if not evolution

[ding]

What does that have to do with anything?

my numbers show there is a huge difference in murders/crime/etc between blacks and whites
this is because of cultural, physiological, socioeconomic, parental, etc differences--not free will
I am saying there is not total free will---if anyone says there is total free will, please explain the differences in the numbers I posted

There is total free will. At any point in your life you are the sum of the choices YOU made.

please explain the huge differences in the numbers I posted
blacks choose to commit murder and crimes in much greater numbers --why?
males commit most murders--why?

Because their nuclear family was decimated from the 1930's to the 1960's.

there is not total free will--if there were, then the numbers would not be so much different

And what I told you corresponds to those numbers. The nuclear family of the blacks was destroyed starting in the 1930's and THAT is what led to those numbers.

 

[G.T.]

Can someone explain to me how the world not being perfect means there is no God?

Are you wearing your tap dancing shoes hoping to dance around the issues raised?

Not at all. You have a bad case of confirmation bias and a need to validate your beliefs. I have no such need.

On the contrary, it appears to be you who is attempting to force your gods / beliefs on others.

Take off your tap dancing and help me address the domestic issue I described. It seems pertinent as you have raised the slavery issue as a "universal truth".

But I couldn't care less what you believe. It has absolutely zero impact on me. How exactly am I forcing my beliefs on others?

You aren't making any sense. I believe there are universal absolute truths. You are arguing against it. I used the immorality of slavery as an example of a universal truth and the rationalization of slavery as an example of moral relativity. What is it that you think my bringing up slavery is pertinent to?

Unless you lived in Biblical times, your domestic issue is a canard. I really couldn't care less. I'm not the droid you are looking for.

You cannot invoke slavery being Universally wrong simply because us humans consider it wrong ~ you also cannot invoke ignorance as an argument.

What that means, is that saying "tell me how slavery cpuld ever be right?" is not a logical proof, its an argument from ignorance fallacy....which means that just because any given human at any given time consoders slavery wrong ~ that doesnt make it universally wrong, by definition.

For it to be universally wrong, there'd have to be two things: an omniscient arbiter, and their inability to change.

Shy of that. youre just holllaring "assertion assertion assertion!!! therefore assertion."

Invalid reasoning, like you always do.

I can invoke the immorality slavery as an example of an absolute universal truth and I can do so for the simple reason anyone who has been a slave knows it was wrong.

Humans arent the universe.

They arent every being in the universe.

They aren't necessarily living the most optimally in the universe, either.

Using humans' consideration that something is emotionally wrong, doesnt make it universally wrong.

Argument from emotion fail.

 

[ding]

You are babbling, GT.

Do you believe that slavery is immoral, GT?

 

[G.T.]

You are babbling, GT.

Do you believe that slavery is immoral, GT?

Do my beliefs speak to Universal ones? or...just human based emotional ones?

Leading question fail.

One reasons by stating a case, one does not have a case when all they do is ask leading questions.

 

[ding]

You are babbling, GT.

Do you believe that slavery is immoral, GT?

Do my beliefs speak to Universal ones? or...just human based emotional ones?

Leading question fail.

One reasons by stating a case, one does not have a case when all they do is ask leading questions.

Sounds like you could see yourself as a slave, GT. Not me, bro.

 

[G.T.]

You are babbling, GT.

Do you believe that slavery is immoral, GT?

Do my beliefs speak to Universal ones? or...just human based emotional ones?

Leading question fail.

One reasons by stating a case, one does not have a case when all they do is ask leading questions.

Sounds like you could see yourself as a slave, GT. Not me, bro.

Appealing to your emotions doesnt make a reasoned argument that your emotions are universal truths.

 

[ding]

You are babbling, GT.

Do you believe that slavery is immoral, GT?

Do my beliefs speak to Universal ones? or...just human based emotional ones?

Leading question fail.

One reasons by stating a case, one does not have a case when all they do is ask leading questions.

Sounds like you could see yourself as a slave, GT. Not me, bro.

Appealing to your emotions doesnt make a reasoned argument that your emotions are universal truths.

Fetch me my water, bro.

 

[ding]

Let's see if I got this right, GT will not unequivocally say that slavery is immoral.

GT is a racist QED.

 

[Hollie]

The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fall from grace. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

You’re on the precipice of a slippery slope if you’re suggesting that your religious beliefs are the model for defining good/evil, right/wrong or moral choices.

Oh, and why the gargantuan, colored text?

Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before your religious beliefs existed. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

Any claim that it's god-implanted is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Okay, you opt for #2, I opt for #1. Now it's time to go out and compare notes and put on the table the evidence that will define either #1 as knowledge, or #2 as knowledge. You now have to prove god exists before you can even begin to prove morality is god-implanted.


For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.




So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal moral law of the gods is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway.

Can you enlighten me on how the bible resolves such a conflict?

Thanks.

So then you don't believe there are universal truths?

I do. They're just modified from time to time because they're human conventions.

No. If you believe that then they are not universal truths, they are relativistic truths.

So does that mean you do not believe that anything has a final state of fact? That once discovered it is known that it was always that way and will always be that way?

Let's take slavery for instance? Was it ever right to enslave another human being? Even when society thought it was?

The answer is no, slavery was never moral even when people believed it was. That my dear, is a final state of fact.

It’s odd that you would be lecturing anyone on morals when your all-knowing, all-seeing bibles were pretty adamant that slavery was not included as an immoral undertaking.

Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

 

[G.T.]

Let's see if I got this right, GT will not unequivocally say that slavery is immoral.

GT is a racist QED.

Thats a cute appeal to emotion, but I didnt say how I personally felt about slavery ~ I said that just because the human experience leads us to treat it as wrong, does not make it universally wrong.

You dont even understand the meaning of basic words.

 

[ding]

Let's see if I got this right, GT will not unequivocally say that slavery is immoral.

GT is a racist QED.

Thats a cute appeal to emotion, but I didnt say how I personally felt about slavery ~ I said that just because the human experience leads us to treat it as wrong, does not make it universally wrong.

You dont even understand the meaning of basic words.

No. That's your position.

 

[G.T.]

Let's see if I got this right, GT will not unequivocally say that slavery is immoral.

GT is a racist QED.

Thats a cute appeal to emotion, but I didnt say how I personally felt about slavery ~ I said that just because the human experience leads us to treat it as wrong, does not make it universally wrong.

You dont even understand the meaning of basic words.

No. That's your position.

I'll decide my positions, thank you.

My position is that you cannot prove something as "Universal" and then point to merely humans as your support.


Your counter point has been


but but but humans


but but but humans

but but you

but youuuuu...

but humans...but youuuu



because you're simply incapable of a reasoned discussion.

 

[ding]

t’s odd that you would be lecturing anyone on morals when your all-knowing, all-seeing bibles were pretty adamant that slavery was not included as an immoral undertaking.

Well first of all I'm not lecturing anyone on anything. I'm expressing my beliefs. And secondly, I never claimed to be a saint. I'm happy enough to concede the moral high ground you. I wouldn't want you to fall of of your morally indignant high horse.

 

[ding]

Let's see if I got this right, GT will not unequivocally say that slavery is immoral.

GT is a racist QED.

Thats a cute appeal to emotion, but I didnt say how I personally felt about slavery ~ I said that just because the human experience leads us to treat it as wrong, does not make it universally wrong.

You dont even understand the meaning of basic words.

No. That's your position.

I'll decide my positions, thank you.

My position is that you cannot prove something as "Universal" and then point to merely humans as your support.


Your counter point has been


but but but humans


but but but humans

but but you

but youuuuu...

but humans...but youuuu



because you're simply incapable of a reasoned discussion.

Then we are in agreement.

I say slavery has always been immoral.

You say there were times when slavery was moral.

 

[harmonica]

my numbers show there is a huge difference in murders/crime/etc between blacks and whites
this is because of cultural, physiological, socioeconomic, parental, etc differences--not free will
I am saying there is not total free will---if anyone says there is total free will, please explain the differences in the numbers I posted

There is total free will. At any point in your life you are the sum of the choices YOU made.

please explain the huge differences in the numbers I posted
blacks choose to commit murder and crimes in much greater numbers --why?
males commit most murders--why?

