The jesus story isn't original
Replies
-
But not good enough for god.
If you choose to reject God, then you don't care about living in eternity with Him anyway.
I disagree with that. God (IMHO) does not (could not) need or want anyone's acceptance or approval or service or love. He requires nothing from us. God is fulfilled and complete and happy to allow you to use the free will he gave you. You're destined for Heaven, because he loves you NO MATTER WHAT, and so is everyone else.
Merry Christmas.
And, He's got, like EVERY video game ever made, so He keeps really busy..........0 -
But not good enough for god.
If you choose to reject God, then you don't care about living in eternity with Him anyway.
I disagree with that. God (IMHO) does not (could not) need or want anyone's acceptance or approval or service or love. He requires nothing from us. God is fulfilled and complete and happy to allow you to use the free will he gave you. You're destined for Heaven, because he loves you NO MATTER WHAT, and so is everyone else.
Merry Christmas.
And, He's got, like EVERY video game ever made, so He keeps really busy..........
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: But It's NO fun when you ALWAYS get high score....:bigsmile:0 -
Ah, nevermind. We will agree to disagree, I think. If we cannot find common ground, that is. I don't know what else to say about that?
Logically birth of a man-god can be any story accepted by followers. Had jesus been hatched from a special egg, I'm sure that story would be suitable if followers were gullible enough to believe it.Assume that I do not believe Genesis (I do have a biology heavy degree), and then, logically, explain to me why (other than as a 'sign') a deity must be born of a virgin to be a man-god?
The bible was written after death, so really just like Nostradamus, followers can selectively make it sound as if a prophecy had been fulfilled.And, if it was a sign, why are we not then contextually obligated to assume that the prophecy means "virgin." Ambiguous language or not.
We hear ALL the time how the bible is fulfilling prophecy after the fact. Apparently 9-11 was a biblical prophecy.
http://www.bible-codes.org/
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Christ was clear that the entire could be summed up into the "Love thy neighber.." indicating that love was the sum of law, and that all our moral duties could be found within there (if we could get past the so called noetic effect of sin, mind you).
Since this idea did not originate with either jesus or any other religion, you are making a pretty strong case for the idea that we do have an inherent moral structure that can exist quite nicely without any theological underpinnings.
I think that Christianity, especially Pauline, has always maintained that a version of the law is written on every heart, does it not? So, while it may be consistent with a non-theist position, it is also consistent with a theist. Actually, since DMR requires strong variation in morality between groups to be real, a consistent morality argues for a common source, and then quite possibly a creator.0 -
I really don't get how someone can say that the Bible is inerrant, but then say they don't take it literally. Either you believe what is in the Bible to be true, correct and without mistakes, or you don't.0
-
I really don't get how someone can say that the Bible is inerrant, but then say they don't take it literally. Either you believe what is in the Bible to be true, correct and without mistakes, or you don't.
Amen to that!0 -
You have to understand that the phrase "biblical literalist" has become a perjorative, and I use it in that popular, if unpleasant, sense. I do not use a non-literal approach to the bible to imply that I actively disagree with, or deny, any part of the bible. In Genesis it says days. However, days don't even exist yet, except whatever sort God experienced. Throughout Scripture, the experience of God and time, and specifically days, are used poetically, including comparing a day in His experience to a thousand years. If the bible shows disinterest in a literal application of days, so shall I. Every event in Genesis is, in some way, a real event in time. But that does not mean I have to see it in a non-nuanced fashion.I really don't get how someone can say that the Bible is inerrant, but then say they don't take it literally. Either you believe what is in the Bible to be true, correct and without mistakes, or you don't.
To be complete, I see scripture as infallible in teaching matters of faith unto salvation, inerrant in containing no errors regarding any matter on which it teaches, but incomplete on both. That is, it is not science manual, and will not teach the particulars of creation (other than to teach that we are created), and is not exhaustive on theology. It teaches what we need, but not everything that we might want.0 -
I really don't get how someone can say that the Bible is inerrant, but then say they don't take it literally. Either you believe what is in the Bible to be true, correct and without mistakes, or you don't.
Amen to that!
The current (1978) Chicago statement on biblical hermaneutics (the evangelical guidework for biblical infallibility/inerrancy) contains 50 statements contained within 25 articles regarding the matter. And that just to get some consensus. It is a difficult matter.0 -
There are many people much more intellectual than myself. I'm not on the level of a professor, doctor, lawyer etc. I'm more than sure that are many christians who are much smarter than I am. So no I don't feel superiority above them. What I find amusing is that they are logical in every sense......except when it comes to religion.I don't mean to be argumentative, or accusatory, but you (and a few others here) have repeatedly implied that a theist would be incapable of logic or understanding logic, or just can't see how fooled and deluded they are, etc. That is, it is clear that a large number of atheists feel that they are either smarter, or just more able then we. Perhaps even more sane. Is it not a bit of hypocrisy to complain of sense of moral superiority, if you hold a sense of logical or intellectual superiority?
