[quote]pookie wrote:
Makavali wrote:
There is insufficient evidence to assert with any authority that there is no higher power.
Of course, the same can be said of ghosts, fairies, were-wolves, leprechauns, elves, unicorns, vampires, dragons, griffons, sea monsters, big feet and invisible flying ninja monkeys.
Better cover your bases, you never know.[/quote]
lol
[quote]Talking of which, you might want to read up on ethics and morality and how it can be derived from entirely human sources, without resorting to a “creator” figure as a law-giver / punishment distributor.
To actually think and reflect about how such morals can be justified and supported, instead of quietly acquiescing unquestioningly a morality given to you from and old book - not open to debate or query - would make you better able to discuss it intelligently.[/quote]
As I recall in the religion discussion you and I had before your hiatus, you never provided a naturalistic morality. I’m open to the idea that there is one, I just haven’t seen it and you don’t seem to be aware of one, or you would have given it. Like I said, even Immanuel Kant allowed God back into the equation in order that there would be a “rightness” and “wrongness” for the common man to follow. We can rehash the entire debate all over again, if you want. You’ll just end up getting mad like last time though.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
As I recall in the religion discussion you and I had before your hiatus, you never provided a naturalistic morality. [/quote]
If I remember correctly, that’s because you were unable to understand the concept of a “common human experience.”
If you believe that it’s possible to take two (normal, non-mentally ill) humans randomly from the planet and have them completely unable to relate to one another at any level, then I won’t be able to argue effectively for any kind of universally applicable non-theistic morality.
Actually, you’re not. If you were, it’d be easy for you to inform yourself about it. This is the internet after all, I’m sure you’re familiar with Google.
For some odd reason, you seem to prefer remaining ignorant of the subject. Acquainting yourself with it does not force you to agree with all, most or any of it. It might make you more reticent to use the “moral relativism” argument every time a religious discussions comes up as if that was some kind of ultimate trump card. That, in turn, could lead to much more interesting debates. You’re a smart man, and it’s really painful to see you repeating the same dumb arguments anyone can get from your run-of-the-mill creationist site.
Like I said, I don’t anticipate having enough free time to do the debate justice; and with you denying the existence of a common human experience, the whole thing is pretty much a non-starter. Might as well try to explain the Apollo missions to someone who insists the moon is just a flat circle painted on the sky dome.
You can pick on christianity all you want, it doesn’t change who Jesus is…
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
You can pick on christianity all you want, it doesn’t change who Jesus is…[/quote]
The problem is that most Christians ignore his teachings whenever convenient.
The problem was not that I don’t understand the concept of a “common human experience”, I do and the Bible defines one. It calls us all “fallen,” in reference to Genesis 3. The issue was that there is no common ground between your definition and mine regarding “common human experience.” You wanted me to give mine up, and I saw no reason to do so. I think mine fits better. What I said was at the bottom of this page:
http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/do_you_belive_in_god?id=1983650&pageNo=25
[quote]
In one statement, I said that I thought the “common nature” of man was his sinfulness due to the fall. So I agreed with you on the existence of a common nature. But I have that definition because of my epistemology. You have an atheist epistemology, which is antithetical to mine, therefore your definition of the “common human nature” will be different than mine. You won’t accept mine because mine is grounded in Christian theism. Therefore, we have no common ground on what “common human nature” even is, but we agree that there is one, more or less.
I think you’ll find, as have other teleologists, that “common human nature” is a contentious issue and that it can be used to argue in vastly different directions.[/quote]
[quote]pookie wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
You can pick on christianity all you want, it doesn’t change who Jesus is…
The problem is that most Christians ignore his teachings whenever convenient.
[/quote]
According to you, that’s a good thing, right?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
According to you, that’s a good thing, right? [/quote]
No. Please don’t make me say things I didn’t say.
I have very little problems with Jesus’ moral teachings. I differ, obviously, on the divine aspects, but as a guide to living one’s life, he’s pretty good.
