So that’s why suicide is a sin, eh? Well, i guess many people wanted to die quickly back then because, to say it bluntly, it sucked back then. But nowadays, the only people who commit suicide are those who are unhappy with the way things go for them. Is it still a sin? What if the suicide is justified?
Religion doesn’t really make me uncomfortable. Maybe it’s because im not a religious person. So i can’t see how someone who is Christian be uncomfortable around a person saying “I feel the blessing of the Lord today.” If someone said that near me, i would probably laugh, or scoff. No offense to that person, of course.
My misguided post in another thread last night made me think of this one.
I am uncomfortable with discussions of religion because they place two deeply held beliefs in conflict. I strongly believe that people are entitled to their beliefs and that those beliefs should be respected. Unfortunately I also believe religion is entirely irrational which leaves me unable to live up to my own ideals. The conflict tends to reduce me to incoherance when I try to discuss it.
Normally, if I am thinking straight, I can avoid the topic altogether but the most difficult has been how to deal with it with my kids. So far their home life has been almost without mention of the concept of religion beyond the occassional statement that I do not believe in it. At the same time I know they are and will be exposed to it and feel like I am failing to provide them with a decent foundation to assess what they will hear outside the home.
It’s almost humerous as it is indistinguishable from the traditional fathers dilema about sex. I actually had a conversation with one daughter that went like this:
Me: So, do you and your friends ever talk about religion?
Her: I guess, lots of them go to church and stuff.
Me: What do you think about it?
Her: I don’t really believe in it.
Me: <audible sigh of relief> Well, if you have any questions about it you know you can ask me, ok?
Her: ok
Me: How is your math going?
I had to laugh at myself but it really was the best I could do. I need a pamphlet I can leave conspicuously on the counter.
Suppose it takes less effort to push a little old lady into traffic than to step around her.
Some people do this.
Other people are afraid of being caught, and therefore do not. Both see law as a way to control mankind’s inherently unethical or anethical nature.
Other people decide rationally that it would improve everyone’s happiness to step around the little old lady than to push her into traffic. They see humans as incapable of giving existential worth, and therefore require a single starting point that sounds good and rational derivation of everything up from that.
Another group, which includes the vast majority of the population, don’t even consider it. They say, “good morning,” and step around the little old lady. They recognize that ethics are simply a matter of practical daily responsibility. They seem to recognize this irrespective of education, religion, whether reason is a conscious fact, and whether they have access to sidewalks.
Sorry for the delay - new network censor at work prevents me from accessing this website (probably the word “dope” in the title). Any suggestions on bypassing this would be welcomed.
Off to the discussion.
Hazel writes:
The issue is exactly this. My belief is that it is impossible to convince another person that your opinion on anything moral is better than theirs without an objective moral standard (which I would argue goes a good long way toward the idea of God). What are you going to use to defend your idea of what is right? It seems to me that everything and anything an atheist would propose is basically meaningless.
So VarlosZ says:
and ExTank says:
How is human happiness or peaceful co-existence any different (in a realistic way) than wholesale death and suffering?
Freyr says:
Actually I posted what I did because I have not yet heard a rational moral position based on an objective standard (other than a religious one). And I have read Kant. As far as I can tell, his “categorical imperative” (always act as you would if your action was the standard for everything else) doesn’t work anymore than anything else. If there is no God, what do I care what happens, to me or to anyone else? We are all scheduled for oblivion in a few decades anyway, and the human race for extinction in the blink of a cosmic eye, so what difference does it make whether we are happy now or not?
And please don’t bother to tell me that you want to be happy. So do I, and so does everyone else. The classic counter-argument is still valid - what difference does it make what anyone wants? Human emotion is a pattern of electrical activity in the brain. How does it make sense to say that electricity in a certain pattern is “good”, but in a different pattern it is “bad”, especially in light of the fact that the generator is going out shortly anyway?
Joseph Stalin and Mother Teresa are now both dead. If there is no God, what good did anything that either of them did during life do them now? And suppose that a hundred thousand years ago, someone was just as saintly (or just as evil) as either of them. What good did whatever they did do, now that no one knows their name or what they did? And after the sun goes nova, or the universe experiences heat death, what difference will it make what I thought or did or said - regardless of what it was?
I am afraid I can see no escape. Atheism, as far as I can tell, necessarily implies nihilism. Sorry.
