Comments on: A Response to Fedora http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/response-to-fedora-on-objective-morality-and-the-bible/ Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:14:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bravus » A Little Philosophy Around God, morality and the Bible http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/response-to-fedora-on-objective-morality-and-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-10438 Bravus » A Little Philosophy Around God, morality and the Bible Fri, 03 Dec 2010 23:33:45 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=1430#comment-10438 [...] mentioned in that piece: http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/objective-morality-and-the-bible/, http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/response-to-fedora-on-objective-morality-and-the-bible/, [...] [...] mentioned in that piece: http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/objective-morality-and-the-bible/, http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/response-to-fedora-on-objective-morality-and-the-bible/, [...]

]]> By: 8DC http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/response-to-fedora-on-objective-morality-and-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-1534 8DC Wed, 02 Jun 2010 22:31:40 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=1430#comment-1534 It sounds like you are assuming that they are true until it becomes blatantly obvious that they are not. <br>Why? Wouldn't it be much more rational to be sceptical of a claim until evidence is found to support it?<br><br>I would also be interested in hearing your "historical and logical" reasons for believing that the New Testament stories are true. <br>The named places and setting are true, sure. Anyone writing in that time or shortly after could correctly provide that information.<br>There isn't much evidence that the main characters existed, despite the miraculous events described in the gospels and the Romans being meticulous record keepers (you would think that someone would have at least have mentioned something of the more public events) there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus.<br>As for logic, what logical explanation can be given for virgin births, walking on water, turning water into wine, returning to life after being dead for three days, and ascending into the sky to heaven (we can now see that there is no heaven in the 'heavens above', just vast expanses of space)? The claims of the New Testament are as improbable as those of the Old, so what leads you to the conclusion that one is patched together with metaphors and the other is completely true? It sounds like you are assuming that they are true until it becomes blatantly obvious that they are not.
Why? Wouldn't it be much more rational to be sceptical of a claim until evidence is found to support it?

I would also be interested in hearing your “historical and logical” reasons for believing that the New Testament stories are true.
The named places and setting are true, sure. Anyone writing in that time or shortly after could correctly provide that information.
There isn't much evidence that the main characters existed, despite the miraculous events described in the gospels and the Romans being meticulous record keepers (you would think that someone would have at least have mentioned something of the more public events) there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus.
As for logic, what logical explanation can be given for virgin births, walking on water, turning water into wine, returning to life after being dead for three days, and ascending into the sky to heaven (we can now see that there is no heaven in the 'heavens above', just vast expanses of space)? The claims of the New Testament are as improbable as those of the Old, so what leads you to the conclusion that one is patched together with metaphors and the other is completely true?

]]> By: 8DC http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/response-to-fedora-on-objective-morality-and-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-1516 8DC Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:31:40 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=1430#comment-1516 It sounds like you are assuming that they are true until it becomes blatantly obvious that they are not. <br>Why? Wouldn't it be much more rational to be sceptical of a claim until evidence is found to support it?<br><br>I would also be interested in hearing your "historical and logical" reasons for believing that the New Testament stories are true. <br>The named places and setting are true, sure. Anyone writing in that time or shortly after could correctly provide that information.<br>There isn't much evidence that the main characters existed, despite the miraculous events described in the gospels and the Romans being meticulous record keepers (you would think that someone would have at least have mentioned something of the more public events) there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus.<br>As for logic, what logical explanation can be given for virgin births, walking on water, turning water into wine, returning to life after being dead for three days, and ascending into the sky to heaven (we can now see that there is no heaven in the 'heavens above', just vast expanses of space)? The claims of the New Testament are as improbable as those of the Old, so what leads you to the conclusion that one is patched together with metaphors and the other is completely true? It sounds like you are assuming that they are true until it becomes blatantly obvious that they are not.
Why? Wouldn't it be much more rational to be sceptical of a claim until evidence is found to support it?

I would also be interested in hearing your “historical and logical” reasons for believing that the New Testament stories are true.
The named places and setting are true, sure. Anyone writing in that time or shortly after could correctly provide that information.
There isn't much evidence that the main characters existed, despite the miraculous events described in the gospels and the Romans being meticulous record keepers (you would think that someone would have at least have mentioned something of the more public events) there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus.
As for logic, what logical explanation can be given for virgin births, walking on water, turning water into wine, returning to life after being dead for three days, and ascending into the sky to heaven (we can now see that there is no heaven in the 'heavens above', just vast expanses of space)? The claims of the New Testament are as improbable as those of the Old, so what leads you to the conclusion that one is patched together with metaphors and the other is completely true?

]]> By: Payton http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/response-to-fedora-on-objective-morality-and-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-1356 Payton Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:22:51 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=1430#comment-1356 Don't talk about the Bible as a whole. I have made it quite clear that all of the New Testament stories (specifically those of Acts and the four gospel books) are true, because I have historical and logical reasons for believing them. I have also made it quite clear that the Old Testament is a different story entirely. I accept that some of the OT stories are true and some not. I do not know which are which. It does not matter which are which. All I have said as to how to tell which OT stories are true is to apply reason to them. We can do nothing else, they happened too long ago. It will only be able to prove that some did not occur, and only that it's possible some did. Do you understand this point? I'm trying to be plain, forgive me. :) It seems like we've been talking past each other :/ Don’t talk about the Bible as a whole. I have made it quite clear that all of the New Testament stories (specifically those of Acts and the four gospel books) are true, because I have historical and logical reasons for believing them.

