Is the existence of Christianity better for this world

[stevevw]

I'm an Anglican (just so you know the religion I "don't believe in") but I was educated in Roman Cathollic school up to an including an undergraduate degree, so I know something about that religion as well.

But that doesn't explain your moralising Catholic doctrine when you don't believe it.

I referred you to your confessor for advice because you are spouting dubious doctrine based on false claims about the reliability of the KJV.

Ah so now it dubious claims. Before I was a heretic lol. I was a sinner that needed confession for my grave sin of reading the wrong bible version. The Catholic church has no doctrinal prohabition of reading the KJV.

The Church doesn’t forbid Catholics from having any version of the Bible on their bookshelf. In fact, the Church as a whole doesn’t pronounce that the King James Version of the Bible isn’t recognized. But Catholics may find it helpful to use the version of the Bible that is used at Mass: the New American Bible.

Why Doesn't the Catholic Church Recognize the King James Version of the Bible? - Busted Halo

The Church doesn’t forbid Catholics from having any version of the Bible on their bookshelf.

bustedhalo.com

But even if they did so what. They certainly don't say its a sin like you have said. Nevertheless this side issue is irrelevant to my point that I was using the KJV as it was closer the the original interpretation.

None of this also negates my original point that the Hebrew word for slave 'Edeb' has several definitions and you don't know which applies. Rather you are assuming some sort of negative applies regardless. That negative applies to your moral beliefs and not Gods.

The Gosple of Christ, the basis of all morality.

What do you mean.

That's what the Jews were doing but that is not the same as saying that the Bible supports it.

But what the Jews were doing was from God. Was laid down by the laws of Moses. It wasn't their human made laws but what God had passed down to them. So in saying the Jews took slavery from granted your say God did as well.

The Bible just describes it. It would be a serious error in any case for a Christian to try and mimic the moral standards of ancient Israel,

Like many things that were happening in the ancient world we would not do today. Like I said God did not institute slavery but regulated it through the laws of Moses. There was no magic wand the Jews had to wave all slavery away. But God worked within the system to change the cultures beliefs about slavery.

But your also conflating much of what happened as wrong when it was just normal practice such as bonded servants as being slaves when it wasn't slavery.

 

[BCP1928]

I broke down the issue as simple as possible without implying either pagan Rome or Christainity was better. The logic was here we have two different worldviews, one replacing the other. That in itself tells us that there must have been a different set of social norms applied by the fact they were not the same.

In most cases they weren't very different as regards sexual morality (the only kind which seems to concern you) except for those having to do with pederasty, as Hans has pointed out. In any case, there were other influences on what constituted the moral "worldview" of Rome, both from with and without, which have to be acknowledged as well.

Can you at least acknowledge this simple logic.
Do you agree that Christainity once denied became the official religion of the Roman Empire around 380AD.

I agree that what you want me to assent to is just another map of the Mississippi.

 

[BCP1928]

But that doesn't explain your moralising Catholic doctrine when you don't believe it.

Ah so now it dubious claims. Before I was a heretic lol. I was a sinner that needed confession for my grave sin of reading the wrong bible version. The Catholic church has no doctrinal prohabition of reading the KJV.

The Church doesn’t forbid Catholics from having any version of the Bible on their bookshelf. In fact, the Church as a whole doesn’t pronounce that the King James Version of the Bible isn’t recognized. But Catholics may find it helpful to use the version of the Bible that is used at Mass: the New American Bible.

Why Doesn't the Catholic Church Recognize the King James Version of the Bible? - Busted Halo

The Church doesn’t forbid Catholics from having any version of the Bible on their bookshelf.

bustedhalo.com

But even if they did so what. They certainly don't say its a sin like you have said. Nevertheless this side issue is irrelevant to my point that I was using the KJV as it was closer the the original interpretation.

What sin? You are advancing the KJV as the most accurate Bible translation. It is not, and my suggestion is that you should seek religious advice on someone from your own denominations to why it is not. If it is a sin he will tell you; I just think it is ignorance.

None of this also negates my original point that the Hebrew word for slave 'Edeb' has several definitions and you don't know which applies. Rather you are assuming some sort of negative applies regardless. That negative applies to your moral beliefs and not Gods.

I don't care that there are several different meanings. I don't base my moral judgement on ancient Jewish practices regarding slavery.

What do you mean.

Try actually reading it.

But what the Jews were doing was from God. Was laid down by the laws of Moses. It wasn't their human made laws but what God had passed down to them. So in saying the Jews took slavery from granted your say God did as well.

I don't say that; you do.

Like many things that were happening in the ancient world we would not do today. Like I said God did not institute slavery but regulated it through the laws of Moses. There was no magic wand the Jews had to wave all slavery away. But God worked within the system to change the cultures beliefs about slavery.

So what? For whatever reason, you will not find a blanket prohibition of slavery in the Old Testament nor will you find a blanket justification for it.

 

[stevevw]

Which is why I say it is meaningless as a term unless you are making it clear that your usage is pejorative. (As I will infer from here on.)

Its not necessarily a disapproval as I said its a natural tendency of humans to ground belief in nature. The disapproval if you can call it that is the theological component of there being only one God and moral law. But thats a hallmark of all religions as well. So its a very human tendency.

Your making a moral judgement about me which shows the tendency to moralise. Its just that the Hebrew God is saying the God you are looking for is Yahway. Thats more an empistemic claim about how we should know God or gods or no God to a very human innate tendency.

I don't see how having more or fewer gods (non-zero) makes a religious system better or its morality preferable. Thus the Christian narrative about its superiority to other religions "spiritually" or morally is of no value to me.

The fact that human history has been entangled with gods and spirits shows that its a natural part of who we are. If its not God then it will be other gods or metaphysics about whats beyond the material world, whats the purpose of life, what is reality and who are we.

The Christain narrative is the fullfillment of the old testament. Christ often refers to it. Its a gradual revealing to God to humans which culminates in God becoming man. This same idea can be reflected in other religions. So this is part of the archetypes that humans have developed or rather naturally lived out and fullfilled in Christ.

I am aware of the standard anthropological (is that the right field?) view of the progression of religious expression from animism to monotheism. I learned it in HS a long time ago. Selecting one of the gods to be the "best god" and then the only god only illustrates the man-made nature of religion, so I'm not sure what your point is.

The research has moved well beyond this. Anthropological is one field but theres several fields basically along the lines of cross cultural psychology and sociology.

Its more about the naturalness of religion and how despite the different religions there are common and universal core beliefs and morals. This points to some sort of theistic belief being natural and not the product of enculturation. This lends supporty for some sort of aspect about human belief is real, brings real knowledge of reality.