So, Shodan, you’re arguing that Christians can escape the “nihilism” that you believe must inevitably result from atheism, because Christians have access to objective standards of morality. What are those objective standards, and how do you know what they are?
I have read your post two or three times now, and while I cannot speak for Shodan, I will say, as a Christian, that my objective moral standard comes from the Bible, more specifically, the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17) and the Greatest Commandment. (Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:37-40)
You are rationalizing to justify your position, i.e. that athiests can’t have morals.
It seems like you think that, “Well, if there’s no God, what does morality mean? What difference will it make after you’re dead?”
Guess what . . . Athiests don’t live for when they’re dead; they live for when they’re alive (this is one of the things that bothers me most about Christianity).
Athiests want to be happy while they’re still breathing. Many people, myself included, recognize that the best way to be happy is to get along with other people, treat them like you’d like to be treated, respect them as you’d wish to be respected.
That’s all that is required. You’re right, Mother Theresa and Pol Pot are in exactly the same situation right now. But then again, they don’t have to worry about getting along with anyone, do they?
To use your reasoning, why do Christians bother to do anything? After all, it’s meaningless. You are just hanging around waiting to die so you can get to the good stuff, right?
Actually I posted what I did because I have not yet heard a rational moral position based on an objective standard (other than a religious one). And I have read Kant. As far as I can tell, his “categorical imperative” (always act as you would if your action was the standard for everything else) doesn’t work anymore than anything else.**
Then you really need to have a good chat with either DavidB or Gaudere, the Mods for this forum. They’ll be more than happy to fill you in on the morals of Atheism.
I can’t remember the names of the appropriate threads where this was discussed. Anyone else remember?
Okay, then, john_14_six. (I note that another Christian has already chimed in to tell you you’re version of the Objective Moral Code isn’t quite right; no doubt, you and he will various disagreements about your respective Objective Moral Codes.)
So, Exodus 20:1-17 is part of the Objective Moral Code? First off, is there some way we can know why Exodus 20:1-17 is part of the Objective Moral Code, but Exodus 22:18 isn’t?
If Exodus 20:1-7 is part of the Objective Moral Code, which is the objectively valid application of those principles: Exodus 22:20 or the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?
If Exodus 20:8-11 is part of the Objective Moral Code, what about Exodus 31:14? And should the sabbath day, objectively speaking, be on Saturday or Sunday?
And so on. The Bible has a quite detailed, specific moral code, which no one (fortunately) follows. Christians have the New Testament, and Jews have the Talmud, and they all agree that the objective moral code carefully set out in the Torah has changed, or never really meant what it appears to mean in the first place, or needs to be applied in a different manner today than it was back then (which is an odd thing for an Objective Moral Code–it sounds like us atheistic secular humanists and our “situational ethics”.)
I don’t really see any Judeo-Christian objective moral code at all. Rather, I see a lot of people coming up with their own moral codes (homosexuality is/is not inherently immoral; “religious liberty” is a good thing; the state does/does not have a role in feeding the hungry and clothing the naked) and then using the Bible as a kind of inkblot to justify whatever positions they’ve come up with as being divinely ordained.
And you made a subjective personal choice to take that as your moral code, based on your subjective personal experience of the existence and attributes of your deity, and so you subjectively interpret those commandments to create your moral code. (“Don’t steal”? What about to feed your starving child? If you would steal then, you’re making a subjective intepretation of the commandment there, to say the command “don’t steal” does not apply in all circumtances.) An atheist makes a choice to follow a certain moral code for the purposes of promoting the general welfare or greater happiness or suchlike, while theists choose to follow their particular moral code out of love of God, fear of Hell, to promote happiness, etc. Both atheists and theists have made a choice; the atheists choose their own moral code more or less directly, while theists generally base it on the moral imperatives that they believe their chosen God espouses. Of course, theists have to use their own subjective interpretation of their God’s moral imperatives, and so often get differing results. For example, some Christians think homosexuality is acceptable, some think it is a sin; and note that your fellow Christian Lib does NOT accept the commandments as the ultimate objective moral code, as you do. So even if “God’s objective moral code” exists, it can only be practiced through personal subjective human interpretation; both theists and atheists use their heart and mind to interpret their chosen moral code. Atheists can also believe in the existence of an objective moral code (based on the inherent nature of mankind), but must use their own subjective interpretation to implement and follow it. The existence of an objective moral code clearly does not allow all people who believe in it to have the exact same moral beliefs; as it is practiced by all people, it must remain totally subjective.
