>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?
>SJ>Christianity has *Jesus Christ*!
There are three ways I can answer this.
The first is that I asked for a statement of substantiation, not a statement
of faith. But this is hardly fair, since the ultimate foundation for
Christian belief is faith.
The second is that "Buddhism has Buddha", "Judaism has Moses, Elijah, etc."
and "Islam has Mohammed". Then we debate (again) the divinity of Jesus,
since none of the others claimed divinity. No, let's not do that either.
The third is that "Judaism has Yahweh" and "Islam has Allah". OK. That will
do for an answer.
>>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.
>SJ>So what? There are plenty of words that his followers wrote that
>He said.
But how, apart from faith in Biblical inerrancy, are we to judge the
accuracy of those words? Especially since they may not even have been
written by his immediate followers, but by the followers of his followers?
Back to faith again, and I give no credence to faith beyond the extent to
which it is supported by evidence.
>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).
>SJ>Yes. "Reported" by eye-witnesses.
Was the author of Acts (presumably Luke) an eyewitness? Was Mark (from whom
both Matthew's and Luke's gospels are derived) an eyewitness? Was the author
of John an eyewitness? There is significant difference of interpretation
among Biblical scholars.
>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*".
>SJ>Yes.
That's all? Just "yes"?
>DM>And, in verse 24, not "who hath raised himself up", but "whom God
>>hath raised up".
>SJ>Yes.
Again, that's all? Just "yes"?
>DM>Mind you, the real founder of Christianity, St Paul, left a great
>deal of written claims for the record.
>SJ>Derek, we have been over this ad nauseam on Fidonet.
Maybe a reflectorite might have something new to contribute to this. On our
own, we didn't get past "agree to disagree". On the other hand, we could
just drop it.
>SJ>Paul couldn;t
>have been "the real founder of Christianity" because he was not
>converted until many years after Christianity was founded.
Unless you accept, as I do, that pre-Pauline Christianity was no more than a
sect of Judaism that even the Pharisee, Gamaliel, was not prepared to
denounce (Acts 5:34-39).
>>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.
On the contrary, I am very sure he really died, at one time or another. What
I don't believe is that he became alive again after he *really* died.
>The historical records are there in the New Testament. If you
>want to ignore them or misrepresent them, that is your problem. :-)
Not ignoring or misrepresenting them. Just expressing great scepticism that
they are as historically accurate in some or all particulars as you claim.
>>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".
Can you explain to me why you have a greater right to claim to be a
Christian than John Shelby Spong's ("Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism"
and "Resurrection - Myth or Reality?) right to claim that he is a Christian?
One of you is wrong about the alleged resurrection of Jesus. Who decides?
You decide for you and I decide for me but who decides for all Christians?
Not you!
This does, in fact, have an evolutionary tie-in. It makes equal sense to
claim that the Neo-darwinians and the Punk Eeks fatally wound each other in
the field of evolutionary theories, as to claim that the liberals and the
fundamentalists fatally would each other in the field of Christian theology.
>>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!
To the extent that this claim is true, Christian "oughts" do logically
displace the "oughts" of Buddhism and Islam. Since I don't believe the
claim, the logic disintegrates, as do the consequences inherent in the logic.
>>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.
>SJ>No. Lewis provides evidence that this innate.
And that evidence is .... ?
>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?
As I stated above, "the consensus of those who agree to be bound by" the
definitions. As for the concepts of "fair" and "unfair" themselves, probably
"genetic altruism meets conceptualisation skills"
>>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.
>SJ>I also said that "most atheists are probably highly moral people."
>But why exactly would it be "offensive" if they were really moral
>relativists?
Do you *really* think that moral relativists are immune to insult?
>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.
>SJ>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?
Most people, Christians and atheists (you'll have to take my word about the
atheists), agree that fraud (personal, business and tax) is wrong. This can
be argued on wholly selfish grounds. Those who don't commit fraud are better
off if no one commits fraud. I have no intrinsic argument against consorting
with presumably willing prostitutes or having affairs with presumably
willing church members, but the men who were caught were actively married
and performing these activities without the knowledge and uncoerced
agreement of their wives. This, in the minds of most Christians and
atheists, is an offence against the marriage partner.
>DM>Who practices the highest morality?
>SJ>This is clearly a valid question, from a standpoint of moral
>absolutism. But what "morality" do you mean, from a moral
>relatavistic standpoint?
In this example, personal morality.
>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".
>SJ>First define what "an immoral act" is, according to your philosophy
>and why?
On my tolerant days: An act that the person committing it believes to be
immoral.
On my intolerant days: An act that I consider to be immoral.
>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.
In this example, the absolute moral standard comes from within.
Individual people have certain absolute moral standards. Not all of their
moral standards are absolute, but some generally are. Sometimes they change
their moral standards. A relative moral standard may become absolute, or
vice versa. An absolute moral standard may be thrown out in favour of its
diametric opposite.
But that is about individuals. Groups of individuals, i.e. families,
communities, societies, etc. can only have relative moral standards, since
each person's pattern of absolute moral standards is as individual as a
thumbprint. The only way that a group can commit to a common moral standard
is for each individual to compromise, in their judgements of others, some of
their personal moral standards. They may still be committed to their own
absolute standards for themselves, but the group standard is an amalgamation
of compromises or, if you like, a *relative* moral standard.
>>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.
Can we now 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.
This would work if God spoke for himself or very clearly authenticated those
who spoke for him. The stories of Elijah, if true, would be a good example
of such authentication. However, these days God neither speaks for himself
nor authenticates those who speak for him. Consequently, genuine theocracy
is not possible.
>SJ>However, even in the OT,
>God allowed the people to opt for monarchy, with disastrous results
>for them eventually.
There is not necessarily a cause-effect relationship here, is there? Did the
existence of the monarchy cause the disastrous results, or was it the
imperial ambitions of Israel's neighbours?
>SJ>If there is no God, then it is just one group of men's opinion over
>another.
And if there is a God who neither speaks for himself nor authenticates those
who speak for him, then it is just one group of theists' opinion over
another. No better, really!
>>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. :-)
I don't have a problem with your "in principle" argument. However,
Christianity cannot EVER AGAIN be given temporal control because it has
shown itself repeatedly incapable of living up to its highest principle.
Whether this is intrinsic to Christianity, or simply the practical inability
of Christians in power to effectively prevent themselves from being
subverted by those of evil intent, I cannot say.
However, I am sure that atheists who had, as a highest principle, "Love your
neighbour as yourself" AND had an extremely inclusive view of who their
neighbour was, would also be able and willing to create a heaven on earth.
The problem, Steve, is that not enough people with those attributes aspire
to political power. Of those that do, either the political processes of
compromise and vote-begging tarnish them, or voters don't trust them to be
"realistic".
It has little to do with theism or atheism. It is simply that people of high
humanist (and, lest you misunderstand me, all of the best theists are
secondary humanists) principle would be required to make a heaven on earth.
Such people rarely enter the political game or play it well. The most recent
one, IMO, was neither monotheist nor atheist, Mahatma Gandhi.
>>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.
>SJ>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.
My argument is that the willingness to commit genocide can, under no
circumstances except as the only means of preventing the destruction of all
humanity, be considered acceptable, much less "holy". My argument exists
with or without God.
If your God exists and was complicit in the Canaanite genocide, then your
God is not holy. If your God exists but was not complicit in the Canaanite
genocide, then your God may have a claim to be holy that is worthy of
investigation. If your God does not exist, then questions of holiness are
meaningless. Am I judging your God by my standards? No, I am judging your
God by the standards of your Jesus who loved sinners while hating sin.
>SJ>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.
Given the information I have provided on moral relativism, I hope that you
can answer these questions yourself.
>SJ>Thirdly, "the `God of the Bible' is indeed "jealous" in the sense
>that He will not share His glory with false idols.
That makes no more sense than a claim that the Northern Ireland or Bosnian
tragedies are/were religious conflicts.
>SJ>And while
>He did order Joshua to exterminate the Canaanites, it was *only* the
>Canaanites
Oh! ONLY the Canaanites! Well that's all right then! :-<
>SJ>and for good reasons.
You will not get me to accept that there are EVER good reasons for genocide.
>SJ>BTW, you talk of me offending atheists. What about your offense to
>Christians?
I regret any offence, but in view of the subject under discussion, some
offence may be unavoidable. How do you claim that someone's god is genocidal
without giving offence?
>You are fortunate that we are not followers of "Islam".
>You might have a fatwah (sp?) declared on you for blasphemy! :-)
The fact that blasphemy can be considered a valid reason for killing someone
is, perhaps, the best reason for the abolition of any religion that
proscribes 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?
Because we choose to be! Because it enriches our lives and the lives of
those we care about.
>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.
>SJ>I thought a little while ago you were claiming all sorts of moral
>evils perpetrated by theists?
And the theisms of the theists that are committing "all sorts of moral
evils" will fit them just as well as the theisms of the theists who are not.
>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.
What about monotheisms such as Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, Baha'i,
Manichaeism, the religions of the Ophites and Mandaeans, the Sun God
religion founded by the Egyptian Pharoah Akhenaten? Few have survived and
none, except perhaps Baha'i, would have "more adherents than ever".
But mainly I was thinking of the polytheisms of the Greeks, Romans and Norsemen.
And, of course, I am thinking about Christianity, which appears to be
sliding into fundamentalism in order to retain the committment of its
remaining active adherents.
Regards
Derek
-----------------------------------------------------
| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
| Melba ACT | dmclarne@ncomcanb.telstra.com.au |
| Australia | |
-----------------------------------------------------