Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on January 20, 2023, 06:02:42 PM
-
If you can be ''good'' without God as the Humanists say. Why isn't everyone ''good''?
-
If you can be ''good'' without God as the Humanists say. Why isn't everyone ''good''?
If you can lose weight through dieting and exercise as Weightwatchers say, why isn't everyone slim?
-
If you can lose weight through dieting and exercise as Weightwatchers say, why isn't everyone slim?
That is answering a question with a question. I would be interested to see if the Humanists are actually surveying who's good and how many. That would be scientific.
Why isn't everybody slim is a good question though since Weight is the evil according to weightwatchers.......any answers?
-
That is answering a question with a question. I would be interested to see if the Humanists are actually surveying who's good and how many. That would be scientific.
Why isn't everybody slim is a good question though since Weight is the evil according to weightwatchers.......any answers?
It's pointing out that it's a stupid question by using the second question as a reductio. Your structure implies that anything that someone says can be done will be done by everyone. There's (a) no reason to make that jump, and (b) contains a logical contradiction since two seperate groups could argue for A/Not A and your construction means that you think both would be implied to happen.
-
It's pointing out that it's a stupid question by using the second question as a reductio. Your structure implies that anything that someone says can be done will be done by everyone. There's (a) no reason to make that jump, and (b) contains a logical contradiction since two seperate groups could argue for A/Not A and your construction means that you think both would be implied to happen.
The humanists say you can be good without God... so why isn't everybody taking the decision to be Good?
''Because they aren't'' doesn't seem to be addressing any question.
There used to be a saying drawn from an advert ''What's your secret champ?'' I wonder if any Humanist actually has any working out on how you can be good without God.
-
The humanists say you can be good without God... so why isn't everybody taking the decision to be Good?
Lots of reasons. Self interest,lack of empathy for others, mental illness, poor upbringing, life situation means they have to .......
-
The humanists say you can be good without God... so why isn't everybody taking the decision to be Good?
You haven't showed why everybody will based on the Humanists statement. And you've just ignored that I pointed out that your construction leads to both A and Non A being implied so is logically incoherent.
-
Lots of reasons. Self interest,lack of empathy for others, mental illness, poor upbringing, life situation means they have to .......
But these can be overcome apparently because according to the Humanists you can be good without God...so how's it done?
-
You haven't showed why everybody will based on the Humanists statement. And you've just ignored that I pointed out that your construction leads to both A and Non A being implied so is logically incoherent.
Maeght had no difficulty answering though.
-
But these can be overcome apparently because according to the Humanists you can be good without God...so how's it done?
So, a different question now. They can be overcome but not always. Depends. Not sure what point you are making.
-
Maeght had no difficulty answering though.
Doesn't mean much :)
-
Doesn't mean much :)
Nearly Sane is in the premier division to my southern league.
-
Nearly Sane is in the premier division to my southern league.
So what am I?
On second thoughts, don't answer that.
-
Maeght had no difficulty answering though.
And? I think he's answering a pointless illogical question. I've explained why I think it is that. That someone 'answered' it is irrelevant to my argument.
-
And? I think he's answering a pointless illogical question. I've explained why I think it is that. That someone 'answered' it is irrelevant to my argument.
That's why I said it doesn't mean much :)
-
If you can be ''good'' without God as the Humanists say. Why isn't everyone ''good''?
Maybe everyone is.
-
Maybe everyone is.
Really? Tell on.
-
Really? Tell on.
Maybe.
You don't agree?
-
Being good and selfless depends on ones spiritual level. Nothing to do with believing in a God. A person can be highly developed spiritually and still not believe in a God. A person can be less developed and still believe in a God.
People of higher spiritual development have more of the 'divine' element and less of the animal element. This makes them more universal and compassionate and less insecure about their own survival and significance.
Belief in God is cultural and depends on ones upbringing and community.
-
Being good and selfless depends on ones spiritual level. Nothing to do with believing in a God. A person can be highly developed spiritually and still not believe in a God. A person can be less developed and still believe in a God.
People of higher spiritual development have more of the 'divine' element and less of the animal element. This makes them more universal and compassionate and less insecure about their own survival and significance.
