Total posts: 1,044
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Yes, people have used the Bible to maintain slavery. I think that's a problem with humans, not the Bible.Would leveraging the words of Jesus have been possible without the bible? I agree it's a human problem, one wherein humans used the bible to subjugate others by saying this is what Jesus said, if you deny it, you deny Jesus and hell's way worse than these cotton fields. Be mindful: the question is not would slavery have still existed, because slavery and subjugation predate the bible and ignore almost all cultural boundaries. The question is would the biblical message have been used as one of the tools to maintain the institution
I don't understand your question.
Clearly no, but if I were you I'd steer clear of making the comparison between religion and heroin: someone once called religion the opiate of the people, if I recall correctly, and the connotation of heroin addiction as compared to religious fervor is curious.
You're trying to divert the question. You did give a short answer, but you're obviously trying to divert the issue which I believe is (without looking back), do you think the Bible and Christianity should be outlawed? Obviously you've run into a problem here, because you understand that heroine,
which like as you seem to think of the Bible, is a cancer of society.
And I won't hesitate for a second to make the comparison with heroine, as I couldn't care less about some silly quote some (pardon the pun) dope came up with.
which like as you seem to think of the Bible, is a cancer of society.
And I won't hesitate for a second to make the comparison with heroine, as I couldn't care less about some silly quote some (pardon the pun) dope came up with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, you're hair-splitting between "chattel-slavery" and "bond-servant".Exodus 21:20-2120 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.So you can beat your "bond-servant" to death, just as long as they don't die immediately.
No. The problem is you're hoping we overlook verse 20.
This is not a detailed instruction book on Hebrew laws concerning the death of a bond-servant.
One of the keys here is that the author isn't giving an exact time-frame for the servants death. If your life hung on whether or not your servant dies after a blow you inflicted, wouldn't you want to know if you had 24 hours, or 48 hours before you find out your verdict?
This law was to attempt to assure the servant's owner doesn't die if the servant's death wasn't a result of the blow. They had judges back then just like we do today. This means that if say, the servant has a serious head wound, and his hair is on the rod he was hit with, that they won't find th owner guilty, maybe even weeks or months after the servant's death. The focus was on was the death of the servant a result of the infliction of the rod?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Like the Jefferson Bible for example?The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible, is one of two religious works constructed by Thomas Jefferson. The first, The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1804, but no copies exist today. The second, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1820 by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition excludes all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine.
Jefferson is another FF who is difficult to pinpoint in terms of religious belief. He was, for instance, very dedicated to attending church service. But on the other hand it appears he didn't believe in the supernatural references in scripture. It would be interesting to have heard his thoughts on Washington's claim to supernatural providence on the battlefield.
In my opinion, I feel the LAMOJON was at least partially a political move as it's alleged to have been, or meant to be distributed to a local Native American tribe. I have no reason to doubt this, and I think he wished to promote the teachings of Jesus Christ concerning peace. I think for political reasons, Jefferson wanted the tribe to learn the moral teachings of Jesus as a means for a better relationship between the U.S. government and the tribe. And may have thought the supernatural elements of the Bible might either hinder this, or would just be unnecessary.
Created:
Posted in:
On a side note, the word hate today has a certain socio-political attachment. We use the term loosely at times (I hate spinach), but in our western definition, we tend to focus on it's political implication. The word hate has become sort of a hated word, because it immediately draws attention to racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
No. It's absolutly correct. Part of the Greek translation of hate in this text is (miseo) means love less. You have to take this up with the Greeks.
Someone says "I hate spinach!".
Do they really? Do they want to see it scorched from the earth like they would a cancer on their body? Are they filled with rage because someone else likes it, and is healthy as a result?
No. They're using strong language to emphasize a point that they don't like it's taste.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The point is that the OT writers saw nothing wrong with a bit of deception.
They recorded it. But how do you know they didn't see anything wrong with it?
Keep in mind, the Bible doesn't really address David's extra-marital affairs (other than Bathsheba) as being a violation. However, we do see probable negative consequences. And Jacob would be no exception to that rule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I didn't suggest he did! I'm saying thewitchburners were just like the aztecs - they believed what they were doing was good because they believed it was divinely mandated.In any case, witchburning was not human sacrifice. It was done to accord with the divine command 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' - it was execution, not sacrifice.
I actually agree.
The Aztecs, in similar fashion were trying to appease the gods. The witch burners in early Euro history were (at face value) burning witches to appease God. Neither party ever suggested wickedness or immorality on their part.
A sensitive topic, so I'll try and tread softly as my 180 lbs. body will allow.
The abortion industry.
Not the woman who has to decide between her life and the child's. Not any single woman in particular period. But the industry. The clinics where employees quit because they were sickened by what they saw. The clinics where the practice of abortion is obviously brutal, and I think it very naive to think that in all the abortions that have taken place there was no pain involved with the aborted child. Probably quite excruciating.
