Jordan Peterson presents a radical and new idea

[Old Things]

If we're still doing this, point me at the ones that you think pertinent. When posts get big and arguments long I start being ruthless with how much I answer. It's not a tactic to win or mislead, it's to keep conversations sustainable and productive. But it also entails me unilaterally deciding whats important, which is unfair. So I'll try to answer anything that you think will benefit the conversation.

It's not a competition. Really.

 

[scorpiomover]

Only a shell? Tell that to the man who lives life without freedom for the material benefit of others. If you think that more palatable slavery is acceptable, you are not actually against slavery. That "shell" of the entirety of your human freedom is not something to be downplayed lightly.

What about all the chocolate that was made with child slavery? What about using prisoners as slave labour? What about sweatshops where expensive leather outfilts are made? Why are permanent workers called "wage slaves"?

Besides, you're judging a document written in the time of the Roman Empire, as if it should have been written to an audience of Americans in the 2020s. Do you think that's reasonable?

This is IMO pretty fatal for the position of the NT as an objective moral authority.

Depends on if you're hyper-focussing on minutiae or not. If you're going to stawman it by nit-picking, then surely wouldn't you give it an appraisal based on an overview instead?

This is a box that once open, cannot be shut. If the NT shifts in message with the times, it's not objective.

So rules that change with the times, are not "objective"? Are you sure that you understand what that word means?

Because it sounds as if you think that the objective is dogmatic and rigid, and thus to be avoided.

Dude, you made a thread about strawmanning. Surely you should follow the same rules you suggested, right?

 

[Old Things]

So rules that change with the times, are not "objective"? Are you sure that you understand what that word means?

Because it sounds as if you think that the objective is dogmatic and rigid, and thus to be avoided.

He said that because of the way I defined objective morality. Hados argument is that if the NT was written with objective morality in mind, then it is inconsistent with my view of objective morality. But I didn't come right out and say objective morality implies our morality doesn't change, but I was more criticizing their own view that if their morality changes over time then it is not objective. I illustrated this by saying if their morality changes over time, then it is not objective. I said this illustrated by saying, "Is it always wrong to torture a baby for fun? If it is, then objective morality exists."

I don't say this to criticize you, but to inform you.

 

[Black Rose]

Just so I'm understanding you correctly, whether morality is objective or subjective does not matter, it is only the resurrection of Christ that matters? If Christ rose from the dead, then whatever slavery that was perpetrated or perpetuated in the name of Christ is okay, whether it be gentle and friendly slavery or traditional whip-cracking villainy?

I'm not phased by the derail. The other topic was dead so you and I are the only stakeholders.

What matters is that we can be saved. Morality matters on a scale as big as that. Objective morality is a simple right or wrong when dealing with certain matters.
It would be objectively right what Jesus did to save his people it would be wrong
not to save them. Whether the NT promotes slavery or not depends on the time period. Customs are customs there is nothing that measurably in Judaism wrong with how slaves were treated. But if we look at it as a complicated matter it is it can be seen as wrong or no big deal. The severity of right and wrong has issues. The difference between absolutely wrong and all else.

objective =/= absolute

objective simply means to exist as a real thing, it can be in gradients.

a contract is a gradient.

 

[Hadoblado]

Untrigger your knickers Scorpio. Are you going to burst into my every conversation gesturing vaguely at imagined hypocrisy? Pointless. If I'm strawmanning people too, this does not mean that anything I said in that thread was wrong.

But this was not a strawman. I've been meeting them where they're at based on what they said. Old Things can at any time say that actually while they seem to have implied objective morality is static, what they actually mean is something else. In fact, I'm all but expecting something like this should the conversation continue.

This is the third time you've entered a discussion late and unilaterally attempted to refocus it on your grudge with me (political taxonomy discussion, JP discussion, and now). Each time, you leap to attack me through the casus belli of defending someone else whether they need you or not, and I regret every engagement.

So I guess I shouldn't engage. I'm going to block you and see if that helps. All the best.

 

[Old Things]

Untrigger your knickers Scorpio. Are you going to burst into my every conversation gesturing vaguely at imagined hypocrisy? Pointless. If I'm strawmanning people too, this does not mean that anything I said in that thread was wrong.

But this was not a strawman. I've been meeting them where they're at based on what they said. Old Things can at any time say that actually while they seem to have implied objective morality is static, what they actually mean is something else. In fact, I'm all but expecting something like this should the conversation continue.

