Thanks Daisy,
Mutual blood - it’s everywhere. I see no virtue in any of it, but I leave things like “virtue” to the philosophers (but not the theologians!)
I absolutely agree yet theologians are the ones who claim to know something about it.
I’m just looking for fair reasoning skills sans the clever brush-asides.
Brian: “morality is part of the foundation of reality”
CB: “what is the foundation of reality?”
Brian: “what sort of foundation does reality require?”
The star was the bright light which guided the “wise men”. No you can argue it was not a bright light, but it was in deed the brightest star in the story, thus it was a bright light.
Apparently no longer a bright light that illuminated the night of the christ-figure’s birth, as you had originally claimed ("The night he was a born, a bright light illuminated the world, marking the holy event"). Now it’s just a bright light in both stories--a much weaker parallel.
Right. (that’s not agreement, that’s sarcasm) It’s still a bright light.
That’s better than nothing, so thanks.
You’re welcome.
That doesn’t follow. Even if you deny the historicity of the gospel accounts, the historical context is plausible. There is a definite time during which Jesus is supposed to have lived, and the details in the gospel accounts strongly support that historical context. In contrast, the life of the Buddha remains exceptionally difficult to pin down to a given time period.
Actually, no. The gospels were written according to the Jewish Hebrew calendar, for starters. There is no definite timeline in the stories due to the different stories- Matthew has them fleeing to Egypt, much like Krishna’s parents fleed with him and of course we have Moses. Both stories proceed the Christ story and this senerio was taken from previous stories, including and esp Egyptian stories. Not only that, some of the names are out of place for the time.
Actually yes. Your reply does not address my claim. Regardless of any difficulty establishing a time line the historic context is plausible. You’ve shifted from my point to an issue of the harmony of the narratives. If I give an account of Abraham Lincoln’s life, there is no question that there is a plausible historical context for his life, even if my account is chronologically incoherent. Though hopefully I’d at least get a charitable reading!
You make no sense. Abraham Lincoln has nothing to do with it nor is he considered to be any “holy” person. I see nothing logical in what you just said.
My apologies. I addressed your reply as though it was supposed to address my post to which you had replied. It appears that your reply went off on a bit of a tangent, away from my point about the historical context in which Jesus was pictured.
I thought yours went off on a tangent. Maybe we are confusing each other and not making our points clear enough?
I like them just fine--they’re just not very useful to one who does not have the books in their possession. Apparently you’re the only one who has them who’s reading this, and I’m just trying to get enough information to address the issue while also informing other readers regarding the specifics. When I obtain the materials I will take the time to supply the relevant material from the text. I’ll take it from here.
I maybe the only one who has them on this thread, but who knows. However, and this is not out of arrogance, but more or less a honest, I am at some what of an advantage, since this degree (a second one) I am currently working on, I’m taking a religious minor. Thus, I have to get the various religious texts and other text books that go with those classes. However, I have more religious classes under my belt, than just the number required for a minor. In some respects, I regret taking it as a minor. I find myself getting more irritable with people about the topic for various reasons, even though I do appreciate the stories, much like those who appreciate stories of Zeus and alike. That and as you pointed out, it is not always easy to show people what I’m talking about. I don’t like telling people, but prefer to show people. Without the religious texts or any other book(s), it leaves the other or others at a disadvantage.
I maybe the only one who has them on this thread, but who knows. However, and this is not out of arrogance, but more or less a honest, I am at some what of an advantage, since this degree (a second one) I am currently working on, I’m taking a religious minor. Thus, I have to get the various religious texts and other text books that go with those classes. However, I have more religious classes under my belt, than just the number required for a minor. In some respects, I regret taking it as a minor. I find myself getting more irritable with people about the topic for various reasons, even though I do appreciate the stories, much like those who appreciate stories of Zeus and alike. That and as you pointed out, it is not always easy to show people what I’m talking about. I don’t like telling people, but prefer to show people. Without the religious texts or any other book(s), it leaves the other or others at a disadvantage.
Thank goodness that despite the recent economic downturn, we still have public libraries in even most small cities. The texts you have quoted/listed should be available at his local library, and if not at the local library, Bryan should be able to order a copy through the library’s lending program!
You say war is not ordinarily murder - you seem to know what ordinarily means - so according to your logic, jihadists are doing the same thing as your god commanded. All without breaking the don’t kill commandment.
