He's identified as the messiah, and called the Son of God, but the messiah wasn't necessarily God, and there were quite a few sons of gods in antiquity. I don't think he was ever claimed to call himself God except in John — Ciceronianus

I've never found haggling over the exact definition of the messiah to be particularly fruitful. Even if we go to the Bible we get a number of different interpretations. Jesus very much implies that he is the messiah. I like some of the theological/philosophical points that he makes and how he seems to patch some of the holes in Pharisaic society. He points out areas where the Pharisees would deny that there's sin, but common morality would still point to it. At its most basic, the Christian case presents Jesus as the heart that is to be joined with the law of the Old Testament that is to "complete" Judaism. Judaism is a religion more focus on the external while Jesus stresses internal purity.

If we choose to believe in the miracles I'm certainly sold. I'm baffled by the position that claims "well sure Jesus performed miracles but who's the say he's the messiah!" I mean come on, what more are you asking for? That's religious stupidity right there. One genuine miracle is enough for me.

Not only would mass euthanasia cease all current human suffering; it would prevent all future human suffering. Makes a ton of sense if we follow the logic of anti-natalism. There'd also be no more "non-consensual births." It's just a matter of picking the most painless gas. Humanity wiped out. Problem solved.

.

Thanks for the recommendations.

These books look like they're great counters/additions to the New Testament. Christians will often read in Christ references in the OT but Jews have done without this for thousands of years. The OT is a brilliant book even if only for the moral insight, and for such a thing to be written in antiquity is quite a feat. We take much of this knowledge for granted today.

Do you give any credence to the proposal that Roman scribes or those under Roman control (such as Josephus, the Herods, the Egyptian Alexander family) are the sources of the gospels. — universeness

Possibly? I'm not a historian or Christian. I'm just digging into the NT after reading the OT. My approach is more philosophical/theological rather than historical. I don't know the history behind these documents I'm just reading them for the first time.

I'd maintain we shouldn't think he's God because, in the Gospel of John, the latest of the Gospels, he claimed that nobody comes to the Father except through him, that he was the way, the truth and the light. I'm struck by how odd it is that, as far as I'm aware, none of the other Gospels mention this remarkable statement. Did their authors forget he said this, or consider it too unimportant to mention? — Ciceronianus

I could swear salvation through Jesus was mentioned in Matthew. It's mentioned in many parables. In any case, I regard what you've said as an important part of Jesus's teachings -- you must accept him as Lord and Savior to be saved. I know this sounds radical, but consider what he's reacting against: The Jewish God who purportedly judges by deeds.

But what's a repentant sinner to do after years of sin? What's a gentile to do who hasn't heard of the moral law? Now it's never made clear whether salvation is only through faith, but it is a necessary component according to Jesus. As far as I'm aware under Judaism only God can absolve sins so sinners are in a bit of trouble if they're worried for their salvation. The Talmud has records of Jesus commenting on this very matter.

We certainly can, but if we do we should ask ourselves whether we should disregard other claims made about what he did and said, or at least consider them questionable. That's not easy to do if you believe Jesus to be God and the authors of the Gospels, the Acts, etc. to be divinely inspired. How do we disregard the miracles and accept the Resurrection? If we disregard the Resurrection, why do we believe Jesus was God? Because he said wise things? Why did he say some of those living at the time he spoke would see the Kingdom of God on Earth? Are we to disregard that as well? Even that most sophistical of Christian apologists, C.S. Lewis, found those comments embarrassing. — Ciceronianus

All I meant to say was that we can disregard a few of the miracles and it does little to hurt the case of Jesus as the Gospels were not written by Jesus. If only one miracle happened I'm on board.

I can't answer all of your questions about Christianity because I am not a Christian. I am just a Jew reading the NT. I see how Jesus hits on certain sore spots in Judaism. He is either a very good man or a very bad one in the form of a charismatic cult leader. I think the Gospels could have been written in a less anti-Semitic way.

"Adapting ideas from Judaism" -- 77% of your religious cannon is Judaism. It is what Christ was/is and what he was reacting against in his teachings.

