TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Great.
As explained, it doesn't mean slavery is illegal.
As explained, EVERY nation that allowed slavery had laws against kidnapping.
Your "argument" here is ridiculous.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can Atheists/Non-religious Lead Completely Moral Lives?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
As explained, it doesn't mean slavery is illegal.
As explained, EVERY nation that allowed slavery had laws against kidnapping.
Your "argument" here is ridiculous.
By what is said in the Bible and by what can be seen in this world.
Yet it seems to me that you think you are a such authority.
Why, why would it matter to the dead one, was the reason a sword or a disease?
I don't say my mind is the only mind.Then I don't exist with my own mind, because your mind is the only mind. But that also works in the other direction, so you don't have a mind, because I am the only mind.
So, if morality is objective only if it is found outside of minds of the Bible, can you show any morality that is outside of minds of the people?
I don't say it would be illegal, only that it would be possible only if the person accepts it voluntarily.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Are other minds in the external world?
Yes. External world is everything outside ones own mind.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
So abrahamic religion is original to mythical people that never existed?
Yeah, the world doesn't work that way unfortunately.
Within social groups, you still have smaller social groups.
Even today.
There's for example the social group of your country.
Within that, there's the social group of your village.
Within that, there's the social group of your congregation for example.
Within that, there's the social group of your family (including nieces and cousins etc).
Within that, there's the social group of your immediate family (wife and kids).
Each group is an "in-group" with the reset being outsiders.
It is extremely hard, if not almost impossible, to treat everyone the same.
There are things you'll do for your children that you won't want to do for say rando's in your village or country - even though they also belong to an "in-group" at a higher level.
Social context is rather complex and ideas such as the "golden rule" are generally good ideas to live by. However the more abstract and bigger the "in-group" gets, the loser its application becomes. We see this on every level.
Even within christianity itself. Just look at how catholics and protestants treated eachother.
What "wrongs" did the babies and toddlers do? Or the cattle?
And off course no words concerning the "special rules" for Israelite slaves vs non-Israelite slaves.
I didn't expect any words or acknowledgements off course.
It's clear by now that you are unable to think rationally and objectively about anything concerning the bible.
You even went so far as to defend infanticide just so you can continue to claim that biblical rules and commandments and your god are the epitome of morality.
It's hard to have a discussion on morality with a mind like that.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Then you are both in the external world and not. That is a contradiction in effect.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
This is wrong.
If everybody agrees that Mozart's music is beautiful, then that is still a subjective matter.
Whether something is objective or not, isn't determined by how many people agree with it.
AppieB
Active Member
No, that's why I think every form of morality has a subjective foundation.
Ask from those who support abortions.What "wrongs" did the babies and toddlers do? Or the cattle?
I think it is interesting how there can be different rules, because by what is said in the Bible, everyone living there would be an Israelite, because everyone there would have to go by their rules. For example every man would have to be circumcised. This leads to question, how it would be determined who is a real Israelite. Can you answer to that?
He who is eight days old will be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he who is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner who is not of your seed. He who is born in your house, and he who is bought with your money, must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Gen. 17:12-13
Why? If nothing is against it, how can you say it is not objectively true?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
As explained, I'm not going to get dragged into that bad faith argument and jump topics.
I get it - you want to remove the focus of the fact that your moral compass requires you to think genocide and infanticide is ok, so you are pretending abortion is the same thing and then making your what-about-ism argument. As if people supporting abortion makes it okay for you to support genocide and infanticide.
It's pretty sad if you think about it.
Not sure what you are reading, but that passage in no way says anything about who is and is not considered israelite.
It only states that all your sons must be circumcised, and your slaves also.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Because that is not what "objectivity" is.... it has nothing to do with agreement.
Objective are those things that are completely independent of human opinion (regardless if every single human has the same opinion).
Objective is also something that either is or isn't the case. Something objective is not going to become something subject, just because somebody comes along with a different opinion.
Questions about objective facts can have correct and wrong answers.
"do you like mozart?" has no correct or wrong answer. If you do, you do and if you don't, you don't. It's not something like you having to like mozart and "being wrong" if you don't.
"At what speed will the coke can smack on the ground when dropping it from the eiffel tower" has a right and wrong answer. Because it is a matter of objective fact. It is a matter of mass, gravity, acceleration, air resistance, etc. It is not a matter of "opinion" or "x amount of people agree".
AppieB
Active Member
Ok, so opinions are always subjective?Because that is not what "objectivity" is.... it has nothing to do with agreement.
Objective are those things that are completely independent of human opinion (regardless if every single human has the same opinion).
....
Same reason that is used for to defend abortion, can be used also for defending killing other humans.
The question is, what makes one Israelite. By what I see, all people living there would be an Israelite, which is why there should not have been any difference. If you disagree, I hope you can give some good definition for the word Israelite.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yes. By definition of the word "opinion".
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No.
So you're just making an assumption.
I don't have to do anything if I don't agree with your bare assumption.
You assert this without evidence, so I'll just reject it without evidence.