This doesn't mean the biblical God is real or the one but it does support something to religious belief. It would make sense that if there was a God that he would make Himself known to us.

What is your point? That your god wanted all of those sweet smelling sacrifices for himself? I don't get your point.

No that making sacrifices was a natural expression of our innate knowledge of God. Before God made himself known to Abraham humans acted like there was a God naturally. Just an ancient expression of belief that was refined by the Hebrew God.

I mean why not utilize what was already naturally there. This idea was fullfilled in Christs sacrifice.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Its not necessarily a disapproval as I said its a natural tendency of humans to ground belief in nature. The disapproval if you can call it that is the theological component of there being only one God and moral law. But thats a hallmark of all religions as well. So its a very human tendency.

I guess I'm not human then. I should stop pretending to be so.

Your making a moral judgement about me which shows the tendency to moralise. Its just that the Hebrew God is saying the God you are looking for is Yahway. Thats more an empistemic claim about how we should know God or gods or no God to a very human innate tendency.

Your clarification makes even less sense.

The fact that human history has been entangled with gods and spirits shows that its a natural part of who we are. If its not God then it will be other gods or metaphysics about whats beyond the material world, whats the purpose of life, what is reality and who are we.

This seems like a problem for you humans, not us non-humans.

The Christain narrative is the fullfillment of the old testament. Christ often refers to it. Its a gradual revealing to God to humans which culminates in God becoming man. This same idea can be reflected in other religions. So this is part of the archetypes that humans have developed or rather naturally lived out and fullfilled in Christ.

Of all the things about Christianity, the least impressive part is the claims of prophesies fulfilled in books written by persons familiar with the original predictions.

The research has moved well beyond this. Anthropological is one field but theres several fields basically along the lines of cross cultural psychology and sociology.

Its more about the naturalness of religion and how despite the different religions there are common and universal core beliefs and morals. This points to some sort of theistic belief being natural and not the product of enculturation. This lends supporty for some sort of aspect about human belief is real, brings real knowledge of reality.

This doesn't mean the biblical God is real or the one but it does support something to religious belief. It would make sense that if there was a God that he would make Himself known to us.

A compelling argument that this "natural tendency" to invent gods has nothing to do with claims of existence of any particular god. I'm really not sure where you are going with this. This isn't an apologetics thread and even if it were, this wouldn't really work in the favor of the argument you would like to make.

No that making sacrifices was a natural expression of our innate knowledge of God. Before God made himself known to Abraham humans acted like there was a God naturally. Just an ancient expression of belief that was refined by the Hebrew God.

I mean why not utilize what was already naturally there.

What? Are you saying you humans have this natural tendency, so it is reasonable that the "Hebrew God" should exploit that?

This idea was fullfilled in Christs sacrifice.

Another less than impressive facet.

 

[stevevw]

I guess I'm not human then. I should stop pretending to be so.

It doesn't have to be traditional religion that people base their metaphysical beliefs on. It could be materialism itself and strangly enough there are some similarities between materialism and paganism. They both ground metaphysics in naturalism in different ways.

Your clarification makes even less sense.

Epistemics is about how we should know reality. Your making an epistemic truth claim in denying God and moralising about him as to how we should know the truth and reality. That is a belief and not the ultimate reality or truth. God and Christ are making a claim that they are the epistemics as to how we can know the truth and reality of life and morality.

This seems like a problem for you humans, not us non-humans.

You can pretend but all humans are the same. It has been verified by research and theres really no such thing as a non believer in some sort of metaphysics which reflects our innate tendency to believe in divine concepts and metaphysics beyond what we see.

Of all the things about Christianity, the least impressive part is the claims of prophesies fulfilled in books written by persons familiar with the original predictions.

Yep they were all deluded and actually lived out the reality of crucifying Christ to fullfill the prophesies. We can actually find the non biblical evidence for these prophesies. From the point of view of those outside the bible who recorded these events.

This is avery cynnical view of the bible where everything is made up after the fact. Yet time and time again the bible has been proven correct. This same cynnical view is behind why even the mention of slavery Gods people are attacked as barbaric. Its all designed to undermine the bible and ultimately God.

A compelling argument that this "natural tendency" to invent gods has nothing to do with claims of existence of any particular god.

No quite the opposite. The fact that humans have been so ingrained with belief in gods regardless of culture for all history shows that there may be some truth of the gods. But the whole god idea supposes truth seeking and ultimately there can only be one truth. The fact that there are many gods distortion of our knowledge of the one true God which has been coopted into other gods.

I'm really not sure where you are going with this. This isn't an apologetics thread and even if it were, this wouldn't really work in the favor of the argument you would like to make.

Well ultimate as mentioned above its a metaphysical battle for morality, truth and reality itself. How the world should be ordered. Christ makes a claim that He is the way, truth and life. God claims He is the key to how this world should be ordered which is ultimately His Kingdom on earth.

Christ teachings are the truths we should follow. So its a battle for world order between Christainity and secular ideologies that claim other metaphysics and moral truths. This same battle was reflected in the old testament between the many gods who expressed all sorts of metaphysical ideas and the one true God Yahway.

What? Are you saying you humans have this natural tendency, so it is reasonable that the "Hebrew God" should exploit that?

Another less than impressive facet.

See thats your own worldview popping in to see things that way. I never said anything like that with such a negative twist towards exploitation. Seems a similar assumption and bias as with the slave issue where its always assumed and twisted to the negative ie barbaric.

I am saying that humans naturally looked to the skies and seen goods in nature. They had this cognition that related to the concept of God or gods or spirits. It was natural for them to make offerings and alters or temples to the gods well before Abraham came along. In fact just about everything humans did was about some sort of building and worship the gods.

So God used what was already a natural inclination to reveal Himself to humankind. Because the infrastructure for belief was already there. God did have to make humans believe in gods it was natural. He took a natural primitive behaviour that humans had already understood as relating to gods and an important expression in their relationship to their gods and refined it so that the the one true God could be reveals as the source for human beliefs and worship.

Just like slavery. He took what was a natural economy in biblical days and refined it through regulations gradually revealing the truth that there are no slaves or masters in Christ.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It doesn't have to be traditional religion that people base their metaphysical beliefs on. It could be materialism itself and strangly enough there are some similarities between materialism and paganism. They both ground metaphysics in naturalism in different ways.

Groan. I told you I wasn't playing this dumb game again.

Epistemics is about how we should know reality. Your making an epistemic truth claim in denying God and moralising about him as to how we should know the truth and reality. That is a belief and not the ultimate reality or truth. God and Christ are making a claim that they are the epistemics as to how we can know the truth and reality of life and morality.

You can pretend but all humans are the same. It has been verified by research and theres really no such thing as a non believer in some sort of metaphysics which reflects our innate tendency to believe in divine concepts and metaphysics beyond what we see.

I tried to avoid this response and your annoying assertion that everybody believes or whatever by declaring myself "non-human" so I could outside your insisted "everybody" group. Mo matter how much you write on this, I WILL RESPOND TO **NONE** OF IT.

Yep they were all deluded and actually lived out the reality of crucifying Christ to fullfill the prophesies.

What? I'm not talking about what happened in the life of Jesus (whatever that was), I'm talking about the things the gospel authors jammed into his story to create all of these prophesy links.

We can actually find the non biblical evidence for these prophesies. From the point of view of those outside the bible who recorded these events.

Huh? The prophesies are texts in the Jewish scripture, what non-blblical evidence of texts are there? Did some one copy part of the prophetic books into a different manuscript or something?

This is avery cynnical view of the bible where everything is made up after the fact.

I didn't say that. For some reason, I don't grok, you referenced "fulfilled prophesies" and I said I was unimpress by such things. Let me tell you why -- if you are a writer crafting a elevating narrative about someone and you know some prophesies you can insert some "fulfillments" into your story. I don't know if all or none or some of those fulfilled prophesies, but the ease at which they could be inserted into a story about a real person makes them not impressive as "arguments."

Yet time and time again the bible has been proven correct. This same cynnical view is behind why even the mention of slavery Gods people are attacked as barbaric. Its all designed to undermine the bible and ultimately God.

I mentioned slavery because you claimed Christianity/the Bible promoted equality. I gave a counter example and you've expanded the replies to that into dozens of posts and thousands of words. You could have just said "sure, the OT laws favored the treatment Hebrew slaves over non-Hebrew slaves." Oh well.

No quite the opposite. The fact that humans have been so ingrained with belief in gods regardless of culture for all history shows that there may be some truth of the gods. But the whole god idea supposes truth seeking and ultimately there can only be one truth. The fact that there are many gods distortion of our knowledge of the one true God which has been coopted into other gods.

Done with this topic.

Well ultimate as mentioned above its a metaphysical battle for morality, truth and reality itself. How the world should be ordered. Christ makes a claim that He is the way, truth and life. God claims He is the key to how this world should be ordered which is ultimately His Kingdom on earth.

OK, got it now. I see your point, but it has no meaning if you don't believe in the god.

Christ teachings are the truths we should follow. So its a battle for world order between Christainity and secular ideologies that claim other metaphysics and moral truths. This same battle was reflected in the old testament between the many gods who expressed all sorts of metaphysical ideas and the one true God Yahway.

Again it is only meaningful to those who believe, to the rest of us it is meaningless.

See thats your own worldview popping in to see things that way. I never said anything like that with such a negative twist towards exploitation. Seems a similar assumption and bias as with the slave issue where its always assumed and twisted to the negative ie barbaric.

I am saying that humans naturally looked to the skies and seen goods in nature. They had this cognition that related to the concept of God or gods or spirits. It was natural for them to make offerings and alters or temples to the gods well before Abraham came along. In fact just about everything humans did was about some sort of building and worship the gods.

So God used what was already a natural inclination to reveal Himself to humankind. Because the infrastructure for belief was already there. God did have to make humans believe in gods it was natural. He took a natural primitive behaviour that humans had already understood as relating to gods and an important expression in their relationship to their gods and refined it so that the the one true God could be reveals as the source for human beliefs and worship.

I've already had it with this topic.

Just like slavery. He took what was a natural economy in biblical days and refined it through regulations gradually revealing the truth that there are no slaves or masters in Christ.

All it needed was a simple "Thou shalt not own people as property" and it would be ended among the Chosen People. It would have been really easy to understand for a people that collectively just left bondage themselves.

 

[stevevw]

Groan. I told you I wasn't playing this dumb game again.

Then how come we keep ending on this point. Its not just me contributing to this discussion.

I tried to avoid this response and your annoying assertion that everybody believes or whatever by declaring myself "non-human" so I could outside your insisted "everybody" group. Mo matter how much you write on this, I WILL RESPOND TO **NONE** OF IT.

Ok so you disagree. But who says your belief should be taken as truth. I proposed a well supported finding about human cognition. Sure there are some who disagree but the reality of our lived experience testifies that at least for the majority its natural.

But simply ignoring this fact or rather dismissing it based on your personal experiences doesn't negate this fact. Your using your personal beliefs to dimiss the majority of humans.

My point was belief is natural enough for humans that we can say its just like 'human 'bonding' in its naturalness. Even though some don't believe in bonding this doesn't negate that bonding is a natural human behaviour like like religious belief. That all. You could have just asked for evidence instead of dismissing it.

What? I'm not talking about what happened in the life of Jesus (whatever that was), I'm talking about the things the gospel authors jammed into his story to create all of these prophesy links.

Yes and I am saying when we look at the life and times of Jesus including the sources beyond the bible we see that this was not some staged events one after the other all orchestrated to fullfill prophesies.

Thats how we can tell whether it was staged because the fullfillment was often associated with people outside the bible who have their own recorded history independent of the bible.

Huh? The prophesies are texts in the Jewish scripture, what non-blblical evidence of texts are there? Did some one copy part of the prophetic books into a different manuscript or something?

No these were independent accounts or archeological evidence. For example it was prophesised that the Messiah would be born in Bethleham. We have reliable archeological evidence for the Church of the Nativity in Bethleham as the birthplace of Jesus.

This location though it has changed with different churches being built over it can be traced back to the time of Christ. There are many like this where we can find independent textual or archeological evidence for the event or place at the time of Christ.

I didn't say that. For some reason, I don't grok, you referenced "fulfilled prophesies" and I said I was unimpress by such things. Let me tell you why -- if you are a writer crafting a elevating narrative about someone and you know some prophesies you can insert some "fulfillments" into your story. I don't know if all or none or some of those fulfilled prophesies, but the ease at which they could be inserted into a story about a real person makes them not impressive as "arguments."

Yes I agree and this has been a common way people fool others as fullfilled prophesies gives it that extra punch of holiness. But its interesting that you come down on the side of the bible being made up all the time when it has been verified so many times that it at least garners some pause for thought rather than automatically assuming its made up.

I mentioned slavery because you claimed Christianity/the Bible promoted equality. I gave a counter example and you've expanded the replies to that into dozens of posts and thousands of words. You could have just said "sure, the OT laws favored the treatment Hebrew slaves over non-Hebrew slaves." Oh well.

Yes thats waht usually happens. Skeptics find the worst examples they think will expose the bibles claims and then make that everything. Thats not to say that they are first misrepresenting the bible in the first place. So of course I have to go through all your fallacies and that takes a lot of explaining.

