juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 12:28 pmSorry, I missed that argument. Can you explain it again?

You have to inspect the list of forbidden behaviours and check if they say something about what prices you can not give. For example, say that in a relatively simplified world, your morality is limited to the following list of forbidden behaviours:

I am the Lord thy God! Thou shalt have no other Gods but me!
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain!
Thou shalt [not] [not] keep the Sabbath Day holy!
Thou shalt [not] [dis]honor thy father and mother!
Thou shalt not kill!
Thou shalt not commit adultery!
Thou shalt not steal!
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor!
Do not let thyself lust after thy neighbor’s wife!
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, nor his farm, nor his cattle, nor anything that is his!

So, all of the aforementioned behaviours are forbidden onto you. Besides that, you are free to do as you please. In what way can you derive from this list, a forbidden behaviour concerning shopkeeper prices? Would the following be an example?

Thou shalt not charge more than 2 dollar for a noodle soup because that would amount to committing adultery.

No, it wouldn't work. So, how exactly do you derive rules about forbidden prices from the axiomatic basis of ten moral rules mentioned above? Since it is not possible to do that, prices are not subject to morality.

I'm having a hard time with the English here, but I think I've got a grasp on what's going on.

eriksank wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 1:02 pm So, how exactly do you derive rules about forbidden prices from the axiomatic basis of ten moral rules mentioned above?

I may have missed this, but are you trying to say that all of Christianity's morals are derived from just the 10 commandments?

AE86 wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 1:52 pmI may have missed this, but are you trying to say that all of Christianity's morals are derived from just the 10 commandments?

No. Jewish Law rests on many more axioms than that. Halakha declares at least 613 mitzvot ("commandments") in the Shulchan Aruch codex. I was just depicting a simplified world in which there was a morality with just 10 rules.

Unlike Jewish and Islamic law, Christian morality is not particularly axiomatic, and hence, not necessarily suitable as a legal system.

Law versus Grace
One side says, “Salvation is by grace and grace alone.” The other side counters, “That idea leads to lawlessness. God’s righteous standard in the Law must be upheld.” And someone else chimes in with, “Salvation is by grace, but grace only comes to those who obey God’s Law.”

In Western Christian theology, grace has been defined, not as a created substance of any kind, but as "the love and mercy given to us by God because God desires us to have it, not necessarily because of anything we have done to earn it", "the condescension or benevolence shown by God toward the human race".

Christianity somehow inherits Jewish law, but also more or less abolishes it, by wrapping it in total confusion.

Matthew 5:17-19: Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus says that he knows the purpose of the universe. Given the fact that the Quran confirms his quite special relationship with the Creator, I believe it is true. He just doesn't tell us.

Philosophy before the discovery of neurochemistry is all semantic bollocks. There are many reasons you do things, the majority of them down to evolutionary responses. Sure you'll justify it to yourself as free thought but its mostly not. It'll be a lizard, fish or chimp response. You can argue the toss about the arbitrary definition of morals but it doesn't apply to the real world. In fact most of these guys are only codifying how their own brains work. Look at Marxism, great on paper but utterly useless in the real world. Why? Failure to understand the nature of people due to a lack of understanding about complex neuropathology. They did brain scans of people and found the religious centre of the brain. People have religious beliefs because we evolved from a god-fearing fish or hedgehog. You are hardwired to believe in something. Your social behavior is similarly wired in. Kant can waffle on as much as he wants about theoretical behaviors, he's 250 years out of date

eriksank wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 2:17 pm

AE86 wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 1:52 pmI may have missed this, but are you trying to say that all of Christianity's morals are derived from just the 10 commandments?

No. Jewish Law rests on many more axioms than that. Halakha declares at least 613 mitzvot ("commandments") in the Shulchan Aruch codex. I was just depicting a simplified world in which there was a morality with just 10 rules...

Spoiler:

Unlike Jewish and Islamic law, Christian morality is not particularly axiomatic, and hence, not necessarily suitable as a legal system.

Law versus Grace
One side says, “Salvation is by grace and grace alone.” The other side counters, “That idea leads to lawlessness. God’s righteous standard in the Law must be upheld.” And someone else chimes in with, “Salvation is by grace, but grace only comes to those who obey God’s Law.”

In Western Christian theology, grace has been defined, not as a created substance of any kind, but as "the love and mercy given to us by God because God desires us to have it, not necessarily because of anything we have done to earn it", "the condescension or benevolence shown by God toward the human race".

