Why does science always upstage God?

[ayost]

So, of course we see Paul's letters first, showing just how influential his interpretation became. and that is the interpretation that you claim to follow, not blindly, of course, but because you seem to think that some of them were violently killed for their beliefs (which you also acknowledged that is not a very good metric)... so we're left with blind faith.

The Gospel of Peter is a very short gospel, probably from 150 AD, although we don't have anything prior to the 8th/9th century. The Gospel of Peter tells a very, very different story that the other gospels. So yes, it didn't make the cut because it isn't consistent with the story told by the other gospel writers. Is that that crazy? Does that make it a clergy conspiracy? I think that's a pretty far leap. In court, don't they frequently hear multiple versions of the same story and when one witness is totally different that the other witnesses we say that probably isn't a reliable witness? I would say that's reasonable and not necessarily a conspiracy.

...so we're left with blind faith.
How did you get to be this faithful?
Have you "always" been? Is it a childhood indoctrination thing?
Can you acknowledge that such a practice could have made you faithful in any other belief system (had your parents held it) and is thus also not a good metric to ascertain what is true?

I wish we could move past statements like blind faith and indoctrination. I think at a minimum I have established that I've thought these things out as an adult. I don't consider myself to have blind faith. I am someone who researches and reads and learns. I'm frequently challenged and then go away and learn. I think I can make a reasonable, not airtight, but reasonable case for everything I believe.

I'm not asserting that my faith means something is true in the way you want it to be certainly true. Faith means I'm trusting God to do what he said based on evidence x, y, and z while acknowledging that x, y, and z aren't indisputable proof.

I would also argue that science eventually leads to the same place of faith. That statement could send us on a rabbit trail. I won't pursue it unless you do, haha.

Why?
Why accept the writings of people who obviously didn't know better over the findings of successive scientists?

Well, this is where faith comes in, but also it's also thought out faith:

I am convinced that the NT is authentic, reliable, and true.
I am convinced that what the NT says about Jesus and who He is is true (the God/man).
Jesus believed the OT writers and that God created the universe.
Therefore, I believe what Jesus believed: the OT.

You see how it's not blind? How one thing builds on another?

I also reject the idea that an accurate understanding of the the world is a modern phenomenon, but that's a side note I don't want to debate.

Now, when it comes to creation, I can level critiques at science and challenge how they know what they know. No one escapes the skeptic buzzsaw. haha