Should a woman's bodily autonomy be disregarded when it comes to pregnancy?

[Saint Frankenstein]

So it's your position that it's immoral to kill this?

Yes. I'm not sure what you're having difficulty with. We all looked like that at one point in time. In fact, I, myself, was almost aborted but my mom changed her mind and canceled the appointment.

 

[1robin]

It is nihilism.

Ok, then wouldn't actual nihilism lead to having a nihilistic sprit in at least some categories. Not that I have suggested that they do but you did deny they do.

We live according to human nature & culture. Atheism itself doesn't determine anything about values or morality for me. But religion doesn't seem to determine much either. Pick any of the major religions, & you'll find people justifying any number of things from one extreme to the other....some are peaceful, & some are vicious terrorists.

Atheism/naturalism can't determine anything about values and morals but it sure can eliminate things that can. I was not making any points about quality of morality given or minus God. I was making comments about the nature of morality with or without God.

1. With God their is an actual objective fact of the matter we can attempt to get at. IOW Hitler was either actually wrong or right.
2. Without God there exists no moral fact of the matter even to attempt to determine. Hitler's views are just as valid as Billy Graham's. We have as many moral opinions as there are people and there exists no objective moral truth to determine which is true.

I take no offense whatsoever. You've been most civil. Btw, I know many believers who are fine people in spite of their religion. It seems that the individual is the determining factor in the magnanimity of the individual, eh?

Without there existing an objective fact of the matter we can't determine who is right or wrong. To say someone is morally fine without God is to say nothing more than you and they agree on what ethics you prefer.

The problem comes when you have to risk millions of lives to stop a Hitler or make a declaration of independence that contains rights. Without God we can only say to a mother she needs to risk losing her sons to stop Hitler from acting unfashionable, and that we will just assume whatever rights the popularity contest or those with the guns agree to.

BTW to say an atheist is good in spite of atheism makes sense especially since you admit you can't find values or duties in the lack of a God. But to say Christian is fine in spite of their faith dies not make the same mistake because the Christian's world view adds in the greatest moral teachings in human history. Even most of those who do think Christ the messiah admit his moral teachings are both exemplary and the most morally influential of al historical teachings. So I would think saying many Christian's are NOT fine in spite of their religion, many ARE fine because of their religion, and a few ARE fine regardless of the religion would be more consistent.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok, then wouldn't actual nihilism lead to having a nihilistic sprit in at least some categories. Not that I have suggested that they do but you did deny they do.

I just don't see that a nihilistic view inexorably leads to a "nihilistic spirit" ....whatever that is. I don't seem much different from so many of my fundie friends.

Atheism/naturalism can't determine anything about values and morals but it sure can eliminate things that can. I was not making any points about quality of morality given or minus God. I was making comments about the nature of morality with or without God.

1. With God their is an actual objective fact of the matter we can attempt to get at. IOW Hitler was either actually wrong or right.
2. Without God there exists no moral fact of the matter even to attempt to determine. Hitler's views are just as valid as Billy Graham's. We have as many moral opinions as there are people and there exists no objective moral truth to determine which is true.

Without there existing an objective fact of the matter we can't determine who is right or wrong. To say someone is morally fine without God is to say nothing more than you and they agree on what ethics you prefer.

The problem comes when you have to risk millions of lives to stop a Hitler or make a declaration of independence that contains rights. Without God we can only say to a mother she needs to risk losing her sons to stop Hitler from acting unfashionable, and that we will just assume whatever rights the popularity contest or those with the guns agree to.

All these 'objective' things don't have an objective foundation though.
Does it matter if there's an objective basis for saying Hitler is evil, when Hitler nonetheless perpetrated evil with wide support? Would it be any worse if morality were subjective? I believe Hitler was evil for subjective reasons. I say that's good enuf.

 

[1robin]

There are many forms of Christianity. Who are you to say which one is correct? We are going on personal faith, whether you admit it or not.

Christianity is constantly being accused of be exclusive. It eliminates ever other path to God mankind has ever coughed. Their right to say it is exclusive because Christ claimed it was very exclusive. Truth is very exclusive. Christ did not say there were plenty on names by which we can believe on and get to heaven. He said:

1. New International Version
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved."

One man is about as singular and exclusive as you can get.

