Did I just read you invoke tradition?
If Moses never encountered God, then his teachings were from himself
No, Moses didn't have any witnesses. They had to take his word for it or, better yet, we have to take the word of the writer of Torah.
We would then have to suppose that all of the other Biblical writers were writing on their own
Not necessarily, FK. They could have all been led by the Spirit (just as some say we all are), but expressed their spiritual knowledge to a varying degree of perfection.
and all of their writings put together somehow magically produced one pure truth
Yes, miraculously they certainly seem to, despite the differences in perceptions and language and cultures...Gods revelation to man is gradual.
Could such diverse humans have come up with this by themselves?
No, but the Bible is not nearly as seamless as some would like to portray it. Yet, there is a common thread in the entire collection of scriptures, even if the details are not necessarily complimentary.
I think Christianity is superior to that and stands alone among the other faiths
I agree, but what irresistible proof do you have to offer to others?
No, and put to a factual test, the Iliad would not come close to passing as the Bible does
What's wrong with the Illiad?
Then would you say that your faith is simply a product of your environment? Were you just lucky to be born around other Christians?
I don't know. You think you'd be a Christian if you were born and raised in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia?
I see what you're saying, but God gave us everything we need to know
You mean, to some?
I'm kind of surprised to see you say this since the Apostolic view is that man as a child of God is seen as a grown up who is perfectly capable of making his own informed decisions. It's my side that says we are more like toddlers who are dependent for everything
Certainly. St. Paul speaks of spiritual "babes" whose spiritual food is spiritual milk.
In large part I agree, and this is why I said they were failures. Their goal was to find the ultimate answer, but they could not while they held on to man's autonomy
No they discovered that the world is much bigger than we believed, and that God, who is beyond everything, is even greater Mystery than the universe.
They settled for "leap of faith", but that is really no answer at all
No, we all did.
It is a substitute for a real answer
Yes. Just because we believe in Him doesn't mean we know how God truly is.
Did I just read you [to] invoke tradition?
Not to my knowledge, how do you mean? Withstanding the test of time can certainly involve "tradition", but would you call parents loving their children "tradition"? I would call it more of a fundamental truth. Plus, if you call following the scriptures "tradition", then I would certainly follow that. IOW, are the scriptures just as true and pertinent to our lives today as in the day they were written? I would say yes.
FK: "If Moses never encountered God, then his teachings were from himself."
No, Moses didn't have any witnesses. They had to take his word for it or, better yet, we have to take the word of the writer of Torah.
GOD IS THE WITNESS! :) We don't have to trust Moses for anything. Does it ever seem odd to you that the Fathers you put so much trust in accepted the Bible on its face to a MUCH higher degree than you appear to? :)
FK: "Could such diverse humans have come up with this by themselves?"
No, but the Bible is not nearly as seamless as some would like to portray it. Yet, there is a common thread in the entire collection of scriptures, even if the details are not necessarily complimentary.
Well, there is quite a difference between minor translation errors and asserting that WHOLESALE error runs rampant throughout the Bible. In the way you present your opinion of the Bible it seems that one can only hang on to a "thread" of truth amid all the error, albeit that the thread is sufficient enough to define core Christianity. That seems extremely limiting to me, and an extreme limitation on God's revelation to us.
FK: "I think Christianity is superior to that and stands alone among the other faiths."
I agree, but what irresistible proof do you have to offer to others?
The truth of their own reality. When I explain to newbies that there is a chasm between God and man called sin, I rarely get any argument. If they have already agreed to listen to me, it means that deep down they recognize that there is something missing in their lives. Christianity FITS our human experience whether it is today or 2,000 years ago. Christianity based on reason works perfectly with the lost because it makes actual sense to something they can relate to.
FK: "No, and put to a factual test, the Iliad would not come close to passing as the Bible does."
What's wrong with the Iliad?
Nothing, it remains a great work of literature. However, I think that everyone understood that Homer was taking poetic license with the portrayals of the gods and goddesses, etc. It was a STORY that used Greek gods, but it wasn't put forth as a true story (although it used true events; fiction authors do the same today). The Bible isn't even comparable to the Iliad.
FK: "Then would you say that your faith is simply a product of your environment? Were you just lucky to be born around other Christians?"
I don't know. You think you'd be a Christian if you were born and raised in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia?
YES, without question! :) I claim I was elect long before I was ever born, so my birthplace and upbringing are irrelevant to whether I am of the elect. Even if I was raised to be a terrorist, at some point God would have "gotten me" and converted me to the truth. He loved His elect long before any of them even knew who He was.
FK: "I see what you're saying, but God gave us everything we need to know."
You mean, to some?
Depends on how we look at it. Everything we need to know is there for all to read or hear, but only some are granted eyes and ears.
FK: "In large part I agree, and this is why I said they were failures. Their goal was to find the ultimate answer, but they could not while they held on to man's autonomy."
No they discovered that the world is much bigger than we believed, and that God, who is beyond everything, is [an] even greater Mystery than the universe.
I wholeheartedly disagree. You sound like man realized that he should show greater respect for God as he learned more, when the reverse is what happened. Man shoveled God away from reason and into Mystery (the irrational -- where anything goes). This was man spitting on God. Once God was placed into Mystery, then the relativism that you have spoken against was ripe to take shape. Obviously "Mystery" doesn't explain anything real that we can relate to. :) Before "Mystery", man had a set of presuppositions of fact from which to start. Man's autonomy took those away.
FK: "[Leap of faith] is a substitute for a real answer."
Yes. Just because we believe in Him doesn't mean we know how God truly is.
You are caving in just as the humanist philosophers we have been talking about did. :) Reason DOES NOT demand that we know everything there is to know about God. Approached properly, the reason we have available to us is fully satiated by God. We believers have everything we need to know available to us. We don't have to give up by calling out "Mystery" or taking a leap of faith. There are SOME things we want to know but will not know in this life. Those are easily separable from the things we need to know and CAN know using reason PLUS faith. Because God loves us He WANTS us to have a REAL answer! :)