Mere-Christianity - Overview Please?

[Rhea]

I am seeing a lot of xians claim this book as the reason for their belief. I'm going to have to get it to read, but I thought I'd go for an overview/review from folks here, while I wait for it...




OPinions?

[Biff the unclean]

The book is only "preaching to the choir." I don't think Atheists were ever meant to be it's audience. You'll find yourself stopping on almost every page and declaring "No, wait a minute, that isn't right, that isn't true." It left me with a very low opinion of Lewis' intellectual honesty

[Rhea]

That was my impression from the quotes I've read. (This might be quite a chore to read under those circumstances!)

They keep saying "CS Lewis, who was an atheist and became a christian" If the intellectual depth is that shallow, does this seem true?

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Rhea
They keep saying "CS Lewis, who was an atheist and became a christian" If the intellectual depth is that shallow, does this seem true?

No, it doesn't seem true. From reading Mere Christianity (you must pardon me for not citing it as the copy I read was at the insistence of a Christian friend 10 or 12 years ago and I returned it to her when I had finished-who says we have no morals?) and seeing a bio of Lewis on PBS (made by members of his family and those collecting royalties from his books) I got the feeling that he was just another in a long line of Christian Apologists who make that same claim falsely.
You catch these people saying that they used intellect to shun Atheism and accept Christianity. But when they explain their thought processes (and there's nothing Lewis loves to do more) you find that they have made leaps in logic while they were Atheists that are based solely on religious belief rather than observable facts. This indicates, to me at least, that they weren't Atheists by any definition I have ever heard of the word.

[lpetrich]

I wonder if such "former atheists" ever feel ashamed of their alleged past atheism. If one views atheism as the moral equivalent of being a mad dog, then ought one to feel ashamed of once having been such a moral equivalent?

I've seen several atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers here be ashamed of their former religiosity, and one might expect it to work the other way.

And when such "former atheists" indulge in crude stereotypes of atheists and freethinkers in general, one has to wonder about what they had once been. Had they simply been indifferent to religion or something like that?

[Biff the unclean]

I hesitate to express doubt about "former Atheists" like Lewis because it does sound like a No True Scotsman. It's just that, for the life of me, I can't understand how a person makes a decision based on faith before they have any faith

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Rhea
I am seeing a lot of xians claim this book as the reason for their belief. I'm going to have to get it to read, but I thought I'd go for an overview/review from folks here, while I wait for it...




OPinions?

I read the book years ago. I believe it was adapted from a radio program series he did. As I recall he goes over two or three arguments for theism in general and Christianity in particular. The one argument I specifically recall is the argument from the universality of morality. That is, humanity has an innate sense of right and wrong, and this implies an absolute standard, and therefore an absolute standard-giver. I am reminded of this everytime someone raises the problem of evil.

The last ~1/3 of the book gets pretty abstract and theoretical about, as I recall, the nature of time, space, etc. That part of the book didn't do anything for me, but I felt the first 2/3 was lucid and fairly compelling, though I suspect his arguments are not bullet-proof.

Lewis has definitely been a fairly influential apologist and the first 2/3 of the book is a pretty short, easy read. You might, therefore, want to check it out. On the other hand (OTH), my understanding is Lewis was not totally orthodox (can't recall the details). Regarding Lewis's claim of once being an atheist, I can honestly make the same claim so I don't discount the claim when others make it.

Regarding the quality of Lewis's arguments, I wouldn't look for an argument that is going to *prove* God. Christian apologetics, I think, is less about proving God than it is about removing disproofs. Religious belief and disbelief is, of course, a complicated thing that I won't try to analyze here, but suffice it to say that sometimes a particular view can be expressed that gives you a whole new way of looking at things, including your own beliefs. This, I think, was Lewis's value.

[Amaranth]

The one argument I specifically recall is the argument from the universality of morality. That is, humanity has an innate sense of right and wrong, and this implies an absolute standard, and therefore an absolute standard-giver. I am reminded of this everytime someone raises the problem of evil.

I'd love to see you back up a "universal morality". Care to provide us with a universal moral?

Lewis has definitely been a fairly influential apologist and the first 2/3 of the book is a pretty short, easy read. You might, therefore, want to check it out.

Peter Kirby just did a thread in biblical history on Lewis. You might want to check it out.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59721

On the other hand (OTH), my understanding is Lewis was not totally orthodox (can't recall the details). Regarding Lewis's claim of once being an atheist, I can honestly make the same claim so I don't discount the claim when others make it.

Everyone can make the claim - We are born atheists.

Regarding the quality of Lewis's arguments, I wouldn't look for an argument that is going to *prove* God. Christian apologetics, I think, is less about proving God than it is about removing disproofs.

Which is humorous, as the burden of proof is strictly on the theist.

Religious belief and disbelief is, of course, a complicated thing that I won't try to analyze here, but suffice it to say that sometimes a particular view can be expressed that gives you a whole new way of looking at things, including your own beliefs. This, I think, was Lewis's value.

Speaking of religous belief - Do you plan on going back to your thread on how atheist's are religous, or do you accept BBT's interpretation of what seems to be your admission of defeat?

Amaranth

[atheist_in_foxhole]

Mere Assertions (http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/assertions.html)

[Cretinist]

Basically, one half of the book basically attempts to prove theism and Christianity by the old Moral Argument ("How can there be morals without God?"). The other half assumes you have converted, and goes into how Christians should behave. The chapter on sex is hysterical.

Pure crap.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Amaranth
I'd love to see you back up a "universal morality". Care to provide us with a universal moral?


Speaking of religous belief - Do you plan on going back to your thread on how atheist's are religous, or do you accept BBT's interpretation of what seems to be your admission of defeat?

Amaranth

Thanks for the URL and helpful comments. About your 1st Q above, I have plenty of examples for you. They are in the expressions of people (atheists or otherwise) who exercise their rightous judgement upon others. Rarely do I hear them caveat their judgements as being "just my opinion."

As for your 2nd Q, I'm certainly willing to admit defeat on my assertion. So much is wrapped up in definitions. The thread has been helpful for me in clarifying those definitions better and understanding the atheist perspective.

[Doctor X]

The chapter on sex is hysterical.

Oh my. . . .

I recall a book on prank calls made by an editor/contributor of The Onion (www.theonion.com) in which he called Christian stores stating that he and his wife would like to deepen their very Christian marriage . . . do they have any Christian porn?

--J.D.

[Family Man]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Thanks for the URL and helpful comments. About your 1st Q above, I have plenty of examples for you. They are in the expressions of people (atheists or otherwise) who exercise their rightous judgement upon others. Rarely do I hear them caveat their judgements as being "just my opinion."


So when I make a moral claim such as, "Slavery is wrong", without putting in the caveat that it is just my opinion, it implies that all people from all times and all places would agree with me -- even slaveholders from the antebellum South.

Obviously not. Just because people make claims without noting that it is their personal opinion hardly makes it universal. And just because a moral value is common, it doesn't mean it universal either. A study of history and cultures will tell you that what is murder in one place and time may not be murder in another, though I doubt you'd find someone who'd say murder is right in general. The devil is always in the details.

[lpetrich]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
I hesitate to express doubt about "former Atheists" like Lewis because it does sound like a No True Scotsman. ... True, but do they seem like they had really been serious atheists? Are their Xtian versions of Dan Barker, who in that "Mere Assertions" link, says:
About six months after my deconversion I had lunch with Hal Spencer, president of Manna Music. His company is a leading publisher of Christian music. In light of my deconversion to atheism I wanted to buy back the copyrights to my musicals which they continue to promote. "No way," he said. "Your musicals are very strong items in our catalog, among the few things that keep us in business." Talk about mixed feelings! I used to be excited to hear those glowing reports. Not any more.andYou may also spot some of my material; but forgive me, for I knew not what I was doing.

[lpetrich]

Originally posted by Cretinist
Basically, one half of the book basically attempts to prove theism and Christianity by the old Moral Argument ("How can there be morals without God?").I wonder how he explains "moral" behavor among other species. Like bees in a hive not indiscriminately stinging each other or wolves in a pack not indiscriminately hunting each other.

Also, I'm sure that advocates of other religions could make that argument -- I wonder how C.S. Lewis would respond to a Muslim counterpart who makes the same sort of arguments for Islam.

The other half assumes you have converted, and goes into how Christians should behave. The chapter on sex is hysterical.What did he say about that subject?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Family Man
So when I make a moral claim such as, "Slavery is wrong", without putting in the caveat that it is just my opinion, it implies that all people from all times and all places would agree with me -- even slaveholders from the antebellum South.

Obviously not. Just because people make claims without noting that it is their personal opinion hardly makes it universal. And just because a moral value is common, it doesn't mean it universal either. A study of history and cultures will tell you that what is murder in one place and time may not be murder in another, though I doubt you'd find someone who'd say murder is right in general. The devil is always in the details.

Good point, I didn't mean it in quite that way. What I meant was that when a person judges, he is demonstrating a sense of right and wrong (universal in the sense that it transcends his opinion, not that it is shared equally amongst all people).

[sophie]

Doctor X : do they have any Christian porn? Yep. It's called Imagination. Love & Imagination.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by lpetrich
True, but do they seem like they had really been serious atheists?

No, they don't appear to have been Atheists at all. Much like our Charles Darwin here who claims to have been an Atheist when he didn't actually know what an Atheist is. The claim being that an "Atheist" actually believes in god but rejects him, or in CD's case does not embrace god in the proper manner. CD repeatedly made the claim that Atheists are believers of some sort.
To me it seems like a person who claims to be a teetotaler because they only drink beer and wine but will never touch a martini.

[Family Man]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Good point, I didn't mean it in quite that way. What I meant was that when a person judges, he is demonstrating a sense of right and wrong (universal in the sense that it transcends his opinion, not that it is shared equally amongst all people).

Then you can't call it a universal morality.