Belief in God is cultural and depends on ones upbringing and community.
We are animals. Anything we do reflects human nature - good or bad. Behaviours depnd on many elements as I mentioned and don't see any such thing as spiritual development.
-
Being good and selfless depends on ones spiritual level. Nothing to do with believing in a God. A person can be highly developed spiritually and still not believe in a God. A person can be less developed and still believe in a God.
People of higher spiritual development have more of the 'divine' element and less of the animal element. This makes them more universal and compassionate and less insecure about their own survival and significance.
Belief in God is cultural and depends on ones upbringing and community.
Straight of the bat Sriram I think you are using the term spiritual development a bit shamanically here.
In my opinion there is perhaps less of a consciousness or theological development of notions of good and evil the more 'east' one gets...and I include the Eastern Orthodox church in that.
Feel free to comeback.
-
Straight of the bat Sriram I think you are using the term spiritual development a bit shamanically here.
In my opinion there is perhaps less of a consciousness or theological development of notions of good and evil the more 'east' one gets...and I include the Eastern Orthodox church in that.
Feel free to comeback.
Aren't you using the term 'theological' there shamanically?
-
Aren't you using the term 'theological' there shamanically?
I don't think so since the title is Good without God and theology is to do with the things of God. In Sriram's scheme God is a minor consideration here and secondary to spiritual development whatever that means.
The Humanist slogan good without God is I believe based on a myth agnostics, atheists and apatheists have concerning the religious who they take as holier than thou and seeing themselves as Good and everybody else as the sinners. The truth is they see themselves as sinners. Good without God is based on brushes with christians and christianity rather than engagement IMV.
I haven't seen a manifesto from Humanist UK on how to be Good so perhaps it is a low priority for them.
-
If you can be ''good'' without God as the Humanists say. Why isn't everyone ''good''?
Probably for the same reason that not all theists are good.
And theists have the additional motivation of burning in hell if they aren't good.
-
Probably for the same reason that not all theists are good.
And theists have the additional motivation of burning in hell if they aren't good.
That doesn’t look like the Gospel where people can come to Christ because they aren’t good. I only speak for Christianity, here.
-
I don't think so since the title is Good without God and theology is to do with the things of God. In Sriram's scheme God is a minor consideration here and secondary to spiritual development whatever that means.
The Humanist slogan good without God is I believe based on a myth agnostics, atheists and apatheists have concerning the religious who they take as holier than thou and seeing themselves as Good and everybody else as the sinners. The truth is they see themselves as sinners. Good without God is based on brushes with christians and christianity rather than engagement IMV.
I haven't seen a manifesto from Humanist UK on how to be Good so perhaps it is a low priority for them.
I'm surprised you haven't gone all Euthyphro on us before now, Vlad.
-
That doesn’t look like the Gospel where people can come to Christ because they aren’t good. I only speak for Christianity, here.
On that view, you question applies to Christians as well as atheists.
If you can be good even though God provides you with a way out of the punishment for being bad, why isn't everybody good?
The answer is the same as for your question: just because you can be good doesn't mean you will be good.
-
Don't feed the troll
-
Don't feed the troll
I don't know what you quite expect when you come on the RELIGION and ETHICS MESSAGE BOARD?
-
I don't know what you quite expect when you come on the RELIGION and ETHICS MESSAGE BOARD?
From Wiki
In slang, a troll is a person who posts or makes inflammatory, insincere, digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages online (such as in social media, a newsgroup, a forum, a chat room, an online video game), or in real life, with the intent of provoking others into displaying emotional responses,[2] or manipulating others' perception. The behavior is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or purposefully causing confusion or harm to other people.[3]
If you can be ''good'' without God as the Humanists say. Why isn't everyone ''good''?
of course it's trolling
-
If you can be ''good'' without God as the Humanists say. Why isn't everyone ''good''?
Because 'good' is cultural, and one culture's 'good' is not another's. Because, whilst you CAN be good (for your cultural background), you can equally not be, and some people make poor/selfish/those choices. Because if you couldn't not be 'good' then we wouldn't have a word for it, it would just be.
O.
