How does one choose?

[Muffled]

Code of Hammurabi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


are you of the opinion that the israelites didn't know that killing and stealing were a wrong before the 10 commandments?

If the time line is correct the Israelites were just leaving Canaan for Egypt when the Hammurabi code was written.

No. However I don't think the Hammurabi code had any influence on them. As a multitudinous people in need of laws, God provided His law. To the best of my knowledge He didn't consult with Hammurabi before writing it but He may very well have influenced Hammurabi's law for Babylonians.

Are you trying to say that God didn't have rules of behavior before the ten commandments? The scriptures indicate otherwise. Cain is brought to task for killing Abel at the very beginning of time for the Adamic race.

However the Chinese culture and Hindu culture precede the Adamic race by several millenium. The Hindus claim that God gave them Dharma (a correct way to act) but I don't know what source the Chinese had. Codification for the Chinese came later with the writings of Tao and Confucious.

 

[Muffled]

The golden rule shows that a God isn't required for morality to exist.

What planet do you live on. I don't see anyone keeping the Golden Rule (except me of course because I am a Christian); I see people wishing to rule and get gold.

I will admit that the Golden Rule stands alone but the source of it is God. Without God there would be no golden rule.

Then there is the problem of people not keeping the Golden Rule. For many people, keeping it is impossible without God's help.

 

[Muffled]

Actually I'm not quite decided here. The philosophical/logical/theological arguments on either side make good points. What I do know is that if morality is based only on the opinion/view of humanity, then there is no "right or wrong" in an objective sense. The possibility of an objective sense arises in an entity/mind behind the universe which defines morality like gravity: one can act in ways which prevent the attraction between objects with mass, but it exists nonetheless.

However, there are plenty of good arguments which address whether or not (and to what extent) a "god" could somehow make morality objective.

I think one of the most modern requirements for morality center upon the Atomic Bomb. It was from a scientific viewpoint a good thing to do to make the bomb. However from a moral viewpoint it was a very bad thing to do. However from God's point of view it is not the destructive power that is bad but the fact that men are deciding what ought to be destroyed instead of God deciding. Objectively there is no criteria for deciding whether destruction or preservation are good.

 

[Koldo]

What planet do you live on. I don't see anyone keeping the Golden Rule (except me of course because I am a Christian); I see people wishing to rule and get gold.

I keep the golden rule and i am not a christian.

I will admit that the Golden Rule stands alone but the source of it is God. Without God there would be no golden rule.

Support your argument with evidence.

Then there is the problem of people not keeping the Golden Rule. For many people, keeping it is impossible without God's help.

And what is your point with saying this?
Even if i were to accept your statement it means that : If many people ( and not every people ) need God to stay moral, it follows that some people do not.

 

[Looncall]

What planet do you live on. I don't see anyone keeping the Golden Rule (except me of course because I am a Christian); I see people wishing to rule and get gold.

I will admit that the Golden Rule stands alone but the source of it is God. Without God there would be no golden rule.

Then there is the problem of people not keeping the Golden Rule. For many people, keeping it is impossible without God's help.

This is nonsense. Something like the golden rule is an obvious requirement for any society, and it is the society's business to promote it. Religion just gets in the way.

 

[fishy]

Hey Muff, isn't it really really great that 70% of the human race have god to believe and to tell them how to behave. Otherwise all of you will be running around killing, raping and pillaging at will. I'm glad someone with the morals of a deranged rabid wolf has god, to make you better.

 

[rusra02]

actually the second most important commandment had to do with how one was to treat their fellow tribesman ....

love your enemies is a person with in your tribe, not a foriegn nation...consider numbers 31...

leviticus 18 starts out with:​

Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the LORD your God.

Jesus applied this counsel to love your neighbor to those outside the nation of Israel. See Luke 10:29-37

consider who jesus was talking to when he talks about the 2nd greatest commandment

matthew 4: 25 Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis,[g] Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him.

luke 6:17
A large crowd of his disciples was there and a great number of people from all over Judea, from Jerusalem, and from the coastal region around Tyre and Sidon, 18 who had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases. Those troubled by impure spirits were cured, 19 and the people all tried to touch him, because power was coming from him and healing them all.

mark 12:28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

and here is the best example of the golden rule

matthew 15:23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

so apparently if your enemy admits they're no better than dogs, then you can do good to them...

excellent....not.