Shodan
Well, which world would you rather live in? If human happiness is not important, do you think your God will choose to let you suffer eternally, since “there’s no real difference”?
Because I am living here and now. I would prefer to be happy. I like other people. I would like them to be happy too. I don’t understand why you think this is such a meaningless thing. “Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting.” --B. Russell.
…And if your personal moral code considers it moral to make moderators happy, please read at least some of the previous threads we have had on the “atheist morality” subject.
Read my post again carefully. I said my objective moral standard (an oxymoron, I admit) comes from the Bible, and I listed the Ten Commandments and the Greatest Commandment as where I chose it from. I did not say that they are The Objective Moral Code. They are laws given from God to the Jews as He was beginning the nation of Israel, much the same as we (assuming the U.S.) have the Constitution & its Amendments, as well as state and local laws. I (again, personally & subjectively) believe one can infer TOMC from the Bible.
For your questions, MEBuckner:
The reason is that Exodus 22:18 concerns capital punishment (in God’s Nation), where Exodus 20:13 deals with murder. Both concern death, but murder implies intentional malice. Read it in this context, and hopefully my point is clear.
Again, all three are rules of government; one is for the U.S., for the people & by the people; the other two are for the Nation of Israel, by God & for God, the Jews, and the rest of us Gentiles. And lest you wonder if Christians will run around the U.S., killing sorceresses or those who sacrifice to another god, we are subject to the laws of governments as well.
While it should be pretty clear I see the Ten Commandments as governmental laws, I will touch on this. The Sabbath is the seventh day in which God rested after the creation week, given to man as an example for the workweek. Jews regard the Sabbath as sundown of Friday until sundown of Saturday (Sorry, I could not find the Hebrew name of the day). Christians use Sunday as a day of rest (not the Sabbath) because Jesus was resurrected on a Sunday. While I do not know for a fact what Jewish Christians remember as the Sabbath, reason tells me that they most likely would regard it as the sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
If you think I’m weaseling out of anything, call me on it.
One question for you:
And
Can you reconcile these for me? Thanks.
Gaudere:
You are right on the money saying that I made a subjective personal choice about my moral code.
Again, you are right. While we have to practice our moral codes subjectively, we can base them on something greater than just our hearts and minds, which sometimes can be wrong (think Oklahoma City or any recent school shooting). DANGER: Don’t assume I think all non-Christians are morally corrupt or bankrupt. It seems pretty obvious to me that hearts and minds have the possibility to go bad or, if you will, misinterpret the data they’re fed.
Warning: Tangential topic. If you have a moment, I’ll tell you why I chose the Bible. If you want to skip over the rest, it won’t bother me. (I promise not to hunt you down and thump your noggin with the Bible.)
When it came time for me to decide on a moral code that was well-reasoned (“Because I think so” doesn’t hold any water beyond middle school), I looked to those that gave absolutes to the highest number of ethical situations (largest chance to be the True Objective Moral Code, I figured), and out of those, I looked for the ones with the least amount of lies (they are pretty easy to spot). Out of those, the Bible was the one that stood out. It is historically accurate (We’ll save Genesis for another debate). People, places and times matched up with archaeology, both from the Old and the New Testament (I especially enjoy Luke and Acts - he is very specific). Prophecies were specific and accurate. And most importantly, the main miracle of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is not deniable by the known facts and the circumstantial evidence. One of the best books I read concerning it is The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.
To those of you that read this far, thanks, and if you want any specific information, I’ll answer emails. I’ve made this post too long already.
You can only lump members of revealed religions into this class. Most moral codes do not rely on a deity to define them. Morality is more generally based upon the supposition that the behavior I engage in sets the tone for how I am treated by others. That is why some statement of the Golden Rule is present in almost every ancient philosophy. (cite upon request)
As a pagan I don’t treat others well because some deity told me to. I do it out of a sense of personal honor. I have been about in the world for almost 40 years and I have seen many people. I have come to respect some people and not others based on their behavior. I can therefore try to model my behavior on those I respect and thereby be worthy of the respect of others.
But all of this is based not on some revealed truth from a deity but a quite logical assessment of what make for the smoothest running most pleasant society. A rather selfish end but also a very benevolent one.
But this raises the question, is it objectively morally wrong for a society to put people to death for worshipping false gods?
