Open Discussion With Lnc

[Abiyoyo]

If that were truly the case then I would ask the prison guard to give me the green one since he had both the pills :wink:

What if the prison guard refuses to answer the question?

 

Then I guess were screwed!

[shantonu]

Be nice to Israelites...but pagans? Round'em up, slave'em away and will them off to your kids. No problems.

 

mwc

 

I see your points and also am familiar with these verses. I was just pointing out a simple notion that the basic establishment for slavery in the Bible was extremely different than that of former American slavery; which most Americans thoughts toward slavery are directed.

 

African- American slavery in the United States was the capturing of Africans, which lead to racial slavery, not indentured servants.

 

Wouldn't a transcendent God have simply said, "Slavery is wrong, cut it out"?

[Abiyoyo]

Be nice to Israelites...but pagans? Round'em up, slave'em away and will them off to your kids. No problems.

 

mwc

 

I see your points and also am familiar with these verses. I was just pointing out a simple notion that the basic establishment for slavery in the Bible was extremely different than that of former American slavery; which most Americans thoughts toward slavery are directed.

 

African- American slavery in the United States was the capturing of Africans, which lead to racial slavery, not indentured servants.

 

Wouldn't a transcendent God have simply said, "Slavery is wrong, cut it out"?

 

Racial slavery made slavery wrong to most people in the United States, and ultimately abolished it completely in the U.S. Freedom is our stamp. Right? You can't enslave people in a free world.

[agnosticator]

You haven't proven that your version of god and your definitions of "good and evil" are objective. You also haven't proven that "god's nature" can be defined as "good", and that he acts according to his nature.

However, humans have been shown to act according to their nature, both good and bad (evil is a religious term), and that they exist as the basis and origin of morality. Remember, without humans, there is no morality, nor standard to even consider morality.

 

To make this simpler, assume that the 6th Commandment is an objectively correct standard of right action. Assume that the 6th Commandment reads, "Do not murder." Yet God also commanded certain people to do murder--for what else could killing children be?

 

Thus God ordered actions that by God's own terms were immoral. The whole edifice starts to crack under these pressures. Do you agree?

 

Before I comment, let me explain where I'm coming from when I talk about the basis or grounding of ethics/morality. According to philosophers, there is the logical fallacy or is/ought gap that creates a problem for the basis of ethics and morality. They hold that there is no basis for morality because we cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". But this can only apply to ethical discussions-not reality.

 

The most obvious reality of the situation is: humans exist, and without them there is no morality (the "IS" ). Period. Plus, we MUST start with sentient beings in order to have a framework for morality at the most basic level: We eat and sleep to live, so these needs OUGHT to be met, or we die. What value is there to dead bodies? None, so it would be good to allow people to eat and sleep. To end a life would also deprive beings of their primary need: TO LIVE. This is where your example of babies being killed comes in, and I agree with what you state that it is murder. This is a very simple example. Beyond things like this it becomes subjective, etc. and we move away from the basis.

 

As for god, it is really irrelevant to discuss the unknowable, and compare god to humans, because he can't die and has no need of morals. God's actions are bad in our eyes, and that's what counts. But in order to discuss god's actions, we have to know what he is, which is impossible.

[mwc]

I see your points and also am familiar with these verses. I was just pointing out a simple notion that the basic establishment for slavery in the Bible was extremely different than that of former American slavery; which most Americans thoughts toward slavery are directed.

 

African- American slavery in the United States was the capturing of Africans, which lead to racial slavery, not indentured servants.

Before I really say anything on this then I'm going to have to ask you to explain the difference of the two systems to me. I fail to see how slavery is not slavery but you insist that slavery is indentured servitude. Then you insist that there is a racial slavery which is different from other kinds of slavery. Please explain this to me so that we can be on the same page.

 

mwc

[shantonu]

Before I comment, let me explain where I'm coming from when I talk about the basis or grounding of ethics/morality. According to philosophers, there is the logical fallacy or is/ought gap that creates a problem for the basis of ethics and morality. They hold that there is no basis for morality because we cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". But this can only apply to ethical discussions-not reality.