Sure you can mix it with whatever. You can mix it with Marxism if you like. I will say that if you only take the NT on its own you're not going to come away with a very nice impression of Jews, thus the need for the OT to gain a better perspective of those people. Lot of important lessons in the OT -- universally good ones especially towards the poor and disabled.

.

In recent times, there's been a tendency to disregard the less credible aspects of or stories about Jesus, for example. I think most Christian apologists these days would rather not address the story of the loaves and the fishies, for example, or the water into wine business. — Ciceronianus

Does this really matter though? There's dozens of miracles associated with Jesus. We can disregard the miracles.

Jesus's teachings on salvation are actually brilliant because under Judaism salvation is achieved though deeds, so what's a very sinful Jew to do? Only Yahweh can remove one's sins, they just remain and will be tallied up against you on when one comes to account.

Jesus very directly promises that salvation comes at least in part through faith in him. He may or may not have performed miracles. His moral teachings seem sound. He is either a very good man/God or a very bad man/false prophet. The being knew what to say.

Christianity for me is often associated with a kind of dowdy and obtuse earnestness. — Tom Storm

I think that's actually how it should be: Dowdy and obtuse earnestness on the outside, lion on the inside. Jesus tells us to love our neighbor as ourselves (oh wait, that's Leviticus) but he also basically tells us that our physical bodies don't really matter and what matters is the soul. Martyrdom is a high virtue and the true Christian needs to be ready to lay down his life in the name of Christ.

Almost feels like the NT needs the OT to mellow it. It's funny how Christians sometimes attack the OT God for barbarism, but if you actually read the OT it's very much a guide on how to live, not how to die. Very little of it touches on the afterlife.

IMHO Christians need to read their old books, and it would do Jews well to read the NT.

Christianity is more dangerous than its predecessor. In making a virtue of weakness/simplicity/servitude the strong adopt sheep's clothing and the poor are none the wiser. It is socially brilliant. Christians are better communicators than their predecessors. You don't see much small talk with the Jews. Compare the cultures of the Midwest US with New York or Israel - like night and day. Not saying one's better than the other, just making observations. Jesus was also amazing with women.

A group of scholars sifted through the gospels trying to nail down what, with certainty, could be attributed to Jesus. There wasn't a lot left when they finished. — Bitter Crank

If certainty is our standard for reasonable belief then the field of history is in trouble. Jesus very likely existed; he can found mentioned in Jewish sources and in a Roman source. They mention his execution. I think we could doubt the historical certainty of a lot of figures in antiquity; we really just come to know them through records which could be lies or fiction. GEM Anscombe argues that we take figures like Caesar's existence as a historical benchmark, not as "we know Caesar exists because X, Y, and Z." What evidence is infallible or beyond doubt?

My previous post was based on the OT.

With the NT you just gotta have faith, love, and if you break every rule in the rulebook just say it was done for Heaven and you should be basically in line with Jesus.

Well, even more than that. There's a difference between the written law and the actual law. The idea that the Torah (the written law) is the law is simply false, not just to liberal Jews, but to Orthodox Jews and to Fundamentalist Christians as well. — Hanover

Not too familiar with the fundamentalist Christians, but yes, in rabbinic Judaism law is defined as halakha is determined by the rabbis which draws from both the oral and written tradition.

The oral law (the Talmud) and the thousands of years of rabbinical interpretation are as primary and authoritative as the Torah. — Hanover

When we talk of authority we're into theology, not philosophy. I recently read Pirkei Avot and I loved it; plenty of wisdom in that text but I don't necessarily view it as all as authoritative even if I personally accept 95% of it but I do view it as very wise and reasonable. In my mind there is a difference between canon and commentary, and thankfully Judaism allows for multiple valid interpretations of an idea, but there are interpretations which are not valid and ones which may have been valid at one point but upon further review were rejected. I think is the process of religious reasoning/rationality at work.

And this goes for Christians as well, who rely heavily on the New Testament and the traditions of their various denominations. That is, they don't just run out and try to emulate the biblical characters. — Hanover

I have no idea how the Christians do it. There are so many different churches. Just a few days ago I heard one pastor calling for the execution of homosexuals. The Catholics have their Church to mediate but with the Protestants it's much more down to the community and their own interpretations.

