Why be good?

[Simon Moon]

I KNOW about Christianity and a good deal about other religions (to varying degrees). Therefore, I would evaluate what these people (the good one and the bad one alike) had to say based on what I already understand. They may or may not be correct. A "good" and otherwise trustworthy person can be completely wrong in their theology (if they've had an "experience" with a "different" god, I would probably suspect that a demon was involved). Conversely, the scum of the Earth may know that Jesus died for them (and be saved). However, if I knew that they were untrustworthy, I might still doubt their story. People CLAIM all sorts of things for any number of reasons.

---

Yes, it is true that a good and otherwise trustworthy person can be completely wrong about their theology. Except for you and others with your beliefs. There is no way you could have possibly mislead. Nope. Not you. 

 I would probably suspect that a demon was involved

A demon?! Seriously?!

If your 'go to' explanation is to jump to unsupported claims of demons, instead of known natural explanations, you may be a lost cause. 

You really should read some books on basic logic and critical thinking. Your ability to rationally evaluate claims is really muddled. 

[Randy Carson]

Some how I can't believe that living a good life boils down to 'being good'.  'Being good' is like doing (and not doing) what mommy tells you.  Christians just never grow up.  They still have God to please.  To each his own but I am so happy not to have been born into a family which could have led to my becoming an apologist for some religion.

As an atheist who is free from all of that, I am curious...how are you "grown up" when you:

have to please a spouse
have to please your kids
have to please your boss
have to please the government

etc.

When do you finally get to grow up and be free from all of that enforced "being good"?

[Whateverist]

I don't look for brownie points from any of these. Of course I do want to keep my wife pleased but that is very different from abiding by all her dictates (not that she might not enjoy that at least for a while).

I'm sorry you can't see the difference. C'est la vie.

[Randy Carson]

Um...

You're exactly right, Parkers. There is NO reason whatsoever to think that any individual Church, whether in Rome or some far-flung corner of the empire, ever changed the title of one of the Gospels.

Instead, they have been known universally and unanimously by all the congregations as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John from the moment the ink dried on the papyri, and we still know them by their original names to this very day.

Thanks for pointing that out to everyone.

[emphasis added -- Thump]

You seem to have forgotten that you were arguing that those names had to be true because everyone around the world agreed upon their use. To put this back into context, you argued:

AND THE NAMES ARE THE SAME WHEREVER YOU GO. 

It's not as if the Church in Thessalonica called the first gospel, the "Gospel According to Matthew" while a Church in Alexandria referred to it as the "Gospel of Andrew". The Church in Rome did not refer to the last gospel as the "Gospel of Phillip" while that same book was known as the "Beloved Disciple's Gospel" in Antioch.

So the honest thing to do would be to acknowledge conceding the point, which you've clearly done with your latest reply. The names being the same don't matter at all as for veracity, because as you yourself acknowledged, they were written and shared.

I'm not following this at all. Sorry.

Let me be clear. The Church knew from the beginning who wrote each of the gospels. When the first copies were made (and this was probably within days of the originals being completed) and sent out to churches in various cities around the Roman empire, the knowledge that "This was written by Mark" or "Luke, Paul's companion, wrote this" traveled with the document.

Imagine that you are the leader of the Church in Corinth. One day, a man arrives with a bundle in his knapsack. Taking it out and carefully unwrapping it, he unrolls the first few feet of the scroll. "What is this?", you say as you begin to read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....". "It is the story of Jesus according the John the Apostle," the messenger says. "I have just come from Ephesus where this copied was made."

Seriously, do you think that YOU as church leader would have authorized the reading of anything in Church on Sunday WITHOUT knowing who wrote it?  

I don't think so, either.

---

Just out of curiosity, what proof of the supernatural WOULD be sufficient, and how would or could it be provided?

So in short, to prove the supernatural you must describe it in a falsifiable way, and then prove it by replicable experiment.

And how would you go about this with the resurrection of Jesus...if you were a believer?

[abaris]

Seriously, do you think that YOU as church leader would have authorized the reading of anything in Church on Sunday WITHOUT knowing who wrote it? I don't think so, either.

That of course totally ignores that there wasnt A church to read something on sunday until the late 4th century, when they finally became Roman state religion and found an agreement on which books to leave out and which to take.

And even after that there wasn't much of an agreement, since different brands of christianity were blooming all over the old world. The catholic fight against Arianism, which didn't accept the trinity, dominated the ensuing centuries with this line of thinking being very prominent amongst the Goths, who pushed into the Italian Peninsula.

