The Bible

I not only accept it, i observe it as a common trait among all of humanity, and it confirms the theory of embedded morality.

The continued insistence from atheists that, 'we're moral, too!' indicates a universal moral sense, that is NOT relative or arbitrary.

Its sad when people stoop to ad hominem in a philosophical discussion..

 

How could you 'know' this, if it was all lost?

I'm not really concerned with what 'most Christians!', whoever they are, believe. The posters here are trouble enough..

 

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ~Frederic Bastiat

Is this another chicken/egg question?

It seems to me that there is a core set of morals, that transcend culture, race, region, and time. Those do not vary, and they are contrary to the animal law of the jungle.

Why is human culture so different from other primates, if we are but animals?

 

It was lost to organized Christianity when they archived and ignored the wealth of writings of the time and obeyed the Vatican's ban on contemplation, substituting intellectual study of the words in the bible.

 

I suggest you ask the cannibals in South American rain forests or a Muslim Jihadist after he blows some kids up.

 

I'll be sure to do that, when i meet them.. ..what was the question I'm supposed to ask?

But why would you imply this as something 'bad'? Is it not the will and values of those in power in those places? Eating enemies, or bombing them have been part of the human experience forever. How can you condemn them? By what standard do you judge this as 'bad'?

 

Because he is a human being. The brotherhood of man. Ooops That isn't PC now, is it. The brotherhood of humanity. Because not all people feel as I do does not prevent me being concerned for others. Atheist all over the world work for their fellow man.

 

The question you asked and I bolded when I replied to your post...you know,. this one:
"Why is human culture so different from other primates, if we are but animals?"

 

I notice Sartre says 'THE ILLUSION OF BEING ETERNAL'. (something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality). .

 

Then it's obvious that evil is embedded also for some have no sense of morality.

 

You think cannibals and jihadists would have an answer?

 

I think that is what he meant...

Which means, for the atheistic naturalist, that once they lose that illusion, which they believe, life has no meaning, and was my point, exactly.

 

Some time back, in another thread, i replied to someone who criticised the inclusion of Ecclesiastes into the Canon of scripture. To return us to the topic, which is the bible, not existential angst, i thought a repost of that might excite discussion about the canonization process, and bits of history around it.

"There is precious little evidence, about any of the OT manuscripts. Most of the 'higher criticism' that was popular in the mid 19th century has been debunked by archaeological findings, & those that haven't are still only speculative. I do not know of any contemporary manuscripts from the time of ecclesiastes, that would have enough credibility to engender such a claim. So your 'scholarly' sources sound like wild theories, along the lines of 'Higher Criticisms' that were all the rage nearly 200 years ago.

IOW, distortions, criticisms, & other attempts to minimize or cast aspersions on the veracity & validity of the biblical manuscripts are nothing new.

The earliest inclusion of Ecclesiastes into a Christian canon of OT texts, is from Melito, from the 2nd century. Here is what Eusebius said about this canon:

"Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books;[4] of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." EH4.26.13–14

This book, & other 'wisdom' & proverbs, were included in most of the canons of the OT, both in jewish & christian compilations. Athanasius included it in his canon.

There wasn't a lot of conflict, among the early church fathers, as the canon of scripture began to gel into a consensus. They constantly had to defend from heresy, with apocryphal books, false teachings, & phony narratives (even then!) about the basis of Christianity, which included the OT scriptures.

My point here, is that some 'New! Improved!' information about these ancient texts have absolutely NO basis in history or archaeology, nor do they have any corroboration from other valid ancient manuscripts. These 'new!' interpretations & 'theories' about them are based on speculation, imagination, & the age old practice of heretical teaching, aimed to dilute or smear the valid source of Christian theology, the biblical canon, supported by thousands of years of apologetics, writings, & defenses from the time of Christ until now.

So even though i have not heard of your 'theory' about Ecclesiastes, i cannot imagine any valid history or evidence that could support such a theory. It is likely just an old heresy, dredged up & repackaged in a new box, with a pretty bow on it to make it look new & appealing. We could explore it, if you wish, in another thread, & you can then relay the evidence you have for this theory. But i am pretty skeptical.. i tend to follow the historical interpretations, hermeneutics, manuscripts, & sources for information on the biblical manuscripts, which have a couple of thousand years of written records to back them up.

So until then, i must only 'imagine' that you have no historical support, as you said, & that this is, indeed, a 'leap of faith' or a dogmatic declaration of belief.

The canon of scripture is one of the most important parts of the Christian faith.. it provides a historical timeline, & has been vigorously defended even before the Christian era, in the OT texts. These were not some whimsical compilations. There were minor differences in a few different canons, even in the early years of the church. But it is the integrity of scriptures that is the backbone of Christianity. 'Sola Scriptura!' , the cry of the reformation, is still the central tenet of Christianity, as it is the 'Scriptura!' that carries the accurate definition OF the Christian faith.

