Origin of God's Morality.

[Archaeopteryx]

You said you were in religious studies, so it's been laid out for you. I'm not asking you to do anything, just to see what's in front of you.

The claims have been laid out. The question is whether they've been established as true.

Of course, you haven't named one that proves it's not true...

Why would I be required to disprove claims that are already unfounded?

The resurrection, for one. Oh, I know...it was a figment of 500 peoples' imagination...

What evidence do you have that the Resurrection happened?

 

[Root of Jesse]

You know very well what I meant.
But it's okay. Your dodging makes the point for me.

Actually, it doesn't. Santa was modeled by secular society after the bishop Nicholas, who gave away all his wealth to take care of the poor in his diocese.

Because you can't simply "decide" right here, right now, to "sincerely believe" something you don't, like Santa or magical unicorns.

Well, Santa was real, and unicorns might be. Maybe they're extinct, maybe they didn't exist. You believe evolution, I suppose, which has no definitive proof...

Because belief is a compulsion. It's not something you "choose" to do. You either find something convincing or you don't. Belief (or unbelief) is just a compulsory result of that, not a choice.

It's not compulsory. If you're not convinced, so what? I am, and I won't be able to convince you, but you are here trolling in a Christian board trying to show how stupid some Christians are. I am completely aware of your tactics. By the way, happy belated atheist holy day.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Can you simply "choose" to believe that they are real?

Do you even understand the question?

The answer to the question is Yes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The answer to the question is Yes.

Actually, the answer is no, as you aptly demonstrated. You couldn't manufacture a sincere belief in unicorns at will. What you were able to do, apparently, is to make-believe.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If that is your reasoning, you must be very impressed with the truth of Islam, considering ISIS combattants.

Actually, they're killing more Christians...

Same as any other religion.



But you're ignoring those, I bet?
Only the deeds that are to your pleasing are evidence of your religion, I bet?

No, but it is amazing how people criticize Christians, NOT for being and acting Christ-like, but for not being and acting Christ-like.

Knowledge is demonstrable.

And the Gospels, and subsequent writings of the early Church, demonstrate it just fine, thanks.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Show me objective evidence that is verifiable, that points in one direction and i will accept something as true.

If all you have are stories and no evidence, i wont accept that as a verifiable truth. Certainly, you are free to accept stories as truth based on faith, knock yourself out.

I have stories, which are evidence, and you don't accept them. Case closed.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There is this thing called Catholic tradition. That's putting it nicely - what we should really call it is Catholic invention.

Ah, now the attack on Catholics. I was waiting for it...but first you have to distinguish between Tradition and tradition.

See, the Gospel of John was written by - yep, you guessed it - John Doe. We don't know who wrote it or any of the gospels. If you actually read them you will see that they are anonymous; there is no actual claim being made of authorship anywhere. There is also no historical evidence to show who wrote them so what we have is Catholic tradition invention stepping in to fill in the blank. To be fair, I suppose it could be said that these documents needed names for reference, and maybe these names sounded better than simply calling them "1, 2, 3, and 4" but the reality is that giving them such numerical names would've been better in the sense of not deceiving the masses.

Actually, we do know who wrote it. Why? Because we have ancient documentation. The documentation is slim, granted, thanks to your friends the Huns, Vandals and Goths, who destroyed much of whatever documentation we did have. Thankfully, there are vaults that hold. By the way, the Gospel's not called "The Gospel written by John". It's called "The Gospel according to John. Certainly, someone else transcribed it. Most of the apostles were illiterate.

And the confusion doesn't stop there. Paul wrote some epistles, but not all of the ones credited to him are actually his works. Yes, some of the letters leading with "Paul, called to be an apostle..." were not written by Paul. It was a different world back then. No copyright laws, no printing press, no publishing houses, rampant illiteracy, etc. It was considered common practice and not in any way dishonest to attach the name of a prominent person to your work if you wanted to get it out there. And speaking of prominence, that's pretty much all Paul really had. There was no divine sign from heaven declaring him as a prophet.

So what? There was a divine sign on the road to Damascus that made him a believer, his brothers, Peter, James, John, etc. ordained him an apostle.

His greatest miracles were things like not being bitten by snakes, escaping in a basket, or surviving brain trauma. He has nothing more than the claim that he saw (or heard?) Jesus, nothing more than the claim that he was blind for a weekend.

