Originally Posted by rawgirl
Since I believe that the Bible is right all of the time and the Bible tells me that John wrote the book of John as well as I, II, and III John, and Paul wrote the book of Corinthians, etc., it would be pretty impossible to convince me otherwise. I go to the Bible and in the face of conflicting evidence, I look to what the Bible says. God's Word is THE authority in my life.
This isn't to be argumentative, just curiosity, does the Bible actually say in the Bible who exactly wrote John I, II, and III as well as Corinthians (I don't know how much controversy there is about Paul as the author). And what about Matthew, Mark and Luke, are you open to the idea that they were not written by apostles? Or out of curiosity again, what does the Bible say about their authorship?
As far as faith versus facts and science, I think it's fine if people who want to have faith in something just come out and say (as rawgirl has said somewhat) that they have faith and they choose to believe based on faith regardless on evidence and they are comfortable with that. If someone is not interested in evidence, they should be confident in their choice and has no reason to debate in threads like this. If someone bases their beliefs on evidence and wants to argue based on evidence, then that is what the compost heap is here for.
(not directed at any particular posts here) But what doesn't make sense to me is people saying this is my belief, based on faith and I don't debate or think about the evidence, and neither can anyone else because it's an insult to religion. Or people saying they have faith regardless of lack of evidence or contradictory evidence, and then instead of stopping there, arguing about the evidence (can't have it both ways).
If one has faith independent of evidence and is confident and accepting of their own choice, they shouldn't be bothered by those who are interested in discussing evidence and alternative theories. And I don't think there is anything wrong with people, like myself, who find dogma and refusal to be open to new ideas and evidence troubling. People are free to have blind faith in dogma and hostile to contradictory evidence, and people are free to dislike and criticize that choice. It is a choice whether or not to seek out information and think about it critically or to say, "I'm done, I don't want to think about any new ideas."
The problem with it being taboo to be skeptical of miracles, Jesus, etc. is that it closes the door to making progress in our knowledge. Maybe the skeptics are wrong. But how can we know if there are sacred ideas which cannot be investigated because it is considered insulting or being a party pooper to the believers?