Well, as I said originally,
So, the actual laws of the Torah wind up being one of many Judeo-Christian or Biblical moral codes, and one which no one actually seems to follow to boot. The actual laws in the Bible are objective enough in the sense of being concrete, but it appears no one thinks of them as being “objective” in the sense of being the actual Correct Moral Code for All Time.
Well, now, I wouldn’t take someone else’s dictionary to hit myself in the head with. That would be wrong.
Something “greater”? The original choice has to be made with one’s own heart and mind (if you believe in free will) so at it’s essence your (and everyone’s) morality is based on a decision of your own heart and mind, no matter how much “greater” the morality you chose to believe may be. A hard and fast objective morality may be useful for preventing evil done by those whose intelligence or empathy is so seriously deficient that they think blowing up buildings to make a statement is a Good Thing, but can be needlessly restrictive for those who can understand when the “true” moral choice is to do something “objectively” immoral for a greater good (like lie to the Nazis looking for Jews). It is a tradeoff.
As for your tangent…I also have looked at the Bible’s moral codes, and can have little truck with a moral code that explicitly permits slavery, killing of “enemy” infants or forced sex with captured women (Exod 21, Lev 25, Num 31, Deut 21). Nor is the history any more accurate than one would expect for a book of that time; the archeological evidence (or lack thereof) shows that Exodus happening as it was written seems highly unlikley, for example, and neither does the story of the Tower of Babel have any support based on what we know of linguistic development. There’s not really any way to deny any arbitrary “supernatural event” that supposedly happened 2000 years ago, but that’s mightly thin evidence to induce a belief in it; there are also plenty of eyewitness accounts of witches, ghosts, demons, etc., that can’t be disproven, and I feel no more compelled to believe in them than in a ressurection. The NT’s morality is somewhat better; “do unto others” is a good rule (and formulated long before J.C. said it), though of course it requires much personal interpretation to decide exactly what to do in any given situation, and sometimes you should do unto others as they would wish done to them, not as you would wish done unto you. I do have a problem with the “hate your mother and brothers” line, considering homosexual acts a sin, and the command to always “turn the other cheek” (certainly that one requires a lot of personal choice about when it is applicable, or women would be told to just let their abusive husbands slap them around).
MEBuckner: And how do you know that theft is wrong? What do you base it on?
I will answer your question, but I must do so in a roundabout way. Please have patience.
That we have an idea that moral objectivity exists, it presupposes that an absolute, moral code exists as well (one that will hold anywhere and everywhere at all times). How can we determine it if we are each subject to our personal views (bound in subjectivity)? Like my math instructors like to say, “let’s put it in a picture.” Note: If this analogy doesn’t work for you, I’ll try to think of another one later. Just remind me.
Think of the two-dimensional Cartesian plane (x versus y). Let us say that the x axis is the Objective Moral Truth, the Standard for human behavior. Every measure on it is an ethical situation (murder, theft, abuse, etc.) If we all followed it, then everything would be perfect. However, one looks around and sees points and line segments connecting them off of the axis, out in the xy plane. The points are opinions on each situation, and the line segments (arcs, curves) are a certain individual’s subjective moral code. And since most everyone has an opinion on each situation, we have several billions (if not trillions) of points and connecting segments. We will also see trends among the lines, corresponding to societies (be they Christians or Buddhists, Americans or Iraqis, Democrats or Republicans, etc.). But that will not tell us if one particular society (or individual, for that matter) is the x axis. In fact, because humans are not perfect, we will not be the x axis. We cannot have it right, because our opinions will fluctuate, at least at one point in our existence, and that would be off of the x axis.
Which raises the question, what would be perfect? Only a god, and only a non-human created one (Greek/Roman, Buddha/Confucious*, societal benefit, etc. *I realize Buddha and Confucious were not gods, but if we use their philosophies as the Objective Moral Code, they have every possibility of being off the x axis as anyone else.)
This is where my tangent from before relates. If the Objective Moral Code exists, then a supreme deity exists as well. And if we desire to follow this objective moral code, how will we know what it is? Only if this supreme deity revealed it to us. Out of all the deities that are claimed to be non-human created, which of them revealed rules that we can infer an objective moral code from? Out of those, which are not either contradictory nor untruthful? Out of those, which has these rules recorded accurately and in a timely fashion* (so as not to let legend creep in)? When I conducted my search, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was the only deity able to withstand the scrutiny. I suggest that you perform your own search because, after all, mine is a subjective view. *(More on accuracy of Genesis through Deuteronomy later.)