He also added another qualification as to the way in which we are saved under that one name.

2. New International Version
You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

So one man and one way.

He even put the two together and gave a single concept to them both.

3. New International Version
"Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. John 10:9 I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

No lets see what he said about those why try and get to the pastures through any other door (which is what your suggesting).

English Standard Version
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.

So according the single highest authority in Christianity, the man on whom the entire faith is founded said in (and only in) the bible that:


He is the one possible way to God, that comes through entering by the narrow door (one door, not the many you mention) and the entry through that door is by being born again. If any man claims other doors to the same pasture (heaven) exists he is a thief and a robber.

So once again what you say completely contradicts the bible and Christ. You can claim your views are right, but you are unjustified claiming them to be Christian.

 

[1robin]

I just don't see that a nihilistic view inexorably leads to a "nihilistic spirit" ....whatever that is. I don't seem much different from so many of my fundie friends.

If nihilism does not lead a person to the exasperation nihilism results in then it is because they are not actually living consistently within the world view that produces it. If my world view held that their would inevitably be a nuclear Armageddon in five minutes but I was more worried about the television shows coming on in an hour then I am ignoring my own world view. It is like fiddling as Rome burns.

All these 'objective' things don't have an objective foundation though.

All those things are not claims to objective facts. Your going to have to highlight what it is your referring to.

Does it matter if there's an objective basis for saying Hitler is evil, when Hitler nonetheless perpetrated evil with wide support?

I was not talking about what an individual labels what Hitler did. I am talking about spending hundreds of millions and hundreds of thousands of lives to stop him. Read all the justification given by leaders at the time. Everyone of them is rooted in objective right and wrong, which can't possibly exist without God. Think about the 300,000 who died to free slaves they never met. Read their diaries and personal letters. No mention of them going because slavery was out of fashion at the moment, inconsistent with naturalism, they said they went because slavery was wrong and it was their Christian duty to uphold the equality of men before God. Read John Browns letters, Abraham Lincolns addresses. When Martin Luther Kind laid down his promissory not it was on the objective equality of men before God as recorded by our Christian founding fathers. He did not mention secularism, naturalism, nor even humanism.

Would it be any worse if morality were subjective? I believe Hitler was evil for subjective reasons. I say that's good enuf.

The problem is your opinion and Hitler's are equally valid because no transcendent standard exists to determine who is right. You can still kill him, but you cannot justify why your opinion merits his death on any objective foundation. IOW you must abandon your world view to sufficiently justify the millions of lives laid on the alter of what is actually right and wrong to stop him. Your morality is justification for your own opinion, because it is your own opinion. It is wholly unsuited to ground a societies actions in objective justice.

 

[McBell]

The problem is your opinion and Hitler's are equally valid because no transcendent standard exists to determine who is right. You can still kill him, but you cannot justify why your opinion merits his death on any objective foundation. IOW you must abandon your world view to sufficiently justify the millions of lives laid on the alter of what is actually right and wrong to stop him. Your morality is justification for your own opinion, because it is your own opinion. It is wholly unsuited to ground a societies actions in objective justice.

Yet the only difference between his opinion and yours is that he does not further claim god supports his opinion.

 

[metis]

Naturalism in no way posits that anything goes, and let me recommend that anyone who may believe as such should pick up and read some books by or on Baruch Spinoza. Neither does naturalism eliminate God from the equation, but instead views God as being inseparable from creation itself.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If nihilism does not lead a person to the exasperation nihilism results in then it is because they are not actually living consistently within the world view that produces it. If my world view held that their would inevitably be a nuclear Armageddon in five minutes but I was more worried about the television shows coming on in an hour then I am ignoring my own world view. It is like fiddling as Rome burns.

All those things are not claims to objective facts. Your going to have to highlight what it is your referring to.

I was not talking about what an individual labels what Hitler did. I am talking about spending hundreds of millions and hundreds of thousands of lives to stop him. Read all the justification given by leaders at the time. Everyone of them is rooted in objective right and wrong, which can't possibly exist without God. Think about the 300,000 who died to free slaves they never met. Read their diaries and personal letters. No mention of them going because slavery was out of fashion at the moment, inconsistent with naturalism, they said they went because slavery was wrong and it was their Christian duty to uphold the equality of men before God. Read John Browns letters, Abraham Lincolns addresses. When Martin Luther Kind laid down his promissory not it was on the objective equality of men before God as recorded by our Christian founding fathers. He did not mention secularism, naturalism, nor even humanism.



