabilities of the various possible explanations.

... I have repeatedly told you that I do not take the deficiencies of scientific knowledge as support for religious views.

I find it very peculiar that you can repeatedly tell me something and yet even when I review your posts I can find no evidence of such. Where did you repeatedly tell me that? In fact, I have been urging you repeatedly to offer some support for the validity of religion and you have repeatedly resorted to (faulty, hackneyed) criticism of science at each turn.

What I have said about those deficiencies is to show that anti-religious views are matters of faith, not reason.

Yes. Now how about doing what I've asked and offer support for the claims of religions OTHER THAN criticism of science? Do you somehow fail to understand my words??? You seem literate... how is this possible?

As your ongoing argument shows, I have offered other support for my religious views.

Then I have missed it. Where is it?

You have provided a certain amount of explicative content around Jesus role as saviour, but from whence does it come? Who extruded this extensive legalistic relationship from the simplicity of the Bible? What is their authority for these claims?

It comes from the Bible. While the essence of the Bible’s teaching is simple, you are the first person I have met who would call it a simple book.

Nowhere in the Bible is there any development of the notion of humanity bound through some "federation" with Adam as representative or any of the other legalistic drivel you expatiated. Cite the relevant verses if you can refute me.

As I said, if you are serious about these questions, and are not just trying to make cheap points, I will gladly send you materials which will allow you to check in the Bible to see if what I have said in summary is in fact there.  But be warned; it will take time and thought to follow it through. Unless you are serious about wanting to know whether this is from the Bible, it would be a waste of my time to put that material together for you.

What are you talking about??? It will be completely adequate for you to simply cite the numbers of the relevant verses. I have a Bible here, thanks.

What gives God the authority to appoint Adam to represent us?

Romans 9:20 “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’”

How on Earth do you get from there to God appointing Adam as my representative? I don't see any reference to Adam there.

See, this is exactly the problem with religion ... you're just making stuff up to suit yourself.

If I’m right, we’re talking about the omnipotent creator of all things. He made us. We belong to him.

Even if he made us, on what basis do you conclude we 'belong' to him? Do grown children 'belong' to their parents? No.

The Bible in this context and elsewhere compares it to a potter shaping his clay to whatever he wants. To ask, “What gives God the authority ...” for anything, is irrational. With no disrespect intended for God, we might say that the whole ball of wax is his toy to do with as he wants.

Say it if you wish, but saying it doesn't explain or justify it. If God created us with free will, then surely S/he/it was prepared for the consequences of free will. Otherwise omniscience is a word without meaning.

... Last I heard, the New Testament was not recorded until well after Jesus left.

... Let me be more careful, more explicit. I presented evidence that what we have now is for all practical purposes the same as the original new testament as it was written in the time of the apostles (who were authorized as Jesus’ spokesmen) ...

So THEY claim. And the support for this claim is what? Only the claim itself.

... and the old testament as it was held in Jesus’ time (which Jesus himself accepted).

How do you know that? Who made the record that indicates Jesus accepted the Old Testament? (And meanwhile, I think there is ample material in the New Testament to cast doubt on this "acceptance", starting with the very existence of a New Testament at all.

... specific challenges keep running into refutations from archaeology, etc.

For example?

Do you remember my mentioning that the Bible has been the most studied and most opposed book of all time? There have been untold numbers of attacks on its historical accuracy, and its consistency. Over the years they have been knocked down like tenpins.

For example?

There is no question in the mind of anyone who has looked at the evidence that what we have today is essentially what was originally written.

Nonsense. The Gospels as we have them were selected from among numerous religious writings of various persons (including supposedly some apostles) by the bishops at the behest of Emperor Constantine. That is what history and archaeology tell us.

Today there is very little question left that the four gospels were written by the apostles or their close associates in the early days of the church.

Which close associates? Even if the were written by the apostles, how does that make them correct? Who says?

Pardon me, but I'll have to return to this at another time.

[DAC]

TS, you argue for reason and rationality, but your words show very little of it. I don’t want to think the cause is lack of intelligence. Likely it is that you have such blind commitment to secularism that you can’t allow yourself to see anything else. But your responses make me wonder. Are you deliberately a truth twister? Or are you just blind.

You asked, “What gives God the authority to appoint Adam to represent us?” Please read your own question. It is “What gives God authority?”, not “Where does it say that God appointed Adam to represent us?”

I answered with a quotation from Romans 9:20 “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’”

Your answer? “How on Earth do you get from there to God appointing Adam as my representative? I don't see any reference to Adam there.

See, this is exactly the problem with religion ... you're just making stuff up to suit yourself.”

The question was the source of God’s authority. The answer was that his authority comes from his creating us - with God’s rebuke to any man who chooses to challenge it. But you grab secondary words from your original question, words I made no attempt at that point to deal with, and act as if that was what it was all about. If you cannot even read a simple question and the answer to that without getting off the track, why should I think that if I give you a list of verses with no explanation of them you will be able to draw any meaningful conclusion from it?

I presented evidence that what we have now is for all practical purposes the same as the original new testament as it was written in the time of the apostles (who were authorized as Jesus’ spokesmen) ...

So THEY claim. And the support for this claim is what? Only the claim itself.

No, TS. Again you have either failed to read or chosen to ignore what was written in the hopes of baffling people with words. The support for the claim is thousands of manuscripts which agree, some of them dating back to very close to the time of the originals.