Jesus explained to his disciples why he at first did not help this woman: "he said: "I was not sent forth to any but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15:24) When the woman persisted, Jesus said: "It is not right to take the bread of the children and throw it to little dogs." (vs 26) The woman responded: "Yes, Lord; but really the little dogs do eat of the crumbs falling from the table of their masters." Apparently Jesus words served to test the woman's faith and humility. Her response to Jesus words prompted Jesus to commend her faith and heal her daughter.
Although sent for only to the nation of Israel, Jesus knew his coming death would open the way for persons of all nations to receive God's favor. (Ephesians 2:11-18)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Cute cartoon. Note the superiority of Jesus statement. The others speak in the negative, avoiding harming others or just wishing them well. Jesus statement, by contrast, emphasizes positive action, taking the initiative to do good to others. "All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them; this, in fact, is what the Law and Prophets mean." (Matthew 7:12)

​

​

Except the avoidance of harm aspect is missing from the Christian version. I think that makes the other versions preferable.

 

[Agnostic75]

Jesus applied this counsel to love your neighbor to those outside the nation of Israel. See Luke 10:29-37.

I doubt that any historian can reasonably prove that Jesus said most of everything that the Gospels say that he said, including Luke
10:29-37.

The author of Luke is unknown.

It is well-known that Matthew and Luke copies a good deal from Mark. Consider the following:

The Gospels of Luke, Matthew and Mark (known as the Synoptic Gospels) include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and sometimes exactly the same wording. The most commonly accepted explanation for this similarity is the two-source hypothesis. It hypothesizes that Matthew and Luke each borrowed from both Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection, called Q. For most scholars, the Q collection accounts for what the gospels of Luke and Matthew share but are not found in Mark.

In The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (1924), Burnett Hillman Streeter argued that
another source, referred to as L and also hypothetical lies behind the material in Luke that has no parallel in Mark or Matthew. (See the Four Document Hypothesis

The traditional view is that Luke, who was not an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry, wrote his gospel after gathering the best sources of information within his reach (Luke 1:1-4). Critical scholarship generally holds to the two-source hypothesis as most probable, which argues that the author used the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical Q document in addition to unique material, as sources for the gospel.

Please note "the traditional view is that Luke.......was not an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry."

According to a Wikipedia article at Papyrus 75 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia oldest known fragements from Luke is from 175 - 225 A.D. That is too late to reasonably judge whether or not the fragments are accurater representations of the originals.

 

[rusra02]

I doubt that any historian can reasonably prove that Jesus said most of everything that the Gospels say that he said, including Luke
10:29-37.

The author of Luke is unknown.

It is well-known that Matthew and Luke copies a good deal from Mark. Consider the following:



Please note "the traditional view is that Luke.......was not an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry."

According to a Wikipedia article at Papyrus 75 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia oldest known fragements from Luke is from 175 - 225 A.D. That is too late to reasonably judge whether or not the fragments are accurater representations of the originals.

Sounds like your argument now is that you don't believe what the Bible says, and question whether the book of Luke is part of God's inspired Word. There is convincing internal evidence pointing to Luke's authorship of this gospel. The Bible canon was set by God and accepted by the early Christians. I believe there is convincing evidence that Luke's letter is part of the "All scripture [that] is inspired of God and beneficial." (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

 

[Agnostic75]

Sounds like your argument now is that you don't believe what the Bible says, and question whether the book of Luke is part of God's inspired Word.

There is convincing internal evidence pointing to Luke's authorship of this gospel.

No there isn't. Consider the following:

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The writer of this anonymous gospel was probably a Gentile Christian.

According to the majority view, the evidence against Luke being the author is strong enough that the author is unknown.

The Book of Acts contradicts the letters of Paul on many points, such as Paul's second trip to Jerusalem for an apostolic council.

