A question for Christians who aren't bible fundamentalists.

[Spamtar]

There's been a lot of conjecture that Luke and Matthew used Mark's shorter account as a basis for their own.

Yes an this is another reason I prefer the Gospel of Mark is that I find it more consistent with the other gospels of Luke and Mathew (where as I recall there is more inconsistencies between the two). Contemporary bible scholars tend to agree it was the first book written of the NT. Thus I find it more reliable and more accurate account of the life and teachings of Jesus.

 

[Eric B]

Fixed.
(The specific name is "The Revelation of John.")

Have you been reading Josh McDowell again?

Jesus pretty much refused to offer miracles to people who demanded a sign... he told them the only sign they would be given (essentially his death and resurrection, in traditional interpretation).

Miracles are funny things.

it's plausible, and would help support his message.

I have no way to tell that, 2000 years later, though.

Yeah, this is what I have been struggling with. I wish we did have some sort of divine validation. 2000 years is a long time, and the Church went through so many changes; growing large, powerful ritualistic and corrupt, and then splintering into hundreds of competing sects, all using the same texts to say they are the true Christians and everyone else is wrong.
We have basically been left "out there", with no solid evidence, and subject to having our beliefs compared to invisible pink unicorns fairies and flying spaghetti monsters, and the arguments stick. (And then, all of evangelicalism argues that God will judge all nonbelievers because "He has shown them the truth" (Romans 1, parts of John 1 and 3, etc; through both "general revelation" and "personal conviction"). Yet it sure doesn't seem so self-evident, other than just the notion of design.

 

[Mole]

the notion of design.

And just as a watch has a watch maker, the world has a world maker.

But alas, the world is not a watch.

 

[simulatedworld]

And just as a watch has a watch maker, the world has a world maker.

But alas, the world is not a watch.

I hope you know you're going to Hell.

 

[Spamtar]

Yeah, this is what I have been struggling with. I wish we did have some sort of divine validation. 2000 years is a long time.

Yeah I know how you feel...its kinda feels like "The Second Coming of the Great Prophet Zarquon" who only shows up at the end of the universe to say "Sorry I'm late."

This is proof that if there is a second coming of Christ then Christ is in fact a P contrary to conventional wisdom that Jesus is a J.

 

[Mole]

I hope you know you're going to Hell.

It's true - I threw away my watch.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Your main argument with respect to religion is as follows, at least as I understand it. A very small portion of Christians sincerely and fundamentally accept the authority of the Bible, most do not. However, out of this small group, an overwhelming majority show a marked ethical improvement in their lives?

This is close to my argument. My argument is that Christians who see an improvement in behavior accept the authority of the Bible and engage in "costly" behavior. E.g. they do things they normally would not because they believe it is the "will of God".

We don't have to make a decision based on the information above, we can postpone the decision until the mroe suitable information arrives. Only by doing so will we be able to avoid making an inductively weak argument.

I agree. The study I was basing my argument on only applies to the modern US. If you want to apply my argument to all of history then we may find it's true or we may not. Without more information all either of us can do is speculate.

And let's touch on it: what constitutes this "improvement"? Christianity teaches that turning the other cheek, being meek in spirit, etc., are desirable traits, and that learning to embody these traits constitutes improvement. It goes on to provide quips and philosophical advice on how to achieve this state. Naturally, (some) fervent adherents of Christianity begin to embody these traits, which Christianity posits as positive, and report that they've "improved".

On the other hand, people like Nietzsche and Ayn Rand assert that these are not positive traits, and offer contrasting philosophies. Just like Christians, people who adhere to these philosophies will begin to embody the traits that these philosophies speak in favor of, and also report that their lives have "improved".

Christianity and the above philosophies stand in stark contrast to one another, right down to their takes on the existence of a deity. Yet they are all efficacious by their own standards.

All of this is tangential to my argument, but I will quickly give an answer. "Good" behavior is defined based on the context of the belief system. An Objectivist is going to define "good" behavior differently than a Christian. Therefore it should not be surprising that a different philosophy yields different results. Objectivist teaching yields different behavior than Christianity, because it is based on different principles.

What would be interesting is to study the Objectivists who change their behavior vs. those that do not. The Objectivists who change their behavior would be following correct principles, while those who don't would not be following correct principles.

There are correct principles for those who want to "love others as much as themself". There are different correct principles for those who want to get ahead at any cost. Furthermore the people who are most effective in getting their desired results will be those who believe in the correct principles.

