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

Perry Phimosis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Perry Phimosis said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

See, Perry Phd? You don't need any comments from me. :)
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

You intentionally don't believe or disbelieve anything, you sit on the fence and name drop long dead thinkers.
Jump off the fence and get in the game.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

History predates writing.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Have you been to any American city hood?
 
Perry Phimosis said:
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.
Click to expand...

FYI ,Dutch is a baiter ,he will drag you farther into his web!
It's why most everyone long ago put him on ignore!
 
Perry Phimosis said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

America is a gun junkie! That's a problem!
 
Dutch Uncle said:
See, Perry Phd? You don't need any comments from me. :)
Click to expand...

So you agree with everything I say? That's actually kind of disappointing. I thought maybe you had some thoughts of your own.

Well, either way, thanks! I appreciate it. I'm not entirely certain my points are ipso facto correct. But I like my points and now I'm glad you agree with them!
 
Perry Phimosis said:
So you agree with everything I say? That's actually kind of disappointing. I thought maybe you had some thoughts of your own.

Well, either way, thanks! I appreciate it. I'm not entirely certain my points are ipso facto correct. But I like my points and now I'm glad you agree with them!
Click to expand...

No. I do, but you're not the type to discuss. You only rant....your right to do so.

You're welcome. :)
 
Dutch Uncle said:
No. I do, but you're not the type to discuss. You only rant....your right to do so.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so anyone who writes in declarative sentences is "ranting" in your world?


I sense you don't actually want to talk about this topic but rather continue to insult me. I wish I wasn't your primary obsession. It's unpleasant having an unhinged loser tracking me and trying to figure out aspects of my life.

If you DO want to talk about morality and ethics I'm glad to. Unfortunately I will use large words and probably overly long sentences. That's what happens when you write a thesis AND a dissertation. You wouldn't understand.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Ahh, so anyone who writes in declarative sentences is "ranting" in your world?

I sense you don't actually want to talk about this topic but rather continue to insult me. I wish I wasn't your primary obsession. It's unpleasant having an unhinged loser tracking me and trying to figure out aspects of my life.

If you DO want to talk about morality and ethics I'm glad to. Unfortunately I will use large words and probably overly long sentences. That's what happens when you write a thesis AND a dissertation. You wouldn't understand.
Click to expand...
No, Perry PhD.

Perry, I'm only responding to your posts. You don't want to talk and I'm fine with that choice. You're free to claim all of my posts are insults. Others can decide for themselves if they care to do so.

Your posts interest me because you claim you are being persecuted and insulted, then you persecute and insult others. It's odd behavior for someone who claims to be highly educated.
Perry Phimosis said:
More insults. Even when OTHER people are being insulted, Dutch Chancre has to insult me as well. -Sigh-
Click to expand...
Sigh. No sense of humor. Sad, but it fits.
 
I AM said:
John 8:58
Click to expand...

High Intelligence Is the Only Higher Power

Before Abraham, the Jews were a group of evolved Sumerian High IQs being exploited by the homo erectus bullies who ruled (and would destroy that civilization built by homo sapiens). A modern analogy is corporate patents, the most destructive Grand Larceny in Terminal America.

By using "I am," instead of "I was," Jesus showed that he didn't know anything about that. But Aeschylus did when he wrote his haunting Prometheus Bound.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
No, Perry PhD.

Perry, I'm only responding to your posts. You don't want to talk and I'm fine with that choice. You're free to claim all of my posts are insults. Others can decide for themselves if they care to do so.

Your posts interest me because you claim you are being persecuted and insulted, then you persecute and insult others. It's odd behavior for someone who claims to be highly educated.
Sigh. No sense of humor. Sad, but it fits.
Click to expand...

Sorry, thought you were an honest broker on here. Didn't realize you had gone full-on troll.

You seem to have a relatively weak grasp on "morality".
 
The Sage of Main Street said:
High Intelligence Is the Only Higher Power

Before Abraham, the Jews were a group of evolved Sumerian High IQs being exploited by the homo erectus bullies who ruled (and would destroy that civilization built by homo sapiens). A modern analogy is corporate patents, the most destructive Grand Larceny in Terminal America.
Click to expand...

Why are patents evil? Just curious. I used to be an IP guy at my job, so I got to learn a lot about them. But I'm always interested in people's opinion on patents, especially when they don't like them.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Sorry, thought you were an honest broker on here. Didn't realize you had gone full-on troll.

You seem to have a relatively weak grasp on "morality".
Click to expand...

QED. Anyone who doesn't want to engage with your "debate" is insulted. Sad, Perry.

FWIW, I really do think most of your issues are stress related. You should see a doctor about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top