Are Morals Relevant?

[Allandavid]

The one making the claim knew the ones who saw Jesus after His resurrection. He was Paul of Tarsus who also saw the risen Christ years later.

I understand impeaching star witnesses is a skeptic tactic used often. It avoids the need to actually examine the eyewitness testimony.

Please show references to Paul having SEEN Jesus...? (And no, ghosts don’t count in the real world...!)

 

[redleghunter]

In fact (anticipating your response), supporting the right of women to decide when they will or will not give birth actually strengthens that basic tenet I mentioned earlier...

Ah now I understand your position. Human evolution is no longer a natural selection process but an individual human intelligent design process.

 

[Ken-1122]

Red herring you know. What does consensus agreement or disagreement in a society on moral issues have to do with whether raping an infant is absolutely evil? Nothing, it (legality) has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of the unethical behavior.

You appear to be under the understanding that morality is objective; (something that can be demonstrated as right/wrong) rather than subjective (something that is believed to be right/wrong). I understand morality to be subjective; meaning it doesn’t exist outside the context of human thought and because human thought is constantly changing, the human concept of morality (the only concept that exists) is constantly changing. What people believe about morality is based on the society they were raised in, not fact. Math is objective, and math equations can be demonstrated as accurate 100% of the time. Cyanide will kill you 100% of the time and it can be demonstrated why it happens. But can you demonstrate rape as evil? I think not; we believe rape to be evil, but we can’t demonstrate 100% of the time that it is evil.

Bad example with no evidence to support your claim. To say "in the eyes of those in that society", "in the eyes of" is mere avoidance, side stepping the force of the argument. Having sex with children has never been "normal", it is sick and disgusting, obvious deprave behavior.

Can you provide proof that it is sick and disgusting? Or is this your subjective beliefs.

And where did you get that information from? And of course she was not impregnated through sexual intercourse, nor though a man.

A simple google search
https://www.quora.com/How-old-was-Mary-mother-of-Jesus-when-she-gave-birth-to-Jesus
But my point was that which is believed to be wrong today was believed to be right yesterday; and that which is believed to be wrong yesterday, is seen as right today

 

[Allandavid]

Does not bother you about slavery in the Bible. As do slavers without all your moral judgements boring outrages etc.

Oh dear...someone has difficulty in distinguishing between personal choices that only impact the individual and anti-social behaviours that impact the whole community...

To dictate your inclinations outrages as if they were words from on high when in reality they are mere opinion given your start point. The woman owns the fetus and the slaver owns the slave. While you merrily talk out of both sides of your mouth. Contrived and selective outrage and double standards.

Sorry, no double standard here. I don’t confer the same status on a foetus as I do to a living, independently surviving individual...

 

[Ken-1122]

You mean the Jewish custom. Well it was probably universal males and females became adults at 13. There was no such thing as adolescence back then.

Humm.... sounds like you agree with me.

 

[Allandavid]

Yet the above statement contradicts your previous statement:

No it doesn’t....you see, I did anticipate your response.
My previous statement outlined a basic tenet for human societies....namely the need to produce AND CARE FOR the next generation...

You see, you have to read ALL the words....yeah tricky, I know...

Abortion on demand killing millions each year goes against your basic tenets of social and species evolution.

Are you suggesting that the natural selection which got humanity to where it is now (again assigning sovereignty to a process) is now controllable by humanity?

Again, I anticipated you...the ability of women being able to decide when they will or will not give birth creates a greater likelihood of the children who are born being wanted and cared for...

As an example, think of Ireland during the Famine years. Women would go to their parish priests, begging them to give them absolution if they took precautions to prevent further births. The response.....well, you know what the answer would be, don’t you...? The result....well, you know that too...more children born into a starving world, more children abandoned by starving parents...

Explain to me how that situation produces a healthier, more compassionate society...?

 

[redleghunter]

Please show references to Paul having SEEN Jesus...? (And no, ghosts don’t count in the real world...!)

1 Corinthians 15:8; Acts 9; Acts 22, Acts 26

Jesus bodily rose from the dead. He's no ghost and never appeared as one.

The interesting part of Paul's encounter is not only did he encounter the risen Christ but the Glorified risen Christ.