Christianity somehow inherits Jewish law, but also more or less abolishes it, by wrapping it in total confusion.

Matthew 5:17-19: Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus says that he knows the purpose of the universe. Given the fact that the Quran confirms his quite special relationship with the Creator, I believe it is true. He just doesn't tell us.

Thank you, I was just checking because as mentioned, I'm having a hard enough time following along as is.

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 2:26 pmPhilosophy before the discovery of neurochemistry is all semantic bollocks.

"Mathematics before the discovery of neurochemistry is all semantic bollocks."
"Anything before the discovery of neurochemistry is all semantic bollocks."
... not sure about that ...

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 2:26 pmPeople have religious beliefs because we evolved from a god-fearing fish or hedgehog.

No, that point of view is not provable ("math") nor testable ("science"). If you believe that this point of view is testable, then feel free to evolve a human from a god-fearish fish, and to explain to us, how to successfully repeat such experiment.

Aristotle pointed out that religious belief automatically follows from observing the structure of the universe. Time progresses by addition. Hence, it cannot be infinite. Therefore, there is a beginning of times. Since causes strictly precede their consequences, if you recursively map consequences onto their causes, you will arrive at a first cause that is the principle of causality to the entire universe.

Physics, Aristotle, 350 B.C.E, Book VIII
If then everything that is in motion must be moved by something, and the movent must either itself be moved by something else or not, and in the former case there must be some first movent that is not itself moved by anything else, while in the case of the immediate movent being of this kind there is no need of an intermediate movent that is also moved (for it is impossible that there should be an infinite series of movents, each of which is itself moved by something else, since in an infinite series there is no first term)-if then everything that is in motion is moved by something, and the first movent is moved but not by anything else, it much be moved by itself.

When the consequences of either assumption are the same, we should always assume that things are finite rather than infinite in number, since in things constituted by nature that which is finite and that which is better ought, if possible, to be present rather than the reverse: and here it is sufficient to assume only one movent, the first of unmoved things, which being eternal will be the principle of motion to everything else.

Aristotle shows that it is perfectly possible to derive the existence of a first cause exclusively from a set of consistent axioms that don't mention it. Hence, it is absolutely valid mathematics.

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 2:26 pmKant can waffle on as much as he wants about theoretical behaviors, he's 250 years out of date

That is the same as claiming that Euclid's Elements would be out of date. Not true. The math is still perfectly correct. Euclid is still a greater mathematician than most people today.

AE86 wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 2:47 pm

eriksank wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 2:17 pm

AE86 wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 1:52 pmI may have missed this, but are you trying to say that all of Christianity's morals are derived from just the 10 commandments?

No. Jewish Law rests on many more axioms than that. Halakha declares at least 613 mitzvot ("commandments") in the Shulchan Aruch codex. I was just depicting a simplified world in which there was a morality with just 10 rules...

Spoiler:

Unlike Jewish and Islamic law, Christian morality is not particularly axiomatic, and hence, not necessarily suitable as a legal system.

Law versus Grace
One side says, “Salvation is by grace and grace alone.” The other side counters, “That idea leads to lawlessness. God’s righteous standard in the Law must be upheld.” And someone else chimes in with, “Salvation is by grace, but grace only comes to those who obey God’s Law.”


In Western Christian theology, grace has been defined, not as a created substance of any kind, but as "the love and mercy given to us by God because God desires us to have it, not necessarily because of anything we have done to earn it", "the condescension or benevolence shown by God toward the human race".

Christianity somehow inherits Jewish law, but also more or less abolishes it, by wrapping it in total confusion.

Matthew 5:17-19: Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus says that he knows the purpose of the universe. Given the fact that the Quran confirms his quite special relationship with the Creator, I believe it is true. He just doesn't tell us.

Thank you, I was just checking because as mentioned, I'm having a hard enough time following along as is.

He's actually saying that nowhere in those 600 Jewish laws is it not not ok to rip someone off. Sounds a bit racist to me .

juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 3:09 pmHe's actually saying that nowhere in those 600 Jewish laws is it not not ok to rip someone off.

You will have to use the accepted terminology effectively in use in Jewish Law, to successfully field an accusation. The term "to rip someone off" is not receivable in Jewish Law. Therefore, the case will simply be dismissed.

juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 3:09 pmSounds a bit racist to me.

Possibly!

Bot

UK figures

juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 3:39 pm Bot

UK figures

Is there a graph with a breakdown of the money spent on military, money spent on running a government, like parliament, and all the other hangers on ?