Think of the implications here. If morality came from God, we'd all have the same sense of morality at all times and in all places. That clearly isn't the case, so morality isn't from God. I'll agree it is transcedent to any one person, but that doesn't mean it comes from God.

Hence, since much of Lewis's argument appears to be based on a false premise, isn't it surprising that skeptics would reject him as a lightweight?

[WinAce]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Good point, I didn't mean it in quite that way. What I meant was that when a person judges, he is demonstrating a sense of right and wrong (universal in the sense that it transcends his opinion, not that it is shared equally amongst all people).

Interestingly, all the "universal moral laws", such as "thou shalt not murder", can be traced to something very beneficial or actually required for the success of the human race. You just can't have a successful, long-term stable society where there are no repercussions for anyone killing anyone on a whim.

Conversely, the moral laws most usually credited to God's will alone, such as prohibitions on homosexuality or wearing multi-fabric clothing, enjoy a wide range of opinion depending on culture.

Almost like what one would expect if morality was an emergent phenomenon derived from interacting self-aware beings in a social network, I might add. I wonder why that is... :rolleyes:

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Family Man
Then you can't call it a universal morality.

Think of the implications here. If morality came from God, we'd all have the same sense of morality at all times and in all places. That clearly isn't the case, so morality isn't from God. I'll agree it is transcedent to any one person, but that doesn't mean it comes from God.

Hence, since much of Lewis's argument appears to be based on a false premise, isn't it surprising that skeptics would reject him as a lightweight?

I'm not here to defend Lewis. But I do think people's moral judgement, and the premise in the problem of evil (i.e., that evil exists) illustrate one of the problems with atheism (weak or strong). You write: "If morality came from God, we'd all have the same sense of morality at all times and in all places."

Why is that? Could people's morals not become altered, even corrupted? The fact that some people think pornography is OK doesn't mean morality isn't from God.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by WinAce
Almost like what one would expect if morality was an emergent phenomenon derived from interacting self-aware beings in a social network, I might add. I wonder why that is... :rolleyes:

Ah yes, those emergent phenomena which somehow are derived from those interacting self-aware beings which somehow evolved into existence to form those social networks. My problem with your story here is that we live in a universe where amazing levels of complexity don't just happen. Things don't tend to fall together in this universe, so why should we believe that the most complex things of all did?

[Demigawd]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
My problem with your story here is that we live in a universe where amazing levels of complexity don't just happen. Things don't tend to fall together in this universe, so why should we believe that the most complex things of all did?

Actually, we *do* live in a universe where "amzing levels of complexity" *do* just happen beyond our conception of anthropomorphic reality. Do you have anything to offer beyond consulting an ancient mythology? If not, then I have a myriad of other "just-so" mythologies that contradict yours. Care to address the entirity of human imagination with your chosen team's? Need to retreat into "I am inspired by the Holy Spirit (tm)" argument to refute all other mythologies? Thought so.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Demigawd
Actually, we *do* live in a universe where "amzing levels of complexity" *do* just happen beyond our conception of anthropomorphic reality. Do you have anything to offer beyond consulting an ancient mythology? If not, then I have a myriad of other "just-so" mythologies that contradict yours. Care to address the entirity of human imagination with your chosen team's? Need to retreat into "I am inspired by the Holy Spirit (tm)" argument to refute all other mythologies? Thought so.

We know from science, and all of our empirical observations what a rare commodity complexity is. No matter how we configure our experiments, we can't build perpetual motion machines, create a bacterium, or show how echolocation could have arisen.

It is our everyday experience, and it is codified in scientific laws: things don't tend to fall together. But in spite of all this built up knowledge, we are to assume that the phenomenal complexity that we *do indeed* observe is a product of natural laws because, after all, the God hypothesis is a myth. And because it is a myth, folks like me must have nothing more to fall back on than mysticism.

Sorry, if you're on the look out for unsupportable claims which must rely on mysticism you might look closer to home. Right, let's not worry about complexity, for it happens "beyond our conception of anthropomorphic reality." Meanwhile, we all know that it is those Christians who are appealing to the unknown. Let's not worry about all those witnesses to the resurrection, they must have been paid off, er something.

[Family Man]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I'm not here to defend Lewis. But I do think people's moral judgement, and the premise in the problem of evil (i.e., that evil exists) illustrate one of the problems with atheism (weak or strong). You write: "If morality came from God, we'd all have the same sense of morality at all times and in all places."

Why is that? Could people's morals not become altered, even corrupted? The fact that some people think pornography is OK doesn't mean morality isn't from God.

I'm not talking about individuals, but societies in general. If slavery is in fact immoral, then we should have had a sense of it being immoral at all times and at all places. That obviously is not the case. It doesn't make sense for slavery to be condoned in certain societies, but condemned in others, if morality comes from God.

[Biff the unclean]

We know from science, and all of our empirical observations what a rare commodity complexity is.
How can a person live in this day and age and know so little about science as you do? Did you not go to high school? Do you not even watch cable TV?
Complexity is the norm not the exception. Which is exactly what you would expect in a world where everything evolved.
No matter how we configure our experiments, we can't build perpetual motion machines,
That's because there is no such thing as magic
create a bacterium,
We'll be able to do that soon
or show how echolocation could have arisen.
We've been able to do that for decades. At least visit a natural history museum, the kids will love it.

It is our everyday experience, and it is codified in scientific laws: things don't tend to fall together.
No, you are just ignorant. That need not remain a permanent condition. You can…and should…educate yourself.
But in spite of all this built up knowledge, we are to assume that the phenomenal complexity that we *do indeed* observe is a product of natural laws because, after all, the God hypothesis is a myth. And because it is a myth, folks like me must have nothing more to fall back on than mysticism.
Yes, I'm afraid that's true. Do you really think the universe came about as the result of a magic word? Can you possibly think that people are a pile of dust that was blown on by magic breath, or magic spare ribs? Surely you know this is nothing butmyth, primitive myth at that.

Sorry, if you're on the look out for unsupportable claims which must rely on mysticism you might look closer to home.
You can't make unsupported claims in science, it doesn't work that way. How is it that you don't know that?

Right, let's not worry about complexity, for it happens "beyond our conception of anthropomorphic reality."
Science does not have an anthropomorphic concept of reality. It does not think that a big magic GUY in the sky created everything.
You are the one who is anthropomorphizing. You think that because people make things and the world is a thing that some "Person" made the world...that's what anthropomorphizing means.

Meanwhile, we all know that it is those Christians who are appealing to the unknown. Let's not worry about all those witnesses to the resurrection, they must have been paid off, er something.
There were no witnesses to the magical resurrection. There is no evidence that there ever was a Jesus.
:banghead: :banghead:

[Family Man]

Let's not worry about all those witnesses to the resurrection, they must have been paid off, er something. [/B]

What, are you trying for the gullible poster of the year award? A number of people attested that they saw the golden plates that were the Book of Mormon. Should we bow to that uncorroborated "eyewitness" report and all become Mormons, or is the evaluation of the reliability of witnesses a little more complicated that than deciding whether they were "paid off or something"? :rolleyes:

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Family Man
I'm not talking about individuals, but societies in general. If slavery is in fact immoral, then we should have had a sense of it being immoral at all times and at all places. That obviously is not the case. It doesn't make sense for slavery to be condoned in certain societies, but condemned in others, if morality comes from God.

Well I wasn't, necessarily, talking about individuals either. There is nothing that says that perversion of morality can't happen across entire societies.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Family Man
What, are you trying for the gullible poster of the year award? A number of people attested that they saw the golden plates that were the Book of Mormon. Should we bow to that uncorroborated "eyewitness" report and all become Mormons, or is the evaluation of the reliability of witnesses a little more complicated that than deciding whether they were "paid off or something"? :rolleyes:

Of course, I agree one doesn't automatically buy any story just because there were some witnesses. But really, there very little comparison between the 2 cases, in terms of #, documentation, and incentive (or should I say disincentive in the case of the early Christians). I suppose the Old Testament Messianic prophecies don't count either.

[WinAce]

Commandment 11: Thou shalt take thy ridiculous assertions to the evo/cre forum, where thou shalt have thine ass handed to thee on a silver platter.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Of course, I agree one doesn't automatically buy any story just because there were some witnesses.
But they help
But really, there very little comparison between the 2 cases, in terms of #, documentation, and incentive (or should I say disincentive in the case of the early Christians).
There is NO evidence of Jesus. No witnesses. No one mentioned anything about him during his "life"
I suppose the Old Testament Messianic prophecies don't count either.
Nope, they don't count at all

[Family Man]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Well I wasn't, necessarily, talking about individuals either. There is nothing that says that perversion of morality can't happen across entire societies.

It's a little more complicated than societies being corrupted. Under your hypothesis, all societies would have started with the correct moral view, then become corrupted. But slavery was widely accepted in nearly all societies. I don't recall any biblical passages, even in the NT, where slavery was condemned. It wasn't until modern times did slavery become to be seen as immoral, which is quite the opposite of your hypothesis. It would appear that societies didn't get corrupted, but became uncorrupted! What, God couldn't tell people until the 18th century that slavery was wrong?

The God/morality hypothesis mights no sense given the reality of the world.

[Jah191]

If I remember some Old Testament passages correctly, you are allowed to take your enemies women as slaves or something to that effect. Man, the Old Testament reads like a script to an Ahnuld movie....

[Family Man]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Of course, I agree one doesn't automatically buy any story just because there were some witnesses. But really, there very little comparison between the 2 cases, in terms of #, documentation, and incentive (or should I say disincentive in the case of the early Christians). I suppose the Old Testament Messianic prophecies don't count either.

Actually, the big difference between the two is that the Mormon case is better documented, thus more easily refuted. We know who the participants were and what their motivations were. We have the benefit of accounts from non-Mormons.

Christian history (particularly the gospel stories) is much more obscure and difficult to evaluate. We only have the Christian view of things, and what has been passed to us has been passed by the winners of history. We don't know who the gospel writers were, but we do know that they had a agenda, which renders their writings suspect. Finally, historians never take supernatural claims at face value, for the very simple reason that they are impossible to verify.

