Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[DOC]

You didn't answer the question. What wisdom. Surely there must be some earth shattering wisdom in the bible that comes up with something better than "do unto others" etc, since the Teletubbies and Barney have that message nailed as well.

What wisdom.


I challenge you DOC to write three messages of wisdom from the bible.

Well if everyone in the world 1) loved their neighbor and 2)loved their enemy, what do you think the world would be like. 3)and the 10 commandments teach people right from wrong. The knowledge of right and wrong is not innate. If you tear down the 10 commandments from the classroom walls and a kid does not learn right and wrong at his home, it's my belief you're going to have problems somewhere down the line.

This is different from Islam because Islam does not teach to love your enemy, or to do good to those who harm you in some way.

And it wasn't only what He taught that was important but what He did on the cross, also.

 

[DOC]

DOC, when you FAIL, it's not a good idea to re-use the same FAILURE INDUCING texts when you try again, otherwise you will NEVER LEARN

IOW:

• Geisler is wrong

• As long as you persist in repeating other peoples' errors, you too will be wrong

This simple aspect of reality ain't hard to grasp, no matter how deluded you are

I guess you're entitled to you're opinion.

 

[joobz]

Well if everyone in the world 1) loved their neighbor and 2)loved their enemy, what do you think the world would be like.

I see no effect on "loving your enemy" and treating them well. This is a false assumption. Indeed, if you have an enemy, one could easily rationalize locking them up indefintiely as an act of love. Not a very useful policy to govern by.

3) and the 10 commandments teaches people right from wrong

The 10 commandments are very poor indicators of right and wrong as there is no commandment against slavery, fairness, ....

The knowledge of right and wrong is not innate.

This is an assertion not fact.

This is different from Islam because Islam does not teach to love your enemy, or to do good to those who harm you in some way.

Islam chooses to have all people be muslim and have peace amongst them.

And it wasn't only what He taught that was important but what He did on the cross, also.

What did he do on the cross?

 

[joobz]

I guess you're entitled to you're opinion.

Considering that his opinion is based upon reason and fact, it's much more reliable than others....

 

[Lothian]

If you tear down the 10 commandments from the classroom walls and a kid does not learn right and wrong at his home, it's my belief you're going to have problems somewhere down the line..

We have no commandments on our school walls, when is the trouble starting?

 

[six7s]

3)and the 10 commandments teach people right from wrong.

EPIC FAIL

Have you ever taught anyone anything DOC?

If you have, then you should understand that your statement is so plain stoopid it burns

If not, read up on pedagogy

The knowledge of right and wrong is not innate.

And you know this how?

If you tear down the 10 commandments from the classroom walls and a kid does not learn right and wrong at his home

Why do you even try to pretend that the two are related?

Tip: y'ain't foolin' no-one but teh foolz with your endlessly recycled crap

it's my belief you're going to have problems somewhere down the line.

Considering that anyone with even half a brain can instantly tell that your beliefs are based on nonsense, why do you even bother posting such self-deluding waffle here, on a critical thinking forum?

 

[wollery]

DOC, my siblings and I were taught right from wrong by our parents, and religion had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Where is your need for the 10 commandments now?

 

[articulett]

And exactly how is DOC showing his love on this forum? Is this what he thinks "love" is? How do you make people "love" others and "love" an invisible guy? I think that the bible makes people feel good and holy while appearing neurotic, arrogant, and annoying as they pretend to be "loving". I don't see the morality DOC imagines in himself and those of his sect.

I want to add, that my dog is very loving and moral-- but she has no soul, no gods, and no commandments. It appears that some evolved creatures are able to be perfectly loving and moral without magic books or invisible saviors.

 

[DOC]

We have no commandments on our school walls, when is the trouble starting?

Ask Columbine alumni and the cities where eleven and twelve year olds are robbing people with guns. At least the security firms that the schools are hiring are doing well. And so are the metal detector manufacturers and surveillance camera companies.

And one could argue the above wouldn't be happening if knowing the difference between good and evil was innate.

 

[DOC]

And exactly how is DOC showing his love on this forum? Is this what he thinks "love" is? How do you make people "love" others and "love" an invisible guy? I think that the bible makes people feel good and holy while appearing neurotic, arrogant, and annoying as they pretend to be "loving". I don't see the morality DOC imagines in himself and those of his sect.

The tens of thousands of people who practically worshiped Mother Theresa as her body was paraded through the streets of India saw morality in the sect. The four US presidents that flew 7000 miles to Pope John Paul II funeral saw morality in the sect and the vast TV audience that watched the multi day nearly 24 hour coverage that CNN gave the pope's funeral (and the days leading up to it) saw morality in the sect.

