fatpie42

I'm afraid you are not on such solid ground as you might think on that count. Putting the word 'reason' in bold doesn't change the fact that don't murder and don't steal were already part of the ordinary person's moral code before secularism existed and are written in Christian scripture.

What might be a better route to take the argument in is that these kinds of moral standards against murder and theft are found in all kinds of cultures and have existed in those other cultures before they made contact with Christianity (or even in European cultures before Christianity came along). On this ground you might be able to avoid appealing to some vague concept of 'reason' of which we are uncertain of the origins, but rather to the common need of all kinds of societies for these kinds of rules - independently of Christianity.

Amaleq13

I'm afraid you missed my point.

That the precepts are logical conclusions given the stated fundamental assumption means that it is utterly irrelevant that they have been included in collections of codes that were primarily religious since human civilization began and utterly false to assert that they depend on theistic beliefs.

Rational thought is all they depend upon.

rlogan

might as well try my hand at this...

God works in mysterious ways, and that the mind of man cannot grasp in totality all the wonderous acts of the creator merely demonstrates our frailty. We praise God and worship him with the faith instilled in us by Christ Jesus.

The covenant with Moses, shepherd of the people of Abraham before him, was fulfilled with the blood of the lamb - supplanting permanently the necessity of ritual sacrifice which maintained the act of atonement necessitated by the fall of man.


We follow Christ's example. Though the path be difficult and an easier road be laid before us by satan, our salvation depends upon our faith in Jesus Christ, just as his faith guided him.

And what greater sacrifice than of yourself? Shall we not give of ourselves to others?

The almighty is not a magician performing cheap tricks. Nor is mankind ready for the majesty of all eternal truth. In due time God reveals to us what is necessary for our salvation. It is not within our province to question God and we do not suffer the hubris of those who would assume to know better than he.

Osbert

Do you not find this sentence a little unreasonable, the World's ultimate authority on the interpretation of God's will are certainly not giving any of themselves, not even alms to the very needy.
The Vatican is just greed and Superbia, all hat and no knickers.

fatpie42

I would still question whose rationality this is meant to be. But yes, these rules are, for the most part, helpful for human development and most people would want that goal (hence their widespread use). But rationality is only rational if it affirms your goals. If your rationality went against your interests I'm not quite sure how it would be your rationality anymore.

fatpie42

Hah!

Hence it only makes sense if you believe in ritual sacrifice. Which most people do not anymore.

Diogenes the Cynic

The Mysterious Ways argument is an evasion, not an answer. If God wants something out of me, thenn it's his obligation to explain himself. If he can't do that, then I owe him nothing.

Not only that but Mysterious Ways also fails as an answer to the logical problems inherent in Christian soteriology because it doesn't MATTER what the his explanation is. The fact that he would have any need at all -- ANY need -- for a human sacrifice in order to save his own creation from himself is already ipso facto incompatible with any notion of an omnimax God. There logically could not be a reason good enough. Omnipotent Gods don't require means to acheive their ends, they only need to actualize the end.
And what if you don't have any faith instilled in you by Christ Jesus? What then? If faith has to be instilled by Christ Jesus, doesn't that make salvation arbitrary?
This is just begging the question. We already know that Christian salvation theology is rooted in primitive beliefs that gods can be appeased by blood sacrifices. The question is why should ANY blood sacrifice ever be necessary?

Also what exactly is "the fall of man?" What does that mean, when did it happen, and why does it hinder Gods' omnimax powers?
And faith in Jesus depends on nothing but a wild guess. Where is the moral virtue in that? Why is it immoral not to able to guess without evidence (in fact, in the face of overwhelming CONTRARY evidence) that the correct answer is "Jesus?" If believing in Jesus is so important, then why doesn't God bother to offer a single shard of evidence for it? Another problem with this notion of salvation (which I repeat is ony salvation from God himself in the first place) is that it's predicated on a false presumption that belief can be achieved by will. It can't. Belief is a dependent variable, not an independent one. I can't just make myself believe in Jesus anymore than I can make myself believe in Kokopelli or Apollo. So where is the moral virtue in faith if it involves no act of will? How is God's requirement for people to guess without evidence that Christianity is true any different than asking them to guess what number he's thinking of between one and infinity?
Not if we can get the same result without a sacrifice, especially not when we are the ones who paradoxically and senselessly demanded the sacrifice in the first place.
Could have fooled me.
Mysterious Ways fallacy again. If God wants me to do something, he needs to explain it. If he can't explain it, he's not God.
It is logically impossible for ANYTHING to be "necessary for our salvation" from God's own irrational hatred. God can simply choose not to be a dick.
Why ever not? If he wants me to do something, he needs to explain why and he needs to do it to my satisfaction. If he's not willing to do that, then I can't help him. What's he going to do about it, "damn" me? That would only prove that I was right to reject him.
This statement is the same kind of little spin move as "they want God out of our schools." It dishonestly attempts to frame the critic as though he is in a debate with God rather than with the apologist. The hubris is yours, my friend. You are the one attempting to speak for God and yours are the arguments which are failing. I don't presume to "know better" than any hypothetical omnimax deity but I'm perfectly capable of spotting the gaping, logical holes in the arguments of those trying to convince me to believe in one.

exile

"I'm afraid you are not on such solid ground as you might think on that count. Putting the word 'reason' in bold doesn't change the fact that don't murder and don't steal were already part of the ordinary person's moral code before secularism existed and are written in Christian scripture."

Balderdash. Prohibition of murder and stealing can be found in Judaism, ancient Greece and Rome, Eastern religions, and secular legal codes (eg the code of Hammurabi) long pre-dating Christ.

In fact, more sophisticated theists have told me that the existence of such prohibitions proves that a moral sense is instilled in all human beings by God.

Carin Nel

Be careful, I would hesitate if I were you, before speaking such blasphemous words. It is written in the Bible (Gatians 6:7):
" Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

Here are some men and women who mocked God:

JOHN LENNON:
Some years before during his interview with an American Magazine, he said:
"Christianity will end, it will disappear. I do not have to argue about that. I am certain. Jesus was ok, but his subjects were too simple, Today we are more famous than Him" (1966)".
Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.


TANCREDO NEVES:
During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency. Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before being made President, then he died.


CAZUZA:
During a show in Canecão ( Rio de Janeiro ), whilst smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said: God, that's for you.

I can't even explain how he died.


THE MAN WHO BUILT TITANIC:
After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be. With an ironic tone he said: "Not even God can sink it"

The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic.


MARILYN MONROE:
She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show. He is a preacher and Evangelist and the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her.

After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said:

"I don't need your Jesus"

A week later, she was found dead in her apartment.


BON SCOTT:
The ex-vocalist of the AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang:

"Don´t stop me, I´m going down all the way, wow the highway to
hell".
On the 19th of February 1980, Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his vomit.


CAMPINAS/SP IN 2005
In Campinas, a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend. The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter - holding her hand, who was already seated in the car: "MY DAUGHTER, GO WITH GOD AND MAY HE PROTECT YOU",

She responded: ONLY IF HE (GOD) TRAVELS IN THE BOOT, COZ INSIDE HERE IT'S ALREADY FULL"

Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died, the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the boot was intact.

The police said there was no way the boot could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the boot was a crate of eggs, none was broken.

Many more important people have forgotten that there is no other name that was given so much authority as the name of Jesus.

To respond to the question: "Did Jesus *have* to die?"

I'm sure this has been discussed in detail in this forum, so after reading the above answers, I don't get the feeling that you really want to know or even care, but I may be wrong, so I'm going to give my answer for what it's worth for you.....
The death of Christ was necessary to make the New Covenant. Mt.26:28, "For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remissin of sins" - No covenant was made without blood. The New Covenant sacrifice brought ETERNAL redemption, because the Old Covenant sacrifices could not remit one sin, but the blood of Christ does. Heb. 9+10 explains it vey well.
Man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Rom.3:28
In Rom 4:17 justificaton faith s demonstrated an in Heb.11 we see that Christ is better than the Old Testament faith examples.
Heb. 10:16 - 23 ...Where remission of sin and iniquities are, ther is no more offering for sin and those believers have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He has consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh..our hearts are sprinkled from an evil conscience.."
Col.2:14-17; 1 Pet. 2:24
It is very clear right through the New Testament why Christ had to die.

Regards
Carin Nel

Solo

I think you are missing the point. Christianity had a set of ethical beliefs, some of them traceable to Judaism, some elsewhere, and some quite original.
The most original idea traceable to Paul was to let the secular realm hang out on its own and create the ideal just world outside of its reaches. The sacred realm, though having no "legal" effect worked on the powerful through conscience. The appeal to the ruler, and the later powers that be, was to suggest solutions consistent with their Christian faith. Democracy, even though it derives historically from the city-states of Greece, was significantly modified through Christian concepts of human equality before God, to become eventually all-inclusive. Against the popular misconceptions that the religion was misogynistic, it was through religious imagery of the Church, that women first accepted as equal domestic partners (the idea was current already under Luther. Calvin devclared wife beating an indictable offense in his Geneva) and the Protestant variety of the faith later played a decisive role in shaping the social standing of women in society at large.

Whether it all could happen without Christianity is academic. It did happened, through tolerance of Christian faith of the secular realm and through Christian concepts of selfless love and equality of all humans before God.

Jiri