- 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
0
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:22 pm to Boom33
I don’t see any reason to debate the morality of slavery. It is immoral regardless of its mentioning in the Old Testament, and history has borne that out. Slavery was abolished in much of the world by Christians, and only persists in pockets where Christianity is all but non-existent. I have no desire to whatabputism on this particular issue any further.
The 10 Commandments are only the first 10, not the only 10 in much the same way that the enumerated rights granted under the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution are by no means the only rights against which a citizen holds against their government.
quote:
Those are things listed in the 10 commandments.
The 10 Commandments are only the first 10, not the only 10 in much the same way that the enumerated rights granted under the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution are by no means the only rights against which a citizen holds against their government.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:27 pm to kingbob
quote:
I don’t see any reason to debate the morality of slavery. It is immoral regardless of its mentioning in the Old Testament, and history has borne that out. Slavery was abolished in much of the world by Christians, and only persists in pockets where Christianity is all but non-existent. I have no desire to whatabputism on this particular issue any further.
The 10 Commandments are only the first 10, not the only 10 in much the same way that the enumerated rights granted under the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution are by no means the only rights against which a citizen holds against their government.
It's only for those who claim it came from God. I think it's just what society was at the time, kind of like we have laws about what age you can buy alcohol, or how many hours you can work and so forth.
As for the commandments, I'm pretty sure the Ebionites would agree but I think it's a mixture of what I mention above. James would get upset if someone ate pork around him and would be upset at others who did as well. I think Jesus does a pretty decent job of showing/summarizing what I would think of as God's commandments.
Generally, that has to do with your treatment of others.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:30 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:I didn't say morality can only come from God. Morality can be whatever anyone wants it to be, and I think that standard of moral subjectivism is absolutely irrational.
You type all of that and then claim morality can only come from God.
How can that be justified?
What I've only ever argued is that objective morality, and objective moral reasoning, itself, can only come from God, because only He provides an unchanging and perfect standard for holiness that exists outside the human mind/experience and applies to all peoples throughout time and space.
I mentioned previously how the application of that moral standard may change based on circumstances, but the standard, itself, is objective.
quote:I wouldn't recommend it, and it's not necessary, as we have all sorts of arrangements today that fill needs, provide welfare, and so on. I wouldn't say it would be immoral, but I wouldn't advocate for it.
Or would the type of slavery you describe be perfectly ok today?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:33 pm to DCtiger1
quote:I ran out of patience with SFP a long time ago. Every discussion with him eventually turns into SFP Court, where SFP is the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, rules committee, and jury. Your evidence is inadmissible, your question is improper, your answer didn't answer the question, and your explanation of what you meant is overruled because apparently he knows that too.
with that, I'm out. I don't respect a reasonable or genuine response.
The man's record in SFP Court is incredible.
He was the inspiration for me eventually writing a script that makes selected posters disappear from TD entirely. I can't adequately describe how much more enjoyable the board is when SFP's posts simply aren't there and I get to decide whether I feel like taking his muzzle off.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:38 pm to Boom33
One way to look at the Bible is to examine the purpose of each book.
The first four books of the Old Testament do a LOT of different things: they create a history of God, the World, the Jewish people, and how everything came to be. They then lay out a list of rules that if followed theoretically would result in a “perfect” society. The next dozen or so books is primarily filled with examples of historical figures upholding those laws and finding success or violating those laws and being punished for it. You actually see a lot of trial and error as different forms of government are tried and fail for different reasons due to the inherent flaws of men. As such, in addition to establishing the identity of a nation, it sets forth its form of government and the history of its rulers. Much of the Old Testament serves as both a sort of government constitution, as well as a history of that government, and a speculation on what that government might look like in the future if they continue down specific paths.
The New Testament, meanwhile, more often deals with less how people should behave towards their government and how societies should be organized, but rather how people should conduct themselves in relation to others. The New Testament is about building a personal relationship with God by trust in him and in treating the other people in their lives with respect and compassion. This is done through various parables and examples of situations where doing the right thing when there is no expectation for reward resulted in rewards that were incalculable. The New Testament is much more focused on personal responsibility, community, and the afterlife. The Old Testament is more focused on historical narrative, government, and attempts to balance crime with punishment.
The first four books of the Old Testament do a LOT of different things: they create a history of God, the World, the Jewish people, and how everything came to be. They then lay out a list of rules that if followed theoretically would result in a “perfect” society. The next dozen or so books is primarily filled with examples of historical figures upholding those laws and finding success or violating those laws and being punished for it. You actually see a lot of trial and error as different forms of government are tried and fail for different reasons due to the inherent flaws of men. As such, in addition to establishing the identity of a nation, it sets forth its form of government and the history of its rulers. Much of the Old Testament serves as both a sort of government constitution, as well as a history of that government, and a speculation on what that government might look like in the future if they continue down specific paths.
