Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

I - an atheist - am morally better than the Christian God

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    The point I am making [and one that seems to have completely by-passed you] is that without those original MSS we can never be absolutely certain if what they contained corresponds exactly in every respect with those much later copies.
    …which would be a problem for those who hold to an inerrant view of scripture.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      …which would be a problem for those who hold to an inerrant view of scripture.
      Precisely.
      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        Why allow good to be hurt?
        It would be like the three laws of logic needs a fourth law, where the three laws of logic are not possible to be broken. Where bad logic is not possible. Where lies are not possible. Only then can good be made never to be hurt. The new creation promised, Isaiah 65:17, will prohibit any kind of evil per Revelation 21:27.
        Last edited by 37818; 08-22-2020, 09:57 AM.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Qumran has nothing to do with the NT texts.
          I'd also point out that there may be more links with Qumran than has previously been considered. Remember that the first "Christians" were pious Jews.
          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            It would be like the three laws of logic needs a fourth law, where the three laws of logic are not possible to be broken. Where bad logic is not possible. Where lies are not possible. Only then can good be made never to be hurt. The new creation promised, Isaiah 65:17, will prohibit any kind of evil per Revelation 21:27.
            So, you don’t know why the deity in which you believe allows the good to be hurt. Clearly, he doesn’t have to – he says so himself according to your quotes.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              I don't buy the inherent claim that for us to categorise a thing that the person doing the thing has to categorise it the same way.
              As I wrote earlier, we must agree to differ. Nor can we retroject later ways of thinking back to the ancient past.

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              I consider them reasonably unreliable. However, they paint a plausible picture of Jesus as a social reformer who is concerned for the poor and social outcasts and who is leading an apparently non-violent movement.
              He was not a social reformer. You make him sound like some sort of first century pacific Che Guevara.

              The notion of social reform is a much later concept.

              I’d also ask what extraneous evidence are you citing that demonstrates his movement was "apparently non-violent".

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              This is a largely coherent and plausible depiction of a person, and is familiar to us today in people like Martin Luther King Jr.
              The tenets of altruism are enshrined in Judaism, to wit the well known remark by Hillel, a near contemporary.

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              In Josephus' works he depicts a couple of dozen different reform and revolutionary groups with a variety of agendas over this period, so it was clearly an active time.
              Given what we know of the region in the late first century BCE and early first century CE your remark might be considered something of an understatement.

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              A couple of the groups he mentions were apparently pacifist.
              Could you cite the passages in Josephus to which you refer?

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              Sure. It seems possible even that Jesus' father was killed by the Romans in one of the fights/massacres in the area.
              That is pure imagination.

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              But this doesn't equate to Jesus being violent himself. He could equally have drawn the lesson from this that military resistance against the Romans was doomed to fail.
              Certainly Josephus later took that view. However, what you are suggesting is nothing but speculation.

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              Some of his words in the gospels imply he sees his countrymen on a path toward a serious military uprising against the Romans and he doesn't see it working out well for them.
              Who? The Romans? With legions in Syria and Egypt?

              Your subject confusion aside, in all seriousness citations would be useful in support of that contention.

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              Obviously that's a good candidate for words-put-into-Jesus's-mouth-after-the-fact if any are, but it's also a plausible view for a thoughtful person in Jesus's time to have had.
              Of course these words are put into Jesus’ mouth. No one was following him taking dictation.

              Furthermore, in what respect are you assuming a first century ascetic Jew from Galilee might be" thoughtful" or quiescent?

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              Basically, given the gospels paint a plausible general picture of a person leading a movement to help the poor,
              His movement was not to help the poor. Protecting the widow and helping the poor or homeless was, and still, is an integral part of Judaism. Such ideas were not unique to Jesus of Nazareth.

              His desire was to establish “the Kingdom of God”. God and a just King would then establish a completely just society and therefore abolish all social injustices.

              Nor did the phrase “[i]the Kingdom of God”[i] convey the same meaning to many first century Jews as it was later interpreted to mean by Christianity. The” Kingdom of God” was a real theocracy within Israel with a King at its head. It was not something up in the sky as Christianity would later interpret it.

              To establish such an earthly kingdom required the removal [somehow] of foreign rulers and their quislings/clients. That might be accomplished solely by divine intervention or by force with possible assistance from the divine. Once again there are plenty of parallels in Jewish scripture for just such an event.

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              and given Josephus tells us a huge variety of movements and reformers
              Who were these reformers and where, within his extant works, does Josephus mention them?

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              , I think we can take the general gospel outlines of Jesus as plausible, and not reject them in favour of assuming without much evidence that Jesus must have been the average of all anti-Roman reformists and revolutionaries we know about from that era.
              What anti-Roman reformists and revolutionaries do we know of from that period? In my opinion you are retrojecting far later motives and ideas back to a first century ascetic Galilean Jew. Such tendencies lead to erroneous assumptions about society in previous periods of history. It is akin to regarding William Tell as some sort of social justice warrior [N.B. not in the modern terminology of that phrase]. It also completely ignores the known situation within Judaism at that period when there was an expectation of the End Times among many Jewish people and the distinct social and religio-political tensions among of the Jews of, once again, being under the heel of foreign heathen rulers.

              However, given the situation for fledgling Christianity after 70 CE it was certainly politic for Christians to distance their eponymous founder, a Jew who was also executed by a Roman governor for suspected rebellion and sedition, from those recent rebellious Jews whose actions had led to the First Jewish War.

              The short answer to all this is that we can never know the real Jesus of Nazareth nor what his position might have been. However, it has been noted that for Jews in first century Judaea religion and politics were inexorably interlinked.
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
                Here's why: I know how to rid the universe of evil without impacting the free will of its inhabitants. Even better, I will do this the instant I'm granted the ability to do so.

                The Christian God already has this ability, and refuses to use it.

                This makes me morally superior to him.

                ---

                The problem of evil can be solved instantly in this way: prevent the birth of anyone who will freely choose to do evil.

                This avoids forcing people to make choices they wouldn't make themselves. Free will conundrum resolved, and all evil stopped; the universe becomes as sinless as heaven, and the need for Hell is gone.

                ---

                How do I apply for the promotion to godhood?
                I'm not sure about your presentation, but I see some support when considering the doctrines of some major Christian schools of thought. For example, Reformed doctrine says that all people deserve eternal punishment, but that God benevolently elected a few of those people for salvation. On the opposite end, Arminianism says that babies that die immediately go to Heaven. A bit of a problem here. If babies are admitted to heaven, that exposes a flaw in the Arminian doctrine of salvation, since it admits that beings exist that would have sinned later in life but still are granted salvation anyway. I don't see a difference between that set of circumstances and simply preventing the birth of sinful creatures altogether.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  As I wrote earlier, we must agree to differ. Nor can we retroject later ways of thinking back to the ancient past.

                  He was not a social reformer. You make him sound like some sort of first century pacific Che Guevara.

                  The notion of social reform is a much later concept.

                  I’d also ask what extraneous evidence are you citing that demonstrates his movement was "apparently non-violent".

                  The tenets of altruism are enshrined in Judaism, to wit the well known remark by Hillel, a near contemporary.

                  Given what we know of the region in the late first century BCE and early first century CE your remark might be considered something of an understatement.

                  Could you cite the passages in Josephus to which you refer?

                  That is pure imagination.

                  Certainly Josephus later took that view. However, what you are suggesting is nothing but speculation.

                  Who? The Romans? With legions in Syria and Egypt?

                  Your subject confusion aside, in all seriousness citations would be useful in support of that contention.

                  Of course these words are put into Jesus’ mouth. No one was following him taking dictation.

                  Furthermore, in what respect are you assuming a first century ascetic Jew from Galilee might be" thoughtful" or quiescent?

                  His movement was not to help the poor. Protecting the widow and helping the poor or homeless was, and still, is an integral part of Judaism. Such ideas were not unique to Jesus of Nazareth.

                  His desire was to establish “the Kingdom of God”. God and a just King would then establish a completely just society and therefore abolish all social injustices.

