Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Religion and Morality - Poles apart.
Options
Comments
-
Now, there is no actual alternative to God. Yes, there are theories and guesses about what it could possibly be. To turn these unknowns into definates based on closing ones mind to the idea of a creator, is merely 'naturalism of the gaps'. You are just assuming that there is a naturalistic answer that you haven't quite found yet.
So, rejecting the idea of putting God into the gaps is automatically 'naturalism of the gaps'?
Alright I think I can agree with you there. (huzzah!
)
Although in defense of the naturalism position at least it actively tries to seek out evidence on its behalf.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I hadn't realised that. So its conclusive that life forms from inanimate substance without a push? That the big ball of dust that went bang formed from what exactly? etc etc?
It is conclusive that life can for from inanimate substance without a supernatural "push"
It is conclusive that "the big ball of dust that went bang" (
) can form from very complicated things in M-theory call branes which tend to collide with each other in extra-dimensional space.
We don't know that either of these things are what did cause life/universe to come into existence, but we know they can cause them to come into existence. The models work.0 -
It is conclusive that life can for from inanimate substance without a supernatural "push"
So they've reproduced this? Or is this the amino acids thing?It is conclusive that "the big ball of dust that went bang" () can form from very complicated things in M-theory call branes which tend to collide with each other in extra-dimensional space.
And these branes came from?We don't know that either of these things are what did cause life/universe to come into existence, but we know they can cause them to come into existence. The models work.
So you are sure that these models can produce universes and life? Or is this on paper we are talking? How much life and universes have these models produced?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
So they've reproduced this? Or is this the amino acids thing?
And these branes came from?
So you are sure that these models can produce universes and life? Or is this on paper we are talking? How much life and universes have these models produced?
Groan
Is this going to turn into another one of those "Has anyone ever actually see pond slime evolve into a human being" discussion that the Creationist thread is famous for.
There are both lab experiments and computer models that show self-replicating molecules both forming and evolving. The computer models naturally take this quite far as they can run faster than real time, the lab experiments not so much.
We also have computer models of more complicating self replicating molecules forming things like cells with walls.
So we have computer models that show self replicating molecules kicking off replication and we have computer models showing them evolving into more complicated cell like structures.
We don't know if this is how life got started on Earth, but we do know that this is how life can get started in this universe following this universes laws of physics.
How you define "life" will effect how impressed you are by this. If you think life is a man sitting in a chair reading the New York times, no we don't have computer models that have evolved a self replicating molecule into that.
The important bit is that there is no step that cannot take place simply through the natural laws of chemistry. If you want to argue that the laws of chemistry must have come from "someone" go ahead, but that is an argument without any air.
As for the branes they didn't "come" from anywhere, in the models I've read about they exist eternally, the big bang is them crashing into each other, retreating and then some 130 billion years later, collapsing and crashing into each other again.
Again we don't know if this is how our universe works, but it is how our universe could work.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
"Wanted to stay with their masters"No, Exodus 21:5 does show that some people wanted to stay with their masters and were happy with the conditions they were treated under.
Because the master had their WIFE AND CHILDREN!!!
Alien means foreigner, not slave.Indicating that some masters would have taken into account their responsibility to treat the alien as their fellow Israelite as commanded of them in the next chapter, Leviticus 19, and Deuteronomy 10
But lets look again at what Exodus says about slaves and property
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
If a master beats his slave, male or female, with a rod and he does not die he will not be punished because the slave is his property. He can beat a slave all he likes, so long as he doesn't kill him.
Which would make Exodus 21 pointless, which stongly suggests that your interpretation of the other verse is way way off (ie thinking "alien" or "foreigner" applies to captured slaves rather than to traveling traders)If people took into account all the Torah laws (moral and civil) that were binding upon them, then measures such as murdering ones slave described in Exodus 21 wouldn't have to be punished with by the Sanhedrin at all.It's not a ridiculous assertion when the Torah itself makes it clear that these people had clear rights.