We can compare his encounter with the apostle John in Revelation 1:12-16

 

[Allandavid]

1 Corinthians 15:8; Acts 9; Acts 22, Acts 26

Jesus bodily rose from the dead. He's no ghost and never appeared as one.

The interesting part of Paul's encounter is not only did he encounter the risen Christ but the Glorified risen Christ.

We can compare his encounter with the apostle John in Revelation 1:12-16

Yeah, he claims to have seen a ghost...

Remember those people who have claimed to have seen Area 51 aliens...?

Yawn...

 

[redleghunter]

Humm.... sounds like you agree with me.

It's historically accurate for the culture. However, you alluded to a 10 year old and then mentioned Mary being 12-14 years old as if that was support for the position you were making.

As I mentioned, there was no such thing as adolescence back then and we did not start seeing such a term until the 19th century.

A Jewish young woman betrothed would not be confirmed until reaching sexual maturity for childbearing. This would vary as not all young women reach sexual maturity at 13. There would be no rush to finalize betrothal until the possibility of having children was confirmed.

 

[redleghunter]

No it doesn’t....you see, I did anticipate your response.
My previous statement outlined a basic tenet for human societies....namely the need to produce AND CARE FOR the next generation...

You see, you have to read ALL the words....yeah tricky, I know...

Then it's not an evolutionary process, but an intelligent intervention in a natural process. Your process is now intelligent design.

 

[redleghunter]

As an example, think of Ireland during the Famine years. Women would go to their parish priests, begging them to give them absolution if they took precautions to prevent further births. The response.....well, you know what the answer would be, don’t you...? The result....well, you know that too...more children born into a starving world, more children abandoned by starving parents...

Explain to me how that situation produces a healthier, more compassionate society...?

Considering England broke the social compact you tout as necessary for healthy societies, your example completely refutes your own design. England created the famine by exploiting the Irish. Thus forcing women to beg for something that left up to natural farming would not happen.

The problem with your example is the famine was created by England and their was plenty of food being produced in Ireland but not for the Irish but for English larders.

 

[Ken-1122]

It's historically accurate for the culture. However, you alluded to a 10 year old and then mentioned Mary being 12-14 years old as if that was support for the position you were making.

As I mentioned, there was no such thing as adolescence back then and we did not start seeing such a term until the 19th century.

A Jewish young woman betrothed would not be confirmed until reaching sexual maturity for childbearing. This would vary as not all young women reach sexual maturity at 13. There would be no rush to finalize betrothal until the possibility of having children was confirmed.

Again; you are making my point. My point was, if a 10, 12, 14 yr old girl having sex with an adult man is objectively wrong today, that would mean it was wrong 2000 years ago before there was such a thing as adolescence, and a time when Jewish custom allowed it. All the details and explanations you provide just shows that the moral issue is subjective; not objective.

 

[Allandavid]

Considering England broke the social compact you tout as necessary for healthy societies, your example completely refutes your own design. England created the famine by exploiting the Irish. Thus forcing women to beg for something that left up to natural farming would not happen.

The problem with your example is the famine was created by England and their was plenty of food being produced in Ireland but not for the Irish but for English larders.

Oh, I see. You were expecting Utopia...sorry to disappoint...!

Now, my example was given to highlight the ‘reproduce and care for’ issue, but I’m happy to jump to your deflection...

Remember, the key concept is EVOLVING....societies have gradually evolved to the process that I described. No one suggested that there was perfection, no one suggested that there aren’t roadblocks and failures along the way...after all, we’re dealing with imperfect humans who also have to deal with another aspect of their evolved traits...emotions.

So, we can always point out the faults and the failures, but we can also measure the progress. For most of the world, we no longer enslave our fellow humans, we generally eschew the concept of ‘favoured races’, we no longer consider it morally acceptable to sacrifice humans to gods, for example.

And just consider what we would picture as a ‘good’ community, the kind we would aspire to. It doesn’t involve slavery, torture, the extermination of races, the segregation of the disabled; it doesn’t include child labour, the subjugation of women; it includes universal suffrage.

All of those are secular values...

 

[redleghunter]

Yeah, he claims to have seen a ghost...

Where did he say ghost? Show me in the Latin or Greek this encounter was a ghost.