-
Because 'good' is cultural, and one culture's 'good' is not another's. Because, whilst you CAN be good (for your cultural background), you can equally not be, and some people make poor/selfish/those choices. Because if you couldn't not be 'good' then we wouldn't have a word for it, it would just be.
O.
What I want to see is a thorough going manifesto for 'being good from Humanist UK' either it's not really their top priority or they think like Dawkins that it is religion that makes people bad.
-
What I want to see is a thorough going manifesto for 'being good from Humanist UK' either it's not really their top priority or they think like Dawkins that it is religion that makes people bad.
Then you should join them and make the change from the inside.
-
Then you should join them and make the change from the inside.
I'll join them Seb if you start attending your local Kirk.
-
I'll join them Seb if you start attending your local Kirk.
I'm not advocating that my local Kirk make anything a "top priority" though.
So I'll pass on that one thanks.
I await with trepidation your updates on your journey to achieve your desire regarding Humanist UK.
-
I'm not advocating that my local Kirk make anything a "top priority" though.
So I'll pass on that one thanks.
I await with trepidation your updates on your journey to achieve your desire regarding Humanist UK.
Somehow the words desire and Humanist UK look peculiar in the same sentence.
-
Somehow the words desire and Humanist UK look peculiar in the same sentence.
Do they?
Anyhoo, keep us posted?
-
What I want to see is a thorough going manifesto for 'being good from Humanist UK' either it's not really their top priority or they think like Dawkins that it is religion that makes people bad.
Or they think they are a group appealing to a broad range, and that it's for individuals to determine for themselves what they think is 'good' rather than cleaving to edicts from some central authority?
Dawkins does not necessarily think that religion makes people bad, but that religion's sacrosanct status and bronze age origins affords protection for bad people doing bad things, and the social pressure within religions gives bad people opportunities to encourage otherwise good people to do bad things.
O.
-
Or they think they are a group appealing to a broad range, and that it's for individuals to determine for themselves what they think is 'good' rather than cleaving to edicts from some central authority?
Central authority seems unavoidable. Where Christianity has the Holy spirit, secular humanism has the Zeitgeist. People still take the edicts of the central authority of society. I know some people think this is a consensus of freethinkers but it is still largely tribal and tribes have their ruling classes and opinion formers.
Dawkins does not necessarily think that religion makes people bad, but that religion's sacrosanct status and bronze age origins affords protection for bad people doing bad things, and the social pressure within religions gives bad people opportunities to encourage otherwise good people to do bad things.
Dawkins criticised the tribal only to form one of his own. I totally get the allusion to Roman Catholicism though
Interestingly I was reminded the other day of CS Lewis on Roman Catholicism and why he couldn't go over to Rome ''Not only do you have to believe all they say, but you have to believe everything they are going to say.''
-
Central authority seems unavoidable.
I think there's a historical tendency for people to absolve themselves of moral responsibility by accepting 'moral' edicts from on high, as well as cultural pressure to incline people to adopt socially acceptable practices. At the same time, though, there's more than enough evidence of counter-culture movements which have expanded to be adopted into cultural norms, or at least accepted behaviours, that we can presume that it's not a requirement that central authority be present and adhered to.
Where Christianity has the Holy spirit, secular humanism has the Zeitgeist.
Or, depending on your take on things, where Christianity has vocal Christians leveraging the belief of others to co-erce/indoctrinate them into accepting defined tenets (and there's plenty of history of rebellion against various creeds, not just in Christianity but religion in general), secular humanism has no defined set of moral tenets, but individual secular humanists still have social norms to navigate.
People still take the edicts of the central authority of society.
Some, certainly, but at every stage of history there have been heretics, rebels, outsiders and freethinkers who have pushed back against the norms, asking the question 'why?' If this were not the case we'd still have slavery, women would not have rights, homosexuality would still be proscribed...
I know some people think this is a consensus of freethinkers but it is still largely tribal and tribes have their ruling classes and opinion formers. Dawkins criticised the tribal only to form one of his own.
Professor Dawkins didn't 'form' a tribe - he laid out a message, and some people chose to adopt that. They formed a tribe around his ideas, he didn't set out to inculcate a group of followers.