That I did say. Note that there is a distinction between “religion” and “Jesus.” There is no such thing as “THE” Christian religion; it is parceled in myriads of sects: Catholics; Protestants (further subdivided); Orthodox; etc.
It’s the religious edifices built around Jesus’ simple message that I take issue with, not his basic moral teachings.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The problem was not that I don’t understand the concept of a “common human experience”, I do and the Bible defines one. It calls us all “fallen,” in reference to Genesis 3. The issue was that there is no common ground between your definition and mine regarding “common human experience.” You wanted me to give mine up, and I saw no reason to do so. I think mine fits better.[/quote]
You don’t have to give yours up; just to allow that another “common human experience” (hereafter CHE) is possible.
You can’t seriously expect me to build my “secular” case by starting from Biblical dogma.
We’re back at the non-starter. You’re asking how someone can justify morals without the Bible (or another “divine source”); but denying that person the use of definitions that would conflict or differ from your religious ones.
Just as the Bible has a CHE, other moral arguments will need one too. If you’re simply unable to entertain, even for a few moments, one different from yours… well, what can I say. Can’t force the horse to drink.
Yet, for our diametrically opposed world views, we still have much in common. I’d bet that you love your family; that you dislike physical pain; hunger; etc. THAT is my CHE which you deny the existence of.
It’s not a question of accepting it or not. You ask me what’s the secular thinking behind morals, but insist I use religious definitions to build it… When I say I can’t, you claim victory and get back to chanting “relativism…”
Please don’t make this about what the definition of “common” is.
At this point, we’re fallen and we can’t get up.
Right. That’s my point. And you can’t expect the opposite from me. We’re at an impasse.
What about the parts where he threatened people with hell? He did that quite a bit. I can’t see an atheist saying that this is moral. In fact, I recall Richard Dawkins poo-pooing this practice. What about where he claimed to be God? According to an atheist, this makes him a either a lunatic or liar, not a moral teacher.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
What about the parts where he threatened people with hell? He did that quite a bit. I can’t see an atheist saying that this is moral.[/quote]
Those parts go in the “divinity-related” bin, not the “moral teachings” one. 
Threatening unbelievers with eternal punishment is the standard modus operandi for just about all religions.
When did he claim this? Could you cite the specific verse(s)?
Note that it is possible to be self-deluded about one’s relationship with God but still be of morally sound judgment. In fact, that describes a fair number of currently living Christians.
[quote]Those parts go in the “divinity-related” bin, not the “moral teachings” one.
Threatening unbelievers with eternal punishment is the standard modus operandi for just about all religions. [/quote]
Well, was it moral for Jesus to do it or not?
“I AM” (ego eimi in greek): John 8:58, Matthew 14:27, Mark 6:45-52, ref. Exodus 3:14. Heck, just read this exegesis:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_mt_i_am.htm
“The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath”: Matthew 12:18
“your sins are forgiven”: Mark 2:5, Luke 5:23
Giving divine law according to his own authority:
Matthew 6:2, 5, 16; 8:10; 10:15, 23, 42; 11:11; 13:17; 16:28; 17:20; 18:3, 13, 18; 21:21, 32; 23:36; 24:2, 34, 47; 25:12, 40, 45; 26:13, 21, 34
…
You can’t claim to be God and be of sound judgment unless you are God. So Jesus is either a lunatic or a liar if he’s not God.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Well, was it moral for Jesus to do it or not?[/quote]
I don’t really see it as a moral teaching. It’s religious in nature. I’d probably have to say it’s immoral, since no crime, no matter how inhuman, can justify an eternity of punishment. In this case, the crime is simple not believing in something for which there is no evidence… a rather victimless crime, no?
[quote]When did he claim this? Could you cite the specific verse(s)?
“I AM” (ego eimi in greek): John 8:58, Matthew 14:27, Mark 6:45-52, ref. Exodus 3:14. Heck, just read this exegesis:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_mt_i_am.htm[/quote]
Only John has the “I am” part… I’m not sure what the Matthew and Mark verses are supposed to support…?
Now, Jesus claiming to be God would be an important statement, yet only one of the gospels reports it? Did Jesus really say that, or is it simply John’s personal views that are being presented?
