That nice web-writer forgot to say that the Hebrew word is inherently ambiguous. The Greek language, in contrast to Hebrew, offers different and specific words so as to avoid ambiguity in this here situation. The nice web-writer also forgot to say that religiously-Jewish people for whom the laws of Moses actually mattered, and who were fluent in both languages, made the translation from ambiguous Hebrew to exact Greek centuries before Jesus was born. This was not a situation of mean, ugly, nasty Christians altering something Jewish. The Christians kept what linguistically-intelligent religiously-Jewish people had been using for centuries. Ergo -- Ya, those Jewish priestly guys who wrote the Septuagint a couple centuries BC, and all those generations of Jewish priestly guys who made hand copies decade after decade for several hundred years, those guys sure were clueless for not picking up on this problem! Now, here's another puzzle: Why is God's Jewish name in the Jewish Bible plural?
No he didn't if you read the notes related to the specific chapter it clearly makes this point: He also said: Which makes it clear that even if you were to accept this as a mistranslation it would not necessarily negate the virgin birth. There is a further detailed discussion of the argument over the term on the second page. I don't know how you could miss this if you actually read the thing! No he didn't... there is a long discussion of the issue at the bottom of the second page. aiki do you even bother reading something before criticising it? In any discussiion I have ever had with you, it inevitably involves you attempting to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you must want to portray Christians as "mean, ugly and nasty" and usually "stupid" comes in there too. To prevent this coming up again please note I am not saying that all Christians through the ages are mean, ugly, nasty or stupid. I am saying that they may have been wrong about this translation. Anyway look your view was almost word for word addressed on the website that you read so thoroughly: And I'll leave you to go look at the evidence for yourself. My point Aiki isn't even that the guy is right (for a start the 72 learned bi-lingual scholars thing is not really accepted as historically accurate as far as I have read). My point is that there is a debate and your dismissive response was wrong because the way you replied made it look like there was no such debate and that all reasonable scholars agree. They dont! There is a debate. Sorry.
Okay. I see I have two main points to respond to. One is to defend the objectivity of secular morality. The other is to show you that the argument I gave in my last post does hold. Firstly I'll answer some minor points: Here is the article that claims Christians steal from secular morality. We're both applying logic. You're exposing what you see as inconsistencies in my arguments and I am in yours too. The Catholic Church claimed that it contradicted passages in the Bible. Nowdays, we read the Bible in a different way. Now to the main points: My argument assumed ONE thing. God created us as we are. My argument was in steps so you could highlight the bits you disagreed with. As far as I'm aware, your only objection to my argument was as follows: So why did man rebel? If rebelling was sin then man has 'sin nature' before he rebelled. 'Free will' doesn't change anything. Free will means we follow our desires. Desires are our nature. If Adam and Eve had a desire to disobey God then he created them with that desire. 'Original sin' theology really doesn't make sense. However, Christians talk about God as if he has a nature. Much of their theology is based on what God 'wants' or 'wills'. Our reason can be applied to these theologies and show flaws in them. So this is the second thing I have to do, defend the objectivity of secular morality. Here are the steps: (1) There are objective facts about our human nature. We are social beings with desires and needs. We need food to eat, places to live, company, friends, safety. The better these needs are catered for, the better our lives are. It is a fact about our nature that we want these needs catered for as best as they can. This applies to all human beings. (2) What conditions cater for these needs is a matter of fact. Someone with no food has not met this need at all. Someone with poor/unnutritious food has met this need to a slight degree. Someone with good tasting, nutritious and healthy food has satisfied this need perfectly. Each of these conditions show our certain states of the world satisfy our nature and it is a matter of objective fact whether they do so. (3) How to go about ensuring these conditions is a matter of fact. If you want a boiled egg then there are right and wrong ways to achieve this. Boiling an egg in water is right. Frying the egg is wrong. (you'd get a fried egg instead of a boiled egg.) In the same way, there are right and wrong ways to achieve the conditions that your nature strives for. So far this shouldn't be controversial. It should be quite clear that it is an objective fact that you need to eat something over the next couple of days. (4) Our needs require us to nurture social relations with those around us. Some of our needs are social, like the need to for relationships/friendships. Other needs (like eating, safety etc...) indirectly good social relations. So there are objective facts about our nature that require us to nurture our social relations and there are objective ways of going about this. Following rules like 'loving thy neighbour', general altruism, being sorry to those we have harmed and forgiving those who are sorry for their harms towards us. Do these sound familiar to you? So it should be clear the secular morality is not relative and hold for everyone. There is a clear objectivity to it. And yes, you can still say that God made these rules because he created the nature that they are based on!
