Nope – read Acts 15 where the entire Mosaic Law is jettisoned, plus Hebrews 8:13 which does the very same thing.
It was probably considered so obvious it wasn’t worth mentioning.
Right – deprive them of home, food, and any means of support.
Exactly – that’s the intermediate stage before abolition. They didn’t put theological conclusions above caring for people.
And dumped them right back into it. If they weren’t Roman citizens and had no means of support, they could be kidnapped and sold back into slavery. Better to keep the legal status and improve/change/transform the relationship. Paul was aiming at the relationship established in the OT where slaves were to be treated as well as family members.
You didn’t comprehend what he actually wrote, did you?
I think one problem here is that a large portion of the discussion goes right over your head and you aren’t willing to admit it, instead employing the tactic of pretending to more than you understand.
Either I forgot it or we managed to acknowledge the process in several botany classes without using the term.
Ah, you skipped an important word. I emphasized it.
Try again.
Except you skipped an important word.
And if you’ve been reading, you’ll know that your final clause above is false.
Because you say so. Try following the matter more closely.
And the mathematics bears it out.
That’s the only reason I actually accept evolution – it’s mathematically sound.
You get told you do not understand because you miss concepts and content.
ID hypotheses and belief in a Creator that caused the life to start and evolve are not the same but these get sometimes mixed in debates. Also, biological evolution and abiogenesis get mixed although these are two separate topics or perhaps even separate fields of research.
Many people supporting ID theories/hypotheses fall to the ‘God of gaps’ trap. As long as we cannot explain adequately how a complex biological system evolved, that is used as an evidence for ‘the Creator made it’. Every time researchers form a credible explanation for how the complex system could have evolved from simpler forms, there is less space left for the ‘God of gaps’. Until one day, there will be no space left for this imaginary entity anymore. If the ‘God of gaps’ does not have any space left, does that mean that it has been shown that there was/is no acting and creating God? Of course not.
At best, ID claims for IC may help in showing where we have such gaps in knowledge that deserve more research. Fundamentally, the ID claims for IC are not a proof of a Creator, although they may support or discredit some hypotheses about how the Creator created in the past.
Abiogenesis is a more difficult topic than biological evolution because we do not have evidence of multiple life that have evolved independently. Maybe one day we will find life from other planets. Until that day, or until it can be shown that life has emerged multiple times on Earth, sample size is one and all explanations remain merely hypotheses.
Personally, I believe that God created the life on Earth but how that happened is something that can and should be studied by science.
Of course it must be me that’s wrong. You couldn’t be.
I wonder how on earth you can claim that.
Oh yes, you do not agree or accept what I say so it must be false.
I missed nothing.
No. because of what it is.
I did not define it .
Mathematics!
No, I get told i do not udnerstand because if i did I would agree with you.
Wrong!
(But, of course, there is only one undrsanding!)
A basic reader could understand it.
The only reason the word supposedly is there is because it is unprovable.
You know it, i know it,.
And just how is someone supposed to demonstrate something that cannot happen?
You cannot demonstratete things you claim did happen.
You cannot show me a dinosaur giving birth to a bird, or a non mammal giving birth to a mammal. or a fish with developed legs, or an ectotherme giving birth to an endotherme, or…
All tyou have is a loda of comparitive DNA . Brilliant.
Oh, and some skeletons. You cannot prove what gave birth to it, or what it brithed. You cannot even prove if there was more than a few of (some) of them.
There are so many assertions made that cannot be demonstrated, yet you rely on this fact to disprove one assertion that would kill the whole theory.
Acts 15 removes some of the dietary, ceremonial and circumcision requirements on gentiles who want to follow Jesus. It does not jettison the whole Mosaic law.
If you want to insist it jettisons the whole Mosaic law, confirm that the ten commandments have been jettisoned.
It doesn’t really, since it says the old covenant “will soon disappear”. But it hasn’t disappeared; it’s still in bibles.
So it was worth mentioning that slaves should obey their masters and masters should take care of their slaves, but not worth mentioning that there shouldn’t be slaves and masters?
Insullts are much easier to ignore than real arguments.
Claiming I do not undrstand means you do not have to address what i say.
What other people see is another matter.
Keep it up
Richard
Edit
It is an intellectual and cognitive fallacy that thinks"If the person understands what I am saying they must agree with it".
This is part of the sceinntific mentality where there is a rright or wrong answer. Once an answer has been found then everyone will agree it is correct. The idea that someone could llook at the data and draw a diffferent conclusion is unthinkable, it cannot be If they are using the scientific method they must reach the same conclusion Unfortunately, i do no use the scientific method
(Just because I do not choose to use the scientific method, does not mean I do not know or udnerstand the scientific method and how to use it) Automatic disqualification. Thought process invalid. Therefore leep repeatng the same thing over and over until i get it. I must get it (and agree). its the only way of seeing it. it is the only view. It must be.If i do not comply I cannot undersand!
All hail the mighty God of Science and the scientiific method.
I think that leads to the condition of trying to prove a negative. This is the problem with not having a positive theoretic. It is also very hard to make headway if one is being coy about the ‘designer they have in mind, because hypotheses about the nature of a ‘designer’/’implementer’ is what really allows for the creation of a positive theory. I don’t think one can pull off that creation without some specification about a designer. It doesn’t have to be perfect or even correct, but you’ve got to start somewhere. Otherwise one is left with something like the ‘God of Philosophy’, which is effectively a self-contained, unmoved, unchanging blob with no way of connecting its existence to the specific details of this world. As I’ve noted, others have attempted to make cases for designers with specific intents, traits or modes of action in order to make positive hypotheses. They have not been successful, but I think making that effort is the best path forward. Baraminology comes to mind as another example I can cite. I suspect that remains the most active attempt. Granted, some advocates of created kinds still fall into ‘God of the Gaps’ attempts at proving a negative, but one could make positive cases for some formulations (e.g. ReMine’s Biotic Message concept).
There is also the issue that the status of questions isn’t binary, there are at least three states: ‘likely special creation/interactive design implementation’, ‘likely natural mechanisms’, and ‘unknown/ not confirmed’. One needs to make a positive case for any particular event or process to move the cause out of the ‘unknown’ category into one of the others.
I see no reason to define God’s creative methods other than human vanity and thirst for knowledge. The fact that science has produced a coherent theory does not make it definitive or completely off the wall. Claiming science has not got it completely right is not negative. Suggesting that there might be more but not definng it does not negate the requirement/
There hav ben several niminal suggestions on how Christians could adapt Evolution into God’s creative powers but without any real means of proving or even identifying them it becoes speculation. Sceintists do not like spceulation that cannot be proven or at least examined. It becomes “made uo” or even lying, because it cannot be substantiated. In many ways it is better to leave it open, than open to criticism by specifying.
That isn’t something I need to defend. That is the standard Catholic position. Sex isn’t just some hedonistic pleasure making activity and life belongs to God. Pope Paul VI:
Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
He was convicted of these crimes much later. He was actually cleared before she wrote a short blurb recommending he be reinstated. She mentions this directly and only that he was found guilty of imprudence. There is no evidence she had known the full extent of what he did and was later convicted of. If she did she would be guilty of this. It is true many parts of the Catholic Church committed great evil in its extremely poor handling of child abuse cases. There is no evidence showing Mother Theresa is guilty of this. As much as some people try to sully her name and cancel her, they just embarrass themselves.
The great thing is, my Lord and savior has said that anyone who causes children to stumble and prevent them from coming to him would be better off tying a millstone around their neck and jumping in a lake. In my moral framework, harming children in such a manner is objectively wrong and not just subjective opinion. People are actually accountable for their crimes in Christianity and there is no eternal “tough luck” to children or people who are dealt really terrible hands and/or are abused in life. Atheism lacks dignity and real hope for oppressed and abused people.
All of my comments that you have oddly been disagreeing with, have been based on the fact and explaining that materialism cannot be used to explain moral behavior. That is pretty much all I have stated. You disagreed with it over and over again and now confirm it’s true. Matter-only scientism cannot justify morality. Why are you arguing if you actually agree with this. Is-ought does not help. I can easily step on people to achieve my goals. That is immoral. What is practical for me is not synonymous with what is moral in my view.
As your accusation was. Slavery was accepted by most of the world. We still have tens of millions of sex and labor slaves today in the world. But most of us now, at least to me, on the back of Jesus and the long , rocky climb of Western civilization, have come to see this as a great crime and moral evil. It took a while but most of us got there. Sex feels good and having others do your work for you is a great power trip. But humans made in the image of God gives them intrinsic value, and purpose meaning and is a good backbone of ending slavery and also behaving in a fashion that runs contrary to your fleshly and hedonistic desires.
Yup, for thousands of years, all the greatest thinkers have thought natural theology proved God’s existence. Yet you laugh at it, most likely without seriously dialoging with any of it. Here you are, like a lion, roaming on a Christian message board thinking it’s risible to consider there to be actual logical arguments for God’s existence. You barely share a view you actually hold to and engage in lots of nitpicking. I asked you once before and you ignored it. What is your actual purpose on this forum? To make fun of stupid Christians who are beneath you?
Exactly. A view can’t get closer to the truth if there is no truth. Moral growth requires actual progress towards some correct posture. Since morality is subjective, human morality can only change, not actually progress towards a more correct system. Materialism can’t get us there.
Yes, as an obvious response to your ridiculous claim that, despite my own comments to the contrary, I was not distinguishing between actual moral behavior and what the intellectual side of materialist atheism allows as a worldview. Put the pitchfork down and try to keep up.
I think there is a huge difference between claiming to have moral views that are all objectively true and simply claiming objective morality exists. As an analogy, I wouldn’t say all my views about the physical world are objectively true. I am sure I have a few mistakes in my scientific understanding somewhere that I would correct if I came across the pertinent information. But that doesn’t mean objective science doesn’t exist. In fact, if it didn’t exist, none of my views could actually be mistakes or wrong, or right for that matter.
I tie my morals to the goodness of God, which is a metaphysical truth that can be logically demonstrated, and not blind, random mutations and impersonal chemical and physical laws operating on assemblages of elementary particles.
Well, given the trans attack on and shooting at the mass of a Catholic school yesterday in Minneapolis, you have your chance.
You never assert anything so you have nothing To defend. You just like to play village atheist on a Christian forum and nitpick what Christians write.
This was addressed above. I never claimed all my moral views are objectively true. I am actually certain I get things wrong.
Who cares what’s good for the population as a whole. made up standard. You can only care about what’s good for you, the whole population or a rock on the side of the road. Unless humans have intrinsic meaning and value, it’s all fiction.
Not sure why the happiness of an entire population matters more than a few individuals. You said you were not utilitarian. Make up your mind.
Sure, they are able to make up subjective moral codes and others are free to believe the exact opposite and neither side is right or wrong. I don’t believe this nor do I think most people live their lives consistently with such a bland view of morality.
It was consensus slavery was okay at one time. It was consensus it was okay to throw baby girls in a river at one time in some regions. It was consensus to go on crusades and murder infidels. Societies and consensus often do and believe very immoral things. I don’t find this standard or “appeal to consensus” very convincing despite admitting there is a social aspect to morality.
Be careful, you are on your way to becoming a Thomist. But unfortunately, while you can rationalize our behaviors and try to explain them via science, without teleology, there are no “oughts” to be found. And if we just do whatever our genes tell us, that is not moral or immoral to me. It just is.
That is how I view modern materialism which is the most common form of atheism today.
I don’t know how detailed it goes but generally it is supposed to be unitive and procreative. That does rule out some things depending on how far you take them. I admit I’m feeling like a disciple. Who then can be saved, Lord?
People can disagree with the Catholic stance on contraception and sex in general, as do many with the common Christian view on sex outside marriage being sinful, but it certainly emphasizes the dignity and worth of marriage, values and protects women especially who have often been viewed as sex objects and the property of men, and also the created order. I don’t feel the need to defend Mother Theresa’s views on contraception. What is immoral about building a fence around and elevating the sanctity of marriage and sex to a higher level? Given the status of certain things in society today, this may even seem prudent.
I don’t think that’s true. But without being crude, I think where your pro-creative fluids end up might play a significant role though. And how many people in society today will walk away from Jesus sad like the rich man told to sell everything?
What it has to do with is whether there is a compelling argument that objective morality exists.
More accurately, it would be like saying good science doesn’t exist in a world in which the most esteemed scientists disagree about the most basic facts about the universe. They all agree that science is a great way to the truth, but some of them think the earth is a sphere while others think it’s a flat plate resting on a turtle. If good science is a path to truth but there is no way to tell who is doing good science, then the first part of the sentence has no practical meaning. Likewise for the existence of an objective morality whose contents we can’t discern.
You’re coming very close to restating my argument while missing my point completely. My rule, which I’ve stated here in the past, is that if anyone tells me in the name of God to kill a child, I’ll conclude that he’s not speaking for God. Like you, I’m inclined to dismiss anyone who defends hurting children(*) out of hand – and that includes people arguing for the existence of objective morality while also espousing what I think are grossly immoral positions. And the two tend to go hand in hand, since arguments for objective morality seldom stand alone: they tend to be coupled with specific moral rules (as indeed you’ve done here) and treated as justification for the universality of those rules. When some of those rules turn out to be lousy, for me that removes their standing to make any pronouncements about morality at all.
Bottom line: I care much more about whether someone nurtures children rather than harms them than whether they believe in objective morality.
(*) I’m going broader than killing babies here, since things like enslaving children have been much more often thought to be morally acceptable among the pious and morally upright than outright killing.
