When you're deciding whom to quote, you should choose someone who knows his vocabulary. Atheism is not a synonym for nihilism. Atheists believe in everything EXCEPT a god - that is, all of reality.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?
- Thread starter FlagDUDE08
- Start date
- Status
Hey, I've got an idea. How about we just tell them, "You know, if everyone acted on every whim and desire, society would descend into violent anarchy, so let's not do that, okay?"
Sounds like a perfectly valid reason to me.
WHOA! Who said Mary was conceived without sex? Mary was conceived without sin upon her soul (original sin) so as she could be the perfect vessel to carry God's Son.
As it says around the Miraculous Medal - "Oh Mary conceived without sin, pay for us who have recourse to thee"
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?
Yep, I corrected myself about 30 posts ago.
Yep, I corrected myself about 30 posts ago.
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?
Just as with those that are patriotic, political, etc, all...all movements such as these attract a percentage of extremists. Don't you consider constantly blaming an entire movement as rather simplistic thinking?
Great...some meat. Sooo...let's kick the tires on this. For centuries, the contents of the Bible were largely unknown and carried forward strictly as tradition (not content). During this time, life was brutal and compassion nonexistent. It was at the moment of the Bible being printed, disseminated and digested by western civilization that society turned. Fuedalism vanished, child labor eliminated, slavery abolished, healthcare became a focus, charity a passion, women's rights arrived...the changes were ubiquitous. Changes began one to two hundred years after in society's hands, once germinated, focused on top priorities and rolled out (which would be almost too much of a coincidence to be possible). But also if one does any looking they'll see that each of these 'empathetic' changes had Christian seeds at their roots. So there is a chance that societal 'good behavior' in theory might just spring up simultaneously by watching others...but based on our medieval behaviors prior to Bible dissemination...it didn't.
Just as with those that are patriotic, political, etc, all...all movements such as these attract a percentage of extremists. Don't you consider constantly blaming an entire movement as rather simplistic thinking?
Great...some meat. Sooo...let's kick the tires on this. For centuries, the contents of the Bible were largely unknown and carried forward strictly as tradition (not content). During this time, life was brutal and compassion nonexistent. It was at the moment of the Bible being printed, disseminated and digested by western civilization that society turned. Fuedalism vanished, child labor eliminated, slavery abolished, healthcare became a focus, charity a passion, women's rights arrived...the changes were ubiquitous. Changes began one to two hundred years after in society's hands, once germinated, focused on top priorities and rolled out (which would be almost too much of a coincidence to be possible). But also if one does any looking they'll see that each of these 'empathetic' changes had Christian seeds at their roots. So there is a chance that societal 'good behavior' in theory might just spring up simultaneously by watching others...but based on our medieval behaviors prior to Bible dissemination...it didn't.
...says the guy who then goes on to attribute every positive change of the last 500 years to a single root cause.
Nope, no simplistic thinking out of you...
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?
If the Bible was carried forward for centuries as tradition and not content, then how are Christians so confident about its accuracy?
If the contents of the Bible were not known prior to Guttenberg, then it appears you must also include the approximately 40,000 years of prior human existence along with your assessment of how people were conducting themselves before this change.
And what prompts you to conclude that it was the content of the bible that triggered that alleged immediate global switch from universal brutality to something else, and not the dissemination of other ideas, including science, art, musical score, poetry, philosophy, and politics?
You include suffrage, abolition, the elimination of child labor as attributable to the mass publication of the Bible in the mid 1400s? As causal links go, the light bulb would be a safer bet. Or baseball. Or the Hershey Bar.
If the Bible was carried forward for centuries as tradition and not content, then how are Christians so confident about its accuracy?
If the contents of the Bible were not known prior to Guttenberg, then it appears you must also include the approximately 40,000 years of prior human existence along with your assessment of how people were conducting themselves before this change.
And what prompts you to conclude that it was the content of the bible that triggered that alleged immediate global switch from universal brutality to something else, and not the dissemination of other ideas, including science, art, musical score, poetry, philosophy, and politics?
You include suffrage, abolition, the elimination of child labor as attributable to the mass publication of the Bible in the mid 1400s? As causal links go, the light bulb would be a safer bet. Or baseball. Or the Hershey Bar.
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?
