Catch 22 of the Bible

[Syne]

So basically religious morality is no different than atheist morality?

Difference is only a matter of whether all points of one correspond to all those of the other. Whether you think they do or not, then there is your answer.

Matthew 5:17 - Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Those are the words of Jesus himself saying that not one "jot or tittle" of the Old Testament shall pass away, and reminding people that the commandments of the Pentateuch remain in force.

Yes, "the Law and the Prophets" is a reference to the OT in general, but this says nothing about any specific laws. Matthew 7:12 addresses these:

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.​

In other words, the intent of the law (and the OT in general) was still in force , but not the letter of the law. This is exactly as I said earlier. The rules can give way to maturity.

 

[Syne]

But any form of interpretation, without accepting the whole text literally is just picking and choosing to suit and or justify a particual viewpoint.

It is preposterous to claim that any work of literature MUST be taken as wholly literal or entirely dismissed. This is a very naive false dilemma.

But perhaps that is precisely it's value. It's like the I Ching or a Rorschach test. It makes people feel better about what they already want to believe.

Yes, like a tarot reading, people find value in how they fit it to their own circumstances.

 

[spidergoat]

Difference is only a matter of whether all points of one correspond to all those of the other. Whether you think they do or not, then there is your answer.

Given the revelation that Christian behavior isn't the result of fixed objective rules, is there enough consistency within Christianity to even make the comparison?

 

[Syne]

Given the revelation that Christian behavior isn't the result of fixed objective rules, is there enough consistency within Christianity to even make the comparison?

So atheist morality is nothing more than secular law?

 

[Gorlitz]

So what I think is every time someone gives a sermon using passages from the bible I really can't see how it is any different from someone reading from a book of fairy tails and assigning them moralistic meaning!

 

[billvon]

The Constitution is not contradictory. It clearly states that slavery was eliminated.

It also says that escaped slaves have to be returned to their owners. Seems like a bit of a contradiction.

And we know it was written by fallible men who never claimed to be perfect, which is why we can update it.

As was the Bible. However, unlike the Constitution, it has also been translated by fallible men several times.

 

[billvon]

But any form of interpretation, without accepting the whole text literally is just picking and choosing to suit and or justify a particual viewpoint. This means ultimately it has no value as you can pick and choose which ever bit you want.

Are you really saying that unless you accept the whole text literally, the text has no value?

Newton's Principia is one of the most important works in the history of science. It established the foundation of classical mechanics which we still use today. It also stated Newton's law of universal gravitation, and a contained a derivation of Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

However, it contains errors. Newton did not understand relativity, and thus his laws of planetary motion were insufficient to predict Mercury's orbit accurately. There are also logical and mathematical errors, as listed by Carnap, Godel and Wittgenstein.

Does this mean that Principia has no value, since people can just pick and choose any bit they want?

 

[spidergoat]

So atheist morality is nothing more than secular law?

It's nothing more than people making their own choices based on intuition, empathy, and experience.

 

[Gorlitz]

Are you really saying that unless you accept the whole text literally, the text has no value?

Newton's Principia is one of the most important works in the history of science. It established the foundation of classical mechanics which we still use today. It also stated Newton's law of universal gravitation, and a contained a derivation of Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

However, it contains errors. Newton did not understand relativity, and thus his laws of planetary motion were insufficient to predict Mercury's orbit accurately. There are also logical and mathematical errors, as listed by Carnap, Godel and Wittgenstein.

Does this mean that Principia has no value, since people can just pick and choose any bit they want?

Newton's work was provable, show how the bible is provable?, also many bits of the bible contradict others, thus people are only ever selecting bits which they themselves give meaning to, but really it's about this one simple fact 'truth'. How can any of us declare some stories within the bible are true, what gives us the right or ability to choose which ones are true or which bits are important and relevant or which bits arn't? Do any of us have divine inspiration to 'know' the true bits from bits we should reject? So if you were to recite to me any part of the bible I would say unless your are willing to accept it all as true how can you convince me that the particular bit you have selected is true if you are freely willing to accept that there are bits you yourself do not believe as true.

 

[billvon]

Newton's work was provable

Yes, and some of it was proven wrong.

show how the bible is provable?

Collaboration with historical records. Same way any historical account is provable.

also many bits of the bible contradict others

Definitely!

How can any of us declare some stories within the bible are true, what gives us the right or ability to choose which ones are true or which bits are important and relevant or which bits arn't?

We all have the right to believe anything we choose, and what is important and relevant to us.

So if you were to recite to me any part of the bible I would say unless your are willing to accept it all as true how can you convince me that the particular bit you have selected is true if you are freely willing to accept that there are bits you yourself do not believe as true.

Same way I might recite the Principia to you and say "this isn't quite true, since relativity affects mercury's orbit, but the basic concepts are useful." You are, of course, free to ignore what I say,

 

[spidergoat]

Collaboration with historical records. Same way any historical account is provable.

There isn't any historical corroboration for the stories about Jesus.

 

[Gorlitz]

We all have the right to believe anything we choose, and what is important and relevant to us.

In that case why do we even need the bible, surely there are more modern and relevant texts to draw our inspiration from?

 

[billvon]

There isn't any historical corroboration for the stories about Jesus.

In AD 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote: "Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome."

AD 112, Pilny the Younger: "They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

Around AD 100 (date uncertain) Josephus: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared."

 

[billvon]

In that case why do we even need the bible, surely there are more modern and relevant texts to draw our inspiration from?

You might not, or you might use the Torah, or the Koran, or the Vedas. Whatever works for you.

 

[spidergoat]

In AD 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote: "Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome."

AD 112, Pilny the Younger: "They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

Around AD 100 (date uncertain) Josephus: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared."

Congratulations, you have proven that Christians existed.

The passages of Josephus in question are widely considered by scholars to be a later addition and a forgery.

Even if we assume that Jesus did exist, and that people recorded seeing miracles, that STILL wouldn't be evidence that anything supernatural actually occurred.

 

[Syne]

So atheist morality is nothing more than secular law?

It's nothing more than people making their own choices based on intuition, empathy, and experience.

Christian morality is the result of fixed rules. So there is a difference between it and atheist morality.

Even if we assume that Jesus did exist, and that people recorded seeing miracles, that STILL wouldn't be evidence that anything supernatural actually occurred.

Miracles are not necessary, as what Jesus taught is sufficient to believe him enlightened.

 

[spidergoat]

Christian morality is the result of fixed rules. So there is a difference between it and atheist morality.

But you said:

Who says that there must be uniform agreement on any literary work?

If there is no uniform agreement on a literary work, then there can be no objective or fixed rules. Some people interpret Jesus' teachings as kind and cooperative. Others use the same book to justify the belief in hell and demons.

Miracles are not necessary, as what Jesus taught is sufficient to believe him enlightened.

Enlightenment doesn't mean you are a god. This atheist also agrees that some of the sayings attributed to Jesus are the mark of an enlightened person.

 

[billvon]

Congratulations, you have proven that Christians existed.

Yes, followers of Christ existed.

The passages of Josephus in question are widely considered by scholars to be a later addition and a forgery.

They might be. The odds of all three being forgeries is low.

Even if we assume that Jesus did exist, and that people recorded seeing miracles, that STILL wouldn't be evidence that anything supernatural actually occurred.

Agreed.

 

[billvon]

Some people interpret Jesus' teachings as kind and cooperative. Others use the same book to justify the belief in hell and demons.

Some people interpret the Constitution to be all about preserving individual rights and protecting the common man from an overzealous government. Some people interpret the Constitution as a document that gives Congress the power to tax and to create laws that might restrict people's rights.

Who is right?

 

[spidergoat]

Some people interpret the Constitution to be all about preserving individual rights and protecting the common man from an overzealous government. Some people interpret the Constitution as a document that gives Congress the power to tax and to create laws that might restrict people's rights.

Who is right?

But we know and anticipate that the Constitution is open to interpretation. That's why we have the Supreme Court. But Christians often boast that Christianity is superior because it's an objective and fixed guide to morality.