DeProfundis said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

The Bible 100% condones slavery. It does not distinguish between the 'okay kind' and the 'bad kind'.

---

I read your linked article. It didn't address the claims made here at all. It simply took a survey of the historical world, Christian, Hebrew, and neither and lumped it all together as some generic rebuttal. There's a vague attempt to shoehorn in Gregory of Nysa and slavery being addressed in the fourth century but this is lazy scholarship and a link you should probably delete instead of pull out for debate.

---

It was not lazy. Ancient slavery could be every bit as brutal as chatle slavery. It's foolish to argue otherwise.

---

Why is slavery bad?

---

They won't answer because they can't. If anything is objectively bad; then they have to answer where the object moving comes from. If they do that then they have to answer why that object should be listened to, rather than their own preferences. Then that takes them to a very scary place where they're not god.

---

Truth!

Macarthur said:

---

There is clearly one group on here arguing for objective truth and one is not. I'm not sure why you think this is some major gotcha.

---

So when is it okay to prostitute your children?

Macarthur said:

---

There is clearly one group on here arguing for objective truth and one is not. I'm not sure why you think this is some major gotcha.

---

I believe that you don't understand. It's ok. answer the questions, or admit you cannot. Everyone is watching.

Quote:

---

You answer the question, is slavery objectively bad?

Man its like pulling teeth. These people refuse to make any statement of truth. Is transsexualism good, or even ok? If so on what basis? Why is it ok? Is it harmful?

The follow-up is, do traditional values give the best outcomes?

---

What is a woman? What is transsexualism?

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

The Bible 100% condones slavery. It does not distinguish between the 'okay kind' and the 'bad kind'.

---

I read your linked article. It didn't address the claims made here at all. It simply took a survey of the historical world, Christian, Hebrew, and neither and lumped it all together as some generic rebuttal. There's a vague attempt to shoehorn in Gregory of Nysa and slavery being addressed in the fourth century but this is lazy scholarship and a link you should probably delete instead of pull out for debate.

---

It was not lazy. Ancient slavery could be every bit as brutal as chatle slavery. It's foolish to argue otherwise.

---

This is a strawman. No one here suggested otherwise or is trying to defend it. It's lazy to suggest it is a serious response.

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Is slavery objectively bad?

---

No, next question.

---

Then you have no room to lecture me on objective truth being proprietary to Christiantiy.

---

How would it be proprietary to Christianity? Also, something can be subjective many things are subjective, that doesn't invalidate objectivity.

Killing is subjective; Murder is objective. Interrogation is subjective, torture is objective.

---

Lol. The only thing objective there is the word you apply. WHEN that word should be applied is absolutely not objective.

---

When is torture moral?

DeProfundis said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

The Bible 100% condones slavery. It does not distinguish between the 'okay kind' and the 'bad kind'.

---

I read your linked article. It didn't address the claims made here at all. It simply took a survey of the historical world, Christian, Hebrew, and neither and lumped it all together as some generic rebuttal. There's a vague attempt to shoehorn in Gregory of Nysa and slavery being addressed in the fourth century but this is lazy scholarship and a link you should probably delete instead of pull out for debate.

---

It was not lazy. Ancient slavery could be every bit as brutal as chatle slavery. It's foolish to argue otherwise.

---

Why is slavery bad?

---

They won't answer because they can't. If anything is objectively bad; then they have to answer where the objectivity comes from. If they do that then they have to answer why that object should be listened to, rather than their own preferences. Then that takes them to a very scary place where they're not god.

---

And yet you can't actually provide consistent objective morals across all times even within Christianity. The standards and definitions and values change over time. The allowances and exceptions change and evolve. We're not saying something is objectively right or wrong because you're not providing an actual objective standard. Every ethical standard that humans use is based on some human construct as its philosophical framework.

We can provide an ethical standard based on liberalism, that is, the individual as the basic, smallest, indivisible unit of society and logically deduce firm principles from that which are objective under that framework. But because we don't appeal to an invisible god which talked to people we can't meet or even know outside of your holy book, it doesn't meet your standard… a standard which, again, doesn't actually provide an objective ethic across time.

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Is slavery objectively bad?

---

No, next question.

---

Then you have no room to lecture me on objective truth being proprietary to Christiantiy.

---

How would it be proprietary to Christianity? Also, something can be subjective many things are subjective, that doesn't invalidate objectivity.

Killing is subjective; Murder is objective. Interrogation is subjective, torture is objective.

---

Lol. The only thing objective there is the word you apply. WHEN that word should be applied is absolutely not objective.

---

Cool. So why are you so up in arms about rapists and pedos being included in the sexual / gender identity crowd? What's wrong with our subjective opinion on the morality of such things?

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

The Bible 100% condones slavery. It does not distinguish between the 'okay kind' and the 'bad kind'.

---

I read your linked article. It didn't address the claims made here at all. It simply took a survey of the historical world, Christian, Hebrew, and neither and lumped it all together as some generic rebuttal. There's a vague attempt to shoehorn in Gregory of Nysa and slavery being addressed in the fourth century but this is lazy scholarship and a link you should probably delete instead of pull out for debate.

---

It was not lazy. Ancient slavery could be every bit as brutal as chatle slavery. It's foolish to argue otherwise.

---

Why is slavery bad?

---

They won't answer because they can't. If anything is objectively bad; then they have to answer where the objectivity comes from. If they do that then they have to answer why that object should be listened to, rather than their own preferences. Then that takes them to a very scary place where they're not god.

---

And yet you can't actually provide consistent objective morals across all times even within Christianity. The standards and definitions and values change over time. The allowances and exceptions change and evolve. We're not saying something is objectively right or wrong because you're not providing an actual objective standard. Every ethical standard that humans use is based on some human construct as its philosophical framework.

We can provide an ethical standard based on liberalism, that is, the individual as the basic, smallest, indivisible unit of society and logically deduce firm principles from that which are objective under that framework. But because we don't appeal to an invisible god which talked to people we can't meet or even know outside of your holy book, it doesn't meet your standard… a standard which, again, doesn't actually provide an objective ethic across time.

---

Your argument is disingenuous because you center it on the person practicing something rather than what they claim to practice. It's a fanciful ad hominem; a postmodern interpretation of what we actually believe and profess dressed up as understanding and insight where none exists.

The individual as a standard? Why's that a reasonable standard? People aren't spontaneously born into existence in the wild; we all have parents. We have neighbors. We have communities. And each individual is so totally different and irreconcilable that your standard is meaningless and not that at all; it's simply humanism and anarchy presented in a pretty package to deflect culpability for any wrong.

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

The Bible 100% condones slavery. It does not distinguish between the 'okay kind' and the 'bad kind'.

---

I read your linked article. It didn't address the claims made here at all. It simply took a survey of the historical world, Christian, Hebrew, and neither and lumped it all together as some generic rebuttal. There's a vague attempt to shoehorn in Gregory of Nysa and slavery being addressed in the fourth century but this is lazy scholarship and a link you should probably delete instead of pull out for debate.

---

It was not lazy. Ancient slavery could be every bit as brutal as chatle slavery. It's foolish to argue otherwise.

---

Why is slavery bad?

---

They won't answer because they can't. If anything is objectively bad; then they have to answer where the objectivity comes from. If they do that then they have to answer why that object should be listened to, rather than their own preferences. Then that takes them to a very scary place where they're not god.

---

And yet you can't actually provide consistent objective morals across all times even within Christianity. The standards and definitions and values change over time. The allowances and exceptions change and evolve. We're not saying something is objectively right or wrong because you're not providing an actual objective standard. Every ethical standard that humans use is based on some human construct as its philosophical framework.

We can provide an ethical standard based on liberalism, that is, the individual as the basic, smallest, indivisible unit of society and logically deduce firm principles from that which are objective under that framework. But because we don't appeal to an invisible god which talked to people we can't meet or even know outside of your holy book, it doesn't meet your standard… a standard which, again, doesn't actually provide an objective ethic across time.

---

The only reason we are able to look back and see that we were wrong is because a standard exists, otherwise nothing is wrong. I can tell you why it was wrong for people to burn heretics at the stake, can you tell me why it's always wrong to do so? If you can't, then how do you know we were wrong?

DeProfundis said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

The Bible 100% condones slavery. It does not distinguish between the 'okay kind' and the 'bad kind'.

---

I read your linked article. It didn't address the claims made here at all. It simply took a survey of the historical world, Christian, Hebrew, and neither and lumped it all together as some generic rebuttal. There's a vague attempt to shoehorn in Gregory of Nysa and slavery being addressed in the fourth century but this is lazy scholarship and a link you should probably delete instead of pull out for debate.

---

It was not lazy. Ancient slavery could be every bit as brutal as chatle slavery. It's foolish to argue otherwise.

---

Why is slavery bad?

---

They won't answer because they can't. If anything is objectively bad; then they have to answer where the objectivity comes from. If they do that then they have to answer why that object should be listened to, rather than their own preferences. Then that takes them to a very scary place where they're not god.

---

And yet you can't actually provide consistent objective morals across all times even within Christianity. The standards and definitions and values change over time. The allowances and exceptions change and evolve. We're not saying something is objectively right or wrong because you're not providing an actual objective standard. Every ethical standard that humans use is based on some human construct as its philosophical framework.

We can provide an ethical standard based on liberalism, that is, the individual as the basic, smallest, indivisible unit of society and logically deduce firm principles from that which are objective under that framework. But because we don't appeal to an invisible god which talked to people we can't meet or even know outside of your holy book, it doesn't meet your standard… a standard which, again, doesn't actually provide an objective ethic across time.

---

The only reason we are able to look back and see that we were wrong is because a standard exists, otherwise nothing is wrong. I can tell you why it was wrong for people to burn heretics at the stake, can you tell me why it's always wrong to do so? If you can't, then how do you know we were wrong?

---

You're claiming an objective standard from God that has existed for millennia. Those heretics were burned by people with more theological training than you using the same supposedly objective standards provided in your faith. You can sit here and say, "x is wrong because God says so," but then can't actually demonstrate a consistent objective standard. So your standard is constructed and based as much on the broader society you exist in. You're doing the same thing the rest of us are doing when we deduce ethical norms, you're just appealing to an authority which can't be interrogated and using that lack of appeal as some kind of proof.

DeProfundis said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Is slavery objectively bad?

---

No, next question.

---

Then you have no room to lecture me on objective truth being proprietary to Christiantiy.

---

How would it be proprietary to Christianity? Also, something can be subjective many things are subjective, that doesn't invalidate objectivity.

Killing is subjective; Murder is objective. Interrogation is subjective, torture is objective.

---

Lol. The only thing objective there is the word you apply. WHEN that word should be applied is absolutely not objective.

---

When is torture moral?

---

Where is the line between torture and interrogation?

---

Doesn't matter, pick something that's clearly torture, strapping jumper cables to someone's testicles. Impaling them on a stake by inches, think of the worst thing you can think of.

---

It does matter. Because human actions by necessity occur along a continuum rather than distinct and discrete paths. Is waterboarding torture? Is sensory deprivation torture? At what point? Under what circumstances? You're claiming an objective moral system and yet it breaks down quite easily until two people who claim to believe the exact same things are practically throwing punches in disagreement.

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

The Bible 100% condones slavery. It does not distinguish between the 'okay kind' and the 'bad kind'.

---

I read your linked article. It didn't address the claims made here at all. It simply took a survey of the historical world, Christian, Hebrew, and neither and lumped it all together as some generic rebuttal. There's a vague attempt to shoehorn in Gregory of Nysa and slavery being addressed in the fourth century but this is lazy scholarship and a link you should probably delete instead of pull out for debate.

---

It was not lazy. Ancient slavery could be every bit as brutal as chatle slavery. It's foolish to argue otherwise.

---

Why is slavery bad?

---

They won't answer because they can't. If anything is objectively bad; then they have to answer where the objectivity comes from. If they do that then they have to answer why that object should be listened to, rather than their own preferences. Then that takes them to a very scary place where they're not god.

---

And yet you can't actually provide consistent objective morals across all times even within Christianity. The standards and definitions and values change over time. The allowances and exceptions change and evolve. We're not saying something is objectively right or wrong because you're not providing an actual objective standard. Every ethical standard that humans use is based on some human construct as its philosophical framework.

We can provide an ethical standard based on liberalism, that is, the individual as the basic, smallest, indivisible unit of society and logically deduce firm principles from that which are objective under that framework. But because we don't appeal to an invisible god which talked to people we can't meet or even know outside of your holy book, it doesn't meet your standard… a standard which, again, doesn't actually provide an objective ethic across time.

---

The only reason we are able to look back and see that we were wrong is because a standard exists, otherwise nothing is wrong. I can tell you why it was wrong for people to burn heretics at the stake, can you tell me why it's always wrong to do so? If you can't, then how do you know we were wrong?

---

You're claiming an objective standard from God that has existed for millennia. Those heretics were burned by people with more theological training than you using the same supposedly objective standards provided in your faith. You can sit here and say, "x is wrong because God says so," but then can't actually demonstrate a consistent objective standard. So your standard is constructed and based as much on the broader society you exist in. You're doing the same thing the rest of us are doing when we deduce ethical norms, you're just appealing to an authority which can't be interrogated and using that lack of appeal as some kind of proof.

---

You're shocked that a religion that teaches people are sinful has made mistakes over 2,000 years? God's objective truth doesn't change, whether we abide by it or not. Throughout history people have known the truth, but created caveats to work around them. It's wrong to kill people, but that tribe over there doesn't count as a person so it's okay. Lending at interest is sinful, but those people are subhuman so it's allowed.

Are you going to answer any of my examples?

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Is slavery objectively bad?

---

No, next question.

---

Then you have no room to lecture me on objective truth being proprietary to Christiantiy.

---

How would it be proprietary to Christianity? Also, something can be subjective many things are subjective, that doesn't invalidate objectivity.

Killing is subjective; Murder is objective. Interrogation is subjective, torture is objective.

---

Lol. The only thing objective there is the word you apply. WHEN that word should be applied is absolutely not objective.

---

When is torture moral?

---

Where is the line between torture and interrogation?

---

Doesn't matter, pick something that's clearly torture, strapping jumper cables to someone's testicles. Impaling them on a stake by inches, think of the worst thing you can think of.

---

It does matter. Because human actions by necessity occur along a continuum rather than distinct and discrete paths. Is waterboarding torture? Is sensory deprivation torture? At what point? Under what circumstances? You're claiming an objective moral system and yet it breaks down quite easily until two people who claim to believe the exact same things are practically throwing punches in disagreement.

---

Again it doesn't matter, if torture exists, then as a given accept that the example I'm giving you is in fact torture. Given that, explain to me when it is moral

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Is slavery objectively bad?

---

No, next question.

---

Then you have no room to lecture me on objective truth being proprietary to Christiantiy.

---

How would it be proprietary to Christianity? Also, something can be subjective many things are subjective, that doesn't invalidate objectivity.

Killing is subjective; Murder is objective. Interrogation is subjective, torture is objective.

---

Lol. The only thing objective there is the word you apply. WHEN that word should be applied is absolutely not objective.

---

When is torture moral?

---

Where is the line between torture and interrogation?

---

Doesn't matter, pick something that's clearly torture, strapping jumper cables to someone's testicles. Impaling them on a stake by inches, think of the worst thing you can think of.

---

It does matter. Because human actions by necessity occur along a continuum rather than distinct and discrete paths. Is waterboarding torture? Is sensory deprivation torture? At what point? Under what circumstances? You're claiming an objective moral system and yet it breaks down quite easily until two people who claim to believe the exact same things are practically throwing punches in disagreement.

---

Again it doesn't matter, if torture exists, then as a given accept that the example I'm giving you is in fact torture. Given that, explain to me when it is moral

---

I like how you try to flatten everything so that you don't have to deal with hard questions. Again, where is the line? How do you deduce that? You keep trying to overly simplify everything. I'm assuming because it makes claiming an objective morality much simpler.

---

It doesn't matter. If you can't answer a simple question how do you expect to answer a complex one? I'm creating a cut and dried situation in a laboratory to show that you can't answer it.

Context isn't needed, I'm granting to you that it is torture. Unless you think that torture doesn't exist, it doesn't matter where the line is drawn because if it exists this situation is on the "it's torture" side.

You can't answer because you would have to be granting that torture is morally acceptable in some circumstances OR that there's an objective standard that says torture is never acceptable under any environment

Quote:

---

I like how you try to flatten everything so that you don't have to deal with hard questions. Again, where is the line? How do you deduce that? You keep trying to overly simplify everything. I'm assuming because it makes claiming an objective morality much simpler.

---

Yet you don't answer even the simple ones...

I gave up my stars, so no face palm emoji to post with this, but if ever there was a reason...

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

To get us back on topic, the point behind the discussion on objective truth, was to point out that some thing are objectively bad, and some are objectively good. We have those siding with moral relativism, postmodernism, and queer theory(even if they didn't realize it), and those who believe that there is evidence for why traditional values objectively, and scientifically give better outcomes. I got this view from God's word, but it is confirmed by science, and is repeatable, and verifiable. The same cannot be said for Transitioning. The outcomes are horrible. Transsexualism is bad for society and we don't want it pushed. Obviously we believe traditional values are good.

This is the impasse of the whole discussion, and why we go round and round.

---

It is my position that the question of whether 'x' is moral or not is NOT a scientific question. Do you agree or disagree?

As far as evaluating values based on their outcome, I don't believe you have addressed the fact that different people have different definitions of what their desired outcome is. Apologies if I missed it.

---

Answer the questions, and I'll engage.

Quote:

---

Quote:
You answer the question, is slavery objectively bad?

Man its like pulling teeth. These people refuse to make any statement of truth. Is transsexualism good, or even ok? If so on what basis? Why is it ok? Is it harmful?

The follow-up is, do traditional values give the best outcomes?

---

What is a woman? What is transsexualism?

---

As I understand it. Note that I don't claim expertise. My 7, 5, and 2 year old's know what a woman is. You don't need to be an expert. This subjectivism only causes problems, and overcomplicates, and leads to madness, and bad outcomes.

Female is a term denoting a distinct biological sex. Adult human female. It is an objective fact xx chromosomes. So are "transwomen" women?

Woman is a term relating to gender generally associated with the female sex. I reject this idea. It has no bases in fact. It is in fact a social construct made up to muddy the waters of biological sex.

I'm not going to define transsexualism because I have never once used it in this thread. If its a term you wish to introduce, then I think you need to define it. I don't think you can

---

I'm not being uncivil by pointing out a refusal to answer a simple questions. I find it very weasley, and telling. I also find it telling that you only halfheartedly tried to answer one question out of the eight, and one of the least important ones at that. I didn't rank order them, and you don't know where I'm going with this so that's fine. I don't expect you to read my mind. What it tells me is that your fundamental rejection of even basic truths precludes you from being able to identify simple truth's, and to make proper conclusions about morality. Rape is always bad. I offered these two questions because at least its a starting point, and because eventually its gets to the point that "transwomen" are not real women, and that the transgender ideology is counterfactual.

If you don't want to define transsexualism then fine. I don't want to quarrel about words. For the sake of argument when you read transsexualism just replace it with transgenderism. I even use the term "gender roles" accommodatively, although I reject the concept of gender separated from sex entirely. That is off topic so lets set it aside.

I'm still waiting on this because they are FAR more important to the argument.

Quote:

---

You answer the question, is slavery objectively bad?

Man its like pulling teeth. These people refuse to make any statement of truth. Is transsexualism good, or even ok? If so on what basis? Why is it ok? Is it harmful?

The follow-up is, do traditional values give the best outcomes?

---

Is "transgenderism" when put into practice good? Ok? Bad?
Are traditional values when put into practice good? Ok? Bad?

Which produces better outcomes? Because they are not even close even subjectively.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Is slavery objectively bad?

---

No, next question.

---

Then you have no room to lecture me on objective truth being proprietary to Christiantiy.

---

How would it be proprietary to Christianity? Also, something can be subjective many things are subjective, that doesn't invalidate objectivity.

Killing is subjective; Murder is objective. Interrogation is subjective, torture is objective.

---

Lol. The only thing objective there is the word you apply. WHEN that word should be applied is absolutely not objective.

---

Cool. So why are you so up in arms about rapists and pedos being included in the sexual / gender identity crowd? What's wrong with our subjective opinion on the morality of such things?

---

It's plenty easy to say "murder is bad, but not all killing is murder." Okay… that's nice. Where's your line? When does killing become murder and how firm is that line? This is where your claims of objectivity break down. This is where, for example, you can have Jesuits sell slaves whose enslavement is based on racism to fund Georgetown in the 18th century while today claiming racism is "objectively bad" and trying to create justifications for ancient biblical slavery that distance it from American chattel slavery.

Just saying, "this thing is bad and unless you subscribe to our ideas of objective morality you can't say it's bad," isn't an actual argument. It's just begging the question.

---

The irony of a subjectivist accusing others of begging the question is *chef's kiss*.

I would like to point out you've spent this thread not defending what you actually believe, but attacking what you don't. You exist right now as definition by negation, which is an untenable long term position. It's why the slippery slope always wins: you have no moral basis for denying any behavior, especially as you center it on the individual.

Put something forth that allows you to make a moral statement about, well, anything, or stop pearl clutching when we rope rapists and pedos into the "innate attraction" category.

It's absolutely debatable, especially if you aren't going to present this evidence showing it's better "in every objective metric". I see no reason to believe that is true and you've given no reason to do so either.

How about this metric: Violence Committed Against Transgender People. Do you think societies in which transgenderism is accepted have higher rates of violence against transgender people than those which ban it? Can you present any evidence that it is?