I can see your point. My apologies. From the other side -- there's an unending stream of criticism by people who maybe are not objectively correct, and who don't realize that "new" ideas are actually old ideas dealth with centuries ago. It's easy and tempting to group all of them together, but that's not always fair to individuals. My apologies. I want to pick up on the last statement: "I am saying that they may have been wrong about this translation." Let's underline the word "may." That, I can accept, but, I note that it equally means that the criticism against the Christian interpretation is not objectively correct. (If it was objectively correct, we would say "are wrong" instead of "may be wrong".) So now we're at a stalemate. That's fine. It doesn't bother me. But, we can't pick on the "other side" in a stalemant. We can't say "you lost!" when it's a stalemate. I'm getting at something here: For this particular debate, and others like it, to be a some sort of proof against Christianity, we have to alter the argument. We have to change it from "you guys don't know languages" into "your God is a poor communicator." We could say, "Hey, the writers writing on behalf of God could have written unambiguously. They didn't. Therefore, either they made it up, or God is a poor communicator. But God cannot be a poor communicator -- he's God! Therefore, they made it up." That is a nutshell-sized argument that I accept. Stuff about languages I do not accept. (There are plenty of qualified scholars who like the way that particular Isaiah verse was translated.)
Original sin makes my head hurt. Your concept is better, I made it sound as if free will wasn't part of the original creation, but merely added on latter. And in this way, I thought of it as making "free will" the main component in creating the flaw resulting in sin nature. In hindsight, that was a flawed thought....
Sorry got a bit lost in this thread but I don't get what you're suggesting here. Ok I'll rephrase my ignorance ( ) into a question, how many differing versions of the bible are there? By this I mean actual differences in text.
I have a terrible headache right now, so bear with me if I don't make any sense here Yeah, but that's not the biblical view. Remember that sin = disobeying God? Well, when Adam and Eve were created, they did not have sin nature. They did have free will, so they were able to disobey God should they choose to do so. Just as they were able to not disobey. They chose to disobey God, and that's when sin entered the world, so to speak. Before that, there was no sin. [QUOTE So why did man rebel? If rebelling was sin then man has 'sin nature' before he rebelled. [/QUOTE] Nope. Then I could say he has "non-sin nature" because he could also not rebel. And those two contradict each other. They had complete free will, and they chose to disobey God. That was the first sin, and that's when the curse came in to the picture. No, that's the nice part about free will. Sin nature means, "you WILL sin", wheras free will just implies "you may choose to sin, and you may choose to not sin". /off topic: I would disagree with you on saying that free will means we follow our desires. Do you really think that is always the case? It happens often that I go against my desire in a choice I have to make / Yeah, but as long as your axioms are totally contradicting mine, it will end up in your opinion against mine. To show flaws in a system, you must adopt - for the sake of the discussion - the system's axioms, and show where the inconsistencies lie. Otherwise, it will still end up as (simplyfied) : "Aha! God says A is wrong, but I say A is right! Therefore God is wrong!". But the christian will just respond to that with: "Hello? Anybody home? Wake up and smell the coffee, McFly! Your opinion doesn't hold anything against God's in my belief system!" Very good example, but it doesn't hold up. You can't compare "eating" with "loving thy neighbour", because clearly there are people who do are real *******s, are not sorry to those they have harmed and do not forgive those who are sorry for their harms towards them. And they can live just fine. But they can't live without food. But okay, let's look at it from this direction: There is obviously a "war" going on between secular morals and christian morals, right? Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all (if christian and secular morals were exactly the same). I think we should take a concrete example, like pre-marital sex. Christian morals say pre-marital sex is wrong, because sex is something to be enjoyed between a husband and his wife only. Secular morals disagree, right? How come?