There's no gods being sacrificed in these clinics, but other than that, what's the difference between the quicky abortion in the clinic, and the Aztec human sacrifice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I agree. In fact, the law of God is love. So basically even if someone makes a mistake while doing the best they can extending their love to another, they are not in violation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Another entertaining video. My first thought was, what does dental work have to do with the subject?
In Hitler's world, deception was a virtue. He must have felt it produced a positive outcome. I don't know if he thought as far as the moderator or Kant as to what his world would be like if everyone practiced deception, including against him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
That just goes to show how dumb it is to equate what your god supposedly requireswith what is moral. The priests and witchfinders who burnedlittle old ladies as witches thought they were being very moral, doing 'God's work'.
God never required human sacrifice. Including Abraham/Isaac, and Jeptha/his daughter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
If you add "objectively" I'm afraid it seems yes, unless you can provide the objective definition. If you just say he's a bad person and list the amount of harm he caused, I doubt you'd get an argument on your subjective analysis. All moral assessments are situational and relative, as uncomfortable as that may be.
And subject to change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
As you've described, unless you're leaving details out, no. A friend of mine fits that description for the most part, who's son is having legal issues due to drugs. A common problem of course. But unfortunately the son is subject to his environment. He also witnessed the death of his sister which more than likely contributes to the problem. My friend had nothing to do with these problems that are identifiable. He hates drugs.
My recent point is that good things do at times come out of bad situations. We can see this in Biblical scripture, as well I'm sure with other religious and philosophical writings. That's fortunate, but it doesn't mean that someone violating another human(s) is justifiable.
My recent point is that good things do at times come out of bad situations. We can see this in Biblical scripture, as well I'm sure with other religious and philosophical writings. That's fortunate, but it doesn't mean that someone violating another human(s) is justifiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
What society, in what time period, ever proclaimed "We are not a civil moral people"?
For instance, did the Aztecs ever say in recorded history "We are evil because we practice human sacrifice rituals"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We had a mass shooting over the weekend at a local festival.
An unlikely, but possible scenario.
A male police officer gets acquainted with a female festival coordinator. They end up getting married. Their son (or daughter) grows up to be the most successful president of the U.S., ending the immigration proplem. No wall, no deportations.
Did the mass shooter do a good thing?
Did the mass shooter do a good thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
"pluck out your eye" is hyperbole, clearly. No one can do it. Plenty of people can do this:If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.I know people who hate their families today. Are they in line with Jesus words here?Really, can you not see the problem with these verses? you can pick any one to mean anything you want even when it's not what the words say or mean, and someone else can do the same, and both are, at least as far as you seem to think, correct. Or, you don't have a way to say "this is hyperbole" (like stone nonvirgins
on their wedding night in front of their dad: hyperbole? No? how do you tell) versus "this is one I should still apply.' Should you or should you not stone gay people? Not CAN YOU TODAY. Should you. Is it moral to do so if you can cite a biblical verse commanding it?
No, I don't have problems with these verses at all. The only thing I'm getting out of this is that you seem to pick and choose what you think is hyperobole, and what isn't. You're comfortable with "plucking out one's eye" as hyprbole, but not "hating family".
Same principle. The idea of plucking one's eye out (as I assume you understand) is meant to show how serious we should treat sin. Plucking one's eye out is equivalent of removing one's computer from their room if they have an issue with porn.
Hating parents simply means abhoring the idea of favoring family over following Jesus as a disciple. Very simple. Luke was a physician, so was probably quite intelligent. He wouldn't contradict himself like that. Or claim Jesus did. For some reason, that form of hyperbole doesn't sit well with you. But the authors just weren't concerned about Ludo's understanding of scripture in the 21st century. So I might just as well ask you how do you tell what is hyperbole?
And where in the world did you get the idea no one can pluck their own eye out?
Same principle. The idea of plucking one's eye out (as I assume you understand) is meant to show how serious we should treat sin. Plucking one's eye out is equivalent of removing one's computer from their room if they have an issue with porn.
Hating parents simply means abhoring the idea of favoring family over following Jesus as a disciple. Very simple. Luke was a physician, so was probably quite intelligent. He wouldn't contradict himself like that. Or claim Jesus did. For some reason, that form of hyperbole doesn't sit well with you. But the authors just weren't concerned about Ludo's understanding of scripture in the 21st century. So I might just as well ask you how do you tell what is hyperbole?
And where in the world did you get the idea no one can pluck their own eye out?
So if it's in one book and not another, how do I know which one is right? It's all in the bible. Which is, according to many who share your faith, the unerring word of the timeless governor of all time and places. It can't be wrong.
The reason i stated this was because sometimes people claim different authors mean contradictions. So being that both verses being referred to in Luke were probably from the same author, contradiction is unlikely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Actually, that was rather interesting. He made a profound comment about how are actions produce results we are not aware of.
