Seriously?Why does it have to be more complex than that?
There are no situations where one must commit murder to avoid stealing, or commit perjury to avoid sexual immorality.
Someones right to defend themself, loved ones, strangers, and property butts up against the requirement not to murder. The more complex understanding of morality includes consideration of reasonable force and rational retreat, for example.
There is the situation where an evil doer holds a loved one hostage and at great peril in order to compel someone to commit a crime or immoral actions. Do you think there is a simple answer to this?
Unless some tries to steal your computer from your home at nightDo not murder
Unless your ex-wife has possession of what once was your golf clubssteal
A gigantic problem with Bible morality is that the punishment is not gauged to the crime. What is the wisdom is there is killing two people who just voluntarily break a promise? This is an escalation of violence!!commit adultery,
bear false witness, or covet.
There is little practicality to making thoughts alone immoral. One of the most human things to do is covet. A little coveting is expected. It is moral not to dwell on it or turn it into action. It is foolish to try to bar inevitable thoughts and feelings.
The first two have some merit. But, look at what is missing. Do not enslave other humans. Do not treat women and children like mere property. Do not abuse children. Central issues are absent and marginal issues are included in the Ten Commandments. Supporting a patriarch seems more important than morality.On these five commandments are built the foundation of most modern legal systems.
And everyone knew stealing and killing are wrong without the commandments telling them. It is included i every legal system beore the Bible was written and is included independently in systems after it. There is evidence that humans know this inanely ( besides sociopaths).
Your use of logical fallacies is shallow and focused on gotcha moments. The list is presented to students at junior college to improve their position papers. That is a good use. At the graduate level there is a more thorough understanding of logic.Your knowledge of what constitutes which fallacy is poor, and if you did so, you would be incorrect.
Your automatic poncing on stem words to identify a fallacy is nauseating. It is entirely appropriate to qualify conclusions with tentative statements of ownership rather than use absolute language. It seems to me that, my position is, I think, I believe, I do not believe all serve a very civil function in discussion and prevent the writer from coming of as if she believes she is the absolute arbiter of the matter. Your commentary on this kind of construction is always nonsensical.
Technically true, but again misses the point that fallacy list are a heuristic device to help early learners. The fallacies overlap in meaning. Every appeal to tradition is also an appeal to popularity because traditions arise out popular practices over time.An appeal to popularity relies on "how many people (population, popularity) believe it" to assert that something is correct.
If I were making the claim "because it has lasted 3500 years, therefore it's correct," that would be an appeal to tradition, not an appeal to popularity.
I'm stating that the Bible is robust (as in, internally consistent, as you put it) enough to have lasted for 3500 years, despite errors creeping in, that it remains largely unaffected by such errors.
Something can be internally consistent and not last centuries. You are merging two concepts here, I think.
Oh okay. I was referring to internally consistent within the work as a whole NOT over time.You asked me "Does it have reasonable internal consistency?" To which, I replied yes, it is robust enough to have lasted for 3500 years without much change.
In other words, it's both "emotions" AND "logical cogency."
I give the emotion manipulation factor much more weight than the insight it imparts as the reason for longevity.
The problem is that intentionally calling God using female terms goes against how He (yes, "He") describes Himself.
I thought you liberals were all about respecting people's pronouns. Guess not, eh?
Okay -- but when referring to a deity more generically to refer to many traditions at once, it should be fine to use other pronouns. Do you think there is something lessor about females?
How does an atomic bomb work?Because the effect cannot be greater than the cause.
It does necessarily follow. All Artificial intelligence will be subject to its parameters no matter how good or evil the inventor. Evil could rise out of good because of unintended consequences.You and I as humans are persons, therefore the source of humans must be a person. We are living, therefore the source must be living. We can love, therefore the source must be loving. We can have relationships, therefore the source must be relational. We can be good, therefore the source must be good.
Last edited: