Doesn't faith start with the a priori assumption that there is God?
Faith is a spiritual matter, resulting from a form of communication with God.
That is a meaningless sentence as far as I am concerned because I don't know what "spiritual matter" is. If anything, it sounds like an oxymoron, i.e. spiritual (immaterial) + matter (material), and I don't know what God is. Now, before you jump to ANY conclusions, I am not saying this because I am a "leftist" but because I am an agnostic, i.e. I don't know if there is a God or what or who God might be or how to recongize him.
It's a perfect illustration of relativism at work, because at any other time you would accept what everyone else acceptsthat the majority of historians are fairly objective and reliable.
First, I don't know that for a fact , and, knowing human nature, I would never given anyone that much credit without supporting evidence. I think the majority of historians (a) have their own prejudices, (b) political convictions, (c) career decisions to make, (d) some may experience change-of-life events, etc.
For example, you first claim to doubt my argument because I havent been specific enough with the supporting evidence.
I am neither gullible nor under any obligation to believe a perfect stranger who makes rather sweeping generalizations without much evidence.
Here, you say that even if my supporting evidence is specific enough, it isnt valid because the vast majority of historians arent credible.
What evidence did you present me with? A name of an Evangelical professor who earns his bread on an Evangelical university? Do you really expect me to accept his word on his word, convinced that it is unbiased? This is like saying that Rahm Emmanuel will write fair an balanced memoirs without favoring his party's progressivist agenda!
In addition to that, you give me one reference. A name. Did you expect me to read his entire work to convince myself that you are right? You must be joking. Let's see his data, his references, etc. And let's see other, independent studies, on the same subject and see how well their results corroborate with his.
Its somewhat amusing (though tragic) the way liberals confuse themselves into believing that because 1) Einstein was a genius, that somehow 2) liberals are also geniuses because they can mouth the word relativity, and that they can go on to claim that 3) all truth is relative
The word "relativity" pre existed Einstein. The world we live in is a complex relationship, where everything relates one way or another to everything else. What is good for some is not good for others; what is uncomfortable to me may be perfectly comfortable to someone else; what seems true to some doesn't seem true to others, etc. There is nothing "leftist" in any of that.
Im not specifically calling you a leftist. Im saying you use a tactic that is the foundation of the way leftists perpetrate their ideology.
My tactic is to trust no one on his word, especially when they hide behind the anonymity of the Internet.
This means he does not assume Biblical inspiration or even reliability of the New Testament, but views the New Testament as a work of literature, and accepts only data which are well evidenced and accepted by nearly every scholar, even the most skeptical ones.
That's fine. Now, let's see his arguments and his data.
Consider this question: In the process of forming your opinion, do you think its better to seek more depth and more detailsuch as looking at what multiple scholars have said, and examining the nature and methods of determining historicityor do you prefer to save time and to base your conclusions merely on what seems at first glance to be correct, before knowing the facts?
You have to ask me that? I'd think it's obvious that by asking for evidence and data I don't accept anything superficially or lightly, or on someone's nice words.
First, on relativism (not relativity). Liberals have it wrong. Their entire worldview is based on the false premise that absolute truth doesn’t exist. For this reason, they have no real access to rational discourse.
I would ask you take a look at a graph of an asymptote—it’s a perfect illustration of the foolishness of progressives (given the context of my statements above).
As for the rest of your responses, let’s go back a few years. Bill Clinton: “That depends on what the meaning of the word is is.” A moderately clever remark—if it had been uttered by a slightly intelligent twelve year old.
This is exactly what youre doing, when you draw new lines in the sand each time your latest argument faces defeat, and when you question the definition of the word spiritual, or of God.
In any other conversation, many times in your life, you make use of these terms with no hint that you’re afraid they don’t have meaning. But here, as a licensed relativist, you suddenly put them into the category of “undefined” only because you think it suits your needs. Somehow, you’ve been duped into using the double tongue of a lawyer while convincing yourself you’re “not leftist.”
Again, relativism is foolishness in every sense of the word.
On the reliability of the Bible, and on evidence for the truth of Christian doctrine, look up the works of Craig Blomberg, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, and Gary Habermas.