- 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 1:06 pm to Azkiger
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:06 pm to Azkiger
Reply Part II
Of course you can when you have identified no such impossibilities in the second theory (which you have not).
As a mater of fact, you have to. That's called abductive reasoning. AKA Inference To The Best Explanation. Theoretical physics wouldn't exist at all without it. Engineering depends on it to a large degree. So does medicine. Computer science, AI development, etc., etc. It's used in scientific endeavors every day.
Not at all, and I suspect you know it and know why. But it's a minor point in this discussion and not one that I care to spend time on.
O.k., if you want to quibble (which shows how far you're having to reach to try to defend your position), the extra-Biblical sources we have on Jesus were written after his death, like anybody would have been written about back then who didn't have a propaganda staff like Alexander the Great or the Emperor of Rome. And in Jesus' case, that was even more explainable...he was only a public figure for about three years and he died abruptly and unexpectedly.
That doesn't speak to the point. The point is that more was written about him than the emperor at the time—or at least we have recovered more writings than the emperor at the time—and the emperor is someone who DID have a propaganda team writing about him on the regular.
And you can't claim that his disciples were Jesus' amateur propaganda team and also deny that they wrote the Gospels. Can't have it both ways. Besides, I'm talking about verified extra-Biblical sources.
I'd have to look that up before commenting on it with any certainty, but a quick Google search says that the events you are describing were at the tail end of Europe's conversion to Christianity.
I don't want to get off on a tangent, but I will quickly give an example. Remember, Jesus didn't just have teachings of His own. He regularly, quoted, taught, and affirmed Jewish law and morality as well, which heavily influenced the formation of English common law beginning with the Norman Conquest in 1066 and culminating with William Blackstone, who is the individual credited with ECL, from which our system of law is significantly derived.
Blackstone was a devout Christian and his concept of law rested upon the foundation of Christianity. As a specific example, due process of law and equal protection under the law were directly derived from Leviticus. Which Jesus quoted and taught—those specifics in Leviticus are right alongside "Love your neighbor as yourself" in the text.
Not always. The whole process of therapy is taking that which is subconscious and assisting the patient in confronting those things—thus making them conscious—and I'm sure any therapist will tell you that revealing them doesn't always change the patient's mind about them.
Also, I'm not sure in this context why it matters whether the resistance is subconscious or conscious.
Consider this famous quote by George Wald, Nobel Prize winning Harvard biologist:
*Critics say that this is not what Wald wrote in his Scientific American article, although it is frequently attributed to that article, that instead it is something that he said verbally after the fact. I haven't found anybody who actually denies that he communicated it in some fashion.
Assuming he did either write or say it, he knows full well what position he's taking. The facts don't matter to him.
Here's another one by Richard Lewinton, another Ivory Tower Biologist:
Again, he knows exactly what he's advocating for. It's not subconscious at all.
I was referring to the mathematical problem in the analogy.
In this context the "problem" is answering the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
You agree that simple logic precludes the answer, "It created itself."
The best math and science we have tells us that it is impossible for there to have been a past eternal universe and that it likewise would have been impossible for natural forces to have caused the beginning of the universe, since there was not only no matter, but no time or space for any action to have taken place in.
The answer is obvious if you really are being objective. Something that exists outside the universe—outside of space and time and matter—had to have caused it.
The most stubborn dogmatic materialists attempt to avoid the obvious conclusion by postulating things like the Multi-Verse theory or some other such loophole, but they can't find one that works. No matter, they continue to reject the only theory that DOES work, and that explains the whole question.
quote:
You can't just focus on the potential impossibilities of one theory then demand that means we accept its opponent when its opponent very well may also have similar potential impossibilities.
Of course you can when you have identified no such impossibilities in the second theory (which you have not).
As a mater of fact, you have to. That's called abductive reasoning. AKA Inference To The Best Explanation. Theoretical physics wouldn't exist at all without it. Engineering depends on it to a large degree. So does medicine. Computer science, AI development, etc., etc. It's used in scientific endeavors every day.
quote:
Irrelevant to the original criteria stated of "impact on history".
Not at all, and I suspect you know it and know why. But it's a minor point in this discussion and not one that I care to spend time on.
quote:
Mostly true, but Jesus hadzero contemporary writings of his existence. So the "during his lifetime" addition makes that line false.