For my answer to the question, if a person in a society of the objective morals of the Bible were to worship a false god, then yes, that person deserves death according to the laws of Exodus. Shocking to us (including myself) today, because we are conditioned by our particular society to believe that a person is free to worship whatever he wants. But let us attempt to gain perspective away from our societal morals. If you are a parent, you will attempt to rear your children with the morals you want for and expect of them. You tell them the rules, and the consequences for disobedience, yet they have free will. They will, at some point, disobey you, even though they knew the risk involved. Since you want them to have the morals you want, you must mete out the punishment. I recall many times when I felt that the punishment I received was too severe for the crime, but now I realize that my parents were raising me to have the morals they thought would be the right ones. However, if we apply the above analogy to the God of the Bible, that last sentence must change. We as humans will think that the punishments are too severe for the crime, but we (accepting of the Bible, anyway) realize that God is raising us to have the morals He knows are the right ones. I hope this makes things clearer.
Gaudere:
You are assuming that to lie would be the only way to protect the Jew. I think another way could be found without violating the Objective Moral Code–keeping silent, perhaps. Just because there are not easy answers to everything does not preclude that a hard and fast objective morality is non-existent. Since our world is complicated, one would expect that difficult situations exist, and to do the correct (according to the Objective Moral Code) moral thing will be difficult. An easier choice (not following the Code) will exist, to be sure, and all of us have made that choice at some point (i.e., sin).
Although I would think that you, Gaudere (and other readers), are familiar with the Christian doctrine, I would like to take this opportunity to post it for the benefit of anyone reading that is not aware. The basic doctrine of mainstream Christianity is found in Romans chapters 1-3. Everyone has made the wrong choice at some point. No one is exempt from the punishment deserved (Romans 3:10), whether you believe you are or not. This is where Libertarian’s post comes into play:
What standard do we measure this perfection by? God’s standard (the above x axis analogy). However, we have all missed this standard at some point. If we wish to align ourselves with the x axis (attempt perfection), we will not be able to on our own merits; we can’t forgive ourselves from our own past sins against God. If we are to have any chance or hope of coming to this standard, God must take the initiative (John 3:16). Is there any other way? No. Only by God’s initiative (John 14:6) would we be able to come to this standard. Since we have free will, we can accept it or reject it, but I caution you to do so after careful consideration, thought, and research. If, after that, you are ready to become a Christian, the way to do so is found in Romans 10:9. If you are not, and need or want more answers, feel free to email me, and I will try to provide them as best I can. Most of them will come from The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel and The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell. If you want to skip the middleman, please feel free to find these books for yourself. If, after the consideration, thought, and research, you do not want to become a Christian, I will neither persecute nor proselytize you, and if, for some reason, another Christian does, you may want to remind them of Titus 3:2. That will usually quiet these “street preacher” types of Christians (unless they are your family members). End of the “tract” part of my post
For your second paragraph, Gaudere, I am always excited to converse with non-Christians that are familiar with the Bible. It’s kind of a rarity for me. I held a lot of your same views and questions when I was an agnostic (modern connotation). When I began my research, I discovered a different connotation of the word “slavery” within the Bible compared to the American connotation of the same (Exodus 21:1-6, Leviticus 25:39-55). Of course the American form of slavery is fraught with stories of mistreatment, rape, and murder. As for the difference, these are clear violations of the Biblical moral code. If you look at Deuteronomy 15:12-18, you find that Old Testament era slaveowners were commanded to treat their slaves with respect and dignity, such as that of a hired servant. Paul’s letter to Philemon reveals a little bit more information concerning a master-slave relationship in New Testament times. If you (or a reader) still have reservations with the Bible’s moral code because of slavery, that is your prerogative, but I would rather you (or a reader) have them concerning the correct connotation.
Next, the killing of enemy boys (Numbers 31:17) (none of the Bible versions that I have access to use the term “infants”, but I will drop the semantics here-they are still young children). I will confess that I have always had a problem regarding this passage (including today). But as I attempted to make clear with the Cartesian plane analogy, only God is just, and only God is omniscient. Therefore, only God would know how any individual’s life would turn out if it were extended a few decades. And on this subject, my comfort comes from Genesis 18:25, when Lot was begging God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah, God showed His mercy by not destroying a wicked society if there existed in it righteous people. My conclusion is that the Midianites must have been an entirely wicked society for a complete destruction of their males.