The Bible equates hate with murder. We as a society separate the two meaning hate doesn't necessarily suggest murder unless it's put into action,
However, who's to say that words we've said out of hate hasn't caused someone down the line, years later, to commit suicide?
The Bible equates hate with murder. We as a society separate the two meaning hate doesn't necessarily suggest murder unless it's put into action,
However, who's to say that words we've said out of hate hasn't caused someone down the line, years later, to commit suicide?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
So then it would be unfair to proclaim Adolph Hitler a bad person?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
That one or the one cited earlier, Matthew I believe 10;35. They can't all be right, so how do you pick?
I don't pick because I don't see any
contradicton. I knew the verses in question use hyperbole right the moment I read them.
I already addressed Matthew 10:35 by the way in another post in this thread.
We follow them incidentally. People who don't steal every day don't think "Well, I'd steal if the commandments weren't there." They just don't steal. How do I know? Because people steal all the time, and the commandment IS there. I'm letting your battallion one go, it seems to be a distraction unless you can tell me how it relates to the ten commandments.
You lost me on the battalion thing. It seems like you're actually confirming the value of the 10 commandments since people do still steal.
If your parent were racist, you think you'd be dishonoring them by not becoming a racist?If the commandment is about obeying, not loving, your parents, as I was taught (honestly do we need a commandment about loving your parents but NOT ONE ABOUT MAKING PEOPLE INTO SLAVES?), then yes, it would be dishonoring them.
I'm sorry, you lost me here.
Luke 14:26.If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.
We can't use the authors contradicting each other idea, because this verse is in the Book of Luke.
20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”
The author didn't contradict himself. So it's not an issue of which verse do i choose?
He's talking in hyperbole. That was common back then, including within the Bible. When Jesus said "If your right eye offend thee, pluck it out". Do you think that was hyperbole, or do you think Jesus really meant one should pluck their eye out?
He's talking in hyperbole. That was common back then, including within the Bible. When Jesus said "If your right eye offend thee, pluck it out". Do you think that was hyperbole, or do you think Jesus really meant one should pluck their eye out?
Created:
Posted in:
is there some standard we can designate as to who is a good person vs. bad?
You may have heard the argument about Hitler being good, like to family members, pets, etc. But of course whatever goodness he possessed was outshadowed by his horrific inhumane actions.
You may have seen the movie "Silence Of The Lambs". If I have my movies straight, there was a scene where one of the mass murderers, I think it was Buffalo Bill had kidnapped a woman, held her hostage in a basement with a hole in the ceiling looking up into the living quarters. Obviously she was being prepared to be killed. The interesting part was when BB's little dog came up to the hole in the floor to look down on the lady. For a brief moment, this woman almost became the villain in a way because she attempted to lure the dog into jumping in so she could threaten harm to it because she knew BB had an obvious affection for it. But, she was obviously justified.
So we could say BB had some goodness about him because of his compassion towards an animal. But his tendency towards murdering humans made him a bad person.
Ghandi was, and still is considered a highly moral person. However, once certain alleged practices of his has come to light, this view has changed by a number of people. To some, his goodness has been rendered void due to his alleged practices.
Is "good" subjective, or is there a definite line that divides good from evil on a balancing scale? if so, where is that line drawn?
You may have seen the movie "Silence Of The Lambs". If I have my movies straight, there was a scene where one of the mass murderers, I think it was Buffalo Bill had kidnapped a woman, held her hostage in a basement with a hole in the ceiling looking up into the living quarters. Obviously she was being prepared to be killed. The interesting part was when BB's little dog came up to the hole in the floor to look down on the lady. For a brief moment, this woman almost became the villain in a way because she attempted to lure the dog into jumping in so she could threaten harm to it because she knew BB had an obvious affection for it. But, she was obviously justified.
So we could say BB had some goodness about him because of his compassion towards an animal. But his tendency towards murdering humans made him a bad person.
Ghandi was, and still is considered a highly moral person. However, once certain alleged practices of his has come to light, this view has changed by a number of people. To some, his goodness has been rendered void due to his alleged practices.
Is "good" subjective, or is there a definite line that divides good from evil on a balancing scale? if so, where is that line drawn?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You've inspired me to start a new thread. Coming soon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Therefore, unfortunately division would be unavoidable.In his holy wisdom, why would then "hate them in return" be his advice? Why not "talk it over, testify to them, here's the words you can use to convince your loved ones so we can all live in peace and harmony"?
Where was this advice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you thinking of this scripture?I was taught that was about obedience, not love, but at least you can agree that while it doesn't countermand the idea of family love, it DOES contradict the idea of hate your brother that he cited, right? So how do you pick which one's right? Is it the one that makes you feel better, that makes the most sense, in this case?
Romans 9:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Wouldn't not becoming a racist NOT be honoring your father and mother, putting you in violation of that commandment? If not, why not? Because don't hate, don't be a racist, those aren't commandments.