O.k., if you want to quibble (which shows how far you're having to reach to try to defend your position), the extra-Biblical sources we have on Jesus were written after his death, like anybody would have been written about back then who didn't have a propaganda staff like Alexander the Great or the Emperor of Rome. And in Jesus' case, that was even more explainable...he was only a public figure for about three years and he died abruptly and unexpectedly.
That doesn't speak to the point. The point is that more was written about him than the emperor at the time—or at least we have recovered more writings than the emperor at the time—and the emperor is someone who DID have a propaganda team writing about him on the regular.
And you can't claim that his disciples were Jesus' amateur propaganda team and also deny that they wrote the Gospels. Can't have it both ways. Besides, I'm talking about verified extra-Biblical sources.
quote:
the Northern Crusades in the 11-13th century did forcibly convert pagans in Northern Europe, which accounts for/explains the vast majority of the modern day Christian population
I'd have to look that up before commenting on it with any certainty, but a quick Google search says that the events you are describing were at the tail end of Europe's conversion to Christianity.
quote:
You have the floor.
I don't want to get off on a tangent, but I will quickly give an example. Remember, Jesus didn't just have teachings of His own. He regularly, quoted, taught, and affirmed Jewish law and morality as well, which heavily influenced the formation of English common law beginning with the Norman Conquest in 1066 and culminating with William Blackstone, who is the individual credited with ECL, from which our system of law is significantly derived.
Blackstone was a devout Christian and his concept of law rested upon the foundation of Christianity. As a specific example, due process of law and equal protection under the law were directly derived from Leviticus. Which Jesus quoted and taught—those specifics in Leviticus are right alongside "Love your neighbor as yourself" in the text.
quote:
But the draws are still unconscious.
Not always. The whole process of therapy is taking that which is subconscious and assisting the patient in confronting those things—thus making them conscious—and I'm sure any therapist will tell you that revealing them doesn't always change the patient's mind about them.
Also, I'm not sure in this context why it matters whether the resistance is subconscious or conscious.
Consider this famous quote by George Wald, Nobel Prize winning Harvard biologist:
quote:
"There are only two possibilities as to how life originated. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third position. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Redi, and others. That leads us to only one other possible conclusion, that of supernatural creation. I cannot accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
*Critics say that this is not what Wald wrote in his Scientific American article, although it is frequently attributed to that article, that instead it is something that he said verbally after the fact. I haven't found anybody who actually denies that he communicated it in some fashion.
Assuming he did either write or say it, he knows full well what position he's taking. The facts don't matter to him.
Here's another one by Richard Lewinton, another Ivory Tower Biologist:
quote:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Again, he knows exactly what he's advocating for. It's not subconscious at all.
quote:
Have we even established there is a problem to begin with (that there is a bad afterlife we're trying to avoid)?
I was referring to the mathematical problem in the analogy.
In this context the "problem" is answering the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
You agree that simple logic precludes the answer, "It created itself."
The best math and science we have tells us that it is impossible for there to have been a past eternal universe and that it likewise would have been impossible for natural forces to have caused the beginning of the universe, since there was not only no matter, but no time or space for any action to have taken place in.
The answer is obvious if you really are being objective. Something that exists outside the universe—outside of space and time and matter—had to have caused it.
The most stubborn dogmatic materialists attempt to avoid the obvious conclusion by postulating things like the Multi-Verse theory or some other such loophole, but they can't find one that works. No matter, they continue to reject the only theory that DOES work, and that explains the whole question.
1
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:not reading 23 pages, just adding that without a higher source for morality, your claim of morality or immorality is based wholly on your preferences.
So now you believe claiming believing that slavery is moral
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:08 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
are you not aware of the BGV Theorum?
Does the BGV Theorem specifically discuss matter?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:08 pm to The Eric
Correct, prior to the Law of Moses and Christianity it was extremely common and widely accepted to have prostitution, homosexuality especially under the Greeks and Romans, child sex slaves, polygamy, public displays of violence for entertainment, public drunkenness, etc. Western civilization and culture began to question and condemn those practices following the adoption of Judeo/Christian values meaning they became morally wrong.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:If I were to call being a prison inmate "slavery", would you then say it was immoral?
It's still slavery. Trying to claim it's not slavery because it wasn't as bad as American slavery ignores the point: it is slavery.