I would say that many Atheist's grew up with religion in their family before abandoning it. Speaking for myself, I can't be open to what a theist tries to say to convince me that god exists anymore. I've given it a chance and feel that I can't be convinced with all the selective choices that religious deem is what is good and what is evil in god's eyes.Are we not just, then, unconstructively tossing rocks back and forth at that point? While it is only natural to feel that ones position is correct, I find it pointless if one holds to such strong baises against the abilities of those who hold alternate points that one can never be dissuaded. While it would be tough to convince me that God is not real, I certainly open to moral or ethical correction from a non-believer. Are you, or any other atheists here, as open to the notion that their materialist biases in logic are flawed?0 -
Intellect and belief can be separated. You can be brilliant and intellectual in your chosen profession, yet believe in something that defies logic. Doesn't mean that that person doesn't have intellect, it just means that they believe a god exists and created everything we know through faith and not real evidence.An opinion is fine, I think, Even a strengthened opinion. But I believe I was told, explicitly, that if I believed the Genesis story, then I would accept no logical explanation. Apparently for anything, as we were not talking about Genesis. Does that not sound a bit dismissive of the intellectual abilities of, well, just about every Christian?0 -
I would say that many Atheist's grew up with religion in their family before abandoning it. Speaking for myself, I can't be open to what a theist tries to say to convince me that god exists anymore. I've given it a chance and feel that I can't be convinced with all the selective choices that religious deem is what is good and what is evil in god's eyes.
That is very likely true (growing up with religion), at least in America or someplace similar. Former Soviet block, or something similar, it may not be as true. However, I don't think I was directly referencing a convincing argument for God so much as just some of the presuppositions that come attached to materialism, such as a strict monism for theories of mind, hard determinism and very possible absence of a 'real' free will, etc. Am I just opening up a new can of worms? Probably!0 -
Intellect and belief can be separated. You can be brilliant and intellectual in your chosen profession, yet believe in something that defies logic. Doesn't mean that that person doesn't have intellect, it just means that they believe a god exists and created everything we know through faith and not real evidence.An opinion is fine, I think, Even a strengthened opinion. But I believe I was told, explicitly, that if I believed the Genesis story, then I would accept no logical explanation. Apparently for anything, as we were not talking about Genesis. Does that not sound a bit dismissive of the intellectual abilities of, well, just about every Christian?
Alright, fair enough. Of course, it is now my mission to demonstrate the logic of faith based claims! Now, where is that old textbook on analytic philosophy (yay, another can!)0 -
Alright, I think, THINK, I might actually start a thread addressing whether or not theism is logically incoherent. I strongly urge you all not to read it, especially not while driving or operating machinery. It will likely require powerful, illegal amphetamines for me to even write it. Truly, a boon for insomniacs.0
-
But not good enough for god.
If you choose to reject God, then you don't care about living in eternity with Him anyway.
I disagree with that. God (IMHO) does not (could not) need or want anyone's acceptance or approval or service or love. He requires nothing from us. God is fulfilled and complete and happy to allow you to use the free will he gave you. You're destined for Heaven, because he loves you NO MATTER WHAT, and so is everyone else.
Merry Christmas.
And, He's got, like EVERY video game ever made, so He keeps really busy..........
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: But It's NO fun when you ALWAYS get high score....:bigsmile:
So true!0 -
Christ was clear that the entire could be summed up into the "Love thy neighber.." indicating that love was the sum of law, and that all our moral duties could be found within there (if we could get past the so called noetic effect of sin, mind you).
Since this idea did not originate with either jesus or any other religion, you are making a pretty strong case for the idea that we do have an inherent moral structure that can exist quite nicely without any theological underpinnings.
I think that Christianity, especially Pauline, has always maintained that a version of the law is written on every heart, does it not? So, while it may be consistent with a non-theist position, it is also consistent with a theist. Actually, since DMR requires strong variation in morality between groups to be real, a consistent morality argues for a common source, and then quite possibly a creator.
Well, if it's a metaphysical coin flip, it gets back to my original concept -- the only one I really care about -- that religious believers cannot claim exclusivity when it comes to having a "moral foundation" and that religion is not necessary for a moral and just society.
I am not "anti religion" -- especially concerning the personal beliefs of individuals. I only reject claims of religious superiority.0 -
Well, if it's a metaphysical coin flip, it gets back to my original concept -- the only one I really care about -- that religious believers cannot claim exclusivity when it comes to having a "moral foundation" and that religion is not necessary for a moral and just society.
I am not "anti religion" -- especially concerning the personal beliefs of individuals. I only reject claims of religious superiority.
See, now you have brought up the one really challenging question I have seen on here: how does one flip a metaphysical coin?0 -
I've got a 60-second window to respond to this just now, but will reply in more detail later. If you read my post carefully you will see that I clearly say that I neither endorse or encourage Genocide, and that I dislike some of Aquinas' philosophy.
The point I was trying to make is that it is important to consider the context in which a statement is made if you wish to understand why someone thinks as they do. The same applies to Hitler or Stalin, or any historical figure you care to name - you may not like their ideas, but if you consider their particular circumstances, you may better understand why they think as they do. Isn't "Know thine enemy" a wonderful quote?
And please, do not refer to me, or anyone else as "you people" - it's very unpleasant.
Ok I shall consider the context...
Thomas Aquinas was a human man and wanted the church he was a part of to increase in power. He figured a simple way to go about this was to kill off those who opposed his church. So he came up with a nice, easy way to circumvent "God's law" and justify the murder of non-believers. He betrayed his own doctrines and beliefs to increase the power and control of the Roman Catholic Church. And after hundreds of years that church still reveres him for his "service."
So I've got the context and it's still deplorable. As it was with Hiter. As it was with Stalin.
The word "context" is not a shield against criticism. To say I'm taking it out of context means I'm taking a small part and not looking at the whole picture. Well I promise you the more of this picture we look at the more disgusting it becomes. Do we need to start looking at just how many were killed for non-belief? Would it be ok if it were just a few? Or does the fact that it lead to more power for the Catholic church excuse the murder of a few innocents? I am simply asking what part of the context "minimizes or vanishes completely" the horror of killing those who believe differently. Provide it or stop stating it as fact.
And I won't refer to you as "you people". I will say "people like you".