 

The most obvious reality of the situation is: humans exist, and without them there is no morality (the "IS" ). Period. Plus, we MUST start with sentient beings in order to have a framework for morality at the most basic level: We eat and sleep to live, so these needs OUGHT to be met, or we die. What value is there to dead bodies? None, so it would be good to allow people to eat and sleep. To end a life would also deprive beings of their primary need: TO LIVE. This is where your example of babies being killed comes in, and I agree with what you state that it is murder. This is a very simple example. Beyond things like this it becomes subjective, etc. and we move away from the basis.

 

As for god, it is really irrelevant to discuss the unknowable, and compare god to humans, because he can't die and has no need of morals. God's actions are bad in our eyes, and that's what counts. But in order to discuss god's actions, we have to know what he is, which is impossible.

 

I'm not too sure I followed that. Certainly we can talk about morality and ethics. We all know that there are good people and not so good people. We've determined certain basic principles that inform our criminal and humanitarian laws.

 

I don't see what the difficulty is. We have a communal sense of right and wrong. That sense probably owes a lot to religion, biological needs, feelings of revulsion, state soverignty, the needs the capitalist economy and other comunitarian ideals, as well as a million other things. The Geneva Convention expresses our common understanding that while war is a bad thing, there are such acts in war that so bad as to be criminal. We punish rape of a child differently than we punish rape of adult because of a million different reasons. We can discuss morality in those terms.

 

I don't see where God comes in to play all that much. I don't understand the is/ought dichotomy to prevent discussion about morality. After all, we have hard evidence of practical moral development don't we? Surely we can see that, in all liklihood, it's wrong to eat meat under the circumstances of modern industrial production. I eat meat quite often. I feel bad about it. Can't we imagine that in 100 years most people will feel that eating meat is as wrong child labor?

[Abiyoyo]

Then you insist that there is a racial slavery which is different from other kinds of slavery. Please explain this to me so that we can be on the same page.

mwc

 

Indentured servants were servants in debt, homeless, etc trading work for life for a certain amount of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

 

Racial slavery is more of a phrase used to describe what American slavery turned into, and marks the period of African captures for slavery.

 

http://www.potomacbooksinc.com/Books/BookD...productID=63330

[Kuroikaze]

So, it is not I who has copped out, but those of you who are leveling the complaints without standing. I have said all along that if you can show me that you have a solid basis from which to level these complaints, I will be happy to discuss them with you, but if you can't, then the best I can say is "I don't like parmesean."

 

 

Why bother. I believe that I have sufficient rational reasons for moral behavior out side of any theistic claim. However, this happens to be your pet argument for god's existence.

 

Therefore, Nothing I could ever say on this subject would live up to your standards, because the only answer to this question you believe is valid is, "God says this is immoral."

For me, this answer is actually the opposite of a good moral framework, but you aren't here to learn, just to assert your ideas and preach at us....why should I bother presenting ideas when you will throw them out without even seriously considering them?

[agnosticator]

Before I comment, let me explain where I'm coming from when I talk about the basis or grounding of ethics/morality. According to philosophers, there is the logical fallacy or is/ought gap that creates a problem for the basis of ethics and morality. They hold that there is no basis for morality because we cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". But this can only apply to ethical discussions-not reality.

 

The most obvious reality of the situation is: humans exist, and without them there is no morality (the "IS" ). Period. Plus, we MUST start with sentient beings in order to have a framework for morality at the most basic level: We eat and sleep to live, so these needs OUGHT to be met, or we die. What value is there to dead bodies? None, so it would be good to allow people to eat and sleep. To end a life would also deprive beings of their primary need: TO LIVE. This is where your example of babies being killed comes in, and I agree with what you state that it is murder. This is a very simple example. Beyond things like this it becomes subjective, etc. and we move away from the basis.

 

As for god, it is really irrelevant to discuss the unknowable, and compare god to humans, because he can't die and has no need of morals. God's actions are bad in our eyes, and that's what counts. But in order to discuss god's actions, we have to know what he is, which is impossible.

 

I'm not too sure I followed that. Certainly we can talk about morality and ethics. We all know that there are good people and not so good people. We've determined certain basic principles that inform our criminal and humanitarian laws.