That is the one aspect you cite is that the Hebrews were treated differently therefore this no equality. But even this is misrepresented and twisted into the worse possible case.

I explained why you objection did not stand. But if thats the only complaint then why so much moral outrage. Overall the Hebrews regulated a common practice which was more humane and led to the abolishment of slavery. Why can't you acknowledge this truth but so eality fall for false negatives against God.

Done with this topic.

Good as so am I. We just just have to agree to disagree. Because I don't think you hold the truth on this. It seems too personal and from your experiences and beliefs rather than independent.

OK, got it now. I see your point, but it has no meaning if you don't believe in the god.

Yes it does because if its not God or gods then its some other metaphysics. Humans have got pretty good at coming up with different ways to hang their natural belief onto. Even the material world itself is give mystical powere like with Mother earth and crystals ect. The supernatural healings of the earth and cosmos ect.

Like I said even smaterial science where the only reality and truth is material reality. If someone does not believe in God or gods or the afterlife then they are expressing a different metaphysical truth about existence.

They have to come up with material explanations for all the big questions. ie where do we come from and happens when we die which are metaphysical and belief answers. Surveys have shown that despite atheism most people believe in some sort of soul. a spirit or maybe consciousness beyond brain.

Again it is only meaningful to those who believe, to the rest of us it is meaningless.

Forget about traditional religion for a moment. Now imagine its just about humans seeking some answer beyond what they see. Perhaps this is driven by nature and how we intuitive see design and purpose. We would eventually come up with gods or spirits or some metaphysics beyond what we see to help us understand.

There is no human culture that would have evolved to not be like this and take an atheistic belief. So its meaningful to everyone in that sense.

I've already had it with this topic.

All it needed was a simple "Thou shalt not own people as property" and it would be ended among the Chosen People. It would have been really easy to understand for a people that collectively just left bondage themselves.

Thats unreal and why you are having problems because your detaching the human condition and expecting everything to be about miracles and direct divine intervention to magically erase the human condition rather than work with it into something better. Which was eventually Christ.

You keep assuming all slavery was bad back then. If the entire world had some form of institutionalised slavery and servitude then it was like our labor market today in most cases. There were the abusers like there are bad employers. But most of it was not like black slavery which you keep wrongly assuming. And of course its all piled onto the Hebrews and God.

I agree with Phil that you can never get anywhere arguing this way and defending the bible. One must ask what is the basis for skeptics moral outrage that they are in such a position to judge God. What basis do you claim God is not fair and just.

 

[BCP1928]

Then how come we keep ending on this point. Its not just me contributing to this discussion.

Ok so you disagree. But who says your belief should be taken as truth. I proposed a well supported finding about human cognition. Sure there are some who disagree but the reality of our lived experience testifies that at least for the majority its natural.

But simply ignoring this fact or rather dismissing it based on your personal experiences doesn't negate this fact. Your using your personal beliefs to dimiss the majority of humans.

My point was belief is natural enough for humans that we can say its just like 'human 'bonding' in its naturalness. Even though some don't believe in bonding this doesn't negate that bonding is a natural human behaviour like like religious belief. That all. You could have just asked for evidence instead of dismissing it.

Yes and I am saying when we look at the life and times of Jesus including the sources beyond the bible we see that this was not some staged events one after the other all orchestrated to fullfill prophesies.

Thats how we can tell whether it was staged because the fullfillment was often associated with people outside the bible who have their own recorded history independent of the bible.

No these were independent accounts or archeological evidence. For example it was prophesised that the Messiah would be born in Bethleham. We have reliable archeological evidence for the Church of the Nativity in Bethleham as the birthplace of Jesus.

This location though it has changed with different churches being built over it can be traced back to the time of Christ. There are many like this where we can find independent textual or archeological evidence for the event or place at the time of Christ.

Yes I agree and this has been a common way people fool others as fullfilled prophesies gives it that extra punch of holiness. But its interesting that you come down on the side of the bible being made up all the time when it has been verified so many times that it at least garners some pause for thought rather than automatically assuming its made up.

Yes thats waht usually happens. Skeptics find the worst examples they think will expose the bibles claims and then make that everything. Thats not to say that they are first misrepresenting the bible in the first place. So of course I have to go through all your fallacies and that takes a lot of explaining.

That is the one aspect you cite is that the Hebrews were treated differently therefore this no equality. But even this is misrepresented and twisted into the worse possible case.

I explained why you objection did not stand. But if thats the only complaint then why so much moral outrage. Overall the Hebrews regulated a common practice which was more humane and led to the abolishment of slavery. Why can't you acknowledge this truth but so eality fall for false negatives against God.

Good as so am I. We just just have to agree to disagree. Because I don't think you hold the truth on this. It seems too personal and from your experiences and beliefs rather than independent.

Yes it does because if its not God or gods then its some other metaphysics. Humans have got pretty good at coming up with different ways to hang their natural belief onto. Even the material world itself is give mystical powere like with Mother earth and crystals ect. The supernatural healings of the earth and cosmos ect.

Like I said even smaterial science where the only reality and truth is material reality. If someone does not believe in God or gods or the afterlife then they are expressing a different metaphysical truth about existence.

They have to come up with material explanations for all the big questions. ie where do we come from and happens when we die which are metaphysical and belief answers. Surveys have shown that despite atheism most people believe in some sort of soul. a spirit or maybe consciousness beyond brain.

Forget about traditional religion for a moment. Now imagine its just about humans seeking some answer beyond what they see. Perhaps this is driven by nature and how we intuitive see design and purpose. We would eventually come up with gods or spirits or some metaphysics beyond what we see to help us understand.

There is no human culture that would have evolved to not be like this and take an atheistic belief. So its meaningful to everyone in that sense.

Thats unreal and why you are having problems because your detaching the human condition and expecting everything to be about miracles and direct divine intervention to magically erase the human condition rather than work with it into something better. Which was eventually Christ.

You keep assuming all slavery was bad back then. If the entire world had some form of institutionalised slavery and servitude then it was like our labor market today in most cases. There were the abusers like there are bad employers. But most of it was not like black slavery which you keep wrongly assuming. And of course its all piled onto the Hebrews and God.

I agree with Phil that you can never get anywhere arguing this way and defending the bible. One must ask what is the basis for skeptics moral outrage that they are in such a position to judge God. What basis do you claim God is not fair and just.

In order to consider the effect that Christianity has had on civilization, one need not prove the objective truth of Christian theology. One need only note that Christians believed in it.