 

[Mycroft]

All of this is tangential to my argument, but I will quickly give an answer. "Good" behavior is defined based on the context of the belief system. An Objectivist is going to define "good" behavior differently than a Christian. Therefore it should not be surprising that a different philosophy yields different results. Objectivist teaching yields different behavior than Christianity, because it is based on different principles.

What would be interesting is to study the Objectivists who change their behavior vs. those that do not. The Objectivists who change their behavior would be following correct principles, while those who don't would not be following correct principles.

There are correct principles for those who want to "love others as much as themself". There are different correct principles for those who want to get ahead at any cost. Furthermore the people who are most effective in getting their desired results will be those who believe in the correct principles.

This is common sense, and it undermines your central argument. Objectivists don't believe in God. Christians do. Both philosophies are, in their separate ways, effective. Following the logic of your argument, this dictates that their tenets are correct. Obviously, they can't both be correct.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

This is common sense, and it undermines your central argument. Objectivists don't believe in God. Christians do. Both philosophies are, in their separate ways, effective. Following the logic of your argument, this dictates that their tenets are correct. Obviously, they can't both be correct.

It seems to me that Liquid Laser is not trying to prove that God exists; in other words he is not inferring that God exists from the claim that believing in God influences the lives of the believers for the better in the ethical respect. He is merely arguing that if a person truly and fundamentally believes in the Christian God, his behavior will improve in the moral light. This conclusion is perfectly consistent with the claim that God does not exist and the people who improve their moral character by believing in Him are living an illusion. In other words, it could be the case that what improves the ethical character of these people is not God's grace, but mind-states that are purely internal to their psychology. Liquid Laser is not in the position to deny this claim if he is to avoid your charges and I'd be surprised if he does indeed deny it in the future; however, to be fair to him he clearly hasn't yet. To salvage LL's position, these religious mind-states are not exactly like the placebo effect: the religious mind-states are similar to genuine medication in the regard that they are therapeutic, or they compell people to think in a different manner. In short, the religious do not simply say 'I want to be better!' and shortly thereafter they experience improvement, there is an external cause of their change (the therapy) despite the fact that this cause is not God.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LL,

I find your conclusion unpersuasive which was as I understand; in the present day the majority of people who accept Christianity start behaving better. What about the rampant hypocrisy of preachers and priests who have been known to engage in pederasty. Are they the minority? Are they immoral for reasons other than Christianity? Seems doubtful to me because if they were corrrupt from the beginning, they wouldn't have won the sympathy of enough people to become holders of such great religious authority. What about Christian zealots who bomb abortion clinics? Are they mere heretics who do not truly and fundamentally accept the Christian doctrines? If so, how can you defend that claim? The 'true and proper' interpretation of scripture is an extremely obscure subject-matter

 

[Lark]

What about Christian zealots who bomb abortion clinics?

What about them?

They are about as representative of Christianity as Stalin's Gulags, the Nazi Holocaust or French Revolutionary Terror are of reason, science and athiesm. Unless those things are connected. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Eric B]

This is proof that if there is a second coming of Christ then Christ is in fact a P contrary to conventional wisdom that Jesus is a J.

Actually, it might be more proof that the later Church is S rather than N, as Christ did come soon (with the destruction of the Temple), and the Church didn't recognize it. (Some theories claim that there was a visible appearance in the clouds, and even a "rapture" at that time!) That would explain the Church that grew out of the first century going off track so fast. They were the actual "left behind".

Question is, then, now what?
One version of the theory says that all people receive grace now (no more Hell; since the instrument of the Law, with its condemnation, was removed), but still, God allowed that truth to be buried for thousands of years until modern "preterists" and "pantelists" figured it out (sounding like yet more "heretical" sects), and we still won't find out for sure until we die.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

What about them?

They are about as representative of Christianity as Stalin's Gulags, the Nazi Holocaust or French Revolutionary Terror are of reason, science and athiesm. Unless those things are connected. Is that what you're saying?

How can you prove that those people are not true Christians? Scholars of the Bible to this day have not established a single, unchallengeable interpretation of scripture.