I doubt if any of the current popular atheist authors will get such a response on their passing.

 

[Lothian]

Ask Columbine alumni and the cities where eleven and twelve year olds are robbing people with guns. At least the security firms that the schools are hiring are doing well. And so are the metal detector manufacturers and surveillance camera companies.

Doc, are you suggesting that school boards could save the money spent on Security firms, metal detectors and surveillance cameras by sticking a couple of posters on a wall?

 

[DOC]

I want to add, that my dog is very loving and moral-- but she has no soul, no gods, and no commandments. It appears that some evolved creatures are able to be perfectly loving and moral without magic books or invisible saviors.

I would have to disagree. You are your dog's god and its commandment is thou shall please my god (master). And would you say dogs and wolfs in the wild are loving and moral.

And Pope John Paul II believed there will be animals in heaven so I'm not so sure about your dog has no soul statement.

 

[DOC]

Doc, are you suggesting that school boards could save the money spent on Security firms, metal detectors and surveillance cameras by sticking a couple of posters on a wall?

Yes, if those posters are of the 10 commandments. The ten commandments were allowed in the public classrooms before 1962 and metal detectors, security, and cameras were unheard of before then.

 

[Mojo]

The tens of thousands of people who practically worshiped Mother Theresa...

That's the important bit, I suspect. She certainly doesn't seem to have been motivated by a desire to reduce suffering.

 

[Lothian]

Yes, if those posters are of the 10 commandments. The ten commandments were allowed in the public classrooms before 1962 and metal detectors, security, and cameras were unheard of before then.

Thanks Doc, I needed a good laugh this morning.

 

[zooterkin]

Yes, if those posters are of the 10 commandments. The ten commandments were allowed in the public classrooms before 1962 and metal detectors, security, and cameras were unheard of before then.

Since we didn't have the 10 commandments on the wall in schools in this country before 1962, could you point to the reports of the murder and mayhem that would be expected according to your logic?

 

[joobz]

Ask Columbine alumni and the cities where eleven and twelve year olds are robbing people with guns.

Why don't you ask them. Make sure you inform them that you believe that thier suffering is a result of not having the 10 commandements on the school walls.

And one could argue the above wouldn't be happening if knowing the difference between good and evil was innate.

Certainly one could argue that. One could also argue that as the 10 commandements contains no rule against racism and slavery, it, as a moral code, was partially responsible for the acceptance of slavery and racial segragation in this country.

 

[joobz]

Yes, if those posters are of the 10 commandments. The ten commandments were allowed in the public classrooms before 1962 and metal detectors, security, and cameras were unheard of before then.

DOC, I'm having a hard time understanding your point.

ARe you saying that because the 10 commandements, which were not written by jesus, were removed from classrooms in 1962, that this is the cause of the school shooting epidemic of the 90-2000s*? and that this some how is evidence that proves Jesus rose from the dead 2000 years ago?

I must say that your sense of causality is quite interesting....




*I find the exploitation of the school shootings to justify some prejudice to be rather horrid and immoral. I wonder how DOC would feel if someone was to make a counter claim that since these shootings were not done by muslims but mainly by children of christian families that this proves the evilness of christianity and rightousness of Islam.

 

[cj.23]

Sorry, not been keeping up with the thread - I probably need to reply to Six 7's to clarify my thinking... still I think I get DOC's argument.

OK< DOC, I'm a fellow believer, but I'm not sure about this. Let me explain.

I like in the UK, where School Prayer is not just allowed, it's required by law. Since the 1940's a "collective act of worship" has been required daily in all English & Welsh schools, and while schools vary in how they apply this, it is the norm. By default this is a Christian act, though followers of other religions and atheists may be choose not to attend with written parental consent (very few actually do in my experience), and in Schools with a high diversity of faith backgrounds the content can be multi-faith to reflect that. The government takes this seriously enough to last year prosecute a couple of schools for failure to comply as i recall.

Still, I grew up with prayers in my class first thing, then Assembly where we sang hymns and listened to the days announcements and a short talk, then after lunch paryers again, then prayers as we ended the day. My school was not very religious - this is State schools I'm talking about. I don't know how typical my experience was, but it was consistent over Primary Middle and Upper school, right from 5 to 16.

We of couse also have a legal responsibility to learn about Religion in class, also worth noting.