Do you include the NT in your thinking? — Tom Storm

Read Matthew today. NT is very different from OT. I believe Christians worship a false prophet. Lot more black and white thinking in NT. It's all about the afterlife. Jesus dishonors Jewish holidays for no reason, breaks simple rules like not eating bread on passover. There's two bad stories about him in the Talmud one where he engages in idolatry. The other is a gross sexual comment if I'm reading it correctly. He dishonors his family by treating them like everyone else. He tells his followers to be like children. He openly relies on his rhetorical skill and verbal cleverness to gain followers like a demagogue. He equates adultery with a man looking at a woman lustfully and in doing so debases the severity of adultery. It doesn't seem like his followers ever really question him. He says with enough faith one can move mountains. The OT doesn't bullshit you like that.

if god commands X that means you can maybe start the process but fulfilling the actual execution is a whole other issue. execution was extremely rare in sanhedrin. maybe once every 70 years.

people were executed for working on the sabbath, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that becomes law of the land.

You said commandments can be overridden…says you? — DingoJones

We've now moved into theology i.e. religious reasoning.

Do you think it would make sense for someone to derive that they personally can just carry out e.g. the murder of homosexuals? That can't be how any religion works. Judaism advises against studying these books alone, and insists on group study/group justification.

Indeed, and I addressed this already and why its not a valid defence for your position. — DingoJones

all we can say is that god thought it wise to issue the rule.

What counts as insufficient evidence? By virtue of calling something insufficient you're already saying belief isn't justified. Who determines that. Who determines justified belief.

Anyway, the point is that if they are laws from god and god is wise then so too should his laws be wise, right? But you said that stoning gays isnt wise — DingoJones

there is a difference between the written law and the implementation of that law.

According to what authority? — DingoJones

Why should the authority matter? This is a philosophy forum. Unless you're trying to get into theology. Then it would be the Talmud.

Are you having fun reading our discussion? Do you want to join in?

It is your claims about the wisdom of the bible we are discussing is it not? — DingoJones

We could have that discussion. I've mentioned the books of Ecclesiastes and Proverbs as two of my favorites that contain a lot of wisdom. I never said every sentence in the book is packed full of wisdom. If you're looking for wisdom you'll find a lot of it scattered throughout. Book of Daniel tells one to eat vegetables and water in 200 BCE as opposed to wine and fatty foods.

Anyway, the point is that if they are laws from god and god is wise then so too should his laws be wise, right? — DingoJones

yes.

But you said that stoning gays isnt wise so Im just observing that this is a contradiction, and to one of my original points you are left ignoring it or rectifying it with the wisdom of the bible. — DingoJones

Commandments in that section of leviticus are not absolute in the sense that they must be followed under all circumstances and across all times. Commandments can be overridden.

I'm not sure where you're getting stoning. All I know was execution.

Well, yeah, one could be making an unnecessary or wrong presupposition when approaching a system which could confound one's understanding.

But I thought philosophy was about testing assumptions and presuppositions. — Tom Storm

It can be both. It's fine to question and it's fine to grant (granting is not necessarily conceding that something is 100% correct). Each discussion takes a different form. I just want to build up the strongest form of a position and I think these assumptions/beliefs are reasonable given they're biblically supported and actually often widely accepted.

I am not sure this can be demonstrated either and we have already explored the fraught nature of a 'biblical lens' — Tom Storm

I think it's the same with any philosophical system. Utilitarianism and Kant and Aristotle all have their background assumptions/presuppositions that need to be accepted for discussion to proceed or for the strongest version of the philosophy to come to light. No point in knocking down straw men.

Do you include the NT in your thinking? — Tom Storm

I am not currently defending the NT. I actually haven't even read the NT, but I will likely tackle it soon. From a philosophical perspective its easier to make sense of only the OT as opposed to OT + NT. Less ground to cover.