 

[stevevw]

In order to consider the effect that Christianity has had on civilization, one need not prove the objective truth of Christian theology. One need only note that Christians believed in it.

We can take it another step. We can also measure its impact and influence in real terms either through objective facts or through lived experiences.

 

[BCP1928]

We can take it another step. We can also measure its impact and influence in real terms either through objective facts or through lived experiences.

Why would that require proving the objective truth of Christian theology?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We can take it another step. We can also measure its impact and influence in real terms either through objective facts or through lived experiences.

While I personally resonate with what you're trying to establish in your various points about the benefits of our commonly held faith for the World, I'm going to have to bring up the little point that is also relevant throughout the Bible that the presence of God's purposes in the World might not, at certain moments in history, actually be all "roses and peaches" for the nations at large.

In fact, God's occasional judgment isn't something the World quite grasps the meaning of if and when it happens. And this is an element that we as Christians have to incorporate into our worldview presentation as we make (meager) attempts to explain what Christianity means for the world.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then how come we keep ending on this point. Its not just me contributing to this discussion.

Because You bring it up. You make assertions about other people and their "need" to believe, and since you have denigrated by personal lived reality when doing so, I will not discuss it with you. [

[MEGASNIP: will not discuss]

Yes and I am saying when we look at the life and times of Jesus including the sources beyond the bible we see that this was not some staged events one after the other all orchestrated to fullfill prophesies.

Thats how we can tell whether it was staged because the fullfillment was often associated with people outside the bible who have their own recorded history independent of the bible.

I've been presented no examples of this recording of the fulfillments recoreded in other places, this is just a claim. (And recall the external evidence for his mere existence is extremely thin.)

No these were independent accounts or archeological evidence. For example it was prophesised that the Messiah would be born in Bethleham.

This is a perfect example. Imagine, if you will, a Galilean preacher of Nazareth, executed by the Romans for insurrecting or something and believed by his diehard followers to have risen from the dead as the savior. Scoffers (you remember scoffers, right) say "how is he the messiah, he was from Nazareth, not from Bethlehem of the line of David" and then stories start circulating that he was indeed of the line of David and born in Bethlehem. Prophesy fulfilled.

Now I'm not saying that happened, per se, but the fact that it *could* happen (and we have modern examples of evolving narratives, makes the fulfillment of that prophesy not only not "good evidence", but rather not really evidence at all. Perhaps he was born in Bethlehem of the line of David and that's what made his followers believe he was the messiah in the first place, or maybe it is fulfilled prophesy. We can't tell, and that is the point.

We have reliable archeological evidence for the Church of the Nativity in Bethleham as the birthplace of Jesus.

Isn't that the church that was put there because Constantine's mother said "here Jesus be born"?

This location though it has changed with different churches being built over it can be traced back to the time of Christ. There are many like this where we can find independent textual or archeological evidence for the event or place at the time of Christ.

Oh, brother. I watched that video and (shocked face) they found the foundation of a house near the site of the Church in an ancient village in Palestine that was known to exist because it was mentioned in text over a century earlier. (I wonder if the "secular historian" and "secular archeologist" in the video knew their interviews were going to be used in that video.)
The whole bit about the caves and "early attestors" was weird especially since the two (Justin Martyr and Origen) were exactly the kind of people that would have read or even owned copies of the gospels that already existed with the nativity story in them.

Yes I agree and this has been a common way people fool others as fullfilled prophesies gives it that extra punch of holiness. But its interesting that you come down on the side of the bible being made up all the time when it has been verified so many times that it at least garners some pause for thought rather than automatically assuming its made up.

You are misreading my view of the bible, but no, I don't believe in prophesy, or the vague claims of prophets.

Yes thats waht usually happens. Skeptics find the worst examples they think will expose the bibles claims and then make that everything. Thats not to say that they are first misrepresenting the bible in the first place. So of course I have to go through all your fallacies and that takes a lot of explaining.

That is the one aspect you cite is that the Hebrews were treated differently therefore this no equality. But even this is misrepresented and twisted into the worse possible case.

I used that example because it was clear. Slavery is bad, Hebrew slavery of themselves was less bad.

I explained why you objection did not stand. But if thats the only complaint then why so much moral outrage. Overall the Hebrews regulated a common practice which was more humane and led to the abolishment of slavery. Why can't you acknowledge this truth but so eality fall for false negatives against God.

You made a point about the benefits of Christianity including equality and I provided a counter example. Your response was to dive into an extended defense of Hebrew slavery law rather than to keep the discussion on the equality aspect.

Good as so am I. We just just have to agree to disagree. Because I don't think you hold the truth on this. It seems too personal and from your experiences and beliefs rather than independent.

You are clearly not done with the "everybody belives" stuff since you keep repeating it.

Yes it does because if its not God or gods then its some other metaphysics. Humans have got pretty good at coming up with different ways to hang their natural belief onto. Even the material world itself is give mystical powere like with Mother earth and crystals ect. The supernatural healings of the earth and cosmos ect.

See my previous response.

Like I said even smaterial science where the only reality and truth is material reality. If someone does not believe in God or gods or the afterlife then they are expressing a different metaphysical truth about existence.

They have to come up with material explanations for all the big questions. ie where do we come from and happens when we die which are metaphysical and belief answers. Surveys have shown that despite atheism most people believe in some sort of soul. a spirit or maybe consciousness beyond brain.

Forget about traditional religion for a moment. Now imagine its just about humans seeking some answer beyond what they see. Perhaps this is driven by nature and how we intuitive see design and purpose. We would eventually come up with gods or spirits or some metaphysics beyond what we see to help us understand.

There is no human culture that would have evolved to not be like this and take an atheistic belief. So its meaningful to everyone in that sense.

I cut in my response too early last time. See my previous response.

Thats unreal and why you are having problems because your detaching the human condition and expecting everything to be about miracles and direct divine intervention to magically erase the human condition rather than work with it into something better. Which was eventually Christ.

You keep assuming all slavery was bad back then. If the entire world had some form of institutionalised slavery and servitude then it was like our labor market today in most cases. There were the abusers like there are bad employers. But most of it was not like black slavery which you keep wrongly assuming. And of course its all piled onto the Hebrews and God.

Oh, no, not the applogetic for slavers again.My

I agree with Phil that you can never get anywhere arguing this way and defending the bible. One must ask what is the basis for skeptics moral outrage that they are in such a position to judge God. What basis do you claim God is not fair and just.

Personal authority, just as anyone else and their moral judgement authority. Some people choose to derive that claim on divine sources, but it is still a choice to do so.

 

[stevevw]

Why would that require proving the objective truth of Christian theology?