I know this wasn't to me, but I'm bored..... Actually, the biblical view is fuzy, not all christians buy into original sin... Then "sin nature" is not nature at all, it was a mistake made by adam and eve. We didn't create our own nature, so if we are sinful by nature, that's God's doing. If we screwed up, that's a whole nother can of worms, and a new term needs to be found... This wouldn't make a difference, if they were sinful by nature, they were set up to fail. Then there is no sin nature..... What is this curse? The ability to obtain knowledge? The separation from the garden? The separation from Gods immediate pesence? If it's this supposed sin nature. Do new borns that die go to hell? Or is it only when thy have knowledge and understanding that they are held accountable? Why am I being held responsible for what two people I don't even know, did? I'm confused, do we have "sin nature" or not? If yes, your back to God creating a flawed creature, if your just saying we have free will and therefore have the option to sin, well, that doesn't bug "me" half as much. (That's also not "sin nature" as in, sinful by nature.) Let me get this straight, you go against one desire in order to meet another desire, nope, I think the desire theory is still holding. Being a social misfit can have adverse effects on your life, being a social creature by nature and out of need, means you shouldn't do it. There is an objective basis to the moral, the same as there is an objective basis for the need for food. Just because they "can" live just fine, doesn't mean they will. Read this thread from pg.8# threw pg.26# "I" think it adresses in detail what his point is... The sex thing is an assumption on your part, I for one can think of a very good reason not to do such things. Disease which can take a direct effect on a very basic part of your nature, survival.. Oh, and that's not all, children out side of a family unit, are harder to take care, and that not only effects their lives but your quality of life as well... Basically, there is risk involved when you choose to do these things, a risk you don't have to take. There is no reason to assume a secular morality wouldn't or atleast couldn't include this concept.
The "autograph" is the term for the original writing personally penned by Paul, or John, or Jeremiah, or whoever. For the gospels, then, as an illustration, there would be four autographs: one by Matthew, one by Mark, one by Luke, and one by John. Ok, I'll rephrase what I said into a question: how close to the autograph are our documents? At the end of the day that's what matters, because that's what someone is going to purchase for home study.
OR....you could just answer the question? no? maybe? how many versions. how close to the autograph ARE our documents? and which one of the *undisclosed #* of versions represents that correctly?
As I pointed out last time, free will doesn't change anything. I have the free will to eat my own faeces but it will never happen. Because of my nature I have no desire to eat my own faeces. Even with free will, our choices will depend on what desires we have an what desires we have will depend upon our nature. If Adam and Eve chose to disobey God then they must've had the desire to. God had created them with the desire to disobey him. (I know you are sceptical of the role of desires in our decision making - I address this further down) Hmmm... I have the free will that I can choose to eat my on faeces but will not choose to as it is against my nature. God could've made sin against Adam's nature without losing his free will. When you have a stronger desire for something else. E.g. a desire you have for lust might be out-done by a desire you have to please God. If you disagree that desire has this role in the decision process then what do you think is involved in a decision? What is it that compels us to act as we do? Are our acts completely random or are they guided by some kind of nature? I understand. I am trying to avoid my own assumptions as much as possible. I think there have been some points I've made that look like assumptions because although they do follow from your own axioms it's not clear that they do so. Naturally, the burden of proof it on me to show that they do follow from your own axioms. That's what I'm working on. The bold bit is a bit of an assumption. I think you'll find that people like that aren't happy at all. They suffer/have difficulties as a result of their immorality. They miss out on the happiness of someone who lives a good life. If they understood the world and their nature better then they would act in a more moral manner. Secular morality is an attempt to look at morality as it really is, as we really practice it. Christian morality (where it differs from secular morality - many Christians will disagree that it does) is about following the rules from a 2000 year old book of Jewish folklore. When a Christian justifies a rule in the Bible, they use secular reasoning to do so. Some Christians follow a rule in the Bible believing that if God commanded it then there is likely to be a secular justification for it that isn't obvious at the moment. However, those Christians are open to change their mind on this rule if secular justification is given. Those Christians who put the rules of the Bible before secular common sense tend to come out with really extreme and hateful theologies like the Phelpses and their "God hates Fags" antics.
