Morality exists without your God.

Synsensa said:
Nah, he's a real guy. Never claimed he was fake. But the details of his life are contested. Have been since reconstruction's been a thing.

Since I don't feel like typing out a long in depth explanation, I will simply cop out and link you this.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Enjoy the read.
Click to expand...
hahaha that website

oh man it's been freaking years since I've seen that

throwing links at each other semi-indiscriminately is so much fun

o/u on "time you spend reading those links" is somewhere between 0.1 and 0.5 seconds, and I'm taking the under
Murky said:
The accounts in the Bible of the miraculous involving Jesus aren't backed up with other historical evidence. I think we have to accept that the Jesus of the new testament is more myth than man. It's possible that a man named 'Jesus' existed around the time the fable was invented, but that doesn't make him what the Christian myths state as fact.
Click to expand...
zzz tryhard with minimal background in history

ignoring the miraculous, because they're freaking miracles and they pop up in virtually all classical accounts of anything whether they were written by herodotos, polybios, or the authors of the gospels, the bible is an actual source and should be treated as such with proper source analysis, not a collection of made-up stories and myths to ignore in toto
 
Dachs said:
zzz tryhard with minimal background in history

ignoring the miraculous, because they're freaking miracles and they pop up in virtually all classical accounts of anything whether they were written by herodotos, polybios, or the authors of the gospels, the bible is an actual source and should be treated as such with proper source analysis, not a collection of made-up stories and myths to ignore in toto
Click to expand...

So you are saying then that the Bible is a factual history text?
 
Murky said:
So you are saying then that the Bible is a factual history text?
Click to expand...
it's like any source from classical history and has to be analyzed on its own merits, picking the evidence that makes sense based on context and modifying or discarding other stuff based on ahahahah seriously are you kidding me thousands of fish and loaves of bread

resident forum theologian and religious historian PLOTINUS is, notably, not a christian or anything at all and is capable of talking about christianity in terms other than lololol myths, legends, and con artists gaise

for some reason a large number of people here ignore him because reasons
 
Dachs said:
it's like any source from classical history and has to be analyzed on its own merits, picking the evidence that makes sense based on context and modifying or discarding other stuff based on ahahahah seriously are you kidding me thousands of fish and loaves of bread

resident forum theologian and religious historian PLOTINUS is, notably, not a christian or anything at all and is capable of talking about christianity in terms other than lololol myths, legends, and con artists gaise

for some reason a large number of people here ignore him because reasons
Click to expand...

Couldn't you also ascribe something like "The Lord of The Rings" as being a classical source of information for people who believe in hobbits, dwarves, elves, orcs, magic, etc?
 
Jesus and Bible talk isn't really relevant. Christianity is a worldview based on the idea of a God. This thread is about morality and it's relationship to a higher being.
 
Save_Ferris said:
As for my previous post, I was referring to the New Testament. The Old Testament is an overcooked meatloaf filled with various accounts and hiding veracity, smothered in a thick layer of mistranslation and oral traditions.
Click to expand...
and yet, in its broad strokes, it describes many fairly real events

e.g. the siege of yerushalayim by the armies of sargon ii or achaemenid jewish policy in the levant

even the much-maligned accounts of the migration into what eventually became greek ioudaia can form the basis for an actual historical narrative
Murky said:
Couldn't you also ascribe something like "The Lord of The Rings" as being a classical source of information for people who believe in hobbits, dwarves, elves, orcs, magic, etc?
Click to expand...
sure

you can get just about as far as "there is no such place as arda" before you stop faffing around and abandon that stupid project
 
doublepost but whatever
 
Dachs said:
hahaha that website

oh man it's been freaking years since I've seen that

throwing links at each other semi-indiscriminately is so much fun

o/u on "time you spend reading those links" is somewhere between 0.1 and 0.5 seconds, and I'm taking the under
Click to expand...

11 minutes, actually. You were close, though! I mainly concentrated on Plotinus' posts.

So we have it established that a) Jesus existed (which I agree with) and that b) Jesus preached (which I agree with).

Besides that, our main source of information about our buddy Jesus are the Christian texts themselves, like Plot said. Which I never claimed were fully wrong. They could be right.

They could be wrong, too. Which is why following the word of Jesus is illogical, because the word of Jesus may not be the word of Jesus or he may have had ulterior motives behind said words.

Instead, follow the word of reason. "Murder is bad because a, b, c. Donating money to a good cause is good because a, b, c." Things like that. Following the word of a man, like I said before, is a recipe for a disaster. There must always be self-determination present regardless of how much you agree with what a text says.

Can we agree on this or would you like to continue your "trololo"?
 
Synsensa said:
11 minutes, actually. You were close, though! I mainly concentrated on Plotinus' posts.

So we have it established that a) Jesus existed (which I agree with) and that b) Jesus preached (which I agree with).

Besides that, our main source of information about our buddy Jesus are the Christian texts themselves, like Plot said. Which I never claimed were fully wrong. They could be right.

They could be wrong, too. Which is why following the word of Jesus is illogical, because the word of Jesus may not be the word of Jesus or he may have had ulterior motives behind said words.

Instead, follow the word of reason. "Murder is bad because a, b, c. Donating money to a good cause is good because a, b, c." Things like that. Following the word of a man, like I said before, is a recipe for a disaster. There must always be self-determination present regardless of how much you agree with what a text says.

Can we agree on this or would you like to continue your "trololo"?
Click to expand...

what is your source for morality?

Edit: again, trying to discredit a particular worldview is really off topic.
 
Synsensa said:
11 minutes, actually. You were close, though! I mainly concentrated on Plotinus' posts.

So we have it established that a) Jesus existed (which I agree with) and that b) Jesus preached (which I agree with).

Besides that, our main source of information about our buddy Jesus are the Christian texts themselves, like Plot said. Which I never claimed were fully wrong. They could be right.

They could be wrong, too. Which is why following the word of Jesus is illogical, because the word of Jesus may not be the word of Jesus or he may have had ulterior motives behind said words.

Instead, follow the word of reason. "Murder is bad because a, b, c. Donating money to a good cause is good because a, b, c." Things like that. Following the word of a man, like I said before, is a recipe for a disaster. There must always be self-determination present regardless of how much you agree with what a text says.

Can we agree on this or would you like to continue your "trololo"?
Click to expand...
so you've graduated to solipsism? man, I might just try converting to christianity if the alternative is this garbage
 
AdamGM said:
what is your source for morality?

Edit: again, trying to discredit a particular worldview is really off topic.
Click to expand...

Cause and effect. What's yours?

Oh wait, we're not talking about that because, and I quote, "It's not on point because this thread isn't about describing the contents of specific moral codes, that's all."
 
Cause and effect is the basis for a moral code. Petting your dog instead of poking him in the eye is only good because the dog enjoys petting and dislikes being poked. Petting or poking a statue of a dog is morally neutral, even though it's awfully similar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
Favorite mythology
Replies
13
Views
700
Hygro
Hygro
Kyriakos
An interesting story (religious, but I post it due to the unexpected motif)
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Kyriakos
Kyriakos
Samson
  • Poll Poll
How do you secure your online identity?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Samson
Samson
V
Zohran Mamdani
5 6 7
Replies
133
Views
5K
danjuno
danjuno
Thorgalaeg
Oil!
2
Replies
29
Views
772
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Back
Top Bottom