On to forced sex with captured women (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). This does not read like a “good for all times” rule. It reads more like a special case scenario (If there is a captured prisoner that you want for a wife, then these are the rules). And, as I attempted to explain earlier, we will all be off the Objective Moral Code. Just because it seems different, strange, and perhaps wrong to us, our opinions will not change the truthfulness any.
Next, the accuracy of Exodus as it is recorded. While strictly archaeological evidence may be sparse (the exodus happened over 3,300 years ago), the archaeological evidence coupled with internal and external textual evidence present a stronger case. Examples of such include: [list=A]
[li]Moses was in a position to write Exodus (and the rest of the Pentateuch {first five books of the Bible})[/li] [list=1]
[li]Education: Moses was raised in the Royal Egyptian Court; He would be literate[/li] [li]Tradition: Moses (champion of the Hebrews) would have received the traditions of early Hebrew history[/li] [li]Geographic familiarity: The author has intimate knowledge of of climate and geography of Egypt and Sinai. A history written much later (while Israel inhabited the land of Canaan) would likely not include such details[/li] [li]Motivation: As the first leader of Israel, he would want to lay down concrete moral and religious foundations[/li] [li]Time: Forty years of wandering in the wilderness/desert would be ample time to write the Pentateuch[/li] [/list=1]
[li]Extrabiblical evidence: If uneducated slaves were recording their histories on tunnel walls of Egyptian turquoise mines, it is doubtful that a well-educated man not record the details of an epoch like the Exodus[/li][li]A question: If Exodus were recorded any later than when it happened, why does it include the details of a portable tabernacle, including exact measurements and materials? (Exodus chapters 25-27)[/li][/list=A] The above is found in The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell, 21.9C, p. 457
The Tower of Babel: While I am not a philologist, I will trust one when it comes to something such as language commonality. I will also trust corroborating evidence found in archaeology (though yes, it is scant).
The above is found in The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell, 4.4C, p. 105
Side comment: Although I do not have much to gain or lose by stating something as extreme as Mr. Trombetti (prove) or Mr. Jesperson (mention of God), I should think their professional credibility is on the line with such a statement. Something to consider.
While we cannot produce hard evidence of a resurrection, witches, ghosts, or demons to exact a belief in any of these, I will attempt to show the difference between evidence for them. While people claim to be eyewitnesses to all, Jesus’ resurrection stands out because of (as I mentioned before) circumstantial evidence. The following is from The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel, p.329.
[list=A]
[li]Extrabiblical Accounts (corroborating evidence)[/li] [list=1]
[li]Josephus’ Antiquities[/li] [li]Josephus’ Tesimonium Flavium[/li] [li]Tacitus’ History,[/li] [li]Pliny the Younger’s writings and letters to Emporer Trajan[/li] [li]Thallus’ work (c. 52 A.D.) is lost, but is quoted by Julius Africanus in 221 A.D. and Paul Maier’s Pontius Pilate (1968) both reference a noontime darkness on a day in 33 A.D.[/li] [li]Jesus’ life is sparingly (as expected) mentioned in the Talmud[/li] [/list=1]
[li]Disciples were willing to die for their beliefs (Acts 7:54-60, 12:1-2, 15:19-20, see also Jesus Freaks by d.c. Talk)[/li][li] Skeptics were converted (James, Jesus’ brother; Saul (Paul))[/li][li]Jews (over 10,000) were willing to give up or alter five specific God-given social structures that they were raised to believe have great importance (sociologically and theologically) The implication is that something was happening[/li] [list=1]
[li]Sacrificial offerings were done away with[/li] [li]Claimed that “to be an upstanding member of society by merely keeping Moses’ Laws”[/li] [li]Jews scrupulously kept the Sabbath, yet after the death of this Nazarene, they are willing to give up tradition[/li] [li]Even before the death of Jesus, Jews were worshiping him as God, a heresy of the highest degree to their kind of monotheism (Matthew 2:11, 8:2, 9:18, 14:33, 15:25; Mark 5:6; John 9:36)[/li] [li]The first Christians saw Messiah as someone who suffered and died for the sins of the world, whereas Jews had been trained to believe that Messiah would be a political leader who would destroy the Roman armies[/li] [li]Question raised: Why would so many Jews give up in a short time these five key practices that had served them sociologically and theologically for so many centuries, especially at the risk of their well-being and their souls if they were wrong? Not because of simply better ideas, but something had to have happened that they could not explain and forced them to see the world in a different way.[/li] [/list=1]
[li]Emergence of the sacraments of communion and baptism in the early church.[/li] [list=1]
[li]Odd that followers of Jesus did not celebrate his teachings or how wonderful he was. They celebrated that he was publicly executed in a grotesque and humiliating way! Something akin to people that really like President Kennedy getting together to celebrate his murder.[/li] [li]In Old Testament times Jews would baptize Gentiles who wanted to be under Moses’ law in the authority of the God of Israel. In the New Testament, people were baptized in the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Implication: Jesus had been elevated to full status as God. New Testament baptism was a celebratory symbol of Jesus’ death (going under) and resurrection (coming back up)[/li] [/list=1]
[li]Emergence of the church. Pretend, for a moment that you are a Martian, looking down on the first century A.D., which would you expect to last longer? One would not bet on the ragtag bunch who were being persecuted by the Romans and whose primary message was that a crucified carpenter from an obscure village had come back to life. But which has lasted?[/li][/list=A]
The aggregate circumstantial evidence is the difference between the ressurection and other supernatural stories. It is worth looking into, and trying to determine what would account for all of the evidence, the ressurection or something else.