I think that is the answer to a different question. I was wondering how you demonstrated those 'facts' to yourself. How did you arrive at : — Tom Storm

The Bible. I am talking with Dingo here, who is for the sake of discussion willing to operate within a biblical framework. If you just want to doubt everything that's an entirely different discussion.

why a biblical lens is a necessary condition of understanding. — Tom Storm

because without a biblical lens there's no making sense of this book. even with a biblical lens when you grant assumption its is an immense challenge. you need to grant certain assumptions just like we'd grant assumptions to virtually any ethical theory or metaphysical belief.

This is philosophy; we grant assumptions. Doesn't mean the assumptions are true. A lot of it is a thought experiment. If we're talking about my own personal faith in God I've already noted earlier in this thread that I don't believe rationality gets one 100% of the way there and that I'm content to rely partially on faith. I have other reasons but these reasons are more personal and intuitive. I think it's perfectly valid to have a discussion within the context of "let's say we grant assumption A, B, and C..."

Ok but then you are talking about a rule/law with no wisdom in it aren’t you? — DingoJones

The most straight-off description of the laws in leviticus is that they are laws. they are laws from god. if you want to say that they were issued with divine wisdom then fine. I usually think of wisdom as more bigger picture than just e.g. a law, but this isn't a major point IMO. The Bible is undoubtedly against homosexuality, but the application of that is a different matter. I don't see why we're getting so hung up on this word 'wisdom.'

Typically when I think of wisdom I think of practical timeless advice, not commandments. But God does possess infinite wisdom according to the book.



I think you're getting a little carried away here. We grant assumptions/presuppositions to virtually every ethical system. It's unavoidable. For instance, many of the enlightenment era philosophers and onwards conceived of humans are essentially atomistic individuals/everyone as their own "unit of individual moral worth" but you absolutely cannot apply this lens to the Bible if you hope to put up the most adequate defense of the book. In the Bible one is part of a genealogical line. You also just don't have autonomy over your own body according to the Bible. Our bodies are on loan from God. You might not like this, I might not like this, doesn't matter - we need to grant the view.

That's all I'm trying to do - give the book its best defense. If I was making the case for utilitarianism or Kant I would be charitable to their assumptions.

a) it's a rule/law. a judgment issued from god, but not an absolute one. the bible is many things: history, poetry, philosophy, practical wisdom, legal concepts, dietary recommendations... maybe you can glean wisdom from it but the most straight-off description of the leviticus rulings are that they're just commandments or rules or judgments that are then subject to human implementation.

Is the bibles edict to kill people who are gay part of its wisdom? — DingoJones

no, this is not part of the wisdom. i believe the two clauses against homosexuality appear in leviticus which is more of a legal text that just lays out rules and commandments, but not how they are to be implemented as that is left to humans and their institutions. this is not part of the wisdom. in the OT the anti-gay part is basically two lines in leviticus. it is not a central theme of the text. if you're looking for wisdom read Ecclesiastes or proverbs.

is your position that killing gays as prescribed in the bible is wisdom or if it isnt wisdom then how do you reckon this awful part of the bible with this “wisdom” you purport it has? — DingoJones

in order for us to apply this commandment we need infrastructure i.e. a religious court system that would make the judgment. In ancient Israel this was known as a sanhedrin, and this system of courts was abolished in 300 CE. Religions change. No one is allowed to just carry out executions without due process.

Even if the case was brought to a sanhedrin in order to apply the death sentence there would need to be multiple witnesses and a lengthy judicial process. Sanhedrin rarely if ever actually sentenced people to death because the standards of proof were too high. It is said that a court which sentences one person to death every 7 years is a bloody one in.... I believe it's in the mishnah.

So despite this commandment no longer being applicable, especially not in a nation such as the US which prohibits the establishment of a religion through the first amendment, homosexuality is still considered a grave sin but it is one between the sinner and God.

