3RU7AL

The word slave as used in the bible doesn't mean what you are trying to imply.

But if all we have to worry about is what is asked of us, then we don't really need to worry about how it reflects anything else.

So us being made in gods image is a lie. Either we are like gods or we are not 

presumably one will get you 1% into heaven and the other will get you 95% into heaven, so, a pretty big difference

I don't understand that. If I do 100 of what is expected of me, regardless of how I compute it in relationship to the transcendent morality, then I earn my 100%.

They must have wreaked God's vengeance on whatever section of the Midianite peopple who were in the area in whcih they found themselves.

The lesson, as it were, ...we shouldn't slaughter anyone.

I would suggest that nothing is changed. If we only had part of the picture originally, then we get more info in the form of later commands in other cases.

Why would we try to determine any percentage of overlap (1 or 95 percent)? What good does that do?

and explains by means of textual sources how the command to kill the women was part of God's original command which the soldiers chose to ignore.

Man's being limited by law very often mirrors that larger morality but not always.

I'm suggesting that we shouldn't confuse a transcendent morality for the law imposed on human kind.

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein. Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus.” Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12).

First and foremost, one has to accept the idea that the "sin" status of incest was only established when God gave laws against it.

The testimony of the ancient rabbis is that Cain and Abel married their sisters. This is also logically inferred from the Church’s doctrine on original sin. Original sin is passed on to all human beings from our first parents, Adam and Eve. As St. Paul says, “[S]in came into the world through one man” (Rom. 5:12; cf. Rom. 5:19-20 and Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 402-06). [**]

Not many people were calling for these people to be thrown in prison. 

Recessions happen very frequently.  You can't jail someone for a recession that was out of their control.

The human mind can handle cases in which truth and provability diverge.

"Spacetime" is a theoretical corruption of two words, and represents something completely different from the basic understanding of Space and Time.

IF we disagree about the existence of objective morality (say you think it does exist and I say it doesn't) AND IF we both have (differing) opinions (which we have expressed during the conversation) THEN without a way to determine or demonstrate any objective moral standard we cannot say with any degree of certainty that opinions are contingent upon objective morality. 

Just call it opinions about morals then. We agree those exist right?

Under nihilism morality doesn’t exist, therefore you can’t have an opinion on it because it doesn’t exist.

Moral opinions

There’s no such thing,

Just because the program isn't INTENTIONALLY unfair, this immunity to INTENTIONALITY does not mean that the computer program IS ACTUALLY AND OBJECTIVELY FAIR.

That depends on how you are determining what is fair. The program calculates based on the premises imported into it, so late payment will cost you X amount of points no matter who has one. Whether X is fair is an entirely different question.

I fail to see how this relates.

Because there is a difference between someone who does a bad thing on purpose vs. someone who does a bad thing by accident.

Perhaps it would facilitate the conversation to state plainly exactly what that difference is, how we can FUNCTIONALLY tell the difference between the two states of affairs and what, if any, specific course of action this would seem to dictate.

Impulse control is quantifiable and is a primary predictor of anti-social and aberrant behavior.

Yes, it is also a skill that can be learned.

Therefore the difference between someone who suffers from impulse control has a path to improvement.

Someone who acts badly with malice and forethought has no path because they don’t want one.

Let me ask you... do you believe there is a difference between a bad person and a person who did a bad thing? If so, what is that difference?

We judge individuals based on the totality of their actions with regards to their intent. Why does intent come into the equation? Because there is a difference between someone who does a bad thing on purpose vs. someone who does a bad thing by accident. Or, at least I used to think we could all agree on that...

we are defacto agreeing for the purposes of this conversation

A little like asking how we can consider ourselves really hoopty froods without zaphod beeblebrox as an objective example. 

Even better yet, WHICH God is being defined because in the biblical era, MANY gods existed, whereas today, the main gods that are still around are Yahweh, Jesus, and Allah.

Yes

You haven't explained how Thomas was allowed to "tempt the lord"  against the strict command concerning tempting the lord? Deuteronomy 6:16 .  Matthew 4:7

because the theology is wrong

But didn't you define "moral" as "behavior that will be rewarded" and "immoral" as "behavior that will be punished"?

In the afterlife.

Time is a logical necessity.

When is finite more logical than eternity?

That implies the law is moral, which is a claim you’ve yet to prove.

Always the over achiever doing Tarik's homework. Now if he copies you how will I know he has learned the lesson or just being a parrot?

we all know what is right and wrong

It sounds to me like you are confirming "a non-GOD believer IS CAPABLE of moral action" is your claim.

Is this correct?

The most religious societies include Nigeria, Uganda, the Philippines, Pakistan, Morocco, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, El Salvador, Colombia, Senegal, Malawi, Indonesia, Brazil, Peru, Jordan, Algeria, Ghana, Venezuela, Mexico and Sierra Leone.

It is the highly secularized countries that tend to fare the best in terms of crime rates, prosperity, equality, freedom, democracy, women’s rights, human rights, educational attainment and life expectancy. (Although there are exceptions, such as Vietnam and China, which have famously poor human rights records.)

And those nations with the highest rates of religiosity tend to be the most problem-ridden in terms of high violent crime rates, high infant mortality rates, high poverty rates and high rates of corruption.

Take homicide. According to the United Nations’ 2011 Global Study on Homicide, of the 10 nations with the highest homicide rates, all are very religious, and many — such as Colombia, Mexico, El Salvador and Brazil — are among the most theistic nations in the world. Of the nations with the lowest homicide rates, nearly all are very secular, with seven ranking among the least theistic nations, such as Sweden, Japan, Norway and the Netherlands. [**]

Time is the possibility, that allows events to have duration....As such it does not exist.

Of course it does. First, I have to align with the side on which time does not exist but by human imposition. Apologists for time will introduce such terms as "relativity," but that is, after all, just an attempt to justify the concept in the first place.

Why is "succession" time-based? Because we say so. What if "succession" is not time-based, but accomplishment-based? I accomplished a thing. Based on that accomplishment, I accomplish another thing. Based on that, I will accomplish still a third thing. But my commentary of past, present, future,  and even numbering the accomplishments is still rooted in the idea of a time-basis. I could, assuming a god-like perspective, use a similar description as given to Moses by God when Moses asked him who he should say to the Israelites was sending him, God replied, "I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." The simple fact of God's existence was sufficient for the proof of him. So, if asked when and how I did something, I could reply, "I accomplished this," and "I accomplished that," and the timing of accomplishments is merely secondary to the facts of accomplishment, and accomplishment is the appropriate measure, regardless of a truly non-extant feature of the universe.