Are Morals Relevant?

[FireDragon76]

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."



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.

That's the difference between faith and absolute certainty. I wouldn't say faith is unreasonable necessarily, even if it involves assent to more than what can be proven. Pascal makes a good argument to that effect in his Pensées.

The claim that Jesus is the Son of God is not equivalent to saying Zeus is the father of Alexander the Great, because Christians are actually making different claims about the nature of God. It is important to not over-reify Jesus divinity to the point it denies his humanity.

 

[cvanwey]

That's the difference between faith and absolute certainty.

Any assertion of religious belief can be grounded, using 'faith'. How is faith then reliable? I feel faith is often confused with trust. Trust is usually earned, based upon past experiences of known and verified reality. Faith also may apply to one of it's inherent definitions "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

Basically, many will read verses from the Bible, which appear to be refuted or disputed by later peer reviewed human discovery, and many will use 'faith' to instead continue to believe the Biblical claim, in spite of the refuting evidence, in which they cannot counter, without chalking it up to faith - and faith alone. This does not appear honest to themselves, or others. In this case, they are making a knowledge claim, of absolute certainty, with NO evidence, other than appealing to the asserted long-ago written text.

On the other hand, science does not imply absolute certainty. Even though gravitational theory is very well grounded and 'established', does not mean there is not room for change...

In my opinion, faith is unreliable, at best. Absolute certainly cannot be claimed about ANYTHING really. And yes, I'm already aware that to just made an 'absolute' certain claim, in that statement just made...

 

[Inkfingers]

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.

We should simply be careful in whether we believe claims of loving God.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

If you as a believer tell me what you believe and I then proceed to write that down....

Then I am not an eyewitness, nore am I an independend source on the subject.
Instead, I am just repeating what you, the believer, told me.

So I'm just repeating claims. Repeating a claim, does not add credibility to said claim.

 

[Inkfingers]

If you as a believer tell me what you believe and I then proceed to write that down....

Then I am not an eyewitness, nore am I an independend source on the subject.
Instead, I am just repeating what you, the believer, told me.

So I'm just repeating claims. Repeating a claim, does not add credibility to said claim.

If however you are a police officer who is writing such down, you are taking eye witness testimony.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

If you think that just about any anecdote of antiquity is simply believed, you are very much mistaken.

For example, there's this diary of Julius Ceasar concerning his conquest of Gaul and the battles that took place there.

You can cross reference those claims with other independend sources. Independend, in the sense that the same battles etc are mentioned in sources that didn't derive their information from Ceasar's diary or from those that believe that diary (on faith, of all things).

You can find such sources among the locals where the battles took place.
You can actually go to these places, dig down and find remains and evidence of Roman soldiers and battle fields.

It's called corroborating evidence.

Person A simply repeating the claims of person B, doesn't constitute evidence that the claims of person B are accurate. At all.

 

[cvanwey]

If however you are a police officer who is writing such down, you are taking eye witness testimony.

Tell that to the author of 1 Corinthians 15:6 One of the most 'beloved' 'examples' of 'eyewitness testimony' from Christians.

Then compare the definitions of 'eyewitness' vs 'hearsay' honestly.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Any assertion of religious belief can be grounded, using 'faith'. How is faith then reliable? I feel faith is often confused with trust. Trust is usually earned, based upon past experiences of known and verified reality. Faith also may apply to one of it's inherent definitions "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

Basically, many will read verses from the Bible, which appear to be refuted or disputed by later peer reviewed human discovery, and many will use 'faith' to instead continue to believe the Biblical claim, in spite of the refuting evidence, in which they cannot counter, without chalking it up to faith - and faith alone. This does not appear honest to themselves, or others. In this case, they are making a knowledge claim, of absolute certainty, with NO evidence, other than appealing to the asserted long-ago written text.

On the other hand, science does not imply absolute certainty. Even though gravitational theory is very well grounded and 'established', does not mean there is not room for change...

In my opinion, faith is unreliable, at best. Absolute certainly cannot be claimed about ANYTHING really. And yes, I'm already aware that to just made an 'absolute' certain claim, in that statement just made...

Indeed.

The fact is that there is NOTING that can't be believe on "faith" (in the religious sense).
If such "faith" can be used to justify believe in literally anything, then "faith" is entirely meaningless - and the claims believed with that as an excuse, without any merrit.

 

[Inkfingers]

Tell that to the author of 1 Corinthians 15:6 One of the most 'beloved' 'examples' of 'eyewitness testimony' from Christians.

Then compare the definitions of 'eyewitness' vs 'hearsay' honestly.

Which is nothing to do with my point, that eye witness testimony does not cease to be such if written down by a scribe.

 

[cvanwey]

Which is nothing to do with my point, that eye witness testimony does not cease to be such if written down by a scribe.

I think you are missing my point as well... Christians claim eyewitness testimony all the time, from the Bible. And yet, when one investigates honestly, comes to find out many of these claims are from hearsay, or from second hand sources, via long told oral tradition.

I got your point. Yes, A police person writing down events is recording claimed 'eyewitness' testimony. But the police work is only getting stated from that point, corroboration and evidence then need to corroborate the claims of the 'eyewitness'

 

[cvanwey]

Which is nothing to do with my point, that eye witness testimony does not cease to be such if written down by a scribe.

So when I mentioned 1 Corinthians 15:6, I'm saying a person reported what other people saw. This is classic hearsay, with no corroboration. Not eyewitness testimony.

Sure, a police person could write down, "so-and-so said 500 others saw something." But then, this is not actually eyewitness testimony, because the police wrote down what one said, is it now?

 

[DogmaHunter]

If however you are a police officer who is writing such down, you are taking eye witness testimony.

Only if the guy he's talking to, is an actual eyewitness.
Which wasn't the case here either.

And also, it's not like "eyewitness testimony" is accurate by default.
Humans can lie or be mistaken.

In fact, "testimony" is the lowest form of evidence. A single piece of empirical data, will overturn inumerable amounts of "testimonies".

100 people can claim that I was in place X at time Y.
But if objective empirical data places me in place A at time Y instead, then the 100 testimonies will be instantly discarded.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Which is nothing to do with my point, that eye witness testimony does not cease to be such if written down by a scribe.

But it's not eye witness testimony.

It's hearsay.

And, as said already, eyewitnesses can be wrong.

 

[Inkfingers]

Only if the guy he's talking to, is an actual eyewitness.
Which wasn't the case here either.

And also, it's not like "eyewitness testimony" is accurate by default.
Humans can lie or be mistaken.

In fact, "testimony" is the lowest form of evidence. A single piece of empirical data, will overturn inumerable amounts of "testimonies".

100 people can claim that I was in place X at time Y.
But if objective empirical data places me in place A at time Y instead, then the 100 testimonies will be instantly discarded.

So your line of argument is:
* it's not eyewitness testimony
* even if it was eyewitness testimony it still cannot be trusted because people lie

So first you complain that it is not eyewitness testimony, and then you say that even if it were eyewitness testimony you would not believe it.

Well, that makes your case plain to see.

 

[the iconoclast]

I also prefer them to hold as many justified beliefs and the least unjustified beliefs as possible. I actually care about the secular society I live in.

Other then that, I like learning about what people believe and why.

Hello.

Interesting. You do not accept unjustified beliefs so therefore all the beliefs you have must be justified.

I'm glad you want us to have justified beliefs. This is the attitude of a caring and thoughtful person.

What are some examples of justified beliefs we christians should be aware of?

What is your belief system, as it seems like the right one or most accurate?

Cheers

 

[JoeP222w]

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

A world view apart from the truth of Jesus Christ has no basis for morality. The one who rejects the truth of God has no grounds to say that murder, rape, theft, lying, is evil. The one who rejects God has no grounds on which to claim something as good.

Morals are not relevant. Morals are absolute, and they are defined from the source of all truth, honor and glory, and that is God.

 

[Allandavid]

A world view apart from the truth of Jesus Christ has no basis for morality. The one who rejects the truth of God has no grounds to say that murder, rape, theft, lying, is evil. The one who rejects God has no grounds on which to claim something as good.

Morals are not relevant. Morals are absolute, and they are defined from the source of all truth, honor and glory, and that is God.

What rubbish...

As far back as I can remember, I have rejected the claims that your (or any other religion’s) god exists...

And yet, I feel perfectly comfortable in rejecting murder, rape, theft, etc as being acceptable...

 

[Inkfingers]

What rubbish...

As far back as I can remember, I have rejected the claims that your (or any other religion’s) god exists...

And yet, I feel perfectly comfortable in rejecting murder, rape, theft, etc as being acceptable...

But on what grounds do you claim to reject them?

 

[Allandavid]

But on what grounds do you claim to reject them?

On what grounds do I reject the claims of existence of gods...?

On the easiest and most straightforward of grounds...that no one has ever produced any evidence to support those claims...

On what grounds do I reject murder, etc...?

Again, on the simplest of grounds...I am a member of a species that has evolved in complex communities. That which best serves the community also serves the individuals within that society. It is very much in my personal interests to support a society in which those crimes are regarded as ‘bad’...

 

[DogmaHunter]

So your line of argument is:
* it's not eyewitness testimony
* even if it was eyewitness testimony it still cannot be trusted because people lie

And also, as you seem to forget, the outlandishness of claims.
No amount of "testimony" can ever be enough to justifiably accept outlandish claims.

I'll again refer you to the human Bob.

The claim (or "eyewitness testimony") that you saw and met a human named Bob on the one hand.

And then the claim (or "eyewitness testimony") that you saw and met a human named Bob who can shoot laser beams with his eyes on the other hand.

Which of these two would YOU accept at face value?
Which of these would YOU demand additional evidence for?

Let's not play these silly games.

So first you complain that it is not eyewitness testimony, and then you say that even if it were eyewitness testimony you would not believe it.

Concerning "eyewitness testimony", I'm saying 2 things
1. those are CLAIMS. The person giving the testimony is claiming to be an eyewitness and what that persons says to have seen is a claim itself as well. Claims, have a burden of proof!
2. How much I will demand someone to meet his burden of proof before I'll accept a claim, is directly proportional to the outlandishness of said claim. Once more: that you claim to know a guy named Bob is one thing. If you add to that that he has super-powers……..

Well, that makes your case plain to see.

What is plain to see, is how you are engaging in selective reading of my posts and as a result, misrepresenting what I'm actually saying.

You seem to be doing your very best to come to a point where you feel like you can demand people to "just believe" the claims you make - no matter what those claims are - no questions asked.

Sorry, no.