Greek:
9:3 ἐν δὲ τῷ πορεύεσθαι ἐγένετο αὐτὸν ἐγγίζειν τῇ Δαμασκῷ ἐξαίφνηςτε αὐτὸν περιήστραψεν φῶς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

Latin Vulgate:

et cum iter faceret contigit ut adpropinquaret Damasco et subito circumfulsit eum lux de caelo

 

[Blood Bought 1953]

Thank you for your response. However, I'm not sure if this answered my specific question/request?

If I happen to strive to practice 'ethical' and 'moral' foundations, which appear 'good', but think a resurrection never happened, but it turns out a Jesus resurrection did actually happen, do I go to heaven or hell?

Meaning, I try to be a 'good' person, as much as I can, but don't believe in this specific story. According to the Bible, I fry for eternity, right?

Right. Absolutely.

 

[Blood Bought 1953]

I'm glad to hear what you 'think.' But I'm being straight up honest. I do not accept a resurrection claim, based upon lack of evidence. I studied it for quite a while....

'Good', 'bad', 'right', 'wrong', 'best', 'worst, are all subjective terms by definition.

Morals are subjective. Even under theism. What is 'good' for a Muslim, may not be 'good' for a Jew.

Until you can demonstrate that a resurrection actually happened to me, my truth tells me you are telling me to read a book, written by humans, 1,000's of years ago. You are then telling me to pretend that these written words are 'objective' moral absolutes. When in fact, they are subjective opinions, just like everyone elses.

So thank you for the ad hominem attack, I think?

Believing Paul’s Gospel saves (1cor15:1-4) today in this age of grace.This Gospel is hidden from those that perish

 

[cvanwey]

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.

This is just false...

Matthew 27:52 has no external accounts, outside this one verse. You are going to honestly tell me this verse is credible? No historian, news paper, journal entry, or other was provided to talk about the undead walking around for many to see? Seriously? Also, 1 Corinthians was never corroborated. It was hearsay from Paul, nothing more. Writing it down to paper ~20 years later is even more suspect. How do we even know who all these 500 people actually were. There was no list, no follow up, no nothing?.?.?.?

At least the Mormons had 7 signed 'eyewitnesses' from their circular and bias publication;
Joseph Smith, Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Hyrum Smith, and Samuel H. Smith were all signed in real time.

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?

I don't know... Did they make unverified and unjustified supernatural claims too? If they did, then it must be true, because we know the Roman empire actually existed then, right?

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

I don't recall any prior conversation before? But I'm sorry, if zombies is not accurate, then the undead bodies 'whom came out of their tombs and appeared to many.' - In which no one reported in the news or other. I guess this was common place during this time period, and did not warrant any publication from the 'many' whom saw such a phenomenon?

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 are right, all supernatural stuff claimed from the Bible must be valid. If you've claimed you've read my prior stuff, and have also claimed we have discussed such topics before, then I find it hard to believe this would be your response?

As stated many times now, it's one thing to believe humans lived, fought, and died. It's a completely different thing to believe any claimed accounts of the supernatural. I find it bazaar, that all claims and accounts of the supernatural, are only from the Bible, to support the Bible. Remember, the vast majority of the Bible was written from oral tradition, retold many many times, which involves growing legendary tales, prior to publication.

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.

Contemporary writings and published works of the supernatural, OUTSIDE the Bible. I doubt the Bible was the only and single source for news during this era?

 

[redleghunter]

Remember, the key concept is EVOLVING....societies have gradually evolved to the process that I described. No one suggested that there was perfection, no one suggested that there aren’t roadblocks and failures along the way...after all, we’re dealing with imperfect humans who also have to deal with another aspect of their evolved traits...emotions.

It's the same song and story since the tower of Babel. For every step forward there are several steps back. The consolidation of wealth is more focused. There are more have nots now and fewer haves who have more. Indeed the "pie" gets larger, but larger chunks of the pie are going to fewer people.

You just don't see the have nots unless you do mercy or missionary work.

So, we can always point out the faults and the failures, but we can also measure the progress. For most of the world, we no longer enslave our fellow humans, we generally eschew the concept of ‘favoured races’, we no longer consider it morally acceptable to sacrifice humans to gods, for example.

No there are no more human sacrifices to pagan gods. As a society we just kill our healthy progeny via abortion instead. The "god" just changed from gold, silver and wood to self.