Interestingly I was reminded the other day of CS Lewis on Roman Catholicism and why he couldn't go over to Rome ''Not only do you have to believe all they say, but you have to believe everything they are going to say.''
Given Yahweh's history of catastrophic resets of the rules, I'd suggest that's a potential outcome for any Christian, no?
O.
-
Where does our knowledge of "good" or "bad" come from?
From the materialist view, are we not all parts of the continuum of a material universe all being driven by the laws of nature?
How can we judge the actions of people like Putin or Hitler as being Bad - are they not just the inevitable result of being acted upon by laws beyond our control?
Or does our knowledge of Good and Evil come from God - who gives us the freedom to choose between the two?
-
I think there's a historical tendency for people to absolve themselves of moral responsibility by accepting 'moral' edicts from on high, as well as cultural pressure to incline people to adopt socially acceptable practices. At the same time, though, there's more than enough evidence of counter-culture movements which have expanded to be adopted into cultural norms, or at least accepted behaviours, that we can presume that it's not a requirement that central authority be present and adhered to.
And Christianity is probably the example par excellence
Or, depending on your take on things, where Christianity has vocal Christians leveraging the belief of others to co-erce/indoctrinate them into accepting defined tenets (and there's plenty of history of rebellion against various creeds, not just in Christianity but religion in general), secular humanism has no defined set of moral tenets, but individual secular humanists still have social norms to navigate.
I think the new testament is rich on individual moral responsibility and low on commandment. It was after all the individual who repents, The individual who recieves the holy spirit. The individual who recieves faith.
Do we see Humanist as the new kid on the block, is it in it's teenage? How will it fair when it's on top. Will it rediscover the need to coerce and indoctrinate society into righteous humanist values?
Some, certainly, but at every stage of history there have been heretics, rebels, outsiders and freethinkers who have pushed back against the norms, asking the question 'why?' If this were not the case we'd still have slavery, women would not have rights, homosexuality would still be proscribed...
Or christians thrown to the lions.
Professor Dawkins didn't 'form' a tribe - he laid out a message, and some people chose to adopt that.
My goodness I'm actually physically startled at how religious that sounds They formed a tribe around his ideas,
And he set up a foundation to nurture them.
-
Where does our knowledge of "good" or "bad" come from?
From the materialist view, are we not all parts of the continuum of a material universe all being driven by the laws of nature?
How can we judge the actions of people like Putin or Hitler as being Bad - are they not just the inevitable result of being acted upon by laws beyond our control?
Or does our knowledge of Good and Evil come from God - who gives us the freedom to choose between the two?
Our human nature.
-
Where does our knowledge of "good" or "bad" come from?
From the materialist view, are we not all parts of the continuum of a material universe all being driven by the laws of nature?
How can we judge the actions of people like Putin or Hitler as being Bad - are they not just the inevitable result of being acted upon by laws beyond our control?
Or does our knowledge of Good and Evil come from God - who gives us the freedom to choose between the two?
As soon as we get evidence for God, then we could start to appraise this seriously. Until that time, it is just belief, and beliefs vary between and within religions.
-
As soon as we get evidence for God.....
What are you expecting?
-
What are you expecting?
Maybe a personal revelation, just like the one you had?
Not ambiguous, something which is clearly a "message", from the Christan god, one which may even make an atheist become an evangelist.
No namby pamby "feeling" which for which one might be accused of god-dodging if it doesn't register.
Can someone sign up for that?
Do tell.
-
What are you expecting?
That's a problem for people who claim 'God'. Without any universally agreed definition, how would we know what to test for ?
-
That's a problem for people who claim 'God'.
Not really since you think there is no evidence for God what is it that is lacking? (I'm pretty sure what it is).
-
Not really since you think there is no evidence for God what is it that is lacking? (I'm pretty sure what it is).
Not really, it is theists that have the burden of proof; which in turn implies the burden of definition
-
Not really, it is theists that have the burden of proof; which in turn implies the burden of definition
OK, what is the default position or status quo here in this case?
-
Not really, it is theists that have the burden of proof; which in turn implies the burden of definition
Which I have given elsewhere. God is what we call the Necessary entity.
