Knowledge of Good and Evil

[William]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #40]

This comes across as something of a rant including sweeping statements of opinion about "creationalists"...

Those who think we might well exist in a mindfully created thing can be group- referred to as "creationalists" but certainly not all are defending the genesis story or ignoring the evidence re evolution.

I am surprised that one fails to understand and appreciate the spectrum of creationism since one appears to be intelligent enough to do so...

A bit of a rant maybe but that's the way I write. And what I write matters more than how I write and that is what should be addressed, rather than personals.

What you write is being addressed. I critiqued your placing all theists into one basket and why that isn't true.

Also, while you may adapt the point o a more general social discussion, the morality apologetic is Christian apologetics - to make a gap for God, and the apologetics is driven bu fundamentalists if not creationists, as the whole point is to make a case for a god being needed, if mot proven.

I offer contrast in my content. If atheists against Christians or the Christians themselves are not interested in those contrasts, how is that a case for pursuit of knowledge rather than a case for wilful ignorance?

If that is what my contrasts reveal for observation, (bring out of the wood-work) and allow one to add to one's knowledge-base, then something worthwhile has been accomplished.

I am surprised...well, not really, that you appear to fau il what a specific dogma, Creationism is, even if the creation - claim goes wider. Haven't I argued at times that Goddunnit doesn't prove any god or religion, just as evolution (broadly) does not disprove a god. Haven't i said that atheists can live with Deists, even if some Deists find it hard to tolerate Atheists, but Genesis - literalist creationists do not get invited to sit at our table. or they do like Jesus in Luke 11 37, sit at table and then roundly abuse his host. .

I find an interesting tidbit re Deism that it still is an attempt to dress the (supposed) Mindful Creator (of the supposed created thing {Universe}) in some type of costume - even be that it is one which has the God looking like being indifferent and even unaware of our predicament here init.

How impersonal!

[POI]

I think it means "the conscious ability to sort things as either right or wrong/correct or incorrect/perfect or imperfect" et al.

Since this line of questioning has been dropped within the "Christianity and apologetics" arena, let's vet this out specifically.

Is chattel slavery "right or wrong/correct or incorrect/perfect or imperfect" et al? Remember, we are apparently speaking about the 'good book' here, in this specific arena.

*********************

If you were to ask such a question outside of this space, I would tackle it differently.

[William]

I think it means "the conscious ability to sort things as either right or wrong/correct or incorrect/perfect or imperfect" et al.

Since this line of questioning has been dropped within the "Christianity and apologetics" arena, let's vet this out specifically.

Is chattel slavery "right or wrong/correct or incorrect/perfect or imperfect" et al? Remember, we are apparently speaking about the 'good book' here, in this specific arena.

*********************

If you were to ask such a question outside of this space, I would tackle it differently.

Why would you approach it differently? Do you think that perhaps some types of slavery should be treated differently? Are some acceptable to you while others are not?

[POI]

Why would you approach it differently?

I already stated why. Your question was placed within the apologetics arena, which is to defend the commands and/or pronouncements and/or allowances of the Bible. The Bible condones forms of chattel slavery. Are these forms of chattel slavery, in which the Bible condones, inherently 'good'? If you and I inherently disagree, then we already run into problems, for the Bible.

[William]

Why would you approach it differently?Do you think that perhaps some types of slavery should be treated differently? Are some acceptable to you while others are not?

I already stated why. Your question was placed within the apologetics arena, which is to defend the commands and/or pronouncements and/or allowances of the Bible. The Bible condones forms of chattel slavery. Are these forms of chattel slavery, in which the Bible condones, inherently 'good'? If you and I inherently disagree, then we already run into problems, for the Bible.

Then please proceed by defining what you think the Bible means by this specific form of slavery.
(chattel slavery)

[POI]

Why would you approach it differently?Do you think that perhaps some types of slavery should be treated differently? Are some acceptable to you while others are not?

I already stated why. Your question was placed within the apologetics arena, which is to defend the commands and/or pronouncements and/or allowances of the Bible. The Bible condones forms of chattel slavery. Are these forms of chattel slavery, in which the Bible condones, inherently 'good'? If you and I inherently disagree, then we already run into problems, for the Bible.

Then please proceed by defining what you think the Bible means by this specific form of slavery.
(chattel slavery)

The 'classic definition' of a chattel slave is as follows:

Chattel slavery is a form of enslavement where the enslaved person is considered a commodity, and the slave owner has complete control over their life. Enslaved people, or "human chattel", could be bought, sold, given away, and inherited, and were forced to work without pay

Compare to the Bible, which deems the life-time slave as property, passed on to their kids, and can be beaten with impunity. Hence, the chattel slave could be asked to work 18-hour days, 7 days a week, And if the slave disobeys, 100 lashes to the back is unpunishable.

Do you and I agree this is inherently 'bad'?

[William]

Why would you approach it differently?Do you think that perhaps some types of slavery should be treated differently? Are some acceptable to you while others are not?

I already stated why. Your question was placed within the apologetics arena, which is to defend the commands and/or pronouncements and/or allowances of the Bible. The Bible condones forms of chattel slavery. Are these forms of chattel slavery, in which the Bible condones, inherently 'good'? If you and I inherently disagree, then we already run into problems, for the Bible.

Then please proceed by defining what you think the Bible means by this specific form of slavery.
(chattel slavery)

The 'classic definition' of a chattel slave is as follows:

Chattel slavery is a form of enslavement where the enslaved person is considered a commodity, and the slave owner has complete control over their life. Enslaved people, or "human chattel", could be bought, sold, given away, and inherited, and were forced to work without pay

Compare to the Bible, which deems the life-time slave as property, passed on to their kids, and can be beaten with impunity. Hence, the chattel slave could be asked to work 18-hour days, 7 days a week, And if the slave disobeys, 100 lashes to the back is unpunishable.

Do you and I agree this is inherently 'bad'?

Do you mean that the idea we might have that such is bad, is an idea we inherited?

If so, I would agree that we would be remiss in today's more enlightened era to treat people as such and not pay them for doing so by getting them to freely agree with certain rules of ownership or simply forcing them to bend to our will by any other means.
Slavery generally appears to be understood in that context and chattel slavery is no exception to the general definition.

Do you have examples from the current era where such old concepts of slavery are practiced lawfully in any country which is culturally biblical?

[POI]

Do you mean that the idea we might have that such is bad, is an idea we inherited?

If so, I would agree that we would be remiss in today's more enlightened era to treat people as such and not pay them for doing so by getting them to freely agree with certain rules of ownership or simply forcing them to bend to our will by any other means.
Slavery generally appears to be understood in that context and chattel slavery is no exception to the general definition.

The Bible is apparently the 'good book'. Or, as Christians would argue, the objective moral standard. If the book mentions it, condones it, endorses it, recommends it, or commands it, it is "good". If you and I agree that the form(s) of chattel slavery, in which the Bible condones, is not "good", as the Bible condones in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25, then where do we go from there?

a) God didn't write that part?
b) You and I do not agree because you and I are instead plagued by evil?
c) God didn't write any of this stuff at all?
d) other?

Do you have examples from the current era where such old concepts of slavery are practiced lawfully in any country which is culturally biblical?

It does not matter. What was "good" then, should still be "good" now and forever. If something is inherently and objectively 'good' or 'bad', it does not change. Does it?

It's not my fault our, (yours and mine), 'morals' have transcended the Bible's 'good' list.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #48]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #40]

This comes across as something of a rant including sweeping statements of opinion about "creationalists"...

Those who think we might well exist in a mindfully created thing can be group- referred to as "creationalists" but certainly not all are defending the genesis story or ignoring the evidence re evolution.

I am surprised that one fails to understand and appreciate the spectrum of creationism since one appears to be intelligent enough to do so...

A bit of a rant maybe but that's the way I write. And what I write matters more than how I write and that is what should be addressed, rather than personals.

What you write is being addressed. I critiqued your placing all theists into one basket and why that isn't true.

Also, while you may adapt the point o a more general social discussion, the morality apologetic is Christian apologetics - to make a gap for God, and the apologetics is driven bu fundamentalists if not creationists, as the whole point is to make a case for a god being needed, if mot proven.

I offer contrast in my content. If atheists against Christians or the Christians themselves are not interested in those contrasts, how is that a case for pursuit of knowledge rather than a case for wilful ignorance?

If that is what my contrasts reveal for observation, (bring out of the wood-work) and allow one to add to one's knowledge-base, then something worthwhile has been accomplished.

I am surprised...well, not really, that you appear to fau il what a specific dogma, Creationism is, even if the creation - claim goes wider. Haven't I argued at times that Goddunnit doesn't prove any god or religion, just as evolution (broadly) does not disprove a god. Haven't i said that atheists can live with Deists, even if some Deists find it hard to tolerate Atheists, but Genesis - literalist creationists do not get invited to sit at our table. or they do like Jesus in Luke 11 37, sit at table and then roundly abuse his host. .

I find an interesting tidbit re Deism that it still is an attempt to dress the (supposed) Mindful Creator (of the supposed created thing {Universe}) in some type of costume - even be that it is one which has the God looking like being indifferent and even unaware of our predicament here init.

How impersonal!

All that is pretty irrelevant to the topic, but then, so was my post, I suppose. It is easy to accuse the other side of doing a rant, as well as not doing a particular argument supposedly meaning they didn't know a particular argument. A cosmic mind, which you know very well I get the idea of, is creationism of a sort, while evolution denial and genesis - literalism is another kind. It is disingenuous (at best) to insinuate i am unaware of this.

I don't think you gain much by using my post as a pretext to advance a claim of a cosmic mind and pretend i have advanced your argument. You still have nothing much. A Deist - god (cosmic mind) is less dressed up than an intervening one, and that much less tin costume than much less than Bible - god. But nothing has altered from the claim that there is a (probably creative) Cosmic Mind that is somehow connected to our minds. You still have nothing but an unsubstantiated faith - clam .

So back, I suppose, to knowledge of good and evil and the whole morality argument, which is done and dusted and yet is still being argued.