- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why can’t we separate Conservative values from religion?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:23 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is an exercise in examining the futility in discussing "objective morality"
People have discussed it since we’ve been able to talk.
I did notice that you ignored the question.
Again.
1
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:26 am to VooDude
I always get a good chuckle when I hear people say they don't believe in God because He did something they don't understand. Your inability to understand a reason doe not establish that no reason exists.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:28 am to Flats
quote:
People have discussed it since we’ve been able to talk.
I understand, but my point (that you didn't quote) remains
quote:
I did notice that you ignored the question.
Slavery is immoral
If you want to reduce that to only my opinion, feel free. I think there is a lot more universality (today), and THAT is my opinion.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:30 am to FooManChoo
You type all of that and then claim morality can only come from God.
How can that be justified?
Or would the type of slavery you describe be perfectly ok today?
How can that be justified?
Or would the type of slavery you describe be perfectly ok today?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:30 am to SlowFlowPro
I was wondering how this dumbass thread got to 22 pages.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:32 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Or would the type of slavery you describe be perfectly ok today?
This statement should not be difficult to say/type
All slavery is immoral
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:41 am to FooManChoo
You used the phrase "chattel slavery". That's not just a vibe phrase, it actually has a definition and it does apply to what the Hebrews allowed for foreigners.
Muddying the water with "Yeah, but look, it's not exactly the same as American chattel slavery" misses the point.
Can I purchase/own someone as property and beat them so long as I don't knock out a tooth, an eye, or kill them? The Bible says yes.
You can't run defense with "at least it's not as bad as..." when your whole stance is "this is objective moral truth".
Muddying the water with "Yeah, but look, it's not exactly the same as American chattel slavery" misses the point.
Can I purchase/own someone as property and beat them so long as I don't knock out a tooth, an eye, or kill them? The Bible says yes.
You can't run defense with "at least it's not as bad as..." when your whole stance is "this is objective moral truth".
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:44 am to RohanGonzales
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:At least morally neutral. Just because the word "slave" was used doesn't mean that the status of that slave was equivalent to the slavery we think of as brutal and immoral on its face. You conflating the different forms shows that you aren't even arguing in good faith. Either that or you are just ignorant. I won't pass judgement on which is which.
So that form of slavery is moral?
quote:Certain forms were permissible, yes. Indentured servitude is closer to what was typically practiced than American chattel slavery. You can't conflate the two and pretend that both were exactly the same.
And that objective standard judges slavery as permissible.
If someone was poor and starving to death and couldn't just "get a job" or get welfare like we have, people had the option to sell themselves into slavery to be fed and cared for. Much of the slavery in Israel was voluntary. It was a form of welfare in a way, so no, that kind wasn't "immoral" at all.
quote:It actually depends on which society you're talking about. There are many societies today that tolerate or even promote chattel slavery like existed in America.
Society has developed a standard where slavery is not permissible.
Even so, you can't just say society has developed a standard where slavery is not permissible, as if that's just a settled and unchanging fact. Based on your previous comments about development of morality, I have to assume you're referring to an evolution of thought on slavery that means it is not permissible. The problem with that is that it is a standard that is not grounded in an objective reality, so therefore it could just as easily change, given the right circumstances.
quote:See above.
Slavery = universally and perpetually right, objectively.
*ETA: the kind-hearted, "good" version of slavery, obviously.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:47 am to Azkiger
quote:
My phrasing was "both *sound* logically absurd". Phrased differently, both sound highly unintuitive
Not to a Christian.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:51 am to RohanGonzales
SFP cannot help himself. He must be the arbiter of all threads and if you disagree with him, her, they, it will just continue until you grow tired of responding. Never seen someone with such a complete lack of humility.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:55 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
Not to a Christian.
So your argument is the clay deeply understands the potter?
A uncaused, immortal, timeless, immaterial, all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, infallible, perfectly just and loving, etc., etc., etc. being is all of a sudden highly understandable and perfectly intuitable.
Just don't ask why he knits children together in their mothers wombs with terminal cancer, because then, all of a sudden, we're back God being so mysterious and beyond our comprehension.
Christian apologetics is one hell of a drug.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 10:57 am
Posted on 9/1/26 at 11:01 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:You just need to have an overarching standard to use to judge whatever other standard you come up with, then.
Sure, there just doesn’t need to be an original standard to be able to compare.
quote:If the standard can be deemed worse, then that wasn't the standard in the first place, was it?
Or that original standard can be deemed worse than a new one after trial and error has occurred.
For instance: let's say the ultimate standard we should use is the minimizing of human suffering and maximizing human thriving. How would "trial and error" ever result in changing that standard, in your mind?
You can change application of that standard over time based on that standard, but the standard, itself doesn't really get tested all that much. It's assumed to be true and taken for granted.
The exception to that would be in what we are doing in this discussion thread. We are discussing the standards for morality and talking through their existence in terms of rationality, and comparing to other standards. Most people don't actually do that level of work, though, and just assume the standard I mentioned (suffering/thriving) and try to apply that consistently.
And that takes me back to what I was saying: the standard most people choose is absolutely arbitrary, because it's based on what they desire rather than some sort of outside (the human experience) standard that exists necessarily.
quote:An outcome is just an outcome. You have to compare the outcome to a standard to say whether or not the outcome is good or bad.
By observing outcomes and then making decisions that increase the human experience.
It's like a number. The number 5, by itself, can be a data point, but it doesn't really mean anything unless it is compared to a standard. 5 is low if you're talking about seconds you have to wait for dinner, but it's high if you have to wait 5 days to eat. It's low if you're talking about the number of hits a baseball player has out of 100 at bats, but it's high if the batter has only 10 at bats. It's a good number if it represents the number of times you get paid in a month, but a bad number (potentially) if it represents how often you get paid in a year.
So yeah, standards help orient us to the data. You can't look at an action in a vacuum and decide whether it's good or bad. You have to have a standard to anchor the action to in order to know if the action is desired ("good") or not ("bad").
quote:Nope. They are good. And if your moral subjectivity is correct, then God's standards are neither good nor bad/heinous, because it depends on what each person thinks about them. If they are good for me, then they're good for me, and you have no basis to say they aren't. That's the irrationality of your position.
God’s standards are fricking heinous, are they not?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 11:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Slavery is immoral If you want to reduce that to only my opinion, feel free.
I’m not reducing it to anything, logic is. Your belief that it (or anything) is immoral either comes from your head or it comes from the supernatural. If it comes from your head it’s nothing more than your opinion.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 11:10 am to Azkiger
True Christians believe the bible is truth and base faith on said principles. If you don't the bible to be factual, and you dismiss it, it's hard to have an honest conversation with a believer because you're dismissing what we base our faith on.
Btw, the bible doesn't say there will be no pain, suffering or condemnation in the world.
I can respect an agnostic or atheists point of view, even if I disagree with it. I'm not sure I understand the need for condescending behavior against believers. If you think it's nonsense, that's your perspective.
I was raised catholic and it drove me away from God completely. It took a long time for me to come back to my faith and have a deeper understanding.
Btw, the bible doesn't say there will be no pain, suffering or condemnation in the world.
I can respect an agnostic or atheists point of view, even if I disagree with it. I'm not sure I understand the need for condescending behavior against believers. If you think it's nonsense, that's your perspective.
I was raised catholic and it drove me away from God completely. It took a long time for me to come back to my faith and have a deeper understanding.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 11:11 am to FooManChoo
quote:
At least morally neutral.
It's going to be hard to argue slavery is "morally neutral"
quote:
Just because the word "slave" was used doesn't mean that the status of that slave was equivalent to the slavery we think of as brutal and immoral on its face.
I understand slavery has taken many forms. Every form is immoral.
quote:
You can't conflate the two and pretend that both were exactly the same.
Only you are doing this.
You're creating a strawman to establish this conflation and then arguing against your own rhetorical monster.
quote:
It actually depends on which society you're talking about. There are many societies today that tolerate or even promote chattel slavery like existed in America.
OK, developed society. And developed society looks at these lesser cultures in kind, declaring the immoral parts of that culture immoral (without the equivocations or strawmen).
Posted on 9/1/26 at 11:11 am to DCtiger1
quote:You are correct.
SFP cannot help himself. He must be the arbiter of all threads and if you disagree with him, her, they, it will just continue until you grow tired of responding. Never seen someone with such a complete lack of humility.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 11:12 am to Flats
quote:
our belief that it (or anything) is immoral either comes from your head or it comes from the supernatural.
It can come from analyzing objective data.
quote:
If it comes from your head it’s nothing more than your opinion.
I can do 2+2 = 4 (analyzing objective data) in my head. Is that an opinion?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 11:13 am to DCtiger1
quote:
SFP cannot help himself. He must be the arbiter of all threads and if you disagree with him, her, they, it will just continue until you grow tired of responding. Never seen someone with such a complete lack of humility.
Do you think slavery is "morally neutral" too?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 11:16 am to SlowFlowPro
Since you deflect as usual, I tend to refrain from engaging with someone who feels the need to constantly show they are intellectually superior and argues for the sake of hearing themself speak.
Page 22 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News