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

[L The Detective]

DOC's perfectly demonstrated how his morality amounts to the ends justify the means. Using his reasoning, it would be perfectly justifiable to conduct warrentless searches, torture, sacrifical killings... And, he's even come up with a way to say that Jesus condones such moral slipperyness.

In other words, DOC helped prove that christianity (and religion in general) doesn't provide a universal moral code. They provide a universal justification system for claiming that any behavior (that the person wants to commit) is moral.

You're right. I'm just trying to look at it from DOC's point of view, and I think what he would probably say is that he does have an absolute moral code, but that in this particular case, slavery is the "least evil option."

However, even if you accept DOC's argument on it's own terms, and accept that those are the only 3 choices, I still think that letting the people go free is clearly the "least evil option." Furthermore, I think if DOC were to survey Christians with this exact question, give them 3 choices, and ask them "which is the least evil option," most Christians would agree. Just pointing that out.

 

[Lothian]

There is a difference between being a moral relativist and being forced to choose the lesser of two evils.

I believe slavery is always wrong but starving to death and being killed (instead of being made a slave) are greater wrongs.

No, no, no bad Christian. Read Numbers 31 once again and write out 1000 times "Kill all male enemies and rape their women. That pleaseth the lord."

 

[joobz]

However, even if you accept DOC's argument on it's own terms, and accept that those are the only 3 choices, I still think that letting the people go free is clearly the "least evil option." Furthermore, I think if DOC were to survey Christians with this exact question, give them 3 choices, and ask them "which is the least evil option," most Christians would agree. Just pointing that out.

But that's the crux of it. It clearly ISN'T the least evil option today or back then.

What reason do we have for not using the same justification to enslave terrorists?
What reason do we have for not using the same jusfitication to enslave homeless children?
What reason do we have for not using the same justification to enslave illegal immigrants?

DOC used a very specific set of conditions to try and create a situation where slavery would be permissible.

The problem with this is multifold
1.) Jesus doesn't give a set of conditions which allows slavery to be acceptable. He simply condones it and he went so far as to tacitly permit the beatings of slaves for violating rules they were unaware of.
2.) The new testament permits Christians to be both master and slave. This clearly contradicts the idea that jesus would condone slavery on the grounds of the "enemy combatant" argument.
3.) The same hazards regarding enemy combatants exist today. It's expensive to have prisoners and if you releasse them, you run the risk of them re-attacking you. We can simply put forward the reasons we don't enslave such combatants.
a.) It permits other nations to capture your people and enslave them.
b.) Keeping enemies as slaves is costly and requires brutal treatment to force compliance and requires high oversight costs to prevent escape.
c.) It gives moral justification against other nations to unite and rise up against you.
4.) The argument assumes that enemies that were captured were always put into slavery. This isn't true and indeed the romans were rather good at taking over areas and turning the new people into citizens.

 

[RobRoy]

The problem with this is multifold
1.) Jesus doesn't give a set of conditions which allows slavery to be acceptable. He simply condones it and he went so far as to tacitly permit the beatings of slaves for violating rules they were unaware of.
2.) The new testament permits Christians to be both master and slave. This clearly contradicts the idea that jesus would condone slavery on the grounds of the "enemy combatant" argument.
3.) The same hazards regarding enemy combatants exist today. It's expensive to have prisoners and if you releasse them, you run the risk of them re-attacking you. We can simply put forward the reasons we don't enslave such combatants.
a.) It permits other nations to capture your people and enslave them.
b.) Keeping enemies as slaves is costly and requires brutal treatment to force compliance and requires high oversight costs to prevent escape.
c.) It gives moral justification against other nations to unite and rise up against you.
4.) The argument assumes that enemies that were captured were always put into slavery. This isn't true and indeed the romans were rather good at taking over areas and turning the new people into citizens.

And with this, I must bow out. I just don't have the fortitude to wade through DOC's lack of understanding, insight, dodges or lack of response to direct query.

If he tries to tell more lies about the LDS beliefs though, let me know. I don't mind setting him straight, what little good it will do.

 

[joobz]

And with this, I must bow out. I just don't have the fortitude to wade through DOC's lack of understanding, insight, dodges or lack of response to direct query.

If he tries to tell more lies about the LDS beliefs though, let me know. I don't mind setting him straight, what little good it will do.

