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

[Saint Guinefort]

I asked for your definition! You deflected.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You don't get to DECLARE what is real or not for me and ONLY THEN try to figure out what the word means.

That's just not how it works. Sorry!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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.)

It caught me by surprise, but all the rambling made it a tough slog.

Everyone has problems, Perry PhD. One day you'll realize that is true...and when you do, that's the day you'll realize you are no longer the center of the Universe, son.

 

[Cypress]

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.

I agree that religion isn't necessary for morality.

I agree that theoretically speaking, the ethical dimension of human experience could have developed outside of spiritual and metaphysical traditions.

But that's not the way history happened. The ethical, cultural, social milieu people of Europe and Asia germinated in was the religious and metaphysical traditions started by the sages of the Axial Age through late antiquity.

There's no denying Immanuel Kant, Voltaire, and Jean Jacques Rousseau were important thinkers on morality and ethics. But if you stopped the average person on the street, they would never have heard of them. On the flip side, the moral maxims from The Analects, the Sermon on the Mount, the Dhammapada have become part of our social DNA. They are instantly recognizable to anyone who hears them it the west or in Asia.

That is just a reasonable and realistic assessment of history, independent of whether I believe or don't believe any dieties exist.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

It caught me by surprise, but all the rambling made it a tough slog.

More insults apropos of nothing. Interesting.

Were you not able to understand my point? Too many words? The words too big for the board's own Flash Ace Pilot?

Let me know what grade level you read at and I think there might be an online tool that will allow me to "dumb it down" enough for you. Thanks!

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I agree that religion isn't necessary for morality.

I agree that theoretically speaking, the ethical dimension of human experience could have developed outside of spiritual and metaphysical traditions.

But that's not the way history happened.

How do you know that isn't the way it happened? It seems to me you are looking backwards through time and only see the writings of the moral philosophers without wondering what came before them.

That is why I noted post hoc ergo propter hoc.

That is just a reasonable and realistic assessment of history, independent of whether I believe or don't believe any dieties exist.

Yes but I contend that those moral concepts pre-existed any great thinkers. That, indeed, most of what moral philosophy does is attempt to codify those actions which pre-existed it.

It's not like all of humanity was murdering each other every minute of every day until Kant came along with the Categorical Imperative.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

More insults apropos of nothing. Interesting.

Were you not able to understand my point? Too many words? The words too big for the board's own Flash Ace Pilot?

Let me know what grade level you read at and I think there might be an online tool that will allow me to "dumb it down" enough for you. Thanks!

This thread if full of your point, Perry PhD: you hate religion. What you haven't explained is why you hate religion or spirituality.

 

[Cypress]

How do you know that isn't the way it happened? It seems to me you are looking backwards through time and only see the writings of the moral philosophers without wondering what came before them.

That is why I noted post hoc ergo propter hoc.



Yes but I contend that those moral concepts pre-existed any great thinkers. That, indeed, most of what moral philosophy does is attempt to codify those actions which pre-existed it.

It's not like all of humanity was murdering each other every minute of every day until Kant came along with the Categorical Imperative.

We have writing before the Axial Age and late Antiquity. In both the pre-classical Greek age, the pre-Zoroastrian Near East age, and the pre-classical Hindu cultic Vedic age of the subcontinent.

They don't really resemble at all what Plato, Jesus, Confucius, and Zhuangzi were writing.

Homeric writing, which was a touchstone for pre-Platonic Greeks, was heavily focused on concepts of personal honor, reputation, and an abiding concern with what other people thought about you. Ancient Vedic practices were exclusively focused on cosmic maintainence, not personal virtue.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

This thread if full of your point, Perry PhD: you hate religion.

Hmmm, I think you missed a key point. I don't really hate religion. In fact, if you actually HAD read ANY of my posts you'd see I repeatedly note there is a great deal of Christianity that I VALUE HIGHLY.

I think it interesting that you take the points that I make about what evils have been done in the name of religion, you ignore the posts where I talk about the GOOD done by religion and you draw a flawed conclusion.

One wonders how a "psychological screener" who does such a bad job (you have been consistently wrong guessing about me) would have negatively impacted the lives of innocent people just wanting to do a job.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

We have writing before the Axial Age and late Antiquity. In both the pre-classical Greek age, the pre-Zoroastrian Near East age, and the pre-classical Hindu cultic Vedic age of the subcontinent.