This is the third time you've entered a discussion late and unilaterally attempted to refocus it on your grudge with me (political taxonomy discussion, JP discussion, and now). Each time, you leap to attack me through the casus belli of defending someone else whether they need you or not, and I regret every engagement.

So I guess I shouldn't engage. I'm going to block you and see if that helps. All the best.

I understand you don't like @scorpiomover "butting in" on the conversation. They are doing that because they think you are being unfair.

You are expecting the wrong things from me. My God is a rock. He does not move and I try and emulate Him.

 

[Black Rose]

Old Things can at any time say that actually while they seem to have implied objective morality is static, what they actually mean is something else. In fact, I'm all but expecting something like this should the conversation continue.

An objective morality is a real morality. That means punishment and reward. But God does not reward or punish, not in this life. We could say God is neutral. A real morality is neutral. Or it is in heaven or there is none at all. Made up in the head. Or perhaps the morality is to learn. We are sent to earth to learn. Learn what? A life path. Our life path is real. Not reward or punishment but something like it.

 

[Black Rose]

Ask God for forgiveness, Jesus says he will forgive.
You can be saved from punishment, it is a free gift.

reward and punishment, objective real morality.

 

[Hadoblado]

It's nothing personal. I assume they're fine irl. I've just spent a lot of my time and patience on them and got nothing in return. They also don't seem to benefit, but pursue engagement regardless. It's a bad feedback loop. I actually had them blocked long before there was any sign of beef, as I see them as similar to some ex-members (da_blob, BAP) in how they engage. I unblocked them because blocking comes at a cost when people are talking to them but you only see half the conversation, but now I'm confident that's what I'd prefer.

I know they see what I do as unfair, but I view things very differently and going over these differences would just be another long and unproductive conversation. I see a pattern, and I don't like where it's projecting to, so I'm cutting it off. I'm going to stop talking about it now because it's unfair to them if I continue.

 

[Hadoblado]

I have been treating objective morality as meaning absolute, immutable, and existing independent of interpretation. I've been treating the NT as if it were written by God's own hand as a perfect moral instruction communicating this objective morality to humanityspanning the entirety of their occupation of earth.

At first, I thought that's how Christians thought of it, but I'm not so sure anymore.

 

[Black Rose]

The grounding of objective morality is who is doing the rewarding and punishing.

Heaven and Hell come up

Because this is ultimate grounds any rewards and punishments committed are nullified on earth. Heaven is a pure place so sin is never nullified without Jesus' forgiveness.

It is granted that any acceptance is grounds for salvation.

"Call upon the name of the lord and you will be saved"

Morality is the grace to get into heaven. Because Christ overcomes sin.

Sin prevents you from going to heaven.

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,"

The only way to obey God is to Talk to Jesus directly.

Then sin and punishment are avoided.

Only God can through Christ Jesus orient you to objective morality.

Just talk to Jesus and accept his grace.

He is in charge of morality.

 

[ZenRaiden]

The grounding of objective morality is who is doing the rewarding and punishing.

Can you elaborate why you use words "punishment and reward" for objective morality, or how this relates?

 

[Hadoblado]

I suspect AK you see this differently from others who believe in objective morality. What you're talking about sounds a lot like "might makes right".

 

[Black Rose]

I suspect AK you see this differently from others who believe in objective morality. What you're talking about sounds a lot like "might makes right".

It is not simply power but the character of a God in the relationship they have with their creation. We really have no clue why Jesus died. But it was a tremendous sacrifice. To raise from the dead shows a humbling we can't match. Jesus went 'Above' and 'Beyond'.

 

[ZenRaiden]

It is not simply power but the character of a God in the relationship they have with their creation. We really have no clue why Jesus died. But it was a tremendous sacrifice. To raise from the dead shows a humbling we can't match. Jesus went 'Above' and 'Beyond'.

You don't have to answer me, but just to let you know I lost the plot of your explanation at the point of "character of God in relationship they have with their creation.", Meaning here is somewhat hard to grasp.
My guess is your objective morality is then God related.

 

[Black Rose]

Can you elaborate why you use words "punishment and reward" for objective morality, or how this relates?

We think of it as God. But it is just the binary of a force. No true grand Absolute force exists. We say it is spread out not unified. It concentrates. Builds leverage from time immemorial.

 

[Black Rose]

Can you elaborate why you use words "punishment and reward" for objective morality, or how this relates?

