Don't Believe In Evolution? Read This. - Page 9

Was owning slaves an offense punishable by condemnation to hell back then?

How about now?

I think DMZ's response might be "Ask Citibank."

dmz:


Ah, so a meaningless one, then.
God created evil. God created me. God designed me to go to hell. Thanks god!


Moral relativism... delicious.

One can certainly argue that slavery was not all that bad. That is fine. However, few will, because they do not want to be seen as a moral leper in modern society. So relativistic... or is it moral cowardice?



snoopy:


The "he didn't want to interfere" logic does not work, because god did interfere. God gave man specific rules for the slave trade, that is interference.


If god created all things, then the remove of evolution does not matter, because god knew what would happen originally when the great chain of events was set in place. Either that or god is not all-knowing. There is no theological or scientific basis for the notion of an accidental universe.


You said "you should read the source", so I quoted the source.

My point is this: What is a person supposed to get out of actually reading the Bible? What lesson is imparted from a man cutting his concubine up into 12 pieces and shipping those pieces out to the coasts of Israel? What purpose did god have in inspiring the Bible's authors to write about it? Is there a command anywhere in the Bible that says that we should not have concubines, offer them up for rape, and then cut them into pieces when they die?

I do not see any point in reading or believing the Bible. It is the mythology of the victors.

Its nothing new, poisoned Apples were around in Eve's time.

One more time: evil is not an abstract concept as some sort of entity, evil is a moral breach ...like I told midwinter, at a certain point this schema begs the question. It doesn't invalidate the logic, but you are in no way obligated to accept the premise. (Just pray God didn't will to give you the right to choose.) And once again, the [my] point, that is sailing over your head, is that when you bash the 'god as a capricous man in the clouds' -- you've confused that with the philosophically consistent idea that allows all of the omni adjectives.

I think it's known as accurately citing Exodus/Deuteronomy before posting. The slavery you're referencing wasn't much more/less than indentured servitude. Chattel slavery, however, is an altogether different institution as was practiced in glorious Athens during her 'golden years.'

The levels most Americans are in debt today, probably outstrips seven years of their labor. What is gravy for the goose is gravy for the gander. Maybe someone could do the math on that.

Ah, yes, that enlightened Old Testament-style slavery, where you could beat a slave as hard as possible short of the slave dying within less than a day. Very much better than that nasty Athenian stuff, kind of more like a $35 late fee on your credit card.

You need to demonstrate that the 'continuing a day or two' meant 'dying after a day or two,' and not 'time lost'.

Regardless, that is still an attempt to equate two different institutions. The right to life or death of a slave, and the routine practice of working them to death, was the Athenian model (and it was the same throughout the classical world.) The treatment of women was only a step above that. Not exactly a late charge on a credit card.

So you do you go to hell or not for having slaves?

What if a company owns slaves on your behalf?

What if you are only a part owner of such a company, say you have shares of common stock?

You need to read better. Genesis says nothing about apples, poisoned or otherwise.

I can only give you my opinion. The Bible is not a book of rules, though there are a few in there. The rules are mostly about how we treat one another, or our morality and ethics. We are to be honest, and considerate of others.

Most of the Bible appears to be a story of the Hebrew people over a very long period of time, written by generations of their scholars. The book deals with their lives and survival on earth, as well as their experiences and struggles with God. The parts of the Bible that can be checked out have shown it to be an accurate account of what happened.

I personally don't get a thing out of this incident you quoted, and wonder why it is in there. I'm suspect a theologian can make some kind of connection, but I cannot.




I said he interferes very little with our lives. To me it's apparent that God did not intend to stop slave trading back then. I don't know why. I also get the impression he reformed it in those passages. I don't view reforming a practice to make it more humane as much interference. Slave trading was likely much worse before this time. I'm not a Bible scholar or historian, so I have to guess.




True, God created a universe that some say is imperfect, because for one animal to live, it must kill another for food, as an example. So yes, allowing germs to develop and evolve means sickness and disease for us. Yet if there were no bacteria, I don't think there would be higher forms of life, no? We depend on them, from what I've read. It appears that life is cruel and unfair, but God is still good, in my opinion.

anything that gets cut up into 12 pieces and shipped out to all of Israel, is reference to the Osiris tale and ultimately the zodiac. If you want to find the meaning of these stories you have to study Astrotheology.

slave trading is ok as long as God reformed it.....hmmm, i thought dmz was stand up.

dmz:


God's act of creation was the original act of capriciousness, then, and any defense built on a supposed misunderstanding of his overall nature is nothing but parlor trickery.

[quote] I think it's known as accurately citing Exodus/Deuteronomy before posting. The slavery you're referencing wasn't much more/less than indentured servitude. Chattel slavery, however, is an altogether different institution as was practiced in glorious Athens during her 'golden years.'[/qutoe]

What does Athens have to do with anything?
Since when does the moral standing of one action depend on what other people do at different times?

