How much do we know?

[BilliardsBall]

The Lord looked upon Matthew's Mary and remarked to Gabriel, 'She's beggin' for it!' Gabe said, 'Aren't you going to ask?' The Lord replied, 'Ask, pask! Who's in charge here?' And he impregnated her without further thought.

That is, he proceeded without her consent.

That is, he raped her.
By definition. But that wasn't the question. The question is, in that situation with only the two options possible, which choice should the moral person make?

What's the answer?
Consistently with what I've already said: if we had six independent eyewitness accounts of a person thought to be some 36-48 hours dead who came back to life ─ that would mean they were present at the moment of resurrection ─, and the reports were reasonably consistent, then I'd take it as likely that the event had occurred and that the person had not actually been dead.

But of course even if we assume that there was an historical Jesus and that he was crucified, we have not a single contemporary mention of such a thing, not a single eyewitness account, just some sketchy mentions twenty years later (Paul is explicit that he never met the historical Jesus, and that everything he says about Jesus comes out of his own head), the first elaborated story 45 years later (Mark's gospel can be mapped bit by bit onto scattered parts of the Tanakh, but not onto history), and differing versions of Mark 55 years and 70 years later. And of course each of the stories contradicts the rest on major points. And of course each is written by a member of a religious faction, no hint of independence.
To make the point that the evidence for the resurrection as a fact of history is, for the reasons I've stated and iterated, of abysmal quality, not at all credible.

And we're arguing because you don't wish to concede the point, even though you've offered nothing to refute it.


We still need to clear up Jesus' chromosomal status. You've said that the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke were intersex XX males.

The question that needs to be clarified is, do you think the Jesuses of Paul, Mark and John (or any of them) were also intersex XX males?

If not, what were they? In particular, if they were normal XY males, whose Y-chromosome did they have?

1) Where do you find that God needs consent to do anything physical to any person? Show me a statute where acts of God are criminal acts?

2) The moral choice would be called the lesser of two evils, the rapist would apologize to their victim for perpetrating evil on them.

3) Your 55 and 70 years later are not even believed by the ultra-liberal Jesus seminar. No one dates the gospels so late.

4) None of the gospels discuss chromosomes, of course. I find the XX blood on the shroud consistent with what we know about Jesus.

 

[blü 2]

1) Where do you find that God needs consent to do anything physical to any person? Show me a statute where acts of God are criminal acts?

Ah, so now your argument

rape is always absolutely wrong​

becomes,

rape is always absolutely wrong except when you're someone who doesn't think they need consent before doing anything physical to another person.​

Which sounds like your rape rule isn't absolute even in your opinion.

2) The moral choice would be called the lesser of two evils,

Yes, I already agreed that it would.

Now what in your view does the moral person decide? To let the child be raped? To let Mexico City be destroyed by an atom bomb on two hours' notice?

3) Your 55 and 70 years later are not even believed by the ultra-liberal Jesus seminar. No one dates the gospels so late.

Certainly not those who want to pretend they're eyewitness accounts. But Mark is the first gospel written, around 75 CE, certainly after and quite possibly because of the destruction of the Temple. The trial scene of Jesus, for example, is unusual in that it doesn't appear to be modeled on extracts from the Tanakh, but rather from Josephus' account in War of the trial of Jesus son of Ananus / Ananias, a book which wasn't finished till about 75 CE. Matthew and Luke appear in the 80s CE, say c, 85, and John is around 100 CE.

4) None of the gospels discuss chromosomes, of course. I find the XX blood on the shroud consistent with what we know about Jesus.

Will you please answer the question.

You say the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke were intersex XX males.

Do you also think the Jesuses of Paul, of Mark (whose Jesus was just an ordinary Jew until God adopted him at his baptism) and of John were XX males?
.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then we're settled, the Bible includes independent verification, fulfilled prophecy and historical accuracy.

No, it doesn't. Or at least, not in the sense that you so boldly would like it to be true.

The bible contains some facts, some historically accurate stuff, sure.

So does the Spiderman Comic, but that doesn't mean that spiderman is actually real and that his name is Peter Parker, living in Manhatten.

