Baha'i faith, slavery and progressive revelation...

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=seer;n1467462]

Did you take a poll of all the the Christians living in the world back then? In the US and Britain many Christian were invested in the slave trade, so they tried to defend it. But that does not take away the possibility that a minority (if it was a minority) was inspired by God. But I'm glad your Prophet finally caught up. [Quote]

I go by the facts of history. You go by conjecture of motive when there is no Biblical support for opposition to slavery in the Bible,

Why is God ordaining slavery a problem?

Problem?!?!? It is immoral and basic violation of humans freedom and kife as is stoning persons accused of Heresy

[seer]

I go by the facts of history. You go by conjecture of motive when there is no Biblical support for opposition to slavery in the Bible.

Who cares if there was not Biblical support? That didn't stop God from inspiring Christians to end it in the West. Just because your religion was late to the game don't blame me...

Problem?!?!? It is immoral and basic violation of humans freedom and kife as is stoning persons accused of Heresy

So you have a problem with God who ordained these things? And what do you mean human rights?

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=seer;n1467510]

Who cares if there was not Biblical support? That didn't stop God from inspiring Christians to end it in the West. Just because your religion was late to the game don't blame me...

Never blamed you for anything. I simply go with theobjective recorded histoy we have available.

So you have a problem with God who ordained these things?

No, God made the ordained laws for each dispensation in the spiritual evolution of human history. God ordained that this is the time to make slavery immoral, and forbid stoning to death aomeone for being accused of Heresy.

And what do you mean human rights?

The following is one list commonly used. There are others.

Source: https://www.ohchr.org/en/what-are-human-rights/international-bill-human-rights

Freedom from discrimination Right to equality between men and women Right to life Freedom from torture Freedom from slavery Right to liberty and security of person Right to be treated with humanity in detention Freedom of movement Freedom of non-citizens from arbitrary expulsion Right to fair trial Right to recognition before the law Right to privacy Freedom of religion and belief Freedom of expression Right of peaceful assembly Freedom of association Right to marry and found a family Right of children to birth registration and a nationality Right to participate in public affairs

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Never blamed you for anything. I simply go with the objective recorded histoy we have available.

And the objective recorded history tells us it was the Christian abolitionists who brought down slavery in the West...

No, God made the ordained laws for each dispensation in the spiritual evolution of human history. God ordained that this is the time to make slavery immoral, and forbid stoning to death aomeone for being accused of Heresy.

And where did God say it was immoral to stone someone for heresy?

The following is one list commonly used. There are others.

Yes as made up by humans.

[shunyadragon]

And the objective recorded history tells us it was the Christian abolitionists who brought down slavery in the West...

Huh? I never said any such thing!?!?!

And where did God say it was immoral to stone someone for heresy?

[cite=https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/894/blasphemy#:~:text=Blasphemy%20laws%20originated%20 to%20punish,spoke%20ill%20of%20the%20gods.]

Blasphemy laws originated to punish nonbelievers


In the Bible, Leviticus 24:15–16 calls for the stoning of anyone who curses the God of Israel. Ancient Greece and Rome had similar prohibitions against those who spoke ill of the gods.The trial of Jesus was predicated in part on the idea that he had made blasphemous claims to be God.

Leviticus 24:15-16
New International Version

¹⁵ Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; ¹⁶ anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.


Although Christians initially sought converts through speech and persuasion and stressed the separation of religious and political duties (Jesus had said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s”), after Emperor Constantine I proclaimed Christianity the official religion of Rome, Christians increasingly used state powers to punish both those who blasphemed God and those within their own ranks whom they believed to be heretics.

With the dawn of the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants used laws not only to battle one another but also to strike out at unbelievers. The English jurist William Blackstone defined blasphemy as “denying the being or providence of God, contumelious reproaches of our Saviour Jesus Christ, profane scoffing at the Holy Scripture, or exposing it to contempt or ridicule” (as quoted in The Catholic Encyclopedia).

Yes as made up by humans.

The airplane was invented not Human Rights.

[shunyadragon]

Yes as made up by humans.

Subjective:

Source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/subjective

based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

© Copyright Original Source

Also defined as 'of the mind only.'

Morals, ethics, and the Rule of Law' may have 'subjective attributes' but they do not sit the above definition, because they have an objective foundation in the need for the survival of the species. Morals, ethics, Human Rights and the Tule of Law' are NOT based on personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

[seer]

Huh? I never said any such thing!?!?!

No I said it! It is historical that Christian Abolitionists took down slavery in the West.

In the Bible, Leviticus 24:15–16 calls for the stoning of anyone who curses the God of Israel. Ancient Greece and Rome had similar prohibitions against those who spoke ill of the gods.The trial of Jesus was predicated in part on the idea that he had made blasphemous claims to be God.

That is not what I asked - And where did God say it was immoral to stone someone for heresy? You said God: forbid stoning to death aomeone for being accused of Heresy. I asked you where did God forbid this?

The airplane was invented not Human Rights.

If humans did not create human rights what did?

[seer]

Subjective:

Source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/subjective

based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

© Copyright Original Source

Also defined as 'of the mind only.'

Morals, ethics, and the Rule of Law' may have 'subjective attributes' but they do not sit the above definition, because they have an objective foundation in the need for the survival of the species. Morals, ethics, Human Rights and the Tule of Law' are NOT based on personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

It depends on your definition:

subjectivism / ( səbˈdʒɛktɪˌvɪzəm) / noun the meta-ethical doctrine that there are no absolute moral values but that these are variable .


