Why do Christians believe in Jesus when He's NOWHERE in the Hebrew Bible?

BidenPresident said:
Philosophy had shown that governments no longer needed to be organized around the idea of divine right to be legitimate, but rather by the consent or rationality of the governed — that large and consistent moral theories could exist without reference to God. Europe no longer needed God as the source for all morality, value, or order in the universe; philosophy and science were capable of doing that for us. This increasing secularization of thought in the West led the philosopher to realize that not only was God dead but also that human beings had killed him with their scientific revolution, their desire to better understand the world.

https://bigthink.com/thinking/what-nietzsche-really-meant-by-god-is-dead/
Click to expand...

There's obviously no need for a God to establish a morality. But if one were to investigate the morality claimed by a specific religious group or if one wishes to discuss how morality has been historically discussed, often reference to the matrix society's favored religion is not only needed but absolutely necessary.

My feeling about morality is it is an emergent property of any social group. Social animals derive an evolutionary and survival advantage from a cohesive and stable social group. That means developing a set of rules that work to balance the desires of all members of the group with the needs of all members of the group. Murder is wrong because it would tend to destabilize the social group. Theft is wrong because it would tend to destabilize the social group. Etc.

So when the social group is threatened the survival of all members are threatened.

And I don't even think this version of morality required any philosophers to come up with it. We see it in wild animals that work in packs. We see rules spontaneously generate within social animal communities.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
I have found that often people forget that even if one is an atheist, as I am, one can still enjoy a discussion of theology. For me theology has always been something that _should_ follow logical rules and as such can be discussed dispassionately without belief in the diety.

People discuss Zeus and Greek mythology all the time without actually believing that Zeus exists on Mt. Olympus.

I was fortunate in my undergrad years to have had a close friend who was a philosophy major so I got to be exposed to all manner of ridiculously wild philosophical conversations for years. It was so much fun! We debated everything...even things we both didn't believe in.

I feel some degree of sorrow for those people who cannot understand this type of entertainment.
Click to expand...

Some people think whatever they learned as a child is all they need to know as an adult.
I do not find philosophy merely "entertainment."
 
Perry Phimosis said:
There's obviously no need for a God to establish a morality. But if one were to investigate the morality claimed by a specific religious group or if one wishes to discuss how morality has been historically discussed, often reference to the matrix society's favored religion is not only needed but absolutely necessary.

My feeling about morality is it is an emergent property of any social group. Social animals derive an evolutionary and survival advantage from a cohesive and stable social group. That means developing a set of rules that work to balance the desires of all members of the group with the needs of all members of the group. Murder is wrong because it would tend to destabilize the social group. Theft is wrong because it would tend to destabilize the social group. Etc.

So when the social group is threatened the survival of all members are threatened.

And I don't even think this version of morality required any philosophers to come up with it. We see it in wild animals that work in packs. We see rules spontaneously generate within social animal communities.
Click to expand...

okay
 
Perry Phimosis said:
There's obviously no need for a God to establish a morality. But if one were to investigate the morality claimed by a specific religious group or if one wishes to discuss how morality has been historically discussed, often reference to the matrix society's favored religion is not only needed but absolutely necessary.

My feeling about morality is it is an emergent property of any social group. Social animals derive an evolutionary and survival advantage from a cohesive and stable social group. That means developing a set of rules that work to balance the desires of all members of the group with the needs of all members of the group. Murder is wrong because it would tend to destabilize the social group. Theft is wrong because it would tend to destabilize the social group. Etc.

So when the social group is threatened the survival of all members are threatened.

And I don't even think this version of morality required any philosophers to come up with it. We see it in wild animals that work in packs. We see rules spontaneously generate within social animal communities.
Click to expand...

The concept of the secular came from the Enlightenment. It was a conscious effort to separate the state from the church.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
I have found that often people forget that even if one is an atheist, as I am, one can still enjoy a discussion of theology. For me theology has always been something that _should_ follow logical rules and as such can be discussed dispassionately without belief in the diety.

People discuss Zeus and Greek mythology all the time without actually believing that Zeus exists on Mt. Olympus.

I was fortunate in my undergrad years to have had a close friend who was a philosophy major so I got to be exposed to all manner of ridiculously wild philosophical conversations for years. It was so much fun! We debated everything...even things we both didn't believe in.