His greatest miracles were the starting of the Churches in Corinth, Rome, Thessalonika,Galacia, Ephesus, and Colossae. Which is why we have his letters-they considered them important enough to save.

Couldn't Richard Dawkins do the same? With as much as he's invested against the church, and with his level of prominence, he could reverse course, claim divine revelation, and he would be no different than Paul.

You mean like Anthony Flew? http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew-abandons-atheism.html

Paul was a prominent person who hated the church, then changed course, and since the church was desperate for any help they could get they were thrilled to have him. Even if we assume the anonymous gospels are true, there's no actual reason to believe that Paul was a prophet at all.

He didn't claim to be a prophet. The Church didn't really need his help, except to expand to the center of known civilization. Peter and John were converting by the thousands, and went on their own missionary journeys.

All we have is a few of his works combined with other works which are polite forgeries borrowing his name, none of which were even addressed to us in the 21st century but rather to a specific audience for specific reasons which do not even apply anymore, and to top it off, it was narrowly decided hundreds of years later by a completely different culture whether these documents which had been copied and copied and copied many times over would even be included in the canon or not.

It's funny how you first say that it was normal to use someones name to gain prominance for what you write, then you declare it forgery.

Here's the best way to look at it. As an outsider to the Jehovah's Witnesses, you might cite the fact that Charles Taze Russel was not competent in the language that he needed to know in order to produce the translations that he brought about. Yet you believe that an uneducated, illiterate Jewish fisherman by the name of Simon, whom Jesus referred to as Peter, drafted epistles in the Greek language.

I believe that Jesus did what he promised, inspired the apostles, even when they were huddled together in a room for fear of the Jews and Romans, to go forth and preach the Good News. Others wrote it in their name. I have, on my bookshelf, a autobiography of Hillary Clinton. Did she actually write it? Nope? Forgery? Nope. I have another of Sean Payton, written by someone else. Does it convey the facts? I'd have to say that it did. I believe that Peter spoke his first encyclical, and someone wrote it down. If I go to a Trump rally and record and write down everything he says, isn't that the same thing? Bizarre is right.

Bizarre, to say the least. To be charitable to your position, we could say that Peter dictated his letters in Hebrew to someone who knew how to write Greek, but to my knowledge that's not really what the traditions inventions hold.

Now, what does this have to do with martyrdom?

See, the martyrs are another of these Catholic traditions inventions. You cannot show me as historical fact that any "eyewitness" apostle was martyred except Peter, but we don't actually know the line of questioning involved in Peter's martyr. You just help yourself to the assumption that it went like this:

Actually, we have the tombs of the martyrs underneath Rome...and the tombs of the other martyred apostles...

Roman guy: Deny Christ.
Peter: No.
Roman guy: But I'll torture you if you don't.
Peter: I'm still not gonna.
(Several hours later)
Roman guy: This is it. I'm tired of whipping you. You're going on that cross if you don't deny Christ.
Peter: Crucify me upside down please.

But how do you know it didn't go like this:

Roman guy: You were preaching the gospel, weren't you?
Other Roman guy: If you deny it we'll "interrogate" you until you confess.
(Pro tip: "interrogate" means torture)
Peter: Yeah, I done did it.
The first Roman guy: So you know what happens now, right?
Peter: Yeah, I'll take the upside down version, please.

In either version of events, it might be said that Peter "died for his faith" or that his "faith was sealed in blood." This does not mean he was given the choice to deny Christ and go free. Nowhere is that claim ever even made except as a pulpit invention.

Anyone who dies for not forsaking their belief in Christ is, by definition, a martyr. The 20th century had the most martyrs of any century so far.

Now, maybe you do have people like Polycarp who willfully chose to die despite being given the option to deny Christ and go free. But he was not an "eyewitness" so he's not willfully dying for a lie.

And yet there were a lot who did 'turn' on their faith while the heat was high, and when the heat got turned down, they tried to come back into the faith. The powers of the Church said "Why should we take you back? You denied your faith, what would make us believe that you won't do so again?" In many cases they submitted to the authority of the Church, went to great pains to be accepted back, and in some cases, did die for their faith when given the chance.

The "Why die for a lie?" argument is itself a lie.

I disagree. What a surprise!

 

[Root of Jesse]

The claims have been laid out. The question is whether they've been established as true.

