The so-called "biblical" view on slavery ...

[Clizby WampusCat]

No. This is my forum home. My thread. You're the invader, not me.

Yes, you started this thread to avoid engaging what the Bible actually says about slavery in my thread.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, you started this thread to avoid engaging what the Bible actually says about slavery in my thread.

Are you saying my thread doesn't "actually engage" what the Bible says? Are you serious?

 

[Jok]

Why do I even try if people here just throw critical thinking out the window?

If you’re implying that critical thinking is out the window because I’m not seeing that God is God, so obviously God can alter Earth to be so favorable that it would be easy to thrive without slavery due to abundance everywhere, that is not the angle I’m coming at it from. I’m assuming the current (past & present) conditions of Earth. Where scarcity of food & resources were/are a problem. This is why I said slavery is more a subcategory of the problem of suffering (such as tough realities like scarcity in the world, and the difficulties in society that it leads to).

So in this world, not going after slavery was more about strategic thinking, seeing 10 steps ahead, picking your battles, etc, then it was about being guilty of ignoring some critical thinking contradiction of morality. I understand that you would vote in favor of changing the game up, turning the game on its head however things may have played out. But it would in fact be a huge game changer of how world history played out if things were done your way. Today Christianity may just be remembered as that initial failed attempt in history to take down the institution of slavery. It may even create a world that successfully starts eradicating slavery a few centuries prior to the 18th century. So I’m not even saying that your idea couldn’t have beneficial outcomes. But it still would have drastically changed outcomes. Butterfly Effect on steroids. Jesus could possibly be remembered as a precursor to Abe Lincoln today as opposed to what we see Him as.

Also this thread hasn’t even gotten into the spiritual warfare that underlies everything, complicating things even further.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Are you saying my thread doesn't "actually engage" what the Bible says? Are you serious?

That is not what I said.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is not what I said.

Well, I guess it doesn't matter if your thread deals with the Bible since I think the video in my OP does it all better than your thread could ever do.

 

[Caliban]

Also this thread hasn’t even gotten into the spiritual warfare that underlies everything, complicating things even further.

I think your entire paragraph is an example of presupposition and assertion. Re-read it; you have not provided single piece of evidence for any of your many claims. You don't get to just make stuff up without supporting with evidence--not id you actually want to be persuasive. Please understand, I'm not going to take your word for it--or the Bible's.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think your entire paragraph is an example of presupposition and assertion. Re-read it; you have not provided single piece of evidence for any of your many claims. You don't get to just make stuff up without supporting with evidence--not id you actually want to be persuasive. Please understand, I'm not going to take your word for it--or the Bible's.

...I think we're waiting for you to define what it is you think 'counts' as evidence in all of this.

That way, we're not left guessing what it is that you think "real" evidence could be and thereby, essentially, be left attempting to hit a moving target while blind-folded.

 

[Jok]

I think your entire paragraph is an example of presupposition and assertion. Re-read it; you have not provided single piece of evidence for any of your many claims. You don't get to just make stuff up without supporting with evidence--not id you actually want to be persuasive. Please understand, I'm not going to take your word for it--or the Bible's.

I was just wondering if we were both presupposing the world the way that it is. Usually I’m just under the assumption that the debate is that this is Earth as we have it, now which worldview is most likely to explain this world as we have it? Ok I will add that it is just my opinion that if anti-slavery passages were added to the Bible (which I know you think is false) it would have resulted in drowning out the primary message.

 

[Caliban]

I was just wondering if we were both presupposing the world the way that it is.

I don't presume anything other than what can be measured, tested, and corroborated. Why do you presume more than that?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Well, I guess it doesn't matter if your thread deals with the Bible since I think the video in my OP does it all better than your thread could ever do.

I quote the actual text and explain what it says. You post a video that are not your ideas and never say what you agree or disagree with in the content. You don’t even summarize the video. To be taken seriously you need to start engaging the conversation. If you have tell me where?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I quote the actual text and explain what it says. You post a video that are not your ideas and never say what you agree or disagree with in the content. You don’t even summarize the video. To be taken seriously you need to start engaging the conversation. If you have tell me where?

Why would I, as an academic, merely post what "my" ideas are? I have no interest in doing so. I'm interested only in becoming more educated. Besides, you should know by now that I am an Existentialist Christian and I see the Christian Faith as a epistemological journey with NO ultimate destination in this life. I've told you this before. Remember the notion of "Journey Epistemology" I told you about several months ago? Yeah, I have a whole other praxis and view on HOW this whole epistemic project is supposed to work.

Why wouldn't you just watch the whole video? Obviously, I don't post trash.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Why would I, as an academic, merely post what "my" ideas are? I have no interest in doing so. I'm interested only in becoming more educated. Besides, you should know by now that I am an Existentialist Christian and I see the Christian Faith as a epistemological journey with NO ultimate destination in this life. I've told you this before. Remember the notion of "Journey Epistemology" I told you about several months ago? Yeah, I have a whole other praxis and view on HOW this whole epistemic project is supposed to work.

Why wouldn't you just watch the whole video? Obviously, I don't post trash.

Ok

 

[Jok]

I don't presume anything other than what can be measured, tested, and corroborated. Why do you presume more than that?

Nevermind then, I’m pretty sure that I read an assumption from your one post that wasn’t there, my bad

 

[Caliban]

Nevermind then, I’m pretty sure that I read an assumption from your one post that wasn’t there, my bad

Have you ever deeply considered why you believe in the supernatural? Why do you believe?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I think we're waiting for you to define what it is you think 'counts' as evidence in all of this.

Goodness me, that old dodge again.
So much easier to run off chasing the "how can anyone know what's true?" hare than actually give your rational reasons - assuming you have any - for why you believe something.
If your beliefs in Christianity are founded on good reasons, then those beliefs will be persuasive. Just like anything else.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Goodness me, that old dodge again.
So much easier to run off chasing the "how can anyone know what's true?" hare than actually give your rational reasons - assuming you have any - for why you believe something.
If your beliefs in Christianity are founded on good reasons, then those beliefs will be persuasive. Just like anything else.

Well, I'm sorry. I question the ENTIRE EPISTEMOLOGICAL ENTERPRISE and the varieties of "Justification" first, and then I proceed to attempt to evaluate evidences. I know. I'm different in this regard, but I just can't let it go being that I've read and studied what I've read and studied (....I guess that Philosophy degree just slows me down from seeing everything in an utterly 'practical' light ... ) So, forgive me if it seems like I'm dodging according to other people's epistemic expectations and assumptions ... For my part, and from my perspective, I see other folks as lazy and hedging from doing what they should be doing first.

So, we'll just have to agree to disagree......about nearly everything I guess, especially the structure, function, and nature of Christian thought and faith.

 

[Jok]

Have you ever deeply considered why you believe in the supernatural? Why do you believe?

Yes. The natural falls short of being the bottom layer of reality without writing off several things as being illusory. I interrupt the natural molecules in motion process with my will every time I make a decision to act. The technological world all around us is the result of the constant interruption of molecules in motion by the wills of millions of people every day. I don’t see why higher levels of a will based interruption to blind molecules in motion wouldn’t also be possible. Materialism tries to tell me that no I’m really not altering anything, it’s an illusion. Not to mention that the natural molecules in motion of the whole universe is on an eventual path to heat death, so all that we can measure, detect, etc has to be a subset of something else anyway. Also science lays on a foundation of an assumption. The laws of motion being the same anywhere in the entire universe is an assumption that Newton made.

However I’m significantly getting off the OP topic with that one lol

 

[Jok]

Well, I'm sorry. I question the ENTIRE EPISTEMOLOGICAL ENTERPRISE and the varieties of "Justification" first, and then I proceed to attempt to evaluate evidences. I know. I'm different in this regard, but I just can't let it go being that I've read and studied what I've read and studied (....I guess that Philosophy degree just slows me down from seeing everything in an utterly 'practical' light ... ) So, forgive me if it seems like I'm dodging according to other people's epistemic expectations and assumptions ... For my part, and from my perspective, I see other folks as lazy and hedging from doing what they should be doing first.

So, we'll just have to agree to disagree......about nearly everything I guess, especially the structure, function, and nature of Christian thought and faith.

He whipped out the red font, he ain’t playing around anymore, the gloves are off! Lol

 

[Caliban]

Yes. The natural falls short of being the bottom layer of reality without writing off several things as being illusory. I interrupt the natural molecules in motion process with my will every time I make a decision to act. The technological world all around us is the result of the constant interruption of molecules in motion by the wills of millions of people every day. I don’t see why higher levels of a will based interruption to blind molecules in motion wouldn’t also be possible. Materialism tries to tell me that no I’m really not altering anything, it’s an illusion. Not to mention that the natural molecules in motion of the whole universe is on an eventual path to heat death, so all that we can measure, detect, etc has to be a subset of something else anyway. Also science lays on a foundation of an assumption. The laws of motion being the same anywhere in the entire universe is an assumption that Newton made.

Do you even understand that you provide zero evidence for any of your many claims.? Just saying stuff doesn't make it true. I really don't think you see it. You actually have to support claims with evidence!!!

 

[Jok]

Do you even understand that you provide zero evidence for any of your many claims. Just saying stuff doesn't make it true. I really don't think you see it. You actually have to support claims with evidence!!!

A chain of proof hits a wall at axioms. You are of the belief that it takes proof that humans make decisions that alter the physical world beyond blind molecules in motion, that is an axiom as well but a more bold one since it goes against every instinct that what we do is by choice. That we make decisions is a more immediate form of knowledge than empirical analysis is knowledge because it’s direct experience.

This reply is special pleading. You can’t prove that decision making is illusory, and that people really are just puppets on strings of determinism, yet you want that axiom to be granted as fact that doesn’t require a reason. And I can’t even imagine what proof you could provide that shows that universal laws of motion was not a total assumption. The facts that science comes up with about the universe is disguised deduction that is laying on a foundation of induction.

But again I’m steering way off course of the OP