-
Which I have given elsewhere. God is what we call the Necessary entity.
That's not very useful. How could we test for necessity ?
-
That's not very useful. How could we test for necessity ?
Since observation affects objects and the necessary entity cannot be changed quite difficult.
As for use it’s a bit like saying the channel tunnel is useless because I can’t use my bucket and spade.
-
And Christianity is probably the example par excellence
It's been several centuries since Christianity was the counter-culture anywhere round here.
I think the new testament is rich on individual moral responsibility and low on commandment.
Unfortunately for us all Christianity is about the activity of Christians, which is not always particularly well-grounded in the nicer parts of the scriptures.
It was after all the individual who repents, The individual who recieves the holy spirit. The individual who recieves faith.
But it's the institutions and the traditions which set expectations on indoctrinating children, on denying equality to people based on sex, sexuality and, until very recently, race.
Do we see Humanist as the new kid on the block, is it in it's teenage?
Humanism emerged in late 13th Century Italy, so I'm not sure it's the 'New Kid'.
How will it fair when it's on top.
To hear you tell it elsewhere it already is on top, surely? Regardless, it rather depends on how well its proponents abide by the underlying ideas, and how much they try to reify the concepts or drag other cultural ideas into the acceptable norms; I'd like to think that the absence of any claims of divine or absolute right behind any of it would result in it being at least more open to question, but we'll have to wait and see.
Will it rediscover the need to coerce and indoctrinate society into righteous humanist values?
If it does it will be a disappointment, but still an improvement on what's come before, so... mixed bag?
Or christians thrown to the lions.
Ah, other people were terrible, so therefore the perfect deity's chosen system gets a pass...
My goodness I'm actually physically startled at how religious that sounds
When you can suggest that Professor Dawkins told people 'I am the way' or 'Do this as often as you eat/drink it, in remembrance of me' then you can suggest that he tried to start something equivalent. Whatever the real Jesus might have said, the mythical magical Jesus is portrayed as very definitely trying to start a religious movement.
And he set up a foundation to nurture them.
A foundation which promotes scientific literacy, secularism and critical thinking... if that's what he's nurturing, it's pretty much the opposite of a religion, you know that right?
O.
-
If you can be ''good'' without God as the Humanists say. Why isn't everyone ''good''?
Can you be "bad" with God?
-
Can you be "bad" with God?
There are a range of responses here one of the most extreme views was held by a guy called Tertullian who said post baptismal sin was possible and unforgiveable
Then there is the camp that says yes but God forgives Christians automatically
Then there is the position where you have to go to God or the priesthood to ask for forgiveness for mortal sins, the alternative I think are called venal sins.
Then there are those who say you can lose your salvation
and those that say you can't.
In the NT three phases of Salvation are said to be the state of a believer in Christ,
Saved, being saved, will be saved.
-
There are a range of responses here one of the most extreme views was held by a guy called Tertullian who said post baptismal sin was possible and unforgiveable
Then there is the camp that says yes but God forgives Christians automatically
Then there is the position where you have to go to God or the priesthood to ask for forgiveness for mortal sins, the alternative I think are called venal sins.
Then there are those who say you can lose your salvation
and those that say you can't.
In the NT three phases of Salvation are said to be the state of a believer in Christ,
Saved, being saved, will be saved.
.....and what do you personally say in response to the question?
-
.....and what do you personally say in response to the question?
You can still sin.
-
You can still sin.
Is that the same as being bad?
-
Is that the same as being bad?
Depends what you mean by bad.
Is it sin, is it "making mistakes," is it "just being human",Is it "all relative?"
-
Depends what you mean by bad.
Is it sin, is it "making mistakes," is it "just being human",Is it "all relative?"
I mean the opposite of what you meant by "good" in the OP.
-
If you can be ''good'' without God as the Humanists say. Why isn't everyone ''good''?
Yes the point was to discuss what the Humanists define as good.And so I suppose bad must be what the Humanists define as bad.
I can suppose good does not depend on God and good is what is right on, being nice to kittens and beastly toward religion and bonoboising religious people.
