it's amazing to read comments denying "moral incrementalism" when assuredly they live in the United States... the country built on exactly this concept...
Yes, in the same way that when we want to help people mature and grow, or to help adults out of tough situations, we take it one day at a time or one step at a time. That's incrementalism.
@@veracityhill I'm really sorry, but I have to very strongly disagree. You're trying to take the responsibility and agency for this and allnthe other genocides, most of them fictitcious ones, that are in the Bible. This has never been right with humanity, and this should'nt be justified.
If you need to situate the Old Testament within its historical context, then you're fundamentally negotiating with the text. Moral incrementalism is apologetic garbage that isn't remotely supported within biblical scripture.
@@jamesb9275 no... even then you're going to read in context to grasp meaning. If God speaks to us today through the words written by men in the past, it's far more likely to speak to us the way all writing does: as literature, following the basic rules of reading comprehension. And if you're judging any work as "falsely claims to be x" out if the gate, you're already question begging and developing dysfunctional hermeneutic to reinforce that assumption. Not a good plan.
Does this channel dude ever really address anything? lol. Nope. This was my last try giving him a chance. Apologetics is his biz. Just be honest with it - but he isn't.
@@veracityhill I don't know who the 'we' is. I don't know if you know how to address any points that are made and deal with those points. Apologists don't really deal with addressing anything. They have to twist their mind and become irrational just to fit it into their theology and dogma. Try reading scholarship and you'll see the difference
@@veracityhill I don't think you know the meaning of understanding your opponents view and steel manning it and then giving your refutation or quoting a scholar or two. You don't do any of the above. You're the type of person that in your own mind you can rectify two totally diametrically opposed stories of how Judas died and claim they're both true lol One day when you see how manipulative your thoughts are in order to defend your apologist-driven mind you'll come out of it but until then it's almost impossible to even have a meaningful conversation with someone like you
Most reasons can be thought of as excuses if you don't buy into it. But this is hardly a detailed defense of or repudiation of anything. Incrementalism is a valid interpretation of historical revelation, and the descriptive vs proscriptive distinction is well recognized in the history of the study of scripture... or indeed any text that describes instead of revommends vs where it commands but doesn't describe.
![เจ็บที่ยังฮัก - ม่อน วรวิทย์ [ Official Mv ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KALIGSRSjFs/mqdefault.jpg)
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
I can confirm that 31 and 17 are, in fact, numbers. Hope that helps.
Thanks, that affirmation is helpful!
The knee has indeed well and good been slapped.
it's amazing to read comments denying "moral incrementalism" when assuredly they live in the United States... the country built on exactly this concept...
You can at least see why people aren't buying this, right?
Yes, I can. It's understandable.
Soooooo, are you saying that what "god" did then was OK, because they were different times?
Yes, in the same way that when we want to help people mature and grow, or to help adults out of tough situations, we take it one day at a time or one step at a time. That's incrementalism.
@@veracityhill I'm really sorry, but I have to very strongly disagree. You're trying to take the responsibility and agency for this and allnthe other genocides, most of them fictitcious ones, that are in the Bible. This has never been right with humanity, and this should'nt be justified.
@@JoseFernandez-mn6qt Perhaps you've forgotten whom it is that gives life itself.
@@FishermensCorner if you're implying that some "god" gives life, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for that! Nature gives life, it's a process.
@@JoseFernandez-mn6qt there's plenty of evidence, unless you choose to ignore it.
If you need to situate the Old Testament within its historical context, then you're fundamentally negotiating with the text. Moral incrementalism is apologetic garbage that isn't remotely supported within biblical scripture.
"Negotiating with the text" ? 🤔
Everyone who reads anything with comprehension should wrestle to understand it in context.
Is this a bad thing now?
@@ravissary79 Only if the text falsely claims to be the univocal work of God.
@jamesb9275 moral incrementalism is quantifiable not only biblically but secularly.
@@jamesb9275 no... even then you're going to read in context to grasp meaning. If God speaks to us today through the words written by men in the past, it's far more likely to speak to us the way all writing does: as literature, following the basic rules of reading comprehension.
And if you're judging any work as "falsely claims to be x" out if the gate, you're already question begging and developing dysfunctional hermeneutic to reinforce that assumption. Not a good plan.
In other words, you don’t care about understanding it in context because you have biases against it.
Does this channel dude ever really address anything? lol. Nope. This was my last try giving him a chance. Apologetics is his biz. Just be honest with it - but he isn't.
I mean, seems like we were addressing Numbers 31:17, no?
@@veracityhill I don't know who the 'we' is. I don't know if you know how to address any points that are made and deal with those points.
Apologists don't really deal with addressing anything. They have to twist their mind and become irrational just to fit it into their theology and dogma.
Try reading scholarship and you'll see the difference
@@veracityhill I don't think you know the meaning of understanding your opponents view and steel manning it and then giving your refutation or quoting a scholar or two. You don't do any of the above. You're the type of person that in your own mind you can rectify two totally diametrically opposed stories of how Judas died and claim they're both true lol One day when you see how manipulative your thoughts are in order to defend your apologist-driven mind you'll come out of it but until then it's almost impossible to even have a meaningful conversation with someone like you
Hogwash
What is? Can you explain?
You're just making excuses
Most reasons can be thought of as excuses if you don't buy into it.
But this is hardly a detailed defense of or repudiation of anything.
Incrementalism is a valid interpretation of historical revelation, and the descriptive vs proscriptive distinction is well recognized in the history of the study of scripture... or indeed any text that describes instead of revommends vs where it commands but doesn't describe.
How so and in what sense?