Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[carpedm9587]

Carp, if a friend of yours came back from the dead would you ever forget it? No matter how many years you lived?

That is where we differ, my friend. I do not accept the proposition that the books of the NT were written by eyewitnesses. We simply do not have adequate evidence to make that case, and a lot of (admittedly circumstantial) evidence to suggest they were not. Mark (the earliest) appears to have been written in Rome, no earlier than 60 AD. The other gospels are all dated later, written in the context of different communities (some unknown), and to different audiences. There are elements to the story the authors could not have been privy to - but they related them in the same voice as the latter parts of the life of Jesus. Paul was certainly not a contemporary of Jesus or an eyewitness. He was simply a very charismatic young man who had a relgious experience and became a very vocal, and literary, defender of this Christian sect. But even his earliest letters are dated at least a couple of decades after the life of Christ. I would have to dig WAY back in my scriptural exegesis to provide a defense for that position, and I'm simply not invested enough to go through all of that all over again at this point in my life. If you want to mount a defense for why I should accept such things, I will certainly look at the evidence, but I do not expect you to.

So, at the end of the day, I do not think anyone rose from the dead, or performed actual miracles. I do not believe the nativity story is historical - or the virgin birth - or the resurrection - or the ascension. I believe those are theological developments in the narrative - not historical ones.

[seer]

That is where we differ, my friend. I do not accept the proposition that the books of the NT were written by eyewitnesses. We simply do not have adequate evidence to make that case, and a lot of (admittedly circumstantial) evidence to suggest they were not. Mark (the earliest) appears to have been written in Rome, no earlier than 60 AD. The other gospels are all dated later, written in the context of different communities (some unknown), and to different audiences. There are elements to the story the authors could not have been privy to - but they related them in the same voice as the latter parts of the life of Jesus. Paul was certainly not a contemporary of Jesus or an eyewitness. He was simply a very charismatic young man who had a relgious experience and became a very vocal, and literary, defender of this Christian sect. But even his earliest letters are dated at least a couple of decades after the life of Christ. I would have to dig WAY back in my scriptural exegesis to provide a defense for that position, and I'm simply not invested enough to go through all of that all over again at this point in my life. If you want to mount a defense for why I should accept such things, I will certainly look at the evidence, but I do not expect you to.

So, at the end of the day, I do not think anyone rose from the dead, or performed actual miracles. I do not believe the nativity story is historical - or the virgin birth - or the resurrection - or the ascension. I believe those are theological developments in the narrative - not historical ones.

Carp, I you did not answer my question. The fact is Paul was a contemporary of the Apostles, the Synoptic Gospels were written well within the lifetimes of many of Jesus' original followers. The writer of Luke and Acts was a contemporary of the Apostles. The Gospel of John was based on an eyewitness. The point being that there again is no evidence for a developed theology or that these writers did not know what Christ actually claimed or did - especially with the more dramatic claims and acts. Like the claim to Sonship, raising the dead, healing the blind, or His resurrection. These events would have been memorable. Like I asked Carp, if a friend of yours came back from the dead - would you ever forget that?

[carpedm9587]

Carp, I you did not answer my question. The fact is Paul was a contemporary of the Apostles, the Synoptic Gospels were written well within the lifetimes of many of Jesus' original followers. The writer of Luke and Acts was a contemporary of the Apostles. The Gospel of John was based on an eyewitness. The point being that there again is no evidence for a developed theology or that these writers did not know what Christ actually claimed or did - especially with the more dramatic claims and acts. Like the claim to Sonship, raising the dead, healing the blind, or His resurrection. These events would have been memorable. Like I asked Carp, if a friend of yours came back from the dead - would you ever forget that?

OK - yes, if someone I knew "came back from the dead" I would remember that this occurred, and I would work pretty hard to verify that he had been dead to begin with, because dead people simply do not come back to life after 3 days. It's not how biology works.

As for the rest - we have different beliefs my friend. John is the latest and most theologically developed of the scriptures, dating to the end of the first century. That's 50-60 years AFTER the death of Jesus. While it is possible a man could have lived into his 80s/90s, we have no way to verify that it was actually John the apostle who wrote it. Furthermore, the mystical bent of that gospel is evidently, to me, a theological development. Revelations is attributed to the same author, or at least the same community. Paul was, as best we can tell, a contemporary of the Apostles, but not an eyewitness, so he is recounting stories second hand. The Synoptics were written within the possible lifetime of the apostles, but cannot be shown to have been written BY the apostles, so cannot be definitively claimed as "eyewitness" testimony. And they were written after at least a three-decade gap, during which the theology had ample time to develop and the stories to shift as they were related and re-related, subject to all of the problems human memory bring to the table.

Look, Seer, I recognize you do not agree with any of this. I'm not trying to convince you because I know that is not going to happen. Your journey away from Christianity, if it ever happens, will most likely arise from inside - not outside. Just as you had a life-changing event that took you into Christianity (as did I, though at a much younger age), it will take a life-changing event to take you out (as it did for me, about the same age when you returned to Christianity). I doubt that is going to happen on what is essentially a Christian blog. It may never happen at all. But I cannot simply adopt your presuppositions without adequate evidence to support them. And I certainly cannot undo 30 years of faith journey on the basis of the Christian scriptures.

I go where the evidence takes me - and I have not found the "evidence" that the Christian worldview is correct to be adequate. There are elements of the worldview I find admirable (e.g., many of the social and moral precepts), but the general worldview does not impact me as "correct." It is simnply too inadequately grounded.