There is exactly 0 "independent verification" or evidence whatsoever for any supernatural claim in the bible. Then there's the many many stories in there that are categorically and scientifically false, unless you wish to read them as being "poetry" with a "moral of the story"-type interpretation. But in that case, Greek mythology, for example, is just as valid.

So, no... Your bible is not credible in the supernatural / religious sense. At all.
For the same reasons that you also don't just believe the claims of alien abductees, bigfoot spotters, scientologists, hindu's, muslims, voodoo sjamans, etc etc etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ah, so now your argument

rape is always absolutely wrong​

becomes,

rape is always absolutely wrong except when you're someone who doesn't think they need consent before doing anything physical to another person.​

Which sounds like your rape rule isn't absolute even in your opinion.
Yes, I already agreed that it would.

Now what in your view does the moral person decide? To let the child be raped? To let Mexico City be destroyed by an atom bomb on two hours' notice?
Certainly not those who want to pretend they're eyewitness accounts. But Mark is the first gospel written, around 75 CE, certainly after and quite possibly because of the destruction of the Temple. The trial scene of Jesus, for example, is unusual in that it doesn't appear to be modeled on extracts from the Tanakh, but rather from Josephus' account in War of the trial of Jesus son of Ananus / Ananias, a book which wasn't finished till about 75 CE. Matthew and Luke appear in the 80s CE, say c, 85, and John is around 100 CE.
Will you please answer the question.

You say the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke were intersex XX males.

Do you also think the Jesuses of Paul, of Mark (whose Jesus was just an ordinary Jew until God adopted him at his baptism) and of John were XX males?
.

No, I said Mary wasn't raped.

You seem unaware that a lot of moral people would be unable to commit the rape and would let the bomb fall--and that many people would say they made a correct moral choice. I said if you could bring yourself to do the rape, you would obviously apologize for doing some immoral for a moral reason.

Not one NT book mentions eyewitness details of 70 AD or the 110 AD expulsion/destruction. I no of no scholar who dates the gospels that late, not even atheist scholars.

I don't know if the gospel authors would understand or acknowledge the term intersex, which is a modern contrivance.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, it doesn't. Or at least, not in the sense that you so boldly would like it to be true.

The bible contains some facts, some historically accurate stuff, sure.

So does the Spiderman Comic, but that doesn't mean that spiderman is actually real and that his name is Peter Parker, living in Manhatten.

There is exactly 0 "independent verification" or evidence whatsoever for any supernatural claim in the bible. Then there's the many many stories in there that are categorically and scientifically false, unless you wish to read them as being "poetry" with a "moral of the story"-type interpretation. But in that case, Greek mythology, for example, is just as valid.

So, no... Your bible is not credible in the supernatural / religious sense. At all.
For the same reasons that you also don't just believe the claims of alien abductees, bigfoot spotters, scientologists, hindu's, muslims, voodoo sjamans, etc etc etc.

You claim the Bible has no independent verification as if it is the product of a single author, it is a collection of volumes with authors offering verification on prior author claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You claim the Bible has no independent verification as if it is the product of a single author, it is a collection of volumes with authors offering verification on prior author claims.

It doesn't matter how many people are involved in making the claims.
Claims are claims and they aren't valid or credible just because someone (or groups of people) make said claims.

Just like it doesn't matter if there is one or thousands of claimed alien abductees, one or millions of scientologists, one or thousands of voodoo shamans, one or thousands of bigfoot spotters.


They are still claims. Claims, that are in need of evidence.
Piling on more claims, is not how one "independently verifies" said claims.......

I mean you ARE aware of how there are MANY individuals, each claiming to have spotted bigfoot, right? Just like there are MANY people who claim to have been abducted by aliens - independent from one another, right?

Does that change the credibility of alien abduction claims in any way for you, if you know it's not just one person saying it, but rather hundreds if not thousands? And most of them are very sincere, I can assure you.

 

[blü 2]

No, I said Mary wasn't raped.

So when you say rape is always an absolute moral rule, you're not referring to sexual relations to which one party has never consented. whether or not they consent later. I don't accept that definition.

You seem unaware that a lot of moral people would be unable to commit the rape and would let the bomb fall--and that many people would say they made a correct moral choice. I said if you could bring yourself to do the rape, you would obviously apologize for doing some immoral for a moral reason.

In other words, you agree that the lesser of two evils is indeed the choice a moral person should make. And you thereby agree that morality is always relative.