The New Testament, meanwhile, more often deals with less how people should behave towards their government and how societies should be organized, but rather how people should conduct themselves in relation to others. The New Testament is about building a personal relationship with God by trust in him and in treating the other people in their lives with respect and compassion. This is done through various parables and examples of situations where doing the right thing when there is no expectation for reward resulted in rewards that were incalculable. The New Testament is much more focused on personal responsibility, community, and the afterlife. The Old Testament is more focused on historical narrative, government, and attempts to balance crime with punishment.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:47 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
A few minutes into the video it tells the truth about what "nothing" actually meams
Is that videos definition of nothing the same as mine?
If not, why are you even bringing it up?
quote:
The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin (BGV) theorem states...
Nothing about matter being created.
I could just as easily quote the law of conservation of mass and pretend that allows me to ignore BGV. But I'm not because I'm not an idiot.
quote:
Of course you can when you have identified no such impossibilities in the second theory (which you have not).
Yes, the law of conservation of mass doesn't say matter can't be created. What was I thinking
quote:
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:
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
As we're the Biblical sources.
Odd. The most influential man on Earth was only written about decades after his death...
quote:
but a quick Google search says that the events you are describing were at the tail end of Europe's conversion to Christianity.
That's not my understanding. Feel free to add more context.
quote:
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.
All those words and no "here is something Jesus said and here is the law it inspired".
Throw up some red letter verses, link them to American law.
quote:
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.
That doesn't prove the draws still aren't unconscious unless youre going to pretend these therapists are infallible.
The fact that if often works suggests that my take on it is correct.
quote:
Consider this famous quote by George Wald, Nobel Prize winning Harvard biologist:
Seems he is conflating the formation of fully formed organisms (like bacteria) and genetic material (like RNA), though I'd have to brush up on the names to be sure.
I don't know what these quotes are suppose to mean, but I'm not sure you want to line up the scientists who are creationists vs non-creatuonists. I'm not going to make that appeal even though I know it'd work out in my favor.
quote:
In this context the "problem" is answering the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
No... It was about Pascal's wager.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:49 pm to kingbob
quote:
One way to look at the Bible is to examine the purpose of each book.
The first four books of the Old Testament do a LOT of different things: they create a history of God, the World, the Jewish people, and how everything came to be. They then lay out a list of rules that if followed theoretically would result in a “perfect” society. The next dozen or so books is primarily filled with examples of historical figures upholding those laws and finding success or violating those laws and being punished for it. As such, in addition to establishing the identity of a nation, it sets forth its form of government and the history of its rulers. Much of the Old Testament serves as both a sort of government constitution, as well as a history of that government, and a speculation on what that government might look like in the future if they continue down specific paths.
The Old Testament, meanwhile, more often deals with less how people should behave towards their government and how societies should be organized, but rather how people should conduct themselves in relation to others. The New Testament is about building a personal relationship with God by trust in him and in treating the other people in their lives with respect and compassion. This is done through various parables and examples of situations where doing the right thing when there is no expectation for reward resulted in rewards that were incalculable. The New Testament is much more focused on personal responsibility, community, and the afterlife. The Old Testament is more focused on historical narrative, government, and attempts to balance crime with punishment.
It is all just stuff men have written. Which is fine, there is some wisdom and understanding in it. I take issue with claiming these are things God has said.
I don't have much use for the NT outside the gospels. I'd be more down with the Jefferson bible.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 3:28 pm to Boom33
quote:
It is all just stuff men have written. Which is fine, there is some wisdom and understanding in it. I take issue with claiming these are things God has said.
And that's fine, but that "stuff" is the fundamental truth of Christianity.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 3:32 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
And that's fine, but that "stuff" is the fundamental truth of Christianity.
But it's not true.
It's men trying to express understanding.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 3:35 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
All moral judgments require some standard to compare an action to in order to determine “right” (“good”) or “wrong” (“evil”). Christianity sees God as an objective moral law-giver who has provided an objective moral law (the 10 commandments). It’s objective in the sense that it originates outside the human mind and applies to all humans equally across time, space, and geography. While the application of it may differ at times, the standard, itself, does not change. In addition, all people are held accountable to that standard by God.
Atheism, on the other hand, posits that morality is subjective, originating from the human mind. Since there is no singular source for morality other than the human mind, it necessarily fluctuates from person to person, place to place, and time to time, based on whatever social agreements may exist in the microcosm. Because of this, there is no singular moral standard that applies equally to everyone everywhere and at every time, so if one society chooses to believe it is right to kill off the weak or rape their way to a stronger society, that’s “right” for them, and there is no outside moral judge that we can look to in order to judge otherwise. Human flourishing and empathy are arbitrary measures we typically use to say something is “moral”, but we could just as easily use the opposite as a moral standard.
In other words, without an objective moral framework to go by, atheism reduces morality down to shared preferences, like a favorite flavor of ice cream.
But even Christianity does this....I mean the OT is littered with events and laws that would be considered awful now. It's littered with ideals that we see in Sharia law.