-
Yes the point was to discuss what the Humanists define as good
Do you know what they define as good?
-
Do you know what they define as good?
Sebastian, I’d love to know.
-
Sebastian, I’d love to know.
Then without a common point of reference I'm unsure as to how you could conceivably posit the question in the OP and expect a reply which you could rationally understand!
-
Then without a common point of reference I'm unsure as to how you could conceivably posit the question in the OP and expect a reply which you could rationally understand!
For a humanist there is no common point of reference, whereas Christians have the Bible containing divine revelations of what is good or bad.
-
For a humanist there is no common point of reference, whereas Christians have the Bible containing divine revelations of what is good or bad.
And that's why you all agree...oh wait...
-
AB,
For a humanist there is no common point of reference,…
Sort of. There are broad moral positions that instinctively almost all of us think to be good – not murdering for example. Above that though we have various schools of ethics and moral philosophy that develop over time.
…whereas Christians have the Bible…
Ah, but now you’ve fallen apart. What sort of “Christians” are you thinking of here? Evangelicals? Baptists? Mormons” Jehovah’s witnesses? Catholics? Lutherans? Seventh day adventists? Each of them (and many more besides) seem to take their own moral teachings form their religious texts, as for that matter have the bewildering array of sub-divisions and sub- sub-divisions within them.
…containing divine revelations of what is good or bad.
And now you’ve just collapsed into an unqualified faith position. How would you propose to justify the claims that there is a divine, that it’s revealed anything in some books, that the books are accurately transcribed, that any of the mutiply contradictory moral statements contained therein should be taken more seriously than any of the others etc?
-
For a humanist there is no common point of reference,
Thanks for letting Vlad know that in your opinion his OP was completely nonsensical!
-
Christians have the Bible containing divine revelations of what is good or bad.
Deuteronomy 25:11–12
..like that?
-
For a humanist there is no common point of reference, whereas Christians have the Bible containing divine revelations of what is good or bad.
Like, collecting firewood on a Sabbath is real bad.
Keeping slaves is OK, though
-
Deuteronomy 25:11–12
..like that?
Or Numbers 31, always a good read .
I sometimes wonder just how much of the Bible Alan has read.
-
For a humanist there is no common point of reference,
Which is only problematic if you presume that there's only one way to be good.
whereas Christians have the Bible containing divine revelations of what is good or bad.
Which is why we have on united wold-wide Christian denomination with a clear interpret... oh, wait...
O.
-
Or Numbers 31, always a good read .
I sometimes wonder just how much of the Bible Alan has read.
We have the ten commandments from God.
Then we have a set of man made rules and regulations from the OT - much of which have been consigned to history.
Then we get the teachings of Jesus which builds upon the ten commandments and gives us true guidance for our earthly lives.
So we need to consider what is truly divine and what is man made and as such may be subject to change.
-
AB,
We have the ten commandments from God.
Not sure you want to ascribe them to “God” given the weirdly prioritising and deeply insecure deity their author would be but ok…
Then we have a set of man made rules and regulations from the OT - much of which have been confined to history.
Erm – ok. Several of them haven’t been “confined to history” in some countries though – the homophobic and misogynistic ones for example.
Then we get the teachings of Jesus which builds upon the ten commandments and gives us true guidance for our earthly lives.
Some of the ideas ascribed to Jesus seem to be useful still I agree, though others are showing their age somewhat. What’s disappointing though perhaps is his total silence on the important areas than can vex people now – abortion, stem cell research, cloning, that kind of thing.
So we need to consider what is truly divine and what is man made and as such may be subject to change.
Do you not think you should concern yourself first with establishing that there’s a divine at all before jumping straight to questions of what “truly” does and doesn’t qualify?
-
We have the ten commandments from God.
Then we have a set of man made rules and regulations from the OT - much of which have been consigned to history.
It was Moses who delivered the messages in Deuteronomy wasn't it?
Is his word and wisdom not to be trusted?
-
It was Moses who delivered the messages in Deuteronomy wasn't it?
Is his word and wisdom not to be trusted?
Moses was the messenger - not the author.
-
Moses was the messenger - not the author.
