(August 16, 2009 at 10:56 am)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 16, 2009 at 8:01 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Better (I would have said) to ask if he believes it is possible to be good, kind, loving, caring and moral without a god ever existing?

There would be no ethical reality, in that case, independently of the opinion of the person (the opinion of Hitler or Stalin, for instance) and such a universe would be beyond good and evil, as Nietzsche rightly points out.

What the hell does "ethical reality" mean? More metaphysics I suspect and inherently pointless!

There is no such thing as good and evil in any objective sense ... all morality is relative.

Kyu

(August 16, 2009 at 5:24 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: There is no such thing as good and evil in any objective sense ... all morality is relative.

Great statement Kyu!

There is no anthropological evidence that points to objective opinions of good and evil or moral imperatives across cultures. The few things that ARE held across all cultures are explained by evolutionary forces at work. For example, most cultures hold that having sex within the family is contraindicated which is clearly an adaptive conclusion because doing so can cause genetic problems in their progeny.

Rhizo

(August 16, 2009 at 5:39 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote:

(August 16, 2009 at 5:24 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: There is no such thing as good and evil in any objective sense ... all morality is relative.

Great statement Kyu!

There is no anthropological evidence that points to objective opinions of good and evil or moral imperatives across cultures. The few things that ARE held across all cultures are explained by evolutionary forces at work. For example, most cultures hold that having sex within the family is contraindicated which is clearly an adaptive conclusion because doing so can cause genetic problems in their progeny.

Rhizo

(August 16, 2009 at 5:24 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: What the hell does "ethical reality" mean? More metaphysics I suspect and inherently pointless!

There is no such thing as good and evil in any objective sense ... all morality is relative.

Kyu

You reject my way of putting it; fine. But you go on to say something similar in a different way which equals to an almost identical signification.

That the reality in it self is beyond good and evil in Nietzsche's phrase, or simply meaningless, and that good and evil are only human projections out into the world, or abstractions in any case, is obvious from a (strong) atheist point of view.

(August 16, 2009 at 5:47 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 16, 2009 at 5:24 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: What the hell does "ethical reality" mean? More metaphysics I suspect and inherently pointless!

There is no such thing as good and evil in any objective sense ... all morality is relative.

You reject my way of putting it; fine. But you go on to say something similar in a different way which equals to an almost identical signification.

Wasn't it you that said you couldn't say some things without resorting to the psychobabble you use? Yet now you say I am saying the same thing (and I used English)! Seems to me you just contradicted yourself and that you should try to talk English instead of complete bollocks!

And thanks Rhizo!

Kyu

Regarding the epistles JP you said:"They are not irrelevant. Anything that attests to his existence, and even internally refers to other texts which do document his life is relevant."

They don't attest to his existence since most of the epistles are meant to be either exhortation or doctrinal instruction to the various churches in existence at the time.When it comes to the earthly life and existence of Christ the only "reliable" sources are the synoptic gospels and I use the word reliable very loosely in this sentence.They are meant to be accounts of his earthly ministry and existence.His existence in the spiritual realm is irrelevant to me because there is no way to prove that a so called spiritual realm exist thus putting Jesus in the realm of myth where he belongs.This so called transcendental objective worldview is nothing more than primitive mythological thinking based on fear of the unknown.

I must give you credit JP for your pathetic long winded posts since you make excellent use of christian apologetics, there is nothing like a circular argument in favor of god.This thread has turned into a literal merry go round where your views are challenged and you sit back and put us on your ferris wheel of philosophical dribble.

Another thing I forgot to point out is that you can't compare how oral traditions are passed on almost intact in the christian community with the Islamic community.In Islam those children are raised and taught to recite the Koran by rote as part of their rearing.Christianity does not impose this requirement on its adherents.And with Islam most,even foreign Islamists are encouraged to learn Arabic so that they can read the Koran in its original language.Once again only christian scholars go to such lengths to further understand the scriptures and this is a voluntary act.

JP Wrote:Yes. As I've said, since God is himself the truth, goodness, and love, anyone who nears himself to goodness, love or truth in accepting Gods graces which he pours on all of us, by acting in accord to them in his deeds and in his spirit, is nearing himself to God from my perspective - even if they, from my perspective, are ignorant of who God is, they can still echo some of what he is and what he wants in their actions and spirit.

Kindly explain what you mean by;

"God is himself the truth, goodness and love"?

(August 16, 2009 at 5:52 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Wasn't it you that said you couldn't say some things without resorting to the psychobabble you use?

It's only psychobabble if you don't understand it, aren't willing to spend time or energy to understand it, or are just looking for an excuse to discount it without engaging the substance in it.

(August 16, 2009 at 6:55 pm)chatpilot Wrote: Regarding the epistles JP you said:"They are not irrelevant. Anything that attests to his existence, and even internally refers to other texts which do document his life is relevant."

They don't attest to his existence since most of the epistles are meant to be either exhortation or doctrinal instruction to the various churches in existence at the time.When it comes to the earthly life and existence of Christ the only "reliable" sources are the synoptic gospels and I use the word reliable very loosely in this sentence.They are meant to be accounts of his earthly ministry and existence.His existence in the spiritual realm is irrelevant to me because there is no way to prove that a so called spiritual realm exist thus putting Jesus in the realm of myth where he belongs.This so called transcendental objective worldview is nothing more than primitive mythological thinking based on fear of the unknown.

They attest to other documents which are not the Gospels, (some unknown ones, and perhaps Q) which some of the Gospels also attest to, which therefore predate the Gospels and attest to an even earlier written record of Jesus existence.

(August 16, 2009 at 5:52 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Christianity does not impose this requirement on its adherents.

Because it's not needed today. It was needed before the widespread literacy of today. Jews did it, and Christianity began with Jews, and with the Jewish practice of oral tradition.

(August 16, 2009 at 7:43 pm)Guerilla Radio Wrote:

JP Wrote:Yes. As I've said, since God is himself the truth, goodness, and love, anyone who nears himself to goodness, love or truth in accepting Gods graces which he pours on all of us, by acting in accord to them in his deeds and in his spirit, is nearing himself to God from my perspective - even if they, from my perspective, are ignorant of who God is, they can still echo some of what he is and what he wants in their actions and spirit.

Kindly explain what you mean by;

"God is himself the truth, goodness and love"?

That should be clear from my exposition in this thread and from Christian doctrine in general. Perhaps you haven't read much of the thread. So I can only recommend you to either re-read the thread, read the Holy Scriptures or if you need more doctrinal exposition on the Scriptures, read the Patristics, and the Summa Theologica.

(August 16, 2009 at 10:56 am)Jon Paul Wrote: That should be clear from my exposition in this thread and from Christian doctrine in general. Perhaps you haven't read much of the thread. So I can only recommend you to either re-read the thread, read the Holy Scriptures or if you need more doctrinal exposition on the Scriptures, read the Patristics, and the Summa Theologica.

No it's not clear and I'm not going to re-read the thread as I have so but fail to see how any of it relates to my question.

You've posted a question thread; I've posed a question. I now expect you to be courteous enough to answer it and not brush me aside.

As I said to you last night on MSN... I still see 'divine simplicity' as an oxymoron.

Divinity if it exists at all needs to come about through simplicity. Divinity needs an explanation.

EvF