Are Morals Relevant?

[cvanwey]

Is it your position we can 'know nothing?' My assessment is nihilism has invaded your very own thought processes. It is not enough for the nihilist to say "life has no meaning" but now to claim "any information from the past has no meaning."

If so then you should probably demand every university close down its history and philosophy depts. I would also extend that to paleontology and anthropology. While we are at it let's torpedo the other social sciences as the SJW courses and gender studies courses. Because we just know as flawed human beings what we are even doing now will be flawed and there is no standard in which to judge anything.

I'm being slightly facetious, to keep away all the erroneous responses of claimed 'absolute truth' ;-) Otherwise, yes. I do assume conclusions. Therefore, please demonstrate 1 Corinthians 15:6 and Matthew 27:52 , as it pertains to claims of eyewitness attestation.

 

[cvanwey]

You mean the miracles? And you probably conclude miracles just don't happen so anyone even thousands witnessing the supernatural must be wrong because miracles just don't happen.

Did I summarize your view correctly above?

1 Corinthians 15:6 and Matthew 27:52 does not count, in accordance to the definitions of eyewitness. So where are these thousands of eyewitnesses coming from? Remember, corroboration...

 

[redleghunter]

I'm being slightly facetious, to keep away all the erroneous responses of claimed 'absolute truth' ;-) Otherwise, yes. I do assume conclusions. Therefore, please demonstrate 1 Corinthians 15:6 and Matthew 27:52 , as it pertains to claims of eyewitness attestation.

I addressed 1 Corinthians 15:6 here.

Matthew 27:52? What's the issue? Miracles happen in the Bible. What makes this one any different?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So here is a moral absolute, it is absolutely evil, an abomination to rape an infant. This is universally evil, applies to all individuals, all societies, throughout all of time. Care to disagree?

 

[redleghunter]

1 Corinthians 15:6 and Matthew 27:52 does not count, in accordance to the definitions of eyewitness. So where are these thousands of eyewitnesses coming from? Remember, corroboration...

Why not?

Do you think Matthew when penning his gospel account sat in a dark room and was not in contact with other people who saw the events? And I already answered your 1 Corinthians 15:6 question.

The Corinthians in the 1st Century AD circa 54 AD had access to hundreds still alive who saw the risen Christ.

 

[cvanwey]

I addressed 1 Corinthians 15:6 here.

Matthew 27:52? What's the issue? Miracles happen in the Bible. What makes this one any different?

This does not qualify. This would be like me using Chapter three of a science book to validate chapter two of the very same science book. You are using the Bible to prove the Bible. Sorry. This is circular.

I'm asking for corroboration outside the actual claim.

Show me where 500 eyewitnesses actually accounted for seeing a resurrection, outside the Bible? Tell me where secular reports, again, outside the Bible, report seeing zombies, and report this occurence?

You don't.

Thanx

 

[cvanwey]

Why not?

Do you think Matthew when penning his gospel account sat in a dark room and was not in contact with other people who saw the events? And I already answered your 1 Corinthians 15:6 question.

The Corinthians in the 1st Century AD circa 54 AD had access to hundreds still alive who saw the risen Christ.

Then there would be 500 signed attestations, both inside and outside the Bible, wouldn't there? Instead, you have an account from one person, speaking for 500, decades later. Suspicious....

 

[redleghunter]

This does not qualify. This would be like me using Chapter three of a science book to validate chapter two of the very same science book. You are using the Bible to prove the Bible. Sorry. This is circular.

Flawed analogy. As the science book you have is from the same authors or publishers. There are different witnesses involved throughout history from Moses through John the apostle who died circa late 1st Century AD. Different authors, different witness testimony.

I'm asking for corroboration outside the actual claim.

Outside of the Roman empire where is there attestation of the emperor Claudius?

Or did you just want your impossible standard to apply to Hebrews and Christians?

Show me where 500 eyewitnesses actually accounted for seeing a resurrection, outside the Bible? Tell me where secular reports, again, outside the Bible, report seeing zombies, and report this occurrence?

