What a breath of fresh air! How refreshing it is to be able to imagine Christians who don't believe they're entitled to insert themselves into other adults' sex lives, or to interfere in other people's families (and family size) and who don't try to twist biblical fundamentalisms to sanctify craven wealth accumulation, war mongering, poverty creation and environmental vandalism. Who among us can imagine the Jesus as he's described by all levels of the Christian church, dining at the same moral table as George Bush or John Howard?

I agree with Fiona. It seems that often the politician's game is to get us all pitted against one another, the christian against the muslim, the gay vs the straight, the employed against those on the dole. It seems to me (in my simplistic and naive view) that the basis for nearly every religion is "be nice to people and your God will be happy".

Well, morally conservitive + Biblical, means such a Christian would never, repeat never, support homsexual behavior, nor associated lifestyles. That issue is as clear as the resurrection of Christ, and Romans 1 is the headline.

This is not 'putting our noses into peoples bedrooms or families any more than to advocate that such things are 'acceptable' is messing with the christian bedroom or family, its about social conditions and democracy, and ultimate morality.

Laws have a habit of effecting freedoms, it goes with the territory. No matter who makes them, they WILL effect some people, either positively or negatively relative to their own life choices to that point in time.
Its unfair to suggest Christians are alone to blame for anything legislation wise which people dont like. We Christians also don't like a lot of other things. Whining is not the solution, political and social action is. But most of all, prayer and a relfection on God, and allowing His grace to impact our minds, wills and thoughts. It might be unpalatable to imagine a God who does not enjoy the sight of a man copulating with a man, but it happens to 'be' the God of the Bible. Don't try to change 'Him' because he is unchanging. Instead of the tail wagging the dog, might be a better idea for we tails to connect better with the dog and allow ourselves to be wagged in the right direction and frequency.

As much as fiona finds John Wallis 'refreshing' I find any compromise with Gods revealed standards, 'sad, tragic and regrettable'.

Friends,
These left wing campaigners claim there are 'macro' and 'minor' issues in Christian Politicts. That the Church and Christians should only be involved in macro issues, like: Poverty, war, racism etc. They ignore, or support, what they regard as 'minor issues' such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexual same sex marriage, pornography, prostitution, TV/film standards, marijuana, legalising drugs. They claim Christians are not 'moral policemen' and should ignore the 'minor' issues or even support them as does Wallace. The macro issues are not controversial and are popular with the non-Christian world. Christians should be totally involved in the support of the macro isues and not ignore the minor issues!

Philo J

BOAZ_David, I think you've may have missed the point of the article. It's not about blaming Christians, but is pointing out that many are ignoring the big picture (and thereby betraying their own cause) by voting based on a few wedge issues.

If as you said a morally conservative Christian would never support homosexual behaviour, then what happens in a two party system where one supports gay rights and the other party supports an unjustified war, would cut assistance for the poor and protections for the disadvantaged? OK, that's a bit too realistic, what if the other party supported enslavement, forced abortion and genocide? Would conservative Christians still not vote for the pro-gay party?

Choices and concessions have to be made in politics, and so by never supporting gay rights you effectively elevate it to the #1 Christian moral issue above all other considerations. (And yet Jesus doesn't seem to concern himself with it in the Gospels.) That was the point of the article and I think you have demonstrated it very well.

On the side issue, people's ethics are necessarily going to determine what parties and laws they support, and that is fine. But I do think that restrictions which cannot be supported objectively or by common norms are of a different and more vulnerable/inferior nature; if the restriction regulates consenting parties then it should not be imposed or continued unless there is widespread support.

Well boazdavid, your confidence in God's "revealed truth" is fantastic for those of you who are satisfied to rely on a collection of articles and essays written by story tellers, journalists, historians and 'scholars' - (in most cases many many years, decades, even centuries long after the supposed events and certainly after all firsthand witnesses [if there were any] were long gone).

Yes, I'm talking about the bible.

Revealed truth? I could come up with a few 'truths' of a few hundred years ago too, if I felt it would serve my interests to foment a movement of followers, and if there weren't so many others in my society with the means to write.

