Why be good?

[abaris]

Randy, notice that you did nothing else than repeat your theologian justifications without any regards of history - real history, not legends. And Cahtolic mean nothing else than "whole", so the whole church as understood when they came to power, which was in the late 4th century.

You also didn't in any way adress that there wasn't a "whole" church before that time, but everyone went on their merry ways according to their understanding. We're talking about the church of Rome when we're talking about Catholics, since everything else is legend at it's purest and not in any way supported by historical facts.

[Jenny A]

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?

Yes but many, many, many times more improbable the winning the lottery (someone always wins), or the big bang, in fact right up there with the laws of physics changing randomly.

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?

No, I don't believe anything that is both highly improbable and that I can't prove.  I'm perfectly happy to believe you had lunch with your wife Tuesday, if you say so.  Though given evidence to the contrary I'd change my mind.

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?

Oh, just about anything godly demonstrably happening in the present.  Suppose a booming voice announced from the sky that a second earth would be created tomorrow and be shown orbiting the sun?  And sure enough tomorrow there it was. That would do it for me. Of course it could be very clever aliens with very advanced tech, but at that point the difference between aliens and god would be pretty slim. 

I did mention the idea that Jesus might demonstrate resurrection repeatedly for the disbelieving.  Why not?  If he's god, he gave us the brains to demand that level of proof.  No need for the pain of crucifixion.  Just a living man demonstrably dead getting up and going about living over and over until the scientists are satisfied would do just fine.

[Esquilax]

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. 

Randy, you were the one who started the thread by asking why we should be good, on the basis that if there's no heaven or hell, no, and I quote, "eternal repercussions," you could not see a reason to be good. You do not get to be snarky and sarcastic about us seeing the obvious consequence of your need to ask that question, that is, that you do good because of your belief in those eternal repercussions. If you could think of other reasons to be good besides the "cookie," then you would have had no need to ask the question at all, and/or, rendered the question itself moot.

[Simon Moon]

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?

Any god worthy of that title, would know what would be convincing to every atheist, and the rest of the Earth. Wouldn't you agree?

[Randy Carson]

Randy, notice that you did nothing else than repeat your theologian justifications without any regards of history - real history, not legends. And Cahtolic mean nothing else than "whole", so the whole church as understood when they came to power, which was in the late 4th century.

You also didn't in any way adress that there wasn't a "whole" church before that time, but everyone went on their merry ways according to their understanding. We're talking about the church of Rome when we're talking about Catholics, since everything else is legend at it's purest and not in any way supported by historical facts.

Did you notice that Ignatius uses the phrase "catholic church" without introducing it in the year AD 107?

And have you ever read all of these Early Church Fathers who referred to the "one" Catholic Church prior to the Edict of Milan:

The Martyrdom of Polycarp


"The church of God that sojourns at Smyrna, to the church of God sojourning in Philomelium - and to all of the congregations of the holy and Catholic Church in every place." (The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp)
 
“When at last he had finished his prayer, in which he remembered all who had met with him ant any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8:1, [A.D. 156]).

“And certainly the most admirable Polycarp was one of these [elect], in whose times among us he showed himself an apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2, [A.D. 156]).
 
"Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world." (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, [A.D. 156]).

Irenaeus

 

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

 
Tertullian

“Where was [the heretic] Marcian, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus [AD 138-161] for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus [AD 175-189], until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. . . . Afterward . . . Marcian professed repentance and agreed to the conditions granted to him – that he should receive reconciliation if he restored to the Church all the others whom he had been training for perdition; he was prevented, however, by death.” (Demurrer Against the Heretics, 20, [A.D. 200]).


Clement of Alexandria

“From what has been said, then, it seems clear to me that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one; and in it are enrolled those who, in accord with a design, are just. . . . We say, therefore, that in substance, in concept, in origin and in eminence, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does into the unity of the one faith which results from the familiar covenants, - or rather, from the one covenant in different times, by the will of the one God and through the one Lord, - those already chosen, those predestined by God who knew before the foundation of the world that they would be just.” (Stromaties 7:17:107:3 [A.D. 202]).
 
"... There is one true Church, the really ancient Church into which are enrolled those who are righteous according to Gods ordinance.... In essence, in idea, in origin, in preeminence we say that the ancient Catholic Church is the only Church ..."
 
Cyprian of Carthage

“They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.” (Letter of Cyprian to All His People 43 (40), 5 [A.D. 251]).
 
"The house of God is one, and there can be no salvation to anyone except in the church." (Letter 61 [AD 250]).
 
“Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear or obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” (Letters 66 [A.D. 253]).
 
St. Victorinus
 
"The Catholic Church is one." (Against Arius [AD 280]).
 

[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.

Of course. It's completely different.

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

Make that a supernatural cookie which can never interact with your taste buds and you might just about have it.

[Jenny A]

Randy, notice that you did nothing else than repeat your theologian justifications without any regards of history - real history, not legends. And Cahtolic mean nothing else than "whole", so the whole church as understood when they came to power, which was in the late 4th century.

You also didn't in any way adress that there wasn't a "whole" church before that time, but everyone went on their merry ways according to their understanding. We're talking about the church of Rome when we're talking about Catholics, since everything else is legend at it's purest and not in any way supported by historical facts.

Did you notice that Ignatius uses the phrase "catholic church" without introducing it in the year AD 107?

You did notice that what little we know of Ignatious is his own writings addressing heresy?  If it was all one big happy united church, who were these heretics?  Ignatious, is not proof of a united church, rather the reverse, he's proof there were Christians who believed rather differently, including in particular the Gnostics and the Docetists. 

[Ravenshire]

Let me put it this way: you, as an atheist, benefit from the fact that you live in a society that is still largely influenced by Judeo-Christian morality. A look at ISIS will give you some indication of what your life would be like if Christianity were not still pulling us to the "right".

Or would you look forward to living under Sharia law? And what would life be like if there were no authority at all?

(emphasis is mine)

Or we could look at Chinese, Japanese or even native American culture to see just how full of shit that argument is. They all did just fine for thousands of years without your gawd.

[Ravenshire]

You really should read some books on demon possession.

I do. Urban fantasy is a big thing right now and some of it is very good.

Uhh... wait... You were being serious?!?

[Ravenshire]

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?

You know, your omniscient, omnipotent gawd, if it existed, would know exactly what it would take, without violating free will, to make us believe. Yet, here we are.