Christians do not "own" morality

[Chany]

There is not much I can say to you anymore. If you aren't willing to believe in God Jesus Christ, the Bible or the authors of the New Testament, no amount of scholarly evidence will persuade you no matter how it is presented and in what format. You are what C.S. Lewis terms as willfully blind.

My contention, unless rebutted in the future, stands: God has no justification for genocide, as there is no such thing as a justifiable killing for God. You didn't even try to argue against me, you just spewed verses from some text and expected me to get it.

Yes, they did horrible things. That is still not an excuse.

This is the main reason I turned away from Christianity. Whenever I pushed with harder questions, I either got "you just got to trust God" or some answer that can be logically destroyed in a matter of minutes.

I am not willfully blind, which is especially funny coming from Lewis, the author of the fallacious "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" "trilemma". I do not accept your argument as valid and it, in no way, actually addresses our point: God did not need to kill these beings, and God could have saved them.

 

[steve_bakr]

I see man's understanding of the Christian God progressing as an arc. It reached its peak in the Middle Ages and as secularism was re-introduced to western civilization during the Italian Renaissance, scientific and philosophical understanding of the universe (and our place within) has risen as the arc of Christian influence has descended. America will follow Europe's trend of rising secularism and over the next few centuries (if civilization survives) the arc should continue its descent as organized religion is replaced by a kind of secular and "personal" spiritualism. These historical arcs are present in every religion as various Gods are replaced by others.

There is a lot of personal spiritualism out there. Mainline Christianity is declining in America. Catholicism would be except that most immigrants are Catholic. A few churches like Calvary Chapel are growing.

The majority of Christians today live in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

[Ruthie24]

Objective evidence is looked at differently when it's applied to ancient texts or ancient history.

Immediate objective evidence is seen by the human eye, ears, hands or measurement tools (results still interpreted by human senses) and anything that is observable from the senses in that moment.

When it comes to ancient history or any history older than the immediate lifespan you are not going to find any witnesses alive because they're dead! So as an example we could say that that George Washington never existed because all of the witnesses are dead so therefore there isn't any immediate observable evidence except in documents and books.

So because the history is so old we have to rely on documents, books, articles, studies, and archaeological finds and the like to find truth.

When it comes to very ancient history of several thousand years we have to rely on ancient texts and ancient scriptures.
We also have to look at cultural myths. Much of the archaeological evidence several thousand years ago is often not available due to decay over time. When you look at written text you have to go back to the original authors of those texts: what were they thinking, what were they feeling, what did they see, what did they observe, as well as any authors that back up their statements or discredit them. This is how you have to look at finding objective evidence in ancient history. All of the scholars on ancient history agree with this method of looking for evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

Objective evidence is looked at differently when it's applied to ancient texts or ancient history.

Immediate objective evidence is seen by the human eye, ears, hands or measurement tools (results still interpreted by human senses) and anything that is observable from the senses in that moment.

When it comes to ancient history or any history older than the immediate lifespan you are not going to find any witnesses alive because they're dead! So as an example we could say that that George Washington never existed because all of the witnesses are dead so therefore there isn't any immediate observable evidence except in documents and books.

So because the history is so old we have to rely on documents, books, articles, studies, and archaeological finds and the like to find truth.

When it comes to very ancient history of several thousand years we have to rely on ancient texts and ancient scriptures.
We also have to look at cultural myths. Much of the archaeological evidence several thousand years ago is often not available due to decay over time. When you look at written text you have to go back to the original authors of those texts: what were they thinking, what were they feeling, what did they see, what did they observe, as well as any authors that back up their statements or discredit them. This is how you have to look at finding objective evidence in ancient history. All of the scholars on ancient history agree with this method of looking for evidence.

Ruthie,

We have this thing called the; "historical method", that historians use to determine what likely happened (or can't be verified as happened) in the past. That is what professional historians do, they investigate (using this long practiced method) of what likely happened in the past.

When this method is applied to say the NT or other ancient writings, these historians can not verify much of what they say as reliable history. Why? because historians look for certain evidence, where they can verify what someone wrote in a book or story, as being true. All in all, most historians call the bible and other religious writings as works of theology, not true historical documents, with the exception of certain parts that can be verified with some degree of confidence.

