Christianity and Slavery

[The Judge]

Hi Cubehead and welcome. Assuming this is not a fake ID from a known IP address, we've had "cubist" mumblings before. So just incase this isn't ADT or Ten or who ever having a laugh, I have some issues with your "theory" but before we start I shall state my case so as to pre-empt any misguided anti-theist sentiment.
I am an atheist.

Here goes...Following your link:

Cubehead wrote

...CASE 1 of the Cubic Proof states that the singularities can be moved around and joined together...

At this link there are 3 "proofs:" axiomatic, epistemological and scientific. I have a problem with these and goes something like this:

1.) Axiomatic "proof" is based on a theoretical assumption of manipulation of singularities: "A singularity, or single point, is a zero point. It represents nonexistence. Let us, however, assume that if we take several of these points, we will be able to move them around and interlink or unlink them."

There is nothing axiomatic about such an assumption due to the theoretical assumptions inherent in the "proof."

2.) Epistemological "proof:" "Truth is consistency. If a concept is consistent with reality, then it is true."

This is very murky territory when you consider the plethora of philosophical doctrines dealing with truth, reality and human perception, not to mention psychology. How can you say anything is real, true, truly real or even really true?

3.) Scientific "proof:" "From empirical inference, Earth is a rotating body. Its rotation is associated with the cycle known as a "day". Linking it with the concept described in CASE 14, Earth's corners are sunrise, midday, sunset and midnight; and, when Earth rotates, it experiences a corresponding total of four simultaneous cycles. Thus, in one full rotation of Earth, there are four simultaneous days.

How can a proveably ellipsoid entity (planet earth) possibly have any corners?

Would LOVE to know how you manage to make this work in your own head...bearing in mind Gene Ray (time cube author) is most probably a paranoid schizophrenic See Ray's Mental Health...unless of course this is a joke?...

Any Christians going to post on this thread?

"The Judge", the Case 1 axiom is an axiom because of the fact that it is self-evident that points can be linked together, moved around and unlinked. For instance, take point A and point B on the map. They are isolated points, each containing zero distance. But walk between them, and you have linked them together and measured the distance between them.

Or, take a piece of slime. Consider each molecule in it to be a point. If you pull the slime apart, you have interlinked many of the points. Then if you move the pieces around and stick 'em back together, you have moved the points and re-linked them. So that's just another example of how the axiom holds true.

Now the concept of truth is dependent upon the concept of reality. The idea is that the reality has to be measured quite precisely, to guard against errors in human perception and the like. Usually it is easy to distinguish the reality from the misperceptions. I think a lot of the confusion has to do with religious notions of supernatural phenomena, which is where the evidence becomes very subjective and vauge.

The Earth has corners because of its Cubic geometrical symmetry. Its own physical properties lead directly and logically to the Cube representation. The proof explains this.

No it's not a joke, and I don't believe that Dr Ray is schizophrenic either. I find him not only to be sane, but to be the greatest thinker and wisest human ever. He has discovered Time Cube, the proven theory of everything.

[The Judge]

Ok it's clear we're not going to get any where fast here, so I'll take it slow, one thing at a time:

The first "proof" I critiqued (axiomatic "proof") is still not axiomatic. The "let us assume however" part is what gets me.

I could easily say, "let us assume however that a three dimensional point in space can be manipulated and draw an imaginary line between it and other imagined three-dimensional points so that they are linked and I can link or unlink more of these manipulated points..."

It's total bollocks. It is NOT axiomatic because it is not a self-evident truth that a.) this is possible, b.) it occurs in reality. It is a theoretical assumtion - not a "truth."

And it's "premises" like these which are essetially not based on logic which this self-proclaimed "doctor" espouses to those who will listen. Just cos a probably schizophrenic guy says something is so and just cos he calls himslef a doctor (as well as the greatest thinker and wisest human ever) does not make him so. Jesus said certain things about god and being a means of "salvation" (also bollocks) but that didn't stop people regarding him as a prophet or saviour.

Ttime cude is a bogus "science" and those who subscribe to it don't appear to know much about logic, science, deductive reasoning, or physics.

BTW as a mental health clinician I recognise certain elements of Gray's thinking as schizophrenic. What do you do and what do you kwo about mental health?

Interesting.....still no Christians posting to defend their claim that their religion is the best source of morality for all of humanity. This is the typical kind of response I get. Whenever I confront Christians about slavery, they do everything they can to change the subject, sidestep the issue or just avoid discussion on the matter.

I'd say the Bible doesn't say directly if slavery is right or if it's wrong. At least in the OT laws it is condoned, which I take to mean that there can be situtations where slavery is not sinful. It does impose standards of care on a slave owner, and recommends behaviour for a slave.

Help me understand your fundamental objection to slavery ? Why is it wrong ?

If I was drinking, I would spit it out in shock. Did you just ask why slavery is wrong? Hmm... maybe taking away someone's freedom for starters? Making them work without paying them? Treating them like objects?

Ok, so why do people have a right to freedom, pay for their work and to be treated like humans ?

What do you mean "why?" Because that's the way I want to be treated. Sheesh, do I have to explain everything to you?

Yes, this you need to explain because I don't understand it. Humour me. Why is it that everybody should be treated the way you want to be treated ? What if somebody was OK with being a slave ? Would you restrict that choice just because you don't want to do it ?

Honestly, it sounds like you believe in absolute morality when you tell me that slavery is wrong.

Here's my logic:

1) There are things I don't want other people to do to me.
2) If other people are like me, they probably dislike many of the same things.
3) Therefore, there are things I should not do to other people.

If someone wanted to be a slave, I would call them crazy. I would advise them to seek help or alert someone to his problem.

I believe in morality as defined by me.

So to bring this back to basics. When you said you would have spat your drink out when I asked what your reasons were for saying that slavery was bad, your reason was "because I don't like it very much" ? So it's sort of on a par with your opinions about favourite foods, football teams, best tv show, that sort of thing ?

Why should anybody care what you think ? Maybe you'll have changed your mind by tomorrow and then slavery would be OK ?

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say "you know, being a slave would be kind of a drag. I think I'm against slavery." I gave several reasons why it is wrong, albeit those reasons are further grounded on other principles. I don't expect for other people to care what I think, but I will defend my principles if necessary. My morality has a lot in common with public morality.

You did give reasons why it was wrong, but then failed to back that up with anything other than "it's my opinion". Excuse me if I'm a little flippant about your reasons but it all sounds a bit flimsy.

And now you've added "everybody else thinks the same so it must be right" to the list. This is just getting worse.

You say you'll defend your principles but so far you've not done that.

Fine. Let's start from the top.

People have to work together in order to survive. This means that we have to submit to rules as defined by the group. Sometimes, the group defines a rule that may be good for some, but bad for others, so it is necessary to evaluate the rules of the group to see if they make sense. That's groups.

Groups are made up of individuals- like you and me. Individuals have their own wants and desires- some necessary for survival, others not. The group gets to decide how much freedom individuals have. My position is that freedom should be at a maximum- only those actions that harm others against their will should be forbidden. John Stuart Mill put this quite eloquently in his essay "On Liberty." I suggest you read it if you haven't already.