quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

---

It's a very common mistake, from the time of Christ onward, to think that Christ came to overthrow the social order. He did not. The early Christians sought to change hearts, not society.

That's why the condemnations of slavery which I've already pointed out are focused on individuals, not society.

---

Isn't that really just a convenient excuse? He supposedly came here to change the hearts of men. Slavery should be an immoral institution that reflects what resides in the hearts of men. Did he not speak out against stoning?

Set Jesus' shortcomings aside then. Why wasn't slavery condemned in the law of the OT, if we have a moral god?

---

Still belaboring the point from silence, coupled with your materialist's made up system of morality. How can you expect to be taken seriously.

---

Materialistic has nothing to do with it. Your morality is a system based upon some religious cleric's subjective claim of what is moral. Mine is based upon what is in the interest of other's wellbeing as supported by equitable and objective evidence.

---

Your "equitable and objective evidence" it totally unilateral with no basis in anything other than your asserted opinion. You can never escape this fundamental flaw in your assumptions.

---

Objective evidence is not a bug, it's a feature.

---

You are still confused about data over against assertions of morality.

Clearly Quash can read. CP and OB only see and read what they want me to say - gaslighting themselves.

TexasScientist said:

---

Clearly Quash can read. CP and OB only see and read what they want me to say - gaslighting themselves.

---

Check your mirror.

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

---

It's a very common mistake, from the time of Christ onward, to think that Christ came to overthrow the social order. He did not. The early Christians sought to change hearts, not society.

That's why the condemnations of slavery which I've already pointed out are focused on individuals, not society.

---

Isn't that really just a convenient excuse? He supposedly came here to change the hearts of men. Slavery should be an immoral institution that reflects what resides in the hearts of men. Did he not speak out against stoning?

Set Jesus' shortcomings aside then. Why wasn't slavery condemned in the law of the OT, if we have a moral god?

---

Still belaboring the point from silence, coupled with your materialist's made up system of morality. How can you expect to be taken seriously.

---

Materialistic has nothing to do with it. Your morality is a system based upon some religious cleric's subjective claim of what is moral. Mine is based upon what is in the interest of other's wellbeing as supported by equitable and objective evidence.

---

Your "equitable and objective evidence" it totally unilateral with no basis in anything other than your asserted opinion. You can never escape this fundamental flaw in your assumptions.

---

Objective evidence is not a bug, it's a feature.

---

You are still confused about data over against assertions of morality.

---

Not in the least. Data can be used to see if what we do has the intended effect, and if doesn't we should try something else that both conforms to our morals and achieves our goals based on those morals.

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Your "equitable and objective evidence" it totally unilateral with no basis in anything other than your asserted opinion. You can never escape this fundamental flaw in your assumptions.

---

Objective evidence is not a bug, it's a feature.

---

You are still confused about data over against assertions of morality.

---

Not in the least. Data can be used to see if what we do has the intended effect, and if doesn't we should try something else that both conforms to our morals and achieves our goals based on those morals.

---

And again, those goals and morals are subjective, not objective.

TexasScientist said:

---

Materialistic has nothing to do with it. Your morality is a system based upon some religious cleric's subjective claim of what is moral. Mine is based upon what is in the interest of other's wellbeing as supported by equitable and objective evidence.

---

Notice:"objective evidence".

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Materialistic has nothing to do with it. Your morality is a system based upon some religious cleric's subjective claim of what is moral. Mine is based upon what is in the interest of other's wellbeing as supported by equitable and objective evidence.

---

Notice:"objective evidence".

---

Something does not become objective just because you call it objective, and again, the intent is the topic, which is wholly subjective.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Materialistic has nothing to do with it. Your morality is a system based upon some religious cleric's subjective claim of what is moral. Mine is based upon what is in the interest of other's wellbeing as supported by equitable and objective evidence.

---

Notice:"objective evidence".

---

Something does not become objective just because you call it objective, and again, the intent is the topic, which is wholly subjective.

---

Why do you have a problem with the use of objective evidence?

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Materialistic has nothing to do with it. Your morality is a system based upon some religious cleric's subjective claim of what is moral. Mine is based upon what is in the interest of other's wellbeing as supported by equitable and objective evidence.

---

Notice:"objective evidence".

---

Something does not become objective just because you call it objective, and again, the intent is the topic, which is wholly subjective.

---

Why do you have a problem with the use of objective evidence?

---

I have no problem at all with actual objective evidence. My issue is your use of semantics to misconvey the character of evidence in this topic.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Materialistic has nothing to do with it. Your morality is a system based upon some religious cleric's subjective claim of what is moral. Mine is based upon what is in the interest of other's wellbeing as supported by equitable and objective evidence.

---

Notice:"objective evidence".

---

Something does not become objective just because you call it objective, and again, the intent is the topic, which is wholly subjective.

---

Why do you have a problem with the use of objective evidence?

---

I have no problem at all with actual objective evidence. My issue is your use of semantics to misconvey the character of evidence in this topic.

---

I'm not misconveying anything. I quoted TS's post so you could see how he uses the word "objective". As in "objective evidence". Not objective morals.

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

---

It's a very common mistake, from the time of Christ onward, to think that Christ came to overthrow the social order. He did not. The early Christians sought to change hearts, not society.

That's why the condemnations of slavery which I've already pointed out are focused on individuals, not society.

---

Isn't that really just a convenient excuse? He supposedly came here to change the hearts of men. Slavery should be an immoral institution that reflects what resides in the hearts of men. Did he not speak out against stoning?

Set Jesus' shortcomings aside then. Why wasn't slavery condemned in the law of the OT, if we have a moral god?

---

Still belaboring the point from silence, coupled with your materialist's made up system of morality. How can you expect to be taken seriously.

---

Materialistic has nothing to do with it. Your morality is a system based upon some religious cleric's subjective claim of what is moral. Mine is based upon what is in the interest of other's wellbeing as supported by equitable and objective evidence.

---

Your "equitable and objective evidence" it totally unilateral with no basis in anything other than your asserted opinion. You can never escape this fundamental flaw in your assumptions.

---

Objective evidence is not a bug, it's a feature.

---

You are still confused about data over against assertions of morality.

---

Not in the least. Data can be used to see if what we do has the intended effect, and if doesn't we should try something else that both conforms to our morals and achieves our goals based on those morals.

---

Still skipping over that bit that requires your conception of "morals" to be determined by your opinions/beliefs.

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

Objective evidence is not a bug, it's a feature.

---

You are still confused about data over against assertions of morality.

---

Not in the least. Data can be used to see if what we do has the intended effect, and if doesn't we should try something else that both conforms to our morals and achieves our goals based on those morals.

---

Still skipping over that bit that requires your conception of "morals" to be determined by your opinions/beliefs.

---

Opinions, beliefs, experience, evidence. Yup, all there. So?

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Materialistic has nothing to do with it. Your morality is a system based upon some religious cleric's subjective claim of what is moral. Mine is based upon what is in the interest of other's wellbeing as supported by equitable and objective evidence.

---

Notice:"objective evidence".

---

Something does not become objective just because you call it objective, and again, the intent is the topic, which is wholly subjective.

---

Why do you have a problem with the use of objective evidence?

---

I have no problem at all with actual objective evidence. My issue is your use of semantics to misconvey the character of evidence in this topic.

---

I'm not misconveying anything. I quoted TS's post so you could see how he uses the word "objective". As in "objective evidence". Not objective morals.

---

You keep reporting TS's false claim, yes.

And you keep making excuses for his false claim.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Materialistic has nothing to do with it. Your morality is a system based upon some religious cleric's subjective claim of what is moral. Mine is based upon what is in the interest of other's wellbeing as supported by equitable and objective evidence.

---

Notice:"objective evidence".

---

Something does not become objective just because you call it objective, and again, the intent is the topic, which is wholly subjective.

---

Why do you have a problem with the use of objective evidence?

---

I have no problem at all with actual objective evidence. My issue is your use of semantics to misconvey the character of evidence in this topic.

---

I'm not misconveying anything. I quoted TS's post so you could see how he uses the word "objective". As in "objective evidence". Not objective morals.

---

You keep reporting TS's false claim, yes.

And you keep making excuses for his false claim.

---

What part of his claim is false?

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

Objective evidence is not a bug, it's a feature.

---

You are still confused about data over against assertions of morality.

---

Not in the least. Data can be used to see if what we do has the intended effect, and if doesn't we should try something else that both conforms to our morals and achieves our goals based on those morals.

---

Still skipping over that bit that requires your conception of "morals" to be determined by your opinions/beliefs.

---

Opinions, beliefs, experience, evidence. Yup, all there. So?

---

So, what...?

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Materialistic has nothing to do with it. Your morality is a system based upon some religious cleric's subjective claim of what is moral. Mine is based upon what is in the interest of other's wellbeing as supported by equitable and objective evidence.

---

Notice:"objective evidence".

---

Something does not become objective just because you call it objective, and again, the intent is the topic, which is wholly subjective.

---

Why do you have a problem with the use of objective evidence?

---

I have no problem at all with actual objective evidence. My issue is your use of semantics to misconvey the character of evidence in this topic.

---

I'm not misconveying anything. I quoted TS's post so you could see how he uses the word "objective". As in "objective evidence". Not objective morals.

---

You keep reporting TS's false claim, yes.

And you keep making excuses for his false claim.

---

What part of his claim is false?

---

That morality is objective.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Materialistic has nothing to do with it. Your morality is a system based upon some religious cleric's subjective claim of what is moral. Mine is based upon what is in the interest of other's wellbeing as supported by equitable and objective evidence.

---

Notice:"objective evidence".

---

Something does not become objective just because you call it objective, and again, the intent is the topic, which is wholly subjective.

---

Why do you have a problem with the use of objective evidence?

---

I have no problem at all with actual objective evidence. My issue is your use of semantics to misconvey the character of evidence in this topic.

---

I'm not misconveying anything. I quoted TS's post so you could see how he uses the word "objective". As in "objective evidence". Not objective morals.

---

You keep reporting TS's false claim, yes.

And you keep making excuses for his false claim.

---

What part of his claim is false?

---

That morality is objective.

---

Where did he make that claim?

** sigh **

Concerning Study Finds Fewer People Pretending To Be Christian

U.S.A new study is worrying pastors and other evangelical leaders, as it suggests that fewer and fewer people are pretending to be Christians than ever before.

While in years past, the vast majority of the country pretended to be Christian, that number is shrinking every year, and now only a minority of the country fakes faith in Jesus Christ.
"This is extremely troubling," said evangelical megachurch pastor Jack Lindsey. "A decade ago, our pews were full of people who went through the motions of pretending to be Christian. But now, the fake believers are all acting like the atheists they are, and our churches are shrinking because of it. If only we could have a fake revival."
Pastors are trying to come up with ways to combat the decline of fake Christianity, from hosting big carnivals and preaching through movie franchises to serving better coffee and naming their churches after shopping malls and retirement communities. But nothing seems to be working so far, stoking fears that fake Christianity is on its way out permanently. Some have considered preaching the gospel to the unreached, but these people are obviously nuts.
"We're in a brave new world where people don't even bother paying lip service to a Jesus they don't believe in, and I'm not sure I want to live in that kind of country," said Lindsey.
https://babylonbee.com/news/study-finds-fewer-people-pretending-to-be-christian

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

---

You can't quote him?

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

---

You can't quote him?

---

I don't bother to prove the obvious.

It must be a mystery to you, how water is always wet, and that when you trip you fall down instead of flying into the air.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

---

You can't quote him?

---

I don't bother to prove the obvious.

It must be a mystery to you, how water is always wet, and that when you trip you fall down instead of flying into the air.

---

Same dodge you always use.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

---

You can't quote him?

---

I don't bother to prove the obvious.

It must be a mystery to you, how water is always wet, and that when you trip you fall down instead of flying into the air.

---

Same dodge you always use.

---

Nope, just observing facts.

You, of course, remain in better denial as ever.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

---

You can't quote him?

---

Could it be ... because I never said that?

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

---

You can't quote him?

---

Could it be ... because I never said that?

---

If you had he would show us the quote.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

---

It's a very common mistake, from the time of Christ onward, to think that Christ came to overthrow the social order. He did not. The early Christians sought to change hearts, not society.

That's why the condemnations of slavery which I've already pointed out are focused on individuals, not society.

---

Isn't that really just a convenient excuse? He supposedly came here to change the hearts of men. Slavery should be an immoral institution that reflects what resides in the hearts of men. Did he not speak out against stoning?

Set Jesus' shortcomings aside then. Why wasn't slavery condemned in the law of the OT, if we have a moral god?

---

Still belaboring the point from silence, coupled with your materialist's made up system of morality. How can you expect to be taken seriously.

---

Materialistic has nothing to do with it. Your morality is a system based upon some religious cleric's subjective claim of what is moral. Mine is based upon what is in the interest of other's wellbeing as supported by equitable and objective evidence.

---

It's still not clear what you think your morality is based on. You claim that it's supported by objective evidence, but the same could be said for Christian morality. You haven't demonstrated that your underlying assumptions are any less arbitrary than anyone else's.

Quote:

---

It's still not clear what you think your morality is based on. You claim that it's supported by objective evidence, but the same could be said for Christian morality. You haven't demonstrated that your underlying assumptions are any less arbitrary than anyone else's.

---

My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence. Christians could do the same, as could Muslims. To some extent Christians already do that in the sense that, and to the extent that, accepted minimal secular morals and values are codified into law in this country. In contrast, much of Islam's minimal morals are taken from the Quran as law.

Morals are rooted in the cultural norms determined by people. Those norms can either be influenced and determined by religious arbitrary beliefs, or as I would suggest, by taking a humanistic science of morality approach, taking into account the well being of others. Either way, morals and values are the product of our brains, and culture reinforces and influences what goes into our brain. Those values and morals are based upon a perception about the well being of conscious beings, and relate to a range of potential happiness and suffering. Regardless of source, morals and values can be reduced down to concerns about, and changes in our conscious experience. You can base them upon religion and your perception of how your status and conscious experience in an afterlife will be affected, or you can base them upon objective evidence as to the status of your conscious experience in the present life, in terms of well being, flourishing, and suffering. One set of values is based upon a perceived set of facts through belief in divine revelation, and the other upon scientifically and objectively determined factual truths about reality. These determinations are made and realized in our brain.

Experientially and factually, we can determine which relative states of our existence are the most desirable or ideal in terms of our well being, and in terms of suffering and flourishing. We can organize our cultural moral values around these objectively determined factual truths, in the sense that there are right and wrong answers to questions of our well being, flourishing, or suffering. A culture's set of values can be understood through scientific factual findings about the conscious experience of conscious beings. Objectively determined facts about these findings can be reduced values/morals, values/morals which correspond and relate to differences in the individual and collective well being of other sentient beings. Any cultural norms applied to others that fall outside of these objectively determined facts would be an infringement and impairment to the wellbeing of others, and therefore wrong.

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

TS: "I ignore the moral value of religion"

That's the point in a nutshell.

Your emotion leads you wrong.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "I ignore the moral value of religion"

That's the point in a nutshell.

Your emotion leads you wrong.

---

Emotion has no role in objective review of evidence. Religious moral interpretation of divine revelation is subjective, and open to influence from emotion.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

---

Honor killing.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "I ignore the moral value of religion"

That's the point in a nutshell.

Your emotion leads you wrong.

---

Emotion has no role in objective review of evidence. Religious moral interpretation of divine revelation is subjective, and open to influence from emotion.

---

You just proved me right. Again.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

You believe "religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures" but cannot prove this in any empirical way. It may be true that morals/values are made manifest as the result of humanity's creation/origin in the image of their Creator (Imago Dei).

"Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance."
This is just an assertion/opinion. I think culture derives its morality from our inherent knowledge of right and wrong as a consequence of general revelation and being infused with nature of our Creator, however dimly perceived. Of course, this is just an assertion/opinion, but it does not masquerade as objective truth.

In any event, in a materialist universe where everything that is is just the accidental byproduct of time and chance and all species are headed to oblivion, you have no claim upon any basis for morality. All you have is your own highly subjective imagining.