I respect your prerogative to have problems with the above, but allow me a discussion about them.
While singularly, Luke 14:26 is a difficult line, let us look at it in the context of the rest of Jesus’ speech - Luke 14:25-35. It is clear the he is speaking about being a disciple and the things one must be willing to give up in order to do so. In other words, count the costs before you make the transaction. In this context, it stands to reason that it would mean one must be willing to give up not only one’s current possessions and relationships, but also whatever love you may have for them, including one’s very life. That of course, would be among the hardest things we would ever have to do. If your family were to be against you becoming a Christian, you must be willing to follow God rather than your family. That’s the hard part. But here comes the good part. When you become a disciple of Jesus, a Christian, you gain something radically different. You become aware of a different kind of love, a Godly love. Let me give you a personal example. My brother became a Christian before I did (about a year or so). And although we were close before, that closeness increased (nothing else in our lives had changed). I could tell a marked difference in his outlook of life. He did not love me out of a desire to make the house peaceful (something akin to societal benefit). Rather, it was out of his own free will, a voluntary decision. Does an experience like this always happen? No, and don’t expect it to. That why Jesus said to count the costs. Be sure you want to take the risk.
As far as homosexual acts are sins, my only response is to refer to the earlier discussion of the Cartesian plane. It is either a subjective morality or an objective morality. There will be at least one situation that we will not agree with God’s standard of perfection. It doesn’t mean that He is wrong.
For your example of an abused wife, I will refer to 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 (commands to Christians concerning marriage). At first glance, it would seem verses 10 and 11 may seem to contradict each other, but let’s but everything into a context warranted by the passage. Because verse 12 says “to the rest” and begins mentioning of non-Christians, it is reasonable to think that verses 10 and 11 are directed towards marriages of two Christians. Because Christian men are required to “love their wives as Christ loves the Church” (Ephesians 5:25), the abuse example will not apply to verses 10 and 11. Therefore, let us turn our attention to verses 12-16, especially verse 13. If this woman counted the costs and became a Christian, verse 16 says she should stay with the husband in the hope he will become a believer. Back to the other command, to turn the other cheek. As stated earlier, a hard and fast objective moral code is difficult in a lot of situations. Imagine, for a moment, that the wife stood back up, to receive another blow. I am not an abusive person; I do not know how one would react to his wife standing up, again and again, until she could no more (Phillipians 4:13). That would scream something to my mind. As ridiculous to us as it may sound so far, please stay with me. Should she let the abuse continue after the first incident? Absolutely not. Romans chapter 13 says that Christians are to be subject to governments, and there must be a tradeoff, something for the citizen. This is it: the woman should use the governmental resources and contact the police. Is enduring a beating the easiest option? Certainly not, but no one has ever said that Christianity would be easy (John 15:18-25).
tracer:
This is why I said I based my morality on known truths, and did not stand the obvious lies (i.e. “The true nation of Israel are the people of Germanic peoples”). Also, like I said before, a mind can either be fed false data or misinterpret the truth. This kind of morality is probably what MEBuckner meant by
This is why mainstream Christians let the Bible speak for itself, accepting of the entirety from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, in context.