 

[Gadarene]

Objective evidence is looked at differently when it's applied to ancient texts or ancient history. Immediate objective evidence is seen by the human eye, ears, hands or measurement tools (results still interpreted by human senses) and anything that is observable from the senses in that moment. When it comes to ancient history or any history older than the immediate lifespan you are not going to find any witnesses alive because they're dead! So as an example we could say that that George Washington never existed because all of the witnesses are dead so therefore there isn't any immediate observable evidence except in documents and books. So because the history is so old we have to rely on documents, books, articles, studies, and archaeological finds and the like to find truth. When it comes to very ancient history of several thousand years we have to rely on ancient texts and ancient scriptures. We also have to look at cultural myths. Much of the archaeological evidence several thousand years ago is often not available due to decay over time. When you look at written text you have to go back to the original authors of those texts: what were they thinking, what were they feeling, what did they see, what did they observe, as well as any authors that back up their statements or discredit them. This is how you have to look at finding objective evidence in ancient history. All of the scholars on ancient history agree with this method of looking for evidence.

And yet curiously very few of them think nephilim exist to the extent that you do.

 

[Ruthie24]

Ruthie,

We have this thing called the; "historical method", that historians use to determine what likely happened (or can't be verified as happened) in the past. That is what professional historians do, they investigate (using this long practiced method) of what likely happened in the past.

When this method is applied to say the NT or other ancient writings, these historians can not verify much of what they say as reliable history. Why? because historians look for certain evidence, where they can verify what someone wrote in a book or story, as being true. All in all, most historians call the bible and other religious writings as works of theology, not true historical documents, with the exception of certain parts that can be verified with some degree of confidence.

Not true, sorry. Biblical historians and archeologists disagree with you. There is a whole field out there that discredits your statements.

 

[bhsmte]

Not true, sorry. Biblical historians and archeologists disagree with you. There is a whole field out there that discredits your statements.

Well, historians use archeology as part of their evidence.

I don't know what NT historians you read, but if you latch onto the evangelical type, who likely are affiliated with a theology institution and may even be on their payroll, you will not get a very objective view point, as they use the historical method quite loosely.

The majority of NT historians will not say the NT is a credible historical document. They will say bits of the NT are thought to be historically accurate, but much of it can not be. Therefore, they call the NT a work of theology, as opposed to an accurate description of history.

Plenty of good information on line from moderate objective historians on this matter Ruthie, not the conservative one's that claim the NT is 100% accurate, or the one's on the other end who claim Jesus never existed.

All in all, most NT historians can agree on this with confidence:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified.

Beyond that, it is all up for grabs and the historical method doesn't do any favors for the NT or other ancient writings.

You never answered my question; who wrote the 4 gospels?

 

[Ruthie24]

And yet curiously very few of them think nephilim exist to the extent that you do.

So I summarized four long posts from a biblical scholar on the book of Enoch and you come back with another one liner. Many like him believe the same way I do. I basically wasted a lot of time doing this. From now on you guys can do your own research.

All this is about is attacking me as you've not posted a single counter claim with evidence nor any references. This is not a debate or reciprocal discussion just simple attacks from atheists who think it's cool to bash Christians. You are entitled to believe whatever you want just don't expect me to buy into your "logic" when you don't even cite references. Its intellectually lazy, dishonest, and a pathetic joke. That poster was right, you guys really don't post anything here other than attacks. Huge waste.

 

[Chany]

Objective evidence is looked at differently when it's applied to ancient texts or ancient history.

Immediate objective evidence is seen by the human eye, ears, hands or measurement tools (results still interpreted by human senses) and anything that is observable from the senses in that moment.

When it comes to ancient history or any history older than the immediate lifespan you are not going to find any witnesses alive because they're dead! So as an example we could say that that George Washington never existed because all of the witnesses are dead so therefore there isn't any immediate observable evidence except in documents and books.

So because the history is so old we have to rely on documents, books, articles, studies, and archaeological finds and the like to find truth.

When it comes to very ancient history of several thousand years we have to rely on ancient texts and ancient scriptures.
We also have to look at cultural myths. Much of the archaeological evidence several thousand years ago is often not available due to decay over time. When you look at written text you have to go back to the original authors of those texts: what were they thinking, what were they feeling, what did they see, what did they observe, as well as any authors that back up their statements or discredit them. This is how you have to look at finding objective evidence in ancient history. All of the scholars on ancient history agree with this method of looking for evidence.

The problem is a collection of books that claim to be divinely-inspired and sanctioned by God that contains miracles, bad science, and bad morality is automatically called into question. The things we can verify from ancient texts are called into question, verifiable by collaborative evidence, and the miraculous tales are weeded out and dismissed because they are supernatural.

If we accepted the Bible as the word of a deity, we wouldn't have this problem. I reject the Bible (and any source that treats the Bible as factual) because the claims it makes are inconsistent, morally deprived, scientifically inaccurate, and the fact that I hold the type of deity the Bible supposedly describes is logically fallacious.

None of this addresses our arguments, by the way. Does the story say God either personally killed, personally ordered the killing of, or had one of his sanctioned prophets/leaders order the killing of a group of intelligent beings? If the answer is yes, explain the flaw in our arguments. If the answer is no, then the Bible is wrong.

 

[Gadarene]

So I summarized four long posts from a biblical scholar on the book of Enoch and you come back with another one liner. Many like him believe the same way I do. I basically wasted a lot of time doing this. From now on you guys can do your own research. All this is about is attacking me as you've not posted a single counter claim with evidence nor any references. This is not a debate or reciprocal discussion just simple attacks from atheists who think it's cool to bash Christians. You are entitled to believe whatever you want just don't expect me to buy into your "logic" when you don't even cite references. Its intellectually lazy, dishonest, and a pathetic joke. That poster was right, you guys really don't post anything here other than attacks. Huge waste.

I responded to one post that could be called into question with a simple observation and was going to respond to the rest later. I have not made any comment on the rest yet but it is scarcely my fault you wrote such an easily overturned passage.

And as ever, YOU made the positive claim of the existence of nephilim, Ruthie. Your burden of proof. Why do you expect us to post sources when we haven't made any such equivalent claim?

 

[Ruthie24]

Well, historians use archeology as part of their evidence.

I don't know what NT historians you read, but if you latch onto the evangelical type, who likely are affiliated with a theology institution and may even be on their payroll, you will not get a very objective view point, as they use the historical method quite loosely.

The majority of NT historians will not say the NT is a credible historical document. They will say bits of the NT are thought to be historically accurate, but much of it can not be. Therefore, they call the NT a work of theology, as opposed to an accurate description of history.

Plenty of good information on line from moderate objective historians on this matter Ruthie, not the conservative one's that claim the NT is 100% accurate, or the one's on the other end who claim Jesus never existed.

All in all, most NT historians can agree on this with confidence:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified.

Beyond that, it is all up for grabs and the historical method doesn't do any favors for the NT or other ancient writings.

You never answered my question; who wrote the 4 gospels?

I wrote a post about how I look at biblical scriptures etc when I first came on here (CF), I will have to find that again and repost.

I know there are two different camps on biblical evidence, one theological based, two historical based. Both have agendas. I don't trust either of them. I go by the evidence. Many biblical scholars are protestant or catholic based. Their job is to back up their particular church which i have a major issue with because it's dishonest as hell. In fact it angers me to no end. The historical scholars also have their own agenda according to their money sources, their belief systems and which camp of political or ideological thought they belong too. This also angers me to no end. Both camps are intellectually dishonest and it disgusts me. I have books from each camp.

Basically I play detective and follow where the evidence leads me. What I've concluded is that these scholars frequently overlook what is going on in the first century church because they want to 'steer' the reader to their line of thought. This occurs in both camps and it's incredibly dishonest. This is the reason why I don't go to church because these people frequently lie during their sermons and they aren't even aware of it. Scholars from both camps frequently fight with one another. The truth lies in the first century church and in the middle of what these two camps say.

Yes I'm aware of the authorship controversy of the gospels. I investigated this from both camps.

 

[Ruthie24]

I responded to one post that could be called into question with a simple observation and was going to respond to the rest later. I have not made any comment on the rest yet but it is scarcely my fault you wrote such an easily overturned passage.

And as ever, YOU made the positive claim of the existence of nephilim, Ruthie. Your burden of proof. Why do you expect us to post sources when we haven't made any such equivalent claim?

This is a typical line from an atheist, "I don't have to supply the evidence. You bare the burden of proof." That is intellectually dishonest and lazy. If this is a real debate both camps provide evidence for their stance. This is a one sided argument that i frequently encounter with atheists who use this tactic to attack me simply because I believe in God instead of have a real discussion. It's again unfair and not worth my time if no one is gonna even provide any evidence on their parts.

 

[bhsmte]

This is a typical line from an atheist, "I don't have to supply the evidence. You bare the burden of proof." That is intellectually dishonest and lazy. If this is a real debate both camps provide evidence for their stance. This is a one sided argument that i frequently encounter with atheists who use this tactic to attack me simply because I believe in God instead of have a real discussion. It's again unfair and not worth my time if no one is gonna even provide any evidence on their parts.

Ruthie, you made statements and didn't back them up with any objective evidence. You quoted a guy who wrote a book on the book of Enoch and that is not evidence, unless, you can verify, in an objective way (not one scholars opinion) that what the book of Enoch can be verified as accurate. One can claim other acient texts as evidence, or other holy books as accurate and there are people who write books that say they are and their evidence is just as valid as yours.

And the statements by Gadarene still stand in my opinion.