Don't be so simplistic to think that because a word is used, everyone means/meant the exact same thing by that word. The reason why most people find the word "slavery" to be morally repugnant is not because of the word, but because of what the word means to them. They think of the transatlantic slave trade and the horrible conditions of it. If someone were a "slave" to Elon Musk, but that "slave" was more like an administrative assistant that was given access to all Elon's wealth and luxuries and they lived better than most free people, perhaps that version of a slave wouldn't have the same implicit baggage and moral repugnance that most people think of, especially if that slave voluntarily became one.
It's why it is important to consider the nuances of the subject.
You just want to score some sort of moral points against the Bible, which is why you aren't being intellectually honest. It's easier for you that way.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:The standard of objective morality in the Christian worldview is the very unchanging character of God. That character is reflected in His moral law, represented by the 10 commandments.
If objective morality exists, we haven't found the text describing it.
What may change over time is the application of the standard, not the standard, itself.
We can discuss slavery and apply the same moral principles of stealing and murder/violence to how we are to treat employees, for instance.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
If someone refuses to explain the basis for their perspective, it becomes very difficult to have an objective or rationally evaluable debate, especially about Christianity.
A productive debate requires more than stating conclusions. Each person needs to be willing to expose at least some of the reasoning that leads to those conclusions. For example, compare:
“Christianity is true because the Bible says it is.”
with:
“I believe Christianity is true because I think the historical evidence surrounding Jesus, the resurrection claims, and the reliability of the New Testament provides sufficient reason to accept its central claims.”
The second position gives you something that can actually be examined. You can ask whether the historical evidence is reliable, whether alternative explanations exist, whether the reasoning follows, and what assumptions are being made.
With Christianity, disagreements frequently occur because people aren't merely disagreeing about facts. They're disagreeing about how facts should be evaluated.
One person might begin with:
Scripture is divinely authoritative.
Faith is a legitimate way of knowing something.
Miracles are possible.
Personal religious experience can constitute evidence.
Another might begin with:
Scripture should initially be treated like any other ancient document.
Claims require publicly accessible evidence.
Supernatural explanations require especially strong justification.
Personal experiences aren't sufficient evidence for another person.
Neither side can resolve the disagreement simply by quoting more evidence if they won't discuss those underlying assumptions.
For instance, suppose someone says:
“The Bible is God's word, therefore Christianity is true.”
You might reasonably ask:
“Why should we believe the Bible is God's word?”
If the answer is:
“Because the Bible says it is.”
you've encountered circular reasoning unless an independent justification is supplied. Conversely, simply saying “miracles cannot happen because supernatural events are impossible” can also beg the question if the impossibility of supernatural events is itself the disputed premise.
Being objective doesn't mean entering the discussion without assumptions, beliefs, or biases. That's probably impossible. It means being willing to identify your assumptions and subject them to examination.
A useful question for either a Christian or skeptic is:
“What is the basis for your belief, and what evidence or argument could potentially cause you to reconsider it?”
If the answer is effectively “nothing could change my mind, and I won't explain why I believe it,” then you're no longer having an evidential debate. You're encountering a conviction that the person has chosen not to make available for rational examination.
That doesn't necessarily mean the conviction is false. It means the debate cannot determine whether it is true.
There's also an important distinction between faith and argument. Someone is perfectly entitled to say, “My Christianity ultimately rests on faith, and I'm not interested in defending that faith philosophically.” That's a coherent personal position. But you cannot simultaneously insist that I should accept your conclusion through objective reasoning while refusing to provide the reasoning.
Your claim to be objective while simultaneously refraining from sharing where your perspective is coming from. Meanwhile, open believers in this thread are being accused of refusing to be objective about the topic at hand because you are fully aware of where their perspective is coming from, which is Christianity.
A productive debate requires more than stating conclusions. Each person needs to be willing to expose at least some of the reasoning that leads to those conclusions. For example, compare:
“Christianity is true because the Bible says it is.”
with:
“I believe Christianity is true because I think the historical evidence surrounding Jesus, the resurrection claims, and the reliability of the New Testament provides sufficient reason to accept its central claims.”
The second position gives you something that can actually be examined. You can ask whether the historical evidence is reliable, whether alternative explanations exist, whether the reasoning follows, and what assumptions are being made.
With Christianity, disagreements frequently occur because people aren't merely disagreeing about facts. They're disagreeing about how facts should be evaluated.
One person might begin with:
Scripture is divinely authoritative.
Faith is a legitimate way of knowing something.
