Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
This is not an argument against moral absolutism, but is simply a commentary on the evil deeds of men.
Until you can provide proof that you know who has a lock on moral absolutism, it most certainly is. I'm sure the Pope's jesuit lawyers can make a more pursuasive case for the Pope than you can for your local minister.
' The popes were wicked and that had nothing to do with Jesus Christ or moral absolutes. In fact, moral absolutes were violated by the leaders of the Inquisition and Crusades. That is the difference between these examples in Christianity and Islam. The islamic terrorists' actions DO COINCIDED with the example of their founder, while the evil popes' actions do not coincide with the example of Jesus Christ. Again, I ask you for any logical argument against moral absolutism. I have come up with more than one good argument against utilitarianism that you cannot answer, but you have not come up with one against absolutism.
I have answered your feeble argument, and made a reasonably compelling case by counterexample several times now. Being oblivious is not an example of a logic refutation, hard as that may be for you to believe. Kindly submit your proof that the Popes are not God's spokesmen for moral absolutism on this planet. Kindly explain why you do not own slaves, and treat them as you are commanded by God to treat them in the bible. You're remarkably full of yourself for someone who can't lower himself to defend his position whenever some uncomfortable specifics are brought to the table.
No, I don't. Because when it comes to the morality of it, there isn't any.
Which one was practiced in ancient israel? Also, tell me, when Paul told slaves in the Roman empire to love their masters and masters to love their slaves, what do you think is the end result of that? Instead of Paul demanding that slavery end, he did better! - he demanded in the name of Christ that they love each other. Finally, who was it that ended chattel slavery in the west? Christians! Ever heard of William Wilberforce? How about the Christian abolitionists in the United States? I'm waiting for that verse, and I must caution you about context, as you do not strike me as one who understands the science of biblical hermeneutics.
I'll take this as a clear warning that you intend to kick around squirelly definitions & irrelevant history like a jesuit what the plain language of the bible on this subject comes to light.
One of the lesser uses of logic--lying thought your teeth right in front of the jury. Do you also have a canned lecture for us about what the meaning of "is" is?
Oh, really. And if you say "the sun shines black" do I have to disprove that too before you will bother to read anything on the subjects you wish to expound on?
There is no possible genetic determination of fossil species for one very good reason:
WE DO NOT HAVE DNA FROM THESE FOSSIL SPECIES Stop playing ring around the rosie. We have gone over this numerous times already.
Yes, and we will continue to do so until you learn how biological science actually works. It is not an impediment to science that it has to infer history from presently available facts. What was once a species, is now often a family or phylum, examples of which are extant. That is a lynchpin point of Woese's work. & further, that is why it is important to understand how homology and morphology ring back and forth against each other to establish details of the early branches of the tree of life. Since you obviously found it boring to even try to do the homework I offered, I suggest we move on to something else.
So, in other words, you detect quanta by inference, not by direct observation, just as is the case with dinosaurs.
No! My, you persistently evade the point. Perception of light requires about 100 quanta. Rods have been activated by single quanta.
The rods and cones of the human eye.
Rod DetailsThe rods are more numerous of the photoreceptors, some 120 million, and are the more sensitive than the cones. However, they are not sensitive to color. They are responsible for our dark-adapted, or scotopic, vision. The rods are incredibly efficient photoreceptors. More than one thousand times as sensitive as the cones, they can reportedly be triggered by individual photons under optimal conditions. The optimum dark-adapted vision is obtained only after a considerable period of darkness, say 30 minutes or longer, because the rod adaption process is much slower than that of the cones. |
Everyone seems to have an opinion today about who's evading points. If I gave you a mechanical counter, could you click it each time you were made consciously aware of a photon stimulating one of your rods? Are you contending that stimulus you are not able to consciously discern is in some manner less of an inductive stretch than hooking up an oscilloscope? (or digging up a bone?)
That is my last post to you on the subject.
I assume this means you acknowledge that if I handed you a quanta counter, you'd have not the foggiest notion when to click it to indicate a quanta impinged on your rods.
One can dig up a bone. It is a bone or fossil that is direct. It may weigh 50 KG. It may be "white". Those are direct "measurements". Saying that it is the ancestor of your poodle is not a direct measurement. However you wish to characterize your sensations is of no interest to me. However, normally people consider evidence of the senses as direct. It may be erroneous, but it is nonetheless direct.
Is that a donh moral standard? Actually, since you don't know the difference, then you can't know much about biblical slavery or the biblical reference to it, no offense intended.
I'll take this as a clear warning that you intend to kick around squirelly definitions & irrelevant history like a jesuit what the plain language of the bible on this subject comes to light.
Again, since you do not even know the difference between chattel slavery and bond servant slavery, you are hardly in a position to debate this topic. You are running on 95 octane bias.
One of the lesser uses of logic--lying thought your teeth right in front of the jury. Do you also have a canned lecture for us about what the meaning of "is" is?
You opened this can of worms so the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your assertion from the bible. Don't try to turn this on me - you were the one acting so triumphant in assuming that I was unable to asnwer you, and now I am calling your bluff. Give me the verse from the bible that condones slavery. I hope you don't think I'm rude if I ask you to put the verse where your mouth is.
God has a lock on it and these moral absolutes are discerned in two ways: through the human conscience (God's laws are written on the human heart) and through scripture. You said Hitler was wrong, but I am still waiting for you to tell me how he could be wrong in your utilitarian world. Either way, if the pope called himself a follower of Christ, then from his perspective, he would have to defer the bible, or fall back on his own corrupt moral system still claiming it was from Christ.
I have answered your feeble argument, and made a reasonably compelling case by counterexample several times now. Being oblivious is not an example of a logic refutation, hard as that may be for you to believe. Kindly submit your proof that the Popes are not God's spokesmen for moral absolutism on this planet. Kindly explain why you do not own slaves, and treat them as you are commanded by God to treat them in the bible. You're remarkably full of yourself for someone who can't lower himself to defend his position whenever some uncomfortable specifics are brought to the table.
Actually, lets' be clear - the slavery argument is YOUR FEEBLE ARGUMENT. You brought it up. So, spare me the red herring about the pope and give me the proof FROM THE BIBLE that slavery is condoned. Burden of proof is on you since you made the FEEBLE assertion. Well?
People like you are not interested in the truth behind scripture, you are interested only in teraring it down because you are threatened by it. But better men than you have tried – way better – and all have failed. The bible stands the test of time. Here is some background for you on the Exodus passages from commentary on it:
"The first words of God from Sinai had declared that He was Jehovah Who brought them out of slavery. And in this remarkable code, the first person whose rights are dealt with is the slave." (Chadwick)
b. There were four basic ways a Hebrew might become a slave to another Hebrew: in extreme poverty, they might sell their liberty (Leviticus 25:39); a father might sell his children into servitude (Exodus 21:7); in the case of bankruptcy, a man might become servant to his creditors (2 Kings 4:1); if a thief had nothing with which to pay proper restitution (Exodus 22:3-4)
c. In such cases, the servitude was never obligated to be life-long; the Hebrew servant would work for six years and then be set free. At the end of the six years, he only goes out with what he came in with - if the master had provided a wife (and therefore children), the wife and children had to stay with the master or be redeemed
3. (5-6) The bond-slave: a willing slave for life a. If, after the six years of servitude, a servant wished to make a life-long commitment to his master - in light of the master's goodness and his blessings for the servant - he could, through this ceremony, make a life-long commitment to his master
i. This was a commitment not motivated by debt or obligation, only love for the master
In order for you to understand these passages, you have to understand the jewish culture of the time and God’s relationship with them – which you obviously don’t. The type of “slavery” practiced by the Hebrews was not really slavery at all – it was bond servanthood. Thus, the bible is not condoning slavery, God is making rules for bondservants and masters.
Personally I don't care what you think about indentured servant. Talk to me about slavery. And about how non-Hebrew slaves were aquired and treated.
I have made my argument from the words of the Bible itself. Do the same for me or drop the discussion.
Context context context. It's everything. You don't understand it and I don't want to be your teacher, so suffice to say that the bible must be interpreted in the exact sense as the writer intended. In order to do that, one must understand not only who is speaking, and the relationship of that person with the object, but also the cultural factors. You understand none of these. You are interpreting the passage in a "wooden" literal sense and that is incorrect because you are not taking anything into account other than your 95 octane bias. So, unless you can speak to me about the passages in the context IN WHICH THEY WERE INTENDED, we have nothing to talk about. I happen to agree with the commentary that I posted and believe it is the correct interpreation of the passage. You also ignore the fact mentioned in the commentary that hebrews did not practice traditional slavery - it was bondservanthood.
Personally I don't care what you think about indentured servant. Talk to me about slavery. And about how non-Hebrew slaves were aquired and treated.
The slaves spoken of in these passages were not chattel slaves, so I don't care what you think about a type of slavery that didn't exist in Israel in those days. Haven't you learned your lesson from previous posts that it is not a good idea to argue about a historical topic that YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT?
Insults do not help you. The fact is that you cannot genetically examine genetic material which does not exist. The only evidence evolutionists have of these millions of years old creatures is the bones and little else. So you cannot look at any genetic evidence. All you have to look at in 99.99% of the cases is bones - and 99% of the time just a very small portion of the total skeleton of the animal in question. So don't tell me they are working on this through genetics. All they have is appearances and appearances are not enough.
Oh, really. And if you say "the sun shines black" do I have to disprove that too before you will bother to read anything on the subjects you wish to expound on?
If species did not stop mutating - as I have already explained to you - then the clock has been running the same amount of time for all species so the 'clock" can tell us nothing about who came first, what features arose first, or even if the present features of species which we suspect existed long before others, are the same or completely different now than then. Therefore the whole clock idea is just plain bunk and another attempt by evolutionists to manufacture evidence because they don't have any.
As a matter of fact, we do not 'see' light. What we see is the light's reflection on objects. The light waves themselves we do not see at all. That is why you can be in a direct path in space between the sun's light waves and the lighted earth and still not see the light.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.