Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 07-03-2006, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

By "different", do you mean divine? Maybe Paul was just centuries ahead of his time in a secular way, maybe 1st Corinthians 15:1-8 is an interpolation, and maybe there was a lot more borrowing among the Gospel writers than you suppose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

No I don't mean divine.

Fictions about UFO don't involve discourse that deals with people's existential condition. The gospel does. So does Plato.

Claims about UFOs are either true or false. Plato's writing isn't true or false. It's either meaningful or not. The gospel is like Plato, not like UFO claims.

But what EVENTUAL conclusion are you trying to establish, that the first group of people in history to come up with a decent system of ethics got their system of ethics from God? I don't believe that God is ethical at all.

Gamera · 07-03-2006, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But what EVENTUAL conclusion are you trying to establish, that the first group of people in history to come up with a decent system of ethics got their system of ethics from God? I don't believe that God is ethical at all.

You keep changing the topic. I'm pointing out that your argument about how fictive discourse spreads doesn't apply to Plato or the gospel, which are not true/false messages, but discourse about issues, that are meaningful or not, and that it was the meaningfulness of Christianity that accounts in part to its spread.

But if you want to make the absurd assumption that Plato's Republic is like a UFO claim, be my guest. It makes my point more than yours.

Johnny Skeptic · 07-03-2006, 06:30 PM

Message to Gamera: In part of my post #69, I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

You claim that you are interested in evidence, but that is not true. You would surely reject THE VERY SAME EVIDENCE if the evidence said that everyone would go to hell. In other words, the number of eyewitnesses, the number of gospels, the number of copies of ancient manuscripts would not matter at all, in fact, even if the evidence was twice as good as the evidence that is found in the Bible.

Regardless of the evidence, self-interest ALWAYS presumes that whenever a person is confronted by evidence that claims that he will go to hell, it is best to argue against the evidence, or if a person is uncertain to hope that the evidence was wrong. There would be no possible advantage in doing otherwise.

If a powerful being came from outer space, claimed be a God other than the God of the Bible, demonstrated FIRSTHAND in front of everyone in the world, not hearsay evidence like in the Bible, that he could convert energy into matter and destroy a large building in one second, said that he was going to destroy the earth in six months, and left the earth, most Christians would hope that the supposed God would somehow not be able to carry out his threat. On the other hand, if a being from outer space came to earth, claimed that he was Jesus, and demonstrated THE EXACT SAME POWERS, Christians would hope, in fact assume, that the being was actually Jesus.

Hypothetical arguments are often excellent means of revealing inconsistent arguments. Christians frequently use them whenever they believe that it suits their purposes to do so. A good example is C. S. Lewis’ ‘Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.’ Evidence that cannot be credibly consistently applied is not evidence at all.

Would you or would you not reject the very same quality of evidence if the evidence said that you will go to hell?

You did not reply to those arguments. Please do so.

Gamera · 07-03-2006, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to Gamera: In part of my post #69, I said:

You did not reply to those arguments. Please do so.

See below. I did respond by showing they are irrelevant to the issue of accounting for the spread of Christianity, whose discourse is more like Plato's Republic than UFO claims.

Johnny Skeptic · 07-03-2006, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to Gamera: In part of my post #69, I said:

You did not reply to those arguments. Please do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

See below. I did respond by showing they are irrelevant to the issue of accounting for the spread of Christianity, whose discourse is more like Plato's Republic than UFO claims.

Even if God was the reason that Christianity was successful, I would reject him anyway because he is not ethical. Millions of other non-Christians feel the same way. If you cannot adequately defend God's character, you don't have an argument.

aa5874 · 07-03-2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Islam had great success for two obvious reason. One it was spread by war and forced conversion. Second, it in fact has a very attractive message that was directed at a pagan populations that for whatever reason Christianity did not prosletyze.
Early Christianity was not disseminated by war or colonialism, but solely on the power of its message.

But you would admit that Christians were killing Christians at one time, possibly because of the power of its message. The followers of the God of Moses were instructed to kill those who worshipped other Gods long before the Christ arrived. War was the God of Moses favorite means of propagation of the power of His message.

History has shown that the spread of a religion increases expotentially when Church and State collude. Christianity is on its way down, it has forever lost its link to the State, the clock cannot be turned back. There is no extra-biblical evidence that the 'Christ' exist or ever did, not to mention his Father.

Johnny Skeptic · 07-03-2006, 07:56 PM

The most important debate is the issue of the ethics of
God, not the ethics of the early Christian church. No building is any better than its foundation. I submit that even if the God of the Bible exists, he is not ethical, and is in fact quite detestible, and should therefore be rejected.

Johnny Skeptic · 07-04-2006, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The issue is why did Christianity spread so quickly.

Well of course it is, and who has said otherwise? You ought to be aware that there are a lot more "whys" that need to be discussed besides why Christianity spread so quickly, but since you aren't, I will discuss some of the other equally if not much more important "whys". If Christianity is ethical, then by necessity its founder, which if Christianity is true would have to be God, must be ethical as well. A "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy is not a valid concept for an ethical being to endorse, but that is exactly what the God of the Bible endorses.

You said that Old Testament Jews did not give the world anything nearly as ethical as Christianity is, but whose fault is that? How could the Jews have possibly given the world something that was not first given to them by God? Hebrews 8:6 says "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." If you had a better cure for cancer, and you were ethical, would you wait for thousands of years to give it to the world? Similarly, if God is ethical, would he allow hundreds of millions of people to die without having heard the Gospel message? Your bashful God wishes to show himself, but only his big toe. Actually, a toe nail would do quite nicely.

To what extent would an ethical God go in order to keep people from going to hell? Certainly an ethical God would do much more than the God of the Bible has done to keep people from going to hell. No Christian can rationally argue against this. If Jesus exists, if he made some more appearances today, surely some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and lots of other historical characters attracted lots of follows based upon much less convincing evidence than the miracles that are attributed to Jesus, so surely my argument is valid.

If anything, the God of the Bible is apathetic, and apathy is not a character trait of an ethical God. Jefferson Davis was the President of the Southern Confederacy during the Civil War. He was a Christian, and he said that the Bible condones slavery. A brief appearance by God would easily have settled this issue, but your apathetic God would have none of that. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines the word "ethics" as "the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation". Is ethics simply what God says it is, or does ethics transcend God? Are God's judgments legitimate simply because he has the ability to enfore them?

So, while you ask "how likely is A" without the help of an ethical God, I ask you how likely are B, C, D, E, F, and G if God is ethical?

Some Christians prefer exegesis. I prefer exit Jesus.

07-03-2006, 07:56 PM	#77
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	How fast a fictional belief becomes widespread? The most important debate is the issue of the ethics of God, not the ethics of the early Christian church. No building is any better than its foundation. I submit that even if the God of the Bible exists, he is not ethical, and is in fact quite detestible, and should therefore be rejected.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.