[seer]

OK - yes, if someone I knew "came back from the dead" I would remember that this occurred, and I would work pretty hard to verify that he had been dead to begin with, because dead people simply do not come back to life after 3 days. It's not how biology works.

As for the rest - we have different beliefs my friend. John is the latest and most theologically developed of the scriptures, dating to the end of the first century. That's 50-60 years AFTER the death of Jesus. While it is possible a man could have lived into his 80s/90s, we have no way to verify that it was actually John the apostle who wrote it. Furthermore, the mystical bent of that gospel is evidently, to me, a theological development. Revelations is attributed to the same author, or at least the same community. Paul was, as best we can tell, a contemporary of the Apostles, but not an eyewitness, so he is recounting stories second hand. The Synoptics were written within the possible lifetime of the apostles, but cannot be shown to have been written BY the apostles, so cannot be definitively claimed as "eyewitness" testimony. And they were written after at least a three-decade gap, during which the theology had ample time to develop and the stories to shift as they were related and re-related, subject to all of the problems human memory bring to the table.

Look, Seer, I recognize you do not agree with any of this. I'm not trying to convince you because I know that is not going to happen. Your journey away from Christianity, if it ever happens, will most likely arise from inside - not outside. Just as you had a life-changing event that took you into Christianity (as did I, though at a much younger age), it will take a life-changing event to take you out (as it did for me, about the same age when you returned to Christianity). I doubt that is going to happen on what is essentially a Christian blog. It may never happen at all. But I cannot simply adopt your presuppositions without adequate evidence to support them. And I certainly cannot undo 30 years of faith journey on the basis of the Christian scriptures.

I go where the evidence takes me - and I have not found the "evidence" that the Christian worldview is correct to be adequate. There are elements of the worldview I find admirable (e.g., many of the social and moral precepts), but the general worldview does not impact me as "correct." It is simnply too inadequately grounded.

OK Carp, I will leave you with the last word. Peace out, Jim

[carpedm9587]

OK Carp, I will leave you with the last word. Peace out, Jim

No need - it's been a good exchange. Thanks for the insights into your beliefs.

Oops... I guess that was a last word...

[Charles]

Lee, God's law is subjective to Him, it is His law, He is the subject. It is authoritative because He is the Creator and has the right to define the terms. And it is grounded in His nature, it springs from His moral character. Love fulfills the law because by nature God is love, so the law reflects His nature.

So if his nature was different, and if he had definded the terms otherwise then torture, rape, killing of innocent people and whatever would be your moral law?

And can you give me just one reason for God to choose the way he did? Why would he subjectively prefer one law as opposed to another? Let us see if you can give just one reason. If you want to point to "nature", then I don't see how that can be a real reason, since if his nature was different, the law would be different. Did God reflect on the law, or is it, even to himself something he just happens to prefer without any good reason?

[carpedm9587]

So if his nature was different, and if he had definded the terms otherwise then torture, rape, killing of innocent people and whatever would be your moral law?

And can you give me just one reason for God to choose the way he did? Why would he subjectively prefer one law as opposed to another? Let us see if you can give just one reason. If you want to point to "nature", then I don't see how that can be a real reason, since if his nature was different, the law would be different. Did God reflect on the law, or is it, even to himself something he just happens to prefer without any good reason?

I don't want to speak for Seer, but I do want to try to answer this to see if I have grasped his point of view correctly.

The hypothetical about god's nature doesn't get us anywhere but god is who god is, and his nature is what it is. Whatever god's nature is, that is what we see as good because that is what this god has imprinted on our hearts (i.e., conscience).

As for reasons for choice, the question has no meaning in this belief system. God doesn't "choose" one moral thing over another; rather, morality springs directly from god's nature. His moral goodness is not a choice - it is a matter of being.

Did I get that right...?

[seer]

As for reasons for choice, the question has no meaning in this belief system. God doesn't "choose" one moral thing over another; rather, morality springs directly from god's nature. His moral goodness is not a choice - it is a matter of being.

Did I get that right...?

Exactly...

[carpedm9587]

Exactly...

See. I WAS listening...

[seer]

See. I WAS listening...

Finally!

[carpedm9587]

Finally!

[Charles]

Exactly...

And what that means is that you cannot say anything in favour of you view of morality, you cannot even begin to give any reason as to why it is good, better or more perfect that anything else that could have followed from another kind of nature God could have had. In other words, you cannot discuss morality with a Muslim based on your own premises. You can only discuss theology and the nature of good but what follows from that is not something you are able to discuss. As I have said before this very often leads to a lack of reflection on what fairness is and people holding this view are among the worst criminals in present time.

[carpedm9587]

And what that means is that you cannot say anything in favour of you view of morality, you cannot even begin to give any reason as to why it is good, better or more perfect that anything else that could have followed from another kind of nature God could have had. In other words, you cannot discuss morality with a Muslim based on your own premises. You can only discuss theology and the nature of good but what follows from that is not something you are able to discuss. As I have said before this very often leads to a lack of reflection on what fairness is and people holding this view are among the worst criminals in present time.

I'm interested in the bolded phrase. Do you have someone(s) specific in mind?

[seer]

I'm interested in the bolded phrase. Do you have someone(s) specific in mind?

I have Charles on ignore until he repents, but I think his point is that anyone who has firm beliefs is a danger.

[Charles]

I'm interested in the bolded phrase. Do you have someone(s) specific in mind?

Yes, I am thinking about all sorts of religious extremists. It could be ISIS or it could be religious extremists of any sort who refuse to discuss moral values because they believe there is nothing to dicuss at all and we just have to do what God says. And they have got no reflection on the fairness of it.