 

I don't see what the difficulty is. We have a communal sense of right and wrong. That sense probably owes a lot to religion, biological needs, feelings of revulsion, state soverignty, the needs the capitalist economy and other comunitarian ideals, as well as a million other things. The Geneva Convention expresses our common understanding that while war is a bad thing, there are such acts in war that so bad as to be criminal. We punish rape of a child differently than we punish rape of adult because of a million different reasons. We can discuss morality in those terms.

 

I don't see where God comes in to play all that much. I don't understand the is/ought dichotomy to prevent discussion about morality. After all, we have hard evidence of practical moral development don't we?

 

I agree that we can talk about morality, and that it is innate. We also do develop morality as a group and agree on how to view the situations you describe.

 

I was bringing up what philosophers think, of which I don't agree with. The gap is about logic, which doesn't help where the rubber meets the road. But alot of arguments start with this fallacy, and I wanted to cover it, beacuse I say humans are the basis and they say there is no basis. The religionists insert god as the basis when they can't even prove god exists!

[Abiyoyo]

The religionists insert god as the basis when they can't even prove god exists!

 

I'm not trying to jump into conversation here. But I have a question. Even if God was real, how does one prove the existence of God?

[Ouroboros]

The religionists insert god as the basis when they can't even prove god exists!

 

I'm not trying to jump into conversation here. But I have a question. Even if God was real, how does one prove the existence of God?

How did God prove himself real to those who wrote the Bible, or to the prophets? How can you know they experienced God anymore, or less, than you? Why do God pick and choose those he reveal his existence too, instead of doing it completely and absolutely to everyone who will eventually be judged? Even doubting Thomas got a chance to get a proof, why can't we?

[shantonu]

I agree that we can talk about morality, and that it is innate. We also do develop morality as a group and agree on how to view the situations you describe.

 

I was bringing up what philosophers think, of which I don't agree with. The gap is about logic, which doesn't help where the rubber meets the road. But alot of arguments start with this fallacy, and I wanted to cover it, beacuse I say humans are the basis and they say there is no basis. The religionists insert god as the basis when they can't even prove god exists!

 

Screw the philosophers. They just make up shit to get tenure. We have a moral sense, if we didn't we wouldn't be able to come up with sensible laws or policies. When are moral sense is challenged--such as with stem cell research--we can use religious arguments to try to piece out the truth. We should respect the religious point of view. It's a valuable contribution but it's far from the only one. Rather, the moral sense comes first, we think "this seems wrong to me," and then look for justifications of that moral sense.

 

That's not a bad procedure. I "feel" that prostitution is wrong. I've got reasons too. But if you check out the prostitution thread, you'll see there are a lot of ways I could change my mind and a lot of ways that I've changed the minds of others. After all, I know that my intuition isn't enough if I can't back it up with some decent rhetoric (rhetoric in the good sense). That's how we work things out.

[agnosticator]

Shantonu:

Screw the philosophers. They just make up shit to get tenure.

 

..and in the end, they do right because their mommies told them to behave!

[agnosticator]

The religionists insert god as the basis when they can't even prove god exists!

 

I'm not trying to jump into conversation here. But I have a question. Even if God was real, how does one prove the existence of God?

No "how", since god can't be proven or disproven. If god were proven to exist would he/she/it really be god?

[Kuroikaze]

The religionists insert god as the basis when they can't even prove god exists!

 

I'm not trying to jump into conversation here. But I have a question. Even if God was real, how does one prove the existence of God?

 

Think about this. This is a bit philosophical

 

We have three categories of things

 

1. Things that exist and manifest themselves.

2. Things that exist and do not manifest themselves.

3. Things that do not exist.

 

The problem is that 2 and 3 are indistinguishable from each other, but if god is in category 2 I'm not really sure it matters anyway because in order to affect me he must manifest in some way. If god does manifest in some way then we should be able to measure that manifestation.

 

You could say my main reason for not believing in got is the lack of any measurable manifestation by him.

[mwc]

Indentured servants were servants in debt, homeless, etc trading work for life for a certain amount of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

 

Racial slavery is more of a phrase used to describe what American slavery turned into, and marks the period of African captures for slavery.