And we just stopped using the term slavery and use human trafficking now. Which is slavery. So slavery is still with us. Slavery also comes in the form of Silicon Valley billionaires buying cheap child labor overseas.

Nothing has changed but isolating ourselves to the reality that oppressing our fellow man for personal gain is the oldest practice of humanity. Again, Christian missionaries and relief groups see it every day. Mankind has not changed one bit.

And just consider what we would picture as a ‘good’ community, the kind we would aspire to. It doesn’t involve slavery, torture, the extermination of races, the segregation of the disabled; it doesn’t include child labour, the subjugation of women;

Yet our current society "advanced" doing all of the above, and shows no signs of changing no matter how much you soften the image. Your humanistic paradise has been tried before in history. Lenin, Mao, Hitler, and Pol Pot attest to this. All of the above promised a better equitable society for all but once they had full control redefined what "equal" meant as "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.."

This is the disaster of the humanistic model...It's all too human.

All of those are secular values...

I agree and they all fail as history keeps teaching us.

 

[redleghunter]

Again; you are making my point. My point was, if a 10, 12, 14 yr old girl having sex with an adult man is objectively wrong today, that would mean it was wrong 2000 years ago before there was such a thing as adolescence, and a time when Jewish custom allowed it. All the details and explanations you provide just shows that the moral issue is subjective; not objective.

I reject the notion of a 10 year old. And remember to be betrothed did not mean marriage and sex involved. It meant the families agreed to the eventual union of the couple. It is akin of the "matchmaker make me a match."

The patriarch Jacob worked 7 years for his future father in law to marry his daughter.

And you are right these are cultural standards which changed throughout history. However, the example from @Apologetic_Warrior was an infant being sexually molested. Perhaps people can now answer his question without creating rabbit holes.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

You appear to be under the understanding that morality is objective; (something that can be demonstrated as right/wrong) rather than subjective (something that is believed to be right/wrong).

If you had asked, I would have explained clearly, that the Christian worldview entails BOTH objective and subjective morality, not either OR, the objective is accounted for in God, and the subjective in His creatures. How simple is that? Bet you cannot account for or justify any objective good or evil within your worldview without borrowing from mine, which you do, like it or not.

I understand morality to be subjective; meaning it doesn’t exist outside the context of human thought and because human thought is constantly changing, the human concept of morality (the only concept that exists) is constantly changing. What people believe about morality is based on the society they were raised in, not fact.

Interesting, I wasn't raised in Hebrew society, and yet that is what my morality is based on, Biblical ethics. As a matter of fact, the Biblical morality I agree with, goes against the morality of the society I was raised in, and laws related to ethics have been changed, which are against ethics taught in Scripture. Further, the Biblical/Christian ethic, has never changed, that Christians fail to consistently and always be true to a Biblical code of ethics, is quite different than the ethics themselves, and Christians will confess their sins and failures and admit fault.

Math is objective, and math equations can be demonstrated as accurate 100% of the time. Cyanide will kill you 100% of the time and it can be demonstrated why it happens.

Unfortunately, within your worldview, even math is subjective, because you see, mathematics are conceptual and immaterial in nature, and like the law of non-contradiction (which every person posting here has assumed without question) assume the necessary preconditions for intelligibility, namely the God of Christianity whom exists outside of self and the necessary supremely intelligent mind having comprehensive knowledge of the entire universe, including ethics, mathematics, laws of logic, etc.

But can you demonstrate rape as evil? I think not; we believe rape to be evil, but we can’t demonstrate 100% of the time that it is evil.

You forgot an important word to my claim, the word "infant", which makes a world of difference. This isn't my first rodeo, I've been down this road many times. If I had worded it differently, you might try arguing that it could potentially be necessary for the survival or continuation of a race, family line, etc. That argument cannot be used with infants.

Can you provide proof that it is sick and disgusting? Or is this your subjective beliefs.

There is no need to provide proof, but it's interesting you should ask.

But my point was that which is believed to be wrong today was believed to be right yesterday; and that which is believed to be wrong yesterday, is seen as right today

So basically morality is a human construct, an illusion, a way of describing behavior, but essentially it is no different than what we evolved from, and ultimately matters about as much as the stardust that everything will eventually return to?