anyone brave enough to answer this question?

[willybilly30]

If the Supreme Being put a guiding force, telling us what is wrong and right inside us

Then that makes a religion and a holy book useless. If what is right and wrong is inside me then all I have to do is ask myself what is right and wrong. Therefore, if a supreme being put morals in us then it is guiding us how it wants us to be. This makes so much more sense than looking for a religion.

[Guest Gibbbygoat]

unless that moral compass was to put a desire in us to understand him more. Remember most religions are about finding "god".

 

and that supreme being put it there for a purpose

[willybilly30]

if the supreme being is already telling us what is right and wrong why cant we just ask it more questions. If god is inside us why do we need to look for answers outside our own heart were god is?

[Guest Gibbbygoat]

good question,

1) didn't say he was inside you. I just said he created you with a concience-compass.

2) are you ready to hear answers. That is the common answer by all religions right? stupid huh! But also makes sense. But by all means ask b/c if their is a "god" who took the time to make you then surely he/she would want to take the time to know you

[Taphophilia]

not possible b/c opinions can't be transfered by genes

 

There is more to it then genitics.

[willybilly30]

if god made us why wouldn’t god already know us?

Didn’t god make us how it wanted us to be?

I just do not see why god needs religions to do the talking for it.

Why would god need it is god mute and cant speak?

[Taphophilia]

if god made us why wouldn’t god already know us?

Didn’t god make us how it wanted us to be?

I just do not see why god needs religions to do the talking for it.

Why would god need it is god mute and cant speak?

 

Willy,

 

You ask good questions!

 

Taph

[willybilly30]

thanks

 

 

 

 

 

Willy,

 

You ask good questions!

 

Taph

 

 

gibbygoat were did you go?

[Cerise]

first Bill gates thing is hillarious!

 

second mutual morality between varying cultures, even primitive disconected cultures, showes that there is some mutual "conscience" in us all.

 

EX> How can it be unfair that someone takes your seat on a bus-takes your lunch sandwich when you set it on your plate-or more seriously smashes your car window and takes your auto. You and the other person did not discuss the rules of these situations so how can he be expected to follow your rules. HOW MUCH MORE IF HE DISAGREES WITH YOUR RULES STANDARDS. Well we say he should know better. But why should he? Why reason this by saying it's the law. But is that the same thing we get mad a religion for?

Their standards are not what we want to adhere to. So can the murderer say he doesn't agree with that law?

Of course not b/c We all agree that their has to be someting inside that lets him know that killing is wrong.

 

Without these common assumptions Hitler would not be any more evil than the red cross. Why would your standard of evil apply to him? But let's also look at the positive. We also agree that when someone askes for help we all atleast have an inclination to want to do so. We act on these as we rationaly decide4 but we cannot deny they are there or the bill of rights is not applicable, it is ok if someone rapes your daughter, or kills your husband. Common morality shows that there is something inside all of us guiding to the just. We just decide to ignore it. Watch how a theif try's to justify his action! He know it's wrong. how can it be unless we all agree.

 

Sincerely,

Nathan

 

This is a problem of foundational ethics. You are still dealing with a Kantian conception of ethics, but I would argue that the Kantian system is not the only way to conceptualize ethics, and, indeed, it seems to have become obsolete sometime during the Enlightenment Period in the 18th century.

 

You're connecting moral responsibility to "the other" through God, so that your example of the murder's morality and the morality of other people can only be resolved through the "higher power" authority. Otherwise, the idea of morality becomes relative and therefore unapplicable.

 

But what if you could erase God from the picture and just look at the connection between the self and "the other" as neccessary for definition? Without difference, there would be no conceptualization of the self, so that "other" is no longer completely relative (in that we all have our own seperate moralities) but that we become responsible, ethically, to each other because we need each other for self-definition. Which would mean that rather then morality being imposed by a God-figure, morality is imposed by the simple fact that we have to acknowledge and live with other people, that our space is shared both physically and theoretically. In order for society to function, people need to agree on certain modes of ethics. It has nothing really to do with god.

 

To quote Popke,

 

To assert that the decision (referring to ethical definitions and choices) is ultimately undecidable (that is, without authoritative foundation; i.e. God) does not mean that there can be no such thing as truth, right, or good. It means, rather, that if we purport to know in advance the specific content of such notions, then the event of the decision is divested of its political content, it is simply 'deduced from an existing body of knowledge...[as] by a calculating machine' (Derrida, 1999:240).

 

If it's only God asserting authority then there really is no such thing as ethical choices, and moral decisions or moral judgements. There would just be an application of a law. Imagine a courtroom trial without the jury of peers or a judge, just someone reading out the law that has been violated and a consequence being administered. It is the presence of the peers, the jury's ethical decision in whether or not to apply a law in a specific case which constitutes a moral judgement. It's the acknowledgement that morality isn't made in a vaccum, but in its actual application in society that defines the practice of ethics.

 

A murderer may not agree that he/she broke the law, but they still adhere to the general assumption that murder is not acceptable social behavior, and this is evidenced by the fact that few murderers think it is acceptable that they should be murdered, just like few thiefs think it is "just" if they are stolen from. The idea fo "fairness" is essential to the building of society, and since we all have to do that, there's no need for "god" to be brought into the equation.

[Mythra]

societal mores: n. (sociology) the conventions that embody the fundamental values of a group.

 

i.e. : concepts of right and wrong. i.e. morality

 

 

no god required.

[MQTA]

if the supreme being is already telling us what is right and wrong why cant we just ask it more questions. If god is inside us why do we need to look for answers outside our own heart were god is?

cause looking in is free, going to Church is 10%

[willybilly30]

I got better things to spend my money on than a ministers bills lol

[Kevin H]

Do you want 100% proof for both? If not, what would you accept as evidence?

 

Kevin H

[Amethyst]

so we are programmed.....??? I guess we're just doin what the program dictates us to do.

 

What if it's in an infinite loop?

 

EX> How can it be unfair that someone takes your seat on a bus-takes your lunch sandwich when you set it on your plate-or more seriously smashes your car window and takes your auto. You and the other person did not discuss the rules of these situations so how can he be expected to follow your rules. HOW MUCH MORE IF HE DISAGREES WITH YOUR RULES STANDARDS. Well we say he should know better. But why should he? Why reason this by saying it's the law. But is that the same thing we get mad a religion for?

Their standards are not what we want to adhere to. So can the murderer say he doesn't agree with that law?

Of course not b/c We all agree that their has to be someting inside that lets him know that killing is wrong.

 

 

But these things are cultural standards. Moreover, other cultures have had laws before Christianity. What makes Christianity any better than Buddhism or Paganism or what have you? The Golden Rule was around long before Christianity. Heck, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle spoke of ethics.

 

You do not need religion in order to be an ethical person. This is a really pervasive myth, and it's one that I'm getting sick of.

[willybilly30]

Let’s see what you got. Can you prove Christianity is the true religion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

quote name='Kevin H' date='Nov 30 2005, 07:44 PM' post='112988']

Do you want 100% proof for both? If not, what would you accept as evidence?

 

Kevin H

[Kevin H]

Do you require 100% proof? What sort of evidence do you require?

 

K

[willybilly30]

Some proof besides the bible that it is true and Christianity is the true religion.

I don’t think something can be proven true just cause a book says its true.

[DanInPA]

Do you require 100% proof? What sort of evidence do you require?

 

K

 

Hi Kevin.

 

Personally, yes, I require 100% proof.

The (christian) bible is roughly 1500 years old and can easily be proven to be full of shit.

 

So if biblegod is real, I require him to show himself to me personally just like he did for Moses, Abraham, etc.

If he did it then, why can't he do it now?

How about divinely stopping a hurricane or a tsunami before thousands of people are killed?

How about one of his true™ believers walking into a children's hospital and healing all the kids like the bible says they can?

 

If god really wants to "save" everyone, why doesn't he show himself to all of us? Why should we have to rely on an ancient book filled with contradictions and inconsistensies?

 

Peruse this site for awhile, and you'll understand the position of the ex-christian a little better.

 

Dan

[Kevin H]

Ok. You said "some" evidence so I assume you don't require 100% proof. The question is, do we require 100% proof something is true? No. But we can look at proofs - evidence - we can examine where the evidence points.

 

I would offer several premises that Christianity is true. We can look at each. I think they are proofs, and they outweigh competing claims.

 

1). It makes sense that God exists based on evidence including (a) the beginning of the universe, ( fine-tuning in the Big Bang for life, ©. widespread belief in a supreme being coupled with a sense of objective morality on all cultures at all times, (d) The contingency of the universe leading us to something non-contingent, (e) the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

2). The evidence that Jesus is who he claimed to be includes (a) accurate recording and preservation of him in the New Testament documents, ( his unprecedented impact on human history, © his fulfillment of many prophecies written of him centuries before, (d) his prediction and accomplishment of his own resurrection from the dead.

 

Where you wanna go first?

 

Thanks,

 

K

[willybilly30]

How do you know the god that exists is Jesus?

 

 

 

 

 

1). It makes sense that God exists based on evidence including (a) the beginning of the universe, ( fine-tuning in the Big Bang for life, ©. widespread belief in a supreme being coupled with a sense of objective morality on all cultures at all times, (d) The contingency of the universe leading us to something non-contingent, (e) the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

 

There is no historical proof out side the bible that jesus existed.

The New Testament has four different stories whose telling the truth?

If the resurrection happened how come only the bible tells it.

I wont proof other than the bible I already said that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2). The evidence that Jesus is who he claimed to be includes (a) accurate recording and preservation of him in the New Testament documents, ( his unprecedented impact on human history, © his fulfillment of many prophecies written of him centuries before, (d) his prediction and accomplishment of his own resurrection from the dead.

 

Where you wanna go first?

 

Thanks,

 

K

[Eponymic]

Hi Kevin,

 

Not sure how young you are, but your arguments certainly show that you haven't done much research yet. I'm not saying this to be snooty or demeaning, but rather as an important presumption of facts. Because if you indeed haven't researched much, then you really should look a lot deeper before making such demonstrative conclusions.

 

Where I want to go first is the fact that you're using the good old standard Christian logic of using the singular Bible as all the proof you need. Many people on here would say by that standard you could say Harry Potter & magic is real.

 

In order to use the Bible as the end-all-be-all guide for all moral standards & beliefs,

then you must first prove, using outside sources, that the Bible is historically accurate, Jesus existed, and that it hasn't been interpolated in any way.

 

And given even the basic fact that the Bible took over 450 years to compile in its first form, has been edited, altered & adapted into many different versions show that you can't rely on it as a historical tome in any fashion. This is just one of the general arguments, there are plenty of specific examples to show that the Bible is not what it claims to be.

[crazy-tiger]

Ok. You said "some" evidence so I assume you don't require 100% proof. The question is, do we require 100% proof something is true? No. But we can look at proofs - evidence - we can examine where the evidence points.

 

I would offer several premises that Christianity is true. We can look at each. I think they are proofs, and they outweigh competing claims.

 

1). It makes sense that God exists based on evidence including (a) the beginning of the universe, ( fine-tuning in the Big Bang for life, ©. widespread belief in a supreme being coupled with a sense of objective morality on all cultures at all times, (d) The contingency of the universe leading us to something non-contingent, (e) the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

a: no evidence for any god there, let alone biblegod. b: still no evidence... life adapts to the environment, so there is no need for the fine-tuning. c: there is no sense of objective morality... even the morality of Christianity has changed as conditions change. It's all subjective. d: goodness knows what you're on about here as you've not made it clear what meaning you give to "contingency" and "non-contingent" I'm guessing that you mean it to be the non-predictability of the universe leading to something that's not subject to chance... if so, reality shows it to be wrong. e: there's no evidence that someone called Jesus Christ lived, let alone died or was ressurected.

 

That set of "proofs" is wishful thinking modulated by faith.

2). The evidence that Jesus is who he claimed to be includes (a) accurate recording and preservation of him in the New Testament documents, ( his unprecedented impact on human history, © his fulfillment of many prophecies written of him centuries before, (d) his prediction and accomplishment of his own resurrection from the dead.

Oh boy...

 

a: NT documents were not written until 40-120 years after he died, NT itself didn't become finalized until around 400 years after he died, the churh admitted that there were fakes in amongst the NT documents and they COULDN'T TELL THEM APART!

b: Mohammed is having the same unprecidented impact on human history... that makes it evidence that HE is who he said he was. (and that his words are the words of God... making Jesus just a prophet)

c: He managed to fulfill very few of the Messanic Prophecies. Those that he did fulfill, were re-written to make sure he fulfilled them.

d: Since the accounts were written so long after his death, there's nothing to coroborate such accounts. In other words... they're rumours.

 

Not exactly very good evidence, is it?

Where you wanna go first?

 

Thanks,

 

K

To bed... I can refute those in my sleep.

[willybilly30]

Kevin if the bible is the only proof you got I feel sorry for you.

Your only proof is a book no outside sources at all.

You don’t know when Jesus was born, what he looked like, no one except the people in the bible speaks of him, he does stuff other mythological gods do walk on water, resurrect, born of a virgin, flies in the air, Moses parts the red sea, a snake can talk all this stuff is impossible and goes against natural laws. Contradictions, historical inaccuracies, and that is why we find using the bible as proof is useless.

 

I said prove it without the bible.

[Kevin H]

Hi Kevin,

 

Not sure how young you are, but your arguments certainly show that you haven't done much research yet. I'm not saying this to be snooty or demeaning, but rather as an important presumption of facts. Because if you indeed haven't researched much, then you really should look a lot deeper before making such demonstrative conclusions.

 

 

 

 

Where I want to go first is the fact that you're using the good old standard Christian logic of using the singular Bible as all the proof you need. Many people on here would say by that standard you could say Harry Potter & magic is real.

 

In order to use the Bible as the end-all-be-all guide for all moral standards & beliefs,

then you must first prove, using outside sources, that the Bible is historically accurate, Jesus existed, and that it hasn't been interpolated in any way.

 

And given even the basic fact that the Bible took over 450 years to compile in its first form, has been edited, altered & adapted into many different versions show that you can't rely on it as a historical tome in any fashion. This is just one of the general arguments, there are plenty of specific examples to show that the Bible is not what it claims to be.

 

 

Hi Eponymic,

 

Will all respect, it is you have not done your research. I know that immediately puts you on the defensive but consider: The New Testament documents are primary sources for the life of Christ. When considering ancient events and characters one examines the best available sources and evidence.

 

Secondly, to compare Harry Potter to the New Testament is a Category Error. The former is fantasy literature written for that purpose, the latter are historical documents written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events.

 

What you mean to say is, just because something is written or preserved in manuscripts does not make it true. That is correct. But the first step is to consider whether the sources have been accurately preserved then we can check for historicity and truthfulness.

 

Thirdly, we have non-New Testament corroboration for Christ, but please answer these questions: what tests do you think historians use to determine events and characters from the ancient world? What tests do historians use to determine the accuracy of ancient documents? Why do you penalize the New Testament? How you answer will show me how you determine historicity, interpolation, and alteration, etc.

 

Fourthly, you are not very accurate on canonicity but we need to consider your answers to my three questions before we can proceed. Thanks,

 

Kevin H

[Guest Gibbbygoat]

sorry guys I had to go last night.

1) the idea that god doesn't know who you areis different than getting to know you.

2) trying to rationalize which style of ethics I used does not really answer the question.

all cultures separated and modern essentially hold the same moral ethics except where we rationalize them away I.E. the theif not wanting to be stolen from/murderer not wanting to be killed.....those only prove the point of people trying to find exceptions to the rule.