 

[Mycroft]

It seems to me that Liquid Laser is not trying to prove that God exists; in other words he is not inferring that God exists from the claim that believing in God influences the lives of the believers for the better in the ethical respect. He is merely arguing that if a person truly and fundamentally believes in the Christian God, his behavior will improve in the moral light. This conclusion is perfectly consistent with the claim that God does not exist and the people who improve their moral character by believing in Him are living an illusion. In other words, it could be the case that what improves the ethical character of these people is not God's grace, but mind-states that are purely internal to their psychology. Liquid Laser is not in the position to deny this claim if he is to avoid your charges and I'd be surprised if he does indeed deny it in the future; however, to be fair to him he clearly hasn't yet. To salvage LL's position, these religious mind-states are not exactly like the placebo effect: the religious mind-states are similar to genuine medication in the regard that they are therapeutic, or they compell people to think in a different manner. In short, the religious do not simply say 'I want to be better!' and shortly thereafter they experience improvement, there is an external cause of their change (the therapy) despite the fact that this cause is not God.

I understand this is the connection LL attempts to draw, but it's an analogical fallacy. Yes, philosophies (including systems of religious belief) are similar to pharmaceuticals in that they may have a therapeutic affect -- and that's all. Medicines act upon a physical object (the human body) in accordance with physical laws arrived at via scientific reasoning. The time where men boil bark and drink the result because it's been observed this clears headaches is behind us. Clinical trials are to determine if predictions of the outcome of complex interactions, made on the basis of good science, will result in unexpected side effects. However, the effects of medicines are entirely the product of "induction" about as much as we take one Christianity with water prior to eating each meal.

At any rate, if LL's argument is, indeed, that believing in certain things causes us to act in certain ways, it's not much a revelation.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yes an this is another reason I prefer the Gospel of Mark is that I find it more consistent with the other gospels of Luke and Mathew (where as I recall there is more inconsistencies between the two). Contemporary bible scholars tend to agree it was the first book written of the NT. Thus I find it more reliable and more accurate account of the life and teachings of Jesus.

I understand your thinking here... but I'm not sure I follow your insinuation that the first source has to be the most accurate. There's just as good a chance that Matthew and Luke used it as a source, then made corrections and expanded stuff Mark missed. There were able to research, get corroboration for aspects of Mark's gospel, etc., and prove/disprove certain reports Mark made. That sort of thing happens all the time, and I can't just take a cynical view that the changes were all bad or made-up garbage without some evidence of that. As it was, Luke was a physician and seemed to have a thorough and logical mind... he seems to be the best at providing some general context and supporting detail. I find Mark sort of thin.

John, of course, is a crapshoot. He's off on his own path.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

At any rate, if LL's argument is, indeed, that believing in certain things causes us to act in certain ways, it's not much a revelation.

The relevant question is whether or not believing in Christianity causes us to behave in a more ethically virtuous manner. LL believes that this is so, yet I doubt that it is on the account that many large groups of genuine believers behave in a savage manner. LL's position can therefore be undermined by an inductive argument. In addition to that, I'd say there is a deductive argument against it as well: the principle that God's authority should be trusted and man's own private judgment regardless of how rational and benign it may be is a salient tenet of most Christian faiths. In addition to this, most of such religious messages urge people to believe that those who disagree with them are heretics who shall suffer eternal perdition. The first encourages an abandonment of reason which is the very anathema of the Enlightenment era values that compelled us to discover new ideas that will move the civilization forward and ultimately improve our lives. Its difficult to imagine how this could entail a moral improvement among large groups of people. The second principle tacitly feeds aggressive urges of believers and reinforces violence and bigotry which were the distinguishing features of the ancestor creeds of contemporary Christians.

Yes, most Christians believe that they should turn the other cheek and simply be compassionate to others; yet it is almost impossible for one to truly follow this moral dictate when the very core of their beliefs encourages narrow-mindedness and disrespect towards the people who are not in agreement with their beliefs. I think that this observation offers a reasonable explanation for why religious authorities have been frequently been convicted of hypocrisy or not 'practicing what they preach'. This hypocrisy was the defining moral feature of the character of the paragon of Christian virtue; Jesus himself, he preached compassion yet was extremely parochial and hostile in his judgment of those who disagreed with his moral views. His followers, or conventional Christians both past and present have done an admirable job of imitating his ways. How would a Christian respond to this? The infidels are deserving of such judgment as they are simply wicked, for the very least thats the claim they make the most frequently. A claim of this nature is altogether irrelevant; the wicked behavior of others has nothing to do with the compassion maxim, it offers no legitimate excuse for abandoning such a moral principle. A man who is truly committed to compassion will turn the other cheek to the wicked. Instead of acting compassionately, he behaved savagely and thereby infused the hearts of his followers with a violent and provincial resolve.