They were not zombies. We've had this conversation before.

What would you consider secular reports? The tomb the Roman soldiers found empty? Where would we find reports of what would be dereliction of duty? Maybe in execution reports as that's what happens to Roman soldiers who do not do their duty. Once again, see above....You create an impossible standard to make any opposing view fail...Even the veracity of 'secular' history from that period cannot meet the 'independent check' criteria. Why because none existed and as I told another poster, to demand such is anachronistic demagoguery.

You don't.

Then neither does any history from antiquity.

Also, I don't know what you mean by 'secular reports.' There were no secular communities in the Empire of Rome. You were either Greco-Roman pagan, Jewish or Christian. The predominant and official religion of the empire was Greco-Roman paganism, which included emperor worship. Jews and Christians were minorities and at the whim of Roman pagan emperors fed them to wild animals for sport.

 

[redleghunter]

Then there would be 500 signed attestations, both inside and outside the Bible, wouldn't there?

Now that is funny. In the Jewish culture of the time what still held true was the Torah standard of two or three eyewitnesses. According to the standard of the Law and Prophets that was 166.7 times more than adequate.

However, the 'signed' witness testimony you seek is found in the 27 New Testament books.

Instead, you have an account from one person, speaking for 500, decades later. Suspicious....

Actually, you have an account from one person in the epistle to the Corinthians circa 54 AD (just 20 years after the Resurrection) tell the audience that they still could find ample people to ask about seeing the Risen Christ. Now remember, Paul was a direct witness of seeing the Risen Christ as well.

 

[Allandavid]

So why is it wrong according to the secular worldview, that is, if this world is nothing more than a product of astronomical random chance?

There is no wrong or right in the Atheistic worldview, because wrong and right demand a moral absolute.

For starters, there is no “atheistic worldview”. Atheism is the answer to one simple question....’do you believe in the existence of gods?’ Questions of wrong and right are a separate consideration.

And, as has been explained fully before, a secular basis for morality is not only a logical understanding, it can be demonstrated to be accurate. We can provide evidence (in many species, not only humans) of communities forming as social groups, in which the security of the group and the safety and well-being of the individuals within the group are codependent.

 

[Allandavid]

Inaccurate. Most of the NT books were penned before 70 AD. Revelation and the Gospel of John comes later on as he lived to be very old. And he was an eyewitness to the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ.

Show me a copy of a NT text from 70 AD...! My understanding is that the earliest ‘documents’ we have are from the 2nd Century and that these are little more than credit card sized fragments.

 

[Allandavid]

You rejecting YHWH did not make Him go away, so don't see the point.

Nor does your rejection of Allah, Krishna, Zeus, Mars, Thor, the Rainbow Serpent, etc, etc, ‘make’ them go away either...so your point is poorly made. I was challenged about my rejection of god claims, so I responded...

Good, but his point is you have no reason to on a moral basis. To save your own 'hide' sure I can see that. But that is a survival instinct and not a moral. Plus whether you believe it or not you probably subscribe subconsciously to the 'we reap what we sow' worldview. So you have a Christian moral worldview and probably don't know it as it is embedded in Western society.

Oh, mind reading is in your bag of tricks is it...?

The “reason” for my moral basis is that, as with all other humans, I am the product of an evolutionary process that has endowed me with the ability to empathise with the feelings of my fellows. It has also resulted in me desiring to live in social groups with those fellows and to realise that the health and security of those social groups is vital if I am also to remain healthy and secure.

So, yes, wanting to live in a secure community is indeed a “survival instinct”...and we all have one..!

 

[Allandavid]

So here is a moral absolute, it is absolutely evil, an abomination to rape an infant. This is universally evil, applies to all individuals, all societies, throughout all of time. Care to disagree?

And here’s another one...it is “absolutely evil, an abomination” to take other human beings as slaves...right?

Oh, wait.....