My last post before I get on a train for Christmas at home, when I shall be unable to access the forums. Adrian, sorry I'm not also quoting you - not sure how to quote various people in one answer.
To be clear, as I have said from the beginning, I am not a fan of Aquinas, nor do I condone or wish to excuse the actions that arose from his philosophy, any more than I would try to excuse the results of the philosophies of Hitler, Stalin et al. In fact, I'm not talking about acts that were committed using the works of Aquinas, or anyone else, as justification, or inspiration - I'm talking about the man himself. Of course, context is not a shield from criticism. What I am saying is that if you consider the circumstances surrounding his writings, you will inevitably understand more clearly why he thought as he thought.
Aquinas was writing at a time of intense struggle both within and outside the Catholic Church - the Church was riven with internecine strife, as various factions and sects within the church struggled for dominance, and many different competing Theological interpretations were in currency. The Church, whilst already reasonably well established within the western European states had still a very long way to go before it achieved the hugely dominant political position it held in later centuries. Additionally, and I think most importantly, we're speaking of the era of the Crusades, when the lands held by the Church to be holy Christian land and sites, rightly or wrongly, were occupied and owned, by conquest, by Muslims. Indeed, we're speaking of the latter part of an era in which hundreds of thousands of both Christian and Muslim men had fought each other for possession of a small patch of land - a long-drawn out, kill-or-be-killed, war which the Church financed, publicised and inevitbly, lost. In this context, against a background of Church politics, in which Aquinas was vulnerable, and after 200-odd years of killing men who did not believe as the Christians did, can you not understand why Aquinas might write as he did?
Of course many of the acts that used this particular line of Aquinas as justification were not right, but is it fair to pin the blame for those acts wholly on the writer, rather than, at least partially, on the person or persons who committed the acts? And can you seriously suggest that no-one ought to write anything if there is the chance of it inspiring or being used to justify an act which you or I consider to be evil? By that standard of censorship, I fear we'd be short of virtually all literature, modern and ancient.
I'm sure you will both have more to say, but I will be offline until the 3rd of January, so I shall content myself with wishing you both, and all here, without the faintest bit of irony, a very Merry Christmas!0 -
Well, if it's a metaphysical coin flip, it gets back to my original concept -- the only one I really care about -- that religious believers cannot claim exclusivity when it comes to having a "moral foundation" and that religion is not necessary for a moral and just society.
I am not "anti religion" -- especially concerning the personal beliefs of individuals. I only reject claims of religious superiority.
See, now you have brought up the one really challenging question I have seen on here: how does one flip a metaphysical coin?
Damn, now we're back to square one..........
0 -
I've got a 60-second window to respond to this just now, but will reply in more detail later. If you read my post carefully you will see that I clearly say that I neither endorse or encourage Genocide, and that I dislike some of Aquinas' philosophy.
The point I was trying to make is that it is important to consider the context in which a statement is made if you wish to understand why someone thinks as they do. The same applies to Hitler or Stalin, or any historical figure you care to name - you may not like their ideas, but if you consider their particular circumstances, you may better understand why they think as they do. Isn't "Know thine enemy" a wonderful quote?
And please, do not refer to me, or anyone else as "you people" - it's very unpleasant.
Ok I shall consider the context...
Thomas Aquinas was a human man and wanted the church he was a part of to increase in power. He figured a simple way to go about this was to kill off those who opposed his church. So he came up with a nice, easy way to circumvent "God's law" and justify the murder of non-believers. He betrayed his own doctrines and beliefs to increase the power and control of the Roman Catholic Church. And after hundreds of years that church still reveres him for his "service."
So I've got the context and it's still deplorable. As it was with Hiter. As it was with Stalin.
The word "context" is not a shield against criticism. To say I'm taking it out of context means I'm taking a small part and not looking at the whole picture. Well I promise you the more of this picture we look at the more disgusting it becomes. Do we need to start looking at just how many were killed for non-belief? Would it be ok if it were just a few? Or does the fact that it lead to more power for the Catholic church excuse the murder of a few innocents? I am simply asking what part of the context "minimizes or vanishes completely" the horror of killing those who believe differently. Provide it or stop stating it as fact.
And I won't refer to you as "you people". I will say "people like you".
My last post before I get on a train for Christmas at home, when I shall be unable to access the forums. Adrian, sorry I'm not also quoting you - not sure how to quote various people in one answer.
To be clear, as I have said from the beginning, I am not a fan of Aquinas, nor do I condone or wish to excuse the actions that arose from his philosophy, any more than I would try to excuse the results of the philosophies of Hitler, Stalin et al. In fact, I'm not talking about acts that were committed using the works of Aquinas, or anyone else, as justification, or inspiration - I'm talking about the man himself. Of course, context is not a shield from criticism. What I am saying is that if you consider the circumstances surrounding his writings, you will inevitably understand more clearly why he thought as he thought.
Aquinas was writing at a time of intense struggle both within and outside the Catholic Church - the Church was riven with internecine strife, as various factions and sects within the church struggled for dominance, and many different competing Theological interpretations were in currency. The Church, whilst already reasonably well established within the western European states had still a very long way to go before it achieved the hugely dominant political position it held in later centuries. Additionally, and I think most importantly, we're speaking of the era of the Crusades, when the lands held by the Church to be holy Christian land and sites, rightly or wrongly, were occupied and owned, by conquest, by Muslims. Indeed, we're speaking of the latter part of an era in which hundreds of thousands of both Christian and Muslim men had fought each other for possession of a small patch of land - a long-drawn out, kill-or-be-killed, war which the Church financed, publicised and inevitbly, lost. In this context, against a background of Church politics, in which Aquinas was vulnerable, and after 200-odd years of killing men who did not believe as the Christians did, can you not understand why Aquinas might write as he did?