 

[Chany]

This is a typical line from an atheist, "I don't have to supply the evidence. You bare the burden of proof." That is intellectually dishonest and lazy. If this is a real debate both camps provide evidence for their stance. This is a one sided argument that i frequently encounter with atheists who use this tactic to attack me simply because I believe in God instead of have a real discussion. It's again unfair and not worth my time if no one is gonna even provide any evidence on their parts.

No, we don't have to prove anything. You make an claim, you support it. Atheism is the denial of claims related to God; we reject the notion that a god exists because we see no valid reason to believe in one. It's a negative position. We reject god claims on an individual basis because they have not met their burden of proof or, when they try to, they fail miserably.

I don't need to provide evidence against something that has no evidence for it to begin with, other than saying, "where's the evidence"? A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If the evidence provided is not valid at all and does not require actual testing other than refuting the claim itself, then counter-evidence is not needed. I don't spend my days looking for counter-evidence for the existence of unicorns, I simply reject the existence of unicorns because of the total lack of evidence for their existence and any possible internal problems the concept of the unicorn itself has (such as the existence of magic).

Even if such a class of beings exist (which I don't see any evidence for beyond a book), it doesn't matter. I have constructed my argument. I presented a moral issue within the Bible. You have yet to respond to the actual argument other than by elaborating on the type of passages we are talking about. The question we are raising is not about the validity of the text, but of the message it contains. It illustrates an immoral action of genocide of a class of beings when it is completely unnecessary and unjustified for a god to do so. Either explain how it is justifiable, reject god as a moral being, or reject the Biblical account as true.

 

[Ruthie24]

Group think and rhetoric in action straight from the atheist manifesto, how to gang up on a Christian.

I already explained how evidence is determined from scriptures. Already talked about the problem in both camps.

Sorry you are all intellectually dishonest and using talking points to do so. Not interested anymore.

 

[bhsmte]

Group think and rhetoric in action straight from the atheist manifesto, how to gang up on a Christian.

I already explained how evidence is determined from scriptures. Already talked about the problem in both camps.

Sorry you are all intellectually dishonest and using talking points to do so. Not interested anymore.

Very good. When asked to support your claims, you play victim, so predictable.

This has nothing to do with atheists or believers Ruthie, it has to do with you supporting your claims with objective evidence. You have not come close to doing so and can run away if you so choose.

 

[Chany]

Ad hominem:

Regardless of what we say or how we say it, the merits of our arguments still stand.

Red Herring:

I don't care about the evidence for scripture.How its verified by various believers is a question I honestly don't care about and that is irrelevant to my argument.

I care about what it says. What it says is immoral. I care about the moral dilemma of genocide in the story itself and how people twist and turn to justify an immoral action.

 

[Ruthie24]

I have supported my claims. I explained to you why they view this as legitimate evidence. Because it doesn't fit into your atheist world view, that's not my problem. It's yours. When biblical scholars state HOW to look at evidence, you deny it because it goes against your worldview that is atheistic.

I'm sorry but this is a waste of my time. You are using group think and rhetoric straight from talking points. It's dishonest as hell. Not a single one of you has posted one reference of anything. That is intentionally dishonest.

 

[Gadarene]

This is a typical line from an atheist, "I don't have to supply the evidence. You bare the burden of proof." That is intellectually dishonest and lazy. If this is a real debate both camps provide evidence for their stance. This is a one sided argument that i frequently encounter with atheists who use this tactic to attack me simply because I believe in God instead of have a real discussion. It's again unfair and not worth my time if no one is gonna even provide any evidence on their parts.

I don't think there is ANY conclusive evidence for your claims. This is not a claim of existence/occurrence of something so there is nothing I need demonstrate. The onus therefore is on you to present your best case. It is the most expedient way of resolving the impasse.

 

[Syd the Human]

I have supported my claims. I explained to you why they view this as legitimate evidence. Because it doesn't fit into your atheist world view, that's not my problem. It's yours. When biblical scholars state HOW to look at evidence, you deny it because it goes against your worldview that is atheistic.

I'm sorry but this is a waste of my time. You are using group think and rhetoric straight from talking points. It's dishonest as hell. Not a single one of you has posted one reference of anything. That is intentionally dishonest.

First, atheism is just not believing in any gods. That's it. Nothing else in that regard unifies us. So to say we have an atheistic view makes us unable to understand the moral issues of the story at hand makes no sense.

Second, a scholar does not determine what is moral and what is not for everyone else. They can present it the way they view it, but that does not make it correct. If a scholar says that abortion is not immoral, would you automatically agree? (I don't know your stance on this issue but the standard christian response to abortion is that it's immoral).

Third, we are discussing the story at hand which you have provided. On a larger scale we are talking about the morality of god killing people or ordering people to kill one another. What is there to site? We would just re-post what you already said. You have already presented this as true and that it is just. We are debating the morality of what you have provided.