On Fri, 5 Apr 1996 00:32:49 +1000 (EST) you wrote:
[continued]
DM>....There are no temple prostitutes or
>child sacrifices in Judaism, Islam or Buddhism. How does
>Christianity substantiate a claim to greater validity than those?
Christianity has *Jesus Christ*!
>SJ>But leaving that aside, Christianity has a logical reason for claiming
>that its "religion" not only can but must "displace those of another
>religion" - it's Founder claimed to be God
DM>It amazes me how Christians can make definitive statements about
>what "it's Founder", meaning Jesus, claimed. There is not one word
>written by Jesus available anywhere.
So what? There are plenty of words that his followers wrote that
He said.
DM>Jesus IS REPORTED TO HAVE
>"claimed to be God and proved it by dying and rising again". Jesus
>is ALSO reported, in Acts 2:22 to have been "Jesus of Nazareth, a
>*MAN* approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs,
>which *GOD DID BY HIM* in the midst of you" (emphasis mine).
Yes. "Reported" by eye-witnesses.
DM>Notice, not "God", but "a man approved by God".
>Notice also, not "miracles and wonders and signs, which he did", but
>"miracles and wonders and signs, which *GOD DID BY HIM*".
Yes.
DM>And, in verse 24, not "who hath raised himself up", but "whom God
>hath raised up".
Yes.
DM>Mind you, the real founder of Christianity, St Paul, left a great
deal of written claims for the record.
Derek, we have been over this ad nauseam on Fidonet. Paul couldn;t
have been "the real founder of Christianity" because he was not
converted until many years after Christianity was founded.
>SJ> and proved it by dying and rising again.
DM>"Proved" is not appropriate for an unsubstantiated claim such as
>this.
We have also been over this too. You don't believe that Jesus really
died. The historical records are there in the New Testament. If you
want to ignore them or misrepresent them, that is your problem. :-)
>SJ>Atheists might deny that Jesus did rise from the dead,
DM>It may surprise you to know that some people who claim to be
>Christians have considerable doubts about occurrence of this alleged
>event, also.
The operative word is "claim".
>SJ>but they cannot deny that Christians can claim that their "oughts" can
>"logigally displace those of another religion."
DM>Presumably, in a free society, Christians can claim what they like.
>I fail to see how Christians could provide strong support for a claim
>that their "oughts" can "logically displace" the "oughts" of
>Buddhism, for example.
I just did - Jesus rose from the dead!
[...]
>SJ>"But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man
>who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find
>the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his
>promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be
>complaining 'It's not fair' before you can say Jack Robinson. A
>nation may say treaties do not matter but then, next minute, they
>spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to
>break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there
>is no such thing as Right and Wrong - in other words, if there is no
>Law of Nature-what is the difference between a fair treaty and an
>unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that,
>whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like
>anyone else?' (Lewis C.S., "Mere Christianity", Fount: London, 1977
>reprint, p18)
DM>This quote is not about the "Law of Nature"; it is about implicit
>and explicit social contracts. In other words, a "right and wrong"
>determined by the consensus of those who agree to be bound by it,
>rather than those who impose it in the name of one God or another.
No. Lewis provides evidence that this innate.
DM>And, to answer Lewis's question, the difference between a fair
>treaty and an unfair treaty is that, in a fair treaty both parties
>derive an outcome that satisfies them under the circumstances that
>exist at the time and can reasonably be forseen, while in an unfair
>treaty one party derives an outcome that does not satisfy them, due
>to the undue influence of the other party.
Where does "fair" and "unfair" come from?
>JB>And with individuals, it is simply a matter of cost-benefit. If I
>can get away with some action, currently illegal, why not?
>
>SJ>Indeed, why not? The eleventh commandment "Thou shalt not get caught!"
>is the logical consequence of atheism. Yet most atheists are probably
>highly moral people.
DM>Which is why your "11th Commandment" crack would be highly
>insulting to most atheists.
I also said that "most atheists are probably highly moral people."
But why exactly would it be "offensive" if they were really moral
relativists?
DM>From where I sit, "Thou shalt not get caught!" is the logical
>consequence of the Christianity practiced by some of those who preach
>quite different standards on TV. Though shalt not get caught with
>prostitutes. Though shalt not get caught having affairs with church
>members. Though shalt not get caught with thy hand in the till (up
>to the shoulder). Thou shalt not get caught cheating on thy taxes.
Agree totally. You won't find many Christians defending the antics of
the Jimmy Swaggarts of this world. But on your presumed moral
relativism, what is wrong with the above?
DM>Who practices the highest morality?
This is clearly a valid question, from a standpoint of moral
absolutism. But what "morality" do you mean, from a moral
relatavistic standpoint?
DM>A person who behaves morally, knowing that if they commit an
>immoral act that goes undiscovered by people, they have "gotten away
>with it".
First define what "an immoral act" is, according to your philosophy
and why?
DM>Or a person who behaves morally, knowing that, because of eternal,
>comprehensive, supernatural vigilance, they have no chance of getting away
>with anything.
Again, this "behaves morally" presupposes an absolute moral standard
that binds both the theist and non-theist. Please define what that
absolute moral standard is, and where it cones from.
>SJ>The point is that they are *inconsistently*
>moral, whereas theists can be are *consistently* moral.
DM>In theory, perhaps, but I've yet to see a theist that was actually
>more consistently moral than the most moral atheists I know. In fact
>I would go as far as to claim that an atheist is capable of more
>consistent morality than a Christian, since an atheist knows that he
>can blame no one else for moral lapses other than himself, whereas a
>Christian can blame "the sinful nature he inherited from Adam".
Again, you need to define what this "morality" is, before we can
discuss it.
[...]
>SJ>Also, again Tim assumes that all brands of "religious absolutism" are
>equal.
DM>All brands of absolutism, religious or political, are equally
>unwilling to allow certain groups of people to contribute to the
>formulation of the controls placed on their behaviour. Democracy is
>not God's preferred political system; theocracy is!
Actually the issue in the OT was between monarchy and theocracy. But
if there is a God, and "theocracy" was His "preferred political
system" then His preference should prevail. However, even in the OT,
God allowed the people to opt for monarchy, with disastrous results
for them eventually.
If there is no God, then it is just one group of men's opinion over
another.
>SJ>Christian "religious absolutism" has as its highest principle
>"You shall love your neighbour as yourself". If Christianity was in
>control and acted according to its highest principle, then this world
>would be heaven on Earth, but with atheists in control its rapidly
>becoming the opposite!
DM>When has Christianity EVER "acted according to its highest
>principle" when it has been "in control", i.e. wielding dominant
>political power? Of course, "neighbour" can be a very relative term,
>when politically appropriate.
I said "in principle". Read the argument again and respond to it.
Thanks. :-)
[...]
>SJ>Lev 19:2 "Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them:
>'Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy' "; Mt 5:48 "Be
>perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
DM>No, Steve. The "God of the Bible" is a jealous, genocidal maniac
>whose genocidal exploits have been well documented in the Bible.
Firstly Derek, you don't believe there is a real "God of the Bible",
so you are just talking about men. You argument needs God to refute
God. It therefore self-destructs.
Secondly, what is wrong with genocide on moral relativistic grounds?
If one gene pool wants to eliminate the other, isn't this just natural
selection by selfish genes.
Thirdly, "the `God of the Bible' is indeed "jealous" in the sense
that He will not share His glory with false idols. And while
He did order Joshua to exterminate the Canaanites, it was *only* the
Canaanites and for good reasons.
BTW, you talk of me offending atheists. What about your offense to
Christians? You are fortunate that we are not followers of "Islam".
You might have a fatwah (sp?) declared on you for blasphemy! :-)
>SJ>With a "moral God" like that there *is* "ultimate moral
>accountability"! The point is that naturalists believe in their heart
>of hearts that they are morally accountable (witness Tim's Freudian
>slips above), but they don't know who they are accountable to.
DM>What do you mean that naturalists "don't know who they are
>accountable to"? You presume too much. We are accountable to
>ourselves, we are accountable to each other, we are accountable to
>future generations, and, in a very broad sense, we are accountable to
>the Earth's ecosystems that sustain and enrich our lives.
Why?
SJ>Theists don't have that problem. Theism fits man's moral nature
>like a glove fits a hand.
DM>Of course it does. Just as a glove was MADE by a man to fit a man's
>hand, so theism was MADE by man to fit man's moral nature.
I thought a little while ago you were claiming all sorts of moral
evils perpetrated by theists?
DM>And then, of course, there's "survival of the fittest". Theisms
>that didn't fit man's moral nature didn't survive. More importantly,
>theisms that didn't adapt (dare I say EVOLVE) to meet the changing
>peripheral needs of humanity - I don't think our core needs have
>changed much, if at all - also didn't survive.
What "theisms" exactly are you referring to? All the *mono* "theisms"
that AFAIK have ever existed (eg. Judaism, Christianity and Islam)
have survived and probably have more adherents than ever.
Regards.
Steve
PS: I will be unsubscribing after this message for a week, so send any
reply cc. me personally. Thanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------