And the age old problem of heresy & leading the elect astray is still there.. always has been. That is why Christian apologists from all times have jealously defended the scriptures from those who would dilute them, belittle them, cast aspersions on their veracity, or any other 'textual criticisms' that arise. And NONE have been more critical, scrutinizing, & skeptical than Christian scholars, who take their duties very seriously.. as a call from God, to defend & preserve the anchor of the faith. That is also why Christians now can have confidence in the veracity & validity of the canon we have.. it has stood the test of time, weathered criticism & scrutiny from both friends & foes, and has endured the fires of hell without even a smell of smoke."

 

Various cultures have their ideas about what constitutes moral behavior.

There isn't any forum where some "absolute morality" is agreed upon for use by humankind.

You really need to rethink this topic. Maybe you should work out how philosophy fits into your ideas.

 

So...is the Bible corrupted or should Christians have confidence in it?

 

That's your interpretation

Which is a load of balderdash. Life has a meaning and it's what you give it. At the end of your life you will die. Whether you go to heaven or not is irrelevant to this life. To live your life with the hope of getting to heaven is self serving. Atheists have much to offer in this life and they do it for humanities sake, not because any god tells us to.

 

Good question. The post simply mentions the canon which is not in dispute here. It's what the Bible says. We know that 2 passages of scripture were not in early extant manuscripts. Can we trust the Bible? Whatever others say Ancient history, Archaeology and the background - culture, religions etc say no. Yes, some events in the Bible can be shown to be accurate to a certain degree, other events can be shown to be stories. Proof for both can be seen in museums etc. Ancient history compared with the Bible also works both ways. For instance using Bible genealogy, to include 400+ years the Hebrews were supposed to be in Egypt, we trace Abraham back to 2011/2000BCE. This also makes sense with the history of the area of the time. Archaeology places the Hittites as arriving in what is now Turkey in the 17th century BCE. How did Abraham buy land from them when he had been dead at least 300 years. Hittite history is confirmed by their interaction with other nations - particularly Egypt.

Anyway, time for bed.

 

Then of course you have nothing to be grateful for. You are just a freak of nature.

 

We all have a dichotomy. A" Natural man" and the "spiritual man". Unless one becomes born of the spirit.....the spirit is dead. Those that are reborn of the "spirit" still often struggle with the "flesh" or the natural man. Christians today don't know anything about their faith.....but you do. LOL

 

What is a modern theologian's view of Marcion's 'heresy'? (I'm guessing you are a theologian, so you ought to be able to comment on the points I raised re Marcion, in post #954).

Specifically, how do you identify the 'jealous' God who authorises genocide, as revealed in Duet. 7:2,6 etc, with the "Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" prophesied by Isaiah (c.600 years after Moses's claims re God, in Dueteronomy), or the New Testament portrayal of Christ through the Great Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. (c. 1200 years after Moses).

Needless to say I, like Marcion c.2000 years ago (not long after Christ's death), find such an identification impossible.

 

Then so are you. Actually, I'm just assuming you are a human being and not a robot. Have you two legs, two arms, a body through which blood flows. A heart which beats and other organs like me. Well, you may have more as I had my appendix removed as a young person. In which case, if I'm a freak, so are you.

 

That is a very negative and nasty thing to say....have you no morals?

 

In fact Christians don't know anything about their faith. They only know what they have been led to believe by the Bible. Without the Bible they wouldn't know what their beliefs are. That's why there are priests/ ministers to 'expound' Bible teaching. Religious beliefs all have their books, written by men, which tell them what to believe. Without the written word religions like Islam, Christianity and even Judaism, would have disappeared with a few centuries. Every organisation has its rule book. Without it the organisation would cease to exist. This is evident in the early church where many heresies abounded. All had to be dealt with by various councils and a handbook, the Bible, collated.
The idea of the 'spiritual man' can be found in various religions. All have a different interpretation.

Keep your body under proper control, your gaze concentrated upon ONE, - and the peace of God will descend upon you. Keep back your knowledge, and concentrate your thoughts upon ONE, and the holy spirit shall abide within you. Virtue shall beautify you, TAO shall establish you, aimless as a new born calf which recks not how it came into the world. Taoism.

 

It's quite amusing really. As a young man I was a Christian and in the UK RAF. I used to pray at bedtime and read the Bible. You should have heard the language - particularly when some of the chaps had been out drinking and watched me. Barrack room language. I could compile a dictionary.

 

The idea of the "spiritual man" in various religions is because it is a reality. The "carnal man" depends on its books as well. Books that purport "global warming"... "I mean the "coming ice age"....I mean climate change"....they have all come and gone but the Word of God doesn't change. It is Truth for all eternity.
As in all interpretations, there are some that are closer to the truth than others. You just throw the all out because you are your own truth.