Miracles are possible.
Personal religious experience can constitute evidence.
Another might begin with:
Scripture should initially be treated like any other ancient document.
Claims require publicly accessible evidence.
Supernatural explanations require especially strong justification.
Personal experiences aren't sufficient evidence for another person.
Neither side can resolve the disagreement simply by quoting more evidence if they won't discuss those underlying assumptions.
For instance, suppose someone says:
“The Bible is God's word, therefore Christianity is true.”
You might reasonably ask:
“Why should we believe the Bible is God's word?”
If the answer is:
“Because the Bible says it is.”
you've encountered circular reasoning unless an independent justification is supplied. Conversely, simply saying “miracles cannot happen because supernatural events are impossible” can also beg the question if the impossibility of supernatural events is itself the disputed premise.
Being objective doesn't mean entering the discussion without assumptions, beliefs, or biases. That's probably impossible. It means being willing to identify your assumptions and subject them to examination.
A useful question for either a Christian or skeptic is:
“What is the basis for your belief, and what evidence or argument could potentially cause you to reconsider it?”
If the answer is effectively “nothing could change my mind, and I won't explain why I believe it,” then you're no longer having an evidential debate. You're encountering a conviction that the person has chosen not to make available for rational examination.
That doesn't necessarily mean the conviction is false. It means the debate cannot determine whether it is true.
There's also an important distinction between faith and argument. Someone is perfectly entitled to say, “My Christianity ultimately rests on faith, and I'm not interested in defending that faith philosophically.” That's a coherent personal position. But you cannot simultaneously insist that I should accept your conclusion through objective reasoning while refusing to provide the reasoning.
Your claim to be objective while simultaneously refraining from sharing where your perspective is coming from. Meanwhile, open believers in this thread are being accused of refusing to be objective about the topic at hand because you are fully aware of where their perspective is coming from, which is Christianity.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:41 pm to Azkiger
quote:
It could be my lack of intelligence or imagination, but it seems to me that the hierarchy of competing duties looks suspiciously like rank-ordering suffering to avoid/happiness to target that utilitarianism is defined by.
It's probably your lack of intelligence.
But seriously, if the rank-ordering were determined by suffering/happiness, then yes, that would just be utilitarianism. I don't think it necessarily has to be.
Take the Nazi-at-the-door example. I don't have to conclude that lying is permissible because I've calculated that the lie produces more aggregate happiness or less aggregate suffering. I can conclude that protecting innocent human life takes precedence because preserving human dignity is the more fundamental moral obligation.
I think where you're getting me is that I can't simply say both things are wrong and leave it there. If action is required, I eventually have to explain why one duty supersedes another. But that doesn't make the explanation utilitarian unless consequences are the metric I'm using to decide.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:45 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Is this actually belief though? Weighing potential personal consequences of “belief” or “disbelief” before deciding whether or not you believe something doesn’t seem like authentic belief.
Humans are often surprisingly simple creatures whose behaviors are greatly affected by perceived potential consequences.
Take it from someone who has actually died and visited the afterlife, it’s all real. Jesus, St. Peter, Heaven, Hell, clouds, pearly gates, etc. It’s all very real. If that changes how you live your life or doesn’t, do what you will with that information, but some people will seek that extra insurance.
As for why conservative thought is often inseparable from Christianity, it is because the liberal philosophy of natural rights for all mankind, limited government, equal treatment under the law, and the free exchange of goods and ideas all were birthed within explicitly Christian societies. While one can argue that the moralities underpinning the American system do not necessarily require organized Christian religion to exist, they have never manifested themselves outside of that context.
The reality is that Christianity has some pretty profound concepts of individual rights, free will, heavenly justice over worldly retribution, forgiveness of sins, etc that most other religions lack.
I could well be wrong, but it appears to me that while these Christian tinted ideals can survive outside of Christianity for a time so long as it is immersed within a nominally Christian culture, over time, they will become eroded and perverted by whatever body seeks to supplant religion as the primary arbiter of thought and morality. These hard fought natural rights will be worn down and phased out by the new authority as it seeks to insulate its position from potential challenges to its authority. This will be rationalized through any thought process that can be imagined, whether via scapegoating, public safety, scientific efficiency, or what have you.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:49 pm to DCtiger1
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:50 pm to kingbob
I think you owe me an apology.
