Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[carpedm9587]

I never said you said there were no subconscious forces acting on you. I asked the question. Remember, again, you brought this whole subconscious thing in to question my claim about my motivation for conversion. So do I get to use the subconscious thing to question your motives? Yes or no?

You might have a leg to stand on, Seer, if you had not followed the "question" with "I officially crown you king of the double standard!" That rendered your question rhetorical and made your conclusion about the answer to that question clear. You never waited for the answer. But I do not expect you to acknowledge that or retract the statement. History suggests you will simply double down on it and divert until it becomes too tiresome to pursue. Consider it already at that point. If that is how you want to discuss debate - so be it. It primarily reflects on you, not me.

And we are all driven by subsconscious needs, so if you can identify a subconscious need that would be served by ending a belief in an all loving god, that the human person is eternal, and that we are all forgiven if we simply confess our need for god and follow "his" laws, knock yourself out.

Good, so we agree that these things were what the early Christians believed.

There is no cause to question this.

It is also a fact that this early community was populated by Apostles and Disciples (followers of Christ while he was on earth).

It is likely at least some of the widely flung communities included at least some people who were alive at the same time as Jesus of Nazareth. What they did and did not see cannot be determined with any certainty.

So why shouldn't I take these at face value?

I have enumerated this already. We do not have any established eyewitness testimony. We do not have any certitude of authorship. We do not have any external corroboration. Indeed, we do not have most of the things historians depend on to increase confidence in correctness. So the best we can summarize from the available documents is that they convey the beliefs of the church that existed 30-70 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The accuracy of the beliefs cannot be determined from the available evidence.

Perhaps you would like to preset your evidence that they were wrong. Since you are claiming that now.

I have never claimed this (though it is what I believe) and it is not what I am arguing - so I have no response.

Then why did you bring the science thing up in the first place. And now you will not defend it? That seems like a dishonest debating tactic to me.

Because it is one of a body of disciplines that provides information about what we can and cannot derive from the NT texts. Science is used to date the texts. Science is used to perform linguistic analysis on the texts. Heck, science is used to read some of the texts.

And I'm defending the position that there is no good reason not to take the New Testament as generally reliable.

So, removing your double negatives. you are defending the position that the NT claims are reliable and accurately portray the life of Jesus of Nazareth. For all of the reasons I have cited, I reject your claim. You have not adequately defended the claim, "the available evidence tells us that all of the claims made in the NT about the life of Jesus of Nazareth are accurate."

[seer]

You might have a leg to stand on, Seer, if you had not followed the "question" with "I officially crown you king of the double standard!" That rendered your question rhetorical and made your conclusion about the answer to that question clear. You never waited for the answer. But I do not expect you to acknowledge that or retract the statement. History suggests you will simply double down on it and divert until it becomes too tiresome to pursue. Consider it already at that point. If that is how you want to discuss debate - so be it. It primarily reflects on you, not me.

And we are all driven by subsconscious needs, so if you can identify a subconscious need that would be served by ending a belief in an all loving god, that the human person is eternal, and that we are all forgiven if we simply confess our need for god and follow "his" laws, knock yourself out.

So let me get this right - it is OK to question your motives based on your subconscious? The problem with appealing to the subconscious Carp, in any case, is that we have no idea what the subconscious is motivating or not motivating. It is a black box (that is why it is called the subconscious). So I can only tell you my what my conscious motivations are and you don't get to second guess them - unless you do so dishonestly. Or don't object when others do the same to you.

It is likely at least some of the widely flung communities included at least some people who were alive at the same time as Jesus of Nazareth. What they did and did not see cannot be determined with any certainty.

Except we know by the texts what they did see and think.

I have enumerated this already. We do not have any established eyewitness testimony. We do not have any certitude of authorship. We do not have any external corroboration. Indeed, we do not have most of the things historians depend on to increase confidence in correctness. So the best we can summarize from the available documents is that they convey the beliefs of the church that existed 30-70 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The accuracy of the beliefs cannot be determined from the available evidence.

No Carp, the Book of Acts begins with Christ still on earth. The point is you agree that this is what the early community believed and there is no evidence that these belies were inaccurate.

Because it is one of a body of disciplines that provides information about what we can and cannot derive from the NT texts. Science is used to date the texts. Science is used to perform linguistic analysis on the texts. Heck, science is used to read some of the texts.

That is not science. That is historical investigation.

science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

So, removing your double negatives. you are defending the position that the NT claims are reliable and accurately portray the life of Jesus of Nazareth. For all of the reasons I have cited, I reject your claim. You have not adequately defended the claim, "the available evidence tells us that all of the claims made in the NT about the life of Jesus of Nazareth are accurate."

And you have not adequately defeated my claim. You have not shown good reason not to take them at face value.

[carpedm9587]

So let me get this right - it is OK to question your motives based on your subconscious?

Of course it is. Bias is something we all have to struggle against, and subconscious influences are the plague of humanity, much as we might all like to think we are free of them. If there is cause to believe a subconscious process at work, hauling into the light is a useful thing.

BTW - I note you STILL have not acknowledged inappropriately accusing me of a double standard based on a claim I never made. Don't worry, I'm not really expecting it.

The problem with appealing to the subconscious Carp, in any case, is that we have no idea what the subconscious is motivating or not motivating. It is a black box (that is why it is called the subconscious). So I can only tell you my what my conscious motivations are and you don't get to second guess them - unless you do so dishonestly. Or don't object when others do the same to you.

Actually, we can know trends and patterns. We know the basic needs (i.e. Maslow) humanity has, which drive a great deal of decision making at both a conscious and a subconscious level. We cannot know with certainty, AFAICT, what is happening subconsciously for Person A at time Y, but we can make observations about possibilities and probabilities. Given the core message of Christianity, there is a significant probability that your subjective needs drove acceptance of that message. We all want release from pain. We all seek acceptance. We all seek love and forgiveness. The Christian message is psychologically powerful. Why do you think it has succeeded all these years?

Except we know by the texts what they did see and think.

We know, from the texts, what the people living 30-70 years after Jesus died believed. If there were contemporaries of Jesus living at that time (which is likely), we know what the people who listened to them (second hand) wrote down about the stories they told about events that occurred 30-70 years prior. You are not painting a strong case for "certainty."

No Carp, the Book of Acts begins with Christ still on earth. The point is you agree that this is what the early community believed and there is no evidence that these belies were inaccurate.

Seer, Acts what most likely written by the same person who wrote the gospel of Luke, IIRC, and is believed to have been authored at roughly the same time, that is late 60s at the earliest, early to mid 70s more likely. That's 20-30 years after the events it records, and most of it is second hand retelling. The author we call "Luke" is documenting the stories that pervaded the christian community at that time.

That is not science. That is historical investigation.

science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Seer, do you seriously think that science is not involved in restoring and preserving ancient documents? That science is not involved it dating them? Documents form the past are physical things - part of the physical universe - and so can be part of the purview of science. Linguistics is a science. Human beings are part of the natural world and human language is part of our behavior. Psychology is a science. Linguistics is the science of language. Look it up.

And you have not adequately defeated my claim. You have not shown good reason not to take them at face value.

Seer - you are the one making the claim that the NT documents are adequate evidence to accept the stories they related about Jesus are true. I have shown multiple times that they are by no means adequate. To accept them as such, you have to grant them special treatment not granted to other historical claims. You lack any external corroboration of the events of Jesus life (except the fact of his existence - which is not in dispute). You lack any demonstrable first-person accounts. You lack the ability to establish authorship and associate the writings with a surrounding body of work by the same author that can be used to establish veracity. You are arguing for certainty about entire speeches given on the basis of recalled, mostly second-hand, retellings of a religious community for which you don't even have original materials.

On this basis - the furthest you can go is, "the documents of the NT tell us what the community of that period believed about the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and the origins of the early church." We are seeing the theology of a community that has already evolved its theology by 3-7 decades, and whose theology would continue to evolve for the next two millennia. How much of what they relate is "evolved theology" and how much of what they relate is "accurate history" is simply indeterminable.

[seer]

Of course it is. Bias is something we all have to struggle against, and subconscious influences are the plague of humanity, much as we might all like to think we are free of them. If there is cause to believe a subconscious process at work, hauling into the light is a useful thing.

BTW - I note you STILL have not acknowledged inappropriately accusing me of a double standard based on a claim I never made. Don't worry, I'm not really expecting it.

Of course you used a double standard. Why did you get your back up when someone questioned and assumed your motives but felt perfectly free to assume or tell me what my motive was? That is the bottom line here Carp. So stop obfuscating and answer.

Actually, we can know trends and patterns. We know the basic needs (i.e. Maslow) humanity has, which drive a great deal of decision making at both a conscious and a subconscious level. We cannot know with certainty, AFAICT, what is happening subconsciously for Person A at time Y, but we can make observations about possibilities and probabilities. Given the core message of Christianity, there is a significant probability that your subjective needs drove acceptance of that message. We all want release from pain. We all seek acceptance. We all seek love and forgiveness. The Christian message is psychologically powerful. Why do you think it has succeeded all these years?

Again Carp, these were not the reasons why I first accepted Christianity, and you are in no position to say otherwise. And when you claim that others are misrepresenting your motives while at the same time misrepresenting mine, that is hypocrisy plain and simple.

[carpedm9587]

Of course you used a double standard. Why did you get your back up when someone questioned and assumed your motives but felt perfectly free to assume or tell me what my motive was? That is the bottom line here Carp. So stop obfuscating and answer.

OK - now we know that you prefer to push forward a known untruth than admit an error. There is a name for that, Seer: lying.

Again Carp, these were not the reasons why I first accepted Christianity, and you are in no position to say otherwise.

Basic psychology suggests otherwise.

And when you claim that others are misrepresenting your motives while at the same time misrepresenting mine, that is hypocrisy plain and simple.

Again - apples and oranges. You're mixing subconscious drivers with conscious motives. When someone infers a meaning in something I said, and I correct their mistake - but they insist they know better, they have wandered into lying. If someone wants to make a case about subconscious motivation, the best I can say is "I'll have to investigate that to see if it is possible/likely." There is no other response possible because it is, as you noted, subconscious.

[seer]

OK - now we know that you prefer to push forward a known untruth than admit an error. There is a name for that, Seer: lying.

What error Carp? That you assume my motives while balking when other did it to you? That is the bottom line here - admit your hypocrisy.

Basic psychology suggests otherwise.

There you go again, you really have no shame.

Again - apples and oranges. You're mixing subconscious drivers with conscious motives. When someone infers a meaning in something I said, and I correct their mistake - but they insist they know better, they have wandered into lying. If someone wants to make a case about subconscious motivation, the best I can say is "I'll have to investigate that to see if it is possible/likely." There is no other response possible because it is, as you noted, subconscious.

Then you are lying about me since you insist that you know my motives better than me.

[carpedm9587]

What error Carp? That you assume my motives while balking when other did it to you? That is the bottom line here - admit your hypocrisy.

There you go again, you really have no shame.

Then you are lying about me since you insist that you know my motives better than me.

OK - we're past the point of usefulness. If you cannot distinguish between subconscious and conscious motivations and keep the discussion clear, and feel a need to constantly go to "hypocrite" and "disingenuous," you're a waste of my time and not much better in the discussion arena than Pix or MM. I had thought better of you, Seer, but I was apparently wrong. You apparently want to win at any cost, even if it means you have to compromise your integrity.

Feel free to chalk up the win. I'm done here, and probably going forward. I may test the waters sometime in the future if I see any change in your behavior. Otherwise, not worth my time.


Be healthy -

[seer]

OK - we're past the point of usefulness. If you cannot distinguish between subconscious and conscious motivations and keep the discussion clear, and feel a need to constantly go to "hypocrite" and "disingenuous," you're a waste of my time and not much better in the discussion arena than Pix or MM. I had thought better of you, Seer, but I was apparently wrong. You apparently want to win at any cost, even if it means you have to compromise your integrity.

Feel free to chalk up the win. I'm done here, and probably going forward. I may test the waters sometime in the future if I see any change in your behavior. Otherwise, not worth my time.


Be healthy -

Just remember Carp your incessant harping on Trump probably has to do with your subconscious daddy issues and fear of strong alphas males.

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, the Gospel of John was an eyewitness,

Really. John’s gospel is generally dated at c.95 -110 CE so it’s difficult to argue eyewitness reportage OR Johannine authorship given such late dating. According to biblical scholar Raymond E Brown what we have with the gospels are “four different accounts written some thirty to seventy years later in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, all of which were dependent on tradition that had come down from an intervening generation or generations”. Death of the Messiah.

that is what the text says. The letters (not Gospels) 1,2,3 John and 1,2 Peter are eyewitnesses.

The epistles of John are as equally late as the gospel and therefore not considered eyewitness accounts. Those of Peter are widely considered pseudepigraphcal.

And how does Ehrman know what was written before the Gospels? What is he referencing? What texts?

Bart Ehrman is an eminent bible scholar, I suggest you read him.

And by the way Tass Bauckham believes the Gospels were ACCURATE:

No doubt. That after all is what his “Jesus and the eyewitnesses” sets out to show. But even he does not claim actual eyewitness reportage. He can say no more than the gospels were written by those with access to eyewitness testimony of Jesus' first followers i.e. second or third-hand testimony – similar as that reported by the likes of Papias to whom Bauckham refers in his book.

[Tassman]

Just remember Carp your incessant harping on Trump probably has to do with your subconscious daddy issues and fear of strong alphas males.

OR, more likely, his (and my) overt "fear" that "Trump failed the biggest test of his life" to the terrible detriment of the USA and the rest of the world.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...5npeAXJW3pUPhE

[seer]

Bart Ehrman is an eminent bible scholar, I suggest you read him.

I actually have Tass, and have watched him in a number of debates. He has no actual evidence (texts and such) that disagree with what the New Testament writing claims about Christ. What we have in the NT are the earliest known Christian writings.

No doubt. That after all is what his “Jesus and the eyewitnesses” sets out to show. But even he does not claim actual eyewitness reportage. He can say no more than the gospels were written by those with access to eyewitness testimony of Jesus' first followers i.e. second or third-hand testimony – similar as that reported by the likes of Papias to whom Bauckham refers in his book.

And Bauckham is also a eminent bible scholar, unlike Ehrman he is a Cambridge scholar. And his conclusion is that the NT is reliable and accurate. So why don't you believe the very man that you referenced?

[seer]

OR, more likely, his (and my) overt "fear" that "Trump failed the biggest test of his life" to the terrible detriment of the USA and the rest of the world.

Nonsense Tass, that is not what the American people think - he is polling higher as positive than negative in his handling of the crisis. And most Western countries are doing worst or about the same. Italy, Spain, Britain, Germany, etc...

[Tassman]

I actually have Tass, and have watched him in a number of debates. He has no actual evidence (texts and such) that disagree with what the New Testament writing claims about Christ. What we have in the NT are the earliest known Christian writings.

Raymond E Brown is recognized as a preeminent biblical scholar and his position re the gospels is reflected by Ehrman and the majority of biblical scholars. Namely that what we have with the gospels are “four different accounts written some thirty to seventy years later in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, all of which were dependent on tradition that had come down from an intervening generation or generations” - Death of the Messiah. In short, the majority of New Testament scholars agree that there are no eyewitness accounts of the Jesus story, which is what you were claiming.

And Bauckham is also a eminent bible scholar. And his conclusion is that the NT is reliable and accurate. So why don't you believe the very man that you referenced?

Indeed, Bauckham is a recognized biblical scholar but even he, despite his best efforts, cannot claim actual eyewitness accounts. The best he can do is argue that the gospels were written by those with access to eyewitness testimony of Jesus' first followers - not actual eyewitness testimony itself. This includes reference to Papias’ claims to have spoken with travelers, who had met some surviving disciples of Jesus. But these, even if genuine, are NOT eyewitness accounts - they are second or third-hand accounts at best.

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, that is not what the American people think - he is polling higher as positive than negative in his handling of the crisis.

Polling has nothing to do with the fact that Trump lost four to six weeks in public denial when he should have been preparing for the worst pandemic in modern times. Consequently, “Today, 86,012 cases have been confirmed across the US, pushing the nation to the top of the world’s coronavirus league table – above even China”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...5npeAXJW3pUPhE

[carpedm9587]

OR, more likely, his (and my) overt "fear" that "Trump failed the biggest test of his life" to the terrible detriment of the USA and the rest of the world.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...5npeAXJW3pUPhE

Pretty much. Trump's base is about to discover that lies don't change the cold hard reality of facts. What they will be left with is deflect and blame. But that will grow thin and tiresome as people continue to get sick and die.