And many believe they have.

Why would I be required to disprove claims that are already unfounded?

What evidence do you have that the Resurrection happened?

Eyewitness testimony, historian writings.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Actually, the answer is no, as you aptly demonstrated. You couldn't manufacture a sincere belief in unicorns at will. What you were able to do, apparently, is to make-believe.

Who are you to judge anyone's sincerity? Anyone can believe anything they want, just look in the mirror. If you asked if I can believe in something that's demonstrably not true, there's a different answer.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Right, and after they died, they found out otherwise, and the populace moved on to the next one. And if they didn't like that one, they killed him.

So? It was a religion and then a dead religion. I'm not sure how this buttresses your original point.

Certain miracles help prove it. His death and subsequent resurrection nail it down. Oh, I know, it's a fairy tale, to you.
http://www.everystudent.com/features/faith.html

You have a history of skimming. Please read this paragraph again, but without skimming this time:


How did Jesus actually prove he was God? What is the checklist of things one must do to sufficiently prove that oneself is a God, or the God? Are you referring to the miracles he performed? Other Biblical characters performed miracles. Are you claiming that all characters except Jesus performed miracles through God, whereas Jesus performed miracles of his own power? How would you prove that, even if we were both present at a miracle? How would we even know whether Jesus had multiplied fish by his own power or through God's? Or are you referring to Jesus' greatest miracle of all: the resurrection? Because again, among the miracles performed by Jesus were resurrections of other people, and since we cannot know whether he did this himself or beckoned God to resurrect through him, we cannot know whether Jesus raised himself from the dead or if God raised him. In conclusion, this claim is not coherent even if we assume Christianity is true.

Islam started later than Christianity, and fractured right away.

So did Christianity. Ever hear of gnostics, etc?

Their leader, Mohammed didn't claim to be God.

Moses didn't claim to be God either. By your logic we should dismiss the Old Testament.

Buddha didn't claim to be God either.

Neither did Abraham, Noah, Jeremiah, etc.

Process of elimination.

I missed the part where you eliminated atheism.

Quite untrue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_hypothesis
Not true.

That hypothesis seems to be derived ad hoc purely to do away with a regrettable set of facts.

Are you known for your opinion?

You tell me.

Actually, it's not a forgery. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Lk 24 and Jn 20. This also suggests that Mark didn't come first...It was declared canonical at the Council of Trent. Not a forgery, not that it had false doctrine or information in it, it was an addition, and known not to have been written by Mark, and paralells Luke 24 and John 20. Shrug.

Astonishing. You go beyond admitting that it was added by someone else and even explain the evidence that supports this. Then you say it is NOT a forgery. Please tell me what a forgery is if not an insertion added later by someone else.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So? It was a religion and then a dead religion. I'm not sure how this buttresses your original point.



You have a history of skimming. Please read this paragraph again, but without skimming this time:


How did Jesus actually prove he was God? What is the checklist of things one must do to sufficiently prove that oneself is a God, or the God? Are you referring to the miracles he performed? Other Biblical characters performed miracles. Are you claiming that all characters except Jesus performed miracles through God, whereas Jesus performed miracles of his own power? How would you prove that, even if we were both present at a miracle? How would we even know whether Jesus had multiplied fish by his own power or through God's? Or are you referring to Jesus' greatest miracle of all: the resurrection? Because again, among the miracles performed by Jesus were resurrections of other people, and since we cannot know whether he did this himself or beckoned God to resurrect through him, we cannot know whether Jesus raised himself from the dead or if God raised him. In conclusion, this claim is not coherent even if we assume Christianity is true.

I provided a link. Did you read it?

So did Christianity. Ever hear of gnostics, etc?

You have a history of glossing over details. Do you know how long it took for gnosticism to get into Christianity? And do you know that it is in every religion? Yet, the Christian religion remained true. Islam fractured. Everyone claims they're the one true Islam. We can prove we're the one true Christianity by our teachings. Yes. Even though people disagree, this happened in John 6 when Jesus told his disciples they must eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Moses didn't claim to be God either. By your logic we should dismiss the Old Testament.

God claimed to be God. Moses brought it to the Hebrews. Different.

Neither did Abraham, Noah, Jeremiah, etc.

Right. They only claimed to be prophets. Or followers, in Abraham and Noah's cases.