Black slaves in America had "clear rights". That wasn't the problem, the problem was that their "rights" were an absolute joke (the right not to be lynched unless they had done something that deserved lynching, which was pretty much anything)
To talk about these laws protecting the "rights" of slaves when they describe the "correct" way to beat and rape them, is not only ridiculous it is horrific.I believe you are the one arguing that Torah slavery is wrong, not I. Therefore you should be the one who provides the textual evidence that Torah slavery is wrong.
Have you not read Exodus?Lust is a rather different thing than having willing labour (bear in mind that they had the right to flee at any stage should they have been abused as in Deuteronomy 23 another passage you have full well ignored.)
The "right" to flee. Is that a joke?
They have a right NOT TO BE SLAVES Jakkass. The idea that these passages are protecting their rights by allowing them to run away if they wish is utterly ridiculous.
Would you have argued that 150 years ago that slavery in the USA would have been ok so long as the slaves had the right not to go back to their plantations if they managed to escape?
You also ignore that "willing labour" applied to male Israelites. Female Israelites were sold by their parents and were not freed after 7 years, neither were foreign slaves bought from foreign lands, or captured prisoners of war.Pornography, prostitution amongst other things is wrong because it discourages from being in a stable marriage and encourages promiscuity and in many cases adultery.
And you said "lust" is wrong because it objectifies other people. And yet you are arguing here that the Old Testament form of slavery, where men women and children are considered the property of other people, is perfectly fine.
This is the nonsense of Christian "morality".0 -
Advertisement
-
"Wanted to stay with their masters"
Because the master had their WIFE AND CHILDREN!!!
That isn't what the text says however:Exodus 21:5 wrote:But if the slave declares, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person’,
Note that master, wife and children are all separate factors in the sentence. However then again, this is the civil law in comparison to moral law again. The master isn't obliged to let the slave leave with his wife and children under the civil law, but it would be in the moral interest of the master to in the course of loving his neighbour as himself, or treating the foreigner as a fellow Israelite.Alien means foreigner, not slave.
Wicknight this doesn't cut it, just actually read the passages concerning mistreatment of the alien and see the reasoning that is given by the author concerning this:Exodus 23:9 wrote:You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.Leviticus 19:34 wrote:The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.Deuteronomy 10:19 wrote:You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
In the last chapter cited it even says the following of God in his relationship with the stranger and the outcast just to get into a bit more of the context concerning the passage:Deuteronomy 10:17-18 wrote:For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who is not partial and takes no bribe, who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them with food and clothing.
Interesting now in all of these passages that mention to love the alien, the reasoning behind it is because of Israel's experience as slaves in Egypt. You claim that aliens are marked as different to slaves. This is ridiculous if we consider the reasoning behind why this was was because of the slavery in Egypt. How could Israel impose the same conditions on slaves as they had been put under in Egypt without looking like hypocrites?
Well my conclusion is they didn't put them under the same conditions, but rather significantly improved the rights of slaves. The civil Torah allows for redress in cases of abuse, rest on the Shabbat, the freedom to go out as other people do. The freedom to find refuge in the case that they are being abused. This sounds significantly different to slavery that I know.
This is the Jewish context, in the Christian context in the Apostolic writings concerning slaves it is solidified even further:Galatians 3:28 wrote:There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
The insistence that slaves must be the equal to others in the community is central to Christian morality, and that women and foreigners must be equal is also central to it.Colossians 4:1 wrote:Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven.Ephesians 6:9 wrote:And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.
Interestingly the subject of partiality seems to link the Christian context of Ephesians 6:9, to the Jewish context of Deuteronomy 10:17-18.But lets look again at what Exodus says about slaves and property
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
If a master beats his slave, male or female, with a rod and he does not die he will not be punished because the slave is his property. He can beat a slave all he likes, so long as he doesn't kill him.
I've already explained the distinction between judicial and moral in my last few posts:
Moral: Do not oppress the foreigner. Treat your neighbour as yourself. Treat the foreigner as your fellow Israelite as you were once enslaved in Egypt.
Judicial: If in the case that a slave dies, the case must be tried by the Sanhedrin.
Your outrage seems to come from the notion that the slave master won't be punished for injuring the slave, which is a fair objection. I personally would fear God's punishment much more than that of the Sanhedrin.
As is quoted from in Romans 12:19Romans 12:19 wrote:Beloved never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, 'Venegeance is mine, I will repay says the Lord.'Deuteronomy 32:35 wrote:Venegeance is mine, and recompense for the time when there foot shall slip; because the day of their calamity is at hand, there doom comes swiftly
If we look back to Deuteronomy 10:17-18 it makes clear that God will also execute justice and has done in the past.Which would make Exodus 21 pointless, which stongly suggests that your interpretation of the other verse is way way off (ie thinking "alien" or "foreigner" applies to captured slaves rather than to traveling traders)
This is nonsense as the justification for treating the foreigner as an Israelite is due to the slave experience in Egypt. The reason not to oppress comes from this understanding. Hence the commandments concerning aliens are binding on all aliens, and the commandment concerning treating ones neighbour as oneself is well binding on all Israelites in the Torah, and all people in Luke 10 in the Christian context. You argue because they are slaves they are no longer either: 1) Israelites, or 2) Gentiles which is absurd and you would need to substantiate this understanding for it to have any weight.Black slaves in America had "clear rights". That wasn't the problem, the problem was that their "rights" were an absolute joke (the right not to be lynched unless they had done something that deserved lynching, which was pretty much anything)
I asked you to cite this as to clear it up in a previous post. Where are you getting this from?To talk about these laws protecting the "rights" of slaves when they describe the "correct" way to beat and rape them, is not only ridiculous it is horrific.
Where is there anything concerning rape?Have you not read Exodus?
I wouldn't be posting this if I hadn't. I've read the Torah about 3 times through, reading certain sections more than that.The "right" to flee. Is that a joke?
Evidently not, it concerns a right to redress that was granted in the case that slaveholders abused their power. Authorities were told not to abuse fleeing slaves but rather to give them sanctuary.They have a right NOT TO BE SLAVES Jakkass. The idea that these passages are protecting their rights by allowing them to run away if they wish is utterly ridiculous.
Indeed they did, and in most cases they actually elected to, in cases where people couldn't provide for their families they were taken in to do work and to be supported. In other cases such as penalties for stealing which required to pay twofold in return, or to pay fivefold in the case of stealing an ox or other essential farm animals (Exodus 22:1) to make up for their crime.Would you have argued that 150 years ago that slavery in the USA would have been ok so long as the slaves had the right not to go back to their plantations if they managed to escape?
I wouldn't no, as this is only one of the rights that I have discussed that I was discussing. Again, taking an isolated verse to claim that I made an argument I didn't make. I never said it was purely on the case that they were allowed to flee.You also ignore that "willing labour" applied to male Israelites. Female Israelites were sold by their parents and were not freed after 7 years, neither were foreign slaves bought from foreign lands, or captured prisoners of war.
I don't ignore this they have the redress to find sanctuary if they are oppressed. As for female Israelites being sold into slavery, I thought this was due to financial cause or fears for their safety rather than anything else.And you said "lust" is wrong because it objectifies other people. And yet you are arguing here that the Old Testament form of slavery, where men women and children are considered the property of other people, is perfectly fine.
They are considered as people by God consistently, and masters are urged to treat their slaves as people also. So I'm yet to see the direct comparison with someone who only sees someone else as a sexual object, as in the case of a prostitute.This is the nonsense of Christian "morality".
Dealing with the judicial Torah specifically would actually be Jewish morality. Judicial Torah isn't binding on Christians the law of the state is as in Romans 13 as I explained earlier. Christians are under the moral laws of Torah, not the ceremonial or judicial as they have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ.
This discussion on the judicial laws of the State of Israel emerged with Dave trying to associate the laws on slavery to a modern Christian context, when no Christian attempts to suggest that the judicial law of Israel is even binding on them. I did feel the need to clear the issue up though.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement