Are Morals Relevant?

[stevenfrancis]

Even if I attempt to abide by 'good' moral standings, to the best of my abilities... Meaning, don't kill, rape, steal, lie, murder, trespass, be kind to others, etc...

But I do not believe in a risen Jesus, because one cannot choose what to believe; and my needed evidence for belief appears lacking.... According to Christian theology, I will rot in hell.

So tell me how morals are actually even relevant, in regards to Christianity? It appears belief is the only driving source.

Thanks

This looks to be another way to phrase the works vs. faith argument between the Catholics/Orthodox and some of the protestant denominations. Particularly those based on Calvinsism. Protestant theology seems to have developed along an either/or philosophical line. The truth is, that it's a both/and type of doctrine if you look carefully at the NT scriptures. Yes, belief/faith by itself can work for salvation in the sense that for God, all things are possible. (see the "good thief" being crucified next to Jesus, for instance). But the fact is, that direct salvation was for that individual who had an end of life encounter with Jesus. Christ himself described a moral code that was necessary for salvation as the normative means of salvation. Is it possible that one may be saved by belief alone? Sure. God CAN save anyone. But for bulk of us He told us we must DO stuff. We must, for instance be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We must refrain from sexual immorality. We must still abide by the 10 commandments, (which Christ actually STRENGTHENED......"but i tell you that.."). They are now written on our hearts, and contained within the two commandments of Christ. "Love God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself". He also says we need to feed the hungry, house the homeless, give drink to the thirsty, visit the sick and the imprisoned etc., or we will find ourselves locked outside the gate. For killing He said when you are angry with your brother you are full of murder. He said when you look at a person with lust, that you have committed adultery. He said He did not relax a single commandment. He also said that His Father has infinite mercy and love.

The only things that changed were the Levitical laws and other laws outside of the 10 commandments which were intended for pre-incarnational Jews only to set them apart from the rest of the peoples of the earth.

Summary - Morals are just as important, if not more so than ever they were.

 

[redleghunter]

No, he wrote about Christians and reported what they claimed about Jesus....

That's what historians do...

 

[redleghunter]

Not an eyewitness.
Nore independent.

The dude is just repeating what believers were saying / believing.

What was the 1st century AD version of Sky News? Meaning what were the independent agencies in the Roman Empire?

 

[cvanwey]

Sorry for the brevity of personal response here, in this case, it might be for the best to save on time and space (considering it's going off topic, but because you asked...). Before I post the relevant links though, here is a short little story about a period of time in my life. Between 2001-2003 I spent a great deal of time debating atheists/agnostic and just about anyone I found disagreement with. I learned a great deal of things in the process, I learned from them and from outside study and research. At the time I was a Weslyian/Pentecostcal type, and in defending the faith, I leaned heavily on a Classical/Rational approach while paying attention to evidential/historical approaches, and honestly had mostly disdain for the fideist approach. So anyway, after a couple of years of this, and mostly privately conceding many things, I came to realize the weakness of the approach I used, weakness may be putting it nicely. For example, the realization set in on just how little each of the arguments taken as single arguments substantiate, and here I was a Christian with a very nuanced and specific God with so many doctrines and other specifics to a Christian worldview, and how woefully short these arguments fell from proving that the God that exists is the God of Christianity. My whole thinking crumbled apart, I realized the probabilities involved in the arguments and how these arguments always leave a backdoor open, always. Even one of my favorite arguments, the moral argument for the existence of God, the main thrust of your thread here, I came to realize the difficulty in proving moral absolutes (though I do have a couple of gross examples, rather not go there). I actually came to a point where everything just shattered into a million pieces. To say I was experiencing doubts is an understatement, I began questioning everything I held dear, including my faith. Could I know anything with certainty? Does it all boil down to faith and probabilities? Agnosticism was setting in, and there was little I could do to prevent it. Feeling hopeless and discouraged, I decided to looking into other approaches outside of my Wesleyan box. I loaded a software disc in my PC that has an entire collection of lectures by a man by the name of Cornelius Van Til and although the quality was terrible, I suffered through and started listening and listening, and lights were clicking on even though I could hardly understand every little detail, nonetheless changes were taking place, tears were in my eyes, and I began to realize, "this man is speaking the truth, he knows what he is talking about, he is being faithful to Scripture in the whole process". Through and because of this crisis of faith, I became a convinced Calvinist, and a convinced presuppositionalist. Now many years later while I am a presuppositionalist, it's inspired me to take a more integrated approach, with an appreciation for the arguments from each of the approaches, while a Christian presuppositionalism is the methodology underneath or behind the various arguments. In other words, the traditional arguments are supportive and perfectly valid within a Christian worldview, even encouraging and uplifting, however when used as single arguments in order to prove the God of Christianity, their individual weakness is exposed. Chained together they make a much stronger case, but still will not convince the already convinced non-believer. The primary need for man is regeneration or "the new birth" or the "born again" experience. Without the ears to hear, without a softened heart, without the light of Christ, we remain in darkness and love the darkness and remain in enmity with God in the carnality of our minds. I could go on, but I will leave it at that and provide a few links to resources going into some detail concerning my faith and reasons with more depth than I am able to go into and saving on time and space.

Why I Believe in God by Cornelius Van Til

Apologetics and the Heart by Douglas Wilson

Presuppositional Apologetics by John M. Frame

Biblical Presuppositional Apologetics by Michael Butler

Thank you for your honest assessment. I appreciate it. Here is my conclusion.

Pardon me, but I'm simply going to use your claim of now being a presuppositionalist against you (below in black), with the following questions

If all our assessments can be (or) are possibly flawed, by what means did you conclude the Bible presents the absolute moral standard?

Remember, by default, all words written to paper are by humans, with no super natural source. How do you know you are not merely appealing to someone else's subjective opinion, on paper written thousands of years ago?

*****************

On a side note, and this also is in reference to one of your prior responses, including the Cosmological argument. Placing a bunch of false or defeated arguments together, does not then make it true. Example, the Kalam is a 'bad' argument. So one should then disguard it entirely. Not instead, later validate it, by adding it to other lines of argumentation for God.

(example 1):

Physical objects which exist and are pushed forward, will move forward or faster
A rock is a physical object which exists
Therefore, a pushed rock will move forward or faster

** The theory of relativity now demonstrates this is false. The speed of light refutes this statement **

(example 2)

Each sunrise has a cause
Prior to every morning's sunrise, my roaster crows
Roasters crow before and during every sunrise
Therefore, the crowing roaster is the cause of every sunrise.

** All three statements, prior to the provided 'therefore' conclusion, are even correct, in and of themselves. But when placed together, demonstrate a flaw in reasoning when attempting a foregone conclusion. **

(Example 3)

Premise 1 – If god doesn't exist, objective morals don't exist.
Premise 2 – Objective morals do exist.
Premise 3 – Therefore god exists.

** Using this attempt at reason and attempt at logic to expose the absurdity of his model using an adjacent example **

Premise 1 – If the 'Monopoly guy on the box' doesn't exist, objective economics do not exit.
Premise 2 – Objective economics do exist.
Premise 3 – Therefore, the 'Monopoly guy on the box' exists.

***************

My point being... using such malformed arguments, in conjunction with other flawed argumentation, does not then make it more true.

 

[redleghunter]

If all our assessments can be (or) are possibly flawed, by what means did you conclude the Bible presents the absolute moral standard?

Remember, by default, all words written to paper are by humans, with no super natural source. How do you know you are not merely appealing to someone else's subjective opinion, on paper written thousands of years ago

Hi CV hope all is well. I know the above is for @Apologetic_Warrior but wanted to clarify a couple of points.

First I agree humans are flawed. Just look at the stiff necked Israelites in the wilderness with Moses. I mean what more could they ask for. They experienced the presence and power of YHWH, He fed them with manna and fed them quail in the evenings. Yet even with seeing they did not trust in YHWH. So yeah humans can be real terrible, flawed and selfish.

However, as the Scriptures were recorded these types of people did not do the recording. YHWH raised up people called Prophets who He revealed Himself to and by performing miracles and fulfilling prophecies confirmed His words were true. The people of later generations considered these writings to be sacred because they came from prophets who YHWH spoke with and/or by vision appeared to them.

Just thought to clarify the above. For as received the Holy Scriptures are much different from other historical accounts. It's the God of Creation directly involved in the history of His chosen people.

Unlike in other holy books, YHWH demonstrated His Power in signs, wonders and miracles, the supernatural to prove to those witnessing His words are faithful and true. And also to prove He is not limited to His own creation as the uncreated Creator. And unlike other holy books, YHWH demonstrated His Power to hundreds and thousands at a time. Even when He came in the flesh as the Son of God Jesus Christ.

Your example of some scribe writing down something and potentially as a flawed human making stuff up does not fit nicely in the Biblical account as there were thousands if not 10s of thousands seeing the same thing and would know if someone was in error or attempting at deceiving others. The Hebrew story is a written story throughout the generations with dozens of different prophets who did not know each other.

That is the witness you need to debate against. A cloud of witnesses with an unbroken chain of prophets (and in some cases kings with prophetic words) through thousands of years and culminating in the greatest miracle of all...The Incarnation and Resurrection of truly God and truly man Jesus Christ who confirmed the testimony of the law and prophets.

 

[Allandavid]

That's what historians do...

Indeed...but he wasn’t, and never claimed to be, any form of eyewitness to the claimed events around Jesus. He simply reported that other people had made those claims...

 

[FireDragon76]

The point is that if you are not doing those good acts through love of God you are doing them through love of self; and so will "rape, steal, lie, murder, trespass" etc if you deem it to your benefit (and are deceiving yourself if you think otherwise, because you are denying that the you are living a life in worship of self).

Sounds cool until you consider most religious people are simply worshiping the self written large when they worship God, through the psychological method of projection. That's why religious people are just as capable of being selfish, but they will be hypocrites on top of it.

 

[FireDragon76]

In the forms of Christianity I was part of (when I was in Christianity), there seemed to exist a mental conflict: on one hand, we should be good, but on the other hand, we can't strive to be too good because that would be denying Jesus' gift of grace.

Goodness is an aspirational ideal more than a reality. That is how I understand it. Once you understand the need for tension between idealism and realism, and the necessity of both, it starts to make sense.

The problem is when we take our own ideas of goodness and try to make them everybody else's, or else... that is when I have a problem. We've all got incomplete pictures on the world because human subjectivity is finite.

 

[redleghunter]

Indeed...but he wasn’t, and never claimed to be, any form of eyewitness to the claimed events around Jesus. He simply reported that other people had made those claims...

Which is what dusty parchment sniffing historians do. Do you really believe historians of antiquity first hand experienced most of the events they wrote about? They don't even do that today. They record eyewitness reports and accounts and connect the dots.

If you hold all of human history to the ridiculous standard of subjective proof you seem to be demanding, then there is little from antiquity we can trust.

Do you think historians are like Gerlado Rivera?

 

[FireDragon76]

Which is what dusty parchment sniffing historians do. Do you really believe historians of antiquity first hand experienced most of the events they wrote about? They don't even do that today. They record eyewitness reports and accounts and connect the dots.

If you hold all of human history to the ridiculous standard of subjective proof you seem to be demanding, then there is little from antiquity we can trust.

Do you think historians are like Gerlado Rivera?

We rarely agree on much, especially politics, but on this point I have to agree with you. Historians are less like scientists and more like lawyers. They build a case often through only secondary sources. But they can't deliver certainty. Which is why people still argue about well documented events and their meaning and significance, like the Vietnam War, for instance.

 

[Allandavid]

Which is what dusty parchment sniffing historians do. Do you really believe historians of antiquity first hand experienced most of the events they wrote about? They don't even do that today. They record eyewitness reports and accounts and connect the dots.

If you hold all of human history to the ridiculous standard of subjective proof you seem to be demanding, then there is little from antiquity we can trust.

Do you think historians are like Gerlado Rivera?

Which “eyewitness reports” did Josephus record...?

And you dismiss the use that many apologists put Josephus to....that he was some form of corroborating witness....he wasn’t.

 

[redleghunter]

We rarely agree on much, especially politics, but on this point I have to agree with you. Historians are less like scientists and more like lawyers. They build a case often through only secondary sources. But they can't deliver certainty. Which is why people still argue about well documented events and their meaning and significance, like the Vietnam War, for instance.

Yes a historian's reputation rises and falls on how well they investigate and on the truthfulness of the interviewed eyewitnesses.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes a historian's reputation rises and falls on how well they investigate and on the truthfulness of the interviewed eyewitnesses.

The Gospels are typical history of their day. People widely believe in Muhammed or Buddha based on less documentation.

Among biblical scholars there is a wide consensus that the resurrection was experienced as a real event. We may quibble about the metaphysics but the "Easter event" is not all that controversial. The idea that Jesus never existed is a byproduct of outdated British historical method, much as one time many educated scholars thought the Buddha was a myth as well (before archeologists discovered the ruins of ancient Lumbini Lumbini - Wikipedia ).

 

[redleghunter]

Which “eyewitness reports” did Josephus record...?

And you dismiss the use that many apologists put Josephus to....that he was some form of corroborating witness....he wasn’t.

Josephus covered a lot of history of his people from centuries before His time and contemporary to his time.

That he mentions Jesus and Christians means he knew them to be contemporary to his time.

Apologists use him to point out to "Jesus myth" adherents that they are wrong.

There are maybe a handful of scholars who think Jesus was a myth and not a real person. None of them are NT scholars let alone experts in 1st Century AD Palestinian Jewish culture and history.

Even agnostic Bart Erhman NT scholar tells a group of atheists they are wrong.

For the longer here:

 

[redleghunter]

The Gospels are typical history of their day.