As for the "disincentive", I remind you that Joseph Smith was killed in large part because of his beliefs, and his movement only survived by moving to a very isolated and unwanted valley in the middle of the Utah desert. History is, in fact, replete with people willing to die for honestly held, if mistaken beliefs. Besides Smith, there's Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate, the Albigensians, and millions of Germans and Japanese in WWII that bought into their leaders' vision. Throw in the fact that Christians persecutions were rather sporadic, and the "they wouldn't die for a lie" defense is very weak.

As for the messianic prophecies, it is well known that the gospel writers mined the OT for "prophecies" and wrote their stories accordingly. If you want more information of the critical view of this, I suggest you start a thread in BC&H. There are posters there that know considerably more about this than I do.

I see that you have sound-bite Christianity down pat. Unfortunately for you, we've heard it all here, and it doesn't hold up under critical review.

[WinAce]

In addition, many "Messianic Prophecies" were based on out-of-context OT verses, never meant as prophecies per se, that the authors used in an ANE practice known as "typology".

Nowadays, we call it retroactive shoehorning (http://skepdic.com/shoehorning.html), and it forms the basis for everything from cold reading to Nostradamus loonies.

Here's a webpage where I apply this ancient art to demonstrate Napoleon is predicted in the Bible. (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/napoleon_messiah.htm)

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Family Man
It's a little more complicated than societies being corrupted. Under your hypothesis, all societies would have started with the correct moral view, then become corrupted. But slavery was widely accepted in nearly all societies. I don't recall any biblical passages, even in the NT, where slavery was condemned. It wasn't until modern times did slavery become to be seen as immoral, which is quite the opposite of your hypothesis. It would appear that societies didn't get corrupted, but became uncorrupted! What, God couldn't tell people until the 18th century that slavery was wrong?

The God/morality hypothesis mights no sense given the reality of the world.

Good points; in my model we would have to believe that humanity is corrupt from the get go, such that societies, in fact, have no guarantee of getting it right. Your suggestion, that societies ought to begin by getting it right, really doesn't follow from my model.

[Family Man]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Good points; in my model we would have to believe that humanity is corrupt from the get go, such that societies, in fact, have no guarantee of getting it right. Your suggestion, that societies ought to begin by getting it right, really doesn't follow from my model.

In that case, you have no way of making your claim that morality comes from God. How would you know? Your hypothesis explains nothing we see in the real world.

However, a naturalistic view of morality would explain the variation in morality we see. Variation occurs because of the different environments and relative isolation that societies grew up in. A much more productive view of things.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Family Man
Finally, historians never take supernatural claims at face value, for the very simple reason that they are impossible to verify.


Sure, you're certainly right about historians not accepting supernatural claims at face value. As Bultmann explained, history cannot be rent with such events, for they lie outside of the historical continuum. Translation: We are gnostics and we don't want God in our world.



Originally posted by Family Man
As for the messianic prophecies, it is well known that the gospel writers mined the OT for "prophecies" and wrote their stories accordingly.

Well, if that's the case then you're right and I'm wrong. However, I can't help but get the feeling that your "critical" view is not entirely objective. For instance, how is it that it the motives of the gospel writers is "well known" when, according to you, we can know so little of those times.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Family Man
In that case, you have no way of making your claim that morality comes from God. How would you know? Your hypothesis explains nothing we see in the real world.

However, a naturalistic view of morality would explain the variation in morality we see. Variation occurs because of the different environments and relative isolation that societies grew up in. A much more productive view of things.

Woe, hang on just a minute there. You've shoe-horned me into the CS Lewis position. Remember, I said I'm *not* arguing his position. I said that there is evidence for an absolute standard, not in mores held across the world, but in the strong personal judgements people make -- they don't say "Hitler was evil; but that's just my opinion."

[Family Man]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Sure, you're certainly right about historians not accepting supernatural claims at face value. As Bultmann explained, history cannot be rent with such events, for they lie outside of the historical continuum. Translation: We are gnostics and we don't want God in our world.


The correct translation is that we can't use the normal means of evaluating evidence to decide whether there is a God. Since I don't trust the other means, I see no reason to believe that there is one. I have no problem with you believing as long as you don't use your belief to restrict my right not to believe -- as many Christians I've met would do in a heartbeat.



Well, if that's the case then you're right and I'm wrong. However, I can't help but get the feeling that your "critical" view is not entirely objective. For instance, how is it that it the motives of the gospel writers is "well known" when, according to you, we can know so little of those times.


To know little doesn't mean we know nothing, and since the prophecy fulfillment writings in the NT refer to writings in the OT it wasn't hard for scholars to compare the two and realize that the gospel writers were making prophecies out of things that weren't prophecies.

As for my objectivity, I have no problem with you questioning it. The answer is whether my arguments and facts hold up under critical scrutiny. I think that if you research the issues laid out here, you'll find out I've been objective.

[Family Man]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Woe, hang on just a minute there. You've shoe-horned me into the CS Lewis position. Remember, I said I'm *not* arguing his position. I said that there is evidence for an absolute standard, not in mores held across the world, but in the strong personal judgements people make -- they don't say "Hitler was evil; but that's just my opinion."

True, but where is the evidence that it comes from God? You've produced none, whereas a reality check strongly indicate that morality is a societal construct. In that case, an individual's opinion would be relatively weak compared to society's, as any prison inmate would tell you.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by WinAce
In addition, many "Messianic Prophecies" were based on out-of-context OT verses, never meant as prophecies per se, that the authors used in an ANE practice known as "typology".

Nowadays, we call it retroactive shoehorning (http://skepdic.com/shoehorning.html), and it forms the basis for everything from cold reading to Nostradamus loonies.

Here's a webpage where I apply this ancient art to demonstrate Napoleon is predicted in the Bible. (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/napoleon_messiah.htm)

I checked out your webpage satire of "Over 300 Fulfilled Messianic Prophecies." The problem, in my view, is that "Over 300 Fulfilled Messianic Prophecies" is not an appropriate apologetic; rather, many of those prophecies are best suited for edification of believers. So I would argue you are making a strawman out of that page (note: I'm unaware of what the authors intended, I'm merely pointing out the obvious)

For you to seriously address the prophecies, you ought to take some of the best ones (ones that are actually appropriate for apologetics) and explain why they are bogus. For example, there is Psalm 22, where David writes:

7 All those who see Me ridicule Me;
They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 "He trusted in the LORD, let Him rescue Him;
Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!"

9 But You are He who took Me out of the womb;
You made Me trust while on My mother's breasts.

…

14 I am poured out like water,
And all My bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax;
It has melted within Me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
And My tongue clings to My jaws;
You have brought Me to the dust of death.

16 For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet;
17 I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.
18 They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.

Of course, Jesus referenced this Psalm before dying on the cross.

[Charles Darwin]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Woe, hang on just a minute there. You've shoe-horned me into the CS Lewis position. Remember, I said I'm *not* arguing his position. I said that there is evidence for an absolute standard, not in mores held across the world, but in the strong personal judgements people make -- they don't say "Hitler was evil; but that's just my opinion."

Originally posted by Family Man
True, but where is the evidence that it comes from God? You've produced none, whereas a reality check strongly indicate that morality is a societal construct. In that case, an individual's opinion would be relatively weak compared to society's, as any prison inmate would tell you.

The evidence (not proof) that is comes from God is in the conviction of the grieved. The stronger the conviction, the stronger the evidence that the inner sense of morality is not merely a social construct. And let's face it, we can all attest to this inner feeling. We all know what it is like to cast a righteous judgement upon what we see as evil. There is no post-modern feeling of relativism in our heart -- we suddenly *know* right vs wrong.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Family Man
The correct translation is that we can't use the normal means of evaluating evidence to decide whether there is a God. Since I don't trust the other means, I see no reason to believe that there is one. I have no problem with you believing as long as you don't use your belief to restrict my right not to believe -- as many Christians I've met would do in a heartbeat.

Forgive me for being a bit skeptical here, but I've yet to meet such Christians. Can you elaborate? Were they advocating making atheism illegal or something? I'll admit there are fringe thinkers (in every movement of course), but you say many Christians are of this intent.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Family Man
To know little doesn't mean we know nothing, and since the prophecy fulfillment writings in the NT refer to writings in the OT it wasn't hard for scholars to compare the two and realize that the gospel writers were making prophecies out of things that weren't prophecies

Things that weren't prophecies ... Hmmm. I wonder how these scholars decided that Ps 22 doesn't qualify as a Messianic prophecy. Sorry, but it sounds like a convenient way of avoiding a rather obvious prophecy.

Look, if you don't want to believe, that's fine. But you're going far beyond that with your statements.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Family Man
Actually, the big difference between the two is that the Mormon case is better documented, thus more easily refuted. We know who the participants were and what their motivations were. We have the benefit of accounts from non-Mormons.

Actually the resurrection had several orders of magnitude more witnesses, and it created an huge movement practically overnight. There were literally tens of thousands of copies of the NT circulating at a time when those were big numbers. Opponents claimed things like : Jesus is of Satan, but they didn't generally, even in the non Christian literature where references to Him are scant, claim He did not work miracles.

As for the motives of early Christians, I'm not sure what the issue is. I think most people agree their motive was a sincere belief that Jesus is our Lord and Savior. They also advocated high moral living, including things like honesty.

What you are positing has got to be the most incredible conspiracy theory of all time. Somehow a hodge-podge group of disparate followers pulled of the biggest deception in history with a few cleverly written documents and managed to get themselves killed for it in the process.

[lpetrich]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
... My problem with your story here is that we live in a universe where amazing levels of complexity don't just happen. Things don't tend to fall together in this universe, so why should we believe that the most complex things of all did? Except that there are lots of counterexamples -- things often fall together in various orderly ways.

Look at crystal structure. Are there some little goblins who like to arrange the molecules into regular lattices?

[lpetrich]

Charles Darwin:
We know from science, and all of our empirical observations what a rare commodity complexity is.

That's demonstrably false, as I've pointed out earlier.

No matter how we configure our experiments, we can't build perpetual motion machines,

So what?

create a bacterium,

From its component elements? Actually, that's a very straightforward task, though an incredibly tedious one -- a similar task has recently been accomplished for a polio virus.

or show how echolocation could have arisen.

Easy. All you need is:

Hearing
The ability to make sounds
A brain that can make lots of inferences

So if hearing a loud echo of your chirp happens just before you hit a cave wall, then you learn to associate loud echoes with nearby walls. I've experienced similar learning with a pet cat my family once had. I had to keep her away from her food bowl when I filled it, because she would come rushing toward it when I opened a can of cat food.

It is our everyday experience, and it is codified in scientific laws: things don't tend to fall together.

Except that self-organization does happen.

But in spite of all this built up knowledge, we are to assume that the phenomenal complexity that we *do indeed* observe is a product of natural laws because, after all, the God hypothesis is a myth.

So what do you prefer: "Goddidit!"?

[lpetrich]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
...The evidence (not proof) that is comes from God is in the conviction of the grieved. The stronger the conviction, the stronger the evidence that the inner sense of morality is not merely a social construct. ...Except that this "inner feeling" tells different things to different people. For example, it tells strict Muslim fundamentalists that it is wrong for women to reveal any parts of their bodies in public.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
... My problem with your story here is that we live in a universe where amazing levels of complexity don't just happen. Things don't tend to fall together in this universe, so why should we believe that the most complex things of all did?

Originally posted by lpetrich
Except that there are lots of counterexamples -- things often fall together in various orderly ways.

Look at crystal structure. Are there some little goblins who like to arrange the molecules into regular lattices?

Of course, there are g-zillions of examples of miniscule complexity. Look at every snowflake! So since snowflakes spontaneously arise, therefore the DNA code can too? [Hint: the answer isn't yes].

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by lpetrich
Charles Darwin:
We know from science, and all of our empirical observations what a rare commodity complexity is.

That's demonstrably false, as I've pointed out earlier.


But of course, as you well know, I wasn't talking about miniscule amounts of complexity. If I say there are only a few mountains in the world don't show me the anthill in your backyard to prove me wrong.







create a bacterium,


From its component elements? Actually, that's a very straightforward task, though an incredibly tedious one -- a similar task has recently been accomplished for a polio virus.


:banghead: Again, as I'm sure you must have understood, I meant in origin of life experiments, not genetic engineering experiments.



or show how echolocation could have arisen.


Easy. All you need is:

Hearing
The ability to make sounds
A brain that can make lots of inferences

So if hearing a loud echo of your chirp happens just before you hit a cave wall, then you learn to associate loud echoes with nearby walls. I've experienced similar learning with a pet cat my family once had. I had to keep her away from her food bowl when I filled it, because she would come rushing toward it when I opened a can of cat food.


This is not science, this is dreaming. Do you know much about echolocation? Certain bats map out objects around it as small as a mosquito by sensing the echoes of its own squeaks -- a system known as echolocation. To begin with, the bat emits a high-pitch squeak up to 2,000 times per second. Next it determines both range and direction to the tiny mosquito by sensing the echo while filtering out echoes from the squeaks of nearby bats.

Anyone familiar with today’s sonar or radar systems knows the immense complexity involved with such systems: the problems of sensing the echo in the presence of the transmitted signal which can be billions of times stronger, of filtering out spurious signals such as echoes of older transmissions, of combining the echo information with knowledge of your own motion, and so forth. Yet the bat’s detection abilities are superior to those of the best electronic sonar equipment. To think that things like this just happen to occur via a series of mutations is not scientific thinking.






But in spite of all this built up knowledge, we are to assume that the phenomenal complexity that we *do indeed* observe is a product of natural laws because, after all, the God hypothesis is a myth.


So what do you prefer: "Goddidit!"?

Oh, of course not. Better to believe that things arise on their own.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
...The evidence (not proof) that is comes from God is in the conviction of the grieved. The stronger the conviction, the stronger the evidence that the inner sense of morality is not merely a social construct. ...


Originally posted by lpetrich
Except that this "inner feeling" tells different things to different people. For example, it tells strict Muslim fundamentalists that it is wrong for women to reveal any parts of their bodies in public.

Interesting point. But I would argue that your example does not come from what I am talking about. I am talking about that gut feel you get on the spur of the moment when you see, or hear about, some great injustice.

The Muslim rules for women, it seems to me, is indeed a social construct rather than a personal judgement. Nonetheless, I would agree with you if you say that those social constructs can be very deeply held.

[WinAce]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I checked out your webpage satire of "Over 300 Fulfilled Messianic Prophecies." The problem, in my view, is that "Over 300 Fulfilled Messianic Prophecies" is not an appropriate apologetic; rather, many of those prophecies are best suited for edification of believers. So I would argue you are making a strawman out of that page (note: I'm unaware of what the authors intended, I'm merely pointing out the obvious)

You might not consider such a "prophecy gallop" an "appropriate apologetic", but you'd be surprised how many believers do. That's actually an argument they often use--"look at all these verses that somehow remind you of something Jesus went thru, that couldn't have just happened by chance". :banghead:

For you to seriously address the prophecies, you ought to take some of the best ones (ones that are actually appropriate for apologetics) and explain why they are bogus.

If you'll look at my webpage, I did a point-by-point analysis of Isaiah 53, one of Christianity's so-called "flagship" prophecies.

Isaiah 53: the one prophecy that leaves little doubt of the Messiah's identity. Very long and detailed, and yet the parallels between it and Napoleon's life are strikingly uncanny: '2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him'. As noted above, Napoleon's family wasn't particularly rich or famous. That the Emperor of France would be culled from such an unlikely background is a fairly unusual prediction to make, considering the much greater nobility of most French rulers. '3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not'. The people of Spain, instead of welcoming Napoleon, bitterly fought against French troops instead, while Pope Pius VII excommunicated him. [12]. Thomas Jefferson, despite the very profitable Louisiana Purchase earlier, referred to him as "the Attila of this age" and a "ruthless destroyer of ten millions of the human race" [13]. The French Senate voted to depose Napoleon, resulting in his shocked disbelief [14]. '4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed'. At the end of Napoleon's rule, the Allied powers made it clear they were after him personally, not the French people. Napoleon himself agreed to sacrifice his life for the nation of France if need be. [15]. '7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth'. This stunning prediction of the silent film Napoleon [16] was made many centuries before cinematography was even invented! '12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors'.Napoleon Bonaparte remains one of the greatest, most intriguing military generals and rulers in all of recorded history.

I have very little doubt I couldn't do the same with Psalm 22 and others. The only reason I did not reinterpret them thus originally is because I thought my article was sufficient to demonstrate a point, but I may no revisit it in the future.

By the way, where does Psalm 22 specify it's a prediction of the future? As far as I can tell, all indications are that it's an ancient Hebrew song.

Even if it a medieval poem would be found to mirror events in President Bush's life, how exactly would that demonstrate it was written with that purpose in mind? If it didn't mention anything about the future, as Psalm 22 doesn't, how could one justify interpreting it that way?

7 All those who see Me ridicule Me;
They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 "He trusted in the LORD, let Him rescue Him;
Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!"

This, superficially, appears a parallel to these verses:

Matthew 27:41-43
In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'"

However, this is found exclusively in Matthew, famous for stretching OT verses to create fulfilled prophecies. Mark was an earlier witness and omits the quote from Psalm 22. Luke was about contemporary, and does the same. John wrote much later, but still didn't mention it.

Mark 15:31-32
In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! Let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe."

Luke 23:35
The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, "He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One."

That doesn't make the recorded "fulfillment" very impressive.

9 But You are He who took Me out of the womb;
You made Me trust while on My mother's breasts.

Your standard ancient Hebrew psalm. I don't see how this could be applicable to one man in lieu of thousands of others. It's also something David or another downtrodden author could be expected to pen without any supernatural element involved.

14 I am poured out like water,
And all My bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax;
It has melted within Me.

Ditto. Lots of vivid imagery.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
And My tongue clings to My jaws;
You have brought Me to the dust of death.

Same here.

16 For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet;

There are considerable problems with this rendering of the verse. See this (http://2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/prophecy.shtml#PSALM22) website. It may be referring to animal bites, for one, which is supported by the imagery of dogs and lions elsewhere in the Psalm and which would make far more sense for David to write about. "Some commentators speculate that this verse is a reference to demonic creatures of pagan mythology who brought disease to men, such as the Seven Udugs of Sumerian literature (probably the same myth that is reflected in Psalm 91:5-6). This explanation is bolstered by the fact that verses 14 and 15 obviously refer to a fever."

Most Hebrew manuscripts translate it as "like a lion" instead of "pierced". Additionally, none of the evangelists quoted this verse as fulfilled by Jesus, despite showing detailed knowledge of Psalm 22 and quoting other verses, such as those in Zechariah, that alluded to a side being pierced. This may indicate the version of Ps.22 they were familiar with did not contain the modern rendering.

As a further note, crucifixion does not involve piercing the "hands and feet", but rather the wrists and ankles, so it's a moot point anyway. At most, this rivals Nostradamus' supposed "prophecy" about King Henry II of France:

"The young lion shall overcome the old
On the field of battle in single combat,
In a cage of gold he shall pierce his eyes
Two knells, (then) one, then a cruel death."

That, despite its superficial similarity to the real event, didn't actually predict anything correctly (http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/PaNostradamus70.htm).

17 I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.

Whatever.

18 They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.

This was a common practice when dealing with a man considered as good as dead, whether a criminal or war prisoner. Since Psalm 22 is most likely an account by David of his escape from Saul, it isn't necessarily a prophecy of anything, but rather a mention of contemporary events.

Of course, Jesus referenced this Psalm before dying on the cross.

Actually, he used a generic phrase of astonishment that anyone could use: "God, why have you forsaken me?"

And that's if you believe the gospel writers were honest reporters as opposed to idealogically-motivated cultists. Given how humans can misinterpret what they hear right away or misremember it years later, what makes you think these were the exact words Jesus said? For all you know, he might have yelled "Dammit, God, some help please".

Finally, you appear to be omitting the parts of Psalm 22 that don't exactly fit Jesus' life.

2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.

Jesus didn't cry out at night, because he was already dead by then--at least, if we're to believe Mark's story of Joseph of Arimathea requesting his body "as evening approached".

12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

This, as far as I can tell, is some generic "look at the deep s--- I'm in" proclamation using the poetic context of being surrounded by a herd of angry cattle. Bashan was a district northeast of the Sea of Galilee famous for its well-fed and fat cows.

Nevertheless, no gospel writer mentions bulls at the crucifixion. A number of figurative interpretations has been put forth, saying the phrase meant everything from the Romans to the Sanhedrin, but this only makes the "prophecy" drastically weaker by upping the number of possible interpretations.

As a digression, a good "prophecy" is specific enough that you can tell what it's predicting in advance of the event. The picture one gets from a plain reading of Psalm 22 alone is quite different than the one you get from the gospels alone.

17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.

The reference to obviously visible bones appears to be describing a starving man. This makes perfect sense for David, who was fleeing from King Saul, but much less for Jesus.

Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.

Jesus wasn't killed by a sword. The alleged centurion who offed him used a spear. However, this makes perfect sense if applied to King David.

21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

No lions or wild oxen either. However, the continued references to animals supports the "like a lion" translation of verse 16 in lieu of "pierced my hands and feet".

I could name more, but that should be about it for now.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Forgive me for being a bit skeptical here, but I've yet to meet such Christians. Can you elaborate? Were they advocating making atheism illegal or something? I'll admit there are fringe thinkers (in every movement of course), but you say many Christians are of this intent.

You haven't met them? HA! That's pure BS...or to be more exact, pure BSA

[Family Man]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
[B]Actually the resurrection had several orders of magnitude more witnesses, and it created an huge movement practically overnight.


First, all of those "witnesses" are anonymous, with the exception of a few apostles like Peter of whom very little is known. Hence, these "witnesses" are worthless in terms of making an evaluation.

Second, there wasn't a "huge movement practically overnight." Christianity was a small, benighted sect albeit an annoying one (hence the persecution) until it had the good fortune to convert the Roman royal family. If that hadn't happened, Christianity would be known only to scholars who study obscure Roman sects.


There were literally tens of thousands of copies of the NT circulating at a time when those were big numbers.


Which tells us nothing about the truth of the claims.


Opponents claimed things like : Jesus is of Satan, but they didn't generally, even in the non Christian literature where references to Him are scant, claim He did not work miracles.


They wouldn't. Miracle workers were a dime a dozen at the time.


As for the motives of early Christians, I'm not sure what the issue is. I think most people agree their motive was a sincere belief that Jesus is our Lord and Savior. They also advocated high moral living, including things like honesty.


I'm not saying that their beliefs weren't sincere. But like many people, they had a clear problem with the honesty thing. You are aware, are you not, that the birth narratives are widely considered to be complete fabrications. And then there was the blackout, the earthquakes, and the dead rising from the grave and walking during the resurrection around that clearly didn't happen. Like many people, the gospel writers couldn't resist a few exaggerations and outright fibs.


What you are positing has got to be the most incredible conspiracy theory of all time Somehow a hodge-podge group of disparate followers pulled of the biggest deception in history with a few cleverly written documents and managed to get themselves killed for it in the process.


I'm not positing a conspiracy theory at all. People come to sincere, if incorrect beliefs all the time. I'll thank you not to misrepresent my position in the future. I guess you can't resist a little fib yourself.

And people stupidly get themselves killed for silly beliefs all the time. I listed some earlier. Why do only Christian deaths count?

[Family Man]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Things that weren't prophecies ... Hmmm. I wonder how these scholars decided that Ps 22 doesn't qualify as a Messianic prophecy. Sorry, but it sounds like a convenient way of avoiding a rather obvious prophecy.

Look, if you don't want to believe, that's fine. But you're going far beyond that with your statements.

You're going to have to be more specific than that if you want a response. But if you have a question about it, I suggest that you start a thread about it in BC&H. I'm sure that the resident experts (and we have some very knowledgable ones) will be able to explain to you exactly how it isn't a messianic prophecy.

Editted to add: I see WinAce has already done this for us. To summarize, vaguely worded poem that happens to include pierced hands and feet hardly makes a reliable prediction of the future.

And actually, the hand and feet thing is wrong. When nailed (ropes were the usual method), the body was pierced through the ankles and wrists because the hands and feet wouldn't be strong enough to hold the victim's weight. If I'm not mistaken, the popular image of Jesus's wounds being on the hands and feet is a direct result of Christian misinterpretation of Psalm 22 as being a prophecy when it isn't.

[lpetrich]

Charles Darwin:
But of course, as you well know, I wasn't talking about miniscule amounts of complexity. If I say there are only a few mountains in the world don't show me the anthill in your backyard to prove me wrong.

Except that self-organization is all around us. Look at a riverbed. Did some trolls dig it? Look at some snowflakes. Were they assembled by little fairies? Look at some mud cracks. Were they created by goblins carving up the drying mud? Look at condensation out of solution. Are there some elves who sculpt the resulting solid material?

create a bacterium,

... Again, as I'm sure you must have understood, I meant in origin of life experiments, not genetic engineering experiments.

I think you mean assembling one from scratch using an original design. That, I will concede, is much more difficult. But I don't think it's impossible.


or show how echolocation could have arisen.

(on the complexities of some echolocation systems...)

Rome wasn't built in a day. And the same is true for every other big city.

Evolution does NOT work by "poofing" stuff into existence in its full final form. Evolution works by modifying existing things.

And one gets a complicated high-performance echolocation system by modifying an existing simpler one, such as one suitable for avoiding bumping into the walls of caves.

[Family Man]

The evidence (not proof) that is comes from God is in the conviction of the grieved. The stronger the conviction, the stronger the evidence that the inner sense of morality is not merely a social construct.


Now there's an unsupported assertion if I've ever seen one, considering you've yet to provide a single piece of evidence in support of your god/morality hypothesis (hint: someone's "inner feeling", especially if taught that they are supposed to have some "inner feeling", is evidence of someone's "inner feeling" and nothing else.)


And let's face it, we can all attest to this inner feeling. We all know what it is like to cast a righteous judgement upon what we see as evil. There is no post-modern feeling of relativism in our heart -- we suddenly *know* right vs wrong.


Yes, we can. It comes from being socialized from birth into society and perhaps bred into us from evolution. There's no evidence at all it comes from God.

And are you saying that there are no morally ambiguous situations? That in all situations you can instantly tell right from wrong with great certainty? Wow, that must be some talent.

Finally, let me demonstrate the society-specific nature of moral beliefs. In late 80's I lived and taught English in Korea. One of the things that my students "inner voices" seemed to be unanimous about was that our society was immoral because our parents didn't come to live with the eldest male child upon reaching retirement age. Even worse, we sent them to nursing homes. (Some were under the impression that we go directly from our retirement party to the retirement home.) Not surprisingly, my "inner voice" said there was nothing immoral about this at all.

So, if our inner voices come from God, why is it that the messages are so society-specific?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Family Man
Yes, we can. It comes from being socialized from birth into society and perhaps bred into us from evolution. There's no evidence at all it comes from God.

And are you saying that there are no morally ambiguous situations? That in all situations you can instantly tell right from wrong with great certainty? Wow, that must be some talent.

Well, now I will be the one to "thank you not to misrepresent my position in the future." I don't know how you got "no morally ambiguous situations" from what I said.


Originally posted by Family Man
Yes, we can. It comes from being socialized from birth into society and perhaps bred into us from evolution. There's no evidence at all it comes from God.

And are you saying that there are no morally ambiguous situations? That in all situations you can instantly tell right from wrong with great certainty? Wow, that must be some talent.

Finally, let me demonstrate the society-specific nature of moral beliefs. In late 80's I lived and taught English in Korea. One of the things that my students "inner voices" seemed to be unanimous about was that our society was immoral because our parents didn't come to live with the eldest male child upon reaching retirement age. Even worse, we sent them to nursing homes. (Some were under the impression that we go directly from our retirement party to the retirement home.) Not surprisingly, my "inner voice" said there was nothing immoral about this at all.

So, if our inner voices come from God, why is it that the messages are so society-specific?

So your explanation entails evolution. Good luck. Regarding the Koreans, I think they may have had a point, but of course they were judging at a distance and making generalizations. I suspect we would all agree, you, me, and the Koreans, that there are cases where nursing homes can work well given the situation andn how it is handled; and that they can be not so good too. You mention that they had impressions which were not necessarily too accurate. So, yes, they had some wrong judgements.

You point out above that there are indeed morally ambiguous situations. I would add that morality is a highly complex thing, with lots of room for creativity and multiple "good" and "bad" solutions to most situations. So I'm not exactly shocked that there are society-specific mores.

None of this nullifiies my point that our intuitive, spur of the moment convictions of right and wrong seem to be real. Sure, you can explain them using evolution. And I could poke holes in that explanation. First, and foremost, that evolution is a stretch, and that is putting it kindly. Second, that with evolution one would hardly expect self-sacrifice to pop out as an end product. And then you could answer with a just-so story about how evolution (if indeed it really did happen) could have produced this.

[wade-w]

[mod hat on]

Charles Darwin:

Discussions of evolution are off topic for this forum. If you wish to debate the subject, you should try the E/C forum. Many other posters have pointed this out to you, and you have ignored it; consider this an official notification.

lpetrich:

Let's give CD a chance to take it to the proper forum.
[mod hat off]

The sense of right vs wrong you refer to can be explained by cultural indoctrination alone. There is no need to appeal to anything else.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by WinAce
You might not consider such a "prophecy gallop" an "appropriate apologetic", but you'd be surprised how many believers do. That's actually an argument they often use--"look at all these verses that somehow remind you of something Jesus went thru, that couldn't have just happened by chance".