Subjectivism

Subjectivism (relativism)
Subjectivism teaches that there are no objective moral truths.

• There are no objective moral facts. Therefore 'murder is wrong' can't be objectively true

[shunyadragon]

It depends on you definition:

Yes it depends on which definitions you choose to justify your agenda without a greater context. It is best to contrast Objectivism to Subjectivism in a more complete context.

Source: https://academic.oup.com/book/11252/chapter-abstract/159790944?redirectedFrom=fulltext

This chapter explains some distinctions which are central in the theory of practical reasons and value, namely the distinction between objectivism and subjectivism, and the distinction between externalism and internalism. Subjectivist theories take reasons and values to be definable in terms of some relation to desires and/or emotions had under some factually described circumstances. Objectivist theories deny either only the sufficiency of such a condition or both its sufficiency and necessity. By virtue of accepting the necessity of this sort of dependence upon attitudes, subjectivist theories are perforce internalist, whereas objectivist theories could be either internalist or externalist, depending on whether they accept the necessity of this link to attitudes. Objectivism is then distinguished both from inter-subjectivism and realism, which views reasons and values as irreducible.

© Copyright Original Source

Morals, ethics and the 'Rule of Law' are objective at their foundation, because they do not consider the individual some relation to desires and/or emotions had under some factually described circumstances. In reality morals, ethics and 'Rules of Law' cannot be neatly stuffed in either box. At their foundation the have a broader externalist 'Objective basis on the need of the collective society to survive,' and negates the internalist of 'individual desires and/or emotions, or personal preferences.' Nonetheless morals, ethics, and rules of Law have attributes of Subjectivism.

[seer]

Yes it depends on which definitions you choose to justify your agenda without a greater context. It is best to contrast Objectivism to Subjectivism in a more complete context.

Morals, ethics and the 'Rule of Law' are objective at their foundation, because they do not consider the individual some relation to desires and/or emotions had under some factually described circumstances. In reality morals, ethics and 'Rules of Law' cannot be neatly stuffed in either box. At their foundation the have a broader externalist 'Objective basis on the need of the collective society to survive,' and negates the internalist of 'individual desires and/or emotions, or personal preferences.' Nonetheless morals, ethics, and rules of Law have attributes of Subjectivism.

You keep saying this! How exactly are they objective? If one culture has human rights and survive, and another culture has no human right and survive how are human rights objective?

[shunyadragon]

You keep saying this! How exactly are they objective? If one culture has human rights and survive, and another culture has no human right and survive how are human rights objective?

For the survival of All of humanity morals, ethics and Rules of Laws are objectively necessary. Human Rights are simply a more advanced universal system of moral and ethics that promotes the survival of humanity in a contemporary world. Much of the conflict that threatens in the contemporary world is over Human Rights.

If one culture does not endorse Human Rights and another does this leads to conflict that threatens conflict and even war. ie the Ukraine war. Where Russia does not believe in the Human Rights of self determination on the individual and nation level.

[seer]

For the survival of All of humanity morals, ethics and Rules of Laws are objectively necessary. Human Rights are simply a more advanced universal system of moral and ethics that promotes the survival of humanity in a contemporary world. Much of the conflict that threatens in the contemporary world is over Human Rights.

Do primates survive without laws and ethics?

If one culture does not endorse Human Rights and another does this leads to conflict that threatens conflict and even war. ie the Ukraine war. Where Russia does not believe in the Human Rights of self determination on the individual and nation level.

No it doesn't. Are we war with China or Cuba? The point is, the fact that some countries have human rights and other don't proves that moral relativism is the case.

[shunyadragon]

Do primates survive without laws and ethics?

Yes.

Actually morals, ethics and clan laws against things like theft with punishment have been observed in primates, which has been the subject of long ago threads. I can easily cite references on this.

No it doesn't. Are we war with China or Cuba? The point is, the fact that some countries have human rights and other don't proves that moral relativism is the case.

Well whether the button has not been pushed conflict on the edge of war is very real. Remember we supported an invasion of Cuba, and the war in Ukraine is very very real between Russia which does not support any basic Human Rights and the rights of the self determination of National integrity of Ukraine

I do not believe in moral relativism at all as an evidence based justification of the nature of morals and ethics nor for that matter any of the other 'philosophies. The philosophies argued in the this case are indeed philosophies and lack significant objective evidence for the natural evolved nature of being human.

[seer]

Yes.

Actually morals, ethics and clan laws against things like theft with punishment have been observed in primates, which has been the subject of long ago threads. I can easily cite references on this.

So when one group of Chimps slaughter another group of Chimps they get arrested? Even so they do this by instinct without written laws or rules.

Well whether the button has not been pushed conflict on the edge of war is very real. Remember we supported an invasion of Cuba, and the war in Ukraine is very very real between Russia which does not support any basic Human Rights and the rights of the self determination of National integrity of Ukraine

The Ukraine thing has nothing to do with human rights per se, but territory

I do not believe in moral relativism at all as an evidence based justification of the nature of morals and ethics nor for that matter any of the other 'philosophies. The philosophies argued in the this case are indeed philosophies and lack significant objective evidence for the natural evolved nature of being human.

Of course it does, some countries embrace human rights others don't. That is relativism.

[shunyadragon]

So basically your definition of slavery just depends on if you want to call something slavery or not. And, you can't even be consistent within your own parameters. It is pretty much useless to discuss anything with you Shuny. Either you make zero sense, or you simply repeat yourself over and over.

False, all my posts were consistent and specific based on the definition of slavery and 'Rules of Law.' You jave failed to be specific where I have not been specific.