The Bible didn't reach the French until 1480, the Spanish until 1500 and the Dutch until 1522. Even then, literacy wasn't even 50% until after 1600. Plenty of sources on that. http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Ke-Me/Literacy.html So expecting the Word to be implemented before it was even read seems a bit ambitious.
Relationships?
Slavery: Christianity 'the cause' of abolitionism
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/amabrel.htm
Womens suffrage: The first mass womens organization for womens suffrage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman's_Christian_Temperance_Union
Child Labor: Key instigators Murphy (US) and Oastler (UK) heavily religious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Child_Labor_Committee
Healthcare: Christianity a facilitator pretty much always
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hospitals
Charity: Founded by and/or guiding principles for over 15 of top 20 charitable organizations
http://www.forbes.com/top-charities/list/
The Christ impact on western civilizations social reform is rock solid. But based on your last comment above, it doesn't appear youre here for the type of dialog I was figuring.
The Bible didn't reach the French until 1480, the Spanish until 1500 and the Dutch until 1522. Even then, literacy wasn't even 50% until after 1600. Plenty of sources on that. http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Ke-Me/Literacy.html So expecting the Word to be implemented before it was even read seems a bit ambitious.
Relationships?
Slavery: Christianity 'the cause' of abolitionism
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/amabrel.htm
Womens suffrage: The first mass womens organization for womens suffrage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman's_Christian_Temperance_Union
Child Labor: Key instigators Murphy (US) and Oastler (UK) heavily religious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Child_Labor_Committee
Healthcare: Christianity a facilitator pretty much always
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hospitals
Charity: Founded by and/or guiding principles for over 15 of top 20 charitable organizations
http://www.forbes.com/top-charities/list/
The Christ impact on western civilizations social reform is rock solid. But based on your last comment above, it doesn't appear youre here for the type of dialog I was figuring.
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?
Good work. My point with the last sentence was simply to point out that, on one hand, your post seems to give credit to the publication of the bible for the renaissance and all other awakenings that began to occur in the 16th century on and, at the same time, social improvements that did not happen until the 20th century. My examples were intentionally ridiculous but closer in time.
Nobody disputes that many religions, including Christianity, have been the organizing force in efforts to improve people's lives. But that also does not provide any reason to doubt the validity of the de Waal studies (which I have not read) showing that primates display altruistic and empathic behaviors that are, it is safe to assume, unrelated to any belief structure such as Christianity or secular humanism.
I realize anecdotal evidence is often more dangerous than helpful when it comes to proof, but my mother was very active in her local, small town church throughout her life. Funerals, charitable programs, etc. She was not outspoken about it, but her family knew she did not believe in the Christian god. But the church and the school were the local community organizations through which she gave back. She believed she had an obligation to improve the condition of the people in her community, and the church was a ready made organization through which she was able to do some of that. I never saw it as hypocrisy, because she did not judge or proselytize (or try to dissuade us kids from believing). That does not disprove your point, of course, but the central unifier was community membership, not belief in god.
Good work. My point with the last sentence was simply to point out that, on one hand, your post seems to give credit to the publication of the bible for the renaissance and all other awakenings that began to occur in the 16th century on and, at the same time, social improvements that did not happen until the 20th century. My examples were intentionally ridiculous but closer in time.
Nobody disputes that many religions, including Christianity, have been the organizing force in efforts to improve people's lives. But that also does not provide any reason to doubt the validity of the de Waal studies (which I have not read) showing that primates display altruistic and empathic behaviors that are, it is safe to assume, unrelated to any belief structure such as Christianity or secular humanism.
I realize anecdotal evidence is often more dangerous than helpful when it comes to proof, but my mother was very active in her local, small town church throughout her life. Funerals, charitable programs, etc. She was not outspoken about it, but her family knew she did not believe in the Christian god. But the church and the school were the local community organizations through which she gave back. She believed she had an obligation to improve the condition of the people in her community, and the church was a ready made organization through which she was able to do some of that. I never saw it as hypocrisy, because she did not judge or proselytize (or try to dissuade us kids from believing). That does not disprove your point, of course, but the central unifier was community membership, not belief in god.
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?