Real believers have faith, boazdavid. They don't need books written by a privileged few, to promulgate ideas that cause harm to people who do them no harm. People who really do have faith and who understand that grace is not issued from the printing press - don't obsess about how other people have sex. Only very ordinary, very base people, have such preoccupations.

Of all the big, important, humanitarian issues around the world - poverty, clean air, food, exploitation, war - the things that excite the antennae of the smallest minds in our midst - never ceases to amaze me.

Friends,
Jim Wallace worldview is not based upon the ideals, where children are procreated, protected and nurtured as a primary goal. How does he operate in the Beslan massacre or Zimbabwe? His most powerful weapons are just words!

John McKinnon assumes the NSW Christian Democratic Party aligns itself with the Liberal Party. In NSW it has voted on more Bills in support of the Labor Party than the Liberal Party.

It is easy to make a statement the “War in Iraq was wrong”, but does not give reasons.

The claim that the World Christian community were totally against the war in Iraq is a generalisation not based in researched fact. The Iraq Christian community fully supported the removal of the regime. It is just that those in the Wallace talkfest had nothing they could do except wring their hands with anxiety.

Is John McKinnon claiming George Bush had anything to do with the increase in abortion? Abortion is a social issue indicating the attitudes of the society, and I am sure the religious right would not support the abortion of children, so it must have been those in the left without moral values who increased abortion based in some level of fear.

The poverty in Iraq has more to do with despotism than the war on terror. The Coalition were acting to free people from despotism, so they could choose their own destiny. Saddam Hussein had warehouses full of food and medicine but only fed and medicated his Sunni supporters (Verified by my close friends in the elite force). This was a war against injustice and poverty, it meant some would get hurt and it is obvious the Sunni who had dominated for many years were the one’s hurt the most by their removal from power. Hence they’re continuing bombing of Iraqi civilians.

John McKinnon’s claim is a false and naïve as real peace happens within the mind: “peace comes by personal freedom and right to choose”. His claim that America believes Peace comes by domination is a brained washed partisan view from left wing anti-American politics.
Philo J

Since the invasion of the coalition of the willing, 24324 civilians have died. So far, in the "war on terror" initiated since 9-11, the USA and its allies have been responsible for over 13,000 civilian deaths, not only the 10,000+ in Iraq, but also 3,000+ civilian deaths in Afghanistan. But hey, this was all because of depotism and I should watch that I'm not falling for Leftist conspiracy theories.
See: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Philo, nice to see your view. Well said.
Wandii, you make a couple of good points also, but u did fall into the unfortunate hole dug by most of those who take the same line, they seem to assume that a) There was no 'body count' under the regimes which were removed by force b) They do not differentiate between those civilians killed by Allied forces and those who die in the fighting and are just as likely to have been killed by the supporters of the regime. In fact are u keeping a tally of those slaughtered by the insurgents with the car bombs ? are u adding it up each day and are you adding that TO the 'Civilians' killed 'by' the allies, and claiming that they were in fact killed 'by' the allies ? and are you suggesting that it would have been better to allow the premeditated, cruel, callous and on-going slaughter of perceived enemies of the State by the likes of Sadaam etc ?
The causes of civilian deaths in places like Iraq and Afghanistan would be quite difficult to trace and verify I think, but at least your numbers are more believable than the "100,000" that is regularly trotted out by the left.

Back to Fiona.
Your assessment of the scriptures, is lacking in credibility. What you claim does not accord with the evidence. Back to "New Testament Introduction-101" please :)
The claim about 'obsessing' is in error. Reacting to a determined politicized attack on our culture is not 'obsessing'. Our focus on particular issues is no more than the focus of those driving those agendas.
You say 'war' is a major world problem, but I would say "unregenerate hearts" are the source of 'that' problem, You treat the symptom, I treat the disease.

Romans 12.1ff
"Therefore I urge you by the mercies of God, to give your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. Do not conform yourself to this age, but be TRANSFORMED by the renewal of your minds".....

From my count the civilians [and military from both sides] in Iraq who have died needlessly far out number those killed in 9/11.
Its simply ridiculous to argue that this is justified no matter which side of the political fence you bat for.

