What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?

[DeMotts]

There's quite a body of fossils that exist that illustrate a variety of archaic humans, from australopithecines to Homo rhodesiensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo naledi, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, and Homo habilis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... on_fossils

For the theistic anti-evolutionists on the board: how do you explain such a variety of human fossils? What are australopithecines? How do they fit in with the creation story of the bible? Do you believe these fossils are legitimate or forgeries?

[Bust Nak]

How did this end up debating morality?

If your definition of an immoral act is any act that upsets you personally then fine, all you had to do was say that...

Ooo, pick me! Pick me! Morality is subjective, what is and isn't moral, is decided by an individual's whim. Now what?

You also keep trying very hard to label me as some kind of perverse individual by repeating as often as you can accusations like "except the little girls you want to keep for your own uses" and other insinuations.

You did explicitly say keeping little girls as the spoils of war is potentially moral though, didn't you? You also said it would be moral if it results in a better outcome.

you cannot demonstrate that some act is moral or immoral other than through moral relativism.

Is that a problem? Embrace moral relativism.

[Bust Nak]

To repeat, I've no interest in debating morality with someone who thinks taking little girls as sexual slaves just might be a good thing (and also frequently engages in kindergarten-level boasting).

Moderator Warning

Do not make personal comment about others.

Please review our Rules.


______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Inquirer]

How did this end up debating morality?

That's a reasonable question, I'll backtrack a little later to see where this began.

If your definition of an immoral act is any act that upsets you personally then fine, all you had to do was say that...

Ooo, pick me! Pick me! Morality is subjective, what is and isn't moral, is decided by an individual's whim. Now what?

So you and I agree, Jose argued differently to you though.

You also keep trying very hard to label me as some kind of perverse individual by repeating as often as you can accusations like "except the little girls you want to keep for your own uses" and other insinuations.

You did explicitly say keeping little girls as the spoils of war is potentially moral though, didn't you? You also said it would be moral if it results in a better outcome.

Yes I did, but I did not refer to sexually exploiting them (it was Jose who distorted this into a sexual exploitation question) only taking ownership, control of them away from someone else as a result of war or invasion. Whether that is good or bad can be defined in terms of outcome and I argued that if the outcome is or can be seen to be better then the action was good.

There are some who would take them for sexual exploitation though and I could not argue morally against it (that is I could not "prove" them of wrong doing), only oppose it based on my own values, that is I'd fight to protect them from such a fate.

you cannot demonstrate that some act is moral or immoral other than through moral relativism.

Is that a problem? Embrace moral relativism.

No, but Jose argued differently hence my conversation with him was different.

[Bust Nak]

Yes I did, but I did not refer to sexually exploiting them (it was Jose who distorted this into a sexual exploitation question) only taking ownership, control of them away from someone else as a result of war or invasion. Whether that is good or bad can be defined in terms of outcome and I argued that if the outcome is or can be seen to be better then the action was good.

There are some who would take them for sexual exploitation though and I could not argue morally against it (that is I could not "prove" them of wrong doing), only oppose it based on my own values, that is I'd fight to protect them from such a fate.

So that's what your actual gripe was about, merely taking girls as spoils of war vs sexual exploiting them. I would say there is little to differentiate between them given what we've learnt from history. But that's besides the point...

More importantly, I don't see how that distinction changes thing. You were asked something along the lines of "is it moral to take slaves as spoils of war?" You answered, "potentially, depends on if the outcome is better." Would your answers be any different when asked "is it moral to sexually exploit said slaves?" I would imagine your answer would still be "potentially, depends on if the outcome is better." It seemed like a generic answer for all moral questions.

No, but Jose argued differently hence my conversation with him was different.

I am late to the part so I might be missing something important, but from a quick scan over the last few pages, I only saw him challenging your views on genocide and spoils of war. I did not see him making claims about his own position as to the nature of morality.

[Inquirer]

Yes I did, but I did not refer to sexually exploiting them (it was Jose who distorted this into a sexual exploitation question) only taking ownership, control of them away from someone else as a result of war or invasion. Whether that is good or bad can be defined in terms of outcome and I argued that if the outcome is or can be seen to be better then the action was good.

There are some who would take them for sexual exploitation though and I could not argue morally against it (that is I could not "prove" them of wrong doing), only oppose it based on my own values, that is I'd fight to protect them from such a fate.

So that's what your actual gripe was about, merely taking girls as spoils of war vs sexual exploiting them. I would say there is little to differentiate between them given what we've learnt from history. But that's besides the point...

More importantly, I don't see how that distinction changes thing. You were asked something along the lines of "is it moral to take slaves as spoils of war?" You answered, "potentially, depends on if the outcome is better." Would your answers be any different when asked "is it moral to sexually exploit said slaves?" I would imagine your answer would still be "potentially, depends on if the outcome is better." It seemed like a generic answer for all moral questions.

No, but Jose argued differently hence my conversation with him was different.

I am late to the part so I might be missing something important, but from a quick scan over the last few pages, I only saw him challenging your views on genocide and spoils of war. I did not see him making claims about his own position as to the nature of morality.

Please don't presume to answer on my behalf to hypothetical questions that I have never been asked. My only complaint about Jose is his insinuation that I approve of the sexual exploitation of children, I do not and I thank you for reprimanding him for that vile post.

Jose did more than "challenge your views on genocide and spoils of war" he stepped over the line of civility and insinuated several times that I approve of the sexual exploitation of children, a vile and disgusting slur that this forum must not tolerate if it wishes to retain any sense of credibility about its claims of not tolerating abuse and uncivil conduct.

Finally I find it a little disturbing that it is I who am being challenged publicly by you here and not Jose, he is the abuser and I am the victim of abuse, so your focus solely on what I have said is disturbing.

If you want to simply debate the morality question then we can do that, but it seems that by and large we agree - morality is subjective, relative.

[Bust Nak]

Please don't presume to answer on my behalf to hypothetical questions that I have never been asked.

Well, considered yourself asked, would your answer be any different? Correct my presumption, if you would.

Jose did more than "challenge your views on genocide and spoils of war" he stepped over the line of civility...

Maybe so, but my point was, he didn't state his own stance, so you were too quick to suggest that he would not agree with moral subjectivism.

[Jose Fly]

I'm often surprised at how apparently unfamiliar Christians are with their own holy book. Regarding "taking little girls as spoils of war" vs. "subjecting little girls to sexual slavery", in the context of the Biblical accounts they are the same thing.

Numbers 31 for example contains this gem: "So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Now most intelligent and sane people will recognize that for what it is...forcing little girls into sexual slavery. Otherwise, why keep only the girls and only the ones who were virgins?

Or perhaps some Christians are naive enough to think that a girl who just watched you slit the throats of her father, mother, and siblings will voluntarily agree to be your bride and have sex with you?

Regardless of whatever bizarre apologetics Christians want to engage in to justify such atrocities, my original point stands....I'm not about to be lectured on morality by people who wave the Bible around as some sort of moral guide.

[Inquirer]

Please don't presume to answer on my behalf to hypothetical questions that I have never been asked.

Well, considered yourself asked, would your answer be any different? Correct my presumption, if you would.

So you are asking me:

"is it moral to sexually exploit said slaves?"

A question Jose never once asked by the way. It is immoral to me, but I cannot prove it to be absolutely immoral nor can Jose, but he seems reticent to admit this simple truth.

Jose did more than "challenge your views on genocide and spoils of war" he stepped over the line of civility...

Maybe so, but my point was, he didn't state his own stance, so you were too quick to suggest that he would not agree with moral subjectivism.

That might or might not be the case, he (or you) is free to raise that and quote me to continue the discussion if he wants. My complaint about Jose is nothing to do with whether he stated "his own stance" but on his insinuation that I approve of the sexual exploitation of children, which (as your reprimand to him shows) is a violation of the forum rules, a very different matter altogether.

[Inquirer]

I'm often surprised at how apparently unfamiliar Christians are with their own holy book. Regarding "taking little girls as spoils of war" vs. "subjecting little girls to sexual slavery", in the context of the Biblical accounts they are the same thing.

Numbers 31 for example contains this gem: "So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Now most intelligent and sane people will recognize that for what it is...forcing little girls into sexual slavery. Otherwise, why keep only the girls and only the ones who were virgins?

All scripture is interpreted, you are doing nothing more than espousing your interpretation.

Or perhaps some Christians are naive enough to think that a girl who just watched you slit the throats of her father, mother, and siblings will voluntarily agree to be your bride and have sex with you?

Regardless of whatever bizarre apologetics Christians want to engage in to justify such atrocities, my original point stands....I'm not about to be lectured on morality by people who wave the Bible around as some sort of moral guide.

Again you are interpreting scripture as do all of us. The point I pressed you on to no avail, was can you define good and bad? moral and immoral? You cannot other than in terms of your personal system of values, why you won't simply admit this is a rue mystery, perhaps you can prove absolute right and wrong, in which case I look forward to an answer...

[Jose Fly]

All scripture is interpreted, you are doing nothing more than espousing your interpretation.

And your interpretation is......?