If your parent were racist, you think you'd be dishonoring them by not becoming a racist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Ok, so you don't think a soldier should be shot for running away from battle.No, I don't. But why we have battlefields with any Christians on them at all is a mystery, considering the one you cited as a gimme was thou shalt not kill, which makes no allowance for nuance. Part of the problem that makes these pronouncements totally useless today. Thou shalt not kill...ok, what about if your inaction leads to someone's death? Did you kill them if you could have saved them but chose not to? Where in the ten commandments does it say don't masturbate? Or don't have sex?
Since strict harsh laws are generally meant as a deterrent, what if half a battalion ran from battle because they knew they wouldn't face a firing squad, and we lost the war as a consequence?
How can these commandments be useless today if we follow many of them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I think what you're implying is that this scripture contradicts other scriptures that employ 'love your family' likeThis passage undeniably demonstrates 'love your family' is not central to the Christian faith. After all, if Jesus was not bothered by dividing family, and came to do exactly that, then one could hardly say it is a Judeo-Christian value.
Exodus 20:12 - "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
I think you agree that this passage doesn't contradict the idea of family love. Right?
Jesus' purpose was not to divide the family. He would probably be against marriage if this were the case.
If your family demanded that you become a racist, that might separate you from them. But it wouldn't mean you didn't love them. if they separated themselves from you, would you become a racist so as to be reunited?
Jesus knew that some followers would have to face separation from family due to the followers conversion. Therefore, unfortunately division would be unavoidable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Where in the bible are you instructed specifically as to which rules to follow versus the ones that are "unthinkable" to enforce today? And three of the ten commandments have to do with how much you should love, fear or revere god, one has to do with thought crime, and NONE have to do with rape or slavery. That leaves six that are sort of the "gimme" you talk about, but they are insufficient in dealing with modern morality and overly broad. The moral code we should favor is the one that changes over time, not the one that a book says was written in stone, via magic, in an illiterate society, from thousands of years ago.Which commandments do you advise ignoring? Which Levitican laws no longer apply, and how do you know?
I think you're a bit confused on my statement about the unthinkable. The laws of the 10 commandments prohibited actions that were common practice of the day that today we would consider unthinkable, therefore no need to emphasize except to blatant transgressors (criminals).
There's nothing to ignore.
In another post to Castin, I referred to the military law of shooting a soldier for cowardice in the line of duty. That's extremely harsh, I think you would agree. I certainly think it is. But I can't honestly say it's not a necessary law under war time circumstances. Should a civilian be executed for being a coward? No!
Do you think a soldier should be executed for running from the battlefield?
There's nothing to ignore.
In another post to Castin, I referred to the military law of shooting a soldier for cowardice in the line of duty. That's extremely harsh, I think you would agree. I certainly think it is. But I can't honestly say it's not a necessary law under war time circumstances. Should a civilian be executed for being a coward? No!
Do you think a soldier should be executed for running from the battlefield?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Stronn isnt making any claims about atheism - he is talking about the Constitution. Given there is no mention of god(s) in it, it follows our founding document was not built upon revelation.
What and where is the claim upon revelation concerning the U.S.?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think they were strongly influenced by deism. Deism was probably as close to atheism as was possible in the 18th century because science still offered no reasonable alternaties to a divine origin of the cosmos and life. I feel confident that the founders would been atheists had they been able to read Darwin, but that science came more than a century later.It would not have affected the substance of the founding documents because their laudable principles are universal and humanist, hijacked by religion.
In the States we have 2 evils. Those who claim all of the heroic Founding Fathers were Christians, and those who claim they were all deists.
One of the reasons (without yet reviewing your link) for thinking they were deists was because a number of them possessed deist literature. But, they most likely had many books of different views both religious and philosophical. Thomas Jefferson is said to have owned the Quran for instance. I don't think TJ was a Muslim though.
The problem with the view is that there are very few who professed deism. Thomas Paine being probably the most outspoken, and possibly Benjamin Franklin. Deism was accepted, but not looked too favorably upon. There were obviously some atheists, but probably very few. No noted atheists from that time period that I know of. And not even Thomas Paine seemed to look too favorably upon atheism.
One of the grossest assumptions is that George Washington was a deist due to a comment by an Episcopalian minister. The Union of Deists have
actually made George Washington an honorary deist (without his permission). What's key is that this came in the form of an accusation defended by George Washington's grand daughter concerning his Christianity. I don't think it any different than any evangelical today claiming Billy Graham a heretic or Universalist.
What's fairly certain is that there were enough Christians in America to have extinguished any deist, atheist, or any other religious stance. We could have easily become something akin to a Muslim nation.
One of the reasons (without yet reviewing your link) for thinking they were deists was because a number of them possessed deist literature. But, they most likely had many books of different views both religious and philosophical. Thomas Jefferson is said to have owned the Quran for instance. I don't think TJ was a Muslim though.
The problem with the view is that there are very few who professed deism. Thomas Paine being probably the most outspoken, and possibly Benjamin Franklin. Deism was accepted, but not looked too favorably upon. There were obviously some atheists, but probably very few. No noted atheists from that time period that I know of. And not even Thomas Paine seemed to look too favorably upon atheism.
One of the grossest assumptions is that George Washington was a deist due to a comment by an Episcopalian minister. The Union of Deists have
actually made George Washington an honorary deist (without his permission). What's key is that this came in the form of an accusation defended by George Washington's grand daughter concerning his Christianity. I don't think it any different than any evangelical today claiming Billy Graham a heretic or Universalist.
What's fairly certain is that there were enough Christians in America to have extinguished any deist, atheist, or any other religious stance. We could have easily become something akin to a Muslim nation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Then I don't think the term Christian Nationalist is appropriate. If someone thinks one can't be good unless they're a Christian, then they have personal issues interpreting scripture, because the Bible does refer to good (by human standards) non-Christians. The parable of the Good SamaritanI put it to you that what has happened is that religion has claimed ownership of niceness. There is a superficial rationale behind that notion: if there is no god, what reason do people have not to be selfish hedonists? Especially in America the idea that an atheist can't be a good person is widespread - millions of Americans would not vote an atheist for president. (In the UK being religious is more of a handicap to polical ambition!)Christian Nationalism is based on the idea that niceness comes from religion and nastiness from irreligion. It trades on the notion that the past was better because it was more religious, ignoring the reality that the past was not better than the present and progress was achived through secularisation.Christian Nationalism harks back to a mythical golden age (ie the 1950's of 'Happy Days',not the reality)and is opposed to change of any sort. Abortion is opposed because in those mythical days nice girls didn't get pregnant, gays hadn't been invented and women were content to be 'home-makers'.Thus CN appeals to those who favour stability over progress. But its stability to the point of stasis and intellectual stagnation.
would be one example. Another would be the Roman Centurion Cornelius referred to in the Book of Acts.
This wouldn't be Christian nationalism, just an issue of understanding scripture. A nationalist would basically want a theocracy. A mandate that everyone not only submit to a Christian identification, but allegiance to a particular church or denomination.
Opinions are going to vary obviously. But, this is a sign of something good. Nothing wrong with Christians having different views, and challenging other Christians, and nothing wrong with atheists having differing views, and challenging other atheists.
For what it's worth, those who are hesitant to vote for atheists are not just Christians (or people of various religions), but it includes agnostics as wel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Love your family seems a valuable sentiment, but not one that generally need be mandated. How do you see this value at the basis of US government? Are you aware there are passages which would stand against this in the Bible?
Not that I'm aware of no. I know some tend to think this of this scripture.
Matthew 10:35 - For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
Created:
Posted in:
Some CN seems to equate the 10 commandments to JCP (Judeo Christian Principles), and this would make sense since this is a wellboth faths might draw from."We the people" stands above any personal beliefs any specific founder may have had about god(s) and their role in our government. The Constitution lays out what they agreed on and that is a government which derives its power from the people.Love your family seems a valuable sentiment, but not one that generally need be mandated. How do you see this value at the basis of USgovernment? Are you aware there are passages which would stand against this in the Bible?
But who are these Christian nationalists?
The 10 commandments were placed at a time that was pretty brutal. Some of the things that were not only legal, but mandated would be unthinkable today.
Today, society at large tends to view the Ten Commandments as sort of an obvious gimme ("of course we shouldn't murder!"), So, some may view even the obvious morality by today's standards as originating/influenced from/by the creator, some just a progressive understanding of human morality.
Why should we favor one over the other?
Today, society at large tends to view the Ten Commandments as sort of an obvious gimme ("of course we shouldn't murder!"), So, some may view even the obvious morality by today's standards as originating/influenced from/by the creator, some just a progressive understanding of human morality.
Why should we favor one over the other?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Not necessarily IMO.A very untypical atheist I would say!
I think the more vocal atheist, what we would might call in general terms atheist activists would generally lean toward the idea of non-existence after death. But I think atheist activists in genreal are a minority. Most atheists we probably wouldn't know them to be atheists unless we pry it out of them.
This particular atheist is the type who adapts to Hollywood's version of atheism (He's a Trekkie). Many of our sci-fi themed media outlets contribute a lot to the thoughts and philosophies of many of it's viewers. The idea of evolving into a higher life form is seen as a non-religious alternative to non-existence. And at the same time doesn't seem to violate any laws of naturalistic evolution.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You've convinced me a non-physical-soul "exists".Now what? How does this information help me decide which ancient rule-book I should model my life around?
Where exactly did I convince you?
If you're convinced there's a non-physical-soul, then what would you think the next should be?
For instance, do you think this realizing a non-physical-soul exists necessitates following one of the ancient rule-books?