They don't really resemble at all what Plato, Jesus, Confucius, and Zhuangzi were writing.

That is pretty weak evidence for the position.

Homeric writing, which was a touchstone for pre-Platonic Greeks, was heavily focused on concepts of personal honor, reputation, and an abiding concern with what other people thought about you. Ancient Vedic practices were exclusively focused on cosmic maintainence, not personal virtue.

Once again, I find it interesting that you wish only to focus on the writings as if that is prima facie evidence that the concepts ORIGINATED in the writings and weren't just a means of codifying previously existing ethical structures.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hmmm, I think you missed a key point. I don't really hate religion. In fact, if you actually HAD read ANY of my posts you'd see I repeatedly note there is a great deal of Christianity that I VALUE HIGHLY.

I think it interesting that you take the points that I make about what evils have been done in the name of religion, you ignore the posts where I talk about the GOOD done by religion and you draw a flawed conclusion.

One wonders how a "psychological screener" who does such a bad job (you have been consistently wrong guessing about me) would have negatively impacted the lives of innocent people just wanting to do a job.

^^^
Post is a good example of your style; you slip on a positive note or two but your posts are overwhelmingly negative. Your most recent posts as examples:

That is pretty weak evidence for the position.

Once again, I find it interesting that you wish only to focus on the writings as if that is prima facie evidence that the concepts ORIGINATED in the writings and weren't just a means of codifying previously existing ethical structures.

How do you know that isn't the way it happened? It seems to me you are looking backwards through time and only see the writings of the moral philosophers without wondering what came before them.

That is why I noted post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Yes but I contend that those moral concepts pre-existed any great thinkers. That, indeed, most of what moral philosophy does is attempt to codify those actions which pre-existed it.

It's not like all of humanity was murdering each other every minute of every day until Kant came along with the Categorical Imperative.

More insults apropos of nothing. Interesting.

Were you not able to understand my point? Too many words? The words too big for the board's own Flash Ace Pilot?

Let me know what grade level you read at and I think there might be an online tool that will allow me to "dumb it down" enough for you. Thanks!

 

[Saint Guinefort]

^^^
Post is a good example of your style; you slip on a positive note or two but your posts are overwhelmingly negative. Your most recent posts as examples:

So you consider ANY disagreement as "negative" and "hate"?

Interesting. This might explain why you couldn't hack grad school. You lack the ability to handle disagreement with your points.

Very interesting psychological insight.

Would it be possible for you to actually address the CONTENT in keeping with the thread or do you absolutely have to make everything about me?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So you consider ANY disagreement as "negative" and "hate"?

Interesting. This might explain why you couldn't hack grad school. You lack the ability to handle disagreement with your points.

Very interesting psychological insight.

Would it be possible for you to actually address the CONTENT in keeping with the thread or do you absolutely have to make everything about me?

No, but thanks for making my point.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

No, but thanks for making my point.

I thought as much. You are unable to comment on the content of the thread so long as there's a chance to score an insult on me. And I'm the one with the "problems".

I actually kind of wanted to see what you think about this topic, but I can see that it is impossible for you to maintain focus (that's probably why you couldn't go very far in university) so long as I am here.

I am genuinely curious what a narcissist thinks is "ethical".

 

[Cypress]

That is pretty weak evidence for the position.



Once again, I find it interesting that you wish only to focus on the writings as if that is prima facie evidence that the concepts ORIGINATED in the writings and weren't just a means of codifying previously existing ethical structures.

Writing is the best possible historical evidence we have.

I think all reputable historians would agree that all writing we have of the pre-axial age and pre-classical antiquity is substantially different than the writing we began to see with the sages and philosophers of classical antiquity, in Europe and in Asia. In both focus and content.

We could say that the cultural norms and ethical dimensions of human existence in the Neolithic were exactly like they were in classical antiquity, but that is speculation just begging for some concrete tangible proof.

Reflections on the Axial Age

...the function of religion evolved from cosmic maintenance in pre-Axial Age times to personal transformation in the Axial era. As human beings began to interpret themselves as individuals ontologically separate from one another, existence is problematized and new solutions are sought and implemented. The concern for morality intensifies, and virtue and discipline are heralded as laudable goals. New, more expansive understandings of ultimate reality are put forward and advanced. The significance of these developments for human culture can hardly be overestimated.