If you want to check it out, I’d suggest you get a copy of the standard Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, which gives exhaustive listings of the MSS available up to its date of publication, with their estimated dates. There you can check the various readings. It might be more useful to get a standard text on the issue. For someone obviously unfamiliar with the subject, it would be wise to start with something general such as F.F. Bruce, The New Testament documents: are they reliable?

Yes. Now how about doing what I've asked and offer support for the claims of religions OTHER THAN criticism of science? Do you somehow fail to understand my words??? You seem literate... how is this possible?

As your ongoing argument shows, I have offered other support for my religious views.

Then I have missed it. Where is it?

Then I suggest you read again my post of July 16 in this thread, section 8. As you read, ask yourself where I point to gaps in the secular understanding of the world for my evidence for my Christian belief. Then fix it in your mind that there are none.

Then read through the whole thread again, and note what I actually have said. I have pointed to gaps in the secular understanding of origins as evidence that the secular view rests on faith. Nowhere have I suggested that those gaps are evidence for religious belief. If you disagree, quote me in context instead of insisting, with no evidence to support your claim, that I do that.

I’m signing off this discussion, unless and until you can approach it rationally, until you deal with what I actually say instead of what you’d like to imagine I say, and answer with either evidence or logic instead of invective and blind faith assertions.

But just so you don’t start accusing me again of dishonesty, one last response:

Nowhere in the Bible is there any development of the notion of humanity bound through some "federation" with Adam as representative or any of the other legalistic drivel you expatiated. Cite the relevant verses if you can refute me.

The whole pattern is complex and depends on a lot of references threaded together, but these two suffice to show there is a connection of sin and death from Adam to us, a connection parallelled and cleared by the connection of sacrifice and life from Christ to us. Read Romans 5, especially 5:12-21; and 1 Corinthians 15, especially 15:12-22, 45.

[The Terrible Sweal]

TS, you argue for reason and rationality, but your words show very little of it. I don’t want to think the cause is lack of intelligence. Likely it is that you have such blind commitment to secularism that you can’t allow yourself to see anything else. But your responses make me wonder. Are you deliberately a truth twister? Or are you just blind.

What a fascinating paragraph.

You asked, “What gives God the authority to appoint Adam to represent us?” Please read your own question. It is “What gives God authority?”, not “Where does it say that God appointed Adam to represent us?”

I believe both questions were put, but whatever ...

I answered with a quotation from Romans 9:20 “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’”

Your answer? “How on Earth do you get from there to God appointing Adam as my representative? I don't see any reference to Adam there.

See, this is exactly the problem with religion ... you're just making stuff up to suit yourself.”

The question was the source of God’s authority. 

Please don't be so specious. The question was about source of God's authority TO APPOINT ADAM. Your complaint is baseless, and your quote still deficient in reply.

The answer was that his authority comes from his creating us ... 

Who says creating something grants authority over it?

The support for the claim is thousands of manuscripts which agree, some of them dating back to very close to the time of the originals.

This is the support for the claim of the authenticity of the gospels??? That they were a popular form of literature. I guess that makes mystery novels the next religion, does it?

... it would be wise to start with something general such as F.F. Bruce, The New Testament documents: are they reliable?

"However the gospel may be defended, it cannot be defended by concessions which deprive it of its essence or which detract from our Saviour's title to be called The Word of God." -F.F. Bruce

Then I suggest you read again my post of July 16 in this thread, section 8. As you read, ask yourself where I point to gaps in the secular understanding of the world for my evidence for my Christian belief. Then fix it in your mind that there are none.

You have blundered there, my friend. The demand is that you provide some positive evidence to support your belief is reasonable. In the post your reference, your point at #8 begins: "The fundamental evidence is Jesus Christ. But we have to start with the Bible. ..." From there you expatiated at some length on contents of the Bible. Unfortunately, none of this is evidence of anything but your discoursive deficiencies. Fix this in your mind: argument from authority is not valid, particluarly argument from one's own authority.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... one last response:

Nowhere in the Bible is there any development of the notion of humanity bound through some "federation" with Adam as representative or any of the other legalistic drivel you expatiated. Cite the relevant verses if you can refute me.

The whole pattern is complex and depends on a lot of references threaded together, ...

Another way of saying that is 'It's not really there.'

... but these two suffice to show there is a connection of sin and death from Adam to us, a connection parallelled and cleared by the connection of sacrifice and life from Christ to us. Read Romans 5, especially 5:12-21; and 1 Corinthians 15, especially 15:12-22, 45.

Let's look then ...

Romans 5

... 12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that F18 all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's F19 offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence F20 of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Corinthians 15

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.  20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. ... 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Well, to my reading those passages simply restate the bare bones that Adam sinned and Christ died for it, adding little about the underpinning of such a rubric. So, could you possibly elucidate how those passages are supposed to shed any light on where you get your elaborate legalistic superstitions about "federation" and such?

[Guest eureka]

This is a fascinating dialogue that I have neither the time or expertise to join.

However, with respect to the frequent references to rationality, I am eminded of the statement of Hannah Arendt, one that many years agi I wrote an essay on. I think it has some bearing on your understandings of "rational.

"Modern philosophy founders on the paradox that all that is real is irrational, and all that is rational is unreal."

For what it is worth.

[The Terrible Sweal]

She refers to what I call the 'relativist conundrum', which confounds philosophy and increasingly other intellectual pursuits these days.

It may be an unanswerable question. I argue, however, that it is an AVOIDABLE question at the level of policy/choice.