I don't know if the gospel authors would understand or acknowledge the term intersex, which is a modern contrivance.

I don't know that the gospel authors would understand psychiatry, happy as they were to explain such things by demon possession.

But you still haven't answered the question. Having said the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke are intersex XX-male, do you say the Jesuses of Paul and Mark and John are also intersex XX-males? I remind you again that Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jew born of ordinary Jewish parents and although we don't know his father's name, we can state with confidence that if he had a Y-chromosome, as would be a natural assumption, he got it from his human father. Paul's Jesus pre-existed in heaven and came to earth by being born of a woman, but paternity isn't discussed. John's Jesus also pre-existed in heaven but all we're told is that 'the word was made flesh' ─ the mechanics remain obscure.

So which of those three Jesuses, if any, is also an XX-male?

 

[BilliardsBall]

It doesn't matter how many people are involved in making the claims.
Claims are claims and they aren't valid or credible just because someone (or groups of people) make said claims.

Just like it doesn't matter if there is one or thousands of claimed alien abductees, one or millions of scientologists, one or thousands of voodoo shamans, one or thousands of bigfoot spotters.


They are still claims. Claims, that are in need of evidence.
Piling on more claims, is not how one "independently verifies" said claims.......

I mean you ARE aware of how there are MANY individuals, each claiming to have spotted bigfoot, right? Just like there are MANY people who claim to have been abducted by aliens - independent from one another, right?

Does that change the credibility of alien abduction claims in any way for you, if you know it's not just one person saying it, but rather hundreds if not thousands? And most of them are very sincere, I can assure you.

Well, at least we cleared the notion you had of no independent verification. So now, we have a dozen writers speaking of the resurrection in the NT alone, let alone the apocrypha.

It sounds like you rubric is to reject out-of-hand non-plausible claims, and to assume all dozen are liars are deceived, etc. but that does not seem fact-based.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So when you say rape is always an absolute moral rule, you're not referring to sexual relations to which one party has never consented. whether or not they consent later. I don't accept that definition.
In other words, you agree that the lesser of two evils is indeed the choice a moral person should make. And you thereby agree that morality is always relative.
I don't know that the gospel authors would understand psychiatry, happy as they were to explain such things by demon possession.

But you still haven't answered the question. Having said the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke are intersex XX-male, do you say the Jesuses of Paul and Mark and John are also intersex XX-males? I remind you again that Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jew born of ordinary Jewish parents and although we don't know his father's name, we can state with confidence that if he had a Y-chromosome, as would be a natural assumption, he got it from his human father. Paul's Jesus pre-existed in heaven and came to earth by being born of a woman, but paternity isn't discussed. John's Jesus also pre-existed in heaven but all we're told is that 'the word was made flesh' ─ the mechanics remain obscure.

So which of those three Jesuses, if any, is also an XX-male?

Mary was impregnated without sexual relations, one of several reasons this wasn't rape.

I did not say all morality is relative, I said one can use a lesser of two evil determinations to say a wrong rape is done for a right reason, however, rape remains wrong in that scenario, since it is always wrong.

I believe Jesus was an XX male in all NT documents.

 

[blü 2]

Mary was impregnated without sexual relations, one of several reasons this wasn't rape.

Impregnating a human female isn't sexual relations? Impregnation isn't sex? Don't be silly.

I did not say all morality is relative, I said one can use a lesser of two evil determinations to say a wrong rape is done for a right reason, however, rape remains wrong in that scenario, since it is always wrong.

That's a total change of subject. The question is, what does the moral human do when forced to face a choice between evils.

And the moral thing is to chose the lesser evil, is it not?

And the lesser evil in our example is choosing to allow the child to be raped because the alternative is the death of many thousands of children, not to mention adults.

Morality is always relative. Morality comes from humans, not from God, who as you know has cheerfully ordered invasive wars, massacres of populations, mass rapes, slavery, subjugation of women, religious intolerance as a way of life, human sacrifice and so on. That's a pretty sick outlook, a completely broken moral compass.

I believe Jesus was an XX male in all NT documents.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I'll be interested to see if your view becomes orthodoxy any time soon.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, at least we cleared the notion you had of no independent verification. So now, we have a dozen writers speaking of the resurrection in the NT alone, let alone the apocrypha.