So if your theory is right, the uK should be a godly nation? Well it is true that school shootings and violence of that sort are very rare here in comparison with the USA - though absence of private gun ownership probably explaisn that better. Still, UK schoosls uffer from the same kind of problems as US schools generally - the way to check miht be to look at the murder rate in schools compared with teh murder rate in the non-school age popu;lation - my suspicion is that the uSA is a far more violent culture generaly. Yet we can not put this down to religious belief - despite strong religious exposure and prayer in school, I think the actively church attending population here is somewhere in the range 2.5% - 4%. We are really a nation of atheist, agnostics and the religiously indifferent.

So realy, I am not convinced remotely that school prayer is a factor in curbing violence or moral breakdown, based on the empirical evidence. Dunno - I welcome your thoughts on this matter...

cj x

 

[cj.23]

I'll agree or disagree based on what you actually say; no disrespect, but saying you're a scholar don't make you one

Hey agreed, and my technical knowledge is of a tiny part of the subject at hand. I don't claim to be a scholar - only to have an academic background in the area. The two are to me totally different, and I agree any claim to authority is completely spurious.

I don't think so, simply because the NT is (according to Christ (according to Matthew (according to the bible))) an adjunct to (cf a replacement for) the OT

Jesus here apparently (according to Matthew) makes a claim regarding his relationship to the Old Testament Law (first five books, The Pentateuch) but to understand what is meant would require us to examine in depth the teaching of Jesus in regard to the Pentateuch. Given that Matthew employs a structure in his Gospel which directly reflects the Pentateuch, he clearly is making some point about the relationship between the two -- but also given that he shows Jesus breaking the Purity Code by a direct reading, we would have to consider how the Purity Codes and Law were interpreted in first century Judaism - and as there was not a single response, we would have to consider the proto-Talmudic midrash and the prevailing theological positions. That's assuming a direct correspondence between Matthews report and Jesus's teaching - I'm pretty sure that it lies in theological tension with other understandings in the Epistles and Gospels, and therefore reflects Matthews theology and authorial intent as much as anything. These issues are remarkably complex: are response to them can be on a number of levels as well. I'm up for a full discussion in a ew thread if you so desire.

If the OT is bollocks (and it is) then the NT is bollocks, too

Logically nope. Jesus could have accepted the Old Testament as true, as he did, and that still tells us nothing about the historicity of or theological value of Jesus' teachings, even if you were able to show part of the old Testament were untrue. DAvid Hume, Charles Darwin and TH Huxley all held regrettably false racist beliefs about white superiority - none of that impacts of the truth of their thinking in other areas, such as epistemology (Hume simply failed to apply his own reasoning to his own racial ideas), or in the case of Huxley and Darwin ditto - a failure to apply their own insights to their racial thinking. As the Gospel accounts are of a Jesus who clearly was not omniscient, this is not in anyway a problem for Christianity. And first you would have to demonstrate the falseness of the Old Testament anyway. You get where i am coming from now?

Here you are conveniently overlooking one fundamental difference between the Bible and the writings of Sagan et al:

• the former purports to be the unerring word of a divine, omni-bloody-everything deity

Where does it do this then?

• the latter is the work of regular, mortal, fallible, humans... widely regarded as damned clever humans, but nevertheless - as True Scottish McScientists - they not only readily admit to being fallible but also actively encourage others to scrutinise their methods, repeat their tests and refine their findings

You don't think the Bible was written by regular, mortal, fallible, men and women too? I do, and as far as I know I am a pretty orthodox mainstream Christian? It's all down to if you reagrd the Bible as the direct revelation of God (like the Qu'ran) or if you see it as a record of the direct revelation of God. I strongly favour the latter. I would have thought to an atheist critic though the default assumption was that it is a collection of historical writings by different authors, composed at different times, and can be and should be studied thus - without regard to faith claims of religious adherents. In short why read the bible differently than how you read the Sumerian King list, Epic of Gilgamesh, Sargon Epic or Atrahasis Epic or any other Ancient Near Eastern (or indeed any other) historical text? I would apply exactly the same criteria.

The bible has some superb stories with wonderful, lyrical prose, so yes, by all means, critique it in the same manner as you would for the Mahabharata, the Koran, the Canterbury Tales and any other major work of fiction...

But do remember, the Bible is a work of fiction - albeit based on real characters and places... but suggesting that we subject it to the style of scrutiny applied to the works of Sagan is facile

Here you make an extremely strong and to my mind unevidenced assertion - that the Bible is fiction. I think the issue may be how we understand fiction, because you go on to mention based on real characters and places. I guess I need to understand how you are employing that word "fiction" here? This really should be a new thread though I think? WHat interests me first though is why one would employ different methodology for this text than for the works of Sagan? Why?

Hey I enjoy our discussions, and have great respect for you as a poster. I hope my attempt at clarification is helpful!

cj x