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

Perry Phimosis said:
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.



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.



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?
Click to expand...

We could start a whole thread on the crimes of religion, because I have a good working knowledge of it.

My argument wasn't about how religion and it's moral maxims came to be embedded in European, Middle Eastern and Asian culture. My argument was that religion has been historically important to the human social, cultural, and ethical development. Pluralistic democratic society is only two centuries old, so we can't really anachronistically apply those standards to people thousands of years ago.


Murder and stealing have probably been frowned upon since the first Paleolithic tribes. Being able to restrain oneself from raping, stealing, and murdering is such a low ethical bar to clear that it barely clears the ground, and it doesn't even really count as a sophisticated moral system.
 
Cypress said:
My argument wasn't about how religion and it's moral maxims came to be embedded in European, Middle Eastern and Asian culture. My argument was that religion has been historically important to the human social, cultural, and ethical development. Pluralistic democratic society is only two centuries old, so we can't really anachronistically apply those standards to people thousands of years ago.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone really disagrees. I'm just saying that it is the other way 'round. Moral rules were developed and then religion was used to enforce said rules. It's efficient and works on less developed societies.

Murder and stealing have probably been frowned upon since the first Paleolithic tribes. Being able to restrain oneself from raping, stealing, and murdering is such a low possible ethical bar to clear that it barely clears the ground, and it doesn't even really count as a sophisticated moral system.
Click to expand...

Actually that is pretty much 100% the basis of morality. Everything else is effectively just derivatives of that.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
I don't think anyone really disagrees. I'm just saying that it is the other way 'round. Moral rules were developed and then religion was used to enforce said rules. It's efficient and works on less developed societies.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Earlier in the thread I posted a link from the very moderate and very mainstream Enclopedia Brittanica detailing how Christian ethics were a significant evolution from classical Roman ethics.

Actually that is pretty much 100% the basis of morality. Everything else is effectively just derivatives of that.
Click to expand...

My reading of the Analects, the Nicomachean Ethics, the Gospel of Luke, and the Dhammapada is that moral excellence and the cultivation of character and virtue involves far more than just being able to restrain oneself from murdering, raping, and stealing.
 
Cypress said:
I agree.
I don't think the moral dimension described in the Sermon on the Mount, in the Analects, in The Dhammapada just somehow come perfectly naturally to us, and that has been proven by history time after time.
Click to expand...

Agreed it isn't natural. It's reasoned. Animals react to their genetic programming or what they've been taught such how how to hunt in packs. None of them, to my knowledge, have reasoned out better ways to protect their flock, troop, pack, etc.
 
Cypress said:
We could start a whole thread on the crimes of religion, because I have a good working knowledge of it.

My argument wasn't about how religion and it's moral maxims came to be embedded in European, Middle Eastern and Asian culture. My argument was that religion has been historically important to the human social, cultural, and ethical development. Pluralistic democratic society is only two centuries old, so we can't really anachronistically apply those standards to people thousands of years ago.


Murder and stealing have probably been frowned upon since the first Paleolithic tribes. Being able to restrain oneself from raping, stealing, and murdering is such a low ethical bar to clear that it barely clears the ground, and it doesn't even really count as a sophisticated moral system.
Click to expand...
Religion is a tool for spiritual understanding and where to look for a higher moral code. Like any tool, it can be misused. The anti-religious focus upon the negative aspects of religion like anti-gun advocates look at guns: they blame the tool, not the tool-user.

This can tie into the maxim "it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools".
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed it isn't natural. It's reasoned. Animals react to their genetic programming or what they've been taught such how how to hunt in packs. None of them, to my knowledge, have reasoned out better ways to protect their flock, troop, pack, etc.
Click to expand...

Concur. We are imbued with an advanced ability of reason and conscience that allows us to derive ways of living and systems of behavior that, with effort and practice, transcend basic biological needs for survival.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Religion is a tool for spiritual understanding and where to look for a higher moral code. Like any tool, it can be misused. The anti-religious focus upon the negative aspects of religion like anti-gun advocates look at guns: they blame the tool, not the tool-user.

This can tie into the maxim "it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools".
Click to expand...

But focusing on the failures of religion proves the case that religion is not necessary for a moral society to exist. Religion has been used as often for horrible attrocities as it has been used to justify doing good.

If you wish to blame the "users" of the religion for "misappropriating" the religion you are doing "special pleading" for religion. By biasing the results ONLY to include those which are "nice" one will result in no additional knowledge.

Religion never kept anyone from doing whatever evil is truly in their hearts. And atheism never kept anyone from doing whatever good was truly in their hearts.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
But focusing on the failures of religion proves the case that religion is not necessary for a moral society to exist. Religion has been used as often for horrible attrocities as it has been used to justify doing good.

If you wish to blame the "users" of the religion for "misappropriating" the religion you are doing "special pleading" for religion. By biasing the results ONLY to include those which are "nice" one will result in no additional knowledge.

Religion never kept anyone from doing whatever evil is truly in their hearts. And atheism never kept anyone from doing whatever good was truly in their hearts.
Click to expand...

Atheism isn't a belief,it's a lack of belief
 
Perry Phimosis said:
So, using your BESTEST fake psychology lingo, give me my diagnosis. Use the PROPER TERMS.

I would honestly love to see your "skills" on display.

LOLOL.
Click to expand...
Perry Phimosis said:
But focusing on the failures of religion proves the case that religion is not necessary for a moral society to exist. Religion has been used as often for horrible attrocities as it has been used to justify doing good.

If you wish to blame the "users" of the religion for "misappropriating" the religion you are doing "special pleading" for religion. By biasing the results ONLY to include those which are "nice" one will result in no additional knowledge.

Religion never kept anyone from doing whatever evil is truly in their hearts. And atheism never kept anyone from doing whatever good was truly in their hearts.
Click to expand...

You should stick to arguing with Mason. It suits your personality much better. :thup:
 
Dutch Uncle said:
You should stick to arguing with Mason. It suits your personality much better. :thup:
Click to expand...

I am fascinated that you take one of my posts which actually was related to CONTENT, ignore it and somehow find a way to insult with it.

And you seem to think OTHER people have problems.

Hmmmmmm.

(I figured you for the shallow thinker you appear to be! LOL.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top