Great post, I appreciate it. I got a kick out of your Napoleanic interpretations. But I do think they are more entertaining than relevant. For instance, on Is 53:4-5 you quote and comment:

*******
'4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed'.

At the end of Napoleon's rule, the Allied powers made it clear they were after him personally, not the French people. Napoleon himself agreed to sacrifice his life for the nation of France if need be.
********

But this misses the crucial point that the subject was crushed for *our* iniquities, not *his*. Or again, you write:

********
'7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth'.

This stunning prediction of the silent film Napoleon was made many centuries before cinematography was even invented!
********

But of course the silent movie did not convey that he was actually silent, nor did anyone watching it come away with this message. Everyone understood that the lack of sound was a technological limitation, not that he was silent. More to the point, this verse, again crucial, tells the reader of the Messiah's humility and submission (to God's will). Something exquisitely modeled by Jesus, not Napoleon.

I'm reminded how evolutionists complain (often correctly) that their critics are not understanding the theory correctly, and therefore are constructing strawman renditions of the theory.

You write: "I have very little doubt I couldn't do the same with Psalm 22 and others." Oh, I absolutely agree. I also have very little doubt that it would have about the same relevance.

Your Napoleanic interpretations also miss the bigger context that the Messiah would be Jewish, not to mention that He would, according the Daniel's timetable, arrive around the 1st century.

So while, yes, you can go through verse by verse, and fit the messages to your Napoleanic interpretations. Your interpretations entirely miss what the genre is all about, and what the real, and obvious, message is that is being conveyed.

To be sure, I'm not saying that these prophecies are going to convince someone who doesn't want to believe. But I do believe that by any half-way objective account they have significant evidential value.

About Ps. 22. Prophecies often do not explicitely state that they are prophecies of the future. Obviously, Jesus's referencing it tells us it was a prophecy. It is quite a stretch to say that Jesus's words were generic (not referencing the Psalm) given the content of the psalm. What a coincidence. The fact that the evangelists don't harp on that point proves very little (either they hadn't figured it out, weren't particularly interested conveying the connection, thought it was obvious and not worth mentioning, etc. – more on this below).

Indeed, you note that Ps 22:7-8 superficially appears to parallel Mt 27:41-3, and that the other accounts give only a little mention of the ridiculing. Now I feel like can't win for losing. What if the correspondence was stronger, and appeared in all the gospels. Then you'd say that shows they were just contriving the story all together, and repeating it for effect. This falls into the category of: "If you don't want to believe, then the prophecies aren't going to help any." But this doesn't mean they aren't legit. evidence.

You pooh-pooh some of the physical descriptions (My bones are out of joint, My tongue clings to My jaws) but this imagery describe the terrible torture of crucifixion. Why would David say "My bones are out of joint"?

As for parts of Psalm 22 that don't exactly fit Jesus' life, yes, but this is par for the course in that genre. Psalms change tenses on a dime, and are always moving in and out of different views. I agree this makes interpreting prophecies more difficult, but c'mon, this isn't exactly rocket science.

Read Ps 22. If you don't think there is at least legit evidence there, then I say you don't want to believe, so badly that you won't even admit the other side has a case. OTOH, I do think you (implicitely) raise the legit questions of specificity, accuracy, precision, etc. Unfortunately, this is not the sort of thing that lends itself to any sort of quantitative analysis, and if one tried I'm sure the up front assumptions would be crucial and make all the difference. In any case, it seems to me that these prophecies are sufficiently clear and obvious to have very real evidential value.

You write that "a good 'prophecy' is specific enough that you can tell what it's predicting in advance of the event. The picture one gets from a plain reading of Psalm 22 alone is quite different than the one you get from the gospels alone." Actually I disagree, for instance, then you could say the evangelists were contriving the story to fit the prophecy, or even that Jesus was fitting his circumstances to the prophecy. Indeed, it has been argued that a good prophecy, and certainly a profound prophecy, is one which is sufficiently vague so as to be not entirely clear prior to the event, but then to be unmistakably clear after the fact.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by wade-w
The sense of right vs wrong you refer to can be explained by cultural indoctrination alone. There is no need to appeal to anything else.

Actually, that is not obvious. IOW, your contention entails the assumption that all personal judgements upon others can be explained by cultural indoctrination alone. But that is begging the question. I'm contending that this is not always true. That there are certain gut-feel, "I *know* that is evil" type feelings that we get which transcend cultural indoctrination.

Now I grant you I cannot prove this using formal logic. It is a subjective claim, depending entirely on your introspection and meditation on what your thought processes when you're having a "that's evil!" moment. You are free to disagree with me, but I don't see how you can defend your statement above.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Family Man
I'm not saying that their beliefs weren't sincere. But like many people, they had a clear problem with the honesty thing. You are aware, are you not, that the birth narratives are widely considered to be complete fabrications. And then there was the blackout, the earthquakes, and the dead rising from the grave and walking during the resurrection around that clearly didn't happen. Like many people, the gospel writers couldn't resist a few exaggerations and outright fibs.

No, I'm not aware of the birth narratives being complete fabrications. Now what's this about "earthquakes, and the dead rising from the grave and walking during the resurrection around that clearly didn't happen." I'm not quite following. Why didn't these happen?

[lpetrich]

(deleted at the request of the mods, as stated above)

[lpetrich]

Charles Darwin:
No, I'm not aware of the birth narratives being complete fabrications.

There is good reason to believe that to be the case; consider how the Matthew and Luke genealogies contradict each other and how their birth narratives do not quite fit. Why do Mark, Luke, and John omit something as spectacular as Matthew's mention of Herod's massacre of baby boys?

It may be better to discuss this question in Biblical Criticism & History.

Now what's this about "earthquakes, and the dead rising from the grave and walking during the resurrection around that clearly didn't happen." I'm not quite following. Why didn't these happen?

Read the Gospel of Matthew; some of this had allegedly happened during JC's crucifixion.

And what was this mysterious 3-hour sky darkness that nobody else in the world had seen? Thallus had allegedly recorded it, but Pliny and Philo and Josephus and other historians made no mention of it.

[Family Man]

I don't have time to post anything substansive at the moment. However, this thread has gone beyond a General Religious Discussion. In fact, CD and I have been having two unrelated discussions: one on the nature of the Bible, which belongs in BC&H, and the second on the nature of morality, which belongs in the morality forum. CD also seems to question evolution, but that is an intrinsic part of our morality disagreement. He can always start his own thread in E/C, where I'm sure the experts there can disabuse him of the notion that evolution is false. If any mod would like to split the threads into their appropriate forum. Otherwise, with CD's permission, I'd like to continue our discussion in the appropriate forums by starting new threads there. In that way, we can benefit by the contributions of experts that don't normally contribute in GRD.

[Biff the unclean]

No, I'm not aware of the birth narratives being complete fabrications.
Oddly enough the birth narrative of Jesus is exactly what was predicted by the Mithrains for the second coming of the demigod Mithra. Virgin birth, angels in attendance, shepherds watching (just like Mithra's first coming. He was known as "The Good Shepherd") and of course Magi. Magi being priests of Mithra and Zoroaster. They used astrology to predict when their Savior god would return to life on Earth. It is interesting that the author of the birth narrative makes the Mithrains the heroes who save Jesus and the Jews to be arch villains. The king of the Jews even puts all the little male babies to death.
This baby killing, of course, never happened. You can trace this myth back through Moses all the way to the Verdic gods.

Now what's this about "earthquakes, and the dead rising from the grave and walking during the resurrection around that clearly didn't happen." I'm not quite following. Why didn't these happen?
Why didn't they happen? Because they are each notable events and no one noted them.
A major earthquake happened and not a single soul noticed? They noticed every other time it happened.
The sun went dark for three hours and no one noticed? It could not have been an eclipse, they only last a few minutes and only happen when the moon is new. Passover only happens when the moon is full.
The streets filled with zombies, without anyone even recording it?
And you ask why this didn't happen!!!!! Why couldn't there be a bunch of rotting corpses wandering around the shops in downtown Jerusalem? Gee I don't know, can you think of any reason this wouldn't happen ?
:banghead:

[DMB]

I too have several times invited CD in this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59492&perpage=25&pagenumber=1)to post in the appropriate fora and he has so far resisted.

[DMB]

CD: I notice that you use echolocation as the example of something that couldn't have come about through Natural Selection.

Creationists always used to use the eye as such an example until that was shot down too many times. Why is echolocation a more difficult example than the eye?

CD:
Anyone familiar with today’s sonar or radar systems knows the immense complexity involved with such systems: the problems of sensing the echo in the presence of the transmitted signal which can be billions of times stronger, of filtering out spurious signals such as echoes of older transmissions, of combining the echo information with knowledge of your own motion, and so forth. Yet the bat’s detection abilities are superior to those of the best electronic sonar equipment. To think that things like this just happen to occur via a series of mutations is not scientific thinking.
One difference is that the bat's system took a long time to evolve. How long have we had sonar or radar?

Please post this stuff in E/C. They will love it there.

[sakrilege]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I got a kick out of your Napoleanic interpretations. But I do think they are more entertaining than relevant. Don't forget, it was one person doing stuff within a week's time. Xians have had many people over 2000 years develop the stories.

[Biff the unclean]

Anyway Rhea, picture logic as tortured as that of CD. Combine that with leaden prose. Add there being no way for you to talk back to the author and there you have "Mere Christianity."

Enjoy
;)

[Family Man]

This thread has become hopelessly muddled, with at least three different topics, none of which belong to GRD or having anything to do with Mere Christianity. I've started new threads to continue the discussion at:

Psalm 22 and Messianic Prophecies (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1120380#post1120380)

Biblical Fabrications (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60161)

CD's God Hypothesis (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60158)

CD, since you concede that evolution can explain a lot about morality, I didn't continue that thought. As for your claim that you can "poke holes" in evolutionary theory, LOL. I've seen a lot of people come here and make that claim; I've seen none that actually accomplishes it. Why you think I should be concerned with the claim of the theist with an axe to grind over the consensus of virtually the entire scientific community, I have no idea. But go on to E/C and poke those holes. I think you'll soon realize you're poking holes in your own bag, and that it doesn't hold water.

For the rest of you, I hope you'll use the new threads to continue the discussion.

[lpetrich]

Here, Charles Darwin, is a thread just for you (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60065); it is in the Evolution/Creation forum, where it is on-topic.

[PopeInTheWoods]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Of course, there are g-zillions of examples of miniscule complexity. Look at every snowflake! So since snowflakes spontaneously arise, therefore the DNA code can too? [Hint: the answer isn't yes].
If by "spontaneously" you mean, "over a billion years given certain starting conditions (available chemicals, energy sources, and catalysts) and through gradual but known intermediate steps (off the top of my head, including organic compounds, peptides, simple RNA) that just happen to be good at duplicating themselves," then actually the answer is yes. No one is suggesting that a tornado in a junkyard can assemble a 747, or even a Yugo.

But we're now way off-topic, and I suggest a good read through the Evo/Creo forum.

Andy

[Rhea]

Thanks for the responses on Mere Christianity, everyone. it helps to have an overview in deciding whether to spend time readinging it for the purpose of answering the christian comments.

CD, thanks for the demonstration of the kind of logic that makes Mere Christianity believable and even adored by some.

going off now to read the links...

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by lpetrich
Charles Darwin:

Now what's this about "earthquakes, and the dead rising from the grave and walking during the resurrection around that clearly didn't happen." I'm not quite following. Why didn't these happen?

Read the Gospel of Matthew; some of this had allegedly happened during JC's crucifixion.

And what was this mysterious 3-hour sky darkness that nobody else in the world had seen? Thallus had allegedly recorded it, but Pliny and Philo and Josephus and other historians made no mention of it.

Well I'm sure you've seen the sky grow quite dark due to heavy clouds during the daytime. Sometimes it can be quite ominous, though in fact it is nothing very unusual. I understand you may doubt the veracity of this report; what I don't understand is the claim that is "clearly didn't happen." Likewise for the earthquake.

Generally, there are two problems here. One, as I'm stating above, is the hyper criticism of rather normal reports. Two, is the question-begging assumption that God could not have controlled the events. Reminds me of the argument that the virgin birth is "unscientific." Please, the virgin birth is predicated on the idea that God was behind it. If God can create the universe, surely he can arrange for a virgin to get pregnant.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Family Man
I don't have time to post anything substansive at the moment. However, this thread has gone beyond a General Religious Discussion. In fact, CD and I have been having two unrelated discussions: one on the nature of the Bible, which belongs in BC&H, and the second on the nature of morality, which belongs in the morality forum. CD also seems to question evolution, but that is an intrinsic part of our morality disagreement. He can always start his own thread in E/C, where I'm sure the experts there can disabuse him of the notion that evolution is false. If any mod would like to split the threads into their appropriate forum. Otherwise, with CD's permission, I'd like to continue our discussion in the appropriate forums by starting new threads there. In that way, we can benefit by the contributions of experts that don't normally contribute in GRD.

Good points. However, a subtle but important point: I'm not claiming evolution is false -- just extremely unlikely.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by DMB
CD: I notice that you use echolocation as the example of something that couldn't have come about through Natural Selection.

Creationists always used to use the eye as such an example until that was shot down too many times. Why is echolocation a more difficult example than the eye?


One difference is that the bat's system took a long time to evolve. How long have we had sonar or radar?

Please post this stuff in E/C. They will love it there.

Well DMB, you put me in a difficult spot. On the one hand, you tell me this isn't the appropriate place for evolution talk, on the other hand you keep on talking about it.

[Secular Pinoy]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
However, a subtle but important point: I'm not claiming evolution is false -- just extremely unlikely. So sublte, it's actually a distinction with little difference. Care to post your reasons for saying that evolution is unlikely, whatever that means, in our Evolution/Creation Forum (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=66)?

[DMB]

CD: Glad to see you're back. I thought you had decamped for all time.
Well DMB, you put me in a difficult spot. On the one hand, you tell me this isn't the appropriate place for evolution talk, on the other hand you keep on talking about it.
I, like others, have been inviting you to post your ideas about evolution in the E/C forum. I merely responded to a post of yours, but it would be much more appropriate for you to take your ideas about evolution there.

[Family Man]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Good points. However, a subtle but important point: I'm not claiming evolution is false -- just extremely unlikely.

There is hardly a significant difference between saying evolution is false and saying it is extremely unlikely.:rolleyes:

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Well I'm sure you've seen the sky grow quite dark due to heavy clouds during the daytime. Sometimes it can be quite ominous, though in fact it is nothing very unusual. I understand you may doubt the veracity of this report; what I don't understand is the claim that is "clearly didn't happen." Likewise for the earthquake.

You left out the zombies.
Odd Xians always seem to forget those zombies whenever this bible fairytale comes up.

Or is it covered by god doing magic again?

[lpetrich]

"Charles Darwin"

Well I'm sure you've seen the sky grow quite dark due to heavy clouds during the daytime. Sometimes it can be quite ominous, though in fact it is nothing very unusual. I understand you may doubt the veracity of this report; what I don't understand is the claim that is "clearly didn't happen." Likewise for the earthquake.

CD, are you claiming that there is nothing really special about either event? That they are nothing to write home about? That they are events to yawn over?

If so, then they don't qualify as miraculous.

Generally, there are two problems here. One, as I'm stating above, is the hyper criticism of rather normal reports.

You yourself seem to be claiming here that those events are not really miracles.

And do you believe accounts of miracles of other religions?

Do you believe that pagan statues would moan and bleed and do other things that Catholic statues have been described as doing? Yes, reputable historians had described reports of such things, though some were rather skeptical.

Two, is the question-begging assumption that God could not have controlled the events.

Which begs the question of distinguishing "goddidit" from "non-goddidit".

Reminds me of the argument that the virgin birth is "unscientific." Please, the virgin birth is predicated on the idea that God was behind it. If God can create the universe, surely he can arrange for a virgin to get pregnant.

Thus, "goddidit" can explain ANYTHING.

But I do have to wonder what CD believes about pagan stories of divine impregnations. Zeus was not called "Father Zeus" for nothing.

Does CD believe that Rome was founded by the son of a god and a virgin?

Does he believe that Alexander the Great's biological father was really Zeus? That Pythagoras's biological father and Plato's biological father were really Apollo?

[luvluv]

I happen to believe that the best argument for the objectivity of morality, or at least the best argument for the refutation of cultural relativism, is the notion of moral progress.

Simply put, if morality is culturaly relative, then the notion of moral progress is incoherent. Morals, in that view, can certainly change but the one thing they cannot do is progress , since the term progression in this context generally connotates a progression for the better. But of course, if cultural relativism is true, then there is no better.

So you see Family Man, if you are right and all morals are culturally relative, it hardly makes any difference that the Bible doesn't condemn slavery since slavery isn't actually wrong. It is simply out of date, or out of place... in other words out of fashion.

(But retro is all the rage these days, so who knows?)

But the important thing to remember is that all societies have this concept of moral progress, and it has ocassionally been transmitted across cultures. The value of democracy, for example, has been transmitted across many cultures, and most cultures into which democracy is introduced recognize it as a legitimate step forward from monarchy or dictatorship.

Moreover, the Christian theology of the fall of man makes absolutely perfect sense of the moral situation in which we find ourselves, in which there is rampant and substantial disagreement on morals but where we all have a notion of a "true" morality and of the real possibility of moral progress. I further wish to state that the Christian notion of the fall does not at all entail that every civilization began with a correct moral understanding. According to a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, the fall (and the attendant corruption of man's moral faculties) occured when civilization consisted of precisely one man and one woman. Even if one were to take a non-literalistic account, it is still pretty obvious that the fall occured pre-civilization.

So the fact that mankind, separated from God and determined to eek out his own existence, has developed some severely mistaken notions of what constitutes right and wrong in his pride and willfulness, is entirely consistent with the Christian position (and, in my opinion, ONLY the Christian position). Furtheremore, where moral subjectivists greatly err in my opinion (particularly cultural subjectivists) is that they believe that human beings aren't capable of recognizing a superior morality when they see one. Though the story is quite often overshadowed, there is a long tradition in humankind of cultures coming to see the error of their ways, and of them adopting the superior morals of their neighbors. Emancipation, for instance, was a cross-cultural phenomenon, as was women's sufferage and the nationalism movements that ended classical imperialism. The current anti-globaliziation movement is in large part an exercise in transnational ethics. The diverse body that makes up the movement does not assume that it has no right to declare that certain basic rights like freedom from exploitation apply to everyone, everywhere. Certainly these movements aren't everywhere and they haven't been adopted by everyone. But almost without exception, these movements (the anti-slavery, pro-women, anti-imperialistic movements) are regarded as moral progress wherever they appear.

At any rate, it is clear that the notion of objective morality is not at all defeated by the presence of differing moralities in the world. Furthermore, Christianity is the only worldview which can recognize moral diversity, explain it's existence within the context of the reality of an objective morality, and without contradiction continue to assert that there are real morals which actually apply across time and across culture.

As Christians, Charles Darwin and myself can actually say that slavery is actually wrong, everywhere and for everyone, even while recognizing there is disagreement about it. An atheist cannot say this consistently with his atheism. He would have to make such a moral statement on faith alone, if at all.

According to the Christian story, mankind is fallen, and their moral sense is thus corrupted. But by the grace of God all of us maintain the capacity to recognize real good when we see it, and to recognize real moral progress when it is upon us. Christianity, alone among worldviews, makes it possible to change for the better , not just for the heck of it.