 

http://www.potomacbooksinc.com/Books/BookD...productID=63330

I see. So the crux of this depends on whether or not we ignore a large portion of what has already been stated? I don't know if I can do that.

 

Let's just take from your wiki article and see if we can put it into perspective though:

 

"Over half of all white immigrants to the English colonies of North America during the 17th and 18th centuries may have been indentured servants."

 

"The labor-intensive cash crop of tobacco was farmed in the American South by indentured laborers in the 17th and 18th centuries. Indentured servitude was not the same as the apprenticeship system by which skilled trades were taught, but similarities do exist between the two mechanisms, in that both require a set period of work."

That should make my point. These folks. These WHITE folks would be like the Jews. Whites with whites. Jews with Jews. Makes a nice pairing. The only difference is in the details surrounding the "contract." That's already been discussed so no need to repeat it.

 

Moving on. You post a link to a book review which says little. It seems to indicate that slavery was essentially motivated by race, rather than profit, and shows a story of the US Navy blockade as evidence.

 

How about this From "he History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, Ancient and Modern" By William O. Blake?

 

The Mosaic institutions were rather predicated upon the previous existence of slavery in the surrounding nations, than designed to establish it for the first time; and the provisions of the Jewish law upon this subject, effected changes r*>d modifications which must have improved the condition of slaves among that peculiar people. There were various modes by which the Hebrews might be reduced to servitude. A poor man might sell himself; a father might sell his children; debtors might be delivered as slaves to their creditors; thieves, who were unable to make restitution for the property stolen, were sold for the benefit of the sufferers. Prisoners of war were subjected to servitude; and if a Hebrew captive was redeemed by another Hebrew from a Gentile, he might be sold by his deliverer to another Israelite. At the return of the year of' jubilee all Jewish captives were set free. However, by some writers it is stated that this did not apply to foreign slaves held in bondage; as over these the master had entire control. He might sell them, judge them, and even punish them capitally without auy form of legal process. The law of Moses pro- Tides that "if a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding if he continue a day 01 two he shall not be punished, for he is his money." This restriction is said, by some, to have applied only to Hebrew slaves, and not to foreign captives who were owned by Jews. In general, if any one purchased a Hebrew slave, he conld hold him only six years. Among other provisions, the Mosaic laws declared the terms upon which a Hebrew, who had been sold, could redeem himself, or be redeemed by his friends, and his right to take with him his wife and children, when discharged from bondage.

 

Ibid.

 

We have mentioned in a former chapter that slavery was first introduced into the North American colonies in 1620, by a Dutch vessel which landed a portion of her human merchandise at Jamestown, Virginia. The event was almost simultaneous with the landing of the Pilgrims on Plymouth Bock, Dec. 22d, 1620. In buying and holding negro slaves, the Virginians did not suppose themselves to be violating any law, human or divine. Whatever might be the case with the law of England, the law of Moses, in authorizing the enslavement of "strangers," seemed to give to the purchase of negro slaves an express sanction. The number of negroes in the colony, limited as it was to a few cargoes, brought at intervals by Dutch traders, was long too small to make the matter appear of much moment, and more than forty years elapsed before the colonists thought it necessary to strengthen the system of slavery by any express enactments.

 

In the colony of Massachusetts a body of fundamental laws was established in 1641. One of the articles, based on the Mosaic code, provides that "there shall never be any bond slavery, villeinage, nor captivity among us, unless it be lawful captives, taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold unto us, and these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of God established in Israel requires. This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by authority." This article tbe facts, and the reader can judge whether the inference is warranted or not: The ships which took cargoes of staves and fish to Madeira and the Canaries were accustomed to touch on the coast of Guinea "to trade for negroes," who were carried generally to Barbadoes or the other English islands in the West Indies, the demand for them at home being but small. In the case above referred to, instead of buying negroes in the regular course of traffic, which, under a fundamental law of Massachusetts already quoted, would have been perfectly legal, the crew of a Boston ship joined with some London vessels on the coast, and, on pretense of some quarrel with the natives, landed a " mur- . derer"—the expressive name of a small piece of cannon—attacked a negro village on Sunday, killed many of the inhabitants, and made a few prisoners, two of whom fell to the share of the Boston ship. In the course of a lawsuit between the master, mate, and owners, all this story came out, and Saltonstall, who sat as one of the magistrates, thereupon presented a petition to the court, in which he charged the master and mate with a threefold offense, murder, man- stealing, and Sabbath-breaking; the two first capital by the fundamental laws of Massachusetts, and all of them "capital by the law of God." The magistrates doubted their authority to punish crimes committed on the coast of Africa ; but they ordered the negroes to be sent back, as having been procured not honestly by purchase, but unlawfully by kidnapping.