 

[Lark]

How can you prove that those people are not true Christians? Scholars of the Bible to this day have not established a single, unchallengeable interpretation of scripture.

OK then so the French Terror, Stalin's Gulag and Nazi Holocaust was representative of reason, science and Athiesm.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

At any rate, if LL's argument is, indeed, that believing in certain things causes us to act in certain ways, it's not much a revelation.

LOL, this thread is great! I've never claimed to be making some gigantic universal revelation. No matter how many times I state my point it seems people think I'm making some entirely different point. What this other point is seems to vary from person to person though lol. My point only applies to Christians. Here is my main point again:

Main Point
"Given that a person is a Christian, there is a method that is most effective at improving a Christian's behavior. This method is to believe in the authority of the Bible and be willing to engage in 'costly' behavior."

I made this point because we were originally talking about miracles, which would be included in believing in the authority of the Bible. (Specifically the resurrection of Christ would be the main miracle to believe in.) Now if anyone wants to disagree with my main point that is fine, but so far everyone has been disagreeing with a variety of different points that I've never tried to make, lol.

Now I've also been trying to make a secondary point. Jennifer seemed to be suggesting that you can make a method effective simply by believing whatever you want. I disagree with this, so here is my secondary point:

Secondary Point
"Effective methods are based on true principles. Ineffective methods are based on false principles."

Perhaps this is the point everyone has a problem with? I don't know. I thought this was fairly obvious, but perhaps I need to state this in a longer more carefully worded version to clarify what I mean. Heh it's ok if anyone disagrees with this point too, but so far I haven't seen anyone take direct issue with this point either.

I suppose the third option is what happens when you combine the two points together? Well if you combine the two points together, then remember that the conclusion applies only to Christians. Since the first point is limited only to Christians, then the two points combined would also apply only to Christians.

 

[Mycroft]

LOL, this thread is great! ...

I'd ask that you clarify what you mean by "true principles". While SW has raised valid points in regard to your first assertion -- that certain fervent believers continue to engage in antisocial behavior -- I'm prepared to admit that, for example, believing the prospect of burning for eternity in Hell is a concrete reality and not an illustration open to interpretation would encourage people to behave in greater accordance with Christianity's tenets.

It's when you say that this change in behavior indicates that Hell must therefore exist, as your use of the term "true principles" would rather strongly imply, that I vigorously dissent.

 

[Mycroft]

OK then so the French Terror, Stalin's Gulag and Nazi Holocaust was representative of reason, science and Athiesm.

There's an important difference: one can readily demonstrate how each of the examples you cite were nothing more than the veneer of "ration" at the service of irrational ideologies. Because religion, at some level, asks that we dispense with ration and rely upon "faith", the same cannot be said of supposed "fringe" interpretations.

In other words, when we dispense with ration, we can assert anything, so who are we to say the suicide bombers are wrong?

 

[ajblaise]

Yes an this is another reason I prefer the Gospel of Mark is that I find it more consistent with the other gospels of Luke and Mathew (where as I recall there is more inconsistencies between the two). Contemporary bible scholars tend to agree it was the first book written of the NT. Thus I find it more reliable and more accurate account of the life and teachings of Jesus.

I understand your thinking here... but I'm not sure I follow your insinuation that the first source has to be the most accurate. There's just as good a chance that Matthew and Luke used it as a source, then made corrections and expanded stuff Mark missed. There were able to research, get corroboration for aspects of Mark's gospel, etc., and prove/disprove certain reports Mark made. That sort of thing happens all the time, and I can't just take a cynical view that the changes were all bad or made-up garbage without some evidence of that. As it was, Luke was a physician and seemed to have a thorough and logical mind... he seems to be the best at providing some general context and supporting detail. I find Mark sort of thin.

John, of course, is a crapshoot. He's off on his own path.

Most scholars seem to agree Mark was written around AD 70, following the the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. Wouldn't this suggest it was written based on hearsay, not first-degree, or even based on earlier religions and allegory? How would that affect reliability?

Also, scholars say the gospels are anonymous and that the titles didn't get added until the 2nd century. Mark, John etc.. weren't necessarily real people.