Christians do have a tendencies to pick through the old testament and pick and choose which of these laws they think still apply, and which dont. (ex. gay marriage vs stoning your wife). We can look at some many periods throughout christianity when christians did some awful things under the name of religion, and to them it was justified (ex. crusades). You could argue that the catholic church was an early terrorist org with the way they punished people/leaders/countries while twisting the word of God.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 3:39 pm to RoyalWe
As a former legislative assistant, I love a healthy debate or discussion. Everytime I had to meet with an NGO or lobbyist, it was extremely beneficial to know who they are and what they believe in order to understand why they are trying to accomplish some piece of legislation or funding.
I met with plenty of people on the other side of the aisle and while I may disagree, they had my respect in how they approached the conversation.
For some reason when it comes to Christianity faux moral superiority and intellect always comes into play, and it can come from both sides. I am committed to my faith, and if someone is committed to being an atheist or agnostic that's fine too. At least be honest about where your perspective is coming from and agree to disagree. This whole condescending tone taken because you don't share the same conviction and faith that I have is unproductive and unnecessary. It's also not conducive to a productive discussion.
I met with plenty of people on the other side of the aisle and while I may disagree, they had my respect in how they approached the conversation.
For some reason when it comes to Christianity faux moral superiority and intellect always comes into play, and it can come from both sides. I am committed to my faith, and if someone is committed to being an atheist or agnostic that's fine too. At least be honest about where your perspective is coming from and agree to disagree. This whole condescending tone taken because you don't share the same conviction and faith that I have is unproductive and unnecessary. It's also not conducive to a productive discussion.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 3:39 pm to Boom33
quote:
But it's not true.
Not true according to who? You? Are you not also a man determining what is fact or fiction?
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 3:43 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 3:57 pm to Azkiger
quote:
I don't think anyone intelligent is arguing the universe caused itself to exist. That's impossible. If it doesn't exist it cant cause itself to do anything.
To answer this question, the universe is created on consciousness. God being the highest form of it. Without God there is no reality, there is no being, things would just exist at best and never be experienced. You need consciousness/God or something for reality to be presented to. As such God is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end.
It springs from that consciousness. Time and all other things come from limitations within creation (all things that are possible exist in creation). Limitations are required for the experience. Think of it as like a game of cards, where it's the limitation that creates the experience. You can physically look at the cards at any point, but then the game ends.
It's the same with you. You are a limitation of that greater consciousness. Your soul, your consciousness. Without there is no understanding and you do not exist. We are defined by our limitations in order to have the experience we call life.
And there are paths and other things, we experience time as linear movement in creation but there are actually many directions that are possible to take and we take them. That is where choice and free will comes in. This is as simple as understanding that tomorrow you could go and rob your neighbor and you take one timeline/shift in creation in one direct, or you go help your neighbor and shift in another direction. The experience is linear, but your actual movement in the universe was a path choice.
Where archetypes like Jesus come in, the commandments and so forth is an example and guideline for choosing the right paths. The path of robbing your neighbor leads to bad things, helping them likely leads to good things. These movements and changes are made constantly.
I do not know how much of that is shared and how much is personally; it appears much is shared. AKA while these are smaller movements, the bigger movements appear to be on a collective. I only know that either way you have to do your part and make the right path/movements. Then and only then can you have a heavenly society, or even belong to one.
And maybe if people would stop with the stupid blood sacrifice crap and started actually following what Jesus said, things would get better. Until then it appears to be a question of how bad shite has to get before people wake up.
As far as physics goes, changes in those do exist in creation but those are things that are "far" away from our current place. AKA you aren't going to make a choice that changes the position of the moon unless you have some great power of jumping in creation (aka likely made before birth). But there is a place where gravity is slight less and it would change. The place where any of us is President is also likely pretty far away but could be obtainable.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 4:08 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
Not true according to who? You? Are you not also a man determining what is fact or fiction?
Yes, based on understanding.
Math is an example of understanding. You can put in 1+1=2 and 1+2=3 in the book but unless you understand math you can either accept them as true or not. People use the symbols to express the understanding between each other because we can't just directly make each other understand math. We can only unlock the basic understanding within them if it exists and teaches them how to express it and use it in their lives.
It's the same thing when it comes to God. People are trying to express understanding. If you think it's the word of God, then you are wrong because knowledge of the holy is understanding.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 4:21 pm to Boom33
quote:
then you are wrong
You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make you correct.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 4:25 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make you correct.
Ok, but you'd think God could get the creation story right at least once in 2 tries. Kind of odd the whole book starts with incorrect information if it's from God.
For people 1000's of years ago trying to make sense of existence writing down what they understand about things, not too shabby.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 4:27 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 4:27 pm to Boom33
What information are you referring to?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 4:28 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
What information are you referring to?
Genesis has 2 different creation stories. They have different orders and neither of them is correct.
Starts off on a pretty bad foot if the book is God's word.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 4:34 pm to Boom33
And there's a theological explanation for that. Again, neither of them is correct according to who?
Page 25 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News