 

I intentionally chose an old source since I thought it would be closer to the events at hand. Do you not see how the Mosaic Law allowed for the establishment of the American Slave trade? The slave trade as we know it? There is no difference. NONE. Further he states that slaves couldn't be freed if they weren't xians so they had to be converted whether they liked it or not. Essentially, all slaves were forced to xianity at some point like it or not. This included any servent, not just Africans, so Indians (natives from the islands and elsewhere). Anyone caught in the dragnet.

 

Anyway, I've not read anywhere close to the entire thing but I think this is pretty clear on at least one view of where America got the idea for its model of slavery. I think the tie-in to xianity doesn't help any. I think that the fact the whole starts with the Jews is not a good sign. This does not point to indentured servants. Not in Judea. Not in America. It was all slavery.

 

mwc

[Justin]

LNC:

Listen, this is not a cop out. I have said before and I will say it again that I am not interested in a battle of opinions. Before we launch into this I need to know that you have an objective base from which to argue, otherwise, you will give your opinion, you will consider my view an opinion and we won't get anywhere but frustrated. I don't like parmesean cheese, my wife does. We could spend hours arguing about whether parmesean is good or not and not get anywhere since there is no objective basis from which we can argue as to whether parmesean is good. It is a matter of preference. Now, you want to beat God up over these accounts from the Bible, to do so meaningfully you must either show that there is objectively something called good and evil; or that God is somehow subject to a moral standard that is outside of himself and yet, still eternal. In essence, you must show that your standard for judging God is superior and that it has a solid basis form making such judgments. You must also show that God has somehow violated that standard. I haven't seen any of this from any one of you, and therefore, your complaints have not been shown to be relevent.

 

So, it is not I who has copped out, but those of you who are leveling the complaints without standing. I have said all along that if you can show me that you have a solid basis from which to level these complaints, I will be happy to discuss them with you, but if you can't, then the best I can say is "I don't like parmesean."

 

You haven't proven that your version of god and your definitions of "good and evil" are objective. You also haven't proven that "god's nature" can be defined as "good", and that he acts according to his nature.

However, humans have been shown to act according to their nature, both good and bad (evil is a religious term), and that they exist as the basis and origin of morality. Remember, without humans, there is no morality, nor standard to even consider morality.

 

My thoughts exactly. Very well said Agnosticator. LNC, virtually everything you say on here is an opinion and therefore, not objective. So pretty much, you just say "i don't like parmesean" again and again and again. You need to first prove there is a god and THEN you can begin to go about telling us about his morality and nature. Only then can you go from there in trying to justify his sick and monsterous acts in the OT. As agnosticator said, humans are the only basis for morality and it is from there that we have our right and wrong and good and bad and also God and Satan/god and whomever his evil doer counterpart is. But the bottom line is, as it is for any christain who comes on to these boards, prove your god exists above all the other gods. Otherwise you may as well try and argue why Bullwinkle has 4 points on his rack and not 3 or 5.

[Abiyoyo]

The religionists insert god as the basis when they can't even prove god exists!

 

I'm not trying to jump into conversation here. But I have a question. Even if God was real, how does one prove the existence of God?

How did God prove himself real to those who wrote the Bible, or to the prophets? How can you know they experienced God anymore, or less, than you? Why do God pick and choose those he reveal his existence too, instead of doing it completely and absolutely to everyone who will eventually be judged? Even doubting Thomas got a chance to get a proof, why can't we?

