Here’s a bit of a take-off (thanks Carol).This article refers to an ongoing discussion of a very old topic — the moral compass of Atheists. Some of our critics choose to think that since we have no bible, we can have no objective source for our morality.They’re right. We Don’t.Our detractors’ flaw is in their premise — they don’t have one either. They have their own ideas, find it in the Bible, and then SAY that their ideas are absolute and objective, when in fact they are just personal opinion.For example, Many of our Christian and Jewish friends look at the first part of Lev 20:13 (“If a man lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination”) as an objective judgement against homosexual behavior. They choose to ignore the second part of the SAME SENTENCE (“they shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them”). Because they find that PART of the sentence immoral, they find a way to ignore it, don’t talk about it, and don’t teach it to their kids, making that PART of the sentence somehow not-objective-truth, even though they are words of God himself, and in the same sentence as the words they hold dear. One part of the sentence is morality — the next part is not.Another example is how slavery was/is viewed. The very phrases in Exodus that the slave traders used to justify their wretched industry merely 200 years ago (Ex 20-21) are now dismissed by nearly everyone of conscience as “a sign of the different times”. Same phrase, different meaning, giving far different moral views.See where I’m going? They CHOOSE their own morality just as we all do. The only difference is that they support/blame their decision on the Bible, and we must be responsible for our own opinions. Their trap is sprung when we forget this fact — when we try to point out our objective source for morality, which does not exist. We fail, and their point is made. This universe is not made up of blacks and whites — rather shades of gray. Objective moral laws are myths — like the gods who make them.
Goose:
Sorry, been distracted.
And yet our species is notorious for seeing what we want to see, regardless of the truth of it.
Ha! Touche! You’ve picked up a thing or 2, I see.
Ah, but you see, Nazareth was a necropolis for Japha, the very place I mentioned Josephus staying at for some time. A few trinkets were unearthed, but it was common coin in that era to build a new settlement on the bones of an old one.
The former. Sorry.
That’s right, but until the dust clears, sorry, gonna have to omit that. Scholars are STILL debating over this bloody paragraph(s).
Interesting. Argument from censorship, which leads to another argument from silence.
Sounds suspiciously like a conspiracy theory. Not accusing, observing.
Come now, don’t be coy. You know exactly what the point was.
Finding historical items doesn’t render the document completely historical.
Cute.
No, I take it from an argument from silence (hehehehehe).
No smoking gun. corpus delicti (hoping I’m using that right): body of the crime.
Don’t get hung up on the word ‘crime’.
Go ahead & look that up, & get back to me.
I’m sure Darrow will correct me if it’s not a proper analogy.
Reluctant
“And yet our species is notorious for seeing what we want to see, regardless of the truth of it.”
Our species are also known for not dying for nothing and struggling desperately to stay alive. Especially when there is no reward.
There was absolutely no motive for running around and lying about the resurrection.
Eternal bliss? What makes you think they thought they’d recieve eternal bliss for lying about Jesus rising from the dead?
Do you find it reasonable?
“Ah, but you see, Nazareth was a necropolis for Japha, the very place I mentioned Josephus staying at for some time. A few trinkets were unearthed, but it was common coin in that era to build a new settlement on the bones of an old one.”
Well i seem to find sources that claim Nazareth existed. Anyhow, lets skip the evidences.
Think about this: Betlehem existed, Kafarnaum existed, galilee existed, “oil mountain” (laugh all you want i don’t know the english translations for these places) you get the point. Why shouldnt’ Nazareth had existed?
The early christians spoke about Jesus from Nazareth. So you mean people claimed Jesus came from a village that they knew didn’t exist? That is completely self-defeating.
Do you find it reasonable?
“That’s right, but until the dust clears, sorry, gonna have to omit that. Scholars are STILL debating over this bloody paragraph(s).”
ok. So “until the dust settles”… you mean if scholars accept it in the future you will too?
“Interesting. Argument from censorship, which leads to another argument from silence.