--> Mark Muesse, professor of religious studies

 

[Cypress]

I think the ethical dimensions of American society has evolved substantially in just a century or two, from the days of the antebellum South and pre-women's suffrage to today.

I don't see why one would be incredulous to believe that the ethical dimension of human experience could have changed from the 8000 years between the early Neolithic to late antiquity.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I thought as much. You are unable to comment on the content of the thread so long as there's a chance to score an insult on me. And I'm the one with the "problems".

I actually kind of wanted to see what you think about this topic, but I can see that it is impossible for you to maintain focus (that's probably why you couldn't go very far in university) so long as I am here.

I am genuinely curious what a narcissist thinks is "ethical".

Perry Phd, I learned all I need to know about you in your comments to both Cypress and Mason.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Perry Phd, I learned all I need to know about you in your comments to both Cypress and Mason.

If your learning was anything like your "learning" behind all your "diagnoses" I'd say you should buy malpractice insurance. And lots of it.

Now, can we talk about the nature and origin of morality and ethics? It's MUCH more interesting than your problems.

I claim that morality is nothing but a set of rules that social animals develop to ensure the survival advantages conferred by a group. That these moral "truths" are not in any way "Universal" but really only apply to the group who adheres to them.

The great moral philosophers were, indeed, doing good work to attempt to understand morality and ethics, but in the end all they are doing is selecting from the previously agreed upon "rules" and optimizing them or downselecting to the ones that would yield the highest return.

Utilitarianism is a great example. It's effectively a stochastic process in which all members of the group are exhorted to do that which would return the greatest good to the largest number (or decrease the suffering of the largest number). That is really nothing more than optimizing the general rules that we have to maintain a stable and safe social group.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I think the ethical dimensions of American society has evolved substantially in just a century or two, from the days of the antebellum South and pre-women's suffrage to today.

I think we see that we are still not done with that evolution. Clearly America STILL has a vicious race problem and our treatment of women is still lagging behind where it should be given our advanced state of development as a society.

I don't see why one would be incredulous to believe that the ethical dimension of human experience could have changed from the 8000 years between the early Neolithic to late antiquity.

Of course we've changed. But not necessarily by discovering new moral "truths". We always knew harming another person without cause is a "bad" thing. It's just figuring out how we apply that. Moral Philosophy is, if nothing else, perhaps best viewed as a search for the elimination of all the LOOPHOLES we built into otherwise straightforward ideals.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Writing is the best possible historical evidence we have.

In this case I would actually argue that paleoanthropology and comparative animal behavior studies are FAR MORE valuable evidence.

We could say that the cultural norms and ethical dimensions of human existence in the Neolithic were exactly like they were in classical antiquity, but that is speculation just begging for some concrete tangible proof.

No, I'm pretty sure neolithic man was just as uncomfortable with senseless murder of other people as we are today. They may not have had codification or explanation of why but I doubt their moral inclinations were dramatically different.

Even the ancient Israelites knew (were literally TOLD by God) that murder (the killing of an innocent) was wrong. But the books of the BIble that FOLLOW Exodus are drenched in blood. Blood at the hands of these people who were favored by God and who had direct connection to him. But who could blame them? God himself seems to have encouraged and supported the vicious genocides His followers undertook.

And that all remains in the BIBLE to this day and is NOT dealt with by the morality of most Christians. Ask a Christian how to explain 1 Sam 15:3 and see what kind of answer you get. It's usually a mass of special pleading to get the Israelites (and God) off the hook for a genocide. In fact the story goes on to say that since Saul FAILED to complete the genocide, God himself turned away from Saul.

Of course no Christian today would support a genocide, but then, neither did the Israelites per the Ten Commandments. But they still did it. (this is assuming the BIble is accurate correct in 1Sam and the other books of the Pentateuch regarding the God-ordained land grab.

 

[Melchizedek = Michael]

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You don't get to DECLARE what is real or not for me and ONLY THEN try to figure out what the word means.

That's just not how it works. Sorry!

You claim to be an atheist, define atheist!