Why Be Moral?

[Immanuel Can]

Why would an omniscient God not be able to write a book that reveals the truth in language that could be understood by any of his creatures.

You mean you don't think much of Hebrew and Greek? I think they're quite magnificent languages actually. I wish I were truly fluent in both. That would be great.

Or do you mean, "Why didn't God write it in every language and dialect of all the peoples of the Earth?"

Why would God have a book written that was so obtuse and confusing that thousands of scholars have to study it to figure our what it means and write millions of pages to explain it.

You mean, like Shakespeare? There's been an awful lot written about him. People are still debating what he wrote, but he wrote a lot less, and a lot less profoundly.

So you can say "obtuse": but generations of people have said "profound." There is so much meaning packed in there, that the human race will not exhaust it.

It's interesting that you so easily dismiss the incredibly scholarly legacy that has been invested in that one book. For thousands of years, people have drawn inspiration and meaning from what it offers. There's literally nothing comparable on Earth. It's the single greatest book ever penned, by every metric. And you simply dismiss it with the wave of a hand?

I do not think studying the Bible itself is a waste of time, however, both because so much Western literature would be very difficult to understand without understand both what the Bible says and what those influenced by the Bible believe, and, because it is a wonderful example certain literary styles and methods, some of which have been lost these days.

That's all true, and yet only the start of it. There's a whole lot more we might say about it.

Have you read any of it, RC?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Done. I've so far shown that it's rationally indefensible. That sure looks like failure to me.

You think so but offer no justifications.

Now you mistake the issue of burden of proof.

I have no burden of proof to defend your model. You must defend it, if it can be defended. Nobody else will.

When did I ask you to defend my model?
I have presented arguments for my moral models, the onus is on you to provide counter argument why the arguments for my model is wrong, false and untenable.

I had admitted earlier, the secular objective absolute moral ought do not exists in nature.
However it can be justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.

Yes, you said this...you said it over, and over and over again. It's still not true.
So far, you have provided NO empirical evidence, and NO philosophical reasoning that showed it could. So you want us to take your word that such "empirical evidence" and "philosophical reasoning" is out there somewhere...but you make no effort at all to present it. The natural conclusion is that you don't have any, and are merely bluffing.

But if that's not so, you can simply present the missing "evidence" and "reasoning." Go ahead.

You keep saying,
"So far, you have provided NO empirical evidence, and NO philosophical reasoning that showed it could."
I have already done so in the various threads in this forum and provided the relevant links earlier.
You merely brush them aside without giving specific justifications.

I mentioned the UN's Slavery Convention [not everything] as clue to its eventual possibility and highest productivity when organized and formalized efficiently.

That makes no sense at all. The UNSC is a complete failure, both in theory and in practice. It''s not an example of "eventual possibility," let alone "highest productivity," "organization" or "formal efficiency." These words, as you try to use them here, are just a smokescreen...babble...words without referent. "Productive" of what? "Organized" in what way? "Efficient for what?" "Possibility" of what, how?

No information. No light. Just babble.

The UNSC covered all forms of slavery.
Among all the forms of slavery, what is most critical is 'chattel' slavery where a human person is owned by another and is traded, e.g. the African chattel slaves in the US plantations and chattel slaves all over the world.

In contrast to since 1619 to the present, surely there is reduction of slaves traded from Africa in the USA, i.e. it is likely to be ZERO. How can you deny there is no improvement in this case.

I understand 'modern' slavery is increasing but with the "ZERO slave" maxim, this will reduce in time with an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Your ignorance of "Organized" "productive" "efficient" imply you are ignorant of the generic Principles of Management, i.e. Strategic Management and control systems.

Strategic management provides overall direction to an enterprise and involves specifying the organization's objectives, developing policies and plans to achieve those objectives, and then allocating resources to implement the plans. [4] Academics and practicing managers have developed numerous models and frameworks to assist in strategic decision-making in the context of complex environments and competitive dynamics.[5] Strategic management is not static in nature; the models often[quantify] include a feedback loop to monitor execution and to inform the next round of planning.

I believe it is relevant to contrast my model with other inefficient models like the theistic model and the crude UN Model.

Then you believe wrongly.

For your model has not been shown to have any value at all yet. Absent that, it doesn't matter if there are a thousand other models that are flawed or fail completely -- yours is still a complete failure in its own right.

You have to present your claimed "empirical evidence" and outline your own "philosophical reasoning" for your model. Nothing else will amount to a defence of it.

Why no value?
I have demonstrated my model will trigger a negative variance to be improved upon.
With efficient strategies and methods, the inherent control system will guide improvements.
Note what is novel is my model will entail the [FOOLPROOF] improvements via neural connectivity in the brain of each individual.
Thus my model has potential value theoretically.
Show me how this is wrong.

I have already given evidence of the crude UN moral Model which has produced results is analogous to my model.
My moral model is also analogous to the theistic model of pseudo morality which has shown results when believers are threatened with fear of hell to be 'good'. You deny your theistic moral model has not shown any results?

4. The above variance between ideal and actual practices of chattel slavery had triggered each Nation to find solutions to reduce the number of chattel slavery via various efficient methods.
Obviously there are less chattel slaves at present as compared to say to 500, 250, 100 and 50 years ago when in the past there is no ideal to control against.
Surely you cannot deny this?

I do, of course. So do the experts in world slavery. For example, the website I sent you proves you wrong -- decisively wrong -- and provides some statistics to that effect. Do you travel? Do you ever go anywhere outside the West? If you did, you'd have no problem finding slavery.

I think you're assuming that the conditions that are in your own Western country are the same everywhere. But clearly, that's not even remotely true.

I am from the East.
I have not heard of chattel slavery being commonly practiced on my side of the world. Note 'chattel' slavery not any form of slavery.

Your link point to "modern slavery" where people are forced by circumstances and ended with human trafficking. This is totally different from the Chattel Slavery where humans were captured by force and sold openly as slaves like animals.

Note China was once famous for modern slavery due to their poor citizens seeking work elsewhere around the world. However at the present China has taken 80% of their poor [a large quantum] out of poverty over the last 40-30 years, thus reducing the opportunity for modern human trafficking.
Vietnam, India, once were in the same boat as China and since the last 30 years their poverty level had been reduced.

Modern slavery is still ongoing but with the UNSC fixed target of ZERO slaves, that will drive countries to manage and reduce the number of slaves to the optimal minimum.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And every single time, been wrong...


Bluff.

You've done nothing to show that this is true. You just keep asserting it, in the absurd hope that if you say it enough, somebody will come to believe it.

I had already shown;

The UN Slavery Convention is already practiced at present and it relied upon a secular objective moral ought;

• No human ought to enslave [own] another human being as a slave [chattel].

It's not. It's disregarded.

First of all, few slave-using nations signed on, and then many of the signatories still have slaves. Here are some more facts -- though apparently, you don't want facts getting involved in your theory.https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/ ... rld-today/

You are ignorant of the facts.

Note this point;

All recognized countries today have technically outlawed slavery.
Link:

Note Article 1 of the Slavery Convention is this;

The 1926 Slavery Convention established concrete rules and articles to advance the suppression of slavery and the slave trade. -wiki

Slavery was defined (Art.1) as:
the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised

and the slave trade was defined as including:

all acts involved in the capture, acquisition or disposal of a person with intent to reduce him to slavery; all acts involved in the acquisition of a slave with a view to selling or exchanging him; all acts of disposal by sale or exchange of a slave acquired with a view to being sold or exchanged, and, in general, every act of trade or transport in slaves.

Article 1 refer to 'Chattel' Slavery.

Subsequent changes [indicated in your link] were changed to the definition to include various forms of modern slavery.
But there is no denial the number of chattel slaves as defined in the original article 1 had been reduced since the last 100 years to the present.

That many signatories still have "slaves" [not chattel slaves] is not the critical point.
What is critical is these signatories has committed to strive for ZERO SLAVE as a target based on the moral ought.
Such a fixed goal of ZERO SLAVE will drive these signatories to improve on the negative variance in time.

One fact is no Nation has openly condoned modern slavery of all forms. If so, which?
One exception is perhaps forced child marriage as condoned by theistic doctrines from Islam. But this is a very fringe definition of modern slavery.

My point is;
Secular objective moral oughts can be justified from empirical evidences and refined philosophical reasoning to be used as a GUIDE only within an efficient Moral Framework to improve human moral behaviors.

[Immanuel Can]

I have presented arguments for my moral models, the onus is on you to provide counter argument why the arguments for my model is wrong, false and untenable.

All I have seen from you so far is repeated insistences that things like "empirical evidence" and "philosophical reasoning" will do the job, but with not one thing said about what these actually are. There is nothing to counter-argue there, because you've presented no case. When the evidence of which you speak is offered, we can do that.

Until then, there is no rational basis why anybody should believe it exists at all.

I had admitted earlier, the secular objective absolute moral ought do not exists in nature.
However it can be justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.

Yes, you said this...you said it over, and over and over again. It's still not true.
So far, you have provided NO empirical evidence, and NO philosophical reasoning that showed it could. So you want us to take your word that such "empirical evidence" and "philosophical reasoning" is out there somewhere...but you make no effort at all to present it. The natural conclusion is that you don't have any, and are merely bluffing.

But if that's not so, you can simply present the missing "evidence" and "reasoning." Go ahead.

You keep saying,
"So far, you have provided NO empirical evidence, and NO philosophical reasoning that showed it could."
I have already done so in the various threads in this forum and provided the relevant links earlier.
You merely brush them aside without giving specific justifications.

Well, humour me one more time, and do it right here, right now. Give me those "empirical evidences" in specific; say what they are. Then show me the specific "philosophical reasons" that make them into the necessary evidence.

Note I did not say, "repeat the claim you've already done it." That, I have seen many, many times from you so far. It has added nothing to your case.

In contrast to since 1619 to the present, surely there is reduction of slaves traded from Africa in the USA, i.e. it is likely to be ZERO. How can you deny there is no improvement in this case.

Look at the articles. There is some change in the kind of slavery...it's gotten worse. Labouring in cotton fields is bad, but used in the sex trade is worse. And the numbers are much higher than before. So slavery is going up and getting worse. How is that any win?

I believe it is relevant to contrast my model with other inefficient models like the theistic model and the crude UN Model.

Then you believe wrongly.

For your model has not been shown to have any value at all yet. Absent that, it doesn't matter if there are a thousand other models that are flawed or fail completely -- yours is still a complete failure in its own right.

You have to present your claimed "empirical evidence" and outline your own "philosophical reasoning" for your model. Nothing else will amount to a defence of it.

Why no value? [/quote]
Because it's both incoherent with itself, and utterly devoid of proof, being no more than a bunch of bluster, as outlined in the last message.

I have demonstrated my model will trigger a negative variance to be improved upon.

No, you did not "demonstrate" anything of the kind. And again, "negative variance"? Babble.

Show me how this is wrong.

I am, and have. But what I can't do is make you able to understand, apparently.

I think you're assuming that the conditions that are in your own Western country are the same everywhere. But clearly, that's not even remotely true.

I am from the East.

Where?

I have not heard of chattel slavery being commonly practiced on my side of the world.

Read the articles I sent you. Then you'll know that what you "hear" isn't reflective of the truth.

[Immanuel Can]

I had already shown;

The UN Slavery Convention is already practiced at present and it relied upon a secular objective moral ought;

• No human ought to enslave [own] another human being as a slave [chattel].

It's not. It's disregarded.

First of all, few slave-using nations signed on, and then many of the signatories still have slaves. Here are some more facts -- though apparently, you don't want facts getting involved in your theory.https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/ ... rld-today/

You are ignorant of the facts.

Well, then all the experts in the two articles I sent you are similarly "ignorant," and only you are knowledgeable. But somehow, I just don't believe that. And not just because the data prove you wrong, but because I've seen how you "reason," and it's all rhetoric and posture, without coherence or substance.

My point is;
Secular objective moral oughts can be justified from empirical evidences and refined philosophical reasoning to be used as a GUIDE only within an efficient Moral Framework to improve human moral behaviors.

Yeah, you keep saying this silly, silly phrase over and over...as if you think it means something. Unfortunately for you, I can read. I understand that jargon is just jargon. So I'm just not impressed.

Do better. Give the "empirical evidences" and "philosophical reasoning." In fact, in the next message, give me nothing BUT that, if you have it.

[RCSaunders]

Why would an omniscient God not be able to write a book that reveals the truth in language that could be understood by any of his creatures.

You mean you don't think much of Hebrew and Greek?

You know what I mean, IC. It has nothing to do with the languages.

Why would God have a book written that was so obtuse and confusing that thousands of scholars have to study it to figure our what it means and write millions of pages to explain it.

You mean, like Shakespeare? There's been an awful lot written about him. People are still debating what he wrote, but he wrote a lot less, and a lot less profoundly.

Of course, which is why no one is saying Shakespeare is inspired by God and what he wrote was infallible truth. If you are saying the Bible is just interesting literature, that's fine. But if you are claiming it is the inspired Word of God, I would expect it be written better than Shakespeare. Wouldn't your?

I do not think studying the Bible itself is a waste of time, however, both because so much Western literature would be very difficult to understand without understand both what the Bible says and what those influenced by the Bible believe, and, because it is a wonderful example certain literary styles and methods, some of which have been lost these days.

That's all true, and yet only the start of it. There's a whole lot more we might say about it.

Have you read any of it, RC?

A little. The whole book from Genesis to Revelation about thirty times, most of the individual books hundreds of times, the entire New Testament in Koine Greek, and uncountable hours comparing scripture with scripture as recommended by Jesus, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (I know the phrase, "comparing scripture with scripture," is a favorite of Jehovah's Witnesses, but it was earlier used by those who pointed out that the method was used by Jesus, Paul, and extensively by Luke in the the book of Hebrews.)

I've also read most of the theologians, from Augustine to Wesley, as well as many later ones, the better Biblical commentators, and early church fathers.

Why did you ask? I discovered years ago that very few who claim to believe the Bible have ever really read it and never studied it and couldn't tell you where to find the story of Rahab, or where the words, "truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter," are written, or what they mean.

[Immanuel Can]

Why would an omniscient God not be able to write a book that reveals the truth in language that could be understood by any of his creatures.

You mean you don't think much of Hebrew and Greek?

You know what I mean, IC. It has nothing to do with the languages.

I'm not sure I do. What do you mean?

But if you are claiming it is the inspired Word of God, I would expect it be written better than Shakespeare. Wouldn't your?

Heh. Shakespeare was deep, at times, but even he knew he could only ever dream of being as literarily deep as the Bible. That's why he referred to it so often. He was its tributary, not its master.

We might add that whereas Shakespeare has had a fairly broad reach, it's been nothing compared to the Bible, which is so much within our culture that we quote it without even knowing. It's the basis of our laws and human rights, of course, but also of our arts, of the scientific method, and of a whole lot of other things that would blow people's minds if they had any idea.

Have you read any of it, RC?

Why did you ask? I discovered years ago that very few who claim to believe the Bible have ever really read it and never studied it and couldn't tell you where to find the story of Rahab, or where the words, "truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter," are written, or what they mean.

Joshua I got right away, but identifying Isaiah took a bit, because the wording in the latter wasn't quite what I was used to. "Justice" was more familiar to me.

I'm surprised, given the amount of reading you've done, that our discussion is the first time you've heard of the Hebrew idiom "heart," and understood it to be anything other than an appeal to emotions. I would think that even noting its differing appearances in different contexts would have twigged you to the fact that it's not being used in the modern way.

For example, "The heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?" Or "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart." Very clearly, those two are not talking about mere emotions, and certainly not about blind faith. They're speaking of that inner nature of man, what we call the "soul," the "spirit," the "self," the "thinker," the "consciousness," or whatever.

And really, the important point in both quotations is this:

That what's inside the dark counsels of a man's innermost being isn't good, in the first case, and people may be fooled by externals but God sees the real man, in the second. Both quotations have to do with the inner reality of the self.

And yet, it seems you get stuck on the metaphor, and suppose that it must indicate a failure of literality of some kind, in the Biblical context? I wonder if you would think the same thing when a modern speaker says, "I gave it my whole heart," or "I got the the heart of the matter quickly." I doubt you would. I'm thinking you can recognize an idiom, no?

But this is what I was saying about us having to be careful how we read (not just that we read it). For it's possible to read it two ways: one, to hear what it has to offer, and two, to dismiss. The condition of the "heart," the innermost self of the reader, is the key. The first type of reader can find what he's looking for, because he reads with patience, humility, and respect, looking to see something; the second only sees opportunities to say that what he's reading is not worth his time, so he can get it off his slate or off his conscience.

This is why Jesus repeatedly said, "He who has ears, let him hear." He was not speaking literally, because the Pharisees all had two ears. But the Pharisees would really hear nothing; for they were only looking so long as to find a basis for saying something like, "This man is a companion of drunkards and sinners" -- exactly what they did, in fact, say.

That's a good illustration of what I mean. There is reading to hear, and reading to dismiss. And they are definitely not the same activity. God makes no promises that a person of the second kind will ever find anything.

[RCSaunders]

Joshua I got right away, but identifying Isaiah took a bit, because the wording in the latter wasn't quite what I was used to. "Justice" was more familiar to me.

It wasn't a test.

Equity in the King James has been translated justice in later versions, which looses, I think, a subtle difference in meaning. Equity implied more than justice, rightness or even righteousness, but I'm not interested in those fine points.

I'm surprised, given the amount of reading you've done, that our discussion is the first time you've heard of the Hebrew idiom "heart," and understood it to be anything other than an appeal to emotions. I would think that even noting its differing appearances in different contexts would have twigged you to the fact that it's not being used in the modern way.

I seriously think you have memory problem. You often respond to me about things we've discussed and have no memory at all of my previous comments. We've discussed the Biblical concept of the, "heart," before. The first I recall was on Aug 21, 2019. I believe the first verse I quoted was, "as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." [I love Elizabethan English.]

For example, "The heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?" Or "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart." Very clearly, those two are not talking about mere emotions, and certainly not about blind faith. They're speaking of that inner nature of man, what we call the "soul," the "spirit," the "self," the "thinker," the "consciousness," or whatever.

And yet, you get stuck on the metaphor, and suppose that it must indicate a failure of literality of some kind, in the Biblical context. I wonder if you would think the same thing when a modern speaker says, "I gave it my whole heart," or "I got the the heart of the matter quickly."[/quote]
I think your attempt to explain away Bible problems by appealing to, "metaphor," or other rhetorical devices which are not perfectly obvious is a mistake.

I'm hardly stuck. I think you have your own idea of what the Bible means by, "heart," but I do not think it has a single meaning. For example, in your list, "inner nature of man," "soul," "spirit," "self," "thinker," and the "consciousness," you are implying they are more or less all the same thing, but if they are, your Bible is mistaken, because it very clearly regards them as different things.

For example, these verses all refer to these things being different and separate:

I Thess. 5:23 "...your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Luke 10:27 "Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all they heart and with all they soul, and with all they strength, and with all they mind." (Also Deut. 6:5)
Mat. 22:37 "Thou shalt love the Lord, they God, with all they heart, and with all they soul, and with all thy mind."
Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper then any two-edged sword, piercing asunder of soul and spirit, ....
Psalms 7:9 "...the righeous God testeth the minds and hearts,"
Phil. 4:7 "And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

The, "heart," may be one of the most confusing concepts in the Bible. Everything is attributed to it (while also being attributed to other things) like, imagination (Gen. 6:5, 8:21, Prov. 6:18, Deut. 31:21), wicked behavior (Mark 7:21&22), lust (Rom. 1;23), blindness and ignorance (Eph. 4:18), double(?) (James 4:8), and filled with Satan (Acts 5:3). The Bible says a new heart is given by God (Jer. 24:7), but also commands that one make themselves a new heart (Eze. 18:30-32) [and the whole chapter implies salvation can be chosen, before the first advent].

Even Shakespeare didn't use language that confusingly.

Enough for now. I have to go listen to Meyebeer's L'Africain.

[Immanuel Can]

I think your attempt to explain away Bible problems by appealing to, "metaphor," or other rhetorical devices which are not perfectly obvious is a mistake.

I don't think so. I don't think that any Christian is duty bound to have no ear for poetry, or metaphor, or symbol, all of which are abundantly present in Scripture. In fact, I think one would be, to coin a phrase, "a Philistine" to think otherwise.

I realize that it is often convenient for detractors of Christianity to argue that Christians are duty bound to be crassly literal. But I have met many, many Christians, and know none that are. For example, I think no Christian is going to argue that the important thing about "The Sower and the Seed" is that it really happened. Anybody with an ounce of sense is going to see the worlds that precede it, "And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, “Behold, the sower went out to sow..."

So there's no debate that some things in the Bible are to be understood literally, and others are to be taken figuratively. There's only debate over liminal cases, and there are relatively few of those left.

I Thess. 5:23 "...your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Luke 10:27 "Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all they heart and with all they soul, and with all they strength, and with all they mind." (Also Deut. 6:5)
Mat. 22:37 "Thou shalt love the Lord, they God, with all they heart, and with all they soul, and with all thy mind."
Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper then any two-edged sword, piercing asunder of soul and spirit, ....
Psalms 7:9 "...the righeous God testeth the minds and hearts,"
Phil. 4:7 "And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

The, "heart," may be one of the most confusing concepts in the Bible. Everything is attributed to it (while also being attributed to other things) like, imagination (Gen. 6:5, 8:21, Prov. 6:18, Deut. 31:21), wicked behavior (Mark 7:21&22), lust (Rom. 1;23), blindness and ignorance (Eph. 4:18), double(?) (James 4:8), and filled with Satan (Acts 5:3). The Bible says a new heart is given by God (Jer. 24:7), but also commands that one make themselves a new heart (Eze. 18:30-32) [and the whole chapter implies salvation can be chosen, before the first advent].

I don't think the presents any difficulty at all, actually. Think of the word "mind." How many different phenomena are covered under that word? There's thinking, reasoning, feeling, imagining, inventing, remembering, projecting, designing, dreaming....and on, and on, and on. Why should it surprise anyone, since we know so many activities are done in the "heart" of man, that "heart" is a complex concept in Scripture?

Human beings are complex.

Even Shakespeare didn't use language that confusingly.

Well, as I say, Shakespeare is profound only at times. The Bible's profound at all times. So that's the reason.

Enough for now. I have to go listen to Meyebeer's L'Africain.

Have you ever heard "The Gadfly," by Shostakovich? I don't normally enjoy Shostakovitch as much as some others, but he was writing in a "retro" way when he created "The Gadfly."

Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPC60cIZpII

Not to be missed. You will thank me later.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have presented arguments for my moral models, the onus is on you to provide counter argument why the arguments for my model is wrong, false and untenable.

All I have seen from you so far is repeated insistences that things like "empirical evidence" and "philosophical reasoning" will do the job, but with not one thing said about what these actually are. There is nothing to counter-argue there, because you've presented no case. When the evidence of which you speak is offered, we can do that.

Until then, there is no rational basis why anybody should believe it exists at all.

Yes, you said this...you said it over, and over and over again. It's still not true.
So far, you have provided NO empirical evidence, and NO philosophical reasoning that showed it could. So you want us to take your word that such "empirical evidence" and "philosophical reasoning" is out there somewhere...but you make no effort at all to present it. The natural conclusion is that you don't have any, and are merely bluffing.

But if that's not so, you can simply present the missing "evidence" and "reasoning." Go ahead.

You keep saying,
"So far, you have provided NO empirical evidence, and NO philosophical reasoning that showed it could."
I have already done so in the various threads in this forum and provided the relevant links earlier.
You merely brush them aside without giving specific justifications.

Well, humour me one more time, and do it right here, right now. Give me those "empirical evidences" in specific; say what they are. Then show me the specific "philosophical reasons" that make them into the necessary evidence.

Note I did not say, "repeat the claim you've already done it." That, I have seen many, many times from you so far. It has added nothing to your case.

I have repeated that many times.
My arguments are in an "open book" in those threads I had referred and you have gone through them many times.

I had suggested you followed what Peter Holmes did on this issue, i.e. present what you understood [not necessary agree] of the arguments I had presented.
Then present your counter argument why my argument is wrong or false.

In contrast to since 1619 to the present, surely there is reduction of slaves traded from Africa in the USA, i.e. it is likely to be ZERO. How can you deny there is no improvement in this case.

Look at the articles. There is some change in the kind of slavery...it's gotten worse. Labouring in cotton fields is bad, but used in the sex trade is worse. And the numbers are much higher than before. So slavery is going up and getting worse. How is that any win?

I have to say you are very stupid or deliberately be stupid in this case in conflating all forms of slavery as one single total for comparison.

You have to compare apples with apples in this case not apples with oranges as fruits.
In this case we need to list down the full categories and all forms of what is defined as 'slavery.'
It is obvious 'chattel' slavery [stats of the whole world] has improved since 1000-300 years ago to the present.

As for sex-slave, this is a specific category of slavery. Where is the evidence this type of slavery is worst than 1000-300 years ago as compared to the present. Long ago females has been kidnapped and captured as sex-slaves all over the world.
At present this has to be done 'underground' and there is not much space at present to hide sex-slaves.

Note your article defined enslavement as;

• Enslavement happens in many industries – including restaurants, domestic work, electronics, construction, textiles, steel and seafood.

In most cases, the workers volunteered to seek employment but they are in a way trapped by middlemen who charged them high agency fees that they have to pay thus to repay the agent with their first 6 months of pay. However, these workers will get their money after they have repaid the agent for their next 3 years or until their contract with the employer ends.
This is not slavery per se but merely pseudo-slavery due to poverty.

This sort of 'enslavement' was very bad 50-30 years ago, but since a lot of improvements had been made by the various governments of the contract employees and the government of the employers after much pressure from the related NGOs. Examples are workers from Philippines, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Indonesia and elsewhere. After much reported sufferings from their citizens who worked in foreign countries, the respective governments had implemented various measures to improve the conditions of these workers or had banned their citizens from working in those countries with bad records.

All the above improvements are driven by the ideal 'no human shall own another human as a slave' i.e. chattel or any other form of slavery defined with the latest UN Slavery Convention.
Obviously improvement in modern slavery will take time since the definitions are newly introduced.

Because it's both incoherent with itself, and utterly devoid of proof, being no more than a bunch of bluster, as outlined in the last message.
You are making noises.

Can you explain why if an effective Problem Solving Technique when applied efficiently will not generate improvements?

No, you did not "demonstrate" anything of the kind. And again, "negative variance"? Babble.

The above indicate your ignorance.
Don't you understand variance analysis in improvements techniques?

I am, and have. But what I can't do is make you able to understand, apparently.

Your knowledge and thinking is so narrow and shallow plus you are so ignorant of the relevant knowledge. You just don't have the qualifications to counter my arguments.

Read the articles I sent you. Then you'll know that what you "hear" isn't reflective of the truth.

Quote me the part that support your point.
The definition of slavery = enslavement in "restaurants, domestic work, electronics, construction, textiles, steel and seafood?"

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's not. It's disregarded.

First of all, few slave-using nations signed on, and then many of the signatories still have slaves. Here are some more facts -- though apparently, you don't want facts getting involved in your theory.https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/ ... rld-today/

You are ignorant of the facts.

Well, then all the experts in the two articles I sent you are similarly "ignorant," and only you are knowledgeable. But somehow, I just don't believe that. And not just because the data prove you wrong, but because I've seen how you "reason," and it's all rhetoric and posture, without coherence or substance.

I stated you are ignoring of the fact of the original definition of slavery i.e. chattel slavery and the inclusion of forced labor and other forms as slavery.

I argued as far as the original intention and definition re Chattel Slavery, this form of slavery has improved significantly over the last 300 years as compared to the present.

Your article claimed there are millions of workers the author defined as;

• Enslavement happens in many industries – including restaurants, domestic work, electronics, construction, textiles, steel and seafood.

The workers are not chattel slaves, i.e. they were not captured nor kidnapped nor forced, but these workers volunteered to be employed but were exploited by middlemen and agents.

I agree whatever sufferings endured by these workers must be addressed and much actions and improvements had been done as compared to 30 years ago.

I have came across a case where normal employment in any organization other than self-employment is claimed to be "slavery" - an employment contract is a "master - slave relationship".

My point is;
Secular objective moral oughts can be justified from empirical evidences and refined philosophical reasoning to be used as a GUIDE only within an efficient Moral Framework to improve human moral behaviors.

Yeah, you keep saying this silly, silly phrase over and over...as if you think it means something. Unfortunately for you, I can read. I understand that jargon is just jargon. So I'm just not impressed.

Do better. Give the "empirical evidences" and "philosophical reasoning." In fact, in the next message, give me nothing BUT that, if you have it.

You are too dumb and stupid to understand the above philosophical points.

Justified empirical evidences is what Science does in generating objective scientific theories. How can you be so stupid not to understand that.
Philosophical reasoning is using logic, rationality and critical thinking to polish and reinforce any argument. This is what the Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of "any-subject' does to reinforce the source of its knowledge generated and qualify whatever the limitations there is.

Actually this is like a PhD [me] trying to explain Quantum Mechanics to a kindergarten kid [you]. I don't expect the knowledge to get through.

[Immanuel Can]

Note I did not say, "repeat the claim you've already done it." That, I have seen many, many times from you so far. It has added nothing to your case.

I have repeated that many times.
My arguments are in an "open book" in those threads I had referred and you have gone through them many times.

I see.

So your answer is, "No, I don't have evidence or philosophical reasoning I promised; but I hope to misdirect you into the vague reaches of things I've said before, in the hopes that I can keep evading the question."

Gottit.

You could have written much less than you did, and simply answered the question. But this much is clear: I know what's going on, you know what's going on, and anybody else who's been tracking does too...so what's left to say?

Not much, I'm thinking.

[RCSaunders]

I think your attempt to explain away Bible problems by appealing to, "metaphor," or other rhetorical devices which are not perfectly obvious is a mistake.

I don't think so. I don't think that any Christian is duty bound to have no ear for poetry, or metaphor, or symbol, all of which are abundantly present in Scripture. In fact, I think one would be, to coin a phrase, "a Philistine" to think otherwise.

I realize that it is often convenient for detractors of Christianity to argue that Christians are duty bound to be crassly literal. But I have met many, many Christians, and know none that are. For example, I think no Christian is going to argue that the important thing about "The Sower and the Seed" is that it really happened. Anybody with an ounce of sense is going to see the worlds that precede it, "And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, “Behold, the sower went out to sow..."

So there's no debate that some things in the Bible are to be understood literally, and others are to be taken figuratively. There's only debate over liminal cases, and there are relatively few of those left.

If any of that is what I meant I'd willingly accept the criticism, but you know it's not. No one can read the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Solomon without being aware of the richness of metaphor, simile, and Eastern symbolism. It's none of that I'm talking about. Did Jacob actually wrestle with an angel and was his hip literally put out of joint? Are the visions of Daniel metaphorical or real? Or John's visions in Revelation? Is the description of the heavenly city literal or spiritual? Certainly Christians do not agree, and they have hardly been settled. There are more different views of eschatology today than ever.

I Thess. 5:23 "...your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Luke 10:27 "Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all they heart and with all they soul, and with all they strength, and with all they mind." (Also Deut. 6:5)
Mat. 22:37 "Thou shalt love the Lord, they God, with all they heart, and with all they soul, and with all thy mind."
Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper then any two-edged sword, piercing asunder of soul and spirit, ....
Psalms 7:9 "...the righeous God testeth the minds and hearts,"
Phil. 4:7 "And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

The, "heart," may be one of the most confusing concepts in the Bible. Everything is attributed to it (while also being attributed to other things) like, imagination (Gen. 6:5, 8:21, Prov. 6:18, Deut. 31:21), wicked behavior (Mark 7:21&22), lust (Rom. 1;23), blindness and ignorance (Eph. 4:18), double(?) (James 4:8), and filled with Satan (Acts 5:3). The Bible says a new heart is given by God (Jer. 24:7), but also commands that one make themselves a new heart (Eze. 18:30-32) [and the whole chapter implies salvation can be chosen, before the first advent].

I don't think the presents any difficulty at all, actually. Think of the word "mind." How many different phenomena are covered under that word? There's thinking, reasoning, feeling, imagining, inventing, remembering, projecting, designing, dreaming....and on, and on, and on. Why should it surprise anyone, since we know so many activities are done in the "heart" of man, that "heart" is a complex concept in Scripture?

Oh, I agree. There is the same confusion and lack of discrimination in philosophy as there is in the Bible. It is why there is no progress at all, and mostly regression, in philosophy. Just throwing anything related to consciousness in one bag and calling it the mind is what is wrong with everything that goes by the name epistemology. But if you're willing to accept the colloquial use of language in place of explicit rigorous explanation, you'll accept that God could use the same mistaken method of revealing the truth.

Even Shakespeare didn't use language that confusingly.

Well, as I say, Shakespeare is profound only at times. The Bible's profound at all times. So that's the reason.

I love that word, "profound." It is a favorite word of academics, philosophers, theologians, and other self-identified authorities for the intentionally abstruse and obfuscated. "Profound," means nonsense put over as recondite, as the excuse for why no one else understands it, when no one understands it because it's absurd.

Enough for now. I have to go listen to Meyebeer's L'Africain.

Have you ever heard "The Gadfly," by Shostakovich? I don't normally enjoy Shostakovitch as much as some others, but he was writing in a "retro" way when he created "The Gadfly."

Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPC60cIZpII

Not to be missed.

Thanks for the thought.

[Immanuel Can]

I think your attempt to explain away Bible problems by appealing to, "metaphor," or other rhetorical devices which are not perfectly obvious is a mistake.

I don't think so. I don't think that any Christian is duty bound to have no ear for poetry, or metaphor, or symbol, all of which are abundantly present in Scripture. In fact, I think one would be, to coin a phrase, "a Philistine" to think otherwise.

I realize that it is often convenient for detractors of Christianity to argue that Christians are duty bound to be crassly literal. But I have met many, many Christians, and know none that are. For example, I think no Christian is going to argue that the important thing about "The Sower and the Seed" is that it really happened. Anybody with an ounce of sense is going to see the worlds that precede it, "And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, “Behold, the sower went out to sow..."

So there's no debate that some things in the Bible are to be understood literally, and others are to be taken figuratively. There's only debate over liminal cases, and there are relatively few of those left.

If any of that is what I meant I'd willingly accept the criticism, but you know it's not.

Is it my knowledge of your intentions you overestimate, or is it the clarity of your own prose? One or the other, I suppose. For I do not "know" such a thing, and would have no incentive to waste time speaking as I do, if I did. I would rather respond to your real concern -- if I could detect it yet.

Perhaps you should clarify.

Did Jacob actually wrestle with an angel and was his hip literally put out of joint?

Why not?

Are the visions of Daniel metaphorical or real?

Both: metaphors for the real. For example, you have the symbols of the leopard and the bear, which are pretty easy to identify as the Greek and Roman empires. Both became real, as we now know; but both were also depicted through metaphor.

Or John's visions in Revelation? Is the description of the heavenly city literal or spiritual?

Perhaps both. Like in Daniel, we're dealing with a metaphor designed to speak to people in both the First and the Twenty-first Centuries. So the symbolic language is not at all surprising, there. The interesting thing is to try to unpack what the metaphor would mean in literal terms, since it surely refers to something.

Certainly Christians do not agree, and they have hardly been settled. There are more different views of eschatology today than ever.

True enough.

But eschatology is the more esoteric matter, and does not impinge on salvation or even practical conduct very directly. One could hold all kinds of speculative views of what the future holds, and still be an excellent Christian. The future has a way of taking care of itself -- interpretations become clearer as the events themselves unfold.

Far more urgent is this question: when they unfold, what will one's own relation to God be?

I don't think the presents any difficulty at all, actually. Think of the word "mind." How many different phenomena are covered under that word? There's thinking, reasoning, feeling, imagining, inventing, remembering, projecting, designing, dreaming....and on, and on, and on. Why should it surprise anyone, since we know so many activities are done in the "heart" of man, that "heart" is a complex concept in Scripture?

Oh, I agree. There is the same confusion and lack of discrimination in philosophy as there is in the Bible.

No, no...I did not say this. You're misrepresenting my words there, RC...or else misunderstanding them. I will not judge which.

What I said is that when an idea is profound it is also multifaceted. A concept like "mind" is not "confused" by the many mental processes associated with it; rather, it is fully fleshed out only when we take into account that it can involve all or any of these processes at a given time. Moreover, when we move from the broad term "mind" to something more specific, like "consciousness" or "reason" or "creativity," we are eliminating ambiguity. And then we can drill down further, and speak of things like "self-awareness," which is also part of the "mind," but is more narrow yet.

The upshot is that general-concept words like "mind," and "heart" are, so to speak, like those Russian dolls that are nested within each other, so that one general concept unpacks into ten smaller and more refined ones. We cannot fault the larger "dolls" for "lacking discrimination" if they include these smaller concepts. Rather, we should admire their range, and then use some of the smaller "dolls" to refine our meaning in a given context.

It's just like if I refer to you as "human." That's not a bad thing to say about you, and it's not "confused" or "lacking in discrimination." All it means is that I'm using a large concept which I can break down into more refined ones, such as "You are male," "You are English," and "You are retired," and so on.

I love that word, "profound." It is a favorite word of academics, philosophers, theologians, and other self-identified authorities for the intentionally abstruse and obfuscated.

It can be. It's not what I mean here, however.

All words can be abused, and you're right to peg that as the work of the mere propagandist. But we do well to consider, as Kierkegaard has said, that there are two ways to be wrong: one, by believing things that are not true, and two, by refusing to believe things that are true. The cynic is well guarded against the first, but has no defence at all against the second.

This is why, as Jesus Himself put it, "...nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light. So take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him.”

Take care how you listen. There are penalties for being fooled. But there are also penalties for being willfully unbelieving. And those who cynically say, "Yeah, I've heard all that" put themselves in an extremely dangerous position. As Jesus said to the skeptical Pharisees, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains."

Or as Paul again says, "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing..." Now, you'll see that there's a test in that: if one is hearing, one is not perishing. However, if one says, "What a lot of foolishness..."

So it's not simply a matter of having two ears. It's a matter of listening with a disposition to be willing to hear what's being said, of "having ears to hear."

[RCSaunders]

I don't think so. I don't think that any Christian is duty bound to have no ear for poetry, or metaphor, or symbol, all of which are abundantly present in Scripture. In fact, I think one would be, to coin a phrase, "a Philistine" to think otherwise.

I realize that it is often convenient for detractors of Christianity to argue that Christians are duty bound to be crassly literal. But I have met many, many Christians, and know none that are. For example, I think no Christian is going to argue that the important thing about "The Sower and the Seed" is that it really happened. Anybody with an ounce of sense is going to see the worlds that precede it, "And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, “Behold, the sower went out to sow..."

So there's no debate that some things in the Bible are to be understood literally, and others are to be taken figuratively. There's only debate over liminal cases, and there are relatively few of those left.

If any of that is what I meant I'd willingly accept the criticism, but you know it's not.

Is it my knowledge of your intentions you overestimate, or is it the clarity of your own prose? One or the other, I suppose. For I do not "know" such a thing, and would have no incentive to waste time speaking as I do, if I did. I would rather respond to your real concern -- if I could detect it yet.

Perhaps you should clarify.

Did Jacob actually wrestle with an angel and was his hip literally put out of joint?

Why not?

Are the visions of Daniel metaphorical or real?

Both: metaphors for the real. For example, you have the symbols of the leopard and the bear, which are pretty easy to identify as the Greek and Roman empires. Both became real, as we now know; but both were also depicted through metaphor.

Or John's visions in Revelation? Is the description of the heavenly city literal or spiritual?

Perhaps both. Like in Daniel, we're dealing with a metaphor designed to speak to people in both the First and the Twenty-first Centuries. So the symbolic language is not at all surprising, there. The interesting thing is to try to unpack what the metaphor would mean in literal terms, since it surely refers to something.

Certainly Christians do not agree, and they have hardly been settled. There are more different views of eschatology today than ever.

True enough.

But eschatology is the more esoteric matter, and does not impinge on salvation or even practical conduct very directly. One could hold all kinds of speculative views of what the future holds, and still be an excellent Christian. The future has a way of taking care of itself -- interpretations become clearer as the events themselves unfold.

Far more urgent is this question: when they unfold, what will one's own relation to God be?

I don't think the presents any difficulty at all, actually. Think of the word "mind." How many different phenomena are covered under that word? There's thinking, reasoning, feeling, imagining, inventing, remembering, projecting, designing, dreaming....and on, and on, and on. Why should it surprise anyone, since we know so many activities are done in the "heart" of man, that "heart" is a complex concept in Scripture?

Oh, I agree. There is the same confusion and lack of discrimination in philosophy as there is in the Bible.

No, no...I did not say this. You're misrepresenting my words there, RC...or else misunderstanding them. I will not judge which.

What I said is that when an idea is profound it is also multifaceted. A concept like "mind" is not "confused" by the many mental processes associated with it; rather, it is fully fleshed out only when we take into account that it can involve all or any of these processes at a given time. Moreover, when we move from the broad term "mind" to something more specific, like "consciousness" or "reason" or "creativity," we are eliminating ambiguity. And then we can drill down further, and speak of things like "self-awareness," which is also part of the "mind," but is more narrow yet.

The upshot is that general-concept words like "mind," and "heart" are, so to speak, like those Russian dolls that are nested within each other, so that one general concept unpacks into ten smaller and more refined ones. We cannot fault the larger "dolls" for "lacking discrimination" if they include these smaller concepts. Rather, we should admire their range, and then use some of the smaller "dolls" to refine our meaning in a given context.

It's just like if I refer to you as "human." That's not a bad thing to say about you, and it's not "confused" or "lacking in discrimination." All it means is that I'm using a large concept which I can break down into more refined ones, such as "You are male," "You are English," and "You are retired," and so on.

I love that word, "profound." It is a favorite word of academics, philosophers, theologians, and other self-identified authorities for the intentionally abstruse and obfuscated.

It can be. It's not what I mean here, however.

All words can be abused, and you're right to peg that as the work of the mere propagandist. But we do well to consider, as Kierkegaard has said, that there are two ways to be wrong: one, by believing things that are not true, and two, by refusing to believe things that are true. The cynic is well guarded against the first, but has no defence at all against the second.

This is why, as Jesus Himself put it, "...nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light. So take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him.”

Take care how you listen. There are penalties for being fooled. But there are also penalties for being willfully unbelieving. And those who cynically say, "Yeah, I've heard all that" put themselves in an extremely dangerous position. As Jesus said to the skeptical Pharisees, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains."

Or as Paul again says, "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing..." Now, you'll see that there's a test in that: if one is hearing, one is not perishing. However, if one says, "What a lot of foolishness..."

So it's not simply a matter of having two ears. It's a matter of listening with a disposition to be willing to hear what's being said, of "having ears to hear."

IC, you are going to believe what you believe, and I understand why. There is not a single argument you have made in all our discussions that I did not, at one time, make myself. In most things I believed exactly what you do. I think my views were a little strict than yours. I took those passages about being separated from the world and keeping one's thoughts pure a little more seriously than you, I think, but, doctrinally, I argued all the things you argue. As I studied and became aware of the contradictions in Christianity, and in what the Bible taught, I had to work harder and harder to defend my views, until I was finally honest with myself, that what I was doing was not reasoning, but rationalizing to make, "sense," of Bible teaching, because it was what I wanted to believe. All of apologetics is not an attempt to discover the truth, but an attempt to defend what one has decided is going to be true, no matter what.

So I was more than willing to hear, and the more carefully I listened the more I became aware of the dissonance of the song, deceptively appealing like the Siren's song, but all, unfortunately, a lie.

As you see, I am not making an argument here. I know better than to try to convince you. You've made your decision and it would be wrong for me to attempt to change it.