 

[redleghunter]

Show me a copy of a NT text from 70 AD...!

Show me any document autograph from the same time frame. Do you know how documentary and manuscript evidence works?

My understanding is that the earliest ‘documents’ we have are from the 2nd Century and that these are little more than credit card sized fragments.

Yes the earliest manuscript evidence of any historical document from antiquity is from the Gospel of John.

However, dating of manuscripts is not the dating of the original autographs. You have to look at circulation in other works and the historical markers in the actual manuscripts. Based on both aforementioned, the New Testament is the most reliable collection of historical and literary documents from antiquity. No other sources even come close.

 

[redleghunter]

Nor does your rejection of Allah, Krishna, Zeus, Mars, Thor, the Rainbow Serpent, etc, etc, ‘make’ them go away either...so your point is poorly made. I was challenged about my rejection of god claims, so I responded...

When hundreds see any of the above alive after dying a horrible death and put in the grave, ping me.

 

[redleghunter]

The “reason” for my moral basis is that, as with all other humans, I am the product of an evolutionary process that has endowed me with the ability to empathise with the feelings of my fellows.

So a process endowed you with empathy and feelings. The personification of a process sounds like religion to me.

And can you show me the evolutionary evidence of empathy and feelings and put it in a petri dish so we can all behold it under a microscope?

And do you have any peer reviewed studies of the ehvolution of feelings and empathy?

It has also resulted in me desiring to live in social groups with those fellows and to realise that the health and security of those social groups is vital if I am also to remain healthy and secure.

Pol Pot, Lenin and Stalin believed in forming social (no pun intended) groups. That did not turn out so well.

So, yes, wanting to live in a secure community is indeed a “survival instinct”...and we all have one..!

Yes and we see what happens when everyone's survival instinct kicks in when resources are scarce. They tend to forget about this nebulous social compact and start eating each other.

 

[Ken-1122]

What or who defines what is helpful or harmful?

All moral intelligent beings decide.

If we are just the product of random chance, there is no way to define that which is helpful or harmful.

Empathy allows us to understand what is helpful or harmful to our neighbors.

We are just random bodies bumping into each other, just a bundle of sensations and feelings.

As intelligent beings, we are much more than that.

This is not the message of Christianity. No one has the ability, in and of themselves, to do that which is good (or obedient). The message of Christianity is that we have violated God's perfect standard (which is sin), we are dead in our sins and have no ability to be obedient and we are under the wrath of God. However, by the work of regeneration of the heart of the believer in Jesus Christ, by His grace alone (called salvation), those who are in Christ are now able to be obedient to God as a product of their salvation. Christians are not good and moral people, not better than anyone else. I, myself, am the greatest sinner there is (I have nothing good in my, in and of myself), but I have been redeemed from my bondage to sin, by Christ alone, by His grace alone, by faith alone, through the gift of repentance by which God has granted me.

If that is the true message of Christianity, I am sorry for you and anyone who accepts that message. I can only hope you can grow beyond it and learn how to become a moral person.

 

[Ken-1122]

Basically, we reap what we sow. Sorry but that's been done already.

What I said had nothing to do with "reaping what you sow" perhaps you should read what I wrote again.... all of it.

 

[Ken-1122]

So here is a moral absolute, it is absolutely evil, an abomination to rape an infant. This is universally evil, applies to all individuals, all societies, throughout all of time. Care to disagree?

There were societies where slavery was the norm, and if the infant were a slave, to perform an act that we currently refer to as rape would not be evil because it was your property; and what constitutes as rape today was not necessarily considered rape years ago.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

And here’s another one...it is “absolutely evil, an abomination” to take other human beings as slaves...right?

Oh, wait.....

Do I take it you disagree with the example given or no? Let's not pretend I've claimed all morals are absolute, that would be a strawman.

Here's another moral absolute, cannibalism of humans is absolutely evil, an abomination. This is universally evil, applies to all individuals, all societies, throughout all of time. Care to disagree?