Sounds suspiciously like a conspiracy theory. Not accusing, observing.”
Again. Imagine yourself as a historian. Jesus came along, and you would have to accept him as your Lord.
The gospel wasn’t easier to accept then than it is today.
“Come now, don’t be coy. You know exactly what the point was.
Finding historical items doesn’t render the document completely historical.”
yeah. But the gospels make claims, other works of fiction don’t.
“Cute.
No, I take it from an argument from silence (hehehehehe).”
Pardon? I don’t follow now. The silence is from the other side of the fence… i would think. I’m no master debater however.
“No smoking gun. corpus delicti (hoping I’m using that right): body of the crime.
Don’t get hung up on the word ‘crime’.”
Excactly. No body of the crime. Which was the only thing the jews had had to produce in order to silence the Jesus freaks.
Goose:
The only true comment in all of that is ‘no reward.’
There was also no motive for castrating oneself & committing suicide like Heaven’s Gate. Or mass suicide at the Jones compound.
That’s just a ridiculous & stupid statement. They didn’t think they were lying.
This grows wearisome. You’re presuming to know the details, the psychological make-up of people whose existences were never proved outside the alleged gospels.
Yes, since they seem to be terribly inconvenient for you.
Accept which 1? The interpolation, or the original?
I’ve explained this amply. It’s an interpolation. Your side of the fence still contends this nonsense.
Too bad no such thing happened. Unless you mean Luke. Luke was a physician, remember? If he ever existed.
Luke begins w/speaking to Theophilus. Only known xtian in literature doesn’t come along till 2nd CE.
Seeing as how it was written in the 2nd CE, among a mostly illiterate population, rife w/all SORTS of aspiring prophets, superstitions run rampant?
Don’t make me laugh.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Book of Mormon? Koran? Iliad? Odessey?
Any of those ring a bell?
All fiction. Including the bibile.
Think about it.
You’re honest.
Oh, please. The only record of this sort of thing is in the ‘gospels’. Still no external outside attestation. No Roman records.
Are we going to do the ‘censorship’ conspiracy again?
Reluctant
“The only true comment in all of that is ‘no reward.’”
What? You mean people happily die for no reason? Please explain…
“There was also no motive for castrating oneself & committing suicide like Heaven’s Gate. Or mass suicide at the Jones compound.”
Yes there were. Promises of eternal bliss.
“That’s just a ridiculous & stupid statement. They didn’t think they were lying.”
How could they not? They claimed to see something they hadn’t.
“This grows wearisome. You’re presuming to know the details, the psychological make-up of people whose existences were never proved outside the alleged gospels.”
Very wearysome. Are you saying that they had been hypnotized (or smth) similar into believing that the resurrection had happened? If you sincerely believe that they had been manipulated into believing that the resurrection had happened please explain why you think so and the methods you think were used into making the disciples believe it.
“Yes, since they seem to be terribly inconvenient for you.”
No they don’t seem inconvenient. It’s just that i seem to find sources claiming Nazareth existed. It’s like debating evolution, there’s no end to it.
Thats why i am asking you your theories about how the term Jesus of Nazareth came about. A self-defeating statement.
“Seeing as how it was written in the 2nd CE, among a mostly illiterate population, rife w/all SORTS of aspiring prophets, superstitions run rampant?
Don’t make me laugh.”
Seeing as it asks man to deny himself, accept his sinfulness, repent from it and accept Jesus as Lord it wasn’t. The nature of man hasn’t changed.
“HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Book of Mormon? Koran? Iliad? Odessey?
Any of those ring a bell?
All fiction. Including the bibile.”
Yet none of these works are able to back up their claims like Jesus.
“Think about it.”
I am. No writings from the time that that claim everything is bull.
“You’re honest.”
Thank you.
“Oh, please. The only record of this sort of thing is in the ‘gospels’. Still no external outside attestation. No Roman records.
Are we going to do the ‘censorship’ conspiracy again?”
And why cant the gospels be telling the truth? Please answer this
Why do you think that they are worthless as evidence in and of themselves?
Goose:
No, I meant that people normally do things for some sort of reward, material or otherwise.
That was sarcasm.
Reexamine that sentence.
I don’t think any of it really happened, so such speculation is bootless.
& I keep finding sources that vary on the topic, from a Japhan necropolis to Dowager Helena searching for it in the 4th CE. Your sources are…? Of course, vested ones.
Well for 1, there was a misinterpretation by ‘Matthew’ that he would be a ‘nazarene’, when in fact, the only allusion close to it is in reference to Samson, in Judges. The word ‘Notsir’ (sp?), which is translated roughly to ‘branch’. A ‘Notsirite’, if you will.
Oh, this old trail. Not too crazy about a deity who deliberately set up his kids to take a fall, based on a hard-coded flaw, & blames the kids for their own flaws.
If you can’t see the inherent cruelty in all that, then I give up.
I don’t know if that’s a stronger argument for your side or mine. I think mine.
Since it wasn’t written in that time frame, no surprise there.
The word of a bunch of iron age stoners w/psychopathic tendencies? I’ve repeated my points endless times on this.
It’s a wild story, poorly edited, w/no historical validity.
Reluctant
“No, I meant that people normally do things for some sort of reward, material or otherwise.”
Excactly. But since there was no reward (except negative ones) for claiming the resurrection happened something else had to be the driving factor. Something very sensational.
“That was sarcasm.”
Maybe. But that were the rewards in Heavens gate and other cults.
“Reexamine that sentence.”
Well according to you they claimed to see something they hadn’t. Which menas they knew they were lying.
“I don’t think any of it really happened, so such speculation is bootless.”
Ok, by saying you think it didn’t happen you also say that it’s possible it happened. You just don’t think so.
“Well for 1, there was a misinterpretation by ‘Matthew’ that he would be a ‘nazarene’, when in fact, the only allusion close to it is in reference to Samson, in Judges. The word ‘Notsir’ (sp?), which is translated roughly to ‘branch’. A ‘Notsirite’, if you will. “
Ok. will look that up.
“Oh, this old trail. Not too crazy about a deity who deliberately set up his kids to take a fall, based on a hard-coded flaw, & blames the kids for their own flaws.
If you can’t see the inherent cruelty in all that, then I give up.”
Our highly personal feelings don’t determine if something is true or not.
“I don’t know if that’s a stronger argument for your side or mine. I think mine.”
Depends on how you look at it. I am just saying that people weren’t more accepting of the gospel then than they are now. So
“Since it wasn’t written in that time frame, no surprise there.”
They seem to be written before the year 70.
“The word of a bunch of iron age stoners w/psychopathic tendencies?”
A personal opinion. Not a very good reason though.
“It’s a wild story, poorly edited, w/no historical validity. “
Thinking it’s a wild story that’s poorly edited has nothing to do with if its true or not though.
Goose:
Back to square 1. They thought they’d be saved, eternal bliss.
See preceding commentary.
Literally. Re-EXAMINE that sentence.
They claimed to see something they hadn’t.
You just shot yourself in the foot.
You really do need to re-read your posts before clicking the Send Comment button. Carefully.
I don’t think it happened. Period.
& you know this is my ‘highly personal feelings’ how, exactly?
Since it didn’t exist in the 1st CE, kinda hard, ain’t it?
Nope.
Well, since the ME is 1 of the chief exporters of opium, hashish, & others, St. John was purported to be under the influence of wormwood when he wrote Revelation, & pathology is a distinct marker for logic & truthful proclivity, it’s a strong argument.
Oh, wow, use THAT in a court of law. I dare ya. I double-dare ya!
Goose:
“Back to square 1. They thought they’d be saved, eternal bliss.”
This is going in total circles…
What du you base that on? What makes you think they’d be saved or recieve eternal bliss for lying?