Of course many of the acts that used this particular line of Aquinas as justification were not right, but is it fair to pin the blame for those acts wholly on the writer, rather than, at least partially, on the person or persons who committed the acts? And can you seriously suggest that no-one ought to write anything if there is the chance of it inspiring or being used to justify an act which you or I consider to be evil? By that standard of censorship, I fear we'd be short of virtually all literature, modern and ancient.
I'm sure you will both have more to say, but I will be offline until the 3rd of January, so I shall content myself with wishing you both, and all here, without the faintest bit of irony, a very Merry Christmas!
This seems to be a common phenomenon of people who belong to a group of some sort, where they will undoubtedly admit that maybe they don't like or agree with what the historical person being debated said, but then there is always the "but". Then I get this littany of reasons why, because of the time period or the circumstances surrounding those quotes somehow...actually that's where I get lost. Everyone here has, or at least most, deemed what he said as ridiculous. The reason the debate around Thomas Aquinas continues as after we have all agreed and could go back on our merry way debating the origins of the Christ story, some one pipes in with the "context" argument.
You see this with psuedo-patriots and nationalists all the time. "My country right or wrong!" They get angry when we talk about what happened to the Indians in america because it makes us look like the bad guy. Depending on what group people affiliate themselves with, they can almost justify anything with this context argument. I could sit here and justify why Hitler or Stalin did what they did, or we could look back at the early Christian history and justify why Romans were tossing them to lions like gigantic feline kibbles and bits.
So, did Thomas Aquinas live in violent times, yes...but how does that in anyway justify his quote. It is easy to be moral when not under pressure in the same way that it's easy for a rich person not to steal food. But this is why I have become so divorced from the catholic church and many christians, they seem so preoccupied with little things like who has sex with who and how, homosexuality, and a littany of things that really are trivial in the grand scheme of things, they still have not moved away from flat out stating that inflamatory genocidal talk is wrong no matter what context it's in.
Oh, and see you when you get back, have a Merry Christmas.0 -
The entire virgin birth story is nothing more than primitive fears and icky feelings about sex. Nothing about it makes someone divine.
Asexual reproduction is not uncommon. Even in multi-celled organisms. Hammerhead sharks can reproduce in conditions where there is not a single male to impregnate them. Are these offspring divine? Should we follow the teachings of these sharks?
This is why even if it were true it proves nothing to me. There's still a very long way to go between "I was born without any male sperm involved" and "I am the son of the creator of the universe." Even if you prove the first you haven't proven the second.
Yes! Something we agree on! I don't anyone who claims that the virgin birth alone proves everything about Jesus. It one piece of a much larger, cumulative case.0 -
If we assume that Aquinas was writing about executing baptised catholic teachers in positions of authority, whom had repeating commited heresy (and he was), then apparently, by accepting such positions, those men had also tacitly commited themselves to the authority of the pope and the magisterium (which, obviously, determined heresy). That was the authority of the time, and the death penalty had long been the "justice" for such offenses, which Aquinas was just reiterating. Now, keeping in mind that we have the benefit of the reformation, multiple restorationist movements, democracy, progressive liberalism, libertarianism, and a bunch of revolutions, by what universal, objective morality are we able to actually judge such things as having been wrong in their time? Science has universal rules, we can see that theory in such has been wrong. How do we do so with the purely subjective?
This seems to be a common phenomenon of people who belong to a group of some sort, where they will undoubtedly admit that maybe they don't like or agree with what the historical person being debated said, but then there is always the "but". Then I get this littany of reasons why, because of the time period or the circumstances surrounding those quotes somehow...actually that's where I get lost. Everyone here has, or at least most, deemed what he said as ridiculous. The reason the debate around Thomas Aquinas continues as after we have all agreed and could go back on our merry way debating the origins of the Christ story, some one pipes in with the "context" argument.
You see this with psuedo-patriots and nationalists all the time. "My country right or wrong!" They get angry when we talk about what happened to the Indians in america because it makes us look like the bad guy. Depending on what group people affiliate themselves with, they can almost justify anything with this context argument. I could sit here and justify why Hitler or Stalin did what they did, or we could look back at the early Christian history and justify why Romans were tossing them to lions like gigantic feline kibbles and bits.
So, did Thomas Aquinas live in violent times, yes...but how does that in anyway justify his quote. It is easy to be moral when not under pressure in the same way that it's easy for a rich person not to steal food. But this is why I have become so divorced from the catholic church and many christians, they seem so preoccupied with little things like who has sex with who and how, homosexuality, and a littany of things that really are trivial in the grand scheme of things, they still have not moved away from flat out stating that inflamatory genocidal talk is wrong no matter what context it's in.
Oh, and see you when you get back, have a Merry Christmas.0 -
If we assume that Aquinas was writing about executing baptised catholic teachers in positions of authority, whom had repeating commited heresy (and he was), then apparently, by accepting such positions, those men had also tacitly commited themselves to the authority of the pope and the magisterium (which, obviously, determined heresy). That was the authority of the time, and the death penalty had long been the "justice" for such offenses, which Aquinas was just reiterating. Now, keeping in mind that we have the benefit of the reformation, multiple restorationist movements, democracy, progressive liberalism, libertarianism, and a bunch of revolutions, by what universal, objective morality are we able to actually judge such things as having been wrong in their time? Science has universal rules, we can see that theory in such has been wrong. How do we do so with the purely subjective?
This seems to be a common phenomenon of people who belong to a group of some sort, where they will undoubtedly admit that maybe they don't like or agree with what the historical person being debated said, but then there is always the "but". Then I get this littany of reasons why, because of the time period or the circumstances surrounding those quotes somehow...actually that's where I get lost. Everyone here has, or at least most, deemed what he said as ridiculous. The reason the debate around Thomas Aquinas continues as after we have all agreed and could go back on our merry way debating the origins of the Christ story, some one pipes in with the "context" argument.
You see this with psuedo-patriots and nationalists all the time. "My country right or wrong!" They get angry when we talk about what happened to the Indians in america because it makes us look like the bad guy. Depending on what group people affiliate themselves with, they can almost justify anything with this context argument. I could sit here and justify why Hitler or Stalin did what they did, or we could look back at the early Christian history and justify why Romans were tossing them to lions like gigantic feline kibbles and bits.
So, did Thomas Aquinas live in violent times, yes...but how does that in anyway justify his quote. It is easy to be moral when not under pressure in the same way that it's easy for a rich person not to steal food. But this is why I have become so divorced from the catholic church and many christians, they seem so preoccupied with little things like who has sex with who and how, homosexuality, and a littany of things that really are trivial in the grand scheme of things, they still have not moved away from flat out stating that inflamatory genocidal talk is wrong no matter what context it's in.
Oh, and see you when you get back, have a Merry Christmas.
You can be subjective by seperating the good with the bad. Once again, I'm sure the dude had some great things to say, usually people who make some kind of dent in this world do. But just because Aquinas is reiterating common law doesnt' alleviate him of the responsiblity. It's obvious he was flawed, or we wouldn't be having a philosophical debate, but a real world debate since it would still be practiced today. I think that plenty of people back then might have been morally opposed to killing the blashemous, Aquinas simply wasn't moral enough to be one of them.0 -
Well, if it's a metaphysical coin flip, it gets back to my original concept -- the only one I really care about -- that religious believers cannot claim exclusivity when it comes to having a "moral foundation" and that religion is not necessary for a moral and just society.
I am not "anti religion" -- especially concerning the personal beliefs of individuals. I only reject claims of religious superiority.
See, now you have brought up the one really challenging question I have seen on here: how does one flip a metaphysical coin?
Damn, now we're back to square one..........
The answer lies with Schrödinger's cat.0 -
If we assume that Aquinas was writing about executing baptised catholic teachers in positions of authority, whom had repeating commited heresy (and he was), then apparently, by accepting such positions, those men had also tacitly commited themselves to the authority of the pope and the magisterium (which, obviously, determined heresy). That was the authority of the time, and the death penalty had long been the "justice" for such offenses, which Aquinas was just reiterating. Now, keeping in mind that we have the benefit of the reformation, multiple restorationist movements, democracy, progressive liberalism, libertarianism, and a bunch of revolutions, by what universal, objective morality are we able to actually judge such things as having been wrong in their time? Science has universal rules, we can see that theory in such has been wrong. How do we do so with the purely subjective?
This seems to be a common phenomenon of people who belong to a group of some sort, where they will undoubtedly admit that maybe they don't like or agree with what the historical person being debated said, but then there is always the "but". Then I get this littany of reasons why, because of the time period or the circumstances surrounding those quotes somehow...actually that's where I get lost. Everyone here has, or at least most, deemed what he said as ridiculous. The reason the debate around Thomas Aquinas continues as after we have all agreed and could go back on our merry way debating the origins of the Christ story, some one pipes in with the "context" argument.
You see this with psuedo-patriots and nationalists all the time. "My country right or wrong!" They get angry when we talk about what happened to the Indians in america because it makes us look like the bad guy. Depending on what group people affiliate themselves with, they can almost justify anything with this context argument. I could sit here and justify why Hitler or Stalin did what they did, or we could look back at the early Christian history and justify why Romans were tossing them to lions like gigantic feline kibbles and bits.
So, did Thomas Aquinas live in violent times, yes...but how does that in anyway justify his quote. It is easy to be moral when not under pressure in the same way that it's easy for a rich person not to steal food. But this is why I have become so divorced from the catholic church and many christians, they seem so preoccupied with little things like who has sex with who and how, homosexuality, and a littany of things that really are trivial in the grand scheme of things, they still have not moved away from flat out stating that inflamatory genocidal talk is wrong no matter what context it's in.
Oh, and see you when you get back, have a Merry Christmas.
You can be subjective by seperating the good with the bad. Once again, I'm sure the dude had some great things to say, usually people who make some kind of dent in this world do. But just because Aquinas is reiterating common law doesnt' alleviate him of the responsiblity. It's obvious he was flawed, or we wouldn't be having a philosophical debate, but a real world debate since it would still be practiced today. I think that plenty of people back then might have been morally opposed to killing the blashemous, Aquinas simply wasn't moral enough to be one of them.
I don't understand how separating itinto further sujective context helps? Good and bad seem just as relative, and as far as I can tell are determined locally. In his time, they usually dealt with justice in retributive terms, satisfying a moral call for justice in equal terms to the crime (heresy of a teacher of truth was considered such, their "social contract" implied this). The fact is, we simply switched to other models of justice, such as restorative or transformitive (whose value remains arguable, as not everyone agrees on it), and, mostly, removed the church from matters of law (the vatican can no longer execute anyone).
How do we determine degrees of morality, how much good or bad results, out of the context of the society? Societies determine their own goals, reaching those goals seems to be their good or bad. Without some kind of authority, how do we apply our goals to different group to determine their degree of morality, except in our own opinion?
I guess, I am asking, to you think that morality is absolute, and true for all people in all times?0 -
If we assume that Aquinas was writing about executing baptised catholic teachers in positions of authority, whom had repeating commited heresy (and he was), then apparently, by accepting such positions, those men had also tacitly commited themselves to the authority of the pope and the magisterium (which, obviously, determined heresy). That was the authority of the time, and the death penalty had long been the "justice" for such offenses, which Aquinas was just reiterating. Now, keeping in mind that we have the benefit of the reformation, multiple restorationist movements, democracy, progressive liberalism, libertarianism, and a bunch of revolutions, by what universal, objective morality are we able to actually judge such things as having been wrong in their time? Science has universal rules, we can see that theory in such has been wrong. How do we do so with the purely subjective?
This seems to be a common phenomenon of people who belong to a group of some sort, where they will undoubtedly admit that maybe they don't like or agree with what the historical person being debated said, but then there is always the "but". Then I get this littany of reasons why, because of the time period or the circumstances surrounding those quotes somehow...actually that's where I get lost. Everyone here has, or at least most, deemed what he said as ridiculous. The reason the debate around Thomas Aquinas continues as after we have all agreed and could go back on our merry way debating the origins of the Christ story, some one pipes in with the "context" argument.
You see this with psuedo-patriots and nationalists all the time. "My country right or wrong!" They get angry when we talk about what happened to the Indians in america because it makes us look like the bad guy. Depending on what group people affiliate themselves with, they can almost justify anything with this context argument. I could sit here and justify why Hitler or Stalin did what they did, or we could look back at the early Christian history and justify why Romans were tossing them to lions like gigantic feline kibbles and bits.
So, did Thomas Aquinas live in violent times, yes...but how does that in anyway justify his quote. It is easy to be moral when not under pressure in the same way that it's easy for a rich person not to steal food. But this is why I have become so divorced from the catholic church and many christians, they seem so preoccupied with little things like who has sex with who and how, homosexuality, and a littany of things that really are trivial in the grand scheme of things, they still have not moved away from flat out stating that inflamatory genocidal talk is wrong no matter what context it's in.
Oh, and see you when you get back, have a Merry Christmas.
You can be subjective by seperating the good with the bad. Once again, I'm sure the dude had some great things to say, usually people who make some kind of dent in this world do. But just because Aquinas is reiterating common law doesnt' alleviate him of the responsiblity. It's obvious he was flawed, or we wouldn't be having a philosophical debate, but a real world debate since it would still be practiced today. I think that plenty of people back then might have been morally opposed to killing the blashemous, Aquinas simply wasn't moral enough to be one of them.
I don't understand how separating itinto further sujective context helps? Good and bad seem just as relative, and as far as I can tell are determined locally. In his time, they usually dealt with justice in retributive terms, satisfying a moral call for justice in equal terms to the crime (heresy of a teacher of truth was considered such, their "social contract" implied this). The fact is, we simply switched to other models of justice, such as restorative or transformitive (whose value remains arguable, as not everyone agrees on it), and, mostly, removed the church from matters of law (the vatican can no longer execute anyone).
How do we determine degrees of morality, how much good or bad results, out of the context of the society? Societies determine their own goals, reaching those goals seems to be their good or bad. Without some kind of authority, how do we apply our goals to different group to determine their degree of morality, except in our own opinion?
I guess, I am asking, to you think that morality is absolute, and true for all people in all times?
No, I think morality is ever evolving with in society, I think that with time and enough exposure to other cultures, humanization of other peoples and the continued presence of our own empathy has driven us to attain better morality with or without religion. The mere fact that we have achieved a moral superiority to those who thought things like Inquisitions, Jihads, and Crusades is proof enough to me that there is no God figure propelling goodness, because in my mind an infinite all powerful being good have set the rules down right from the beginning instead of giving us a very incomplete handbook of rules.
I don't know if this will make anysense, but let's look at it this way. Thomas Aquinas might have had a good message, and for his time period and to his peers might have been a good man much in the same way an older racist family member might be a good man to his family. But for all the wisdom that older family member can give to the younger generations, he still has that glaring moral deficiency. Now when he says "I hate blacks.", using what seems to be the defense of the people defending Aquinas we should excuse the older gentleman because he grew up in racially turbulent times and is a product of his generation, which means when he spouts of the N-word in front of our small children, we should be silent.
Now I say that that older racist is wrong, just as he was wrong back then. He just happened to used to have a popular opinion within his group during that time period. Now that person could still come over to my house, he could still play with the kids, but he would be reprimand and kicked out the instant he used a racial slur in front of my children.
What I have instead seen here, is that you all have invited Thomas Aquinas into your house, and you are letting the family listen to much of his wisdome. But when he says, "Kill heretics" instead of standing up and saying flat out he is and was wrong, I am getting the "context" argument, that he was just a product of his times.0 -
That is a misunderstanding of evolution. Even Peter Singer, at this point, feels that the implications of sociobiology compel us to intentionally practice a morality that is inconsistent with evolution. For that matter, evolution has no goals, and it is a mistake to say that just because dinosaurs do not survive today, that they were imperfectly evolved for their time. Humans are not better than dinosaurs, the climate is just better for mammals.
No, I think morality is ever evolving with in society, I think that with time and enough exposure to other cultures, humanization of other peoples and the continued presence of our own empathy has driven us to attain better morality with or without religion.The mere fact that we have achieved a moral superiority to those who thought things like Inquisitions, Jihads, and Crusades is proof enough to me that there is no God figure propelling goodness, because in my mind an infinite all powerful being good have set the rules down right from the beginning instead of giving us a very incomplete handbook of rules.