Is "well, he's not that bad" an acceptable standard for an all-knowing, all-powerful god to achieve?


This is pure nonsense. Americans, even those in severe debt, are free to do, say, and think what they like.

Honestly, dmz, you should stick with the mushy pap "god might look evil, but I think he's nice so I'm going to go hug a flower" mentality instead of trying to rationalize and explain the obviously contradictory and insane.

indeed, we all know that Adam buried his snake in Eve's snakepit, but you should try to get a sense of humour.

Because, by your line of reasoning, we could toss out the concept of the Socratic dialogue as the product of a group of high-minded homicidal maniacs.



Slaves are always entitled to think what they like. Those in massive debt are not allowed to do what they like -- they've already mortgaged their future. They will do what it takes, play society's game until that changes.

And to take things a step further, your Texas prison system practices slave labor, outright.

dmz:


Fantastic effort in creating the king of all straw men arguments. Ideas stand on their own.


I notice you focus on one aspect of their freedom. You could not be more transparent.

...unless you don't like source, which is where guilt-by-association comes in handy.

What ideas have I dismissed simply because of the source?

Ah-ha, so you weren't somewhat co-opting shetline's point then? I could have sworn that, a little above his post, slavery made a culture something of a pariah.

Why can no christian answer whether owning slaves will get you sent to hell or not?

Is it because your god doesn't worry about such things? then why marriage?

Is it because the difference of cultures between then and now? if so why would our culture influence gods value judgements?

What about companies that outsource their labor to other companies that engage in slightly more than economic slavery, say like sweatshops in China... do you share the blame come judgement day?

I would have thought these were fairly straightforward questions with very easy answers. As an athiest I can answer them both quickly and correctly. Why has no believer of hell come forward to answer these simple questions.

You'd think that with your eternal life in the balance you might have a better idea of what it takes to avoid getting sent to a fiery pit for eternity.

dmz:


I am not shetline.

I think slavery is wrong, and it is that simple.

I think we may be at the point where we are just arguing for the sake of arguing. (or way past it!)

Don't cut and run dmz

Well, if it's so much fun, you argue with groverat for awhile!

The whole point of that passage in the bible is "inhospitality is forbidden" - the reason that the villagers wanted to rape the man was to humiliate him, and he tossed his concubine out to save himself. He was still humiliated by her rape and murder, and he cut her up in order to show the other tribes what had been done (and to trigger a war between the inhabitants of Gibeah and the Israelites during which tens of thousands died).

This passage is often used to condemn homosexuality, but it does not do that (it condemns inhospitality). The misogyny implicit in the passage was probably not even noticed by the original viewers of the passage, because it matched their views entirely.

God has evolved over time because he is imaginary, and therefore has the same moral views as the society at the time. The God of the old testament seems like a psychopath in todays terms, but not when viewed through the moral filter of 2000 years ago. It seems to me that dmz and company have their work cut out for them trying to rationalize the psychotic God of the old testament with the moral values of our current society (without admitting that God is imaginary).

I've never really understood why it is that Christians particularly care about the Old Testament, anyway.

But that's the great thing! You get to have religion ala carte!

Use the Old Testament to justify any old atrocity, and then use the New Testament to claim that you're a devotee of love and peace! It's the best of all worlds!

Frankly, whenever someone who claims to be Christian starts quoting the Old Testament (or any of Paul's writings) to justify a position, I just stop conversing with them. The OT's JHVH is seriously psychotic, and Paul was a misogynistic cad who apparently missed the whole love and peace aspect.

In the same way that humans design computers to perform specific tasks, so could a creator define our purpose. I watched this film by Richard Dawkins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13NPZ5Nv_fc&e

concerning why we are here and he keeps saying things like we don't need a creator to give us meaning and we can find it in technology etc but all the time, just as religious people reference God as a controlling entity, evolutionists reference nature or natural selection as if somehow those definitions differ from the concept of a creator. They're just using a scientific word to describe a force that isn't understood instead of a religious one and given that science offers us more in general, it's seen as being the more correct view when they are largely the same.


I don't know all the popular gods so I have no idea if my idea of a creator is the same as any of them. Given the lack of detail that we can determine, to me it's a basic outline. I don't attempt to ascertain the nature or appearance of the creator.


I don't personally think so but given that I cannot define my creator adequately, I can't determine if ignorance is a trait it has.


No, I don't believe in that type of god.


Sure you can paint any view you like but not all of them will be applicable to what we see around us.


Just look at the evidence that supports evolution but without prejudice.


You've misinterpreted what I said. I didn't say some parts of evolution need to be wrong to support a creator. Evolution can be correct in its entirety and I would still believe in a creator because evolution cannot dismiss the possibility of one existing. Why do you keep putting the two on opposite sides?