Lastly, this only applies to the action between men, not the same sex attraction of course. I am not aware of any cases where a homosexual man or men were executed through a sanhedrin.

given all the brutal details and slaughters in the bible if we're going to make sense of it we need a few assumptions/presuppositions. it's all part of biblical theory and without them the bible is indefensible or doesn't make sense. my goal isn't to convince a non-believer of their truth in my above quote/discussion, it's to make sense of all the wild and brutal events of the bible through a biblical lens.

my response is commensurate on the effort that you give. so far you've given me nothing. the illiad and the odyssey were picked out by nietzsche as examples of "master morality" that idolizes nobility and the able-bodied and dismisses the weak. it just idolizes those who are strong and beautiful and denigrates those who aren't. the greeks held in poor regard those who had trouble speaking, they were considered cursed by the gods. diogenes slightly improves on this view by just calling the disabled deficient.

the odyssey is just about the great becoming greater. honor seeking. the poor were typically considered low.

more: Plato's doctrine of forms is inherently ableist in that it posits a single, perfect able-bodied standard of beauty. aristotle believed disabled infants should be left to die. what about the movie '300'? the noble fit western warriors lost and civilization collapsed because a disabled guy didn't know his place.

Pervasive ableism and classism as I said before. Deeply entrenched in the culture and in their lit. I'm not your teacher, Jackson, go read the Odyssey or the Iliad or Plato or Aristotle.

EDIT: also forgot to mention sexual immorality with young boys.

We're going to stick to this one topic instead of branching off to homosexuality which is its own separate topic. I want to get this done first then we can move on.

Let's talk about the amalekites which are the most hated group and the warrant for murder most clear. the amalekites are not a separate race, all we really know about them is that they're a tribe that preys on the weak and attacked Israel when they were refugees fleeing Egypt because they saw opportunity. Lets presume the society is rotten. It's not about me justifying it, it's ultimately trusting in God in this case that we can break the injunction against murder due to the gravity of that society's sins. I think there's something to be said about sparing future generations of that people the awfulness of their society. Evil society dehumanizes all involved. Imagine being brought up by a hateful nazi family in a society that was entirely like that. I mean we typically don't kill like that, but in this instance it's surprising and shocking but not necessarily evil if we trust in the essential goodness of God. Death is not the end.

Not ignoring.

These are two different issues but I'll start with murder. The short answer is I think its possible for societies to be so rotten that they're basically in need of a re-do. The men and women could theoretically all be very evil. We need to remember that death is not the end and ultimately trust in God's judgement for their souls. For all we know the children could be enjoying eternal bliss or reincarnated as a billionaire oil baron. Ultimately life is god's to give and take.

Certain societies could theoretically be so awful that death is warranted given God's commandment. We don't make these decisions on our own. Only if direct divine intervention instructs it.

We'd have to go case by case since there's so many. It's a brutal book but it's also hilarious at times. Some of the prophets liken God to a cuckold at times when Israel strays.

I'm not a Christian. I'm not here to defend all things Christian, but the more I look into ancient Greek culture and philosophy and literature the grosser it becomes.

It's like the opposite of the Judeo-Christian tradition; the Greeks on their surface look decent but dive in a little deeper and it's a hard pass. The bible looks terrible on its surface but dive in a little deeper and it becomes more palatable.

That is an argument from Ignorance fallacy. Just because
You cannot pinpoint the source doesnt mean you get to insert the one you want. All that can be concluded from your lack of pinpointing is that you do not know. The source of that moral wisdom could be anything, why is the answer god? I dont think it makes sense to answer faith so what factor does faith actually play for you? — DingoJones

I don't know, maybe God is an alien. Who the hell knows. I'm just throwing in with it. That's what I mean by faith. Some theists claim their belief in God is a pure product of rationality but I am not one of those. I'm not saying that my claims/reasons are purely rational hence I use faith. I know they don't make the cut in a philosophy forum and I believe the idea that the Judeo-Christian God can be reached rationally is folly. God transcends human rationality/reason by his very nature. All I know is that the book is insanely wise - wiser than Mill, Hume, Descartes, Kant, Aristotle, Plato, you name it.

Christianity actively demolished the philosophical schools of Athens and Alexandria, destroyed philosophical texts and persecuted teachers of philosophy. — Banno

Longing for the good old days of pervasive ableism, classism, misogyny, and pederasty? Those evil Christians! /s

If you ain't doing your basics right then you will get what is coming to you.