[Randy Carson]

I KNOW about Christianity and a good deal about other religions (to varying degrees). Therefore, I would evaluate what these people (the good one and the bad one alike) had to say based on what I already understand. They may or may not be correct. A "good" and otherwise trustworthy person can be completely wrong in their theology (if they've had an "experience" with a "different" god, I would probably suspect that a demon was involved). Conversely, the scum of the Earth may know that Jesus died for them (and be saved). However, if I knew that they were untrustworthy, I might still doubt their story. People CLAIM all sorts of things for any number of reasons.

Yes, it is true that a good and otherwise trustworthy person can be completely wrong about their theology. Except for you and others with your beliefs. There is no way you could have possibly mislead. Nope. Not you. 

Why do you believe this to be an effect way to argue your position?

I would probably suspect that a demon was involved

A demon?! Seriously?!

Yes.

If your 'go to' explanation is to jump to unsupported claims of demons, instead of known natural explanations, you may be a lost cause. 

You really should read some books on basic logic and critical thinking. Your ability to rationally evaluate claims is really muddled. 

You really should read some books on demon possession.

[abaris]

You really should read some books on demon possession.

And that's the point, where I recommend reading some books on mental illness.

Really, demons .... And you still expect to be taken seriously.

[Randy Carson]

I don't look for brownie points from any of these.  Of course I do want to keep my wife pleased but that is very different from abiding by all her dictates (not that she might not enjoy that at least for a while).

I'm sorry you can't see the difference.  C'est la vie.

Of course. It's completely different.

You have to please others for legitimate reasons. Christians only do it for the cookie. 

---

Seriously, do you think that YOU as church leader would have authorized the reading of anything in Church on Sunday WITHOUT knowing who wrote it? I don't think so, either.

That of course totally ignores that there wasnt A church to read something on sunday until the late 4th century, when they finally became Roman state religion and found an agreement on which books to leave out and which to take.

And even after that there wasn't much of an agreement, since different brands of christianity were blooming all over the old world. The catholic fight against Arianism, which didn't accept the trinity, dominated the ensuing centuries with this line of thinking being very prominent amongst the Goths, who pushed into the Italian Peninsula.

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

 

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

 
Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term "Catholic Church"; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!
 
The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day. As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” – terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.

[Jenny A]

So in short, to prove the supernatural you must describe it in a falsifiable way, and then prove it by replicable experiment.

And how would you go about this with the resurrection of Jesus...if you were a believer?

You just explained why I cannot be a believer.  The claim is that something unfalsifiable in the present happened in the past.  That thing is miraculous (meaning extraordinarily improbable).  Nothing in the present proves or disproves that the event happened. So, it's improbable and unproven.  I don't believe it for just that reason.  The fact that I could not prove it is the reason I don't believe it.

If you could and did prove it, I would believe it.

Least you think this is a no win situation, let me remind you you are claiming an omnipotent being.  Surely Jesus could step in and prove his ability to rise from the dead over and over, should he exist and desire to do so.  But like the charlatan claiming esp his followers demand a leap of faith and claim he won't demonstrate to this generation.  Essentially, the god claim is just like other supernatural claims in this regard.  The claim is that something non demonstrable exists.  And my answer is possible, but highly, improbable.  Too improbable to waste time on.

[Randy Carson]

And how would you go about this with the resurrection of Jesus...if you were a believer?

You just explained why I cannot be a believer.  The claim is that something unfalsifiable in the present happened in the past.  That thing is miraculous (meaning extraordinarily improbable). 

But not impossible, correct? However unlikely, it is still possible?

Nothing in the present proves or disproves that the event happened. So, it's improbable and unproven.  I don't believe it for just that reason.  The fact that I could not prove it is the reason I don't believe it.

You don't believe anything you can't prove? Personally prove?

If you could and did prove it, I would believe it.

Least you think this is a no win situation, let me remind you you are claiming an omnipotent being.  Surely Jesus could step in and prove his ability to rise from the dead over and over, should he exist and desire to do so.  But like the charlatan claiming esp his followers demand a leap of faith and claim he won't demonstrate to this generation.  Essentially, the god claim is just like other supernatural claims in this regard.  The claim is that something non demonstrable exists.  And my answer is possible, but highly, improbable.  Too improbable to waste time on.

Ah. Possible. That's something, I suppose.

What kind of proof could Jesus provide to you, Jenny, that would enable you and everyone else on earth to believe that He is God?