Perhaps you should tell that to all the people who search for extra-terrestrial intelligence, the theoretical physicists etc. But you won't because they are 'scientific' and therefore justified right?


Is it just me or am I seeing a frog and a fish? And these are new species because... oh right because 'scientifically' they are classed as new species.

C'mon show me a hybrid elephant and giraffe.


A good night's sleep. Just two pages should do it. The book of Numbers especially.

But besides that, there are a huge number of deep philosophies in there for moral guidance. The book of Proverbs is probably the most useful book in the whole thing and lots of sayings that became popular originate from there.

On another note, I don't know if anyone watched the TV program yesterday in the UK by Rod Liddle called The Problem With Atheism. It basically says the same thing I've been saying. Other people are also getting tired of atheists propagating their opinions as fact that there is no god or creator without any reason why. Simply because it's unprovable either way then it shouldn't be considered at all, which is a ludicrous suggestion.

What we know is:

* we exist
* we can create

How far fetched is it really to consider that we were created? Not at all I would suggest and yet narrow-minded anti-religious bigots will continually link that idea with religious cultures that most of us would reasonably disagree with. Does this make the principle itself inconceivable? Of course not. If there was some sect of theorists who used scientific principles and came up with wild theories, would it be reasonable of me to suggest that everyone who considered those scientific principles as valid to have all the same extended ideas as some group of crackpots and dismiss everything? I would really hope not.

Because it was the "word of God", and "Jesus was his only Son"? Because he created man and the world?

The Christians didn't get a new god all of a sudden, they were stuck with dear old wife-beating dad.

I always thought that Jesus was the "new covenant" and that Matthew 5 pretty much replaced the 10 commandments.

I guess that depends what Christian sect you listen to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tes...iew_of_the_Law

"By the 3rd century AD or so (exact dates are in dispute), the universal Christian church had adopted the view that the Ten Commandments were binding on all human beings, whereas the other laws of the Torah, having been given only after Israel's apostasy in worshipping an idol, were meant to apply to Israel alone."

So I guess that any Christian who looks to the old testament for reasons to hate Gays is on the wrong track 8) Of course, Sodomy was the same level of sin there as eating shellfish, so I guess they were always on the wrong track.

What does god have to do with any of this?

Without the Old Testament, Christ is a nutcase raving about nothing. The OT is inextricable.


Marvin:


God has a will. Evolution does not. That is one obvious difference, and it is a massive one.


Surely some kind of historical precedent for a god is a requirement for belief. I don't know the theist mind, but is it common practice to merely invent one's own and be ok with that?


That makes no sense. Could you explain it to me?


All things studied by science are theoretically provable, that is what makes science science. There is extremely solid scientific foundation for the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. And theoretical physics is meant to answer existing questions and provide tests for proving those answers; there are tests on the way to see what particles make up dark matter, for instance.


I do not know how many people, if any, would state that there absolutely is no god. The only reasonable stance is agnosticism. Atheists simply lack belief in god.

No study has ever been done to show a hopelessness in atheists. The only in-depth study I have ever seen on the social side of atheism versus theism showed that Christians were 4-5% more likely to get divorced than atheists.


I think a supernatural creator is an extremely far-fetched idea.

Inconceivable? No. Of course not.
What is inconceivable?

Without the OT, Jesus ("Christ" is a title) is a guy saying "You have heard it said that..."

Snoopy,

heres a bit of the golden nugget of truth about the Creation story

Garden of Eden

you probably cant accept this, thats ok, what it does explicitly tell us though is that the Genesis story isn't about the creation of the universe, but if there is any truth in it, it can only be found in the philosophy and sprituality that developed from these motifs.

You know, this is all very, very Buddhist...

I think all that bla bla bla is caused by fear. Fear of that your live has no reason, fear that everything you do is in vain, fear that there is no live afterward, fear that manhood will disappear in some time, fear that manhopod is on his own in the universe.
Take a drink and let go those fears go. Live your life, thinking, especially discussing about the origin of lifet is completely useless and leads to nowhere. Believe is not meant to be proven and you are here, so why discuss the reason, other then that your father and mother did a good job.

Sorry Marc, don't mean to imply that you are a blasphemer, but you have given me some insight into perhaps A NOT SO GOOD IDEA (profitwise) for a theme park! Perhaps there already is/are web based virtual theme parks based on this idea?

This "theme park" would sorta be an Epcot of Faiths, but really, Really, REALLY twisted! Way past demonic AND way past blasphemous!

Oh, I'm sorry, such a "real" place already exists, doG created it, it's called "Planet Earth!"

And I'm going home!

You guys hold your metaphysical horses -- I need to get a job out the door -- and then we can really start begging the important questions.

great, i cant wait to spoil Christmas for everyone