:100:

The short answer is that the Bible is a book which stands against the notion that might makes right. It is a book that holds even kings accountable and considers all as equals before God. It stands against the notion that the poor are low or that the disabled are inherently broken. Instead of worshipping nobleness or high birth or strength it affirms the fundamental dignity of all and reminds one that all will be judged by God after death.

Have you read any of what Nietzsche proposes concerning this ‘slave’ morality? — Joshs

I have but it's been around a decade. I remember the argument made quite an impression on me. I did a quick bit of research into Nietzsche's argument but after reading the OT I just don't buy his interpretation.

The OT is fundamentally life affirming, not self-abnegating. It encourages strength, not weakness, but there is no single-minded devotion to strength (that is wicked.) The OT tells us to be fruitful and multiply, and the book details the feats of great warriors and lionizes military strength at times. One gains strength through God. God will reward and strengthen those who follow his dictates. The OT encourages one to boost the poor, but being poor and weak is not a virtue, on the contrary, weakness is often a result of disobeying God according to the OT. Be humble, not weak.

I don't think there is a real distinction between faith being a reason and a jump.
But ok, so your answer to “why do you believe in god?” Is NOT faith? What is it then? — DingoJones

Well, it's faith + my reading and understanding of the bible. I've read the greeks. I've read other ancient literature. I can usually deduce where the writers get certain ideas, like when early Greek writers in antiquity talk about the four elements being water, earth, air, and fire (or something along those lines).... you get where they got that understanding. The greeks are good in some areas; interesting political insights, social insights, insights into the nature of man.

But the bible has moral wisdom that I cannot pinpoint the source of. I've read a lot of moral lit. I've read a lot of ancient lit. The bible is radical in that it preaches basically the opposite message of a lot of ancient literature and I just have no idea where these ideas came from. the bible humbles kings and boosts the oppressed. I don't know why anyone in antiquity would choose to boost the poor and diseased when it's more natural and widespread to think of them as low. the hebrew bible affirms the dignity of the disabled (exodus 4:10) in a way that virtually no one else does. disability studies are a major area for me and on this topic the bible gets an A+; the wisdom is beyond the current day. I could write more about this but the short answer is that if the book if fiction then it is the greatest work of fiction ever written and I have no idea where they came across this type of wisdom or ideas in the brutal environment that was antiquity. I know we can always pull sword quotes but look at what this book gets right and don't take it for granted. today we have the luxury of taking them for granted, but it is a luxury. I believe in god because I believe in the wisdom of the book.

I disagree that reasons and evidence that an event happened are based on “faith” in your sources. Its a figure of speech to say you have faith in a source, but that way of using the word “faith” is not the same as having faith in the religious sense of the word. — DingoJones

You should question your sources because sources are human and humans are not unquestionable. For instance, lets take Sennacherib's assassination purportedly by his own sons in 681 BCE. We come to know this because of royal inscriptions and this is also mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (I guess word got around). Is it insane to think that a royal assassination may have been pinned on someone else? Wouldn't be the first time.

But no, generally we trust in these stone inscriptions written by his advisors and presume that this is honest. We also presume that we interpret correctly despite language changing.

I agree that there is a distinction between religious faith and e.g. historical faith although a common thread is that both involve a "jump."

Ok, so what is faith in the religious sense if its not a reason? Why when people are asked why they belief in god they say “faith”? I do not understand how faith isnt being offered as a reason in that common example. — DingoJones

Faith is not a reason. It is a jump. I do not know that God exists, but I believe that he does. I may be wrong.

We need to narrow down our discussion if we want it to be more fruitful: Do you wish to discuss faith in the context of believing whether a historical event occurred or reliability of a news story? These are separate and I don't want our discussion to get too convoluted.

In any case when it comes to history it's about what we consider good reasons/evidence to accept that an event happened. In other words whether you place faith in your sources.

Anyway, you said the value of faith is its utility. Its utility doesnt make it true or false, and when faith is given as a reason for belief — DingoJones

I was talking about utility in the realm of praxeology, i.e. human action - it allows us to basically cut off our thinking at a certain point and invites action. I agree that utility has no bearing on whether a proposition is true or false, nor should faith be a reason. I think another benefit to faith, if used correctly, is that it acknowledges our own very limited knowledge of this world.