                  Nor did the phrase “[i]the Kingdom of God”[i] convey the same meaning to many first century Jews as it was later interpreted to mean by Christianity. The” Kingdom of God” was a real theocracy within Israel with a King at its head. It was not something up in the sky as Christianity would later interpret it.

                  To establish such an earthly kingdom required the removal [somehow] of foreign rulers and their quislings/clients. That might be accomplished solely by divine intervention or by force with possible assistance from the divine. Once again there are plenty of parallels in Jewish scripture for just such an event.

                  Who were these reformers and where, within his extant works, does Josephus mention them?

                  What anti-Roman reformists and revolutionaries do we know of from that period? In my opinion you are retrojecting far later motives and ideas back to a first century ascetic Galilean Jew. Such tendencies lead to erroneous assumptions about society in previous periods of history. It is akin to regarding the legendary folk heroes William Tell or Robin Hood as some form of social justice warriors [N.B. not in the modern terminology of that phrase]. It also completely ignores the known situation within Judaism at that period when there was an expectation of the End Times among many Jewish people and the distinct social and religio-political tensions among of the Jews of, once again, being under the heel of foreign heathen rulers.

                  However, given the situation for fledgling Christianity after 70 CE it was certainly politic for Christians to distance their eponymous founder, a Jew who was also executed by a Roman governor for suspected rebellion and sedition, from those recent rebellious Jews whose actions had led to the First Jewish War.

                  The short answer to all this is that we can never know the real Jesus of Nazareth nor what his position might have been. However, it has been noted that for Jews in first century Judaea religion and politics were inexorably interlinked.
                  Corrected for clarification.
                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • duplicate
                    "It ain't necessarily so
                    The things that you're liable
                    To read in the Bible
                    It ain't necessarily so
                    ."

                    Sportin' Life
                    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      Nor can we retroject later ways of thinking back to the ancient past.
                      We, in the present, are allowed to have categorization schemes, and have criteria for what we choose to call 'A' and what we choose to call 'B'. Just because people in the past didn't hold those same categories in their minds, doesn't stop us from assessing and categorizing things in their lives and cultures our own way.

                      He was not a social reformer.
                      The gospels depict his life in a way we today would describe as a social reformer. Obviously you can reject the gospel accounts as later propaganda.

                      You make him sound like some sort of first century pacific Che Guevara.
                      Sure, I think that is an accurate description of the gospel accounts.

                      The senior pastor at the last church I attended did a lengthy sermon series with a picture of Che-Jesus on his slides, presenting Jesus in the role of a semi-revolutionary social reformer. It was honestly the most enjoyable series of sermons I ever had in 20 years of church attendance because for once I actually agreed with everything said.

                      The notion of social reform is a much later concept.
                      Gonna call BS on this one. I see every reason to think that for as long as societies have existed there have been people in them pushing for change.

                      The OT is full of books of the prophets whining about all the things wrong with Israel and wanting laundry lists of changes. Ancient Greek writings from the time of Plato are the same. People wanting social changes, and activists and revolutionaries fighting for them, is nothing new.

                      I’d also ask what extraneous evidence are you citing that demonstrates his movement was "apparently non-violent".
                      Various things in the gospel accounts. The usual lines that you cited in one of your previous posts (turn the other cheek, he who lives by the sword dies by it, etc) and the general lack of any military organizing.

                      His movement was not to help the poor.
                      Looking at the gospel accounts, that is what the majority of his teachings focus on. To me, that seems a plausible depiction of a person so I see little reason to question the accuracy of it. You are free to believe the gospel accounts were entirely propaganda if you want.

                      His desire was to establish “the Kingdom of God”. God and a just King would then establish a completely just society and therefore abolish all social injustices.

                      Nor did the phrase “the Kingdom of God” convey the same meaning to many first century Jews as it was later interpreted to mean by Christianity. The” Kingdom of God” was a real theocracy within Israel with a King at its head. It was not something up in the sky as Christianity would later interpret it.
                      But there are many variations on this. One variation was obviously those who believed God would support the military efforts to overthrow the Romans.