[wade-w]

Originally posted by luvluv

As Christians, Charles Darwin and myself can actually say that slavery is actually wrong, everywhere and for everyone, even while recognizing there is disagreement about it.

If that were the case, we could reasonably expect the bible to condemn slavery. Instead, we see the opposite; the bible supports slavery.

[luvluv]

No, we see the bible fail to condemn slavery, as the bible fails to condemn abortion, euthenasia, cloning, stem cell research, sex change operations, racial profiling, etc...

I'm the first to admit that the Bible is not an ethical textbook, nor, contrary to popular opinion, is it's primary work the institution of ethics. But the Bible does provide a suitable moral framework: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

It is hardly unique in this regard, I know, but the Bible's uniqueness doesn't lie in it's ethical outlook but in the personhood of Jesus Christ and his claim to be the unique Son of God.

[Secular Pinoy]

Originally posted by luvluv
No, we see the bible fail to condemn slavery, as the bible fails to condemn abortion, euthenasia, cloning, stem cell research, sex change operations, racial profiling, etc...There's a difference. Abortion, euthenasia, cloning, stem cell research, sex change operations, and racial profiling aren't condemned in the bible because they weren't being practiced then, and if they were, they aren't written in the bible. Slavery is widely practiced in Biblical times, and there are several bible passages that discuss proper ways of handling slaves, without condemning the practice itself. Now if the bible talked about proper ways of handling clones without condemning it too, then you may have a case.

[Rhea]

abortion was practiced at the time. It was chemical rather than surgical. (some rather disgusting methods if you ask me! But since no woman should be forced to bear children, it was what was available and apparently an acceptable method in that context.)

[Family Man]

You do realize that this is on the wrong forum, but since you address me directly:


I happen to believe that the best argument for the objectivity of morality, or at least the best argument for the refutation of cultural relativism, is the notion of moral progress.

Simply put, if morality is culturaly relative, then the notion of moral progress is incoherent. Morals, in that view, can certainly change but the one thing they cannot do is progress , since the term progression in this context generally connotates a progression for the better. But of course, if cultural relativism is true, then there is no better.


Actually, luvluv, I believe your position is the incoherent one. Progress as you're using it is a moral value in and of itself. Bring a Christian from the first century (or any other time period) and he might not find that we've "morally progressed" at all. I'm sure you can think of many things that might appall such a person. Heck, he might be appalled that there is no slavery. I'm not arguing that our moral judgements are the best moral judgments of all time (though I might argue that certain aspects of it are). The fact is, if we could travel two thousand years in the future, we might be arguing that our descendants are moral barbarians ourselves.


So you see Family Man, if you are right and all morals are culturally relative, it hardly makes any difference that the Bible doesn't condemn slavery since slavery isn't actually wrong. It is simply out of date, or out of place... in other words out of fashion.


As the slaveowners of the time would have argued. That the slaveholding society of the south started a bloody war over. Heck, even Jesus didn't condemn slavery. The point being is that this appears to be exactly the situation that we have. My argument fits the facts. It isn't clear how yours does at all.


But the important thing to remember is that all societies have this concept of moral progress, and it has ocassionally been transmitted across cultures. The value of democracy, for example, has been transmitted across many cultures, and most cultures into which democracy is introduced recognize it as a legitimate step forward from monarchy or dictatorship.


We have the concept because it is part of our moral judgements. Have you been to Vegas, luvluv? Do you think your great-grandparents would have considered that progress? Why should we smugly assume that our moral judgements are right?


Moreover, the Christian theology of the fall of man makes absolutely perfect sense of the moral situation in which we find ourselves, in which there is rampant and substantial disagreement on morals but where we all have a notion of a "true" morality and of the real possibility of moral progress.


No, it doesn't make perfect sense. We don't appear to have a notion of "true" morality. In fact, history and social sciences show that our sense of morality depend on the time and place that we live in. The sense of "true morality" that you have is nothing but an illusion that you have because most of the people you deal with have similar views. Expand you horizons a bit, and that "notion of true morality" disappears, and so does your case.


I further wish to state that the Christian notion of the fall does not at all entail that every civilization began with a correct moral understanding. According to a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, the fall (and the attendant corruption of man's moral faculties) occured when civilization consisted of precisely one man and one woman. Even if one were to take a non-literalistic account, it is still pretty obvious that the fall occured pre-civilization.


It is far more probable that there was no fall at all, rendering your analysis moot. In other words, you can't prove a fall. You can't make a case on an unevidenced assumption.


So the fact that mankind, separated from God and determined to eek out his own existence, has developed some severely mistaken notions of what constitutes right and wrong in his pride and willfulness, is entirely consistent with the Christian position

And does nothing to establish that morality "comes from God."


(and, in my opinion, ONLY the Christian position).


Meaning, of course, that other Christians disagree with you, but they're not "real Christians", right?


Furtheremore, where moral subjectivists greatly err in my opinion (particularly cultural subjectivists) is that they believe that human beings aren't capable of recognizing a superior morality when they see one. Though the story is quite often overshadowed, there is a long tradition in humankind of cultures coming to see the error of their ways, and of them adopting the superior morals of their neighbors. Emancipation, for instance, was a cross-cultural phenomenon, as was women's sufferage and the nationalism movements that ended classical imperialism. The current anti-globaliziation movement is in large part an exercise in transnational ethics. The diverse body that makes up the movement does not assume that it has no right to declare that certain basic rights like freedom from exploitation apply to everyone, everywhere. Certainly these movements aren't everywhere and they haven't been adopted by everyone. But almost without exception, these movements (the anti-slavery, pro-women, anti-imperialistic movements) are regarded as moral progress wherever they appear.


This is an overly simplistic analysis of the phenomenon. Were these examples adopted because they were recognized as superior, or were they adopted because they brought societal benefits to those societies that adopted them? You think there was no advantage to bringing women into the political mainstream? You think colonialism ended because imperial countries were ashamed, and not because it has become economically unfeasible (not that the former didn't play a role, it's just that the latter had a greater one.) And what about the less attractive moral activities that also cross borders? Materialism, drug use, pornography, for example. Do societies adopt these because they find them morally superior? No, luvluv, the transmission of moral values and activities across borders is far more complex that just making an unsupported claim that they "recognize moral superiority".


At any rate, it is clear that the notion of objective morality is not at all defeated by the presence of differing moralities in the world. Furthermore, Christianity is the only worldview which can recognize moral diversity, explain it's existence within the context of the reality of an objective morality, and without contradiction continue to assert that there are real morals which actually apply across time and across culture.


I suggest you haven't done any of those things, other than making an assertion that it does. Naturalism can recognize moral diversity, and in fact explains it on the basis that societies grew up in different times and environments. Second, there is no evidence that there is an objective morality (just one more unjustified assumption you're making). And the third is accomplished only by omitting any notion of God as the source of morality (which is what the disagreement was about). Your argument is nothing but a group of assertions.


As Christians, Charles Darwin and myself can actually say that slavery is actually wrong, everywhere and for everyone, even while recognizing there is disagreement about it. An atheist cannot say this consistently with his atheism. He would have to make such a moral statement on faith alone, if at all.


I'm afraid that fellow Christians of the 18th and 19th century would disagree with you. And if that's true, how can an outside observer conclude that morality is derived in any shape or form from religion or the god(s) the various religions worship? And yes, I can say that slavery is wrong for everyone, though not on grounds of atheism (just as you can't claim it on the grounds of god says so). What I can't and don't do is to claim that everyone at all places and times agree with me. My opinions of right and wrong have no bearing on my argument. Understand that, luvluv, and perhaps you'll understand my argument.


Christianity, alone among worldviews, makes it possible to change for the better, not just for the heck of it.


Untrue. You're simply claiming it. There are many Christians who would disagree with you that we're progressing at all (my parents, for example, are constantly reminding me that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and how they could sleep with the doors unlocked back in the 1950's, yada, yada, yada). Christians can't seem to agree on the point, and why I should accept your analysis and not my parents is not clear from your post. FYI: I disagree with both of you.

Heck, for all I know my parents have the correct Christian position and you are the heathen.

[Secular Pinoy]

Originally posted by Rhea
abortion was practiced at the time. It was chemical rather than surgical. (some rather disgusting methods if you ask me! But since no woman should be forced to bear children, it was what was available and apparently an acceptable method in that context.) Which is why I added the caveat that even if they were practiced at the time, it wasn't even discussed in the bible. I assumed that abortion, and maybe euthanasia, were possible at the time. Slavery is discussed buut never discouraged or condemned.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
Slavery is discussed buut never discouraged or condemned.
Christian ethics are based on a contempt for humanity (sin nature, fallen, needs salvation, etc) and the perpetuation of the Institution of Christianity. That is the rationale behind Christians lying to us about them ending it. And why slavery was thriving well into the nineteenth century of Christianity until a secular concern for "human rights" superseded Christisn ethics

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by lpetrich
"Charles Darwin"

Well I'm sure you've seen the sky grow quite dark due to heavy clouds during the daytime. Sometimes it can be quite ominous, though in fact it is nothing very unusual. I understand you may doubt the veracity of this report; what I don't understand is the claim that is "clearly didn't happen." Likewise for the earthquake.

CD, are you claiming that there is nothing really special about either event? That they are nothing to write home about? That they are events to yawn over?

If so, then they don't qualify as miraculous.

Generally, there are two problems here. One, as I'm stating above, is the hyper criticism of rather normal reports.

You yourself seem to be claiming here that those events are not really miracles.

And do you believe accounts of miracles of other religions?

Do you believe that pagan statues would moan and bleed and do other things that Catholic statues have been described as doing? Yes, reputable historians had described reports of such things, though some were rather skeptical.

Two, is the question-begging assumption that God could not have controlled the events.

Which begs the question of distinguishing "goddidit" from "non-goddidit".

Reminds me of the argument that the virgin birth is "unscientific." Please, the virgin birth is predicated on the idea that God was behind it. If God can create the universe, surely he can arrange for a virgin to get pregnant.