Leaderboard

It's really not all that complicated. It boils down to our perception and understanding of reality. In other words, what we believe is real (or true.) Consider, for example, 2Kings 6:15-20. What was real? ...depends on what (or who's) perspective you are looking at it from. Or, does it? Did "what was real" in the situation actually change?

Wait until he finds out Paul didn't write Ephesians and that Daniel never existed.

Evidently your position is that anything not based in material facts isn't (indeed, can't be) reasonable... which I see as being a very erroneous premise. However, I really don't care to delve much into why it is. (Especially given the degree of entrenchment you've expressed in that regard.) You "reason" one way, and I reason another way. I have no issue seeing or admitting that, but apparently you do. Anything not done (i.e., reasoned) "your way" is ALWAYS thought of as being inferior, logically deficient, without merit, and (if little else)... void of reason. Now, go right ahead and think or call this some sort of ad hominine attack on you, personally. But honestly speaking, it's not. It's faulting the perspective that you have presented on what is (or can be thought of as being) "reasonable." When the apostle Paul, as his manner was, reasoned with various men in his day and time... do you likewise think (as you have done thus far) that because he based many of his words and thoughts on scripture that he too had "gleefully abandoned" reason? Or, perhaps you suppose that his (or anyone else's, for that matter) manner of reasoning was only valid (or reasonable) to the point that it contained or was based on hard factual (material) evidence. Frankly, it a bit of a challenge to me trying to understand why you're so stuck on "cold hard facts," so to speak. There's just too many times it seems that "said facts" (i.e., evidences) are incomplete, and eventually end up moving or changing.