- Oct 14, 2015
- 6,133
- 3,090
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Really? Are you trolling me or us this another "typo"? Reference please.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The distinction which you are missing is that:
A) Roman law predates Isrealite law.
If we aren't all that intelligent, and are incapable of perceiving ultimate reality.... then why are you so confident in your belief that there is a god? What makes you think your opinions in that regard are definitively true, when you believe your cognition is impaired?
Really? Are you trolling me or us this another "typo"? Reference please.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
Just as a good father/creator knows what is best for His children/creation, so does God. Also just as the manufacturer of a car or smartphone knows the best way to take care of what they have manufactured.
de: Not necessarily. Manufacturers have defects and recalls all the time, the flaws are often discovered by users, not the designers.
My point was that the founders are considered some of the greatest thinkers in history and they agree that for criminals and POWs involuntary slavery is justified, irrespective if some hyperskeptical atheist on a Christian website disagrees.ed: Straw man, I never claimed they were.
de: That doesn't make it a strawman. I didn't strawman your point.
I was showing your argument was ultimately irrelevant.
ed: http://americanvision.org/2480/the-biblical-doctrine-of-restitution/
de: I don't see how that article is relevant... You made a claim biblical restitution has worked, and that article doesn't really spell out a situation where anyone has actually been rehabilitated via that method.
ed: My point was that if a wealthier person during the economic stress of a temporary economic downturn needs laborers it is cheaper to hire indentured servants rather than fully free workers because commands such as the one above to pay them a living wage require greater expense.
de: But no, it doesn't. You are under no obligation to pay a living wage to employees in ancient times... and frankly, even in modern day america many workers are not paid a living wage for their job. If you have an indentured servant, you are legally responsible for keeping that person well fed and clothed. It's essentially the same as having a child you're responsible for when it comes to the necessities of life. If anything, it's going to be equal expense, to more expensive in order to have an indentured servant.
You didn't read my statement. I said objectively irrational. Subjectively it may be rational but that is irrelevant as far as objective reality goes. Your feelings are no more superior than someone that considers dogs more valuable than humans. And in fact Dr. Peter Singer at Princeton actually believes that an adult dog IS more valuable than a disabled human baby. So this is not just a hypothetical. How are your feelings more correct than someone like Singers? They are both just feelings. I am sure Singer feels his feelings are "rational" too.ed: Yes your view is. It is based on your objectively irrational sentimentality for your own species, when atheistic evolution has "proven" that no species has any more value than another. If there is no God then humans have no objective value.
de: Sentimentality for my own species is not irrational. There's very good reason to feel sentiment and empathy for my own species... self interest.
de: Does any species have any more objective value than any other? No. However, objective value is next to meaningless when it comes to this question. Value is almost always subjectively based.
As for god, the existence or non existence of a god is completely irrelevant as to the question of humans having objective value. It's a non sequitur.
We do need to see things from the ultimate perspective if behaving in an ethical manner has ultimate consequences. We are all stupid compared to our Creator. And it is not just what I believe it is the belief of millions thru history and those beliefs have produced almost everything good about western civilization. You and I would probably not be communicating this way if not for Christianity.Perhaps, but we don't need to see things from such a perspective just to deal with ethics.
You seem to see human beings as helpless, and that's just not warranted. I can see how it would be convenient to push dogmas, though. "You're stupid, so believe what I believe."
eudaimonia,
Mark
We do need to see things from the ultimate perspective if behaving in an ethical manner has ultimate consequences.
We are all stupid compared to our Creator.
And it is not just what I believe it is the belief of millions thru history and those beliefs have produced almost everything good about western civilization. You and I would probably not be communicating this way if not for Christianity.
I am speaking in general terms.
My point was that the founders are considered some of the greatest thinkers in history and they agree that for criminals and POWs involuntary slavery is justified, irrespective if some hyperskeptical atheist on a Christian website disagrees.
Although the article may not mention the implementation of it in Texas, it does refer to the lawmakers in Texas believing it is a good idea and I think later they did implement in some cases. I will have to do some more research to try to find those cases.
The Hebrews and Christians WERE obligated to pay a living wage as I demonstrated with the verses I provided. I disagree and stand by earlier demonstration that paying a free worker is more expensive then an indentured servant at least for a devout Hebrew and devout Christian that wanted to obey God.