Perhaps. Near-death experiences have been studied scientifically, but I'm not sure how we could establish that what someone experiences during one is actually an afterlife rather than an experience associated with the process of dying. I'm certainly not going to tell you that you didn't experience what you experienced. I just don't know how I could independently conclude that your interpretation of that experience is correct.
I believe in the Christian God, but the afterlife is something I've never really been able to wrap my mind around.
quote:
Take it from someone who has actually died and visited the afterlife, it’s all real. Jesus, St. Peter, Heaven, Hell, clouds, pearly gates, etc. It’s all very real. If that changes how you live your life or doesn’t, do what you will with that information, but some people will seek that extra insurance.
Perhaps. Near-death experiences have been studied scientifically, but I'm not sure how we could establish that what someone experiences during one is actually an afterlife rather than an experience associated with the process of dying. I'm certainly not going to tell you that you didn't experience what you experienced. I just don't know how I could independently conclude that your interpretation of that experience is correct.
I believe in the Christian God, but the afterlife is something I've never really been able to wrap my mind around.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:58 pm to 4cubbies
Well I disagree cubbies. Look at those who once claimed to believe and then walked away because they had some unfortunate event or someone hurt their feelings. That was a choice on their part.
Free will is the basis of religion. God does not force anyone to worship Him nor bow to his glory, yet, but it will happen. All of us are finite beings, He is not, and when we stand to face judgement there will be no free will, only the ramifications of the decisions previously made.
Free will is the basis of religion. God does not force anyone to worship Him nor bow to his glory, yet, but it will happen. All of us are finite beings, He is not, and when we stand to face judgement there will be no free will, only the ramifications of the decisions previously made.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:58 pm to RoyalWe
with that, I'm out. I don't respect a reasonable or genuine response.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:01 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I don't think it necessarily has to be.
It doesn't HAVE to be, but is it?
Why is telling the truth a lesser obligation when compared to saving a life? Is it the amount of suffering caused (utilitarianism in a different coat of paint) or some other reason?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:07 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
No I don't believe slavery is morally neutral.
The text of the Old Testament does not invent slavery or present it as an ideal moral state; rather, it sets rules for a practice that was already universal in the ancient Near East.
Hebrew servants had specific protections and were usually released after six years or during the Year of Jubilee (Exodus 21:2, Leviticus 25:39–41). Foreign slaves from surrounding nations faced fewer legal restrictions on permanent ownership and could be passed down as property (Leviticus 25:44–46).
Mosaic law placed legal boundaries on the mistreatment of slaves, such as granting freedom if a master permanently injured a servant's eye or tooth (Exodus 21:26–27). Kidnapping a person to sell them into slavery was punishable by death (Exodus 21:16).
Many scholars and theologians argue that the Old Testament accommodated the social realities of the ancient world while embedding moral seeds—such as the creation of all humans in God's image and the memory of slavery in Egypt—that ultimately pointed toward human equality and freedom.
You argue that by permitting chattel slavery for foreigners, establishing rules for owning human property, and failing to issue a blanket moral condemnation, the bible implicitly condoned the institution.
We can talk about how the New Testament addresses the issue if you'd like.
What are your personal beliefs?
Since you pasted an AI response, tell it:
If I understand this correctly, God said you can go to hell for screwing around and not going to worship on Saturday, but he was unable to draw the line on slavery?
That doesn't hold up to me.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:09 pm to DCtiger1
One argument I would make for the veracity of the Biblical Jesus is third party documentation. In History, the more surviving sources which documented a given person or event, the higher the likelihood of that person or event having been truly historical. Jesus of Nazareth is actually one of the better documented people of the first century, including accounts by Roman writers who had no incentives to do him any favors.
As for the Old Testament, in addition to the frequent discoveries of millennia old Hebrew texts showing consistency in translation and verbiage, another important aspect is names, landmarks, ferna and fauna described.
When one examines a text, one way to distinguish between a text written contemporaneously and one potentially written centuries later by authors not in the same place is to check the details. Think of it like watching a teen movie filmed on location in the 1980’s vs a Netflix tv show set in the 1980’s but filmed on a sound stage 2000 miles away from the setting. The 80’s film is likely to more accurately portray fashion, slang, and landmarks than the modern nostalgia bait series. The same logic can be applied to biblical texts. When it is, we find remarkably consistent accuracy in both Testaments. Where the Bible describes a city, the distances between cities, the trees and crops which grow there, archaeologists are able to verify these details and frequently find the exact locations described. This is not the case with many apocryphal books believed to have been medieval forgeries.