No I mean we can look at the Christain truths and measure with science whether they are beneficial to society ot the world or not. Like I was trying to do with slavery. The Christain truth principle of imago Dei. We can measure its influence on beliefs about human worth within society and the world. The same with 'there is no slave or free all are equal in Christ'.

Research has shown that a committed monogamous marriage is better for individuals health and wellbeing as well as child rearing. These can be measured as to how they changed society and the world into a better place.

As far as the OP I don't think we need to prove Christian theology. If its just about making the world a better place then Christainity becomes just one of many beliefs about how to make a better world. So it should be judged on what it teaches and its truth principles compared to other beliefs and ideologies. That can be done by looking at each beliefs truths about how we should live which we can measure through science and lived reality.

Proving the objective truth of Christian theology is a different kind of evidence along the lines of epistemology, philosophy and metaphysics. But I think we can also find some truths, maybe not objective truths but still truths we can deduce with some being more plausable than others. But I am not sure if thats justified as it would derail the thread.

 

[stevevw]

While I personally resonate with what you're trying to establish in your various points about the benefits of our commonly held faith for the World, I'm going to have to bring up the little point that is also relevant throughout the Bible that the presence of God's purposes in the World might not, at certain moments in history, actually be all "roses and peaches" for the nations at large.

In fact, God's occasional judgment isn't something the World quite grasps the meaning of if and when it happens. And this is an element that we as Christians have to incorporate into our worldview presentation as we make (meager) attempts to explain what Christianity means for the world.

Do you mean Christains don't explain that sometimes God judges and bad things can happen that doesn't fit a kind God. Maybe Christains should goback to the fire and brimstone preaching lol.

It is hard reconciling a loving God into todays worldview. Thats part of the epistemics I think. But I also think we can gain knowledge from a lived reality. We intuit certain things. For example that there is such a truth as 'justice'. From there we know this requires judgement and punishment.

But this doesn't get us to God. But I think as mentioned we can single out Christain truth principles and measure them on their own merits as well. Without having to be concerned about whether God is a worthy God. In fact if we are talking about Christainity then it is Christ. But then if we are honest not everything is "roses and peaches" there either. Oh well at least He taught us some pretty good ways to live.

 

[stevevw]

Because You bring it up. You make assertions about other people and their "need" to believe, and since you have denigrated by personal lived reality when doing so, I will not discuss it with you.

OK I am going to drop this point for now and see whether it comes up again naturally.

I've been presented no examples of this recording of the fulfillments recoreded in other places, this is just a claim. (And recall the external evidence for his mere existence is extremely thin.)

That you say the evidence for historic Jesus is thin says to me you are not very well informed and therefore basing your views on unfounded assumptions. The evidence for Jesus is strong, probably stronger than most other historical figures. The fact that Jesus was a real person has left His signature in many ways that build a case for Jesus.

Besides the many non biblical prominant figures who mention Jesus like Thallus Tacitus and Josephus and many more I just gave you one in CHrists birth in Bethlahem.

Micah 5:2-5 says “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.”

This clearly speaks of a future King of Irseal being born in Bethlehem.

This is a perfect example. Imagine, if you will, a Galilean preacher of Nazareth, executed by the Romans for insurrecting or something and believed by his diehard followers to have risen from the dead as the savior. Scoffers (you remember scoffers, right) say "how is he the messiah, he was from Nazareth, not from Bethlehem of the line of David" and then stories start circulating that he was indeed of the line of David and born in Bethlehem. Prophesy fulfilled.

I picturing a Monty pythom scene in my head. Well you can say that I guess but I think its cynnical. Often the evidence comes from verifying the descriptions in the bible. For example Justin Martyn in 125AD mentions people visiting a cave in Bethlehem where Jesus was born.

Historical research has shown that caves were a common way to keep animals like a stable. Caves like this are found in Bethlehem. Archeological digs have found pottery from the time of Jesus in this location establishing that Bethlehem was a village at the time of Jesus with the type of stables described by early stories of Christs birth. This was covered in the video I linked. Theres a longer version if you want.

Now I'm not saying that happened, per se, but the fact that it *could* happen (and we have modern examples of evolving narratives, makes the fulfillment of that prophesy not only not "good evidence", but rather not really evidence at all. Perhaps he was born in Bethlehem of the line of David and that's what made his followers believe he was the messiah in the first place, or maybe it is fulfilled prophesy. We can't tell, and that is the point.

Yes its an obvious skeptical conclusion to say that because it happened after the prediction that people could have ensured it happened nin creating a new religion or myth.

But besides considering all the other evidence I think really its a cynnical view as I don't think myths and legends are created that way. At least those that stick and become so ingrained and within a generation people are dying for Christ.

I mean we have seen some pretty big fads and cults. The Beatles was big but its died out. Except I am a believer and always will be. But I don't know about dedicating my life or dying for them. Even the hystical ones have dwindled in just a few generations lol.

Isn't that the church that was put there because Constantine's mother said "here Jesus be born"?

Constantine built his church over the cave where Jesus was born and then this has been added to. As mentioned the cave was visited and known as the place where the savior God of the Christains was born in the 1st century. So it has a long tradition going back soon after Christ.

Oh, brother. I watched that video and (shocked face) they found the foundation of a house near the site of the Church in an ancient village in Palestine that was known to exist because it was mentioned in text over a century earlier. (I wonder if the "secular historian" and "secular archeologist" in the video knew their interviews were going to be used in that video.)

Once again I think this is a over skeptical view. The investigator is merely reporting the facts. He mentions the two non biblical texts where one mentions a cave in the town of Bethlehem was visted and that caves were used as animal stables. It was the archeologist who said they found pottery going back to the time of Jesus in Bethlehem.

These are just reporting the facts. Its building these facts that we can determine whether the bible is correct or not. How else can this be determined. So now your saying that even the evidence in the ground and lived out is also part of creating the myth. Like I said I think this is overly skeptical. We would not treat other evidence like this but recognise it for what its worth.

The whole bit about the caves and "early attestors" was weird especially since the two (Justin Martyr and Origen) were exactly the kind of people that would have read or even owned copies of the gospels that already existed with the nativity story in them.

Yeah its possible. But I think unlikely. I mean the fact is the site was known and honored to become fixed in history. So JUstin Martyn would have been likely reporting something that was really happening at the time. So why would he make it up.

You are misreading my view of the bible, but no, I don't believe in prophesy, or the vague claims of prophets.

Ok

I used that example because it was clear. Slavery is bad, Hebrew slavery of themselves was less bad.

I am more interested in what the basis is for what is bad and less bad.

You made a point about the benefits of Christianity including equality and I provided a counter example. Your response was to dive into an extended defense of Hebrew slavery law rather than to keep the discussion on the equality aspect.

