The evidence for the account is non-existent.
Actually, that is incorrect. There is some evidence in that it seems to fit with our knowledge of that society, is an ancient account itself (as in it was written close enough to perhaps have authentic sources) and the Son of God is recorded as believing it.
Generalities, of fitting with what society was like then doesn't prove anything, as it doesn't prove a Hollywood film to be an account of fact if it correctly has how society was in its film.
All you have is a story, just like Harry Potter.
No, that is incorrect. Harry Potter was only intended as fiction. Even if the accounts of Abraham are incorrect, they were not intended as fiction. Keep up.
All that is besides the point, Alan.
I see I got no to claim that you can't prove the existence of your God.
Do you mean that I have accepted that I cannot prove the existence of God? Do you think I can prove to you that I exist?
Of course it is possible for you to prove to me that you exist, we could meet up, for example. We are conversing so there must be something behind all those posts from Alien.
But you can not prove that God exists, which is why you didn't answer me. And everything you propose about your faith etc. hinges on that explanation that can't ever be given.
Ok let me put it this way, though I did clarify this point above.
An event can only be true for a given individual
"True for an individual" is postmodernist claptrap. Something is either true, not true or partly true. "True for me" people need their brains tested.
What you are suggesting is "Something" that is outside the human framework that can experience events and judge them to true. Even if such an agent existed it wouldn't help you to make the same judgement if you hadn't observed that event yourself. All you would have would be an assertion from that "Something" and taking what It had said on trust.
Oh, by the way my brain is fine.
if it is known to be true by that individual by having first hand experience of that event i.e. an eye witness.
Complete cobblers. You are saying here that you only know stuff to be true which you yourself have witnessed. Utter tosh. You don't live your life that way so please don't come up with such rubbish.
I do live my life that way, but as I can't know everything I am
fully aware that there are things I have to take on trust and can't categorically assert that these are true. However, when it comes to how I live my life, and my fundamental position on my person position and morals, then living by what I know is even more of an imperative so I don't follow some totally unfounded ideological nonsense.
Your approach seems to be just pick anything that takes your fancy regardless of its basis in reality.
For someone to conduct their lives by some moral rules and fundamental principles they have to know first hand that those aspects are true from personal experience. I raise this because people are basing their lives on a book written 2000 years ago, and more, and haven't a hope in hell of knowing if it is correct or not. In the end it is what we know to be true and factual personally that can only guide our lives. Taking on whole heartily some ancient system they have no way of validating is foolishness.
Largely incorrect. Firstly, Christians do use their brains and do question why the bible says stuff. It is part of ensuring we understand it correctly.
And on what basis, what criterion, do they question what is said in the Bible. That know how can only come from personal experience or what one's culture has inculcated into their lives.
Secondly, we don't just base our morality on a book, but rather on what the Son of God says.
Same difference. None of you actually know for sure if JC ever lived and walked on this planet.
If Jesus truly is the Son of God and the NT accounts of what he said and did are correct, then that is our authority.
Big IF!!! Again on what basis is all this known to be true?
We have not just picked up a book and thought "I'll base my life on this book even though I don't know why it says stuff". We are guided above all by a person, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. If he truly is that then we can trust him.
Talk about cobblers!!!
This implies you have actually met JC in the flesh and had a chat with him. Even if this insane notion was true on what basis would you judge what he said was actually true? You can't, it is as you say trust and trust is flawed because you don't know that what you have trusted in is true because you haven't 'seen' it personally for yourself. And of course, you haven't actually met JC, except only in your fanciful mind.
