re: Why can’t we separate Conservative values from religion?

quote:

---

If it is the human condition to want to persist, and over time, humans have figured out the best way for everyone to persist, wouldn’t these strategies be moral?

---

No. And you attached the loaded "human condition" phrase. That has no meaning in a completely rational view of the world.

The human condition doesn't want to persist. But biological life does in the most basic sense.

An amoeba wants to persist, and will take whatever actions it needs to do that.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't think you want an honest conversation about this "gotcha."

---

How in the absolute frick can you read my posts in this thread and conclude I don’t want to have an honest conversation?
quote:
T

quote:

---

he second problem is that you can't bring up a single bible passage, then actually not engage in a biblical conversation about it. What you're wanting to do is impose rational/modern standards on ancient things and pat yourself on your back. It doesn't work like that.

---

I can’t quite explain it well enough to try, but I sense you’re just bitching out with this post here. I know I need a little help in these conversations, and I hate that it’s the case. But I might need you to explain the above quoted part for me. How am I doing that? Or better yet, I’m doing that…..compared to what? Are we all not doing that?

---

Ok fine let'see.

You want to talk about this:

quote:

---

quote:

---

As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness."

Leviticus 25:44-46

---

What does a Christian have to say about this as it pertains to this thread’s topic?

---

You want to talk slavery vs. religious values vs. moral, and how can a Christian believe the bible and be moral, and that "Christianity invented morals," etc. (which I don't 100% agree with as a blanket statement by the way), while it also basically promotes slavery vis a vis this passage correct?

quote:

---

I hate when y’all start this intentionally obfuscated stuff.

---

This is a philosophical discussion as old as time and I'm not asking anything new. I'm not "dancing around" a standard, I'm asking you where that standard comes from. You claim you want an honest conversation, so don't accuse others of being dishonest.

quote:

---

...how?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

What you're wanting to do is impose rational/modern standards on ancient things and pat yourself on your back. It doesn't work like that.

---

My version of morality doesn't work like that

The Bible 100% works like that

You're arguing against the stance of morality being universal and created by God, unless you want to argue the Bible has no play on "modern standards"

---

Okj let's get on the same page, the post you commented was about slavery in the Bible. There's an insinuation the statement in the Bible about slavery is problematic given the claims Christians are making over Morality, at least in reference to the point of the most recent discussions in the thread.

Pointing it out maybe saying "Ah ha! The Church can't complain creation of morality because of Leviticus," or something.

quote:

---

That's only existed in large part for 100 or so years. Human society goes back 8-12k years.

---

So? That's still determining morality by majority rule. Is that legitimate or not?

quote:

---

Pointing it out maybe saying "Ah ha! The Church can't complain creation of morality because of Leviticus," or something.

---

No. You're trying to spin the argument into an edgelord argument (like "God is evil look at this") that isn't being made.

The argument has been that morality can't be derived, created, etc. by humans. It requires a divine origination and proliferation. The Bible is the preferred source of morality, given the demographics of this board.

Slavery makes this argument problematic since the Bible condones slavery explicitly in the OT and Jesus not only never refutes it, but uses slavery in a metaphor that wasn't critical of the institution. If the derivation of morality is from the Bible, slavery is therefore not immoral. If you feel, today, slavery is immoral, that means the morality involved was derived outside of the Bible.

Counter to the societal trial and error theory, which perfectly works with slavery now being seen as immoral, while not doing this: "impose rational/modern standards on ancient things and pat yourself on your back".

The point of the argument isn't to invalidate Christianity. It's only to say that morality can be derived outside of Christianity.

quote:

---

The argument has been that morality can't be derived, created, etc. by humans.

---

Wrong. The argument is that objective morality can’t be created by humans. That’s self evident.

quote:

---

Both are “might makes right”. Is that how you define morality?

---

This is a long serious of trial and error over 8-12k years. Some of that involved "might makes right" and some didn't. The individual points along the way aren't relevant as they're very small datapoints in the larger sample.

*ETA: you're also focusing on the source/derivation, when it's the totality of the process and results that matter.

quote:

---

I don't try and find/establish objective morality as I don't think it exists (even if I were to accept the Christian worldview).

---

I think I Can appreciate this. I don’t use my own religious preferences as justification for morality. I guess, at the end of every explanation is “because I said so.”

quote:

---

Instead I look at what I think is the historical driving force behind moral frameworks: what behaviors lead to a prosperous, safe, and stable society? There is a reason why you don't see a prosperous society/culture that has legalized murder, theft, etc. Allowing certain behaviors lead to an environment people don't like, and why would people want to live in an environment they don't like?

---

this is a very Utilitarian framework. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with that.