Created:
The rest of it I don't want to assume have nothing to do with the story, but feel free to expound by all means. I don't remember any pondering on Doc Frank's part as to whether or not he should give the creature full knowledge, free will (which I think was already assumed as I don't think Doc Frank wanted a slave). Or giving it the ability to love (I think just getting it'sheart to beat was enough)I'm talking about the book, not the movie with Boris Karloff or Abbot and Costello. VERY broad strokes, as it's been a while, tHe only thing Frankenstein did was prove he could re-animate a dead body. The monster just wanted to be accepted, like a human, and because it was so ugly, the family of the blind guy rejected him. He decided he wanted a wife, and he threatened Frankenstein to give him one with arguments like "only a monster would re-animate me into a life of isolation, what's wrong with you?" then threatened and eventually started killing the people important to Frankenstein. It wanted a wife, to love and to be with. This leads us to the subsequent questions, which absolutely can be asked not only of Frankenstein himself, but of any life creating force. If you were to create a sentient being, what does that creation owe you? Does it owe you allegiance forever, blind obedience, propitiation, tribute? Why? What do you owe it? Do you owe anything beyond life? Would you forever have the right to beat it severely whenever you felt like it, whenever it displeased you? Should you undertake creating sentience because you want to torture it? These are the questions of 'playing god,' not 'should we do it.'
The book is what I was referring to too. But it has been
awhilesince I read the story. The questions you're posing sound right out of a Bible skeptics book. It's almost as if you're equating it's
interpretationwithBible refutation arguments. I don't think Mary Shelly had the Bible skeptic
mind framethat I'm aware of.
That's a good question. What do you think?No, it is not immoral to have children.
I agree.
Jesus figured out what we were looking for, then decided to make foxes look like dogs, meaning that our efforts to do all that genetic engineering weren't ACTUALLY working, they just looked like they were working, but were actually responding to divine intervention. Feasible?Not particularly. No.Why not?
Maybe you could clarify a bit more?
Your statement looks something along the lines of God fooling us into theorizing Darwinian evolution.
Created:
Are you saying, that anything other than not existing after death would mean "magical afterlife"?I'm saying any afterlife seems to be squarely in the realm of the magical: fantasy. It's never been even remotely close to demonstrated. Like Mordor.
An atheist once told me he thought that when he dies he will evolve into a higher life form. Does such a notion qualify as a magical realm?
Do you think it would be wise to manufacture AI to have independent free will?I'm not sure it's possible to NOT end up with free-ish thinking AI if you program it to be as close to human decisions as possible.
Do you think it's inevitable then since I think for the most part that's what we're trying to do? At least I'm not aware of any restraints on human similarity.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I lost track of which post this i referring to. But for the record, I haven't run into any challenges to the Christian belief. Only proposed challenges.
I don't think there is a god, so I don't look at it as a threat to god. I do look at it as a challenge to the Christian beliefs, but I also understand they'll simply go to god of the gaps.What's the difference between the god of the gaps, and one day we may know (unanswered questions and various puzzlements from a naturalist viewpoint)?I'm not sure, this discussion has made me question it! I think self-awareness is key, some sort of self preservationinstinct, reproductivity, the capacity to act out of one's own interests, emotional response, etc...it's a pretty big question that seems to come down to I know it when I see it, but my point is what happens if you can't tell it's being faked.
Can you give me an example of something AI/sentient related being faked?
Do you think robots could go renegade? Like in movies and sci-fi tv shows where a robot(s) takes on their own personality, acts independently from human control, etc.?I suppose, sure. I saw that episode where they went to Itchy and Scratchy Land. It was...formative.
It might be a good reason to avoid attempting creating life other than service only programmed AI.
Do you consider robots sentient?Not the kind that build your car or move inventory around a warehouse, but I'm not ruling out that a robot could one day achieve sentience.
On their own, or by our invention?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I guess for me this depends on how much of their holy text they're really holding on to. What they think still applies and what they think is just backstory. The worst offender is of course the Old Testament, which Christians have a complicated relationship with, in my experience. They've left it behind and yet not left it behind.
The problem I as a Christian might have with the Old Testament is not it's inclusion, but with the idea that harsh laws are at times, under certain circumstances, are necessary. I may not even see them as necessary, but I know I don't possess enough wisdom to make that call.
To give a more contemporary example, was it justifiable for the Army to shoot a soldier for cowardice in the line of duty? I think that was harsh myself. But I can't claim it wasn't necessary. It's quite possible that these unusual strict laws not imposed on civilians (we wouldn't execute a football player who shows fear of tackling) might have been necessary in some of our victories.
There is a distinction between the transient nation of Israel, and the rest of Christendom. Just as there is a distinction between the military, and civilian society.
There is a distinction between the transient nation of Israel, and the rest of Christendom. Just as there is a distinction between the military, and civilian society.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Well, I think if you can sing a song by an African American pop star (with the exception of maybe Lenny Kravitz), you must have a soul.
It might depend on how well you did though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
founding fathers [...] believe our right came from GodThis assertion is refuted by the first three words of the Constitution: We the people.What does "Judeo-Christian principles" mean to you?