Then you say they didn’t know they were lying. Well IF they hadn’t seen a resurrected Christ they knew they were lying.
Then you say they saw what they wanted to see. Well they had to be very good at lying to themselves in order to just make something up and then facing every hardship possible just to claim it.
Then you say Heavens gate etc. were good at lying to themselves. No, this Applegate guy was good at lying to other people. Big difference.
“Literally. Re-EXAMINE that sentence.
They claimed to see something they hadn’t.
You just shot yourself in the foot.”
According to your theories they claimed to see something they hadn’t. I meant that all along.
“I don’t think it happened. Period.”
I am saying you don’t know it didnt’ happen thats all…
“& you know this is my ‘highly personal feelings’ how, exactly?”
you told me that you thought the essence of the gospel was cruel. Isn’t that a personal feeling?
“Well, since the ME is 1 of the chief exporters of opium, hashish, & others, St. John was purported to be under the influence of wormwood when he wrote Revelation, & pathology is a distinct marker for logic & truthful proclivity, it’s a strong argument. “
What do you base that on? That he was under the influence of wormwood?
“Thinking it’s a wild story that’s poorly edited has nothing to do with if its true or not though.
Oh, wow, use THAT in a court of law. I dare ya. I double-dare ya!”
So the fact that you think, a personal opinion, its a wild story automatically makees it false?
Goose:
Already answered that one.
I really don’t support many of your presuppositions. Ain’t enough proof to speculate.
People ARE very good at lying to themselves. Believe it. Human nature.
I know. Was being nice about it.
No, I don’t know it didn’t happen. I don’t think it did.
Probably. ‘The thing speaks for itself’ comes to mind, also.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/666_the_number_of_the_beast.htm
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Book_of_Revelation
Oh, while we’re at it, check under the title – “Authorship, Audience, and Date” at -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_revelations
Well, it’s a personal opinion I share w/a large amount of people. I certainly didn’t come up w/it on my own.
If I hadn’t done the research, I’d probably be just like you.
A believer.
Reluctant
Ok, sorry if i keep this going.. i find it really interesting and challenging.
“Already answered that one.”
Ok. I don’t think so but let’s drop this one
“I really don’t support many of your presuppositions. Ain’t enough proof to speculate.”
You pressuppose that JC stayed in his grave and build speculation around that…that the disciples obviously lied to themselves etc.
There is definitely enough evidence to speculate… in fact theres just so much evidence that one can excercise free will and choose to believe/disbelieve, isn’t there?
“People ARE very good at lying to themselves. Believe it. Human nature.”
Give an example similar to the one concerning the resurrection.
“Probably. ‘The thing speaks for itself’ comes to mind, also.”
Another personal opinion.
“http://www.thenazareneway.com/666_the_number_of_the_beast.htm
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Book_of_Revelation
Oh, while we’re at it, check under the title – “Authorship, Audience, and Date” at -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_revelations“
All i got here was different interpretations of the book of revelations. What’s special about that?
And your assumption that John was under influence of wormwood seems to be based upon another persons assumption that he was under the influence… but if you choose to believe that ok.
“Well, it’s a personal opinion I share w/a large amount of people. I certainly didn’t come up w/it on my own.
If I hadn’t done the research, I’d probably be just like you.
A believer. “
Ok. Let’s see. So far we have come up with different theories that at best should make us prudent when accepting things that are said to be eyewitness accounts. These theories and alternative explanations may or may not be true.
But they don’t contradict the happenings in the gospels. So far nothing that contradicts the gospels seems to have been unearthed.
You say the gospels didn’t exist until the 100′s. Some scholars (when i browse the internet anyway) seem to say that they existed before the 70′s. Anyway, who says they couldn’t exist orally transmitted before that?
The Moral Compass
“This universe is not made up of blacks and whites – rather shades of gray. Objective moral laws are myths – like the gods who make them.”
Have a look at this entry on the No God Blog.
…