Ah because someone used the example of slavery being an example of inequality. So of course is going to go into an arguement with you objecting and me offering defence of the bible. What did you except. If I disagree I am going to argue why your objections are baseless.

Besides all this I am not sure what you are trying to establish. Even if we go with your assumption that the Hebrews were treating themselves differently we can see overall their system was better for the world.

Thats all we have to show that it was better. The different treatment of the Hebrews was better and the different treatment of slaves was better. It was also better in that it led to the abolishment of slavery. Soo its still better even under your criteria.

You are clearly not done with the "everybody belives" stuff since you keep repeating it.

No I can see when its not going to be of benefit to the arguement. Its only one aspect. Lets just see. I will not mention it unless someone else does.

I cut in my response too early last time. See my previous response.

OK so that basically cuts out half the debate as we cannot determine whether Christainity is better for the world without some basis for measuring that against. I assume you are determining this by your own ideas of morality or perhaps modern societies ideas. But what is the basis for this and how does it prove Christainity is not better for the world.

Oh, no, not the applogetic for slavers again.My

Ok I have argue the vase. This time I want you to tell me why exactly is this an apologetic case for slavers.

Let me ak you. Do you think there was any difference between slaves and servants.

Personal authority, just as anyone else and their moral judgement authority. Some people choose to derive that claim on divine sources, but it is still a choice to do so.

OK so personal authrity can vary and not everyone will agree with you. How do you determine which personal authority is the truth. What is actually the authority on what is moral or not outside personal authority.

 

[BCP1928]

OK I am going to drop this point for now and see whether it comes up again naturally.

That you say the evidence for historic Jesus is thin says to me you are not very well informed and therefore basing your views on unfounded assumptions. The evidence for Jesus is strong, probably stronger than most other historical figures. The fact that Jesus was a real person has left His signature in many ways that build a case for Jesus.

Besides the many non biblical prominant figures who mention Jesus like Thallus Tacitus and Josephus and many more I just gave you one in CHrists birth in Bethlahem.

Micah 5:2-5 says “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.”

This clearly speaks of a future King of Irseal being born in Bethlehem.

I picturing a Monty pythom scene in my head. Well you can say that I guess but I think its cynnical. Often the evidence comes from verifying the descriptions in the bible. For example Justin Martyn in 125AD mentions people visiting a cave in Bethlehem where Jesus was born.

Historical research has shown that caves were a common way to keep animals like a stable. Caves like this are found in Bethlehem. Archeological digs have found pottery from the time of Jesus in this location establishing that Bethlehem was a village at the time of Jesus with the type of stables described by early stories of Christs birth. This was covered in the video I linked. Theres a longer version if you want.

Yes its an obvious skeptical conclusion to say that because it happened after the prediction that people could have ensured it happened nin creating a new religion or myth.

But besides considering all the other evidence I think really its a cynnical view as I don't think myths and legends are created that way. At least those that stick and become so ingrained and within a generation people are dying for Christ.

I mean we have seen some pretty big fads and cults. The Beatles was big but its died out. Except I am a believer and always will be. But I don't know about dedicating my life or dying for them. Even the hystical ones have dwindled in just a few generations lol.

Constantine built his church over the cave where Jesus was born and then this has been added to. As mentioned the cave was visited and known as the place where the savior God of the Christains was born in the 1st century. So it has a long tradition going back soon after Christ.

Once again I think this is a over skeptical view. The investigator is merely reporting the facts. He mentions the two non biblical texts where one mentions a cave in the town of Bethlehem was visted and that caves were used as animal stables. It was the archeologist who said they found pottery going back to the time of Jesus in Bethlehem.

These are just reporting the facts. Its building these facts that we can determine whether the bible is correct or not. How else can this be determined. So now your saying that even the evidence in the ground and lived out is also part of creating the myth. Like I said I think this is overly skeptical. We would not treat other evidence like this but recognise it for what its worth.

Yeah its possible. But I think unlikely. I mean the fact is the site was known and honored to become fixed in history. So JUstin Martyn would have been likely reporting something that was really happening at the time. So why would he make it up.

Ok

I am more interested in what the basis is for what is bad and less bad.

Ah because someone used the example of slavery being an example of inequality. So of course is going to go into an arguement with you objecting and me offering defence of the bible. What did you except. If I disagree I am going to argue why your objections are baseless.

Besides all this I am not sure what you are trying to establish. Even if we go with your assumption that the Hebrews were treating themselves differently we can see overall their system was better for the world.

Thats all we have to show that it was better. The different treatment of the Hebrews was better and the different treatment of slaves was better. It was also better in that it led to the abolishment of slavery. Soo its still better even under your criteria.

No I can see when its not going to be of benefit to the arguement. Its only one aspect. Lets just see. I will not mention it unless someone else does.

OK so that basically cuts out half the debate as we cannot determine whether Christainity is better for the world without some basis for measuring that against. I assume you are determining this by your own ideas of morality or perhaps modern societies ideas. But what is the basis for this and how does it prove Christainity is not better for the world.

Ok I have argue the vase. This time I want you to tell me why exactly is this an apologetic case for slavers.

Let me ak you. Do you think there was any difference between slaves and servants.

OK so personal authrity can vary and not everyone will agree with you. How do you determine which personal authority is the truth. What is actually the authority on what is moral or not outside personal authority.

Now that you have demonstrated that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person (a proposition which was not seriously disputed in this discussion) your next step would be to go somehow from there to proving the right-wing Evangelical Protestant theology you generally preach. But that would be unpleasant and very tedious for all of us and you would be unlikely to succeed.. Perhaps we could postpone that discussion and go back to the OP. After all, if Christianity has an effect on society it is because of what Christians do unto to others, whether what they believe about it is true or not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you mean Christains don't explain that sometimes God judges and bad things can happen that doesn't fit a kind God. Maybe Christains should goback to the fire and brimstone preaching lol.

No, not exactly that, even though what you're saying here ends up having something to do with what is, I think, the central issue of contention.

It is hard reconciling a loving God into todays worldview. Thats part of the epistemics I think. But I also think we can gain knowledge from a lived reality. We intuit certain things. For example that there is such a truth as 'justice'. From there we know this requires judgement and punishment.

Partly, yes. But partly no since philosophical concepts like "justice" don't come from the universe with "Guaranteed Absolute!!!!" labels attached to them.

But this doesn't get us to God. But I think as mentioned we can single out Christain truth principles and measure them on their own merits as well. Without having to be concerned about whether God is a worthy God. In fact if we are talking about Christainity then it is Christ. But then if we are honest not everything is "roses and peaches" there either. Oh well at least He taught us some pretty good ways to live.

Yes. I think Jesus lit up the runway in the dark for everyone. Now, it's just a matter of getting people grounded safely.

 

[Hans Blaster]

OK I am going to drop this point for now and see whether it comes up again naturally.

That you say the evidence for historic Jesus is thin says to me you are not very well informed and therefore basing your views on unfounded assumptions. The evidence for Jesus is strong, probably stronger than most other historical figures. The fact that Jesus was a real person has left His signature in many ways that build a case for Jesus.

Besides the many non biblical prominant figures who mention Jesus like Thallus Tacitus and Josephus and many more I just gave you one in CHrists birth in Bethlahem.

I am aware of those texts and stand by my statement, but the existence or deeds of Jesus were not the point I was making, it was about contemporaries thinking Jesus fulfilled the "prophesy". Even more so that the existence of Jesus or his followers outside the Christian writings, is that the "fulfillment of prophesy" only appears in the Christian writings.

Micah 5:2-5 says “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.”

This clearly speaks of a future King of Irseal being born in Bethlehem.

No one is doubting the existence of the prophesy...

I picturing a Monty pythom scene in my head. Well you can say that I guess but I think its cynnical. Often the evidence comes from verifying the descriptions in the bible. For example Justin Martyn in 125AD mentions people visiting a cave in Bethlehem where Jesus was born.

Historical research has shown that caves were a common way to keep animals like a stable. Caves like this are found in Bethlehem. Archeological digs have found pottery from the time of Jesus in this location establishing that Bethlehem was a village at the time of Jesus with the type of stables described by early stories of Christs birth. This was covered in the video I linked. Theres a longer version if you want.

... or the village of Bethlehem.

Yes its an obvious skeptical conclusion to say that because it happened after the prediction that people could have ensured it happened nin creating a new religion or myth.

But besides considering all the other evidence I think really its a cynnical view as I don't think myths and legends are created that way.

Where do you think myths come from? People make them up or add details to existing stories. There is a modern myth about George Washington, Defeater of the British, about a lie and a cherry tree which appeared in later editions of an early biograph (about a decade after he died and 175 years before it was presented to me as essentially true in elementary school).

"I Can't Tell a Lie, Pa," George Washington and the Cherry Tree Myth

At least those that stick and become so ingrained and within a generation people are dying for Christ.

Another overblown myth about early Christianity.

I mean we have seen some pretty big fads and cults. The Beatles was big but its died out. Except I am a believer and always will be. But I don't know about dedicating my life or dying for them. Even the hystical ones have dwindled in just a few generations lol.

Unlike Jesus, the Beatles did not become part of a religion.

Constantine built his church over the cave where Jesus was born and then this has been added to. As mentioned the cave was visited and known as the place where the savior God of the Christains was born in the 1st century. So it has a long tradition going back soon after Christ.

If by "soon" you mean "about one century after he died", the sure "soon". (The evidence for a date of this belief is the report of Justin Martyr you gave above.)

Once again I think this is a over skeptical view. The investigator is merely reporting the facts.

That's right. The archeologist is just reporting on the investigation of a house in a village that was known to exist well before the time of Jesus. My point, since you seemed to have missed it, is that the existence of Bethlehem is not evidence that Jesus was born there, nor that he even existed, and especially not that Jesus fulfilled the prophesy about a messiah being born there.

He mentions the two non biblical texts where one mentions a cave in the town of Bethlehem was visted and that caves were used as animal stables. It was the archeologist who said they found pottery going back to the time of Jesus in Bethlehem.

Again, see the last response.

These are just reporting the facts. Its building these facts that we can determine whether the bible is correct or not.

No, you can't. Certainly nothing in the NT is determined to be correct because someone found 1st century house in Bethlehem. I'm sure the results from the dig are interesting, they just aren't the "proof" you claim they are.

How else can this be determined. So now your saying that even the evidence in the ground and lived out is also part of creating the myth. Like I said I think this is overly skeptical. We would not treat other evidence like this but recognise it for what its worth.

Yes we would treat other evidence the same. That is the point, Steve, it is you (and other Christians) granting special exemption from scrutiny of the documentation and artifacts of the early days of your religion.

Yeah its possible. But I think unlikely. I mean the fact is the site was known and honored to become fixed in history. So JUstin Martyn would have been likely reporting something that was really happening at the time. So why would he make it up.

WHat you have established was that the site was regarded as the birth place of Jesus by 90 or so years after he died. It says nothing about when that became common place among the followers of Jesus, or if it is accurate. (It also conflicts with Matthew's story of Mary giving birth after entering into the house of Joseph. Why would that happen in a local cave with animals?)

Ok

I am more interested in what the basis is for what is bad and less bad.

Ah because someone used the example of slavery being an example of inequality.

Yes, *ME*. It's the only reason I mentioned slaver in ancient Israel. --- Because you claimed the Bible promoted equality of ethnic groups/races. I used it as a counter example. The general immorality of slaver was assumed and not offered as a topic for debate.

So of course is going to go into an arguement with you objecting and me offering defence of the bible. What did you except. If I disagree I am going to argue why your objections are baseless.

Besides all this I am not sure what you are trying to establish. Even if we go with your assumption that the Hebrews were treating themselves differently we can see overall their system was better for the world.

It's not an assumption. It's literally written in to their (allegedly deity dictated) law book.

Thats all we have to show that it was better. The different treatment of the Hebrews was better and the different treatment of slaves was better. It was also better in that it led to the abolishment of slavery. Soo its still better even under your criteria.

Took long enough to happen. The causality is definitely in question and does not speak well of the benefits of Christianity. (Sorry about the on-topic material.)

No I can see when its not going to be of benefit to the arguement. Its only one aspect. Lets just see. I will not mention it unless someone else does.

OK so that basically cuts out half the debate as we cannot determine whether Christainity is better for the world without some basis for measuring that against.

A reasonable question, here's a parallel one:

I assume you are determining this by your own ideas of morality or perhaps modern societies ideas. But what is the basis for this and how does it prove Christainity is not better for the world.

Would it be reasonable to base our judgement of the OP question on the standards provided in the Bible?

Ok I have argue the vase. This time I want you to tell me why exactly is this an apologetic case for slavers.

Let me ak you. Do you think there was any difference between slaves and servants.

Slavery isn't the subject of the thread as you know.

OK so personal authrity can vary and not everyone will agree with you. How do you determine which personal authority is the truth. What is actually the authority on what is moral or not outside personal authority.

My algorithm goes as such: I am me. I prefer my personal authority to yours.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes. I think Jesus lit up the runway in the dark for everyone. Now, it's just a matter of getting people grounded safely.

Let me guess, you think of me as Johnny