I missed the part where you eliminated atheism.

That's the first one I eliminated.

That hypothesis seems to be derived ad hoc purely to do away with a regrettable set of facts.

That's your judgement, doesn't make it right. If Mark was written first, why is the order Matthew, Mark, Luke, John?

You tell me.



Astonishing. You go beyond admitting that it was added by someone else and even explain the evidence that supports this. Then you say it is NOT a forgery. Please tell me what a forgery is if not an insertion added later by someone else.

Forgery is the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects, statistics, or documents with the intent to deceive for the sake of altering the public perception, or to earn profit by selling the forged item. Copies, studio replicas, and reproductions are not considered forgeries, though they may later become forgeries through knowing and willful misrepresentations.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The resurrection, for one. Oh, I know...it was a figment of 500 peoples' imagination...

Yep, Mass Hysteria....

 

[civilwarbuff]

and since we cannot know whether he did this himself or beckoned God to resurrect through him, we cannot know whether Jesus raised himself from the dead or if God raised him.

Except they are one and the same....not that I would expect an atheist to know the difference......1 Cor 2:14 you know.....

 

[bhsmte]

I have stories, which are evidence, and you don't accept them. Case closed.

If I tell you a story and included extraordinary claims in my story, would my story serve as evidence the story is true?

 

[bhsmte]

And many believe they have.

Eyewitness testimony, historian writings.

Which historians?

The authors of the gospels are all anonymous, no one knows who wrote them.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ah, now the attack on Catholics. I was waiting for it...but first you have to distinguish between Tradition and tradition.

Lol, again with your persecution complex. I said that Catholics invented things because they did. They claim certain things to be fact when there is no historical record of them, even if you are of the persuasion that the gospels are historical. Hence the things they say are inventions.

Actually, we do know who wrote it. Why? Because we have ancient documentation.

Show me please.

The documentation is slim, granted, thanks to your friends the Huns, Vandals and Goths, who destroyed much of whatever documentation we did have.

1. You condemn me for making impersonal attacks on an institution, even though I didn't.
2. You believe that you should be living by the words of Christ (or am I mistaken on this?).
3. Christ said to turn the other cheek.
4. ???
5. You are justified in making personal attacks on me by grouping me with barbarians.

Thankfully, there are vaults that hold.

Right, awesome, where are these documents please.

By the way, the Gospel's not called "The Gospel written by John". It's called "The Gospel according to John.

Who do you think you're correcting by saying this?

Certainly, someone else transcribed it. Most of the apostles were illiterate.

OK.

So what? There was a divine sign on the road to Damascus that made him a believer, his brothers, Peter, James, John, etc. ordained him an apostle.

There was a sign that appeared only to Paul, confirmed by no one. He was accepted primarily because he was a prominent man beforehand. How do you know Paul was not under Satanic influence? How do you actually know? He was just a man, and other men decided which of his works would be canonized and which ones wouldn't. I don't see God here, but surely Satan was doing everything he could've to corrupt the process.

His greatest miracles were the starting of the Churches in Corinth, Rome, Thessalonika,Galacia, Ephesus, and Colossae. Which is why we have his letters-they considered them important enough to save.

Funny you say that because below you say that "the Church didn't really need his help, except to expand to the center of known civilization." Was that a big deal or not? Are you saying it was both miraculous and inconsequential?

You mean like Anthony Flew? http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew-abandons-atheism.html

Exactly my point, even now when Christianity is prominent you still take pride in someone like him coming into the fold. So imagine how the fledgling church felt about getting Paul.

He didn't claim to be a prophet.

So... Paul does not speak for God? Why are his epistles canonized?

The Church didn't really need his help, except to expand to the center of known civilization.

The church didn't need his help, just a miracle.

Peter and John were converting by the thousands, and went on their own missionary journeys.

So what?

It's funny how you first say that it was normal to use someones name to gain prominance for what you write, then you declare it forgery.

Yes. It was normal, and it happened in Mark. What you seem to think is that there was a negative connotation with forgeries back then. You keep either skimming or reading things into what I say. Either way you're not really paying attention and so dialogue is proving to be pointless. I even took the trouble to use the term "polite forgery." You just aren't listening.