                      Another variant was those who thought that if they were sufficiently pure and obedient to God in their lives, then he would overthrow the Romans, e.g. by raising up some 3rd party kingdom, or causing the Roman empire to crumble. If they made Israel worth saving, God would save it.

                      Another variant is those who opted for sub-kingdoms of God in the form of communes. Thus having a community where God was king that was separate from, though within, the wider kingdom ruled by the Romans.

                      And obviously there is also the spiritualist view where the kingdom of God is something that happens in the hearts of individuals. While this is a popular view among much later Christians, it's hard to be sure that it wasn't present in first century Judea. There's plenty in both Old and New Testaments that encourages this sort of idea, which is obviously why it's so appealing to later Christians.

                      The way I read the gospels, Jesus and his movement, like the community who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, leans more toward those last three meanings of the Kingdom of God, than he does toward the first one. It doesn't seem warranted to me to simply assume that Jesus used it with its first meaning, and that therefore he was a violent revolutionary just because you've chosen to assume that's what he was meaning.

                      Who were these reformers and where, within his extant works, does Josephus mention them?
                      I believe Dominic Crossan gives a complete listing in his book The Historical Jesus, and spends most of the book talking about them and what we know about them from Josephus. Though it's been 15 years now since I read that book so I can't remember much more.
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        You have contradicted yourself. If "we can never be absolutely certain" we cannot be "very sure of what the originals must have said". You cannot have it both ways.
                        Nonsense. You can be very sure of something without being absolutely certain. Very little is ever absolutely certain in this world.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          Nonsense. You can be very sure of something without being absolutely certain.
                          I disagree with regard to reconstructing, from much later copies, what an original MS might have contained.
                          "It ain't necessarily so
                          The things that you're liable
                          To read in the Bible
                          It ain't necessarily so
                          ."

                          Sportin' Life
                          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
                            Here's why: I know how to rid the universe of evil without impacting the free will of its inhabitants. Even better, I will do this the instant I'm granted the ability to do so.

                            The Christian God already has this ability, and refuses to use it.

                            This makes me morally superior to him.

                            ---

                            The problem of evil can be solved instantly in this way: prevent the birth of anyone who will freely choose to do evil.

                            This avoids forcing people to make choices they wouldn't make themselves. Free will conundrum resolved, and all evil stopped; the universe becomes as sinless as heaven, and the need for Hell is gone.

                            ---

                            How do I apply for the promotion to godhood?
                            Well, if we're staying in a Christian free-will context, there would be no human births, or even the creation of Adam.

                            Second, you're proposal would be rather draconian. No evil has been committed yet you're punishing the individual beforehand by denying existence. So is punishment for future immorality morally good? At least we mere mortals wait until such immorality (or at least illegality) occurs before we pass judgement. Surely we are more just and good than you.

                            Third, what you propose is basically Minority Report.
                            P1) If , then I win.

                            P2)

                            C) I win.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              I disagree with regard to reconstructing, from much later copies, what an original MS might have contained.
                              Then you don't understand textual criticism. That is it's purpose.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                Then you don't understand textual criticism. That is it's purpose.
                                No that is not it’s purpose.

                                The purpose of textual criticism with regard to ancient texts is to attempt to establish the wording of an original text insofar as it is possible to do so and on the basis of the examples of that text that we have, in order to come to some approximation of understanding as to what the original of that text may have contained.

                                It is then necessary to determine how, when, why, and where that text came to be altered over the course of its transmission.

                                That process requires a huge array of disciplines and is based on external evidence including; the number of supporting witness documents/fragments, the age of supporting witness documents/fragments, the geographical diversity of fragments/documents; and also internal evidence from the various MSS of each text.

                                However, at the end of the day the result is only a determination [albeit expertly considered] and I sincerely doubt any textual scholar dealing with these ancient MSS would ever categorically state that we know with certainty what the original autograph contained. It comes down to probability and likelihood.
                                "It ain't necessarily so
                                The things that you're liable
                                To read in the Bible
                                It ain't necessarily so
                                ."

                                Sportin' Life
                                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                53 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X