You are still going to have to give me the standard by which we say that our morality is superior. Either there is empirical data that supports it, or some authority that states it?I don't know if this will make anysense, but let's look at it this way. Thomas Aquinas might have had a good message, and for his time period and to his peers might have been a good man much in the same way an older racist family member might be a good man to his family. But for all the wisdom that older family member can give to the younger generations, he still has that glaring moral deficiency. Now when he says "I hate blacks.", using what seems to be the defense of the people defending Aquinas we should excuse the older gentleman because he grew up in racially turbulent times and is a product of his generation, which means when he spouts of the N-word in front of our small children, we should be silent.
That person has survived into a society that has changed its goals, and thus its particular taboos/mores. The person is obligated, if they wish to remain currently perceived as moral, to change. However, if racism was subjectively considered appropriate during his time, who are we to say that it was wrong, exactly? By what authority?
How is popular opinion different from morality? Who says?Now I say that that older racist is wrong, just as he was wrong back then. He just happened to used to have a popular opinion within his group during that time period. Now that person could still come over to my house, he could still play with the kids, but he would be reprimand and kicked out the instant he used a racial slur in front of my children.What I have instead seen here, is that you all have invited Thomas Aquinas into your house, and you are letting the family listen to much of his wisdome. But when he says, "Kill heretics" instead of standing up and saying flat out he is and was wrong, I am getting the "context" argument, that he was just a product of his times.
If morality is evolving with us, than it does not exist until it comes into being. It is not some weird platonic abstract object. To hold someone responsible for it after the fact is to hold a dinosaur to task for not being a human.
If there is an absolute morality that we are growing towards, then I would ask where that comes from, and by who's authority.
If there is no absolute morality, than all is relative, and I am not sure what we are talking about?
Keep in mind:
a) there is an absolute morality that applies to all persons in all times
b) there is no absolute morality
Without authority of some kind, the mere existance of the second proposition makes the first wrong, as both are equal in weight, but the first cannot endure the existance of the second. That is just logic.0 -
You are still going to have to give me the standard by which we say that our morality is superior. Either there is empirical data that supports it, or some authority that states it?
That person has survived into a society that has changed its goals, and thus its particular taboos/mores. The person is obligated, if they wish to remain currently perceived as moral, to change. However, if racism was subjectively considered appropriate during his time, who are we to say that it was wrong, exactly? By what authority?
I've tried numerous times to get an answer to these questions, David.0 -
That is a misunderstanding of evolution. Even Peter Singer, at this point, feels that the implications of sociobiology compel us to intentionally practice a morality that is inconsistent with evolution. For that matter, evolution has no goals, and it is a mistake to say that just because dinosaurs do not survive today, that they were imperfectly evolved for their time. Humans are not better than dinosaurs, the climate is just better for mammals.
No, I think morality is ever evolving with in society, I think that with time and enough exposure to other cultures, humanization of other peoples and the continued presence of our own empathy has driven us to attain better morality with or without religion.The mere fact that we have achieved a moral superiority to those who thought things like Inquisitions, Jihads, and Crusades is proof enough to me that there is no God figure propelling goodness, because in my mind an infinite all powerful being good have set the rules down right from the beginning instead of giving us a very incomplete handbook of rules.
You are still going to have to give me the standard by which we say that our morality is superior. Either there is empirical data that supports it, or some authority that states it?I don't know if this will make anysense, but let's look at it this way. Thomas Aquinas might have had a good message, and for his time period and to his peers might have been a good man much in the same way an older racist family member might be a good man to his family. But for all the wisdom that older family member can give to the younger generations, he still has that glaring moral deficiency. Now when he says "I hate blacks.", using what seems to be the defense of the people defending Aquinas we should excuse the older gentleman because he grew up in racially turbulent times and is a product of his generation, which means when he spouts of the N-word in front of our small children, we should be silent.
That person has survived into a society that has changed its goals, and thus its particular taboos/mores. The person is obligated, if they wish to remain currently perceived as moral, to change. However, if racism was subjectively considered appropriate during his time, who are we to say that it was wrong, exactly? By what authority?
How is popular opinion different from morality? Who says?Now I say that that older racist is wrong, just as he was wrong back then. He just happened to used to have a popular opinion within his group during that time period. Now that person could still come over to my house, he could still play with the kids, but he would be reprimand and kicked out the instant he used a racial slur in front of my children.What I have instead seen here, is that you all have invited Thomas Aquinas into your house, and you are letting the family listen to much of his wisdome. But when he says, "Kill heretics" instead of standing up and saying flat out he is and was wrong, I am getting the "context" argument, that he was just a product of his times.
If morality is evolving with us, than it does not exist until it comes into being. It is not some weird platonic abstract object. To hold someone responsible for it after the fact is to hold a dinosaur to task for not being a human.
If there is an absolute morality that we are growing towards, then I would ask where that comes from, and by who's authority.
If there is no absolute morality, than all is relative, and I am not sure what we are talking about?
Keep in mind:
a) there is an absolute morality that applies to all persons in all times
b) there is no absolute morality
Without authority of some kind, the mere existance of the second proposition makes the first wrong, as both are equal in weight, but the first cannot endure the existance of the second. That is just logic.
I don't know how do do that cool quote thingy yet so bear with me. First, when I said evolving, I didn't mean the biological "evolotion", I met changing.
Second, I state that I and I alone think that the things mentioned were evil. It just so happens that many people agree with me at this time. But when I make moral judgements I hardly deem it necessary to ask popular opinion. The reason I think that I know it is things like mentioned were wrong is because of empathy. As the world has gotten smaller people have slowly realized how we are all human (not the original case in slavery) and how basically almost everyone on the planet wants the same thing. It's because we recognize eachother as humans we can show them empathy which leads to morality. So I don't know that I can show you impirical data that something is wrong, but are you saying that you think thinks like inquisitions, jihad and crusades aren't? And if you don't think they are wrong, or you church doesn't I think it is my turn to ask how you came to those conclusions without the bible expressing it. It morality, as I think you and many of the new age christians are claiming is innate and coming form a god figure, why did it take this long for the churches to figure this out? If morality comes from God, then why a bible?
