The crisis in Morality

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Oh and by the way - when you've finished putting out the latest fire in your trouser department any chance of an actual argument to justify your claim that human-made morality would be "redundant" or will that be yet another un-argued assertion you've run away from in a flurry of lies and distractions?

[Nearly Sane]

I don’t think he supports it or condones it. I leave stupefyingly ludicrous equations like that to you.
I would stop at him having a dangerous attitude which allows this to flourish.....and for what? That he can keep this shit about Old Testament slavery and if people were proper Christians they would support it....afloat.

It also reinforces fallacious notions of modernity, progress and secularity......imho.

Unfortunately I fear the arseclenchingly stupefying hypocrisy going on here will never see the light of scrutiny.

You said his views were despicable because he was turning a blind eye. That's the lie that you have lied about here.

[BeRational]

So Early Isrealite slaveowners had laws governing them.

What has that to do with non slave owning 21st century non isrealites? Or even non slave owning Early Isrealites?

These laws are supposedly from God and laws that it found morally good.
If you believe in this God why do you think his rules on slavery are not moral.
I assume of course that you do not think owning people is morally good.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

These laws are supposedly from God and laws that it found morally good.
If you believe in this God why do you think his rules on slavery are not moral.
I assume of course that you do not think owning people is morally good.

Several points here. Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God to man. He truly shows us what God is like.
Secondly it is possible that religion evolves or as Jesus put it. The spirit will lead you INTO all truth.
Thirdly. After the fall imafraid everything becomes infused with immorality. Gods will being an environment that is paradise. So I'm afraid we are mainly into lesser or greater evils
And finally you are majoring on the OT Now I've been accused of cherry picking but to cherry pick the whole OT? That is some feetbut sadly not impressive. Of course unless you are a moral realist criticising ANY morality cannot be reasonably seen as anything but arsepull.
Any claim that morality is a form of aesthetic ism is highly suspect. I MO

[BeRational]

Several points here. Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God to man. He truly shows us what God is like.
Secondly it is possible that religion evolves or as Jesus put it. The spirit will lead you INTO all truth.
Thirdly. After the fall imafraid everything becomes infused with immorality. Gods will being an environment that is paradise. So I'm afraid we are mainly into lesser or greater evils
And finally you are majoring on the OT Now I've been accused of cherry picking but to cherry pick the whole OT? That is some feetbut sadly not impressive. Of course unless you are a moral realist criticising ANY morality cannot be reasonably seen as anything but arsepull.
Any claim that morality is a form of aesthetic ism is highly suspect. I MO

So does this mean you think gods musings about the morality of slavery is wrong?

[Outrider]

Because it is precisely the attitude that allows modern slavery to occur. It is blind eyeing as it were,

How does calling people trafficking people trafficking, and work-ganging work-ganging, and exploitation exploitation in a technical discussion on actual slavery equate to turning a blind eye to them?  Within the context of this discussion, they very clearly aren't actual slavery.  In the common usage, as I've already explained, there's a useful purpose to the technical misuse - I don't wander around randomly 'correcting' people for their usage because this is how language works, terms get borrowed and repurposed.

However, in a discussion about actual genuine slavery the distinction is important and needs to be made.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So does this mean you think gods musings about the morality of slavery is wrong?

What I am saying is that after the fall of Man the world itself is never not infused with moral wrong. Divorce by any accounts shows that where it occurs there has been human incompatibility and human alienation and yet, it is often the lesser of two evils.
Those who supported the decision to drop the atom bomb in WW2 argue it avoided a land invasion. Again one had to be the lesser of two evils.
And that might be why we see bad things happening in the OT.

Since I get accused of wanting to hand wave the bad stuff away. I will say I am prepared to own this lesser evils idea
It is also alternatively  possible that these laws were passed by people who didnt actually realise they shouldn't just be making laws about slavery but abolishing it. On the other hand there must have been Israelites who didnt want slaves on moral grounds and were within the rules not to have them.

So the point is I find nothing anywhere to say that God saw slavery and thought that it was good. But he is and has been dealing with fallen human beings on a personal local national and international level.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How does calling people trafficking people trafficking, and work-ganging work-ganging, and exploitation exploitation in a technical discussion on actual slavery equate to turning a blind eye to them? 

Not seeing it for what it is.

[Outrider]

Not seeing it for what it is.