This is not refuted at all. It's a personal belief a Christian is fully entitled to. Wouldn't you agree?
As far as what JCP means to me?
Without looking it up, I would say it's fairly similar to Humanist principles. For instance, our love for our family members, although natural, is a product of our creator. An atheist would see it a product of something like human instinct (or whatever: meaning I don't won't to take this off topic).
But this should have you jumping for joy I would think.
Isn't it wonderful that we can share legally this magnificent pluralistic society, some crediting human charity to God, some strictly to human tendencies?
But this should have you jumping for joy I would think.
Isn't it wonderful that we can share legally this magnificent pluralistic society, some crediting human charity to God, some strictly to human tendencies?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
IMO, "judeao-christian principles" have nothing to with doctrine or dogma; it relates to the way that religion has claimed ownership of niceness.That may be true, but I don't think CN are referring to niceness when they speak of JCP as the basis of the American government.
What do you think they're referring to?
Who exactly are these Christian nationalists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
The Enlightenment wasn't an anti-religious or anti-Christian movement.
Where do you get the reason over revelation by the way? Reason is why people choose to align with various religions. Thinking that reason would only lead to atheism isn't any better than any religion or philosophy that might claim authority like in a European theocracy. Leads to the same result if not worse.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Actually, I might be able to prove you have a soul.
On your karaoke ventures, have you ever sang songs by any African-American pop stars?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Not particularly. No.Or an alternate theory might be that while we were selecting against aggressiveness in foxes, Jesus figured out what we were looking for, then decided to make foxes look like dogs, meaning that our efforts to do all that genetic engineering weren't ACTUALLY working, they just looked like they were working, but were actually responding to divine intervention. Feasible?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
In the late 1950s, a Russian geneticist called Dmitry K. Belyaev attempted to create a tame fox population.If the cubs continued to show aggressive or evasive responses, even after significant human contact, they were discarded from the population – meaning they were made into fur coats. In each selection, less than 10% of tame individuals were used as parents of the next generation.By 2005-2006, almost all the foxes were playful, friendly and behaving like domestic dogs. The foxes could "read" human cues and respond correctly to gestures or glances. The vocalisations they made were different to wild foxes."The main surprise was that, together with changing of behaviour, many new morphological traits in tame foxes start to appear from the first steps of selection," said Trut.The domesticated foxes had floppier, drooping ears, which are found in other domestic animals such as dogs, cats, pigs, horses and goats. Curlier tails – also found in dogs and pigs – were also recorded. [LINK]In other words, selecting against aggressiveness incidentally made the foxes look like dogs.
Well we already have an animal abuse issue. But, I guess it was 1950's Russia.
meaning they were made into fur coats
I'd be more interested in hearing about a non-artificial fox (tame or otherwise) being made without breeding.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's a good question. What do you think?Is it immoral to intentionally bring a child into a cruel and hostile world?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
That isn't actually the question of the book Frankenstein's Monster. The question in that book is if you did it, what do you owe to it? For example, if youcould create sentient life, would it be moral to create it with the full knowledge that you were going to torture it for a really long time just for your own amusement? Would you owe it free will, the ability to love? What would it owe you, would it be moral to keep it as a slave? Would it have to do as you bid under fear of bodily punishment?
Oh great. Now I'm going to get a literary lesson on Mary Shelley.
First off, one of the major themes of the story is absolutely most definitely about the moral question behind playing God.
However I don't know what version of Frankenstein you're thinking of. Maybe the Japanese version where he grows to be a
giant, and ends up fighting a giant gorilla?
The rest of it I don't want to assume have nothing to do with the story, but feel free to expound by all means. I don't remember any pondering on Doc Frank's part as to whether or not he should give the creature full knowledge, free will (which I think was already assumed as I don't think Doc Frank wanted a slave). Or giving it the ability to love (I think just getting it'sheart to beat was enough).
What's really weird Ludo is your obvious reference to the Bible. What does eternal punishment have to do with the novel? Except for the fact that it couldn't actually die as the story goes.
When it comes to questions of the afterlife, I think the most atheistic of atheists understand that this is much deeper than creating healthy energy drinks. It would present a challenge to deityship, therefore has appeal as the idea tantalizes us with proving the non-existence of an ultimate creator of divine nature.
??????? This is word salad. I'm glad to address if you can clarify what you're trying to get at. What's it have to do with sentience?
This particular comment had nothing really to do with sentience.
Created:
Are you claiming that anything other than complete unconcious existence after death means "magical afterlife"? If it's something that science doesn't (at the moment) touch a concious afterlife, it would have to be magic?It's not unconsciousexistence. It's not existing anymore. Are you proposing that there IS a magical afterlife? Cool, what evidence can I examine to determine it's definitely there, as you have? Yeah, I'm calling it magic.
I made no such suggestion. The question is in your ball park, not mine.
Are you saying, that anything other than not existing after death would mean "magical afterlife"?