I feel some degree of sorrow for those people who cannot understand this type of entertainment.
Click to expand...

I just object to the premise that religion has been totally useless to the human experience, just like I object to the rightwing's science denial of vaccines, climate science, and evolution.

The fact is people in the west, atheist or not, instantly recognize the moral maxims from the Sermon on the Mount if they hear it. Just like most Asians instantly would recognize a moral maxim from the Analects or Dhammapada if they heard it.

As much as I love Einstein, I doubt anyone could recite a quote from his landmark paper on special relativity.

That is how deeply embedded in human culture the moral dimensions from our ancient religious traditions are.
 
Cypress said:
Maybe your education level is to low to understand that religion can be acknowledged as historically, socially, and culturally important to the human experience while still being agnostic about belief in a deity.

Those two positions are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

The very definition of a fence sitter! If religion doesn't bring you to a person relationship with God!
You're wasting your time!
 
Perry Phimosis said:
I have found that often people forget that even if one is an atheist, as I am, one can still enjoy a discussion of theology. For me theology has always been something that _should_ follow logical rules and as such can be discussed dispassionately without belief in the diety.

People discuss Zeus and Greek mythology all the time without actually believing that Zeus exists on Mt. Olympus.

I was fortunate in my undergrad years to have had a close friend who was a philosophy major so I got to be exposed to all manner of ridiculously wild philosophical conversations for years. It was so much fun! We debated everything...even things we both didn't believe in.

I feel some degree of sorrow for those people who cannot understand this type of entertainment.
Click to expand...

Bullshit! If you're an atheist ,theology doesn't really exist!
 
Cypress said:
I just object to the premise that religion has been totally useless to the human experience,
Click to expand...

NOr did I say as much. Indeed religion HAS done good for the human experience, but it has also done great evil. Anytime people prefer the imaginary over the demonstrable abuses can happen.

The fact is people in the west, atheist or not, instantly recognize the moral maxims from the Sermon on the Mount if they hear it.
Click to expand...

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because we all learned the sermon on the mount does not make it the SOURCE of our knowledge of morality. Morality presumably pre-exists The Sermon on the Mount.

And the Sermon on the Mount is a listing of the ideals.

That is how deeply embedded in human culture the moral dimensions from our ancient religious traditions are.
Click to expand...

No, it's a sign of how religion was co-opted as the moral authority by the society. The best way to impress upon a society that they should do right vs wrong would be to put some "threat" behind it, or some "framework". The framework is wholly made up, but still serves the purpose.

Or do you think humans had to develop speech and communication and then someone had to develop a religion before anyone knew that murder was wrong or that unfair treatment of fellow citizens was a bad thing?
 
Perry Phimosis said:
There's obviously no need for a God to establish a morality. But if one were to investigate the morality claimed by a specific religious group or if one wishes to discuss how morality has been historically discussed, often reference to the matrix society's favored religion is not only needed but absolutely necessary.

My feeling about morality is it is an emergent property of any social group. Social animals derive an evolutionary and survival advantage from a cohesive and stable social group. That means developing a set of rules that work to balance the desires of all members of the group with the needs of all members of the group. Murder is wrong because it would tend to destabilize the social group. Theft is wrong because it would tend to destabilize the social group. Etc.

So when the social group is threatened the survival of all members are threatened.

And I don't even think this version of morality required any philosophers to come up with it. We see it in wild animals that work in packs. We see rules spontaneously generate within social animal communities.
Click to expand...

We're all immoral,maybe not 24/7,but sometimes
 
Cypress said:
I just object to the premise that religion has been totally useless to the human experience, just like I object to the rightwing's science denial of vaccines, climate science, and evolution.

The fact is people in the west, atheist or not, instantly recognize the moral maxims from the Sermon on the Mount if they hear it. Just like most Asians instantly would recognize a moral maxim from the Analects or Dhammapada if they heard it.

As much as I love Einstein, I doubt anyone could recite a quote from his landmark paper on special relativity.

That is how deeply embedded in human culture the moral dimensions from our ancient religious traditions are.
Click to expand...

You're bullshiting yourself! If you think you can take something out of religion ,but stay a loft from God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top