Could anyone tell me if this is true?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Are they programmed?

No, they are first evolved, and then self-pruned, self-reinforced.

 

[justlookinla]

No, they are first evolved, and then self-pruned, self-reinforced.

Ok, they're not random, they're not programmed but are "self-pruned", "self-reinforced".

Would you mind explaining those terms in relation to synapses and thought?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Ok, they're not random, they're not programmed but are "self-pruned", "self-reinforced".

Would you mind explaining those terms in relation to synapses and thought?

It means that your memories and concepts are grown into your brain as patterns of synaptic connections. The way you use your brain comes to be the way the brain is.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

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



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

I'm tired of your evasion. I have challenged you to provide a justification that you find personally convincing for why it is moral to enslave a child from birth to death. In other words, an explanation that you find personally morally satisfying. You do not need to know the basis for my morality to outline the reason child slavery fits with your morality.

So either respond directly to the challenge or don't. I'm not so desperate for your thoughts on the matter that I will indulge you further in this game. I think it is clear by now that you cannot provide, even to your own satisfaction, an explanation for why lifelong child slavery is fine.

If your reply does not provide a direct answer to the challenge I will simply accept your implicit concession that you can offer no such explanation and move on.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm tired of your evasion.

Likewise yours.

I have challenged you to provide a justification that you find personally convincing for why it is moral to enslave a child from birth to death. In other words, an explanation that you find personally morally satisfying. You do not need to know the basis for my morality to outline the reason child slavery fits with your morality.

You're arguing that it's morally wrong to 'enslave' a child and yet you will not identify the source of this morality that's in conflict with your one-liner from the bible. I find the bible to be true and do not have to justify it to you nor anyone else....it's the source of my morality. God has never failed me, the bible has never failed me and the Spirit of God will lead those who submit to Him to understand scripture.

You, on the other hand, embracing the view that nothing but a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless process 'created' you, and this life form that you are produces a morality which has no basis in anything other than the firing of synapses in your brain. You cannot identify the source of your morality for there is no source of morality in your atheistic Darwinist evolutionary world. You're nothing more than a random life form adrift in a life of nothingness except survival of the fittest. Any morality, any purpose, love, hate, hope.....all nothing more than electrical connections in your brain.

You aren't going to identify the source of your morality that's in conflict with the bible. Both you and I know that.

So either respond directly to the challenge or don't. I'm not so desperate for your thoughts on the matter that I will indulge you further in this game. I think it is clear by now that you cannot provide, even to your own satisfaction, an explanation for why lifelong child slavery is fine.

Why isn't it fine?

If your reply does not provide a direct answer to the challenge I will simply accept your implicit concession that you can offer no such explanation and move on.

What will not be forthcoming is you identifying the source of your morality.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Likewise yours.



You're arguing that it's morally wrong to 'enslave' a child and yet you will not identify the source of this morality that's in conflict with your one-liner from the bible. I find the bible to be true and do not have to justify it to you nor anyone else....it's the source of my morality. God has never failed me, the bible has never failed me and the Spirit of God will lead those who submit to Him to understand scripture.

You, on the other hand, embracing the view that nothing but a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless process 'created' you, and this life form that you are produces a morality which has no basis in anything other than the firing of synapses in your brain. You cannot identify the source of your morality for there is no source of morality in your atheistic Darwinist evolutionary world. You're nothing more than a random life form adrift in a life of nothingness except survival of the fittest. Any morality, any purpose, love, hate, hope.....all nothing more than electrical connections in your brain.

You aren't going to identify the source of your morality that's in conflict with the bible. Both you and I know that.



Why isn't it fine?



What will not be forthcoming is you identifying the source of your morality.

I conclude from this post that life long slavery of a child from infancy to death is morally OK with you and you base this on passages from the Bible, rather than any personal moral principles.

 

[justlookinla]

I conclude from this post that life long slavery of a child from infancy to death is morally OK with you and you base this on passages from the Bible, rather than any personal moral principles.

You can conclude that if God says it's ok, it's ok.

 

[bhsmte]

I conclude from this post that life long slavery of a child from infancy to death is morally OK with you and you base this on passages from the Bible, rather than any personal moral principles.

