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]

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]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

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?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by st_swithin
Matzoh's really good with salsa.

matzoh pizza.

[jeibel]

i didn't read all the thread, so forgive meif i say something stupid.

Don't forget that a religious upbringing can mess up your mind pretty badly: it can create lots of unneeded guilt complex that are hard to comes to terms by once you grow up since they're planted so deep inside.
I don't mean only in relation to sex, but also in the need to upbring a moral standard that just isn't made for life in today's world, creating feeling of inadequancy, for example for "not caring enough" for others, caring more about presents than Christ birth at Xmas, etc etc ;p

This is especially important if the parents are not religious since she is made to inexplicably keep up a moral standard of constraints the parents (the real GODS of a kid) care nothing for.
Double standards which makes for a schizophrenic relationship.

Just my 0.2$

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by st_swithin
Matzoh's really good with salsa.

we had matzoh with salsa together in Forest Hills.

[Buck Birdseed]

I didn't read past page one of this thread (for ****'s sake, like I'm gonna read seven pages of goddamn theological debate intermixed with a few relevant posts), but I'm one of the people who was raised non-religiously, although my parents (at least my father) is quite an active Atheist so that might invalidate anything I say if you're so inclined.

I think the chief benefit you get from being raised irreligously is that you learn from an early age to question rules and principles, especially if you're involved in a community where many old systems still exist. The fact that a seven-year-old can because of it already grasp the basics of source criticism (that doesn't have to be true just because its in the bible!), institutional analysis (why do we sing christian songs at christmas?) and questioning authority (why have we been dragged along to church by school?) makes irreligousness a great training for life as an active citizen IMO.

As for the moral bit, I think you underestimate children's ability to reason logically. The vast majority of morality can be explained based on simple principles of just division, fairness etc., and I think children are much more receptive to "real" ethics than to unsubstantiated dogma. It doesn't take God to figure out you shouldn't hurt other people does it?

[Jack the Bodiless]

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.

Well, there wasn't a resurrection in early versions of Mark. The story ends with the discovery of the empty tomb, which could have been intended to indicate that Jesus was entirely "taken up to Heaven" rather than that he got up and walked out.

There wasn't originally an Ascension in the gospels either. Without a Resurrection, you wouldn't need one. It seems to have been added to deal with the awkward loose end of having Jesus rise from the dead and then not do very much.

So it seems that Christianity managed to get started without needing a resurrection, but that adding one was thought desirable.

[st_swithin]

I am Jack's disembodied soul.

[Alexander's Horse]

The catholic church here has lots of beach houses which you can use for free. That's good enough for me.

Everybody always seems to forget the fringe benefits....

[MrFun]

What is the average life span of a thread on Apolyton??

[JohnT]

Darkcloud might know. I'm sure he's made a list of thread lifespans.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by JohnT
Darkcloud might know. I'm sure he's made a list of thread lifespans.

Well, this particular thread seems to have regenerative qualities.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by MrFun
What is the average life span of a thread on Apolyton??

life span or half life?

[MrFun]

um . . .

whichever, evil Aussie

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

Would that imply their moral teachings weren't divinely inspired for a spiritual Christian?

No, but neither do Christians preach that these teachers are the Son of God. The question was not, who should we believe in Christianity, but why Jesus ought to be superior to Muhammmed and Buddha. The only answer to that question, has to be the Resurrection.

[Ben Kenobi]

Jack:

Well, there wasn't a resurrection in early versions of Mark. The story ends with the discovery of the empty tomb, which could have been intended to indicate that Jesus was entirely "taken up to Heaven" rather than that he got up and walked out.

Let's see.

Mark 16:6-7

"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

An allusion to the appearances of Christ to the Apostles after his resurrection. Even so, you still have the other three which have more extensive accounts of the resurrection.

There wasn't originally an Ascension in the gospels either.

Any evidence for this claim Jack? Christ promised to rise, and to return to the Apostles before his death.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, but neither do Christians preach that these teachers are the Son of God. The question was not, who should we believe in Christianity, but why Jesus ought to be superior to Muhammmed and Buddha. The only answer to that question, has to be the Resurrection.

Still dodging the question:

If the Resurrection was needed to prove the legitimacy of God's message as brought by Jesus, why was such a thing not needed for his previous messages? People believed the other prophets, didn't they? If they didn't, that would make their appearance in the Bible a little inexplicable...

At any rate, there is no need for the resurrection for someone who doesn't believe Jesus is divine to believe that Jesus had the best moral philosophy around, just as someone doesn't need to believe Kant was resurrected to believe his was a the best moral philosophy (or any number of philosophers).