 

Dunno. It would seem though that the common factor is usefulness to whatever God is doing, on earth; more than personal belief. Thomas was a witness to Christ, but then again so was Judas Maybe, even though it was directed toward Thomas, He wanted to 'squash the bug' so to speak; because He needed them to spread His gospel. Just my thoughts. It says Satan 'entered' Judas according to Luke. Maybe Thomas was just a little lost in the whole matter that could've resulted in a stop in the movement.

[Abiyoyo]

No "how", since god can't be proven or disproven. If god were proven to exist would he/she/it really be god?

 

I guess if he killed all the other gods, in a god world. Then, we could say, He is the real God. Like gladiators!

[Ouroboros]

It would seem though that the common factor is usefulness to whatever God is doing, on earth; more than personal belief.

So we are in the hands of God's will, if he wants to make himself known to me personally or not, is completely up to him. In other words, if I am currently an unbeliever, then that is God's will.

 

Thomas was a witness to Christ, but then again so was Judas Maybe, even though it was directed toward Thomas, He wanted to 'squash the bug' so to speak; because He needed them to spread His gospel. Just my thoughts. It says Satan 'entered' Judas according to Luke. Maybe Thomas was just a little lost in the whole matter that could've resulted in a stop in the movement.

Was it God's plan for Satan to enter Judas? And why did God need Paul when the disciples failed?

[Ouroboros]

I guess if he killed all the other gods, in a god world. Then, we could say, He is the real God. Like gladiators!

Or Yahooweh against Godgle.

[Justin]

The religionists insert god as the basis when they can't even prove god exists!

 

I'm not trying to jump into conversation here. But I have a question. Even if God was real, how does one prove the existence of God?

 

If one cannot prove the existence of god, then aren't most of the christians on here wasting their time? It begs the question of what are they doing on here if they can't even prove what they believe in is true? Seriously, why construct one's entire life around something that cannot be proven, living by it and abiding by it and centering your life around it?

[shantonu]

My thoughts exactly. Very well said Agnosticator. LNC, virtually everything you say on here is an opinion and therefore, not objective. So pretty much, you just say "i don't like parmesean" again and again and again. You need to first prove there is a god and THEN you can begin to go about telling us about his morality and nature. Only then can you go from there in trying to justify his sick and monsterous acts in the OT. As agnosticator said, humans are the only basis for morality and it is from there that we have our right and wrong and good and bad and also God and Satan/god and whomever his evil doer counterpart is. But the bottom line is, as it is for any christain who comes on to these boards, prove your god exists above all the other gods. Otherwise you may as well try and argue why Bullwinkle has 4 points on his rack and not 3 or 5.

 

I think it goes deeper than that. Even if LNC were to be able to prove beyond all doubt that the God of the Bible existed, why would we worship such a God? Only because he was more powerful than us. But inequality of power doesn't justify worship. We wouldn't worship aliens just because they may have a more advance technology than we do.

 

I claim to be morally superior to God. In fact, almost everyone in the world is morally superior to God. That's the import of the 1 Samuel 5:3 critique. So why would we worship something simply because it's powerful if it is not also, just, loving, merciful, benevolent and fun to be around?

[shantonu]

I think it goes deeper than that. Even if LNC were to be able to prove beyond all doubt that the God of the Bible existed, why would we worship such a God? Only because he was more powerful than us. But inequality of power doesn't justify worship. We wouldn't worship aliens just because they may have a more advance technology than we do.

 

I claim to be morally superior to God. In fact, almost everyone in the world is morally superior to God. That's the import of the 1 Samuel 5:3 critique. So why would we worship something simply because it's powerful if it is not also, just, loving, merciful, benevolent and fun to be around?

 

I should not have said that "almost everyone everyone in the world is morally superior to God. I should have said that everyone is morally superior to God. I mean even the worst murderers know in their heart that what they do is wrong. But God apparently thinks that killing the first born of the Egyptians was a deed well deserving of praise.

[Ouroboros]

I mean even the worst murderers know in their heart that what they do is wrong.

Do they? Doesn't the sociopath show symptoms of not understanding the concept of right from wrong? They have the concept explained and they can know right/wrong as a fact, but they don't know why it is so. Their problem stems from that they don't see other people as "other humans" but rather just objects.