Morality without God?

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking

If some one claims them self to be a god that doesn’t say much by itself about how “nice” the person is.

The usual atheist canard is that if someone calls himself a god, he must be a lunatic.

Not exactly what you would call a “nice” person.

 

[Hamlet123]

A note to everyone:

William Layne Craig, Ph.D; the noted protestant philosopher, along with the priest who was the president of Gonzaga and a philospher and scientist just a spit below Einstien and Aquainis plus another Catholic have just put out an MP3 entitled
“Talking to Athiest about God”

PovertCurre.org

 

[Linux]

I think I’m going to have to disagree with you here, TS. No nice person goes around claiming to be god (unless, of course, he actually *is *God.)

You know, I have met nice people that are crazy. I think that what your proponent means is that Jesus has some good inspiring moral beliefs even at the expense of losing so called friends. He didn’t just follow the crowed just to fit on the grounds of being liked or because everybody else was doing something. That’s evidently good character even if the person in question was deluded.

 

[Bradski]

Really? Do you think that guys who claim to be God are “nice”?

Unless I’ve been reading the wrong story, I think the idea was that Jesus was a regular guy. Not some prince in purple robes or God-like figure. Just a local carpenter. A chippie as we call them down here. Good with his hands. Someone with whom you could have a beer and chat about stuff. No airs and graces. Someone who’d come around and fix that broken fence for you. Lend you his tools if need be.

Yeah, someone I’d class as a nice guy.

 

[PRmerger]

Unless I’ve been reading the wrong story, I think the idea was that Jesus was a regular guy. Not some prince in purple robes or God-like figure. Just a local carpenter. A chippie as we call them down here. Good with his hands. Someone with whom you could have a beer and chat about stuff. No airs and graces. Someone who’d come around and fix that broken fence for you. Lend you his tools if need be.

Yeah, someone I’d class as a nice guy.

I think you’ve proposed a non-sequitur here.

All the things above do make someone a nice guy, but you didn’t actually answer my question, Bradski.

Do you really think that someone who claims to be God is nice? Wouldn’t that make him a megalomaniac? A fool? An insane dum-dum? (Provided, of course, that he wasn’t God, which is your position, right?)

 

[Bradski]

Do you really think that someone who claims to be God is nice? Wouldn’t that make him a megalomaniac? A fool? An insane dum-dum? (Provided, of course, that he wasn’t God, which is your position, right?)

I think Lewis missed an option: misunderstood.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think Lewis missed an option: misunderstood.

Eric Burdon had already covered it.

 

[PRmerger]

I think Lewis missed an option: misunderstood.

Actually, it’s not Lewis. He only echoed the words of the ECFs: aut deus aut homo malus.

Either God or a bad man.

So definitely “nice guy” isn’t a choice.

Regarding “misunderstood”: possibly.

So a nice guy didn’t really claim to be God but his followers really got it wrong and just ran with this idea that was so foreign to a Jewish culture: God can be man.

What evidence do you have for this, Bradski?

 

[PRmerger]

So a nice guy didn’t really claim to be God but his followers really got it wrong and just ran with this idea that was so foreign to a Jewish culture: God can be man.

Incidentally, regarding misunderstanding Jesus. Did the disciples misunderstand the Resurrection, too?

How could a nice guy fool his besties? And why would this be a nice guy thing to do?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Incidentally, regarding misunderstanding Jesus. Did the disciples misunderstand the Resurrection, too?

How could a nice guy fool his besties? And why would this be a nice guy thing to do?

There are only three possibilities regarding Jesus’ claim to divinity.

1. He was mistaken, deluded, insane, etc. and therefore might have been sincere or personable but still mistaken.
2. He was intentionally attempting to deceive others and therefore not a “nice” guy.
3. He was who he claimed to be.

The first two are simply not tenable given the depth and consistency of his teaching and actions concerning others.

Being misunderstood is not a conclusion about Jesus but about how he was received by those around him. It is still necessary to ask which of the three options describe Jesus regardless of whether he was correctly understood or not,

 

[PRmerger]

There are only three possibilities regarding Jesus’ claim to divinity.

1. He was mistaken, deluded, insane, etc. and therefore might have been sincere or personable but still mistaken.
2. He was intentionally attempting to deceive others and therefore not a “nice” guy.
3. He was who he claimed to be.

The first two are simply not tenable given the depth and consistency of his teaching and actions concerning others.

Being misunderstood is not a conclusion about Jesus but about how he was received by those around him. It is still necessary to ask which of the three options describe Jesus regardless of whether he was correctly understood or not,

I think what is being argued by Bradski et al is that Jesus was simply a guy who went around saying nice things like “turn the other cheek.” He never made any claims of divinity.

That was what the disciples heard him say… Erroneously.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think what is being argued by Bradski et al is that Jesus was simply a guy who went around saying nice things like “turn the other cheek.” He never made any claims of divinity.

That was what the disciples heard him say… Erroneously.

Ah, yes! But a guy who simply goes around saying nice things does not get crucified unless what he said ruffled a few feathers. It is not clear that the disciples were responsible for getting him crucified, unless, of course, the claim he was crucified was also an error on the part of the disciples.

It would seem that making claims of divinity among monotheistic Jewish brethren and as a direct affront to a Roman society where Caesar Augustus was claimed to be Divi filius (“Son of the Divine One”), would be precisely what would get you crucified.

Seems more reasonable to think he really did make the claim which is what led to his fate. Otherwise, you must explain a perplexing situation where a “nice” (read: uncontroversial) man gets crucified merely for spreading a peaceful message of loving others.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, yes! But a guy who simply goes around saying nice things does not get crucified unless what he said ruffled a few feathers. It is not clear that the disciples were responsible for getting him crucified, unless, of course, the claim he was crucified was also an error on the part of the disciples.

It would seem that making claims of divinity among monotheistic Jewish brethren and as a direct affront to a Roman society where Caesar Augustus was claimed to be Divi filius (“Son of the Divine One”), would be precisely what would get you crucified.

Seems more reasonable to think he really did make the claim which is what led to his fate. Otherwise, you must explain a perplexing situation where a “nice” (read: uncontroversial) man gets crucified merely for spreading a peaceful message of loving others.

Indeed.

I find the argument that Jesus was a nice guy to be the most untenable of anything ever proposed by atheists.

At least, the most untenable as of my thinking at this moment.

On another day…I may find another argument they proffer to be the winner of the “I am astonished that you can proclaim that belief with a straight face” genre.

 

[Bradski]

Incidentally, regarding misunderstanding Jesus. Did the disciples misunderstand the Resurrection, too?

How could a nice guy fool his besties? And why would this be a nice guy thing to do?

Who said He fooled them? That’s making the assumption that what they wrote was accurate, which is a bit of a stretch which ever way you look at it. I’m sure you’re aware of the differences in the reports. .

We look at the resurection differently. You start with the assumption that it happened. To be honest, as it’s the main core of Christian belief, it’s impossible not to. Whereas I look at it from a distance. A disinterested observer. And I’ll be as honest as I can be here…it doesn’t begin to ring true whichever way I look at it.

So I don’t think, on the assumption that He did exist, that He actually thought that He was the son of God. He was, quite possibly, a nice guy who had some very sensible things to say. Maybe people thought of Him as a prophet. Maybe He thought that himself. Maybe they thought He was the guy who was due to make an appearance as the Son of God.

it’s not v ery difficult at all to convince yourself of something if you want it badly enough. And the rest, as they say, is history.

 

[tonyrey]

it’s not very difficult at all to convince yourself of something if you want it badly enough.

That is a two-edged sword! Absolute privacy and power over oneself are highly desirable…

 

[PRmerger]

We look at the resurection differently. You start with the assumption that it happened. To be honest, as it’s the main core of Christian belief, it’s impossible not to. Whereas I look at it from a distance. A disinterested observer. And I’ll be as honest as I can be here…it doesn’t begin to ring true whichever way I look at it.

Why doesn’t it ring true? What evidence do you have that it couldn’t happen?

You can’t argue: the resurrection is a myth, therefore the NT proclaims mythology. That’s begging the question.

If you’re truly a disinterested observer, you need to start from a disinterested vantagepoint. Not from the point: the resurrection didn’t happen.

 

[PRmerger]

it’s not v ery difficult at all to convince yourself of something if you want it badly enough. And the rest, as they say, is history.

True, this.

But as it pertains to Christianity, you’ll have some ‘splainin’ to do. You’ll have to explain how Jesus’ disciples all were in cahoots: “let’s plant this great big lie and say that he actually rose from the dead, even though we all know we buried him! And then not a single one of us is going to recant, especially when we’re tortured mercilessly for proclaiming this ridiculous lie! In fact, when we die, we’re going to die horrific deaths wit smiles on our faces and singing praises to the Christ!”

Did I say recently that the most untenable position atheists proffer was that “Jesus was a nice guy?” Hmmmm…I think I’m amending that view now. Yup. This one seems to be “king of the absurdities that could be swallowed by any thinking person”: the apostles were great big deceivers, conspirators in the Biggest Hoax Ever conceived of.

Point of interest: " the historical fact that no one, weak or strong, saint or sinner, Christian or heretic,** ever confessed, freely or under pressure, bribe or even torture, that the whole story of the resurrection was a fake a lie, a deliberate deception.** Even when people broke under torture, denied Christ and worshiped Caesar, they never let that cat out of the bag, never revealed that the resurrection was their conspiracy. For that cat was never in that bag. No Christians believed the resurrection was a conspiracy; if they had, they wouldn’t have become Christians." peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm

Yep, one pretty much has to suspend logic and reason in order to believe that the disciples were great big deceivers.

Atheists need to have great, ahem, faith in order to believe that.

 

[PRmerger]

We look at the resurection differently. You start with the assumption that it happened.

What do you say to this, from Blaise Pascal:

The apostles were either deceived or deceivers. Either supposition is difficult, for it is not possible to imagine that a man has risen from the dead. While Jesus was with them, he could sustain them; but afterwards, if he did not appear to them, who did make them act? The hypothesis that the Apostles were knaves is quite absurd. Follow it out to the end, and imagine these twelve men meeting after Jesus’ death and conspiring to say that he has risen from the dead. This means attacking all the powers that be. The human heart is singularly susceptible to fickleness, to change, to promises, to bribery. One of them had only to deny his story under these inducements, or still more because of possible imprisonment, tortures and death, and they would all have been lost. Follow that out. (Pascal, Pensees 322, 310)

Yes, Bradski. Follow that out…

 

[aprilfloyd]

What do you say to this, from Blaise Pascal:

The apostles were either deceived or deceivers. Either supposition is difficult, for it is not possible to imagine that a man has risen from the dead. While Jesus was with them, he could sustain them; but afterwards, if he did not appear to them, who did make them act? The hypothesis that the Apostles were knaves is quite absurd. Follow it out to the end, and imagine these twelve men meeting after Jesus’ death and conspiring to say that he has risen from the dead. This means attacking all the powers that be. The human heart is singularly susceptible to fickleness, to change, to promises, to bribery. One of them had only to deny his story under these inducements, or still more because of possible imprisonment, tortures and death, and they would all have been lost. Follow that out. (Pascal, Pensees 322, 310)

Yes, Bradski. Follow that out…

I tend to agree that the starting position is that the resurrection did not happen. Most people don’t believe it happened, but I understand that Christian Faiths see it as essential so are duty bound to propagate the story.

 

[PRmerger]

I tend to agree that the starting position is that the resurrection did not happen. Most people don’t believe it happened, but I understand that Christian Faiths see it as essential so are duty bound to propagate the story.

So follow this out, april.

Who lied about the ressurection? And why? And how?