I believe that Jesus did what he promised, inspired the apostles, even when they were huddled together in a room for fear of the Jews and Romans, to go forth and preach the Good News. Others wrote it in their name. I have, on my bookshelf, a autobiography of Hillary Clinton. Did she actually write it? Nope? Forgery? Nope. I have another of Sean Payton, written by someone else. Does it convey the facts? I'd have to say that it did. I believe that Peter spoke his first encyclical, and someone wrote it down. If I go to a Trump rally and record and write down everything he says, isn't that the same thing? Bizarre is right.

I was only making a point about how Christians mock JWs and don't give an ounce of charity despite needing the same charity for their own position.

Actually, we have the tombs of the martyrs underneath Rome...and the tombs of the other martyred apostles...

You have dead bodies. Great. Now tell me how that proves anything.

Anyone who dies for not forsaking their belief in Christ is, by definition, a martyr.

Sure, I'm perfectly happy to give you that. But it doesn't mean your "Why die for a lie?" argument is valid. I explained thoroughly why it is a lie, or at best a fallacy.

The 20th century had the most martyrs of any century so far.

The same could be said for Islam, right?

And yet there were a lot who did 'turn' on their faith while the heat was high, and when the heat got turned down, they tried to come back into the faith. The powers of the Church said "Why should we take you back? You denied your faith, what would make us believe that you won't do so again?" In many cases they submitted to the authority of the Church, went to great pains to be accepted back, and in some cases, did die for their faith when given the chance.

Peter, the co-founder of the church, renounced Christ, not once, not twice, but three times. Yet when others do it they are excommunicated. I could not summarize hypocrisy more succinctly than basic, core Christian doctrine.

I disagree. What a surprise!

Yeah, I can hardly contain myself.

I provided a link. Did you read it?

Skimmed it. Lol.

Just kidding, didn't read it and I don't intend to. If you have a point you wish to draw from it, say it here.

You have a history of glossing over details.

Woah boy. Coming from you. I already said discussion between us was pointless, and you keep digging deeper.

Do you know how long it took for gnosticism to get into Christianity? And do you know that it is in every religion? Yet, the Christian religion remained true. Islam fractured. Everyone claims they're the one true Islam. We can prove we're the one true Christianity by our teachings. Yes. Even though people disagree, this happened in John 6 when Jesus told his disciples they must eat his flesh and drink his blood.

OK, whatever.

God claimed to be God. Moses brought it to the Hebrews. Different.

Allah claimed to be Allah. Muhammad brought it to the Muslims. Same.

Right. They only claimed to be prophets. Or followers, in Abraham and Noah's cases.

OK.

That's the first one I eliminated.

Yep, bang up job you did in my "The Universe with no need of God" thread.

That's your judgement, doesn't make it right. If Mark was written first, why is the order Matthew, Mark, Luke, John?

LOL.

If that's a serious question, it's probably because Matthew gives the genealogy right off the bat.

Forgery is the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects, statistics, or documents with the intent to deceive for the sake of altering the public perception, or to earn profit by selling the forged item. Copies, studio replicas, and reproductions are not considered forgeries, though they may later become forgeries through knowing and willful misrepresentations.

Like I said, you have no idea how the ancient world worked and you are imposing your modern views. If you think the word "forgery" carries a negative connotation, we can call it something else. But nothing said can change the fact that someone who wasn't the author of Mark altered his words.

Also, it is the overwhelming view of academia that Mark was written first. Here's the accepted timeline:

If you dispute the consensus of the experts, you need to know exactly what their argument is just to have the right to call yourself an armchair historian. If you want to actually be taken seriously, you need to do real research.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I have stories, which are evidence, and you don't accept them. Case closed.

Alien abductees have stories too.

 

[Davian]

Yep, Mass Hysteria....

Or, simply stories of personal testimonies. We don't have any names and addresses of these alleged witnesses, do we?

 

[Davian]

Alien abductees have stories too.

According to a citation on wiki, an estimated 5 to 6 percent of the general population have been abducted by extraterrestrial aliens visiting Earth.

While some might find this compelling, I have not yet taken precautions to reduce the chance of myself or my family from being abducted during the night.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction

 

[civilwarbuff]

According to a citation on wiki, an estimated 5 to 6 percent of the general population have been abducted by extraterrestrial aliens visiting Earth.

The citation you quoted.....it simply referred back to the same article.....so much for your research capabilities....
Appelle, 1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction
citation 3