"I think we should throw those books in a fire"

[Cow Poke]

....According to your later religious beliefs Jesus is of the same substance as the Father....

Where do you get this crap?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Defensive postures - the one who used the sword thought he was protecting Jesus - "But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And He touched the man’s ear and healed him".


Yeah, that was some horrific ongoing bloody battle, wasn't it?

Why defensive postures? Why did Jesus tell those who did not already have swords to go and buy them?


According to your later religious beliefs Jesus is of the same substance as the Father and therefore knew his human incarnation was the sacrifice for bringing about humankind's salvation. This was all pre-ordained by him [as a Triune deity] so why did he feel the need to tell his followers to go and buy swords?

[Cow Poke]

I think that it's more amusement of someone making an absolute statement about absolute statements and not being able to recognize the irony.

Absolutely!

[Cow Poke]

Well there is this.

He said to them, “When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “No, not a thing.” ³⁶ He said to them, “But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. ³⁷ For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.” ³⁸ They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” He replied, “It is enough.”[ Luke 22.35-38]

For what purpose did Jesus want those who did not already have a sword to go and buy one?


There is actual violence in Matthew where one of "those with Jesus" uses his sword to strike another man and in doing so cuts off his ear.

"Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear." [Matthew 26.51]

Not overly pacific behaviour is it?

Defensive postures - the one who used the sword thought he was protecting Jesus - "But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And He touched the man’s ear and healed him".


Yeah, that was some horrific ongoing bloody battle, wasn't it?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Did the first century followers ever pick up the sword to harm others?

Well there is this.

He said to them, “When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “No, not a thing.” ³⁶ He said to them, “But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. ³⁷ For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.” ³⁸ They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” He replied, “It is enough.”[ Luke 22.35-38]

For what purpose did Jesus want those who did not already have a sword to go and buy one?


There is actual violence in Matthew where one of "those with Jesus" uses his sword to strike another man and in doing so cuts off his ear.

"Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear." [Matthew 26.51]

Not overly pacific behaviour is it?

[Mountain Man]

I think that it's more amusement of someone making an absolute statement about absolute statements and not being able to recognize the irony.

I'm not sure if that point is going over her head, or if she saw it coming and ducked.

[Mountain Man]

Nonsense, since the Creator had no beginning. As far as Occam's Razor, you would have to show that all the things I mentioned did actually come about naturally - and do it with out begging the question.

Asking "Who created the Creator?" is exactly the sort of nonsense question I would expect from a seminary dropout.

I suppose next he's going to ask if an omnipotent God can create a rock too heavy for himself to lift.

[Mountain Man]

Disagreeing with your particular beliefs and faith wrt verses =/= ignorance of Christianity and the Bible. The reason you get so upset when I bring things up wrt the Bible is because somewhere in you, you realize I'm right and that you're fooling yourself



Atheism isn't about morality. Right there you reveal you are talking right out of your behind.

Again, you didn't read the article in full, and made a kneejerk reaction, and now continue to show you didn't read the full article. I don't have to borrow from Christian ethics for anything, my dear. Nor do I. Christian ethics are filled with horrendous things that have brought great horrors to this world.

I never said atheism was about morality. Rather, if atheism is true, then several conclusions necessarily follow, one of which is that there is no objective morality. Despite this, you contrarily value qualities like empathy, but if morality is truly subjective, then being empathetic doesn't make you a good person any more than lacking empathy makes you a bad person. We may as well be discussing which flavors of ice cream you prefer for all the moral significance it has. Furthermore, even if everyone on earth agreed that empathy was a good thing, if atheism is true, and if morality is subjective, then nobody has any obligation to be empathetic.

The fact that you instinctively buck against these necessary conclusions of your own worldview should be a wakeup call to atheists, but instead you settle into the warm comfort of cognitive dissonance and continue declaring that morality is subjective while behaving as if it's objective.

[rogue06]

Premised on historical evidence ][and not just Bronowski's reference to Nazi Germany] that arrogance of having "absolute knowledge" is something Mountain Man seems reluctant to recognise.

I think that it's more amusement of someone making an absolute statement about absolute statements and not being able to recognize the irony.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

People who purport to have absolute knowledge tend to be the same that will use that claim to justify horrendous things.

Premised on historical evidence ][and not just Bronowski's reference to Nazi Germany] that arrogance of having "absolute knowledge" is something Mountain Man seems reluctant to recognise.

[CivilDiscourse]

I'm going to be semantic here, but I'm not trying to play H_A.

What do you mean by "objective"? My understanding (i.e. good faith) is this:

Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

If that's the definition used, almost any standard can be an "objective" standard, if you take the time to codify it. This of course means there are multiple "objective" moral standards.

On the other hand, should your claim more akin to some universal standard, then I put forward that this universal standard is either so obtuse, so malleable, or so vague as to make it's "objectivity" virtually a non-entity. This is because all the various different sects of people that follow this objective standard tend to either follow their own version, or twist it to justify everything from slavery to genocide. In other words, subjective interpretation of an "objective" code.

More concretely, a look at human history and varying human societies suggests that morality is subjective, but that it is set in wet clay by the society and culture at large. What I mean by this is simple: Individual subjective morality won't get you very far, you are going to be judged by the messy, collective morality of the society you live in. Your morality will be judged differently in Iran/Saudi Arabia than it will be in Japan, than it will in London.

[Gondwanaland]

It was your own post and link. You blew your argument out of the water with your own torpedo. That must be galling.

I didn't blow anything of mine out of the water. Sounds like you need to go read for comprehension.

[tabibito]

Yes, yes, people that don't hold your beliefs are 'petty', we get it.

It was your own post and link. You blew your argument out of the water with your own torpedo. That must be galling.

[Gondwanaland]

The apostate's facade needs some repair work: his pettiness is showing through.

Yes, yes, people that don't hold your beliefs are 'petty', we get it.

[tabibito]

That's your opinion!

The apostate's facade needs some repair work: his pettiness is showing through.