My Finch Challenge

[DamianWarS]

Thats not how a religion of tradition works.

So no, you got to own the history.

the issue is who inherits the history and how is that history motivated (and is it justified) and how does it glorify or endorse immoral actions. 1000 people can read a text and get 1000 meanings but only 1 may be correct. picking at the 999 doesn't make the 1 incorrect it just makes the picking agenda-driven.

 

[DamianWarS]

That sounds as if you are arguing for situation ethics. Are you? If not, what did you mean by the comment.

I'm more saying the words master/slave are too broad and don't necessarily mean injustice so it's not good enough to say "slavery is immoral, ergo X is immoral". what it actually comes down to is the injustice of people but the terms used are more arbitrary and need to be interpreted to understand their morality over a broad term that we put a blanket statement over.

 

[VirOptimus]

the issue is who inherits the history and how is that history motivated (and is it justified) and how does it glorify or endorse immoral actions. 1000 people can read a text and get 1000 meanings but only 1 may be correct. picking at the 999 doesn't make the 1 incorrect it just makes the picking agenda-driven.

Thats not how history works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't say they weren't Christians. what I don't like are the actions but you're avoiding the question. what does it matter those slave traders were Christian? what is your point? you are free to bring this back to evolution since the remarks on your insights.

Genesis may have components of myth and legend mixed throughout. pre-Abraham probably is more myth-like and post-Abraham arguably is more accurate because it is the specific storyline of the Hebrews so their details are going to be preserved better, but ancient cultures are going to be more honor-driven than fact-driven so there is a point to the accounts but their facts might not be it.

You will have to unpack your statement regarding taking Genesis literally leads to "no excuse to oppose slavery" I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. sure oppose slavery but how does that link to taking Genesis literally? I'm not objecting per se I'm just curious how you made that connection.

The point was given to you. I am not going over it any more since you seem to combine ignoring points and denial.

Let's get back to the Bible in general. I would suggest that you read what scholars say about characters alike Abraham etc.. Since the Exodus and conquest of Canaan did not happen anything like the stories put forward in the Bible why think that any of those people existed?

 

[DamianWarS]

why think that any of those people existed?

What point are you making? Let's say they didn't exist or not as characters as they appear in their accounts what then?

I'm still missing the point you were making regarding Christian slavers. Was there a point or is it just stuff you were saying?

 

[DamianWarS]

Thats not how history works.

Then please explain your point regarding owning history because clearly we seem to be taking about different things.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then please explain your point regarding owning history because clearly we seem to be taking about different things.

No, my point is already made.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But science was used to justify racism.

And religion has been used to justify genocide - your point?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I thought the peppered moth story had been faked with pinned-on moths to tell a "good story" but was not actually an observed fact in nature when it comes to natural selection.

Just so no lone gets the idea I am expressing my POV again - here is the link

Talk:Peppered moth - Wikipedia.

That link doesn't appear to support the view you expressed, but in any case, as usual, there are two sides to the story: Claim CB601.1. and Peppered Moth Evolution - Majerus's Experiment.

 

[BobRyan]

That link doesn't appear to support the view you expressed, but in any case, as usual, there are two sides to the story: Claim CB601.1. and Peppered Moth Evolution - Majerus's Experiment.

I guess it depends on how you view this statement

• "The peppered moth was, during much of the 20th century, believed to be an example that confirmed the theory of evolution, with popular photographs of camouflaged peppered moths resting on tree trunks used in textbooks as evidence for natural selection. But biologists have known since the 1980s that peppered moths don't normally rest on tree trunks. The textbook photographs have been faked - many of them by pinning or gluing dead moths on desired backgrounds."

 

[DamianWarS]

No, my point is already made.

Then your point is lost if you refused to clarify it more.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've heard about those who don't know their left foot from their right, but that's usually just a way to say they're clumsy, or specifically, that they can't dance. Never heard of not knowing left from right hands though.

Sounds to me like it was a biblical way of saying, "they didn't know their backside¹ from their elbow"

¹ censored

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... what I don't like are the actions but you're avoiding the question. what does it matter those slave traders were Christian? what is your point?

As I understand it, the point was to correct the view apparently expressed by Dorothy Mae that if people owned or traded slaves they were ipso-facto not Christian (which is, despite her denial, a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy).

If I (and others) have misunderstood what Dorothy Mae said, I hope she will explain what she really meant.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I guess it depends on how you view this statement

• "The peppered moth was, during much of the 20th century, believed to be an example that confirmed the theory of evolution, with popular photographs of camouflaged peppered moths resting on tree trunks used in textbooks as evidence for natural selection. But biologists have known since the 1980s that peppered moths don't normally rest on tree trunks. The textbook photographs have been faked - many of them by pinning or gluing dead moths on desired backgrounds."

If you read the texts I linked, you'll see that peppered moths have been observed to rest on tree trunks, but more usually rest on tree branches, and the images were posed on bark as illustrative examples. This is not unusual in scientific literature and would only be problematic if presented as data samples from the study.

There would be some justification for calling them 'fake' if there was evidence of intent to deceive, but otherwise, it would mean calling the vast majority of illustrations in scientific literature 'fake'.

 

[DamianWarS]

As I understand it, the point was to correct the view apparently expressed by Dorothy Mae that if people owned or traded slaves they were ipso-facto not Christian (which is, despite her denial, a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy).

If I (and others) have misunderstood what Dorothy Mae said, I hope she will explain what she really meant.

Going back it seems to be push back from something @Tanj wrote back in post #16

The other Christians started slavery then fought a war to keep it because they didn't see God creating all men equal. That would not come from evolutionary theory. Quite the opposite actually.

The implication of this post is Christianity values slavery on some level and even started slavery which is quite a statement. But just like the no true Scotsman fallacy we can't claim these slavers aren't true Christians neither can we point to characteristics or actions of slavers and their slaver identity and call them uniquely Christian which is a hasty generalization fallacy. So the point is lost. Because slavers were Christians doesn't mean we can blame slavery on Christianity or say Christianity values or endorses slavery

 

[VirOptimus]

Then your point is lost if you refused to clarify it more.

Not for the intended audience, no.

 

[DamianWarS]

Not for the intended audience, no.

Let me rephrase, your point is lost with me if you refuse to clarify.

 

[VirOptimus]

Let me rephrase, your point is lost with me if you refuse to clarify.

I know.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But just like the no true Scotsman fallacy we can't claim these slavers aren't true Christians neither can we point to characteristics or actions of slavers and their slaver identity and call them uniquely Christian which is a hasty generalization fallacy. So the point is lost. Because slavers were Christians doesn't mean we can blame slavery on Christianity or say Christianity values or endorses slavery

I didn't notice anyone making either of those points - there was a claim that the bible implicitly endorses slavery in the OT and doesn't condemn it in the NT, which seems well-founded.

 

[AV1611VET]

- there was a claim that the bible implicitly endorses slavery in the OT and doesn't condemn it in the NT, which seems well-founded.

Would it be Biblical for Christians to vote to have the 13th Amendment repealed? if so, will you fight for their right to do so?