So I take it that believe in bigfoot, the kraken, the lochness monster, gozilla, alien abduction,...?

It sounds like you rubric is to reject out-of-hand non-plausible claims

Well.... yes - if the non-plausible claims are expected to be "just believed" and don't have a shred of independently verifiable evidence....

Why, do you just believe non-plausible claims at face value?
Like alien abduction claims?

, and to assume all dozen are liars are deceived, etc. but that does not seem fact-based.

The VAST majority of theists are necessarily liars or deceived or mistaken, as they believe mutually exclusive things. They can't all be right. They can all be wrong though.....

And given the non-plausibility of their claims and the non-existant supporting evidence - it is very likely that they all are wrong.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Impregnating a human female isn't sexual relations? Impregnation isn't sex? Don't be silly.
That's a total change of subject. The question is, what does the moral human do when forced to face a choice between evils.

And the moral thing is to chose the lesser evil, is it not?

And the lesser evil in our example is choosing to allow the child to be raped because the alternative is the death of many thousands of children, not to mention adults.

Morality is always relative. Morality comes from humans, not from God, who as you know has cheerfully ordered invasive wars, massacres of populations, mass rapes, slavery, subjugation of women, religious intolerance as a way of life, human sacrifice and so on. That's a pretty sick outlook, a completely broken moral compass.
Thanks for clearing that up.

I'll be interested to see if your view becomes orthodoxy any time soon.

People can be impregnated without sexual relations or sexual contact. I know you know this!

The moral thing to choose is the lesser evil. The rape is a lesser evil and is an immoral act. You can do something immoral for moral reasons. What would YOU say to the rape VICTIM in this instance? Shut up and take it?!

I would disagree about your misunderstandings of Bible morals, but you have no right to call Christian morals "sickening" or your own "right" until you explain them non-subjectively.

 

[BilliardsBall]

View attachment 31946

So I take it that believe in bigfoot, the kraken, the lochness monster, gozilla, alien abduction,...?



Well.... yes - if the non-plausible claims are expected to be "just believed" and don't have a shred of independently verifiable evidence....

Why, do you just believe non-plausible claims at face value?
Like alien abduction claims?





The VAST majority of theists are necessarily liars or deceived or mistaken, as they believe mutually exclusive things. They can't all be right. They can all be wrong though.....

And given the non-plausibility of their claims and the non-existant supporting evidence - it is very likely that they all are wrong.

It is "very likely" that over 99% of all persons from all eras are wrong?!

 

[paarsurrey]

How do you know that what we don't know has increased. Is there a finite amount of knowledge to be learned and we are learning an increasing amount of this finite amount of knowledge, or is the unknown portion increasing? Why is it increasing, as you assert? How do you know this?
True, we may have more questions, but that may be because we have not thought to ask them before.

As our imagination has increased.
Regards

 

[blü 2]

People can be impregnated without sexual relations or sexual contact. I know you know this!

And if it's done without consent it's rape.

The moral thing to choose is the lesser evil. The rape is a lesser evil and is an immoral act. You can do something immoral for moral reasons. What would YOU say to the rape VICTIM in this instance? Shut up and take it?!

There! You've said it at last! Morality is always relative.

I would disagree about your misunderstandings of Bible morals, but you have no right to call Christian morals "sickening" or your own "right" until you explain them non-subjectively.

Non-subjectively? Good and bad are judgments that humans make, not objective qualities, not facts, and they very often translate as 'to my personal benefit' and 'against my personal benefit'. (Many Republicans have a particular talent for this view.) Think of the moral standpoints available when one side calls it 'protecting an endangered species' and the other side calls it 'catching my dinner'.

But as I've mentioned before, humans have evolved with a basic set of moral instincts that suits us for living cooperatively in groups.

Invasive war, massacre of populations, mass rape, murder, individual rape, women as property, slavery, religious intolerance as a way of life, and of course human sacrifice are on the one hand all things God orders in the bible, and on the other, things grossly repugnant my own view.

Which of them do you approve of?

 

[Milton Platt]

As our imagination has increased.
Regards

Imagination has nothing to do with knowledge. You can imagine there is a dragon in your garage. That does not mean that there actually is one in your garage.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is "very likely" that over 99% of all persons from all eras are wrong?!

