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

[amb]

I love Christians. Where ELSE would they go if they don't go to Heaven, DOC ?

Christians, if they have been good little boys and girls go to heaven?

Then where do atheists go? There will be the problem of all dressed up and nowhere to go.

 

[joobz]

Are you... are you advocating this ???

That is, by far, the most Bizzare point of the entire discussion.

Makes you wonder what else DOC would advocate if pressed to discuss it?
- Giving up your daughter to rapists to protect house guests?
- Killing babies to prevent them from sinning?

 

[pakeha]

Snake-handling?

 

[Simon39759]

That is, by far, the most Bizzare point of the entire discussion.

Makes you wonder what else DOC would advocate if pressed to discuss it?
- Giving up your daughter to rapists to protect house guests?
- Killing babies to prevent them from sinning?

I don't know if Doc is advocating anything beyond 'the Bible is perfect, Go Jesus!' (which is funny as he has yet to actually read the darm book).

I am not yet aware that he has any moral of his own save making excuses for the Bible: if slavery is ok in the Bible, then, it mustn't be too bad 'at least, it's a job'. If abortion is wrong in the Bible (or so his pastor says) then, it must be terrible. If the Bible's God ask to kill babies, obviously, it must be all for the best.

 

[DOC]

...Maybe you could look up the word slavery in a dictionary and post the part where it says the things you've just asserted?

Is there some reason that you are defending slavery as being moral? Do you really believe that slavery is moral?

No, I don't believe slavery is moral (unless it is better for the slave than any other possible alternative) because Christ said "I have come to bring liberty to the captives", and he said "do unto others as you have them do unto you" and he said "love your enemy". So being a Christian I have a absolute authority from God to base my belief on.

But I ask atheists (and people like joobz) by what authority do you proclaim slavery is wrong.

 

[DOC]

The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1915) page 235
"The truth of the historical surroundings in which Luke's narrative places the birth of Jesus does not prove the supreme facts, which give human and divine value to the birth are true."

and

page 89
"You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice"

and

Page 254
"We know that Luke was right in the external facts, because the records have disclosed the whole system of the census ; but as to the inner facts, the birth and the divine nature of Jesus, there can (as said above) be no historical reasoning, for those are a matter of faith, of intuition, and of the individual human being's experience and inner life."


and page 236
The surrounding facts are matter of history, and can be discussed and proved by historical evidence. The essential facts of the narrative are not susceptible of discussion on historical principles, and do not condescend to be tested by historical evidence

So, I repeat, nowhere does Ramsay say "there is no evidence of any supernatural events" as you claimed.

He does talk about "proof" and "historical principles and historical evidence" though.

And I noticed you don't like to give the url much when you present Ramsay quotes. I think you did give it once though - whichever post that was.

 

[Hokulele]

No, I don't believe slavery is moral (unless it is better for the slave than any other possible alternative) because Christ said "I have come to bring liberty to the captives", and he said "do unto others as you have them do unto you" and he said "love your enemy". So being a Christian I have a absolute authority from God to base my belief on.

Ah, so you are a moral relativist. Got it.

 

[DOC]

Ah, so you are a moral relativist. Got it.

I'm not a moral relativist. But, personally I would rather be a slave with food and shelter, then be a free man and starve or freeze to death.

Even the Catholic Church states that the circumstances surrounding such sins as theft are to be considered. For example, stealing food because you like a particular food you see is worse before the eyes of God then stealing some food because your kids are at home hungry.

 

[zooterkin]

So, I repeat, nowhere does Ramsay say "there is no evidence of any supernatural events" as you claimed.

Are you struggling to understand the meaning of the passages which were highlighted, or are you quibbling because Ramsey didn't use the exact words you quoted?

 

[Lothian]

So, I repeat, nowhere does Ramsay say "there is no evidence of any supernatural events" as you claimed.

He does talk about "proof" and "historical principles and historical evidence" though.

Doc, He says the essential facts have no historical evidence. What are the essential facts if they are not the supernatural parts.

And I noticed you don't like to give the url much when you present Ramsay quotes. I think you did give it once though - whichever post that was.

I have given the page numbers. You have quoted this book many times. Do you not have a copy? Have you not read it?

 

[joobz]

But I ask atheists (and people like joobz) by what authority do you proclaim slavery is wrong.

rational thought and empathy.

 

[joobz]

I'm not a moral relativist. But, personally I would rather be a slave with food and shelter, then be a free man and starve or freeze to death.

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" - Ben Franklin.

Even the Catholic Church states that the circumstances surrounding such sins as theft are to be considered. For example, stealing food because you like a particular food you see is worse before the eyes of God then stealing some food because your kids are at home hungry.

Ah, so you AND the catholic church are moral relativists. Got it.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

rational thought and empathy.

Checkmate.

 

[DOC]

rational thought and empathy.

What if someone rationalizes in their mind slavery is perfectly OK because they believe in the dogma of "might makes right" and couldn't give a damn about empathy, then who are atheists to say this person is wrong since atheists do not have any absolute authority like God to base their claim on.

 

[Cleon]

What if someone rationalizes in their mind slavery is perfectly OK because they believe in the dogma of "might makes right" and couldn't give a damn about empathy, then who are atheists to say this person is wrong since atheists do not have any absolute authority like God to base their claim on.

Who are atheists to say this is wrong?

Human frakking beings.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

What if someone rationalizes in their mind slavery is perfectly OK because they believe in the dogma of "might makes right" and couldn't give a damn about empathy, then who are atheists to say this person is wrong since atheists do not have any absolute authority like God to base their claim on.

And Doc, upset about the checkmate, knocks the board off the table and says "I don't want to play that game anymore, let's play checkers."

 

[DOC]

I have given the page numbers.

And let's let people read a lot of pages. And they should scroll down to the table of contents of the book and see all that archaeologist Sir W. M. Ramsay has written about:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XV...ss+of+the+New+Testament.#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Those people outside the US will not be able to read the info from the above URL so I guess you'll have to find some other way to read the book:

The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament
By archaeologist Sir W. M. Ramsay

 

[pakeha]

What if someone rationalizes in their mind slavery is perfectly OK because they believe in the dogma of "might makes right" and couldn't give a damn about empathy, then who are atheists to say this person is wrong since atheists do not have any absolute authority like God to base their claim on.

Actually, I don't think anyone needs an 'absolute authority like God' to understand slavery is wrong.

Added: shouldn't this discussion be in the 'slavery' thread?

 

[Foster Zygote]

What if someone rationalizes in their mind slavery is perfectly OK because they believe in the dogma of "might makes right" and couldn't give a damn about empathy, then who are atheists to say this person is wrong since atheists do not have any absolute authority like God to base their claim on.

Your "absolute authority" is as subjective as anything else. Ironically, "might makes right" has had quite a history in Christianity. Your "absolute authority" was used to justify the slaughter of Muslim and Jewish people by invading Christian armies. We don't need to claim the backing of a supernatural absolute authority in order to make a moral stand. One simply has to point out that lessening the suffering of everyone improves the health of the human species as a whole.

 

[joobz]

What if someone rationalizes in their mind slavery is perfectly OK because they believe in the dogma of "might makes right" and couldn't give a damn about empathy, then who are atheists to say this person is wrong since atheists do not have any absolute authority like God to base their claim on.

What if someone rationalizes in their mind appeals to god saying feudalism is perfectly OK because they believe in the dogma of "might makes right" and couldn't give a damn about empathy, then who are atheists christians to say this person is wrong since atheists christians do not have any absolute authority like God to base their claim on, because god has already justified kingdoms/slavery/genocide in the bible.

Sorry DOC, you are the one here who has just tried to justify slavery uing your immoral text.