You didn't read my statement. I said objectively irrational. Subjectively it may be rational but that is irrelevant as far as objective reality goes. Your feelings are no more superior than someone that considers dogs more valuable than humans. And in fact Dr. Peter Singer at Princeton actually believes that an adult dog IS more valuable than a disabled human baby. So this is not just a hypothetical. How are your feelings more correct than someone like Singers? They are both just feelings. I am sure Singer feels his feelings are "rational" too.
Fraid not. God values human beings because we are created in His image and His valuing exists independently of human minds therefore it objectively exists relative to humans.
We are all stupid compared to our Creator.
Because we can do simple logic, and that is what demonstrates the existence of God and then once you believe in Him and then trust Him you can communicate with Him and thereby begin to learn about ultimate reality. But I am not saying I know these things with absolute certainty.If we aren't all that intelligent, and are incapable of perceiving ultimate reality.... then why are you so confident in your belief that there is a god? What makes you think your opinions in that regard are definitively true, when you believe your cognition is impaired?
Because we can do simple logic, and that is what demonstrates the existence of God and then once you believe in Him and then trust Him you can communicate with Him and thereby begin to learn about ultimate reality. But I am not saying I know these things with absolute certainty.
Jerusalem (the first Israelite city) was established before 3000 B.C.The Romans entered the area that comprises modern day Israel and Palestine hundreds and hundreds of years after the Roman Republic/Empire's founding. By the time they encountered (much less conquered) the ancient Jews, Roman law and culture was well established.
Note: I should clarify I mean in the context of the Roman world. The two cultures can trace their systems back to roughly 500BC-ish, however given the distance and lack of direct contact, it's not possible that the Isrealite system could have played a role in, much less served as the basis for Roman Law.
By the time the Romans were in direct and close contact with the Jews 400ish years later, their system was already well established. That's what I meant by pre-existing.
Jerusalem (the first Israelite city) was established before 3000 B.C.
REFERENCE:
http://www.ancient.eu/jerusalem/
Rome (the first Roman city) was established around 753 B.C.
REFERENCE:
http://www.ancient.eu/Rome/
Your claim makes no sense and you still have yet to give a reference to support your historical claims.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
We do need to see things from the ultimate perspective if behaving in an ethical manner has ultimate consequences.
eud: Ah, if.
That is true, because we were created by an ethical Creator. If we had come from an impersonal amoral process then your statement would be false.ed: We are all stupid compared to our Creator.
eud; That doesn't mean that we are too stupid to deal with ethics.
ed: And it is not just what I believe it is the belief of millions thru history and those beliefs have produced almost everything good about western civilization. You and I would probably not be communicating this way if not for Christianity.
eud: I hope that you are aware that Christianity benefited greatly from Greek and Roman culture. They had inherited a lot of scientific, technological, and philosophical knowledge from pagan cultures.
I doubt that they would have developed modern science as shown above. Also, their human rights record was pretty bad. They never ended slavery like Christian societies did.eud: We can't ever know just how well the pagans would have done if Christianity hadn't taken off, but I doubt that it would have been much worse, and could have been much better.
eudaimonia,
Mark
That is true, because we were created by an ethical Creator. If we had come from an impersonal amoral process then your statement would be false.
Not Christianity but some aspects of Western culture, ie the non-Christian aspects. But certainly not modern science.
The Greeks and Romans did not believe in a orderly and intelligible world.
Also, the Greek academics believed that only slaves should get their hands dirty, that is why they did not develop experimental science. Conducting experiments was beneath the elite.
I doubt that they would have developed modern science as shown above.
Also, their human rights record was pretty bad. They never ended slavery like Christian societies did.
Before I waste my time with you. You need to show me some kind of reference that says the Roman legal system predates the Israelites legal system. The point of my post was to show you that the israelites have been around over 2000 years before the supposed Romulus and Ramos founded Rome. Don't you think that in those 2000 years before Rome, the israelites had established their own legal system?Did you read my point? Your response has nothing to do with it.
How well something fulfills its created purpose.What method does your god use to determine what is ethical/moral, and what is not?
Before I waste my time with you. You need to show me some kind of reference that says the Roman legal system predates the Israelites legal system. The point of my post was to show you that the israelites have been around over 2000 years before the supposed Romulus and Ramos founded Rome. Don't you think that in those 2000 years before Rome, the israelites had established their own legal system?
How well something fulfills its created purpose.
Because God is the creator and as the creator, He determines the purpose of all His creations. What He makes is made purposefully, and anything that stands in the way of that purpose is bad.Meaning what exactly?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?