Well, I do hope you'll read periodically. I do not pretend to be an expert here, and my arguments are only useful if they are valid and accurate.

If you ever find fault with my points, please correct me. I have great respect for the contributions that you've made.

 

[paximperium]

It wouldn't have made sense for Josephus (the famous Jewish historian who was in the pocket of the Romans and lived in Rome) to mention this because it's very bad PR for Roman rule. Don't you believe this incident would have truly outraged the native citizens of that area and greatly increased the chances of a revolt . History is written by the victors and the Romans were the victors at that time, and Josephus (who live in Rome) knew it.

So is Josephus the ONLY Jewish historian? I really enjoy your blatant hypocrisy, you use Josephus when it suits your agenda and then teat him down when he doesn't.

Is there even one historian, one enemy of Herod(and he had many) or anyone who wrote about this so-called massacre? Even your own Bible contradicts itself when it comes to this little fairy tale.

 

[paximperium]

There is a difference between being a moral relativist and being forced to choose the lesser of two evils.

I believe slavery is always wrong but starving to death and being killed (instead of being made a slave) are greater wrongs.

That is exactly what a moral relativist is. Your morality changes depending on the situation and your double standard is obvious when it comes to YHWH worshipers.

So DOC is a sexist, a moral relativist and a slavery apologist.

 

[RobRoy]

Well, I do hope you'll read periodically. I do not pretend to be an expert here, and my arguments are only useful if they are valid and accurate.

I'll do my best to drop in and see what's what. You're also welcome to shoot me a PM if you think I might be able to contribute from my limited knowledge.

If you ever find fault with my points, please correct me.

You? Mistakes!? Surely you jest!!

I have great respect for the contributions that you've made.

Nicest compliment I've had all day. If I were less masculine (or you were more feminine) I might swoon.

 

[maddog]

So is Josephus the ONLY Jewish historian? I really enjoy your blatant hypocrisy, you use Josephus when it suits your agenda and then teat him down when he doesn't.

Is there even one historian, one enemy of Herod(and he had many) or anyone who wrote about this so-called massacre? Even your own Bible contradicts itself when it comes to this little fairy tale.

Well, historians don't typically make a lot of money...

 

[Simon39759]

So is Josephus the ONLY Jewish historian? I really enjoy your blatant hypocrisy, you use Josephus when it suits your agenda and then teat him down when he doesn't.

Is there even one historian, one enemy of Herod(and he had many) or anyone who wrote about this so-called massacre? Even your own Bible contradicts itself when it comes to this little fairy tale.

Good question.

I can't recall of any, though. Jewish historian of the first or second century apart from Josephus.

But the Romans did not mention it either, and they were not adverse to painting others as violent barbarians in dire need of Roman civilization. That's, in fact, how they justified most of their conquests.

 

[DOC]

It wouldn't have made sense for Josephus (the famous Jewish historian who was in the pocket of the Romans and lived in Rome) to mention this because it's very bad PR for Roman rule. Don't you believe this incident would have truly outraged the native citizens of that area and greatly increased the chances of a revolt . History is written by the victors and the Romans were the victors at that time, and Josephus (who lived in Rome) knew it.

Man; you don't know what you are talking about.
Such outrage would have been a good thing for the Romans. Herod was not a Roman governor.
In fact, the Romans took control of Judea because the local inhabitants asked them to depose Herod's own son.
Recalling atrocities for before the Roman occupation would have been good PR for the Romans, the same way that mentioning how bad Saddam was is good PR for the US.

So are you saying Herod the Great, who had escaped to Rome in 40 BCE and there was elected King of the Jews by the Roman Senate was not in the pocket of the Romans?

From Wiki on the "Herodian Dynasty"

"In 40 BCE the Parthians invaded the Roman eastern provinces and managed to expel the Romans. In Judea the Hasmonean dynasty was restored under king Antigonus.

Herod the Great, who was the son of Antipater the Idumean and Cypros, a Nabataean princess, managed to escape to Rome. There he was elected "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate[1]. However Herod did not fully conquer Judea until 37 BCE. He ruled for 34 years.

Herod ruled Judea until 4 BCE; at his death his kingdom was divided between his three sons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodian_dynasty

It's logical to believe Herod the Great, his sons, and Josephus were in the pocket of the Romans. When in Rome do as the Romans. Herod the Great and Josephus (the Roman-Jewish historian) both spent a lot of time in Rome and both owed a lot to the Romans.

 

[paximperium]

It's logical to believe Herod the Great, his sons, and Josephus were in the pocket of the Romans. When in Rome do as the Romans. Herod the Great and Josephus (the Roman-Jewish historian) both spent a lot of time in Rome and both owed a lot to the Romans.

So? Still doesn't support your fairy tale.

 

[Lothian]

It's logical to believe.....

Actually it is logical not to.

 

[joobz]

It's logical to believe Herod the Great, his sons, and Josephus were in the pocket of the Romans. When in Rome do as the Romans. Herod the Great and Josephus (the Roman-Jewish historian) both spent a lot of time in Rome and both owed a lot to the Romans.

So you don't have any evidence supporting Herod's massacre?

 

[Simon39759]

So are you saying Herod the Great, who had escaped to Rome in 40 BCE and there was elected King of the Jews by the Roman Senate was not in the pocket of the Romans?

From Wiki on the "Herodian Dynasty"

"In 40 BCE the Parthians invaded the Roman eastern provinces and managed to expel the Romans. In Judea the Hasmonean dynasty was restored under king Antigonus.

Herod the Great, who was the son of Antipater the Idumean and Cypros, a Nabataean princess, managed to escape to Rome. There he was elected "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate[1]. However Herod did not fully conquer Judea until 37 BCE. He ruled for 34 years.

Herod ruled Judea until 4 BCE; at his death his kingdom was divided between his three sons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodian_dynasty

It's logical to believe Herod the Great, his sons, and Josephus were in the pocket of the Romans. When in Rome do as the Romans. Herod the Great and Josephus (the Roman-Jewish historian) both spent a lot of time in Rome and both owed a lot to the Romans.

Herod was 'in the pockets of the Romans'. Sure.
But later the Romans were called in to replace Herod's corrupted son. It then became useful for the Romans to distance themselves from Herod and criticize him and contrast his violence and injustices to the peace and civilization the Romans were claiming to be bringing.

Or, to re-use the comparison with modern days Iraq, Saddam was in the pocket of the US for decades and a close ally against Iran in the 80ies.
Yet, when it became politically useful, the US distanced itself from Saddam's government and criticize him and contrast his violence and injustices to the peace and civilization the Romans were claiming to be bringing...

 

[DOC]

If he tries to tell more lies about the LDS beliefs though, let me know. I don't mind setting him straight, what little good it will do.

Please list all of these so called lies you are talking about. And could you set me straight on the fact that Joseph Smith believed (in addition to polygamy) that it was OK to marry another man's wife while she was still married to the other man. I would contend that doesn't mesh with Jesus' statement that a man would leave his parents, get married to a woman, and the "two" shall become "one" in the flesh.

 

[paximperium]

Please list all of these so called lies you are talking about. And could you set me straight on the fact that Joseph Smith believed (in addition to polygamy) that it was OK to marry another man's wife while she was still married to other man. I would contend that doesn't mesh with Jesus' statement that a man would leave his parents, get married to a woman, and the two shall become "one" in the flesh.

In Matthew, Jesus was just talking about marriage, nothing more, nothing less. Where does it say anything about polygamy?

Jesus never spoke up against polygamy, just like he never spoke out against slavery. Thanks for adding this to the list of Jesus' fallibility.

 

[Simon39759]

Polygamy was perfectly acceptable in the old testament and Jesus mention how he was not here to cancel the laws... Hence, Jesus was condoning polygamy...
Which is why the Mormons decided to practice polygamy in the first place (well, that and they did not have dish-washers)

 

[DOC]

Polygamy was perfectly acceptable in the old testament and Jesus mention how he was not here to cancel the laws... Hence, Jesus was condoning polygamy...
Which is why the Mormons decided to practice polygamy in the first place (well, that and they did not have dish-washers)

Well then what about the practice of marrying another man's wife while she is still married to the other man. Do you think Jesus condoned that.

 

[Hokulele]

If you all want to discuss the Mormon church, I recommend starting a new thread for that. There are plenty of Mormons and ex-Mormons in the forum who may want to participate.