The problem is your opinion and Hitler's are equally valid because no transcendent standard exists to determine who is right. You can still kill him, but you cannot justify why your opinion merits his death on any objective foundation. IOW you must abandon your world view to sufficiently justify the millions of lives laid on the alter of what is actually right and wrong to stop him. Your morality is justification for your own opinion, because it is your own opinion. It is wholly unsuited to ground a societies actions in objective justice.

Just off the top of my head, Montesquieu and Paine argued that slavery was unnatural.

 

[leibowde84]

Christianity is constantly being accused of be exclusive. It eliminates ever other path to God mankind has ever coughed. Their right to say it is exclusive because Christ claimed it was very exclusive. Truth is very exclusive. Christ did not say there were plenty on names by which we can believe on and get to heaven. He said:

1. New International Version
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved."

One man is about as singular and exclusive as you can get.

He also added another qualification as to the way in which we are saved under that one name.

2. New International Version
You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

So one man and one way.

He even put the two together and gave a single concept to them both.

3. New International Version
"Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. John 10:9 I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

No lets see what he said about those why try and get to the pastures through any other door (which is what your suggesting).

English Standard Version
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.

So according the single highest authority in Christianity, the man on whom the entire faith is founded said in (and only in) the bible that:


He is the one possible way to God, that comes through entering by the narrow door (one door, not the many you mention) and the entry through that door is by being born again. If any man claims other doors to the same pasture (heaven) exists he is a thief and a robber.

So once again what you say completely contradicts the bible and Christ. You can claim your views are right, but you are unjustified claiming them to be Christian.

Everything attributed in the Gospels to Jesus could have easily been added to secure Christianity's future. After a great deal of research personal investigation, I cannot believe that Christianity or belief in the Bible are the only pathways to salvation. Pointing out scriptural quotes from Jesus does absolutely no good, as those quotes are unsubstantiated. It is completely possible that they are not all accurate, and the idea that Christianity was exclusive seems to contradict much of whaat Jesus taught ... non-judgment, forgiveness, mercy, compassion, fairness, etc. It's going to take a lot more than written words to convince me that God cares about anyone's religious identity. We will be judged on our actions, not on our thoughts. But, again, this is just my interpretation of the teachings of Jesus. You are more than welcome to disagree, but neither of us knows who is "right."

 

[leibowde84]

If nihilism does not lead a person to the exasperation nihilism results in then it is because they are not actually living consistently within the world view that produces it. If my world view held that their would inevitably be a nuclear Armageddon in five minutes but I was more worried about the television shows coming on in an hour then I am ignoring my own world view. It is like fiddling as Rome burns.

All those things are not claims to objective facts. Your going to have to highlight what it is your referring to.

I was not talking about what an individual labels what Hitler did. I am talking about spending hundreds of millions and hundreds of thousands of lives to stop him. Read all the justification given by leaders at the time. Everyone of them is rooted in objective right and wrong, which can't possibly exist without God. Think about the 300,000 who died to free slaves they never met. Read their diaries and personal letters. No mention of them going because slavery was out of fashion at the moment, inconsistent with naturalism, they said they went because slavery was wrong and it was their Christian duty to uphold the equality of men before God. Read John Browns letters, Abraham Lincolns addresses. When Martin Luther Kind laid down his promissory not it was on the objective equality of men before God as recorded by our Christian founding fathers. He did not mention secularism, naturalism, nor even humanism.



The problem is your opinion and Hitler's are equally valid because no transcendent standard exists to determine who is right. You can still kill him, but you cannot justify why your opinion merits his death on any objective foundation. IOW you must abandon your world view to sufficiently justify the millions of lives laid on the alter of what is actually right and wrong to stop him. Your morality is justification for your own opinion, because it is your own opinion. It is wholly unsuited to ground a societies actions in objective justice.

If morality is subjective and based on societal evolution and well-being, Hitler would obviously be seen as immoral. His philosophy was icredibly detrimental to our global society. Why isn't it enough to lean on that for moral justification? Why do we need objective morality?

 

[leibowde84]

No...... I can't!
That's the sort of description that I once heard socially respectable middle class hypocrites use in the 50's!
''We're very respectable, you know! We are a Christian household, of course..... well, you know, we're not so extreme as to go to Church every Sunday. We're not fanatics, you know..... more like, well.... Secular Christians!' (Smiles)

I love it!

I'm a bit surprised that my own religious beliefs is so important to you. I guess I'm flattered. But, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you realize that many "terms" are 2 words in length. One example would be "scientific theory," which is not merely a theory based on science, but, instead, has a very specific, objective threshold. Thus, the term "theory" is much closer to the term "hypothesis" than "scientific theory." "Secular" is a term that signifies the seperation of the supernatural from our physical world. A "secular state" is a term defined as "a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, suppporting neither religion nor irreligion." However, instead of defining a State, I am attempting to define my own religious beliefs in one term. Just as a "secular state" is one that officially denies any connection to religious beliefs, a "secular Christian" is one that believes in a "secular state," but, at the same time, personally adheres to many Christian principles and beliefs. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp, and I am by no means the coiner of this term, so I would ask that, before telling me that you personally do not accept the meaning of this accepted term, you look up the meaning of the term (all it takes is a quick Google search) "secular Christian" and see what comes up. I'm very surprised that you have not heard of the term "secularism" before, as it is commonly used to define an absence of religion in Government. If one is "secular" then one believes in this rule. I am a Christian who, despite my own personal beliefs, do not think that the Government should be guided or consider any kind of beliefs not substantiated by the physical world.

 

[Koldo]

The problem is your opinion and Hitler's are equally valid because no transcendent standard exists to determine who is right. You can still kill him, but you cannot justify why your opinion merits his death on any objective foundation. IOW you must abandon your world view to sufficiently justify the millions of lives laid on the alter of what is actually right and wrong to stop him. Your morality is justification for your own opinion, because it is your own opinion. It is wholly unsuited to ground a societies actions in objective justice.

Let's put this in perspective. There is subjective morality regardless of whether there is an objective morality. If objective morality exists, subjective morality is still distinct from objective morality. If God decided to declare ( in such a way that you would have no shadow of doubt ) that Hitler was objectively doing nothing wrong, that he quite in fact was actually acting in accordance to the objective good, would that matter to you? I mean, would you suddenly see Hitler as a good guy because of that?

 

[1robin]

Just off the top of my head, Montesquieu and Paine argued that slavery was unnatural.

They were wrong. I was making a general statement. 95% of our founding fathers were Christians. MLK claimed that we have rights to equality under God, not under Paine. Not only do forms of slavery exist in nature but complete and fatal patristic relationships exist in nature. Since evolution of naturalism can't assign value to anything and has never created any two things equal then you must transcend nature and appeal to the supernatural if you demand actual equality. Either that or simply assume it without justification.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They were wrong. I was making a general statement. 95% of our founding fathers were Christians. MLK claimed that we have rights to equality under God, not under Paine. Not only do forms of slavery exist in nature but complete and fatal patristic relationships exist in nature. Since evolution of naturalism can't assign value to anything and has never created any two things equal then you must transcend nature and appeal to the supernatural if you demand actual equality. Either that or simply assume it without justification.

Out of curiosity, is this even relevant to this thread?

Set aside the question of "God's morality" versus human morality for a moment. Are you claiming that God has deemed abortion immoral and prohibiting women from getting abortions moral? If so, where and when?

 

[metis]

Since evolution of naturalism can't assign value to anything and has never created any two things equal then you must transcend nature and appeal to the supernatural if you demand actual equality.

Naturalism simply is not an "everything is moral" system since so much of human behavior is programmed into our genes, plus all human societies need to establish order. Certainly different religions have some different takes on what should be moral and what shouldn't, but every single one does establish morality, and the morality they create tends to be very similar in a variety of areas, such as killing, rape, theft, war, etc.

 

[1robin]

Everything attributed in the Gospels to Jesus could have easily been added to secure Christianity's future. After a great deal of research personal investigation, I cannot believe that Christianity or belief in the Bible are the only pathways to salvation. Pointing out scriptural quotes from Jesus does absolutely no good, as those quotes are unsubstantiated. It is completely possible that they are not all accurate, and the idea that Christianity was exclusive seems to contradict much of whaat Jesus taught ... non-judgment, forgiveness, mercy, compassion, fairness, etc. It's going to take a lot more than written words to convince me that God cares about anyone's religious identity. We will be judged on our actions, not on our thoughts. But, again, this is just my interpretation of the teachings of Jesus. You are more than welcome to disagree, but neither of us knows who is "right."

1. Then I ask again. If you do not consider the texts reliable how on earth can you have become a Christian. The bible says faith come by hearing, and hearing the word of God. If we do not have the word of God then where did you get faith.
2. Let me give you one of (if not the) greatest expert in testimony and evidence in human history. He wrote a famous work on the Gospels that can be found here: Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

Here are a few quotes not just from good scholars but the best mankind has produced.

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

Sir Edward Clarke, K. C.
"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."


Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:

"The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."


John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the resurrection has never broken down yet."

I can give you the scholarly opinions of the greatest experts on the testimony and historical accuracy of the bible that can be found by the hundreds upon hundreds. From historians, textual critics, NT historians, philosophers, even physicists and forensic coroners that have written papers on how accurate the gospels are. There really is no grounds for thinking the Gospels are not accurate recordings of the events the apostles experienced.

Let me give you one of the ones I actually discovered. The apostles knew the absolute facts of Christ's claims. yet everyone of them suffered lifelong and some even lost their lives defending their claims. Now you may say Muslims do that, no they don't they are dying for something they do not know if it is true or not. The apostles knew for fact whether Christ had risen or not and what he said. IOW if it was a lie they knew it for a fact and gave up everything for a lie they knew was a lie without gain. If the truth is not what motivated them no one has ever found another motivation. Also the bible was not written to perpetuate it's self. What the NT contains caused it to be hated by the nation it contained and by the most powerful empire on earth. It literally recorded things that guaranteed it and they would be hunted to potential extinction. Also take the unnecessary burdens they adopted. They had no need for a bodily resurrection if it was not true. The Jews believed in spiritual resurrection but the apostles claimed a body protected by Roman guards and sealed in a cave was not only risen but no longer could be found. Why would they do that when a lie was much more convenient? A spiritual resurrection did not have to have a body under guard disappear from under the noses of the most elite soldiers on earth to never be found again. I would never get to the end of reasons the Gospels are accurate in every way. Even Christ's enemies admitted to seeing him after resurrection and many of the events are backed up in dozens of extra conical books.

Again you can say their claims are not true, what you can't say is the evidence suggests we do not know what their claims were or what they claimed is not exactly what I said it was. So it is bury our heads in the sand and deny reality or not and either contradict it or comply with it because we know what it is.

 

[leibowde84]

1. Then I ask again. If you do not consider the texts reliable how on earth can you have become a Christian. The bible says faith come by hearing, and hearing the word of God. If we do not have the word of God then where did you get faith.
2. Let me give you one of (if not the) greatest expert in testimony and evidence in human history. He wrote a famous work on the Gospels that can be found here: Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

Here are a few quotes not just from good scholars but the best mankind has produced.

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

Sir Edward Clarke, K. C.
"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."


Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:

"The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."


John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the resurrection has never broken down yet."

I can give you the scholarly opinions of the greatest experts on the testimony and historical accuracy of the bible that can be found by the hundreds upon hundreds. From historians, textual critics, NT historians, philosophers, even physicists and forensic coroners that have written papers on how accurate the gospels are. There really is no grounds for thinking the Gospels are not accurate recordings of the events the apostles experienced.

Let me give you one of the ones I actually discovered. The apostles knew the absolute facts of Christ's claims. yet everyone of them suffered lifelong and some even lost their lives defending their claims. Now you may say Muslims do that, no they don't they are dying for something they do not know if it is true or not. The apostles knew for fact whether Christ had risen or not and what he said. IOW if it was a lie they knew it for a fact and gave up everything for a lie they knew was a lie without gain. If the truth is not what motivated them no one has ever found another motivation. Also the bible was not written to perpetuate it's self. What the NT contains caused it to be hated by the nation it contained and by the most powerful empire on earth. It literally recorded things that guaranteed it and they would be hunted to potential extinction. Also take the unnecessary burdens they adopted. They had no need for a bodily resurrection if it was not true. The Jews believed in spiritual resurrection but the apostles claimed a body protected by Roman guards and sealed in a cave was not only risen but no longer could be found. Why would they do that when a lie was much more convenient? A spiritual resurrection did not have to have a body under guard disappear from under the noses of the most elite soldiers on earth to never be found again. I would never get to the end of reasons the Gospels are accurate in every way. Even Christ's enemies admitted to seeing him after resurrection and many of the events are backed up in dozens of extra conical books.

Again you can say their claims are not true, what you can't say is the evidence suggests we do not know what their claims were or what they claimed is not exactly what I said it was. So it is bury our heads in the sand and deny reality or not and either contradict it or comply with it because we know what it is.

So, in your opinion, are there only two options ... either the Bible is entirely accurate when it comes it its portrayal of Jesus, or it is completely false? Because, imho, that is a foolish way of looking at it. I believe that words were put into Jesus' mouth through the years that the Gospels were being written. Then, when it comes to Paul, I think he might have had good intentions, but, since he had no first hand experience, I do not consider him a great source on anything. But, my point here is that I have the right to consider myself a Christian due to my belief in the divinity of Jesus. Further, I would say that my belief is that the Bible is pretty darn close.

 

[leibowde84]

1. Then I ask again. If you do not consider the texts reliable how on earth can you have become a Christian. The bible says faith come by hearing, and hearing the word of God. If we do not have the word of God then where did you get faith.
2. Let me give you one of (if not the) greatest expert in testimony and evidence in human history. He wrote a famous work on the Gospels that can be found here: Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

Here are a few quotes not just from good scholars but the best mankind has produced.

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

Sir Edward Clarke, K. C.
"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."


Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:

"The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."


John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the resurrection has never broken down yet."

I can give you the scholarly opinions of the greatest experts on the testimony and historical accuracy of the bible that can be found by the hundreds upon hundreds. From historians, textual critics, NT historians, philosophers, even physicists and forensic coroners that have written papers on how accurate the gospels are. There really is no grounds for thinking the Gospels are not accurate recordings of the events the apostles experienced.

Let me give you one of the ones I actually discovered. The apostles knew the absolute facts of Christ's claims. yet everyone of them suffered lifelong and some even lost their lives defending their claims. Now you may say Muslims do that, no they don't they are dying for something they do not know if it is true or not. The apostles knew for fact whether Christ had risen or not and what he said. IOW if it was a lie they knew it for a fact and gave up everything for a lie they knew was a lie without gain. If the truth is not what motivated them no one has ever found another motivation. Also the bible was not written to perpetuate it's self. What the NT contains caused it to be hated by the nation it contained and by the most powerful empire on earth. It literally recorded things that guaranteed it and they would be hunted to potential extinction. Also take the unnecessary burdens they adopted. They had no need for a bodily resurrection if it was not true. The Jews believed in spiritual resurrection but the apostles claimed a body protected by Roman guards and sealed in a cave was not only risen but no longer could be found. Why would they do that when a lie was much more convenient? A spiritual resurrection did not have to have a body under guard disappear from under the noses of the most elite soldiers on earth to never be found again. I would never get to the end of reasons the Gospels are accurate in every way. Even Christ's enemies admitted to seeing him after resurrection and many of the events are backed up in dozens of extra conical books.

Again you can say their claims are not true, what you can't say is the evidence suggests we do not know what their claims were or what they claimed is not exactly what I said it was. So it is bury our heads in the sand and deny reality or not and either contradict it or comply with it because we know what it is.

You claim that all of this stuff is agreed upon by historians, but there are plenty of modern biblical scholars that question the accuracy of the Gospels. The further back in history you go, the less skeptical analyses you will find, but that is easily correlated with advancement in scientific discovery. So, I think modern examples are much more useful than writings from the 18th-19th centuries.

 

[viole]

I agree but your side of this issue usually either claims morality is based on our observations of nature or a byproduct of it.

I think it depends very much on the definition. Actually, the word comes from mora = ethos = customs. That it is something more than that is why we are debating. And, usually, my side tries to explain things like altruism which, prima facie, defy naturalism.

It is natural but it is not morally objective. The universe tells us what is, not what should be. That is why if our thoughts have a total naturalistic origin then they cannot be used for moral truth.

i don't know. If we consider things like the mathematical theory of games then it is possible that we evolve rules of behaviour that represent solutions of some differential equations. And that our sense of "should" hides the goal behind this adaptation in our inscrutable brain algorithms. Like our free will, so to speak. Seems free, but it isn't, under naturalism.

Ok, if evolution explains everything then it explains nothing which is one of my chief complaints. If evolution is has principles as I am constantly told it does. And if those principles are things like survival at any cost, our moral codes often contradict them. My own position is that evolution contains all behaviors so it would justify al behaviors and would make the worst basis for laws possible.

I don't think we have an evolutionary explanation for everything. Things like female orgasm seems evolutionary useless, for instance. Alas, things are complicated. We probably have things today that are evolutionary neutral or even detrimental, if they did not come in tandem with traits that offset them. Goose bumps, for instance, were useful when we looked like King Kong, very much less so today.

Giving birth to a child is also a dangerous ordeal for a human. And our babies need a lot of time before they are independent. Nevertheless, the advantages offset the disadvantages and that is why we still have those problem.

ANd survival at any cost does not have a lot to do with evolution. If it did, we would probably have evolved the capacity to live 10000 years or so.

The single organism (e.g. Animal) is not the thing that gets selected. What gets selected are the genes that build it and inhabit it. So, if a gene configuration forces a certain animal to scream when it sees a predator, betraying thereby its position, then it is OK, As long as other hosts of similar gene configurations are warned.

But it would be impossible that they are objective right. I think you and most agree with me but many seem to be embarrassed by the fact and need to dress it up.

As I said. What they usully dress up are things like altruism and self sacrifice, which are very likely natural adaptations, despite the naive interpretation of evolution by natural selection that theists insist on.

But in general I agree with you. There is no "should" that does not hide an adaptive goal or rule of engagement, under naturalism. Actually, I don't even think that "ought" without a goal makes sense under theism either. . I tried to convince my kids that they ought to brush their teeth, without a justification...with mixed results. Actually I used God watching them sometimes, after their many "why's".

God: The ultimate baby sitter, lol.

If God does not exist.
1. No entity actually has an inherent right to anything.
2. There is no ultimate objective moral fact of the matter to any claim to what we should or should not do anything.
3. There is no basis for claiming anything has inherent values, sanctity, or dignity.
4. Nothing is actually equal.
etc.......

That is a false dichotomy. When my husband brings me flowers, I am happy, even though I am perfectly aware thay they will end in the trash bean in a couple of days and that it was an evolutionary motivated move showing his committment to me by investing resources and time only for me, hopefully.

We should be careful to distinguish between a first person view vs. a third person view of things. From a first person view, i appreciate his flowers. This the view that gives meaning to things and people usually use.

From the third person perspective, I am aware that some adaptive mechanisms in his brain compelled him to show his readiness to share his resources for me, so that I know that our kids will have a stable environment to grow up. From this view I see that romantic love is an adaptation motivated by the fact that human babies need both parents for a long time before they can be independent. Love = Selection of dumb replicators, so to speak.

IN the first person view, life is sacred. In the third its sacreness is the product of mechanical processes that depend on our biology.

Which one is more important? I think they both are. You don't, I presume.

I agree we can either invent things and assume these to exist but they do not, and we can invent theories about how moral contrivances emerged from natural events. Regardless we stuck with those problems above no matter what semantics are employed.

These problems arise only when we see things from one perspective. And they are resolved when we analyze them from both.

Now your getting into the true nihilistic spirit atheism ultimately ends in. Happy nihilism to us all. Deck the nothing in streams of nothing and light the nothing log.

Same thing. I am perfectly aware that I, and my legacy, and their legacy, and their legacy and everything we did will disappear in a boring ocean of diluted matter. It will be like we never existed. That does not prevent me to enjoy pizza with my kids, though.

I m not sure I am a nihilist. I actually think that Christian are more so. Prima facie, they sound like without a (possibly imaginary) God life is wortheless. Some even think they run the risk of turning into Jack the Rapist/Ripper the day they do not hear those God's voices in their head, anymore.

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

I don't think we have an evolutionary explanation for everything. Things like female orgasm seems evolutionary useless, for instance.

Oh, I know my wife would very much disagree with you on this.