...for all of Deuteronomy?
-
Moses was the messenger - not the author.
Moses was not anything, Moses is a mythical figure.
O.
-
We have the ten commandments from God.
Then we have a set of man made rules and regulations from the OT - much of which have been consigned to history.
Then we get the teachings of Jesus which builds upon the ten commandments and gives us true guidance for our earthly lives.
So we need to consider what is truly divine and what is man made and as such may be subject to change.
And there you were in a previous post saying it was all divinely inspired (Searching for God #44801). Since all we have is words written by men, how do you distinguish what you think is important?
"Not one jot nor tittle of the Law shall pass away..."
-
Moses was not anything, Moses is a mythical figure.
O.
who supposed his toeses were roses
-
Moses was the messenger - not the author.
Supposing there to be a 'divine author', everything comes to us via his 'messengers', who wrote on papyrus and the like. Catholics of course say the magisterium determines what is important, but all that is ultimately determined by what is written in various ancient manuscripts whose exact original form itself is equivocal.
-
Some of the ideas ascribed to Jesus seem to be useful still I agree, though others are showing their age somewhat. What’s disappointing though perhaps is his total silence on the important areas than can vex people now – abortion, stem cell research, cloning, that kind of thing.
Predictably, as a non believer, you are making judgements purely on earthly values. God sees the bigger picture which somewhat turns many worldly values upside down, leading me to respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.
Do you not think you should concern yourself first with establishing that there’s a divine at all before jumping straight to questions of what “truly” does and doesn’t qualify?
You must know by now that I have no personal need to establish the true existence of God, and that He made himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.
-
who supposed his toeses were roses
but Moses supposes erroneously
-
Supposing there to be a 'divine author', everything comes to us via his 'messengers', who wrote on papyrus and the like. Catholics of course say the magisterium determines what is important, but all that is ultimately determined by what is written in various ancient manuscripts
Bzzzzzzzzzzz Fallacy of modernity.
-
...for all of Deuteronomy?
Moses was simply the messenger for bringing us the ten commandments from God.
-
Moses was simply the messenger for bringing us the ten commandments from God.
...and what was he for the rest of Dueteronomy?
-
...and what was he for the rest of Dueteronomy?
Chief cook, bottle washer, gofer and general factotum
-
Moses was simply the messenger for bringing us the ten commandments from God.
Enough of these circular arguments already!
-
AB,
Predictably, as a non believer, you are making judgements purely on earthly values. God sees the bigger picture which somewhat turns many worldly values upside down, leading me to respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.
Leaving aside the unqualified faith claims in that statement, does it never strike you as odd that these commandments are of such parochiality and imply a god of such insecurity that they’re exactly as you’d expect them to be had they been written by fearful, agrarian, “concerned primarily with keeping the emergent cult together” authors rather than by a god of the omnis?
You must know by now that I have no personal need to establish the true existence of God, and that He made himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.
No, I know that you believe that to be the case but – so far at least – you’ve never managed to produce a justification for the belief that withstands scrutiny.
-
Bzzzzzzzzzzz Fallacy of modernity.
Since it's only in the last 200 years or so that scholars have been able to make critical examinations of the scriptures without suffering serious repercussions to their livelihood from the Church, whether Catholic or Protestant, I fail to see how this approach automatically makes it 'fallacious'. All critical appraisals tend to some kind of confirmation bias, but in the previous unquestioning approach of believers, the bias was overwhelming.
Anyway, what exactly did you mean by 'fallacy of modernity'?
-
Since it's only in the last 200 years or so that scholars have been able to make critical examinations of the scriptures without suffering serious repercussions to their livelihood from the Church, whether Catholic or Protestant, I fail to see how this approach automatically makes it 'fallacious'. All critical appraisals tend to some kind of confirmation bias, but in the previous unquestioning approach of believers, the bias was overwhelming.
Anyway, what exactly did you mean by 'fallacy of modernity'?
I think Vlad means this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty
Though I can't see where it applies to the post of your's he replied to.
-
Predictably, as a non believer, you are making judgements purely on earthly values. God sees the bigger picture which somewhat turns many worldly values upside down, leading me to respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death..
Unsupported irrational assertion.
God gave humans an 'earthly' brain with which to think, knowing that it would lead us to incorrect conclusions. You can't see the problem with this ?
-
I think Vlad means this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty
On the money, as usual
Though I can't see where it applies to the post of yours he replied to.
The Alarm bell on Underpant's post was the use of the phrase ''ancient''.
-
On the money, as usualThe Alarm bell on Underpant's post was the use of the phrase ''ancient''.
I think that's an appropriate word to describe things which are very old. Doesn't make them without interest, or just to be approached in the manner of various kinds of believers through the centuries. The latter have themselves made a complete pig's ear of the various doctrines which can be derived from them, so it might be incumbent on everyone with an interest to try to look at them as objectively as possible (and that includes you).
-
I think that's an appropriate word to describe things which are very old. Doesn't make them without interest, or just to be approached in the manner of various kinds of believers through the centuries. The latter have themselves made a complete pig's ear of the various doctrines which can be derived from them, so it might be incumbent on everyone with an interest to try to look at them as objectively as possible (and that includes you).
I felt you were using the word "ancient' in the perjorative.
-
I felt you were using the word "ancient' in the perjorative.
He's surely using it in the sense that investigation of the meaning of ancient texts is much harder as you don't have the authors or in many cases know who they are, you don't have original or often complete texts, you don't have documemts that they wrre reacting to, or reacted to tgem including contemporary comnentaries?
-
He's surely using it in the sense that investigation of the meaning of ancient texts is much harder as you don't have the authors or in many cases know who they are, you don't have original or often complete texts, you don't have documemts that they wrre reacting to, or reacted to tgem including contemporary comnentaries?
That is true of all documents but some are of matters specific to the age and some are supposed to reflect 'eternal verites'. To dismiss everything on account of age seems arbitrary and incorrect and dare I say it, appeal to novelty.
-
That is true of all documents but some are of matters specific to the age and some are supposed to reflect 'eternal verites'. To dismiss everything on account of age seems arbitrary and incorrect and dare I say it, appeal to novelty.
I woild agree if anyone had done that here they would be wrong - but since they haven't so what. It isn't true of all documents, and implying that since not everything is perfectly supported, everything is equally valid is idiotic.
As to the 'eternal verities', that's you committing the opposite fallacy of appealling to antiquity.
-
That is true of all documents but some are of matters specific to the age and some are supposed to reflect 'eternal verites'. To dismiss everything on account of age seems arbitrary and incorrect and dare I say it, appeal to novelty.
The problem isn't just antiquity though: there is provenance to be considered.
-
I woild agree if anyone had done that here they would be wrong - but since they haven't so what. It isn't true of all documents, and implying that since not everything is perfectly supported, everything is equally valid is idiotic.
As to the 'eternal verities', that's you committing the opposite fallacy of appealling to antiquity.
No, it isn't because you could come up with one tomorrow sane. It seems they are above argument from modernity or antiquity.
There is material of interest to historians and there is material of interest to philosophers. Each type of material has it's own support. Different rules on validity are used in analysis.
-
I felt you were using the word "ancient' in the perjorative.
Well, I wasn't.
-
No, it isn't because you could come up with one tomorrow sane. It seems they are above argument from modernity or antiquity.
There is material of interest to historians and there is material of interest to philosophers. Each type of material has it's own support. Different rules on validity are used in analysis.
Could I? How could you tell?
As to your seond sentence, you are correct. But that just backs up Dicky's post, and my elaboration of the issue of meaning. Changes in meaning, lack of clarity, lack of discussion all effect how you approach both philosophical documents and historical documents though and you don't appear to understand that
-
Could I? How could you tell?
As to your seond sentence, you are correct. But that just backs up Dicky's post, and my elaboration of the issue of meaning. Changes in meaning, lack of clarity, lack of discussion all effect how you approach both philosophical documents and historical documents though and you don't appear to understand that
I could tell if it was philosophical in nature and had no reference to recent events or geographical contexts.
Although I can see a view that says everything might be written with the latter two things in mind.
How could you prove changes in meaning apart from just having a general belief that things must have?