We think of it as God. But it is just the binary of a force. No true grand Absolute force exists. We say it is spread out not unified. It concentrates. Builds leverage from time immemorial.

Jesus would be the center.

It would grant the force a direction in human form.

his return to judge is objective to God the power of the force.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Can you elaborate why you use words "punishment and reward" for objective morality, or how this relates?

We think of it as God. But it is just the binary of a force. No true grand Absolute force exists. We say it is spread out not unified. It concentrates. Builds leverage from time immemorial.

Jesus would be the center.

It would grant the force a direction in human form.

his return to judge is objective to God the power of the force.

I see your point, now, thanks.

I think all humans have also a center of some sort, aware of it or not.
A kind of grounding principal.
Sometimes we get closer to it and sometimes further away.
I would imagine force is something that keeps us grounded in the center.
Sometimes we don't apply as much force and thus we go further away from center.
I think the centered and uncentered part of life is what constitutes our experience as well.
Id argue though our relationships and our relatedness to the world evolves, and changes all the time.
Sometimes in unexpected ways.

For example taoism seems to claim the center of natural life is somewhat hard to pin point. You simply are in the act of it, but sort of unaware of it in the act.
Its the act it self, not the awareness of the act that makes us centered.
The actual awareness of it after words for instance is just a after though, some sort of framework to account or frame the experience or evaluate it or judge it for self referential reasons.

 

[Old Things]

I have been treating objective morality as meaning absolute, immutable, and existing independent of interpretation. I've been treating the NT as if it were written by God's own hand as a perfect moral instruction communicating this objective morality to humanityspanning the entirety of their occupation of earth.

At first, I thought that's how Christians thought of it, but I'm not so sure anymore.

The principles the Bible teaches do not change from one age to another. For example, I cannot think of one single church that practices women having to cover their heads when they speak in church, but that is something written in the Bible. The question is why? It's because Paul was speaking about a specific issue at a specific time. All his letters were written this way.

That's why the anthem of the NT is all demonstrating different ways to "love your neighbor" which does NOT change with the times. The NT provides examples of how this is done for the culture at hand, but God's Word, the Bible, does not change its principles throughout time.

 

[Black Rose]

You don't have to answer me, but just to let you know I lost the plot of your explanation at the point of "character of God in relationship they have with their creation.", Meaning here is somewhat hard to grasp.
My guess is your objective morality is then God related.

God's center is Jesus. We always refer to him as a human not just a force anymore. The Jews believed God was just a force up till Jesus a spirit. The resurrection was not looked on well. Blasphemy. But a spirit can be physical. And a body can be spiritual. It's what the force can do with the created. I mean if it can be done it can be done. Through a force God resurrected Jesus. It is not surprising. It's the physics of the mind. A spirit is just a mind in the field. When we die our minds enter the field.

 

[Hadoblado]

Right. So the principle of love is unchanging, but this love is expressed differently based on context. The principle is objective but the application is flexible? So the behavioural prescriptions of the bible are up to interpretation, so long as they are in service to the objective moral principle?

So owning a slave is objectively fine (as there is no principle against it and this cannot and will not change), but it was always the case that slaves must be treated with respect and love and to not do so is unchristian and morally wrong.

 

[Black Rose]

There are complications. Today it is against the law to enslave people. But if there were no laws things would still be complicated because these are not 200 A.D. anymore. These are not Feudal lord times. Each form of slavery is different. Some you can kill slaves. What laws need to be in place? Does the pope decide?

Nothing objectively wrong has problems because the world is not 1st-century Judea.

Slaves had rights in 1st-century Judea. Unlikely all else.

what we need is context.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Right. So the principle of love is unchanging, but this love is expressed differently based on context. The principle is objective but the application is flexible? So the behavioural prescriptions of the bible are up to interpretation, so long as they are in service to the objective moral principle?

So owning a slave is objectively fine (as there is no principle against it and this cannot and will not change), but it was always the case that slaves must be treated with respect and love and to not do so is unchristian and morally wrong.

I think it would be fruitful if you try to percieve things from the perspective of God. Let's say you know the future because of your nature as an omnipresent being, and all reality is there in front of you at once, being 'experinced' as is. What is love from that perspective? It's a seriously profound question that stretches the limits of human compassion, and goes much more beyond it. It basically transcends our understanding of humanity, the universe, and literally all creation, past and future, of all possibilities and permutations of that.