Why “Son of Man” and not “of God”? Note that he’s also claiming to be the “son of” and not God himself.
Priests used to tell me the same thing when I was young… they didn’t claim to be God.
I got tired before I checked them all, but none of the ones I looked at has Jesus proclaiming to be God.
I still don’t see where he claims to be God; and even if he did, he could be wrong about that but better on morals and human inter-relations. The Dalai-Lama believes himself to be a reincarnation of a Buddhist master… He’s most likely wrong about that, but that has little bearing on whatever else he teaches.
Since when are people either entirely right about everything or entirely wrong about everything. You seem to contend that either Jesus was always right, and, ergo, the son of God; or he was entirely wrong and his morals are also wrong - which is clearly not the case.
As was explained in the link I provided, ego eimi is used in the Synoptics as well in the same manner. Matthew and Mark both use it (Matthew 14:22-33 and Mark 6:45-52) in the same way.
Of course not. You’re looking for the part where Jesus runs around saying, “Check me out! I’m God!” Rather, he couches all of his claims to deity in terms his audience (1st century Jews) would understand, which I provided.
Not quite. As I stated, I can’t see how an atheist would run around saying Jesus is a great moral teacher if he was a liar or lunatic, b/c he claimed to be God. Also, atheists spend quite a bit of their time critiquing the Bible’s take on hell and who will go there and how offensive it is, but Jesus spent a lot of his time telling people who would go to hell and how bad it is. You want to believe the Jesus of your imagination, not the one recorded in Scripture who said all those nasty things about unbelievers and eschatology.
[quote]pookie wrote:
“The Son of Man is [u]Lord even of the Sabbath[/u]”: Matthew 12:18
[/quote]
Won’t go through everything here, but since this one stands out so much.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Of course not. You’re looking for the part where Jesus runs around saying, “Check me out! I’m God!” Rather, he couches all of his claims to deity in terms his audience (1st century Jews) would understand, which I provided.[/quote]
Had he been God, wouldn’t he have anticipated that his audience would eventually outgrow 1st century Jews?
Your version of God is one of the infallible ones, yes?
So if a lunatic says that 2+2=4, you’ll claim that his math is faulty?
You should take it up with “those” atheists, then. Personally, I don’t believe in Hell, so don’t spend much time thinking about it. I agree with some parts of what Jesus said, so I say so. I disagree with other parts… that doesn’t invalidate the first ones.
I have serious doubt about the historical existence of an actual Jesus. I think the modern conception of the man is mostly mythical with maybe some distant basis with an actual living Jew preacher who lived in the 1st century. So much has been borrowed from other religions and pagan rites over the years, that it’s simply impossible to objectively separate what’s true from what’s not.
With that said, some of the saying attributed to the mythical Jesus figure from my imagination actually make sense. So I agree with them. Others don’t, so I disagree.
You believe that it’s all entirely true and that Jesus is the son of the actual existing God who made a Hell for people like me to roast in. Ok. I think it sounds stupid, but if it makes you happy, who cares? As long as you let your God punish me after my death and don’t try to force your beliefs on me in this life, I’m fine with that.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:
“The Son of Man is [u]Lord even of the Sabbath[/u]”: Matthew 12:18
Won’t go through everything here, but since this one stands out so much. [/quote]
It can be interpreted in many ways.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
You can pick on christianity all you want, it doesn’t change who Jesus is…[/quote]
A brown man.
[quote]Had he been God, wouldn’t he have anticipated that his audience would eventually outgrow 1st century Jews?
Your version of God is one of the infallible ones, yes? [/quote]
I think he anticipated that we could use the Old Testament language Jesus referenced together with our brains and derive the meaning, which we have done.
This is the crux of the whole issue, right here - your epistemology.
Who said it makes any of us happy?
How else is a 1st century Jew supposed to take it? According to them, Moses wrote that God created the Sabbath by divine fiat in Genesis 1 and rested on it. Who can be Lord of the Sabbath but the very Creator of the Sabbath alone?