Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was completely moral at the time. I'm surprised you object. It's pretty much what you are suggesting by promoting social Darwinism. Funny how morals work, isn't it? Two edged swords and all that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Not at all. You only choose to view it is such. That's not a realistic interpretation. Slavery is immoral. Tax slavery is also immoral.
And yet the largest protestant Christian denomination in the US, the Southern Baptist Convention was founded explicitly to defend the morality of slavery. They even had a big debate on the most Biblical way to justify the enslavement of blacks. The monogeneists said it was because of the curse of Hamm. The polygenists said it was because according to Genesis, blacks weren't even humans but instead beasts of the field. Go figure.
To which of those completely Biblical positions do you subscribe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Wow. You don't know your history. Think about how and why the Church of England seceded from the Roman Catholic Church (not claiming either is moral, but there's a reason a monarch precipitated the separation).
What would lead you to hallucinate I do not know that history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Not at all. There was a lot of immorality in the 17th century. You've highlighted some of it.
There's a lot in the 21st Century too. I would hold up people who promote social Darwinism as examples.
You misunderstand. I was asking how you reconciled your insistence on there being some sort of universally applicable morality with your apparent desire for social darwinism.
I am sure you agree that the competition for resources in nature is perfectly ruthless, right?
That's Darwinism in evolution.
I'm questioning evolutionists (I am one) who believe in artificially supporting others to their own detriment (I don't) on their contradictory stance on social darwinism.
Incidentally, If you do not believe in a universally applicable morality, do you believe slavery is moral in any or all instances? And therefore tax slavery is also moral?
Recently there's been a wave of threads mocking Christians who believe in creationism or intelligent design, utilizing the usual tactics of the leftist playbook, calling us dumb, ignorant, "against science", etc; yet according to all polls over 75% of Americans believe that a creator was involved in the formation of the earth. The irony is no one was there so it's faith either way. I happen to believe that it takes a lot more faith to believe that earth was created out of random coincidental happenstance as opposed to the hand of a brilliant creator. Leftists, why do you love evolution so much?
This has nothing to do with left vs right. Granted, the low levels education in more religious parts of the country might make it seem so, but it's really not.
By the way, do you believe that the earth is flat? That's the kind of thing that people like you were saying not so long ago. Were you to get in an accident, you'd be asking people to take you to the hospital, not to church.
I don't love evolution. I just believe to be more real than a sky daddy getting up and going "durrr imma make a man n a wuman today outta dust and his rib har har!"
I'm questioning evolutionists (I am one) who believe in artificially supporting others to their own detriment (I don't) on their contradictory stance on social darwinism.
Didn't we cover this already? The contradiction is in your mind only.
Quote:
Incidentally, If you do not believe in a universally applicable morality, do you believe slavery is moral in any or all instances? And therefore tax slavery is also moral?
You brought up morality, I didn't. A characteristic of Social Darwinism is the absence of (what we'd consider) universally applicable morals. You can't argue for social darwinism on moral grounds. Doesn't work that way. Even if you really, really don't like paying taxes.
Is it merely an assumption that religious organizations define self on morality?
I'm not sure where the assumption that religious organizations are necessarily moral even comes from. I'm sure many of us could list many immoral acts committed by or on the behalf of religious institutions. Hell, many of the wars throughout history have been motivated by religion.
I'm not sure where the assumption that religious organizations are necessarily moral even comes from. I'm sure many of us could list many immoral acts committed by or on the behalf of religious institutions. Hell, many of the wars throughout history have been motivated by religion.
The fact comes from lack of evidence of religious organizations that don't use the idea of morality. Clearly, it is no assumption, as you said it were.
Didn't we cover this already? The contradiction is in your mind only.
Code for: you can't explain the cognitive dissonance of holding conflicting ideologies.
Quote:
You brought up morality, I didn't.
No, HistorianDude did. Along with making unsupported assumptions that religious organizations are necessarily moral.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