In addition, the proper nouns match common usage in the eras described. Hayden, Braydyn, and Jaydyn would look out of place in a story about the American Civil War, but would make sense in a 2020’s sitcom about travel ball. The same concept when applied to the Bible gives another piece of circumstantial evidence that these books, at minimum, were written where and when they claim to be from.
However, I am less inclined to compel belief in a religion merely because it is historically authentic. I would rather argue the merits of its core philosophies and how they interface with daily life, inner mental health, structuring one’s local community, and the world at large.
As for the Old Testament, in addition to the frequent discoveries of millennia old Hebrew texts showing consistency in translation and verbiage, another important aspect is names, landmarks, ferna and fauna described.
When one examines a text, one way to distinguish between a text written contemporaneously and one potentially written centuries later by authors not in the same place is to check the details. Think of it like watching a teen movie filmed on location in the 1980’s vs a Netflix tv show set in the 1980’s but filmed on a sound stage 2000 miles away from the setting. The 80’s film is likely to more accurately portray fashion, slang, and landmarks than the modern nostalgia bait series. The same logic can be applied to biblical texts. When it is, we find remarkably consistent accuracy in both Testaments. Where the Bible describes a city, the distances between cities, the trees and crops which grow there, archaeologists are able to verify these details and frequently find the exact locations described. This is not the case with many apocryphal books believed to have been medieval forgeries.
In addition, the proper nouns match common usage in the eras described. Hayden, Braydyn, and Jaydyn would look out of place in a story about the American Civil War, but would make sense in a 2020’s sitcom about travel ball. The same concept when applied to the Bible gives another piece of circumstantial evidence that these books, at minimum, were written where and when they claim to be from.
However, I am less inclined to compel belief in a religion merely because it is historically authentic. I would rather argue the merits of its core philosophies and how they interface with daily life, inner mental health, structuring one’s local community, and the world at large.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:11 pm to Boom33
God said you can go to hell for screwing around and not going to worship on Saturday
What are you referencing, specifically in the teachings of Jesus Christ?
What are you referencing, specifically in the teachings of Jesus Christ?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:13 pm to kingbob
quote:
In addition, the proper nouns match common usage in the eras described. Hayden, Braydyn, and Jaydyn would look out of place in a story about the American Civil War, but would make sense in a 2020’s sitcom about travel ball. The same concept when applied to the Bible gives another piece of circumstantial evidence that these books, at minimum, were written where and when they claim to be from.
including sources that continue to be discovered that support biblical text even further.
quote:
However, i
I am less inclined to compel belief in a religion merely because it is historically authentic. I would rather argue the merits of its core philosophies and how they interface with daily life, inner mental health, structuring one’s local community, and the world at large
I agree with you 100%. Somehow this entire thread has been derailed on the basis that God condoned slavery hence Christianity is inherently immoral and heinous.
I would love to have an actual genuine discussion, but it is extremely difficult when some are completely closed off from at least entertaining an uncomfortable perspective through the lense of Christianity.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 2:17 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:14 pm to VooDude
Not everyone that is religious is moral.
Not everyone that is moral is religious.
But there's a decent amount of crossover if you do the Venn diagram.
Not everyone that is moral is religious.
But there's a decent amount of crossover if you do the Venn diagram.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:15 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If I were to call being a prison inmate "slavery", would you then say it was immoral?
Don't be so simplistic to think that because a word is used, everyone means/meant the exact same thing by that word. The reason why most people find the word "slavery" to be morally repugnant is not because of the word, but because of what the word means to them. They think of the transatlantic slave trade and the horrible conditions of it. If someone were a "slave" to Elon Musk, but that "slave" was more like an administrative assistant that was given access to all Elon's wealth and luxuries and they lived better than most free people, perhaps that version of a slave wouldn't have the same implicit baggage and moral repugnance that most people think of, especially if that slave voluntarily became one.
It's why it is important to consider the nuances of the subject.
You just want to score some sort of moral points against the Bible, which is why you aren't being intellectually honest. It's easier for you that way.
You're only talking about when a Hebrew enslaved another Hebrew and trying to apply them paying off debt or doing it out of survival.
Foreigners were treated as lifelong property.
And it all ignores the fault with slavery, which has nothing to do with treatment.
Page 24 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News