Explain how that follows my logic. Does it depend on your unusual definition of “jihad”?
I maybe the only one who has them on this thread, but who knows. However, and this is not out of arrogance, but more or less a honest, I am at some what of an advantage, since this degree (a second one) I am currently working on, I’m taking a religious minor. Thus, I have to get the various religious texts and other text books that go with those classes. However, I have more religious classes under my belt, than just the number required for a minor. In some respects, I regret taking it as a minor. I find myself getting more irritable with people about the topic for various reasons, even though I do appreciate the stories, much like those who appreciate stories of Zeus and alike. That and as you pointed out, it is not always easy to show people what I’m talking about. I don’t like telling people, but prefer to show people. Without the religious texts or any other book(s), it leaves the other or others at a disadvantage.
Thank goodness that despite the recent economic downturn, we still have public libraries in even most small cities. The texts you have quoted/listed should be available at his local library, and if not at the local library, Bryan should be able to order a copy through the library’s lending program!
From your source: In Islam, a holy war; a war ordained by God. The Koran teaches that soldiers who die in jihad go to heaven immediately.
Are you going to argue that a religious war is not the same as a holy war?
You say war is not ordinarily murder - you seem to know what ordinarily means - so according to your logic, jihadists are doing the same thing as your god commanded. All without breaking the don’t kill commandment.
Explain how that follows my logic. Does it depend on your unusual definition of “jihad”?
Let’s use the definition YOU supply above. You clearly believe you know everything. Why don’t you just tell me I haven’t worked hard enough to understand you since that’s a tactic you have used previously.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions!
The star was the bright light which guided the “wise men”. No you can argue it was not a bright light, but it was in deed the brightest star in the story, thus it was a bright light.
Apparently no longer a bright light that illuminated the night of the christ-figure’s birth, as you had originally claimed ("The night he was a born, a bright light illuminated the world, marking the holy event"). Now it’s just a bright light in both stories--a much weaker parallel.
Right. (that’s not agreement, that’s sarcasm) It’s still a bright light.
I don’t know why you wouldn’t agree with me readily. I provided the quotation from you respecting the supposed parallel stories indicating “a bright light illuminated the world."--can you suggest any star bright enough to illuminate the world? How far do we have to stretch “illuminate”? I have a hard enough time finding my keys by moonlight if I happen to drop them, let alone starlight. Your report that both stories have the world illuminated by bright light on the night of the christ figures birth seems to be flatly false, not just an exaggeration.
Actually yes. Your reply does not address my claim. Regardless of any difficulty establishing a time line the historic context is plausible. You’ve shifted from my point to an issue of the harmony of the narratives. If I give an account of Abraham Lincoln’s life, there is no question that there is a plausible historical context for his life, even if my account is chronologically incoherent. Though hopefully I’d at least get a charitable reading!
You make no sense. Abraham Lincoln has nothing to do with it nor is he considered to be any “holy” person. I see nothing logical in what you just said.
Do you start with the assumption that any report of a “holy” person should be interpreted in a wholly different manner from a report of a non-holy person?
I thought yours went off on a tangent. Maybe we are confusing each other and not making our points clear enough?
Quite possibly. I’ll apply more effort on my end of things and see what happens.
I’m just saying that the accounts of Jesus have a particular proposed place in history. After Herod the Great and before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Regardless of any suggested failure of the gospels to harmonize, that gives the gospels a greater claim to historicity than stories of other christ-figures whose lives cannot be remotely placed in history. The comparison to Abraham Lincoln should help illustrate that point even if Lincoln did not feed 5,000 folks with a few hardtack biscuits and a couple of Mississippi catfish.
I may be the only one who has them on this thread, but who knows. However, and this is not out of arrogance, but more or less a honest, I am at some what of an advantage, since this degree (a second one) I am currently working on, I’m taking a religious minor. Thus, I have to get the various religious texts and other text books that go with those classes. However, I have more religious classes under my belt, than just the number required for a minor. In some respects, I regret taking it as a minor. I find myself getting more irritable with people about the topic for various reasons, even though I do appreciate the stories, much like those who appreciate stories of Zeus and alike. That and as you pointed out, it is not always easy to show people what I’m talking about. I don’t like telling people, but prefer to show people. Without the religious texts or any other book(s), it leaves the other or others at a disadvantage.
That is the issue here that I seek to address. I will search after the primary source materials, but it will take time.
