Could anyone tell me if this is true?

[justlookinla]

A child being born into a family would be "enslaved" to them.

Meaning he is under that family's umbrella of protection for life.

He would even carry the family name -- and DNA.

One can even adopt a child, enslaving them as well.

Paul, who referred to himself as a "servant," made it clear we are adopted children of God.

Well...personally....I enjoy being a slave of Christ. Light years better than being a slave to the evil one. I've been both.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well...personally....I enjoy being a slave of Christ. Light years better than being a slave to the evil one. I've been both.

AMEN!

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I'm attempting to understand the source of your morality. I'm attempting to discuss morality with someone who only view themselves as just another randomly 'created' life form 'created' by a mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless process. The basis for my morality is in the bible. What's the basis for your morality and where did it come from?

Regardless of the ultimate source of my morality, I guarantee that our views on what is moral are very similar in most respects. Thus if you can come up with an argument for why enslaving a child from birth to death is moral (besides merely asserting that it is because everything God says is moral by definition) then a fruitful discussion may result.

Assume for the sake of argument that my moral compass is basically the same as yours. Now justify the lifelong enslavement of children as outlined in the Bible.

 

[justlookinla]

Regardless of the ultimate source of my morality, I guarantee that our views on what is moral are very similar in most respects.

How could that be? My morality is based on the bible, yours on random firing of synapses in your brain. Two very very different sources for morality. Apparently you believe you've formed an opinion when in reality, you haven't. You're simply a product of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic process.

Thus if you can come up with an argument for why enslaving a child from birth to death is moral (besides merely asserting that it is because everything God says is moral by definition) then a fruitful discussion may result.

I'd be arguing with a position that has it's basis in random firing of synapses in one's brain.

Assume for the sake of argument that my moral compass is basically the same as yours.

It's not.

Now justify the lifelong enslavement of children as outlined in the Bible.

Justify it to whom? To what?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

How could that be? My morality is based on the bible, yours on random firing of synapses in your brain. Two very very different sources for morality. Apparently you believe you've formed an opinion when in reality, you haven't. You're simply a product of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic process.



I'd be arguing with a position that has it's basis in random firing of synapses in one's brain.



It's not.

We have different ideas as to the source of morality, but in practical terms we practice morality in the same way. Rape, murder, theft etc. bad; charity, empathy, honesty etc. good. Essentially the old "Do unto others" thing.

Justify it to whom? To what?

Let's start with yourself. Provide a justification that you find personally convincing for why it is moral to enslave a child from birth to death.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yes it is. Darwinism (and by that I mean the view that humanity is the product of solely naturalistic mechanisms) is inherently Godless.

Its not.

It eliminates God in favor of an entirely naturalistic process.

And who created nature?

It eliminates the Father and the Son. Not needed, wanted or allowed. Total and complete denial.

I defy you to find any denial of the Father and the Son in any scientific statement. Note I did not say any statement by a scientist.

The lie of humanity being the 'creation' of a solely naturalistic mechanism is the foundation lie of Darwinism.
It's antichrist. And, like it or not, embracing the antichrist position is sin.

Christ is the truth, the life, and the way, and we can trust what He left us in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes to not lead us astray.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

How could that be? My morality is based on the bible, yours on random firing of synapses in your brain.

No scientist would characterize the firing of synapses in the brain as random. Therefore you just bore a false witness.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

A child being born into a family would be "enslaved" to them.

Meaning he is under that family's umbrella of protection for life.

He would even carry the family name -- and DNA.

One can even adopt a child, enslaving them as well.

Paul, who referred to himself as a "servant," made it clear we are adopted children of God.

Not completely. We have means of removing children from homes where they are abused.

 

[mickiio]

"The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender." Prov. 22:7 We are all slaves.

Not completely. We have means of removing children from homes where they are abused.

Abuse is one of the many sins we see in this world.

 

[bhsmte]

No scientist would characterize the firing of synapses in the brain as random. Therefore you just bore a false witness.

The only time they are random, is during a seizure.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The only time they are random, is during a seizure.

That's right.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not completely. We have means of removing children from homes where they are abused.

But you can't remove the DNA tie.

 

[justlookinla]

We have different ideas as to the source of morality, but in practical terms we practice morality in the same way. Rape, murder, theft etc. bad; charity, empathy, honesty etc. good. Essentially the old "Do unto others" thing.

You still aren't identifying the source of your morality.

Let's start with yourself. Provide a justification that you find personally convincing for why it is moral to enslave a child from birth to death.

I've told you the source of my morality, you haven't revealed yours though.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

But you can't remove the DNA tie.

But the DNA tie is not a master/slave law. It could have been . . . if we had been created that way . . . . like it is with ants and bees and termites.

 

[justlookinla]

Its not.

Of course it is. The view that humanity is simply the result of only random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism is inherently Godless.

And who created nature?

Humanity isn't a willy-nilly creation of nature.

I defy you to find any denial of the Father and the Son in any scientific statement. Note I did not say any statement by a scientist.

I defy you to find where God is wanted, needed or permitted in the Darwinist evolutionary view that humanity is solely the result of random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms.

Christ is the truth, the life, and the way, and we can trust what He left us in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes to not lead us astray.

Not only that, but humanity isn't a willy-nilly, random creation of God.

 

[justlookinla]

No scientist would characterize the firing of synapses in the brain as random. Therefore you just bore a false witness.

Really? Are they programmed?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Go play games with someone else.. . . .

You started it with your "cold" comment. If you don't like the heat, don't turn up the thermostat.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Really? Are they programmed?

Well, I must admit that your replies kinda shake my confidence in the non-random characterization of synapse firings. But then I realize that there is a kind of nonsense that is not merely random and I will stick to the assertion that they aren't random, not even in your case.

 

[justlookinla]

You started it with your "cold" comment. If you don't like the heat, don't turn up the thermostat.

Nope, you're evading the issue. You know as well as I that 'cold' wasn't referring to the temperature of the synapses.

You're attempting to play games.

 

[justlookinla]

Well, I must admit that your replies kinda shake my confidence in the non-random characterization of synapse firings. But then I realize that there is a kind of nonsense that is not merely random and I will stick to the assertion that they aren't random, not even in your case.

Are they programmed?