Good without God

[Sebastian Toe]

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?

[Alan Burns]

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.

[Sebastian Toe]

Moses was the messenger - not the author.

...for all of Deuteronomy?

[Outrider]

Moses was the messenger - not the author.

Moses was not anything, Moses is a mythical figure.

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

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..."

[Nearly Sane]

Moses was not anything, Moses is a mythical figure.

O.

who supposed his toeses were roses

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[Alan Burns]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

who supposed his toeses were roses

but Moses supposes erroneously

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Alan Burns]

...for all of Deuteronomy?

Moses was simply the messenger for bringing us the ten commandments from God.

[Sebastian Toe]

Moses was simply the messenger for bringing us the ten commandments from God.

...and what was he for the rest of Dueteronomy?

[Nearly Sane]

...and what was he for the rest of Dueteronomy?

Chief cook, bottle washer, gofer and general factotum

[Dicky Underpants]

Moses was simply the messenger for bringing us the ten commandments from God.

Enough of these circular arguments already!

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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'?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[torridon]

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 ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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''.

[Dicky Underpants]

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).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Gordon]

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.