Again. The question is aimed entirely at you. Entirely!
Are you saying, that anything other than not existing after death would mean "magical afterlife"?
Again. The question is aimed entirely at you. Entirely!
Rather, it's impossibly possible. I don't rule out the possibility of producing sentient life, but in my opinion the creator has rendered it impossible.
We're sort of back where we started: how did you arrive at this opinion? Because it sounds like nonsense.
Yes, I think the creator looks out for us. Artificial life is produced for our personal service. We don't create AI for any other reason. We produce off spring for love, relationship, etc., knowing that the offspring will have their own free will. We create AI, again, for personal service. Do you think it would be wise to manufacture AI to have independent free will?
I think it would be really stupid (particularly if it was to prove we are equal with God). I think many scientists understand this as well, and not thinking much beyond AI serving mankind. I think the movies and TV shows (like the one you're talking about) is strictly fantasy. But, often they have hints of truth to them. There's an episode, I think from the original Twilight Zone where an independent minded robot is on trial in a court room. The robot shocks everyone when it loses it's temper, and karate chops a table in half. The implication here is that we could be so stupid with our technological abilties, that we might create a life force that could demolish us. We could wipe out mankind with our inventions. Just like the bomb.
I think it would be really stupid (particularly if it was to prove we are equal with God). I think many scientists understand this as well, and not thinking much beyond AI serving mankind. I think the movies and TV shows (like the one you're talking about) is strictly fantasy. But, often they have hints of truth to them. There's an episode, I think from the original Twilight Zone where an independent minded robot is on trial in a court room. The robot shocks everyone when it loses it's temper, and karate chops a table in half. The implication here is that we could be so stupid with our technological abilties, that we might create a life force that could demolish us. We could wipe out mankind with our inventions. Just like the bomb.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I don't make the claim that we haven't done it yet is a reason we will never do it.You did say:All we can say is "maybe one day we'll figure it out". But that's just one of those coin phrases to put off the reality of human limiation.A phrase to "put off the reality of human limitation" seems fairly interpreted as "an excuse we make to ourselves because we won't ever be able to do i." How else would you mean it? Because you could just say "maybe one day we'll figure it out" without the weak sauce interpretation if that's what you meant.
As of right now, we do have a human limitation. All we can create at the moment is artificial life. Can we create, for instance, a non-artificial frog?
The problem is that unfortunately the term sentient has taken us off track. You're attempting to equate artificial life with natural life due to modern techological ability to duplicate human life. And the more advanced the duplication, the more the lines supposedly blur between human and artifical life to where a hypothetical question arises "what is sentient life?"
I don't think we'll ever create non-artificial life no matter how close the duplication.
I don't think we'll ever create non-artificial life no matter how close the duplication.
"We do not see evidence for X, therefore we don't believe X." This is as simple as it gets. And if you're talking to people who are keying on the existence of kingdoms as to why the bible is rightly classified as fiction, they're missing the forest for the trees. Exhibit A: light before stars. Exhibit B: Noah's Ark. Exhibit C: Moses tale. The list continues. Your thinking would say "just because we've ever seen light exist without stars, we can assume we just don't know how it works, therefore it's probably possible," or something like that.
More like, "We do not see evidence for X, therefore it never happened".
And the reason the list goes on, is because the people making the list are not going to think beyond their closed mind. If there's a creator, there's no way to dictate how he can or cannot create a universe. God is sometimes described as light. So whether the light before stars is an illumination directly originating from God's person, or separate (it really doesn't matter), the skeptics have no idea what that light actually is. The only way out of that problem is to claim a creator doesn't exist. And no one in any professional capacity will make that claim (and rightly so).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'll assume we're not talking about the "something missing" being something shallow like money or providing sexual pleasure on a whim....it wouldn't take long for the "something is missing" complaints about human/human romantic relations.
So what exactly are you referring to? What is the missing ingredient you're referring to in human romantic relations?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
"Engineering" and "animal husbandry" are not equivalent. WE agree the dogs are sentient already. Is the robot's emotional level indistinguishable from a human's? If so, why is it not sentient?
(Did I indicate that engineering and animal hubandryare equivalent?)
Do you consider robots sentient?
Do you consider robots sentient?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
This is kind of my point: by definition, they'd be dog emotions. We can all agree dogs have emotions, right? But we can only interpret those emotions through the human lens: we can't ever tell if the dog is actually experiencing the same emotion, or even one that is analogous, we can only say "He looks like I would think a happy dog would look." Yet we can agree they have emotinoal states, and we can prove this through brain scans and application of stimuli. How would we verify what the dog actually feels? By comparing it to human brain scans. My point is, if a robot ever did develop feelings, there isn't any defined scientific way to identify those feelings accurately. WE can design a robot to PRETEND to feel so we can understand it. It's weird!
Do you think robots could go renegade? Like in movies and sci-fi tv shows where a robot(s) takes on their own personality, acts independently from human control, etc.?
Created: