Growing up in an irreligious household.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I believe I asked this question in my last post...

Why should we accept the moral teachings in the bible as authoritative and not the rest?

I'm not going to rebut anything else unless you answer this question first.

Dont know how you Gentiles deal with it, but late 19th C Neo-kantian progressives like Hermann Cohen basically saw biblical morality and Kantian ethics (which to them were the highest, most rationally justified, universal ethics) as confirming each other. Thus the morality was the core of revelation, other aspects of which might not be truely divine.

While problematic in many respects, this had the benefit of fitting one stream of traditional Jewish thought. While most of the biblical laws are incumbent on the Jews, the 7 commandments to the sons of Noah are incumbent on all mankind. Yet the Torah is given only to the Jews, so how are the gentiles to know to fulfill their obligations? Answer: the morality embodied in the & noahide laws are accessible to all humans through reason.

[st_swithin]

Matzoh's really good with salsa.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I believe I asked this question in my last post...

Why should we accept the moral teachings in the bible as authoritative and not the rest?

I'm not going to rebut anything else unless you answer this question first.

My previous posts contained the answer for that. First, define "authoritative." Who said anything about "authoritative?" That implies some sort of external authority handing the moral teachings down as law. That's not what the issue is.

We're talking about someone who thinks Jesus's teachings were morally sound, sans any divine authority behind them. Simply that they are good ways for one to live a moral life in harmony with other people. Divinity need not be a part of sound moral philosophy (indeed, I personally don't believe it ever is). Plenty of moral philosophers have posited sound ethical teaching without appealing to a supreme being. Good morals are self-evident by their positive effect on society and individuals.

[Alexander's Horse]

hmmm, I think what kids get out of a mainstream religious upbringing is a good set of basic morals and values which will serve them well even if they decide not to follow through with a religious affiliation as adults.

Its pretty good basic stuff and gives people a moral compass to navigate life. I think it gives them a bit of headstart on kids who have to work out all that stuff for themselves.

Now some may say the kids heads get filled with a lot of nonsenese and mumb jumbo and that is probably true too. But how is that different from unchurched kids? There's as much political and moral rubbish taught at the Public School as the Christian school.

[Ben Kenobi]

Good morals are self-evident by their positive effect on society and individuals.

That's the piece I was looking for. You are right, that an action does not need to have 'divine' justification in order for us to know what is right.

Oddly, Jesus tells us this, "By the fruits ye shall know them."

However, if there is a God, and God has made us, would he not tell us what will work best for each individual and society? That's why the resurrection is necessary, because it confirms Christ as the Son of God, and that his instructions ought to work better than anything else.

[Ted Striker]

Yeah but what about the instructions of the Buddha or Mohammed? Are they any less valid?

[Ben Kenobi]

I would say they are.

Buddha never claimed to be God, neither did Muhammed.

Both could be ranked as prophets, on par with all the other Jewish prophets.

[Ted Striker]

But Christians don't consider their paths as "counting" towards getting into heaven and that's where I have a very SERIOUS problem with the whole thing.

The Christ is the only way thing is BS, and very cruel, to me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's why the resurrection is necessary, because it confirms Christ as the Son of God, and that his instructions ought to work better than anything else.

Why should it be necessary? After all, the Arians didn't believe it to be necessary. And this view can lead to extreme views, like the Manicheans, who believed you could do whatever the Hell you wanted after you've been saved.

[Straybow]

Scared to look at the preach-o-meter

Originally posted by Ted Striker
bah that's not the mystery
if it was a mystery you wouldn't be able to explain it

Heh, heh, heard that one before.
"Mystery" means it was part of God's plan all along, but in hints that nobody was expected to understand. It's like watching Poirot. The story is written to hide the answer in plain sight, which then becomes obvious in retrospect.

But Christians don't consider [Islamic and Buddhist] paths as "counting" towards getting into heaven and that's where I have a very SERIOUS problem with the whole thing.

The Christ is the only way thing is BS, and very cruel, to me.

But if Christ is the only way (as He clearly claims) and people water down the truth by saying otherwise, the hearers would be at unconscionable loss.

"Getting into heaven" isn't about following rules. The rules are good, and they show your need by the fact you do fail at times, but the rules are powerless to do more. Muhammed never realized this, offering yet another set of rules by which the faithful qualify for reward.

Buddhism recognizes the shortcoming of rule-following, but then concludes there isn't a god to judge. The rules become an intellectual game of do-your-own-thing.

[Straybow]

Historical note and logical conclusions

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

That's why the resurrection is necessary, because it confirms Christ as the Son of God, and that his instructions ought to work better than anything else.

Why should it be necessary? After all, the Arians didn't believe it to be necessary. And this view can lead to extreme views, like the Manicheans, who believed you could do whatever the Hell you wanted after you've been saved.

Is "it" the resurrection, or the confirmation of Christ's divinity? Arianism denies the divinity of the Son, but holds to the resurrection doctrinally. The doctrinal complications aren't worth a digression here. I don't worry about the great disputes of post-Apostolic speculative theologies. They were political as much as philosophical.

If Manichean error seems evident, then there is no need to claim that the truth which it corrupts needs amendment.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Yeah but what about the instructions of the Buddha or Mohammed? Are they any less valid?

Having lived in both a muslim and Buddhist country, I would say there isn't much difference. People get good morals from those religions too. Basic moral truths are universal.

[GeneralTacticus]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




Look at Buddha, Mohammed, or even Jim Jones. None claim to have died and resurrected from the dead.

Mohammed claimed to have gone to heaven and come back - does that count?

[Mr. President]

Muhammad technically didn't die - I think the term used is "ascended". The account of the ascension is called simply "The Journey".

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's the piece I was looking for. You are right, that an action does not need to have 'divine' justification in order for us to know what is right.

Oddly, Jesus tells us this, "By the fruits ye shall know them."

However, if there is a God, and God has made us, would he not tell us what will work best for each individual and society? That's why the resurrection is necessary, because it confirms Christ as the Son of God, and that his instructions ought to work better than anything else.

Your ability to make up arguments on your own is astounding, especially considering, as I stated before, we're talking about someone who doesn't believe Jesus was divine, nor that his moral teachings were divinely inspired.

Regardless, Judeo-Christian tradition is full of moral teachers who weren't resurrected. Would that imply their moral teachings weren't divinely inspired for a spiritual Christian?