tec: "You can only have evidence that fails to sustain that something exists." = "It IS the evidence that discounts the idea of God". Even though it doesn't change your response, I don't see a contradiction and don't see why you fail to understand that it's a lost cause to insist anyone needs evidence to disprove God exists.
"[supposedly] based on witness accounts, [supposed] testimony, [supposedly] inspired writings, [supposedly] historical acconts [unless they are secular and not self referent from the Bible], [yes] parables, [yes] poetry, [yes] symbolism, etc [which in no manner serve as evidence or fact.]"
C'mon, you have to do better than that. Where are the witnesses? If they're in the Bible, forget it. I would even say that in such a scenario, it may be completely true that the Biblical witnesses are telling the truth. The PROBLEM is that you can't rely on a document that uses itself for a source of authenticity. That's like me making any statement and asserting that it's factual because I say so.
And since you admit there are errors (obviously those that are internal and those that contradict a parallel secular account), how can you independently identify the internal ones and justify the points you consider non-errors? It's pretty messy, unless a voice guides you to the good parts and steers you away from the bad ones. I'm sorry, but I don't have such an advantage. I really would love to tap into some sort of supernatural knowledge that could provide me with uncommon information. The last time I felt I had that, I was thoroughly deceived.
" There are people who point their finger to Christ as well. " Other than without the bible, right? OK. You don't have to cough up any names, just the way and means they come about this knowledge of Christ. You must admit that if there is reproducible method via which to achieve this, we can actually revolutionize the world.
" I do not think that my faith is self-contained. Christ is involved. " But you see, that's the problem. Only you and no one but you can know this. Someone like me who does not have the privilege, means or access to the Christ in your head can possibly tap into your self-contained state.
If you don't really mind where the truth is written in order to support your belief, then make a simple experiment: try doing away with the Bible all-together (I don't mean burn it just not consider it for a moment) and see if any of your beliefs survives. Find other sources of truth that will support not only Christ but God and his purposes. Just try it. Hey, hey, hey...don't touch that Bible.
" First... the only One you go to is Christ... if you want to hear Him (the Spirit of Truth) or if you want to know God. " But how do I do that? Do I just start believing? Do you think I haven't already tried that? I spent decades doing that. How did I fail and you succeeded? There has to be a reproducible method that you can explain to me for how you "hear" him, how I "go" to him. Even if it involves some mombo-jumbo words, I'll do it. If you picture something more along the idea of acceptance (just let it flow, just believe), you really need to believe me that I've already done that. It actually was quite satisfactory, but it made my crash and burn all the more painful.
"Second... I have verification for me." OK. Are you saying that only you, and therefore only each individual person, can have verification while the rest of us remain clueless? So, is that a concession that for two people who have verification in Christ, each have their own separate verification? It's like two people driving in one car towards a destination and each one has his own and wildly different scenery. Hmm... it gets curiouser and curiouser.
Listen Tammy, I imagine that the descriptions and details you may provide me that amount to your experience are quite satisfying, soothing, fill you with security and love. That's fine. I don't wish you to lose that. But I don't agree that what you experience is based on any reliable evidence. Relating such feelings and experiences won't change the fundamental fact that their foundation is flawed. I'm will to go down that road in that car with you while you observe a different vista than I, as long as I'm driving and get there in one piece.
" the bible does not make the claim that the apostles were all illiterate " The point of citing Acts 4:13 was to emphasize the "unschooled" and "ordinary" part. Think of what a school was in those days, if they even had such a thing for children. It was not, I repeat, was not the tradition for families to home-school their kids and teach them how to read. Not only were they poor, but at the very first indication that a kid could work, they put him or her to work. There was not time or purpose for reading given their economic condition social status. This is what we can learn from secular history. Why do we need to change the parallel history in the Bible to suit our purposes? If I were to use your logic, I would say that nowhere in the Bible does it say that these men could read or write or that they were taught at any point in their lives or that God or Christ gave them the gift to read and write miraculously. Sorry "unschooled and ordinary men" does mean illiterate.
If I say "most likely" (that they were illiterate), I'm allowing for the very narrow possibility of the exception. It's like early on in this country when slaves were illiterate. But somehow, there was one here or there that secretly learned how to read. That does not invalidate the statement that slaves were illiterate. There is no indication that any of the apostles were the exception.
So far I venture to say that there's probably more evidence that Zarathustra existed than that Christ existed, even though there is way more talk about later than the former. What I have learned about Christ is that whoever he was if he ever was, he had a very good and unifying message of peace and love. That prompted Mohandas Gandhi to say: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Neither the message nor the popularity Christ achieved means he ever existed.