Because their nuclear family was decimated from the 1930's to the 1960's.

there is not total free will--if there were, then the numbers would not be so much different

And what I told you corresponds to those numbers. The nuclear family of the blacks was destroyed starting in the 1930's and THAT is what led to those numbers.

so not total free will..?

 

[G.T.]

Let's see if I got this right, GT will not unequivocally say that slavery is immoral.

GT is a racist QED.

Thats a cute appeal to emotion, but I didnt say how I personally felt about slavery ~ I said that just because the human experience leads us to treat it as wrong, does not make it universally wrong.

You dont even understand the meaning of basic words.

No. That's your position.

I'll decide my positions, thank you.

My position is that you cannot prove something as "Universal" and then point to merely humans as your support.


Your counter point has been


but but but humans


but but but humans

but but you

but youuuuu...

but humans...but youuuu



because you're simply incapable of a reasoned discussion.

Then we are in agreement.

I say slavery has always been immoral.

You say there were times when it was moral.

No, I didnt say that.

I said that you cannot prove that its universally immoral.

You then failed to logically prove as much, and flailed over what you incorrectly gathered as my views on the topic..in attempts to do so.

For some reason.

 

[Hollie]

t’s odd that you would be lecturing anyone on morals when your all-knowing, all-seeing bibles were pretty adamant that slavery was not included as an immoral undertaking.

Well first of all I'm not lecturing anyone on anything. I'm expressing my beliefs. And secondly, I never claimed to be a saint. I'm happy enough to concede the moral high ground you. I wouldn't want you to fall of of your morally indignant high horse.

That was another attempt to sidestep.

Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."


How do we reconcile the above with gods who are alleged to be Omni-everything?

How do we reconcile the above with your “universals”?

 

[ding]

Let's see if I got this right, GT will not unequivocally say that slavery is immoral.

GT is a racist QED.

Thats a cute appeal to emotion, but I didnt say how I personally felt about slavery ~ I said that just because the human experience leads us to treat it as wrong, does not make it universally wrong.

You dont even understand the meaning of basic words.

No. That's your position.

I'll decide my positions, thank you.

My position is that you cannot prove something as "Universal" and then point to merely humans as your support.


Your counter point has been


but but but humans


but but but humans

but but you

but youuuuu...

but humans...but youuuu



because you're simply incapable of a reasoned discussion.

Then we are in agreement.

I say slavery has always been immoral.

You say there were times when it was moral.

No, I didnt say that.

I said that you cannot prove that its universally immoral.

You then failed to logically prove as much, and flailed over what you incorrectly gathered as my views on the topic..in attempts to do so.

For some reason.

So then you agree with me that slavery has always been immoral?

 

[ding]

t’s odd that you would be lecturing anyone on morals when your all-knowing, all-seeing bibles were pretty adamant that slavery was not included as an immoral undertaking.

Well first of all I'm not lecturing anyone on anything. I'm expressing my beliefs. And secondly, I never claimed to be a saint. I'm happy enough to concede the moral high ground you. I wouldn't want you to fall of of your morally indignant high horse.

That was another attempt to sidestep.

Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."


How do we reconcile the above with gods who are alleged to be Omni-everything?

How do we reconcile the above with your “universals”?

I'm not the droid you are looking for.

 

[G.T.]

Thats a cute appeal to emotion, but I didnt say how I personally felt about slavery ~ I said that just because the human experience leads us to treat it as wrong, does not make it universally wrong.

You dont even understand the meaning of basic words.

No. That's your position.

I'll decide my positions, thank you.

My position is that you cannot prove something as "Universal" and then point to merely humans as your support.


Your counter point has been


but but but humans


but but but humans

but but you

but youuuuu...

but humans...but youuuu



because you're simply incapable of a reasoned discussion.

Then we are in agreement.

I say slavery has always been immoral.

You say there were times when it was moral.

No, I didnt say that.

I said that you cannot prove that its universally immoral.

You then failed to logically prove as much, and flailed over what you incorrectly gathered as my views on the topic..in attempts to do so.

For some reason.

So then you agree with me that slavery has always been immoral?

Not universally ~ no...but in my mere opinion, yes.