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

[DOC]

...My reason for calling slavery evil isn't simply a matter of opinion. It is a logical conclusion based upon empathy and the ability to reason. IF you were to augment my ability to reason, then you would change my ability to consider slavery evil, but that wouldn't make those arguments any less valid from a objective standpoint.

So then you believe in an absolute objective morality outside the realm of the individual since if you suddenly developed a brain tumor that made you think the holocaust was not evil then that would not change the fact that the holocaust is evil.

 

[Hokulele]

So then you believe in an absolute objective morality outside the individual since if you suddenly developed a brain tumor that made you think the holocaust was not evil then that would not change the fact that the holocaust is evil.

What do the words "empathy and the ability to reason" mean to you?

 

[zooterkin]

This is right, but if someone could show a God or a soul is "likely" to exist it, it would increase the probability that the NT writers were telling the truth.

No, it wouldn't.

Do you have any such evidence (although if you had, I'm sure you would have shared it by now)? Either way, you're just derailing this thread again.

 

[joobz]

So then you believe in an absolute objective morality outside the realm of the individual since if you suddenly developed a brain tumor that made you think the holocaust was not evil then that would not change the fact that the holocaust is evil.

For the most part, yes. I believe the conclusions one can draw employing reason and empathy IS objective. It is clear that to permit the enslavement of some individuals reduces the likelihood for me or my family to be protected from being enslaved. By rejecting slavery, I protect myself, family and those I love from being enslaved.


Now, I ask, What does this say for Jesus who condoned slavery and the beating of slaves?

 

[joobz]

So then you have no explanation as to why you said I completely misunderstood Pax's point.

HEre's a post with an explanation:

For the most part, yes. I believe the conclusions one can draw employing reason and empathy IS objective. It is clear that to permit the enslavement of some individuals reduces the likelihood for me or my family to be protected from being enslaved. By rejecting slavery, I protect myself, family and those I love from being enslaved.


Now, I ask, What does this say for Jesus who condoned slavery and the beating of slaves?

Would you like to answer my question?

 

[DOC]

Explain Post #6471.

My query as to the original name you quoted remains unanswered and no reason was entered for the post having been edited.

I simply was focused on the point I was making and mistakenly wrote Sir William M. Mitchel instead of Sir William M. Ramsay. I quickly edited the mistake. Mitchell is Ramsay's middle name. I try to use the M. because There is another famous William Ramsay who is a chemist.

I have talked about the archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay many times so it was just a mistake that was quickly corrected.

 

[zooterkin]

I simply was focused on the point I was making and mistakenly wrote Sir William M. Mitchel instead of Sir William M. Ramsay. I quickly edited the mistake. Mitchell is Ramsay's middle name. I try to use the M. because There is another famous William Ramsay who is a chemist.

I have talked about the archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay many times so it was just a mistake that was quickly corrected.

"quickly"? Nearly 45 minutes after the original post, and 6 minutes after it was pointed out? You might have had the decency to either acknowledge Akhenaten's correction, or note why you had made the edit if it was truly something you noticed yourself.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I know you addressed that to Doc, but it was me that you were talking about, wasn't it? You're always talking about me, you people. And you say bad things too. Everybody does. It's not fair. I'll bet they're even talking about me in that other thread while I'm distracted over here.

<<heh heh heh...>>

 

[DOC]

Would you like to answer my question?

I responded to your opinion that Jesus condoned slavery many many times in this thread and the slavery thread that a moderator spinned off this thread because it was not on topic. If you want to talk about slavery per se (or "servants" as it is translated by 9 biblical translations) you should do so in the slavery thread. The only reason I brought up slavery is that it is widely considered as evil as is the holocaust and murdering innocent children are -- I didn't intend to rehash the topic in and of itself.

 

[DOC]

"quickly"? Nearly 45 minutes after the original post, and 6 minutes after it was pointed out? You might have had the decency to either acknowledge Akhenaten's correction, or note why you had made the edit if it was truly something you noticed yourself.

Sorry, I was probably focused on the many other posts. If you don't believe me so be it. This thread is not about me although a newbie would never know that by the amount of time people try to make it about me.

 

[zooterkin]

sorry, i was probably focused on the many other posts. If you don't believe me so be it. This thread is not about me although a newbie would never know that by the amount of time people try to make it about me. number of times i refer to myself and my post count

f.t.f.y.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Sorry, I was probably focused on the many other posts. If you don't believe me so be it. This thread is not about me although a newbie would never know that by the amount of time people try to make it about me.

Ahem...

Yep, that's right...this whole forum, every thread in it, all the posters talking about politics and sports and goats...the only point is to make you look bad.

There's a word for that kind of thinking, and people who indulge in it are usually advised to seek professional help.

 

[DOC]

For the most part, yes. I believe the conclusions one can draw employing reason and empathy IS objective. It is clear that to permit the enslavement of some individuals reduces the likelihood for me or my family to be protected from being enslaved. By rejecting slavery, I protect myself, family and those I love from being enslaved

So the Germans who killed the Jews in the Holocaust were acting reasonably because they honestly believed it was in the best interest of their country and thus themselves and their families to kill them?

 

[Eyeron]

Well, racists always believe they are right and completely justified in their ideology.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Well, racists always believe they are right and completely justified in their ideology.

Interesting, very often the people who commit atrocities in the name of their religion - whatever religion it may be - believe the same way.

 

[DOC]

Well, racists always believe they are right and completely justified in their ideology.

So then you must believe in an absolute morality outside of individual reasoning because I get the impression that if Germany and Japan and Italy had won the war and taken over the world you would still believe the Holocaust was evil.

 

[zooterkin]

So then you must believe in an absolute morality outside of individual reasoning because I get the impression that if Germany and Japan and Italy had won the war and taken over the world you would still believe the Holocaust was evil.

In case you missed it before:

What do the words "empathy and the ability to reason" mean to you?

 

[babbits]

Doc said "Also the very existence of the largest religion in the world, Christianity, can be considered evidence."

And more people are non-Christian than are Christian. And that can be considered as evidence.

RE: "List of Christian Martyrs" evidence that Christianity is true?

Just as the deaths of lots of young men by suicide bombs is evidence of the truth of Islam.

Loonies are loonies, whatever fables they believe.

 

[joobz]

So the Germans who killed the Jews in the Holocaust were acting reasonably because they honestly believed it was in the best interest of their country and thus themselves and their families to kill them?

No. The germans blamed the jews for thier problems. This was obviously false. If they took thier logic to the conclusion that was being drawn, they would see that it wasn't sound.

once the germans killed off all the jews, their problems would still exist. As such, they would need to find a new scape goat. This would put thier families at greater risk.

 

[joobz]

I responded to your opinion that Jesus condoned slavery many many times in this thread and the slavery thread that a moderator spinned off this thread because it was not on topic. If you want to talk about slavery per se (or "servants" as it is translated by 9 biblical translations) you should do so in the slavery thread. The only reason I brought up slavery is that it is widely considered as evil as is the holocaust and murdering innocent children are -- I didn't intend to rehash the topic in and of itself.

So only you are allowed to derail threads?

I ask because you have previosuly used morally relativist arguments to justify Jesus' condoning of slavery and the beating of slaves. You claimed that god had greater fish to fry and didn't tackle slavery because there wasn't a better way back then. That people would be wandering arround pennyless, homeless....


Well, using empathy and reason, I say there is a better way. Then and now. So did many many others. It is why we have abolished multiple institutions that condoned slavery in it's many forms (monarchies, feudalism, slavery...) Each of these institutions have used the bible and Jesus' condoning of slavery as moral justification.
What does it say about your god, who you so clearly demonstrate as a moral relativist to excuse his condoning of slavery?

Let me get to the punchline more directly:
It seems you are attempting to claim that the existence of an objective moral absolute would be evidence for the existence of god. Well, if there is such a thing, then the existence of slavery in the bible would prove that it isn't the biblical god who is that moral source.