Most contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source used by Luke (see Markan Priority).

The Bible canon was set by God.......

No it wasn't.

.......and accepted by the early Christians.

Dr. Richard Carrier's article on the New Testament Canon at The Formation of the New Testament Canon calls the integrity of the New Testament Canon into question.

I believe there is convincing evidence that Luke's letter is part of the "All scripture [that] is inspired of God and beneficial." (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

Your personal beliefs alone are not sufficient evidence in debates, certain no more than a Hindu's personal beliefs about Hinduism.

 

[rusra02]

No there isn't. Consider the following:

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


No it wasn't.


Dr. Richard Carrier's article on the New Testament Canon at The Formation of the New Testament Canon calls the integrity of the New Testament Canon into question.

Your personal beliefs alone are not sufficient evidence in debates, certain no more than a Hindu's personal beliefs about Hinduism.

The Bible has been under attack for centuries by critics who doubt it's inspiration. Time and again, the critics have been proven wrong, and they are wrong about Luke's gospel. Rather than take my word, (or yours), each person should examine the evidence for themselves as to the Bible's claim to be inspired by God. If I were trying to find reliable information about Jesus Christ, I would not start by asking the Pharisees what they think about him (Matthew 23)

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Bible canon was set by God

While I agree with you, that the Bible was written by men inspired by God, I don't agree that the 'canon' was set by God.

The Bible is a collection of revelations and accounts of varying age and revision .. it's highly unlikely that it's 100% accurate, particularly the OT, which as you point out "I wouldn't start by asking the pharisees"

..the we have 4 gospels, and one stands out like 'a sore thumb' as being different from the rest ( namely the 3 synoptic gospels )

We should be careful on the conclusions we arrive at .. Jesus worshipped the One God , and so should we

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Dr. Richard Carrier's article on the New Testament Canon at The Formation of the New Testament Canon calls the integrity of the New Testament Canon into question.

In what way?

 

[Agnostic75]

Time and again, the critics have been proven wrong, and they are wrong about Luke's gospel.

How are the critics wrong about Luke's Gospel, and the fact that it is well-known that Luke and Matthew borrowed a good deal from Mark?

 

[Agnostic75]

While I agree with you, that the Bible was written by men inspired by God, I don't agree that the 'canon' was set by God.

What evidence do you have that the Koran was inspired by God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Bible has been under attack for centuries by critics who doubt it's inspiration. Time and again, the critics have been proven wrong, and they are wrong about Luke's gospel. Rather than take my word, (or yours), each person should examine the evidence for themselves as to the Bible's claim to be inspired by God. If I were trying to find reliable information about Jesus Christ, I would not start by asking the Pharisees what they think about him (Matthew 23)

​

​

​

​

​

​

Do you think that the Bible claims that the Gospel of Luke was inspired?

And what would it matter if someone other than Luke wrote it? The text itself doesn't state who the author was, and the title was a later addition - it's not like the first manuscript had "Gospel of Luke" slapped across the top of it.

 

[9Westy9]

The Bible has been under attack for centuries by critics who doubt it's inspiration. Time and again, the critics have been proven wrong, and they are wrong about Luke's gospel. Rather than take my word, (or yours), each person should examine the evidence for themselves as to the Bible's claim to be inspired by God. If I were trying to find reliable information about Jesus Christ, I would not start by asking the Pharisees what they think about him (Matthew 23)

​

​

​

​

​

​

and I definitely wouldn't be asking the authors of the bible either. Also I'd like to see how the critics have been proven wrong about how the bible is 'inspired'

 

[muhammad_isa]

What evidence do you have that the Koran was inspired by God?

Just like the Bible "talks to you" , your moral conscience can acknowledge it .. so does the Qur'an.

 

[Muffled]

Except the avoidance of harm aspect is missing from the Christian version. I think that makes the other versions preferable.

Actually "doing no harm" gives permisssion to those who are evil to continue their evil ways. The end result of doing no harm is that more harm is done. That is why God does not go by that saying. He does harm to those who are evil.