One Christian Thought

The nature of the God of Christianity "Where does Jesus get His Authority? Where do His Followers get Theirs?" was the title of my four-part blog project responding to a philosophy textbook that critiqued the idea that we should look to God for morality. One objection was it is morally undesirable to do good things to earn rewards. I have a story to go with that. I once liked a girl who had younger siblings. I started to be conscience of being nice to them to look attractive. I ended up feeling bad, because when I would try to help them I would have her in mind. So, I reasoned with myself (oh thank God for the power of reason). I had been just as nice to them before. My feelings had overridden my mind.  (Not only is the power of a crush -- infatuation -- unbelievably swaying for a teenager,  my feelings and mind often didn't, and still don't, match up with each other anyway. I think it had something to do with starting to learn about all this as a teenager, being thro...

This paper, which is less than two full pages, is on Natural Law Theor y. It points out the "is-ought" fallacy, which a Christian can use when arguing just because the world is a certain way (for example, people are nice to each other) doesn't mean it's right. It is circular to say, "We do the right things, and we know they are the right things because we know what we are doing is right." This paper is about multiple different theories which have something to say about whether or not telling others about Jesus is right. It includes my defense and argument for the resurrection (nothing new from the original posts on the subjects), along with a lot of citations from the Bible. It is called, " Is it Right to Tell Others About Jesus? " If transitions between paragraphs, and even sentences, sound a bit rough it is because I cut out some things out. This is what I said in a discussion on Divine Command Theory (most of it is the same from my blog project...

After arguments against God being the only good source of morality were presented, Fundamentals of Ethics said that every philosophical theory has difficulties and aren't necessarily insurmountable(1). I appreciate that the author would be compassionate enough to point that out, and highly agree. Just because there are other realities in the world that can seem to pose a problem doesn't mean that the side is correct. There were categorized 7 claims that must be met intellectually before someone accepts they have real, objective morals from God.  1. God exists. 2. There is proof of His existence. 3. God gives moral commands. 4. There is proof He does that. 5. There is proof of one particular religious book over all that contradict it. 6. There must be proof of a specific interpretation. 7. Interpretation must overcome tradition if there is a contradiction. However, this isn't a "daunting" list(1). As a matter of fact, I don't even know what the point is with po...

  What about Jesus? 2. Can good and evil be really beyond opinion without God? (Disturbing) Back in part 1 , I already argued that a universe with no God can have no free will. But even granting that we can be autonomous in an atheistic world, perhaps humanity can never make any objectively -- that is, beyond opinion -- right decisions. Towards the end of the book, it is argued that since people discovered laws of the universe, and atheists believe they were not caused by law makers, it would be best to not assume God must cause morality.  The adequacy of non-theistic explanations aside, maybe they aren't assuming. Atheists must "provide an explanation for holding moral laws to a different standard from other objective laws[.]" (1) In my old post on God and evil, cited in the next post, I point out that many atheists (like Dawkins from part 1) have denied right and wrong are objective. Now I must say that I don't argue they are right because they couldn't be wrong...

Reader, I welcome you into a small portion of one category in the world of philosophy. You might have the book that initiated this post, and in that case are probably already aware of what I'm talking about. I hope I can present to you a persuasive, Christian critique of arguments against divine command theory. And if we are not coming from the same place, I hope you can find this information fascinating and good for the heart. What is here for any reader is an intellectual consideration of arguments and points made in  The Fundamentals of Ethics , a philosophy textbook . Right now let it be known that what I have to say very well might be provocative, and even disturbing. But I assure you, I won't yell, or rant, or even have prolonged examples or detail. Still though, I identify in the headings what I think the degree of negativity could be (maybe you are already of some stuff and have adapted, or something). Believe me, no non-theistic claim is supported as actual fact. Why ...

Everything listed on bullet points are either material that cannot be found elsewhere on my blog or are not explained in the essay itself. This  historical thesis essay  is from a while ago. It looks ugly to me, compared to other things, and any arguments worthwhile in it I will advance elsewhere sometime. But it has some good points.  Skeptical scholars are usually not labeled as such, so these are them: Norman Perrin, John Crossan, Rudolf Bultmann, Bart Ehrman, Jacob Kremer, Gerd Ludemann, Paula Fredriksen, and Reginald Fuller. The empty tomb passes two pieces of criteria for historical authenticity: contextual credibility and multiple attestation. Robert Jastrow explains that naturalistic presuppositions are not reasonable. My argumentative essay  is aesthetically pleasing, at least to me.  Jesus's crucifixion is reported by two non-Christian great historians. Jesus definitely died on the cross -- He did not survive. Luke, the historian appealing to Gentiles,...

Back on the twenty-second of this month, when I wrote " Is Religion a Curse? My Personal Thoughts on the Moral Implications of Jesus-God and No-God ," I suggested that I would title what is now this blog post "David Barash Makes Me Mad: Here Me Roar." My plan was for it to be satirical, because I don't believe people really do make others mad, they just do things which people choose to get mad at. But as you will know if you have been following my blog, I argue that evolution takes away free will, so technically, David Barash would have been made by his physical composition to do something which apparently causes my physical composition to make me feel angry, if his worldview is true. Or however determinism is supposed to work. I changed my mind because I think pointing out someone in a way which seems to belittle and condescend, even though you have to read that into the title (as reasonable as it is) and this is the intellectual business where if you attemp...