I can back him on the idea that they "can" in some cases, be completely happy living that way. It will in most cases, if not all cases, be under extraordinary circumstances though. (I figured I would get it out of the way before an example came up.)
Strafio - I still believe your idea of morality is flawed. You interpret "what we ought to do", as "what is good for society". Of course there are many people that feel they are the same thing. They are not by definition though, as Big Will has clearly pointed out, by showing that he believes we "ought" to follow the word of God. The fact is, acting for the good of society is justified by its reward to us. That it makes us happy is of no objective importance, so your system of morality also lack objective justification. Ultimately you feel we "ought" to do things because it will make us happier. Whether our happiness is justification for an action is a subjective distinction.
We went over this before, remember? Happiness is contentment, i.e. the satisfaction of the person's most fundamental needs/desires. So yes, happiness is the natural goal of everything that has desire. It's not a case of "we ought to aim for happiness" - it's a hard fact that we do aim for happiness by nature and therefore ought to do what is necessary to achieve it. Because of our human nature, doing what is right socially is an example of what we ought to do. (there are also lots of non-moral things we ought to do as well, like eat.) Hmmm... I guess... Even then, I'd wager that the happiness is a shortlived honey-moon rather than a genuine stable contentment, or at the least would've been happier if they'd have conducted themselves more morally.
I'm more refering to people who don't care about the effects of these actions, for example, a person with sociopathic type tendency's. I know a person like this. I geuss that's really the only reason I brought it up. If 45 years in prison doesn't cause regret and heart ache, nothing will. He thinks of his life as an adventure. It's fun to him...... Like I said though, extraordinary circumstances....
I'm sorry, but that is not what people mean by "ought". If someone wanted to kill someone, you would not say they "ought" to use a gun, even though it may help them fulfill that desire. It does not follow that we do something, therefore we "ought" to do it.
This is going to end up with you two talking about two fundamentally different things again. May I suggest returning to the other thread to continue that discussion rather than drag another thread into the endless cycle? And to completely contradict myself... LJoll you agree with Strafio you just don't realise it because you think he is arguing something he isn't. Strafio is arguing that fundamentally morals come from our desires which obviously they do as simple morality comes from our need to live together as social animals... why do we need to live together? Because we have needs that are better met with groups. You are then arguing about how modern morality is not always based on desires. Which is fair enough modern morality is very complex but ultimately if you break it down it will be based on some sort of desire because at the ultimate level desire is what motivates people to do things. If they had no desire they wouldn't do it. Your argument about 'ought' is also mistaken. If someones goal was to kill someone you would be perfectly correct to say they 'ought' to use a gun. Ought in that sense simply means it would be advisable to do something to get the result your looking for it does not mean that you morally approve of their goal. In the same way if someone wants to be happy then they 'ought' to do what is necessary to achieve it... most people have the sense to know that they need to conform to some sort of morality to be happy (i.e. if you screw everyone you know over you might be happy in the short term but in the long term you'll get a bad reputation). But this debate has been done at least 10 times by each of you so why not just continue on the other thread if your not done yet?
Fair point. Lewis, you'll find my reply in the other topic. In the meantime, I think Ckava hit a several nails on the head with his post. Perhaps my position makes more sense to you with his wording?