So what's your working definition of slavery that differs from the dictionaries, then?  I've explained mine, and why I think it's significant in this context, and how I don't make the differentiation in everyday life, but don't let little things like nuance get in the way, just pop out your explanation of why there's no difference between modern day work-ganging and the 17th Century trans-Atlantic slave trade and we can all consider ourselves as enlightened as you appear to think you are.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what's your working definition of slavery that differs from the dictionaries, then?  I've explained mine, and why I think it's significant in this context, and how I don't make the differentiation in everyday life, but don't let little things like nuance get in the way, just pop out your explanation of why there's no difference between modern day work-ganging and the 17th Century trans-Atlantic slave trade and we can all consider ourselves as enlightened as you appear to think you are.

O.

This is amazing. You are the ones turd polishing modern slavery into not at all actual slavery because there is no religious component to it and, I'm the one in the Dock!

This MB community has certainly experienced geographic isolation to the point where it is evolutionary at variance with the universal and legal recognition that modern slavery is forms of,er,slavery.

[Outrider]

This is amazing. You are the ones turd polishing modern slavery into not at all actual slavery because there is no religious component to it and, I'm the one in the Dock!

I have no evidence whether religion is a component in Modern Slavery, and I've not commented on whether it does or doesn't - what makes it slavery or not is whether it's openly legislated by government, whether it's the legal ownership of people or the illegal subjugation and exploitation of them.  I note that has avoided actually making an argument for what slavery is or isn't in favour of ad hominems based on points that no-one's been making - it takes some doing to ad hominem a straw-man, that's like the Royal Flush of logical fallacies.

This MB community has certainly experienced geographic isolation to the point where it is evolutionary at variance with the universal and legal recognition that modern slavery is forms of,er,slavery.

All you need do to justify that is come up with what definition of slavery you're using that encompasses both - I'll wait some more.

Whilst you're trying to find something to avoid doing that, how about you pitch what exactly your take on morality is that justifies baseless ad hominems?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is to certify
That Out Rider has been both inducted into
The worshipful company of Turdpolishers
B.Hillside General Secretary
And received into membership of the Caledonian brotherhood of Keechsheeners
Chief Sheener N.sane.

[Nearly Sane]

This is to certify
That Out Rider has been both inducted into
The worshipful company of Turdpolishers
B.Hillside General Secretary
And received into membership of the Caledonian brotherhood of Keechsheeners
Chief Sheener N.sane.

Quite amusing. Points for use of keech.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Quite amusing. Points for use of keech.

Thank you......

Who's the moderator general of the brotherhood this year?

[Nearly Sane]

Thank you......

Who's the moderator general of the brotherhood this year?

You have that role for life

[BeRational]

What I am saying is that after the fall of Man the world itself is never not infused with moral wrong. Divorce by any accounts shows that where it occurs there has been human incompatibility and human alienation and yet, it is often the lesser of two evils.
Those who supported the decision to drop the atom bomb in WW2 argue it avoided a land invasion. Again one had to be the lesser of two evils.
And that might be why we see bad things happening in the OT.

Since I get accused of wanting to hand wave the bad stuff away. I will say I am prepared to own this lesser evils idea
It is also alternatively  possible that these laws were passed by people who didnt actually realise they shouldn't just be making laws about slavery but abolishing it. On the other hand there must have been Israelites who didnt want slaves on moral grounds and were within the rules not to have them.

So the point is I find nothing anywhere to say that God saw slavery and thought that it was good. But he is and has been dealing with fallen human beings on a personal local national and international level.

So why are the supposed words of God on the subject of slavery not something like thou shalt not own people as property instead of the rules setting out exactly the opposite?

[Outrider]

This is to certify
That Out Rider has been both inducted into
The worshipful company of Turdpolishers
B.Hillside General Secretary
And received into membership of the Caledonian brotherhood of Keechsheeners
Chief Sheener N.sane.

Should  I presume that your decision to attempt satire instead of making a point constitutes an admission that you were talking keech?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So why are the supposed words of God on the subject of slavery not something like thou shalt not own people as property instead of the rules setting out exactly the opposite?

Is there a commandment "Thou shall keep slaves".I didn't k now that.
Besides,Did you know that the OT was written by and for the people of Isael?

Did you know that non Israelites are only covered by the Noachite laws apparently.No not many Goyim like you and me do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Should  I presume that your decision to attempt satire instead of making a point constitutes an admission that you were talking keech?

O.

not really. How does a witty accusation of you polishing leech constitute me talking it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have that role for life

Ah....sheener emeritus.

[Outrider]

not really. How does a witty accusation of you polishing leech constitute me talking it?

So still not actually making the argument, I see... I'll wait.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Several points here. Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God to man. He truly shows us what God is like.

A faith assertion, not an argument.
 

Secondly it is possible that religion evolves or as Jesus put it. The spirit will lead you INTO all truth.

A faith assertion, not an argument.

Thirdly. After the fall imafraid everything becomes infused with immorality. Gods will being an environment that is paradise. So I'm afraid we are mainly into lesser or greater evils

A faith assertion, not an argument.

And finally you are majoring on the OT Now I've been accused of cherry picking but to cherry pick the whole OT?

So which bits of the books you think to be “holy” do you think are wrong, and how do you decide about that?

That is some feetbut sadly not impressive. Of course unless you are a moral realist criticising ANY morality cannot be reasonably seen as anything but arsepull.

An assertion you refuse to justify with an argument.

Any claim that morality is a form of aesthetic ism is highly suspect. I MO

As you a can’t or won’t justify your opinion with an argument, it’s worthless.

What I am saying is that after the fall of Man the world itself is never not infused with moral wrong.

A faith assertion, not an argument.

Divorce by any accounts shows that where it occurs there has been human incompatibility and human alienation and yet, it is often the lesser of two evils.

Incoherent irrelevance.

Those who supported the decision to drop the atom bomb in WW2 argue it avoided a land invasion. Again one had to be the lesser of two evils.
And that might be why we see bad things happening in the OT.

Hang on – just now you asserted that citing the OT was “cherry picking”. Now you’re saying it’s in play, but that your god (apparently of the omnis remember) couldn’t arrange things such that no lesser “evil” was necessary.

Perhaps you should decide which horse you’re backing here?
   

Since I get accused of wanting to hand wave the bad stuff away. I will say I am prepared to own this lesser evils idea

So you’re “owning” a god not competent enough to eliminate a lesser evil option entirely then. Fair enough – its your blind faith claim after all.

It is also alternatively  possible that these laws were passed by people who didnt actually realise they shouldn't just be making laws about slavery but abolishing it. On the other hand there must have been Israelites who didnt want slaves on moral grounds and were within the rules not to have them.

So people behaved exactly as you’d expect them to given the circumstances of the time and if there was no god at all to tell them what's right and wrong then? Again, “god” is your faith claim so you can fill that space with whatever you like, but you're making claims about this god with implications I don’t think you’d like.   

So the point is I find nothing anywhere to say that God saw slavery and thought that it was good.

Nice bit of weasel wording there. If this god of yours thought slavery was bad, why wouldn’t “He” say just have said so in the books he supposedly “inspired”? After all, isn’t that how “He” supposedly chose to lay down “His” moral rules for the guidance of “His” playthings? 

But he is and has been dealing with fallen human beings on a personal local national and international level.

Highly incompetently it seems. Again though, that’s just another faith assertion but not an argument.

Maybe if you actually tried to make an honest-to-goodness argument just for once you’d provide some reason not to dismiss your ramblings and musings out of hand. How about for example finally telling us why human-made morality would be “redundant”? Surely you must have something in mind to justify the claim? 

Anything at all?

No?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

So still not actually making the argument, I see... I'll wait.

I went for a bike ride today through some beautiful countryside, and in one of the villages we pass though is a house that was previously a pub. There's a sign on the wall that tells you that it was previously the Three Horseshoes, that it closed in 1956 and was converted into a private dwelling etc. I reckon that if you turned up there expecting the barmaid to bring you a nice pint of Old Wobbly Geriatric you'd wait less time than you'd wait for an actual argument from Perce.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

A faith assertion, not an argument.

ja

A faith assertion, not an argument.[/quote] Si

A faith assertion, not an argument.[/quote] yep

And here is the punchline Hillock. They are my faith assertions not what you nor any of the Worshipful company say are my faith assertions .

[Roses]

Outy,

I went for a bike ride today through some beautiful countryside, and in one of the villages we pass though is a house that was previously a pub. There's a sign on the wall that tells you that it was previously the Three Horseshoes, that it closed in 1956 and was converted into a private dwelling etc. I reckon that if you turned up there expecting the barmaid to bring you a nice pint of Old Wobbly Geriatric you'd wait less time than you'd wait for an actual argument from Perce.

Nice one.