As for slavery, the priority for Christians is their relation to God, rather than the moral framework that governs society. If the pursuit of truth or freedom brings glory to God, a Christian should pursue that in earnest with a conviction of servitude. There's also a sense of hierarchy that's indirectly taught about society by the bible. Some are called to be rulers, some subjects, some keepers of the peace, some as priests- but if we follow through with our talents in whatever field God has given to us and called us to work towards, then that is the kingdom of heaven- which Jesus told his disciples about. A Christian is always working towards this 'kingdom of heaven' on earth- either by prayer or work, having fellowship with others and supporting the poor and the weak, whether they be physically or mentally unwell. In a way it's a practice of family, because God has endowed every human with worth and significance. That is the gospel- and Christians think that angle of spirituality is much more practical than lets say, a forced legalism or some kind of authoritarian rule.

So I think to sum up, Christianity is more about heart rather than mind. There is mind, of course, but mere mind on its own is no more than a handed bending of will. Hope that helps.

 

[scorpiomover]

So rules that change with the times, are not "objective"? Are you sure that you understand what that word means?

Because it sounds as if you think that the objective is dogmatic and rigid, and thus to be avoided.

He said that because of the way I defined objective morality. Hados argument is that if the NT was written with objective morality in mind, then it is inconsistent with my view of objective morality. But I didn't come right out and say objective morality implies our morality doesn't change, but I was more criticizing their own view that if their morality changes over time then it is not objective. I illustrated this by saying if their morality changes over time, then it is not objective. I said this illustrated by saying, "Is it always wrong to torture a baby for fun? If it is, then objective morality exists."

I don't say this to criticize you, but to inform you.

From an emotional POV, you're both right. It's wrong to torture a baby for fun. It's wrong to enslave a person.

From an intellectual POV, you're both wrong.
Has torturing and killing babies ever been considered moral? What about babies of slaves and captives in wars? In the Roman Empire, it was legal to beat, rape and kill a slave that you owned. A Pharaoh of the Egyptian Empire made it legal to drown some of the male slave babies. The Greeks tell a story of how a baby was put in a big jar and left in a forest to be eaten by wolves (Oedipus).
Has slavery ever been considered moral? Look at the Roman Empire, the Greek Empire and the Egyptian Empire.
These things are subjective to the culture of the society they refer to.

It's grossly unfair to consider them otherwise, and it makes the discussion lacking understanding and so unlikely to be fruitful.

I would be open to hearing an erudite argument why everyone who grew up in the Roman Empire would naturally conclude that slavery is immoral and should be banned.

 

[Old Things]

Right. So the principle of love is unchanging, but this love is expressed differently based on context. The principle is objective but the application is flexible? So the behavioural prescriptions of the bible are up to interpretation, so long as they are in service to the objective moral principle?

So owning a slave is objectively fine (as there is no principle against it and this cannot and will not change), but it was always the case that slaves must be treated with respect and love and to not do so is unchristian and morally wrong.

That's almost exactly correct. The only thing I think you got wrong is that the NT does not condone and even works against, "owning people". As such, that is why I said originally when you brought this up that the conclusion is, "it isn't slavery."

So rules that change with the times, are not "objective"? Are you sure that you understand what that word means?

Because it sounds as if you think that the objective is dogmatic and rigid, and thus to be avoided.

He said that because of the way I defined objective morality. Hados argument is that if the NT was written with objective morality in mind, then it is inconsistent with my view of objective morality. But I didn't come right out and say objective morality implies our morality doesn't change, but I was more criticizing their own view that if their morality changes over time then it is not objective. I illustrated this by saying if their morality changes over time, then it is not objective. I said this illustrated by saying, "Is it always wrong to torture a baby for fun? If it is, then objective morality exists."

I don't say this to criticize you, but to inform you.

From an emotional POV, you're both right. It's wrong to torture a baby for fun. It's wrong to enslave a person.

From an intellectual POV, you're both wrong.
Has torturing and killing babies ever been considered moral? What about babies of slaves and captives in wars? In the Roman Empire, it was legal to beat, rape and kill a slave that you owned. A Pharaoh of the Egyptian Empire made it legal to drown some of the male slave babies. The Greeks tell a story of how a baby was put in a big jar and left in a forest to be eaten by wolves (Oedipus).
Has slavery ever been considered moral? Look at the Roman Empire, the Greek Empire and the Egyptian Empire.
These things are subjective to the culture of the society they refer to.

It's grossly unfair to consider them otherwise, and it makes the discussion lacking understanding and so unlikely to be fruitful.