So I do believe the Jesus story had the impacts I outlined (as well as helping pave their way by aiding the dismantling of the divine right of kings). And I would not give the scientific renaissance too much credit for a more compassionate society. Yet as stunning as a development as its been to the human condition, the scientific renaissance doesn't owe any credit to the Jesus story for its development either. The renaissance had its source in other places including the rediscovery of the ancient Greek works.
I do think the theory of inherent empathy is interesting. It does after all effectively jive with natural selection. But based on how human society has worked out, I don't believe this natural empathy theory has been enough of an overwhelming factor to make the difference. This owing to how terrible life was before 1500 everywhere...and frankly how it is today with terror, tyrants, attacks on innocents in low security areas. I do believe that there needs to be something that can win the day in this area...IMO that's the Jesus message.
I don't think we're far apart on this. I am not a Christian because I believed in God and therefore have decided to do His work. I am a Christian because I was originally blown away by the meaning behind it all, realized that God is love...and then believed. I would really have liked your mom.
So I do believe the Jesus story had the impacts I outlined (as well as helping pave their way by aiding the dismantling of the divine right of kings). And I would not give the scientific renaissance too much credit for a more compassionate society. Yet as stunning as a development as its been to the human condition, the scientific renaissance doesn't owe any credit to the Jesus story for its development either. The renaissance had its source in other places including the rediscovery of the ancient Greek works.
I do think the theory of inherent empathy is interesting. It does after all effectively jive with natural selection. But based on how human society has worked out, I don't believe this natural empathy theory has been enough of an overwhelming factor to make the difference. This owing to how terrible life was before 1500 everywhere...and frankly how it is today with terror, tyrants, attacks on innocents in low security areas. I do believe that there needs to be something that can win the day in this area...IMO that's the Jesus message.
I don't think we're far apart on this. I am not a Christian because I believed in God and therefore have decided to do His work. I am a Christian because I was originally blown away by the meaning behind it all, realized that God is love...and then believed. I would really have liked your mom.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?
Jesus caused the Enlightenment, eh? I guess that's a thing among the faithful.
It is interesting, given the theory that religion and in particular one brand of religion made people into better humans and groups into better communities, that virtually all improvement in social conditions came after religion lost its domination of the public sphere.
But I'm not going to commit the same causal fallacy and claim that means secularization leads to more moral people. I'll stop at saying it's evidence that the two things are not related.
Jesus caused the Enlightenment, eh? I guess that's a thing among the faithful.
It is interesting, given the theory that religion and in particular one brand of religion made people into better humans and groups into better communities, that virtually all improvement in social conditions came after religion lost its domination of the public sphere.
But I'm not going to commit the same causal fallacy and claim that means secularization leads to more moral people. I'll stop at saying it's evidence that the two things are not related.
Last edited:
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?
Happy International Women's Day!
Happy International Women's Day!
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?
I had asserted that, whether one is a principled atheist, a pragmatic agnostic, an adherent to an organized religion, or one who has created their own personalized form of spirituality, there are certain basic laws of morality that are common to each of them.
Here is a link to a philosophy paper that makes the same assertion in a much more organized and thoughtful way.
http://philpapers.org/archive/WIEIDO.1.pdf
To over-simplify, this professional philosopher claims that the basic laws of morality do not need to be justified nor explained, they are as fundamental to existence as the laws of physics.
I had asserted that, whether one is a principled atheist, a pragmatic agnostic, an adherent to an organized religion, or one who has created their own personalized form of spirituality, there are certain basic laws of morality that are common to each of them.
Here is a link to a philosophy paper that makes the same assertion in a much more organized and thoughtful way.
http://philpapers.org/archive/WIEIDO.1.pdf
To over-simplify, this professional philosopher claims that the basic laws of morality do not need to be justified nor explained, they are as fundamental to existence as the laws of physics.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?
I haven't read this guy yet, but your precis sounds a lot like a school of ethics known as, believe it or not, Cornell Realism.
Something like half of all professional philosophers ascribe to some form of moral realism. Thank you for the link; I'll be reading it.
I haven't read this guy yet, but your precis sounds a lot like a school of ethics known as, believe it or not, Cornell Realism.
Something like half of all professional philosophers ascribe to some form of moral realism. Thank you for the link; I'll be reading it.
Last edited:
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?
The laws of morality are violated all over the place and interpreted in a variety of ways over time and space. When apples start falling off trees only sometimes and in different ways and at different speeds, then the comparison will make more sense. I realize what's they're trying to do, but that's an awful stretch to try to make. To try to disassociate what is done with why it is done doesn't make a lot of sense. People are driven to do things all the time by "why".
The laws of morality are violated all over the place and interpreted in a variety of ways over time and space. When apples start falling off trees only sometimes and in different ways and at different speeds, then the comparison will make more sense. I realize what's they're trying to do, but that's an awful stretch to try to make. To try to disassociate what is done with why it is done doesn't make a lot of sense. People are driven to do things all the time by "why".
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?
"Law" is probably the wrong word. Moral realists say that there are discoverable moral truths that hold universally. One subset, Divine Command theorists, argue these truths come from God. The rest are left with trying to square moral realism in a godless world. There are lots of attempts to do this. Some use evo-devo language and argue that at the species level moral premises bestow evolutionary advantages and the preference for survival is a brute fact. This guy is trying to lay out an epistemology of what a contrasting "non-natural non-theistic moral realism" would be and what it would not be, where by "non-natural" he means his posited ethical truths would be free-standing and not dependent on a natural property. I'm unclear (from a very quick read) how far down his turtles go before they are grounded in some ultimate turtle that is by definition self-grounded. It seems like, for example, "pain is bad" is an irreducible moral fact for him. Irreducibility is just the marker beyond which "why?" is no longer a question that does any work.
This guy would say the only violation of a "law" of morality would be a case where, say, the torture of an innocent for fun was not wrong. Plato would say that the fact that people behave contrary to laws of morality doesn't mean the law is broken, but that people are broken.
"Law" is probably the wrong word. Moral realists say that there are discoverable moral truths that hold universally. One subset, Divine Command theorists, argue these truths come from God. The rest are left with trying to square moral realism in a godless world. There are lots of attempts to do this. Some use evo-devo language and argue that at the species level moral premises bestow evolutionary advantages and the preference for survival is a brute fact. This guy is trying to lay out an epistemology of what a contrasting "non-natural non-theistic moral realism" would be and what it would not be, where by "non-natural" he means his posited ethical truths would be free-standing and not dependent on a natural property. I'm unclear (from a very quick read) how far down his turtles go before they are grounded in some ultimate turtle that is by definition self-grounded. It seems like, for example, "pain is bad" is an irreducible moral fact for him. Irreducibility is just the marker beyond which "why?" is no longer a question that does any work.
Last edited:
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?
Bob, that "what" is done no matter the "why, that's the basis of our entire legal system. The crime is in the act itself, the "why" is about how serious a crime it is. If you punch me in the nose, you have committed battery, no matter what your reason. If you punch me in the nose in self-defense, that means you are not punished for battery. If you punch me in the nose because I make fun of your God or insult your wife, that's no excuse at all.
Bob, that "what" is done no matter the "why, that's the basis of our entire legal system. The crime is in the act itself, the "why" is about how serious a crime it is. If you punch me in the nose, you have committed battery, no matter what your reason. If you punch me in the nose in self-defense, that means you are not punished for battery. If you punch me in the nose because I make fun of your God or insult your wife, that's no excuse at all.
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?
I asked myself why I was a Christian... and came up with no good answers. The only two things I kept coming back to were:
1. My mom and dad are/were Christians and so passed it to me.
2. You've done it this way since you were 6.
And those aren't very good reasons to continue...
I asked myself why I was a Christian... and came up with no good answers. The only two things I kept coming back to were:
1. My mom and dad are/were Christians and so passed it to me.
2. You've done it this way since you were 6.
And those aren't very good reasons to continue...
Timothy A
Let's go RED!
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?
It's a question of eternal life. Either you believe in what the Bible says or you do not. Before you hand in your playbook, I would encourage you to seek out a WELS Church (or other Christian Church) and have a discussion or 2 with the Pastor and see if they can make some sense of the questions/issues/concerns you have about your faith as a Christian. It certainly doesn't hurt anything so spend some time digging into it.
It's a question of eternal life. Either you believe in what the Bible says or you do not. Before you hand in your playbook, I would encourage you to seek out a WELS Church (or other Christian Church) and have a discussion or 2 with the Pastor and see if they can make some sense of the questions/issues/concerns you have about your faith as a Christian. It certainly doesn't hurt anything so spend some time digging into it.
- Status