Posted on 10/03/2013 12:54:16 PM PDT by kimtom
Human nature comes from untold years of every human or pre-human who didn’t have our nature getting wiped out before they could reproduce on account of having a weaker survival advantage.
At any given time there’s certainly an ideal moral law, but people may not agree on what it is. Is smoking pot immoral? Is banning pot immoral? Morality has often been broken down into broad, simple rules that are universal, but the details will always change. Drunk driving is immoral, but it didn’t exist before cars were invented.
BTW, by slavery I mean - forced servitude where the slave would be considered the property of the owner.
Galatians 3:26So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
This is one of the seminal passages that describes the work of Christ in separating out from the nations a people called by his name. Yes there are passages in the NT telling Chrisitians who are slaves to accept their Earthly lot just as there is a passage telling a Christian slave owner just how he was to treat a returning slave who also was a Christian(”as a brother”).
Yet the progressive drive of the Spirit of Grace thru-out time was the creating of a people in which there would be no slavery,no worldly difference in tribes, castes, or royalty only the unity between men thru Jesus Christ. Galatians chapter 3 lays out the work of the Mosaic law in convincing men of their absolute failure before God in not living as they ought, yet also points out the law as being the incubator of the way of Christ.
That Christianity has been falsely framed in support of slavery is the work of devils. The work of the Spirit has actually been instrumental in many slaves being freed by their newly enlightened masters thru-out history....in overtly public ways or in ways that never made the history books.
Nothing wrong with using him as an example of how a man can go wrong. But likening all believers in evolution to Hitler is not only fallacious, it dilutes the real evil that Hitler perpetrated.
re: “the strongest and the fittest are the ones who have the moral imperative to survive and the weak, well, if they get in the way of the “strongest and the fittest”, well then, why not simply remove the “useless eaters”. They are a drag on the state and the healthy.”
Borges: “That has nothing to do with Darwin.”
How so? Does survival of the fittest not relate to human beings? Aren’t human beings simply another form of animal according to Darwinist naturalism?
Darwin says the weakest will NATURALLY get weeded out over time. And the way you really find out they’re the weakest is because they get weeded out. Once you start on the path of eugenics you’re no longer allowing a natural process, you’re weeding out what you THINK are the weakest but you could be wrong.
*sigh*
People are always looking for a simplistic "killer argument" that will completely discredit those who have opposing views, rather than a more modest argument that gives them a real and deserved advantage, so they overshoot the mark and end up being ridiculous and offensive.
The term ‘Survival of the Fittest’ was coined by the British philosopher Herbert Spencer before Darwin published his own views on the matter. Darwin’s thesis that species who are not equipped to survive in a given climate will eventually die out and those who survive will necessarily be the best equipped...is the simple truth.
Yet slavery isn’t forbidden in the Bible, not considered immoral.
Christianity came into being in the Roman empire and often the relationships between slaves and owners were much more subtle and complicated. A Christian who is also a slave has to consider that the effects of his leaving a house-hold in terms of how he was to be a servant to Jesus Christ; a wise spirit filled slave might just win the whole house hold to Christ.
A slave owner who became a Christian couldn’t just “free all his slaves” while leaving them no means to survive in a hostile Roman world.
There is no passage of scripture that states that Christianity supports slavery as an institution nor supports the founding of such an institution...it merely acknowledges the existence of slavery and sets down some simple rules and advice as to how how Christian slaves and their Christian masters were to behave towards one another.
The Mosaic code was very precise about how the Hebrews were to treat slaves, especially ones who volunteered to be slaves....say for payment of debts or for extreme poverty. Their indentures were to last a maximum of 7 years( the period could be less if the master agreed) and if at the end of 7 years if the slave wanted to remain a slave and if the master agreed, then the slave had his ear pierced with an awl and he was a slave for life. The master in turn had to make sure his slaves were well treated and his life slaves had to be cared for in their old age.
The passage from Galatians 3: 26 thru the end of the chapter tells one what God really thinks of one’s spiritual unity...there are no differences, no slave class, no free class, no special jewish class, no special gentile class, ect. The only slavery the Bible may advocate is slavery to the love that is in Christ Jesus!
re: “Darwin says the weakest will NATURALLY get weeded out over time. And the way you really find out they’re the weakest is because they get weeded out. Once you start on the path of eugenics you’re no longer allowing a natural process, you’re weeding out what you THINK are the weakest but you could be wrong.”
I agree, but what moral basis does a naturalistic Darwinist appeal to, to say it’s “wrong” to interfere with a supposed “natural process”? The eugenics advocate will argue that he/she is simply “helping” the natural process along.
Again, I want to state that I do not believe that adherence to Darwinism means that one will become a Nazi or a eugenics nutjob. I’m just saying that there is no “moral” reason within Darwinism to argue against it. Why? Because morality is very difficult to pin down in Darwinian naturalism.
re: “The term ‘Survival of the Fittest’ was coined by the British philosopher Herbert Spencer before Darwin published his own views on the matter. Darwin’s thesis that species who are not equipped to survive in a given climate will eventually die out and those who survive will necessarily be the best equipped...is the simple truth.”
I agree, but again, there is no moral basis for Darwinian naturalism to argue against eugenics advocates to “help” that process along. Eugenics obviously goes way beyond “climate survival” issues. You want to argue the point scientifically, which I understand, but what the eugenics advocates and “social Darwinists” do is also “scientific” in their mind, but this goes beyond science to morality.
You know as well as I that morality is a fuzzy subject within the naturalistic Darwinian community. Whether or not it is “wrong” to utilize eugenics on human beings based on the Darwinian view that human beings are simply another form of animal/organism that evolved from inorganic matter is a moral issue. Darwin, I’m sure, never in his wildest nightmares ever thought something like Nazi eugenics would be practiced in his name or Marxists using his views to extrapolate into the political realm either.
But, ideas have consequences. The idea that all that is was the result of a purposeless, random process - that human beings are no more special than any other organism that exists, that they have no more inherent value than any other organism, but are simply the evolutionary product of chance and mutation - this puts human value, purpose, morality all on very unstable ground. Nietzsche at least had the courage to face a purposeless universe and realize that every moral belief is a fraud and transient. He saw that Darwinian naturalism “killed” God and all morality. Many atheists and agnostics do not want to be as brave as Nietzsche. They want the cake and eat it too. They don’t want to admit that once God is removed, all transcendent morality is gone.
This doesn’t mean that atheists cannot be moral - many are and put some so-called “Christians” to shame. But, the problem is there is no compelling reason why one atheist’s morality is “right” and another atheist’s morality (or immorality) is “wrong”. Right and Wrong are in the perception of the beholder.
The Nazi’s and others merely acted on these Darwinian views of the universe and took them to a logical conclusion that many of us don’t like. We are repulsed by it.
But, again, ideas do have consequences, sometimes unintended consequences.
You'd better stop them scientists from researchin'
'Cause they done gone too far.
They got these boys flyin' faster than sound,
They got the whole world in a war.
Man, that atomic energy sure scares me,
'Cause if it can do what they claim,
You'd better start thinking about savin' your soul
Or Sam Johnson ain't my name!
Part of the Rainbow covenant God made with Noah, before anything was written down in a book...just written down years later when anyone thought to do so from the oral traditions amplified by the revelation of God’s law to Moses!
Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.
That’s the earliest command against murder, set down by direct edict by God himself, and he also sets down the moral “why” we don’t murder, which darwinists and those who try to derive social policy from evolutionary theory have no answer for...that is “for in the image of God has God made mankind”!
If there is no God, there are no overarching realities that would give the yea or nay to our destructive impulses. Or, as Paul states, “If there be no resurrection of the dead, let us eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die!”
Right.
I guess if your world view states that the world began with the god of the Jewish tradition, then yeah. Unfortunately, many other societies and traditions and oral histories predate the Moses fables - societies that fully understood that killing fellow humans was a bad thing.
But anyway, playing within your construct, how do you reconcile the rivers of blood and rampant genocide in the Old Testament? The stuff that god commands? How many millions did he murder or command to be murdered in “his” vain attempt to gain terrified worshippers?
And again, I ask you, if you weren’t born into a christian society and very most likely raised christian, would you be a murderer? Earlier, kimtom waffled on that question.
It seems like a pretty straightforward question. Is your religion the only thing holding you back from a murderous rampage?
‘I had gradually come, by this time [i.e. January 1839, when he was 29—Ed.], to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos [sic], or the beliefs of any barbarian.’4
‘[T]he more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these … I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.’4
There is definitely enough water on earth to cover it.
"Young Earth" creationists may have a pat answer for everything, but it isn't all that convincing.
One scientist estimated that for a 40-day rainstorm to raise sea levels high enough to cover Mt. Ararat, the rain would have to come down at about 15 feet an hour, which would be like being under a waterfall. Wonder how the Ark survived?
Also, where did Noah put the aquariums, and how did he maintain them? The flood water would have been saline, which would have killed all freshwater species, so there would have had to have been a lot of aquariums on the Ark.
your assumptions are all wrong,
since you’re not serious I’ll not waste the time.
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.