Also, as I have said, if I am reading your answer correctly, it seems that you are making the case that if racism is popular in a society we either have no right to judge it or you are once again trying to insert the belief that it was a what is seeming to be a rather incompetent god figure waited about 100,000 years to suddenly change are hearts.
So the last part of what you said with the A: and B answers is not logical in the least, it's more bunk philosophy on why I guess christians feel they are incapable themselves of deciding what is right or wrong. It is simple that once mankind accepted itself as mankind and put religion, race, and politics behind it, we began empathizing with eachother. It is because of this MANMADE laws changed, and Christian teachings, which was I think in front of the curve for a long time fell behind the curve.
Lastly, before I depart for some travel, I do have to say it astounds me know one sees the travesty of a Christian who is sainted like Aquinas can take a message like "Love they neighbor" or "Turn the cheek" and turn it into "Kill the heretics!" Then again, this dude did claim to fly, so maybe he was full of it to begin with.0 -
Changing is fine, but without even sociobiological theories of morality to back it, it is all the more arbitrary. Did it exist when the universe came into being? When dinosaurs roam? When humans lived in clans looking for fire? Or just as it is expressed? If so, how can anyone be taken to task for it retroactively?
I don't know how do do that cool quote thingy yet so bear with me. First, when I said evolving, I didn't mean the biological "evolotion", I met changing.
That is relativism, is it not?Second, I state that I and I alone think that the things mentioned were evil. It just so happens that many people agree with me at this time.
Empathy is considered an evolved trait, which places your beliefs strongly within morality by sociobiology, or evolutionary psychology. So my previous statements hold. Unless you have a different source for empathy?But when I make moral judgements I hardly deem it necessary to ask popular opinion. The reason I think that I know it is things like mentioned were wrong is because of empathy.As the world has gotten smaller people have slowly realized how we are all human (not the original case in slavery) and how basically almost everyone on the planet wants the same thing. It's because we recognize eachother as humans we can show them empathy which leads to morality. So I don't know that I can show you impirical data that something is wrong, but are you saying that you think thinks like inquisitions, jihad and crusades aren't? And if you don't think they are wrong, or you church doesn't I think it is my turn to ask how you came to those conclusions without the bible expressing it. It morality, as I think you and many of the new age christians are claiming is innate and coming form a god figure, why did it take this long for the churches to figure this out? If morality comes from God, then why a bible?
I have actually never stated a single belief of mine, but merely expressed the implications of a darwinian or materialist approach to morality. Frankly, all I see in morality is that the more affluent societies influence the less so. Inevitably, this changes, and societies readopt "traditional" morality, or more on to brand new ones. The last 40 years in Iran seem to support this, as well as the changes in Chinese culture. Is it an improvement, that they have given up elder respect and community for hardcore personal ambition? I wonder, if a plague hit, and the only survivors were isolationists of the "screw your neighbor" variety, would they then be right? It would be the only morality left. Or would they still be objectively wrong?Also, as I have said, if I am reading your answer correctly, it seems that you are making the case that if racism is popular in a society we either have no right to judge it or you are once again trying to insert the belief that it was a what is seeming to be a rather incompetent god figure waited about 100,000 years to suddenly change are hearts.
I am saying that you have provided no grounds to judge, aside from an appeal to current popular opinion to contravene past popular opinion. Do you have anything better?
It is analytic philosophy. Two propositions that are equal in weight, but are opposed. Both have equal validity when expressed individually, but the first is only correct if there is no dissension. The second implies that there are two or more opinions, the first requires that there only be one. Inherently, as there are two opinions, the first is wrong. Unless the first has other support or evidence. I don't know how else to put it, Christianity is accused of illogic, so I give plain old propositional logic, and it is accused of the same.So the last part of what you said with the A: and B answers is not logical in the least, it's more bunk philosophy on why I guess christians feel they are incapable themselves of deciding what is right or wrong. It is simple that once mankind accepted itself as mankind and put religion, race, and politics behind it, we began empathizing with eachother. It is because of this MANMADE laws changed, and Christian teachings, which was I think in front of the curve for a long time fell behind the curve.
Frankly, I have not seen a whole lot to prove that your further statements are true. I see more groups entrenched in ideological dispute than ever, and less common ground. I could be wrong.
Heck, I did not say that I did not think him completely wrong the matter. I do. My point is strictly about why YOU do. I do not see how a materialist logic, that has no realm of platonic abstract objects, metaphysical properties, or spiritual truths, but is full of hard deterministic causes, can accomodate the notion that a person was wrong prior to the causes of his being wrong. IE, if morality results from rather than precedes human society, how can a man be held responsible for later moral thought resulting from a later society?Lastly, before I depart for some travel, I do have to say it astounds me know one sees the travesty of a Christian who is sainted like Aquinas can take a message like "Love they neighbor" or "Turn the cheek" and turn it into "Kill the heretics!" Then again, this dude did claim to fly, so maybe he was full of it to begin with.
Have fun on your travels, and Merry Christmas.0 -
Dang it, I still have two posts on here I have not responded to, and that thread on the logical basis of Christianity to start. Last time I tried to start it, though, I was almost injured by a narcoleptic fit. Does anyone actually want me to do that thread? Anybody?0
This discussion has been closed.