Please, let's not pretend as if 99% of all persons have the same theistic beliefs.
It's not even true that 99% of humans are theists. Let alone that they have the same theistic beliefs.

Among theists, necessarily the vast majority of them hold false beliefs, as theistic beliefs tend to be mutually exclusive. If catholics are correct, then hinduism must necessarily be wrong.


So, while you like to claim everyone with fantastical beliefs in your camp - and even completely exaggerate that number as well as it is not 99% - your claims is utterly false and very misleading.




Having said all that......


Even if 100% of people believe a fantastical claim with no evidence on faith, then 100% of people are very likely wrong.

Ever heared of argument ad populum? You might want to look it up. It's a logical fallacy...
Things aren't correct simply because a majority believes them to be.
There was a time where the vast majority believed the sun orbitted the earth, but they were all wrong.

The majority is capable of being wrong you know....
Reality isn't determined by popular vote.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And if it's done without consent it's rape.
There! You've said it at last! Morality is always relative.
Non-subjectively? Good and bad are judgments that humans make, not objective qualities, not facts, and they very often translate as 'to my personal benefit' and 'against my personal benefit'. (Many Republicans have a particular talent for this view.) Think of the moral standpoints available when one side calls it 'protecting an endangered species' and the other side calls it 'catching my dinner'.

But as I've mentioned before, humans have evolved with a basic set of moral instincts that suits us for living cooperatively in groups.

Invasive war, massacre of populations, mass rape, murder, individual rape, women as property, slavery, religious intolerance as a way of life, and of course human sacrifice are on the one hand all things God orders in the bible, and on the other, things grossly repugnant my own view.

Which of them do you approve of?

What might you call death then? God does that to everyone without their consent.

Morality is indeed sometimes relative... I'd hope, though, you wouldn't as a juror or witness say, "Rape is subjectively bad, I mean, there are certainly times when rape is a good thing . . . "

It's interesting, 3,000 years of the scriptures, and atheists noticed all the bad morals within circa Dawkins/Hitchens.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please, let's not pretend as if 99% of all persons have the same theistic beliefs.
It's not even true that 99% of humans are theists. Let alone that they have the same theistic beliefs.

Among theists, necessarily the vast majority of them hold false beliefs, as theistic beliefs tend to be mutually exclusive. If catholics are correct, then hinduism must necessarily be wrong.


So, while you like to claim everyone with fantastical beliefs in your camp - and even completely exaggerate that number as well as it is not 99% - your claims is utterly false and very misleading.




Having said all that......


Even if 100% of people believe a fantastical claim with no evidence on faith, then 100% of people are very likely wrong.

Ever heared of argument ad populum? You might want to look it up. It's a logical fallacy...
Things aren't correct simply because a majority believes them to be.
There was a time where the vast majority believed the sun orbitted the earth, but they were all wrong.

The majority is capable of being wrong you know....
Reality isn't determined by popular vote.

I'm not pretending. 99% of all people--my conservative under-estimate--believe/believed atheists are wrong.

This is not an ad populum, by the way--if even one person in all human history had one numinous/supernatural experience, your materialism is wrong, so rather than an ad populum, we are looking at a close correlation argument.

 

[blü 2]

What might you call death then? God does that to everyone without their consent.

It's possible that some microorganisms and some species of crayfish have no inbuilt natural limit to their lives; but for the rest, death is simply the end of the cycle. Fish, molluscs, reptiles, birds, mammals including H sap sap, we all die.

Morality is indeed sometimes relative... I'd hope, though, you wouldn't as a juror or witness say, "Rape is subjectively bad, I mean, there are certainly times when rape is a good thing . . . "

Being a good thing and being a moral thing are different, as we've now agreed.

It's interesting, 3,000 years of the scriptures, and atheists noticed all the bad morals within circa Dawkins/Hitchens.

Although Dawkins offers generally sound arguments, I find him personally humorless, and I disagree with his central assertion that religion is always essentially a bad thing. Fundamentalism is always essentially a bad thing, but that's not all of religion ─ I speak as one with close friends and dear rellies who are believers. But the morality of the bible can be just plain revolting; the need for the crucifixion at all is just one more example of utter primitive barbarity.