I would be open to hearing an erudite argument why everyone who grew up in the Roman Empire would naturally conclude that slavery is immoral and should be banned.

The question is not whether some people considered something things moral that we do not consider moral today. The question is whether there exists, in reality, an ultimate "good" which transcends time. I don't know what Jews think of God but I know orthodox Christians believe God is transcendent to what humans think is moral and as such God is not a moral being, but one that transcends humanity and that goes for what humans think is moral or not. So, there exists in reality an ultimate moral law that is true whether anyone thinks it is moral or not.

 

[Old Things]

The grounding of objective morality is who is doing the rewarding and punishing.

Heaven and Hell come up

Because this is ultimate grounds any rewards and punishments committed are nullified on earth. Heaven is a pure place so sin is never nullified without Jesus' forgiveness.

It is granted that any acceptance is grounds for salvation.

"Call upon the name of the lord and you will be saved"

Morality is the grace to get into heaven. Because Christ overcomes sin.

Sin prevents you from going to heaven.

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,"

The only way to obey God is to Talk to Jesus directly.

Then sin and punishment are avoided.

Only God can through Christ Jesus orient you to objective morality.

Just talk to Jesus and accept his grace.

He is in charge of morality.

The Gospel.

Thanks for saying this.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay. I disagree with what you say about the NT's relationship to slavery, but I think we're both tired of that conversation. Your worldview makes sense to me now knowing how you interpret the NT's prescriptions regarding slavery. I still don't hold your position, but it's a lot more reasonable than I was at first assuming.

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: onesteptwostep
I'm steering clear of religious stuff that's beyond the core scope of the conversation. When you use your religion as your key premise for moral conclusions, I can't engage with your conclusions without interrogating your religion. I'm already in trouble for doing that earlier in this conversation. We're getting along now and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

 

[Old Things]

Okay. I disagree with what you say about the NT's relationship to slavery, but I think we're both tired of that conversation. Your worldview makes sense to me now knowing how you interpret the NT's prescriptions regarding slavery. I still don't hold your position, but it's a lot more reasonable than I was at first assuming.

Just one final thing in defense of my view and I will leave it.

"Man stealing" is condemned in the Bible. So you are left with putting yourself into slavery, which the Bible says not to do, and, as Apostel Paul points out in Philemon, to accept your runaway slave back as a brother in Christ. If you already have slaves, then you are to treat them as if they are made in the image of God. That means you don't beat them and should actually love them instead. If you already own slaves, you let them pay their debt and let them go afterward. Finally, the Bible says if you can get yourself out of slavery, then do it.

Nothing but love for you Hado.

 

[Hadoblado]

What does it say about purchasing slaves?

If there's no loophole by which a Christian can come to own slaves, then I concede the point entirely.

 

[Old Things]

What does it say about purchasing slaves?

If there's no loophole by which a Christian can come to own slaves, then I concede the point entirely.

In the NT it doesn't talk about Christians acquiring new slaves. It's just not there. There's zero discussion of how to do that, which you would think would be pretty important if the NT wasn't against slavery. The OT has a lot of rules about slavery, and pretty much all of them make slavery temporary. Not only that but given all the laws about helping people so they don't have to be slaves (people then would work off their debt by becoming someone's slave) like not harvesting the corners of your crops so people who didn't have food could take it so they could eat something, along with rules about how to treat your slaves if you did take a slave (which as I said was voluntary on the part of the slave), the whole Bible on slavery is basically the best possible conditions for slavery and provides a way out of it.

I think what a lot of atheists do is that they see that there are laws for slavery in the Bible so they assume that the Bible condones slavery. But the Bible does not talk about taking people as slaves by owning them with them having no way out of slavery. It basically amounts to them taking a very shallow reading of the Bible and not understanding the context at all, pointing to a very about slavery, and thinking the Bible is Pro-Slavery. The thing is, back during the time of Moses, people didn't have jails, welfare, or government programs that help people. It just wasn't in any culture at the time. So they made these laws to basically produce the best possible outcome for people.

The basic idea behind the laws of the Bible and slavery (along with a bunch of other laws) it's basically, "Don't do this. But if you do this, here is how you should handle it."

 

[onesteptwostep]

Re: onesteptwostep
I'm steering clear of religious stuff that's beyond the core scope of the conversation. When you use your religion as your key premise for moral conclusions, I can't engage with your conclusions without interrogating your religion. I'm already in trouble for doing that earlier in this conversation. We're getting along now and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

Okay- got you.