I don’t know why you wouldn’t agree with me readily. I provided the quotation from you respecting the supposed parallel stories indicating “a bright light illuminated the world."--can you suggest any star bright enough to illuminate the world? How far do we have to stretch “illuminate”? I have a hard enough time finding my keys by moonlight if I happen to drop them, let alone starlight. Your report that both stories have the world illuminated by bright light on the night of the christ figures birth seems to be flatly false, not just an exaggeration.
Either you are purposely not understanding or there is a break down in communication. Like I said, I hate telling because it’s harder than showing.
Actually yes. Your reply does not address my claim. Regardless of any difficulty establishing a time line the historic context is plausible. You’ve shifted from my point to an issue of the harmony of the narratives. If I give an account of Abraham Lincoln’s life, there is no question that there is a plausible historical context for his life, even if my account is chronologically incoherent. Though hopefully I’d at least get a charitable reading!
You make no sense. Abraham Lincoln has nothing to do with it nor is he considered to be any “holy” person. I see nothing logical in what you just said.
Do you start with the assumption that any report of a “holy” person should be interpreted in a wholly different manner from a report of a non-holy person?
What the heck are you talking about? Your question sounds like a play on words, rather than an actual question. If you want to use Lincoln, then think of the John Jakes’s North and South. Granted, he was a real man, just as the man who was president of the South around that time, but the statements attributed to them in private is probably a totally made up senerio and not actual statements. Within that story are fictional characters also. We could start with Herod, if you like, but I only have book sources on that information, thus it ties one hand behind my back. While there are some historical events within the story of N & S, it is pure fiction.
Here’s an article that may help us get on the same footing: http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/thebible.html While it is an online source, it is a start and a little better than pointing to books you don’t have. It also includes a brief mention of historical issues, but does not go into great detail. I will see if I can find something about the historical issues after I get off work tonight. I’m not too found of online sources, in part because they don’t go into as many details as the various books I have.
I suggest that morality is part of the foundation of reality, in that it exists as a feature of the eternal nature of God.
If true, that would mean two things:
1) God does not decide what is moral and what is not (not by force of will, anyway)
2) God is not subject to a higher power than himself as regards morality
This seems to be a contradiction. If god can not change what is moral then god is bound by a high power than him/her self. Then number 2 can not be true.
Your perception of a contradiction appears incoherent. If what is moral is defined by God’s own existence then how can it be said that God is bound by a power higher than him/her self?
What? “1. god does not decide what is moral and what is not.” This would imply that god is bound by some moral rules he did not create or in other words are greater than he is.
“2. God is not subject to a higher power than himself as regards to morality.” This statement contradicts No1. How is this incoherent? Are you sure you know what that word means?
What sort of foundation does reality require?
Don’t know brian your the one asserting some “foundation of reality” since you are claiming it has some features. What are those features? And if you can not identify the supremecy of consciousness from the suprenmacy of exsitance I’m not sure what your would view is nor do I believe you have a clear idea.
Brian do you subscribe to the “primacy of existence” or “the primacy of consciousness?”
I don’t understand your question. If consciousness exists then what’s the difference? If consciousness were all that exists could we not describe either one as the foundation of reality?
No! It is very important which one is taken as true.
One gives rise to subjective reality and one gives rise to objective reality. So which is your world view?
You asserted that morals are some feature of reality which god is bound to but not bound to, but you don’t seem to be able to arrgue that proposition nor what features reality posseses.
Ah the Euthyphro dilemma. For monotheists its goes something like this: Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?
I was kind of getting at that, but less the why is something moral and more how whatever person answers personally understands morality. Do they feel they make decisions about morality?
But I like the Euthryphro dilemma, as well. It makes clear that if morality is inherently moral, then why do we need any god to tell us the answer?
How would you know inherent morality otherwise? Do we assume that everyone accurately perceives inherent morality accurately regardless of whether a god exists?
No, there is no assumption necessary. You think it is required for everyone to know what inherent morality is. From the Bible, God inconsistently commands people to do different things based on whims. The Bible doesn’t give a clear guideline of what morality is—you figure out what you think it means based on reason, and reason is the ultimate guide for your decision of what is right and wrong. Your basis is reason, not God. God is an unnecessary middleman. Prove to me that he is necessary.
Clearly the Judeo-Christian god is immoral by this definition because he commands contradicting actions (to kill others, and not to kill others).
I don’t think you’re perceiving a real contradiction.
Slaying an ox does not contradict “thou shalt not kill” even though humans are not specifically mentioned as the subject. Likewise, “murder” is the intended meaning of “kill” according to the context, and moreover the law was given for people to follow. Not counting Jesus, God is not people, and killing in war is not typically thought of as murder.
The Euthyphro dilemma does nothing to shed light on the epistemic difficulty of morality.
Here, you convince me that you use reason to decide whether or not killing is right and when or when it does not apply. Your interpretation determines what you think is moral. If you think morality is inherent, how do you know that your interpretation of God’s description of morality is correct? (Answer: you don’t know, any better than any other Christian who interprets the Bible in any other way. There is no evidence for your correctness over another person’s. How could you possibly claim to know what God was thinking? Your definition of him says he is above our level of comprehension.)
If you think morality isn’t inherent, but is based on what God says is moral, then God is clearly immoral because he says one thing and does another.
You don’t need the Bible or God to tell you what is right or wrong, according to everything you’ve said above.
I suggest that morality is part of the foundation of reality, in that it exists as a feature of the eternal nature of God.
If true, that would mean two things:
1) God does not decide what is moral and what is not (not by force of will, anyway)
2) God is not subject to a higher power than himself as regards morality
If morality is a feature of nature, then how can god say that killing is immoral and command people to kill each other?
If the commands concern the same time and the same sense then God cannot do it, for it would constitute a contradiction.
I don’t accept the premise to the effect that a contradiction is manifest.
I’d love to hear the definition of the foundation of reality that people have been bugging you for. That contradiction is manifest is not a premise. It is the logical conclusion from God’s two opposing commands.
Finally, if morality is part of reality, then god is not only immoral by being self-contradictory, but unnecessary. He is simply a vehicle to communicate (quite unclearly) morality. I’m sorry, I should clarify that we’re discussion the Biblical, Judeo-Christian god right now, so my references to god contradicting himself are based on what the Bible says, and my references to him communicating ideas of morality are also based on the Bible, as it is assumed as the word of god.
Understood, though you have done your work incompletely at best.
Care to back this statement up, or are you just going to poke unfounded accusations at me? As of now, I assume “understood” equates to, God is immoral.
You don’t appear to have followed the argument. You can get rid of God’s communications if you wish--that’s apparently the “middle man” of which you speak--but if morality is rooted in the nature of God and you get rid of God then you have gotten rid of morality. That’s the source, not the middle man.
You could argue that morality simply exists naturally--but how would you go about detecting it? What metaphysical basis permits you the expectation that a naturally existing morality would be apparent to thinking creatures? Would the accurate perception of morality confer an evolutionary advantage, per se?
I am not arguing anything, first off. My beliefs are inconsequential; I’m just trying to understand yours. You are arguing that God is morality and therefore defines it. And this quite clearly is contradicted by my argument about the direction to kill vs. not kill in the Bible.
God commands his people to commit mass genocide against other people in the Bible, and also says thou shalt not kill in the commandments. It’s a pretty obvious contradiction, to me, but please try to explain why it isn’t.
War is not ordinarily murder. The planet has a long history of distinguishing between killing done as part of a war effort and killing as murder. The burden of proof is on you to justify equating the two.
When did I say anything about war? I am talking about the intent to kill others based on their ethnic or racial group, not war. Genocide is not war; look it up. You are changing the subject (whether intentionally or unintentionally) and drawing attention away from the point.
You didn’t explain why this isn’t a contradiction. You just redefined the terms. Above, in my other response, you also admit why you don’t need the Bible to determine when killing is right or wrong, and what type of killing is being discussed in certain cases. Unless you have an argument against the obvious logical contradiction of a command to kill others and a command to not kill others without redefining the terminology to achieve your goal, then this is a clear contradiction. Anyone care to explain why it isn’t?
From your source: In Islam, a holy war; a war ordained by God. The Koran teaches that soldiers who die in jihad go to heaven immediately.
Are you going to argue that a religious war is not the same as a holy war?
I could, but I’d stick with the “In Islam” part, I think.
You say war is not ordinarily murder - you seem to know what ordinarily means - so according to your logic, jihadists are doing the same thing as your god commanded. All without breaking the don’t kill commandment.
Explain how that follows my logic. Does it depend on your unusual definition of “jihad”?
Let’s use the definition YOU supply above. You clearly believe you know everything. Why don’t you just tell me I haven’t worked hard enough to understand you since that’s a tactic you have used previously.
First, I have no recollection of accusing anyone of not working hard enough to understand me (I recently told Mriana that I would work harder on my end to be better understood--not the same thing so far as I can tell).
But in answer to your question, because I don’t feel like it.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions!
If you can’t come up with a reductio ad absurdum or the like then I guess you’re right.
I suggest that morality is part of the foundation of reality, in that it exists as a feature of the eternal nature of God.
If true, that would mean two things:
1) God does not decide what is moral and what is not (not by force of will, anyway)
2) God is not subject to a higher power than himself as regards morality
This seems to be a contradiction. If god can not change what is moral then god is bound by a high power than him/her self. Then number 2 can not be true.
Your perception of a contradiction appears incoherent. If what is moral is defined by God’s own existence then how can it be said that God is bound by a power higher than him/her self?
What? “1. god does not decide what is moral and what is not.” This would imply that god is bound by some moral rules he did not create or in other words are greater than he is.
Yes, but only if you completely ignore the statement that morality is part of God’s own nature. That would mean that God is greater than God, which is nonsense.
“2. God is not subject to a higher power than himself as regards to morality.” This statement contradicts No1. How is this incoherent?
It is incoherent because #2 does not contradicts #1 if the power to which God is subject is the nature of God if the supposed problem is with god being subject to something greater than god. If you want to trumpet the fact that God did not create morality then go ahead. It does not follow, despite your claim to the contrary, that god would be subject to something greater than god.
Are you sure you know what that word means?
Yes.
What sort of foundation does reality require?
Don’t know brian your the one asserting some “foundation of reality” since you are claiming it has some features. What are those features?
If I’m claiming that reality has some features then you should be able to name them without my going through it over again. Agreed?
I simply suggested (and I used that root intentionally) that morality according to my view of theism is part of reality at the level of God’s nature. God, described as a self-existent being and the creator of all else is, as such, the foundation of reality within that framework. I was not talking about a “foundation for morality” in any sense like reality and existence itself needs some type of justification. Reality simply is reality. We can talk about comparative cosmogony, but I’d have trouble seeing the relevance in the current flow of conversation.
And if you can not identify the suprem(a)cy of consciousness from the supre()macy of ex(is)t(e)nce I’m not sure what your would view is nor do I believe you have a clear idea.
I think you mean “primacy.”
I don’t see how knowing whether I subscribe to the primacy of consciousness or otherwise would help you understand my world view. As I explained already, if consciousness were all that existed then it would be proper to see consciousness as primary. As a theist, I could go with the primacy of consciousness if I believed that God were simply a consciousness, or I could go with the “primacy of existence” if God has an eternal spiritual body in which housed the eternal consciousness. I don’t know which is the case, so I don’t feel the need to subscribe to either one, Moreover, “primacy of existence” hardly seems like a misnomer in describing a universe in which only a consciousness or two exists.
Perhaps if you explain the term you’re using as you wish it to be understood I can answer you in a more helpful way.
Brian do you subscribe to the “primacy of existence” or “the primacy of consciousness?”
I don’t understand your question. If consciousness exists then what’s the difference? If consciousness were all that exists could we not describe either one as the foundation of reality?
No! It is very important which one is taken as true.
No? Why not?
One gives rise to subjective reality and one gives rise to objective reality. So which is your world view?
I don’t see why the primacy of consciousness would give rise to subjective reality. Why, for example, could not the prime consciousness give rise to other real objects perceived by that consciousness with perfect accuracy?
You asserted that morals are some feature of reality which god is bound to but not bound to, but you don’t seem to be able to arrgue that proposition nor what features reality posseses.
Curious!?
Perhaps the problem stems from your false assertion I state that god is “not bound to” his moral nature. He is, but god’s nature is not a power higher than god.
First, I have no recollection of accusing anyone of not working hard enough to understand me (I recently told Mriana that I would work harder on my end to be better understood--not the same thing so far as I can tell).
But in answer to your question, because I don’t feel like it.
You failed to offer sufficient evidence…
Your statement is too grammatically dicey to warrant an answer without explanation.
Understood, though you have done your work incompletely at best.
And others, but for now, I’ll just say okfyts and share a
I love that, it is sooo Bryan.