Archaeologist, historian and NT scholar Sir William Ramsay was especially impressed with Luke's Gospel account and Acts after he excavated in the Levant attempting and succeeding in investigating Luke's historical claims. He also, as a historian of antiquity, was especially impressed with Luke's introduction to his gospel account. I can see why:

Luke 1: NASB
1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

 

[Inkfingers]

Sounds cool until you consider most religious people are simply worshiping the self written large when they worship God, through the psychological method of projection. That's why religious people are just as capable of being selfish, but they will be hypocrites on top of it.

Most religious people are indeed.

That isn't the same thing as loving God though...

 

[cvanwey]

Hi CV hope all is well. I know the above is for @Apologetic_Warrior but wanted to clarify a couple of points.

First I agree humans are flawed. Just look at the stiff necked Israelites in the wilderness with Moses. I mean what more could they ask for. They experienced the presence and power of YHWH, He fed them with manna and fed them quail in the evenings. Yet even with seeing they did not trust in YHWH. So yeah humans can be real terrible, flawed and selfish.

According to my 'flawed' knowledge, and based upon the 'flawed' evidence, Moses never existed. So by who's standard can we hash this out? Did Moses exist, did Moses not exist? Until you can demonstrate otherwise, without appealing to a human written book (the Bible itself), you are appealing to your 'own' 'flawed' logic, that the Bible obtains pure fact We all only have our brains to assess 'reality.' You possess no better means than I. Ancient people possessed no better assessment capabilities than you or I.

This is exactly my point!

You are appealing to an example, from a book written by flawed humans, with flawed stories and flawed opinions. The exact same thing you can say about me with other publications

So how might we know WHO is actually write?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.

You appear to be presupposing it is actually true, by way of circular reasoning. Anything a full fledged theist states I'm doing (appealing to my flawed human opinion), I can most certainly say about them, with every bit as much validity.

The circular reasoning could not be more self evident, then from the statement presented below ( from your quote below in red):

'However, as the Scriptures were recorded these types of people did not do the recording. YHWH raised up people called Prophets who He revealed Himself to and by performing miracles and fulfilling prophecies confirmed His words were true. The people of later generations considered these writings to be sacred because they came from prophets who YHWH spoke with and/or by vision appeared to them.'

Basically, "I'm wrong because the Bible is right." "The Bible said it, that settles it."

Your example of some scribe writing down something and potentially as a flawed human making stuff up does not fit nicely in the Biblical account as there were thousands if not 10s of thousands seeing the same thing and would know if someone was in error or attempting at deceiving others. The Hebrew story is a written story throughout the generations with dozens of different prophets who did not know each other.

That is the witness you need to debate against. A cloud of witnesses with an unbroken chain of prophets (and in some cases kings with prophetic words) through thousands of years and culminating in the greatest miracle of all...The Incarnation and Resurrection of truly God and truly man Jesus Christ who confirmed the testimony of the law and prophets.

I have conversed with people of other religions whom claim ample 'evidence' of the supernatural. And I have also read about many unsolved mysteries of mass UFO sightings... I can provide the documented unsolved examples if so needed.... If I was to believe all claimed eyewitness testimony and all claimed anecdotal tales, especially written from long ago, I would have to be pretty darn gullible. I assess each claim, based upon how well it actually stacks up against the provided available evidence.

When I read the Bible, many claims do not align with known and shared reality (at least from my acknowledged 'flawed' logic and reason). Your logic is flawed too, sorry to say... So, what makes YOU right, and me wrong? We both use our brains... What do you have that I don't? Faith, a gut feeling, a warm and tingling sensation, received divine revelation, other? Sorry, this is not meant to be taken as a straw man... My point is, I mostly likely possess the very same mental faculties, and yet come to a differing conclusion, when reading the story of Moses, and study the actual presented evidence. Why is my reasoning wrong, and yours is right?

This is one of the main reasons I can so easily start to question the rest. Many stories do not possess any corroboration, outside the Bible itself. The same reason many can conclude Homer's the Iliad is mythical... Yes, stuff may have happened from the Bible, to 'some' degree, but this doesn't make the supernatural claims real. Otherwise, like I've stated elsewhere, this would then mean Alexander the Great was the son of Zeus.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's good that Ehrman is taking on skeptics. That sort of skepticism is pernicious in its effect on rational appreciation of history in general.

 

[FireDragon76]

Most religious people are indeed.

That isn't the same thing as loving God though...

I guess my point is that we shouldn't put Christians on a moral pedestal. There is a reason that Jesus warned his followers about the leaven of the pharisees, or the love of many growing cold.

 

[cvanwey]

That's what historians do...

Yes. And 'Josephus' was provided, as a source for 'eyewitness' attestation, when asked. So my advice... 'Josephus' may not warrant mentioning, when one asks for actual eyewitness testimony, outside the Bible.