Divine command theory, you gotta love it!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You can conclude that if God says it's ok, it's ok.

Jesus pointed out that in the instance of Divorce, God's very command to Moses was based on the hardness of heart of the people receiving the law rather than what God would prefer happen in a marriage.

So I conclude that much law God gave was only what men would be willing to receive rather than what God actually wanted.

As Jesus repeatedly said in the sermon on the mount, "You have heard it said, but I say unto you . . . "

 

[AV1611VET]

Jesus pointed out that in the instance of Divorce, God's very command to Moses was based on the hardness of heart of the people receiving the law rather than what God would prefer happen in a marriage.

So I conclude that much law God gave was only what men would be willing to receive rather than what God actually wanted.

As Jesus repeatedly said in the sermon on the mount, "You have heard it said, but I say unto you . . . "

We say God has a DIRECTIVE WILL and a PERMISSIVE WILL.

God will sometimes allow something to happen against His direct will.

But it comes with a price.

Psalm 106:15 And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

We say God has a DIRECTIVE WILL and a PERMISSIVE WILL.

God will sometimes allow something to happen against His direct will.

But it comes with a price.

Psalm 106:15 And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.

Yes, which is why the law of the OT allowed slavery.

 

[justlookinla]

Jesus pointed out that in the instance of Divorce, God's very command to Moses was based on the hardness of heart of the people receiving the law rather than what God would prefer happen in a marriage.

So I conclude that much law God gave was only what men would be willing to receive rather than what God actually wanted.

As Jesus repeatedly said in the sermon on the mount, "You have heard it said, but I say unto you . . . "

One should do what Jesus said, no if's, and's or but's.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

One should do what Jesus said, no if's, and's or but's.

We are still working out what His sayings actually mean. We have finally concluded that slavery is inconsistent with the notion that we should treat others as we would be treated. We are still working on getting women to have equal rights, in spite of Jesus' defense of Mary.

Luke 10:39-11:1
She had a sister called Mary, who was seated at the Lord's feet, listening to His word. But Martha was distracted with all her preparations; and she came up to Him and said, "Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone? Then tell her to help me." But the Lord answered and said to her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her."
NASU

 

[justlookinla]

We are still working out what His sayings actually mean. We have finally concluded that slavery is inconsistent with the notion that we should treat others as we would be treated. We are still working on getting women to have equal rights, in spite of Jesus' defense of Mary.

God certainly wasn't promoting sin in the OT concerning his commands of slavery. At that time, one simply needed to follow God....not one's personal likes and dislikes. Every time one (or a people) attempted that, judgement and disaster followed.

Luke 10:39-11:1
She had a sister called Mary, who was seated at the Lord's feet, listening to His word. But Martha was distracted with all her preparations; and she came up to Him and said, "Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone? Then tell her to help me." But the Lord answered and said to her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her."
NASU

Hopefully Martha learned something that day.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

God certainly wasn't promoting sin in the OT concerning his commands of slavery. At that time, one simply needed to follow God....not one's personal likes and dislikes. Every time one (or a people) attempted that, judgement and disaster followed.
. . .

Much evil has been done in the name of following God. You need to be a little more clear about how to tell right from wrong than that.

 

[bhsmte]

Much evil has been done in the name of following God. You need to be a little more clear about how to tell right from wrong than that.

Indeed.

The fundies follow black and white thinking though, which means, follow exactly what the book says, no matter what it says.

It is easy and requires less thought.

 

[AV1611VET]

Much evil has been done in the name of following God.

That's right.

And we don't need Internet scientists telling us we should be out hunting witches, marching off on a crusade, or putting people through an inquisition.

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed.

The fundies follow black and white thinking though, which means, follow exactly what the book says, no matter what it says.

It is easy and requires less thought.

Ya -- we need to take a second look at "love your enemies" ... don't we?

Or, as I suspect, is that one okay to take with "black and white thinking" and "less thought"?

 

[bhsmte]

Ya -- we need to take a second look at "love your enemies" ... don't we?

Or, as I suspect, is that one okay to take with "black and white thinking" and "less thought"?

Do as you please.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do as you please.

I usually do.

That's why I'm not out hunting witches, campaigning for a crusade, or putting people through a trial-by-ordeal.