I have also made it quite clear that the Old Testament is a different story entirely. I accept that some of the OT stories are true and some not. I do not know which are which. It does not matter which are which.

All I have said as to how to tell which OT stories are true is to apply reason to them. We can do nothing else, they happened too long ago. It will only be able to prove that some did not occur, and only that it’s possible some did. Do you understand this point?

I’m trying to be plain, forgive me. :) It seems like we’ve been talking past each other :/

]]> By: Payton http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/response-to-fedora-on-objective-morality-and-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-10310 Payton Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:22:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=1430#comment-10310 Don't talk about the Bible as a whole. I have made it quite clear that all of the New Testament stories (specifically those of Acts and the four gospel books) are true, because I have historical and logical reasons for believing them. I have also made it quite clear that the Old Testament is a different story entirely. I accept that some of the OT stories are true and some not. I do not know which are which. It does not matter which are which. All I have said as to how to tell which OT stories are true is to apply reason to them. We can do nothing else, they happened too long ago. It will only be able to prove that some did not occur, and only that it's possible some did. Do you understand this point? I'm trying to be plain, forgive me. :) It seems like we've been talking past each other :/ Don’t talk about the Bible as a whole. I have made it quite clear that all of the New Testament stories (specifically those of Acts and the four gospel books) are true, because I have historical and logical reasons for believing them.

I have also made it quite clear that the Old Testament is a different story entirely. I accept that some of the OT stories are true and some not. I do not know which are which. It does not matter which are which.

All I have said as to how to tell which OT stories are true is to apply reason to them. We can do nothing else, they happened too long ago. It will only be able to prove that some did not occur, and only that it’s possible some did. Do you understand this point?

I’m trying to be plain, forgive me. :) It seems like we’ve been talking past each other :/

]]> By: noen http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/response-to-fedora-on-objective-morality-and-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-1353 noen Mon, 12 Apr 2010 06:22:04 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=1430#comment-1353 I don't know if you're replying to me or not. But you were the one who said "It is easy to say which ones are which". I don't know how one does that. How does one tell which Biblical story is to be taken as history and which as metaphor? Or do you take the entire Bible as metaphor? I don't know if you're replying to me or not. But you were the one who said "It is easy to say which ones are which". I don't know how one does that. How does one tell which Biblical story is to be taken as history and which as metaphor? Or do you take the entire Bible as metaphor?

]]> By: noen http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/response-to-fedora-on-objective-morality-and-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-10309 noen Mon, 12 Apr 2010 06:22:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=1430#comment-10309 I don't know if you're replying to me or not. But you were the one who said "It is easy to say which ones are which". I don't know how one does that. How does one tell which Biblical story is to be taken as history and which as metaphor? Or do you take the entire Bible as metaphor? I don't know if you're replying to me or not. But you were the one who said "It is easy to say which ones are which". I don't know how one does that. How does one tell which Biblical story is to be taken as history and which as metaphor? Or do you take the entire Bible as metaphor?

]]> By: Payton http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/response-to-fedora-on-objective-morality-and-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-1352 Payton Mon, 12 Apr 2010 02:34:57 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=1430#comment-1352 Okay, you mention a load of New Testament stories, and I never, ever, ever doubted their historicity. I specified in the beginning of the very post you replied to that I view that the Old Testament as stories that may or may not have happened. I do not know whether they did or not. I don't care. I believe in an active God, and that Christ is His son. Of course, I believe in miracles as well. Okay, you mention a load of New Testament stories, and I never, ever, ever doubted their historicity.

I specified in the beginning of the very post you replied to that I view that the Old Testament as stories that may or may not have happened. I do not know whether they did or not. I don't care.

I believe in an active God, and that Christ is His son. Of course, I believe in miracles as well.

]]> By: Payton http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/response-to-fedora-on-objective-morality-and-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-10308 Payton Mon, 12 Apr 2010 02:34:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=1430#comment-10308 Okay, you mention a load of New Testament stories, and I never, ever, ever doubted their historicity. I specified in the beginning of the very post you replied to that I view that the Old Testament as stories that may or may not have happened. I do not know whether they did or not. I don't care. I believe in an active God, and that Christ is His son. Of course, I believe in miracles as well. Okay, you mention a load of New Testament stories, and I never, ever, ever doubted their historicity.

I specified in the beginning of the very post you replied to that I view that the Old Testament as stories that may or may not have happened. I do not know whether they did or not. I don't care.

I believe in an active God, and that Christ is His son. Of course, I believe in miracles as well.

]]> By: noen http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/response-to-fedora-on-objective-morality-and-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-1350 noen Mon, 12 Apr 2010 00:39:23 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=1430#comment-1350 I don't see how it would be at all easy to know which stories are true and which not if one believes in an active God and that Christ was his son. The virgin birth? Walking on the water? The resurrection? The miracle of the wine or the loaves and fishes? The flood? Talking animals? A human turned into a pillar of salt? What about the Nephilim, did they really exist? Which creation story in Genesis is the correct one? Was the garden of Eden real? The Snake? I don't see where one draws the line. I don't see how it would be at all easy to know which stories are true and which not if one believes in an active God and that Christ was his son. The virgin birth? Walking on the water? The resurrection? The miracle of the wine or the loaves and fishes? The flood? Talking animals? A human turned into a pillar of salt? What about the Nephilim, did they really exist? Which creation story in Genesis is the correct one? Was the garden of Eden real? The Snake?

I don't see where one draws the line.

]]>