That no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003 is forgotten and gets swept aside as a non-aguement?

Paleeeese!

Wandii – You didn’t answer the question. Does your total include all the civilians killed by insurgents? Your website doesn’t make this clear. But I suspect it does include the Iraqi’s killed by other Iraqi’s using the specious reasoning that if the Americans hadn’t invaded these deaths wouldn’t have occurred.

If the allies pulled out of Iraq now there would be a civil war that would make your death toll seem puny. I wonder where Mr Wallis was when Saddam Hussein was gassing Kurds and killing Shiites and Christians? I have yet to hear one single reasonable answer as to why the removal of Saddam Hussein was wrong.

By the way, here’s a quote from Wandii’s recommended website about how they worked out the figures for civilians killed in Falluja: “Civilian totals have been derived by assuming a conservative ratio of one civilian adult male killed for every woman killed prior to April 12th, and by using the minimum-maximum range to account for differing possible numbers of women and children remaining in the targeted areas after the exodus had begun.”

In other words, they don’t have a clue.

Part One

I can’t begin to describe how impressed I am with John McKinnon’s book review and how he has related it to the Australian experience. As a non-religious person I am frequently mystified by the lack of charity expressed by many who claim to believe in God. Finally, a voice from one Christian who appears to have his spirit and beliefs firmly linked with the reality of the human experience.

So-called ‘christian values’ are actually very similar to values desired by many people of all political/social/religious persuasions who have a humane approach to our world.

There are those who claim that a humane approach to society’s ills is ‘naïve’ - a convenient word to trot out and use to attempt to dismiss a reasonable approach as opposed to the dogmatic “do as I say” world view of neo conservatives.

A hardline ‘tough love’ (an oxymoron if ever there was one) approach is no more than a temporary fix which inevitably creates division between people, Interesting how we find that those who prescribe ‘tough love’ are invariably in positions of power and those on the receiving end are not.

Part Two

The following issues were raised by John:

• How should Christians respond to the “war on terror” and the events on September 11 2001? Wallis sides with other progressive commentators in promoting multi-lateralism, international co-operation, criminal proceedings (rather than military attacks) and addressing the underlying causes, such as poverty and injustice.
• It is government by the rich; it is legal corruption; and it is clearly a gross injustice that Christians need to work against.
• Not only should Christians be taking up environmental leadership, they should also find the common ground with these other green groups - rather than avoid environmental issues because of the religious differences.
• Surely both sides can work together to reduce the rate (abortion) by reducing poverty, supporting single mothers and other actions that all can agree on. This argument must apply equally well in our Australian context.
• Campolo has proposed that the civil and religious aspects of marriage be separated. The civil union, conferring certain legal rights, can be all-inclusive. Churches would then be free to provide a religious blessing to those unions fitting within their own definitions of marriage.

Excellent ideas all.

Until we stop squabbling between ourselves over who is right/wrong more moral or whatever we are doomed to perpetuate the injustices of the past as we are doing now.

Naïve? Try civilised. There is nothing ignorant at desiring a more peaceful equitable world.

Try acceptance instead of judgement people – I fear that it is too late if the many derisive, abusive posts that appear regularly on this website is any indication.

However, hope springs eternal………..

Ringtail,
Please spell out how a talkfest could influence North Korea to abandon their nuclear warhead developments! Please tell us how Saudi Arabia will abandoned their poliferation of anti-American hate litrature in Muslim schools in America. Please tell us why some Muslims in Indonesia, a Muslim Country, want a seperate State. Why they will kill ordinary Indonesian Government troops to secure such? It is obvious national passions and religious convictions run deeper than mediated reason and argument.

As far as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I have in my posession copies of the UN official reports on the evidence of the existence of such, and the sattelite photographic evidence shows their dismanteling and removal several months before the Coalition invasion. It was the impact of the real threat by the USA that caused them to be removed. All the UN talking had no effect upon Saddam's denial or his agreement to remove them. All United Nations reports listed they were there at one stage, the fact they were not found post invasion does prove he never had such capacity. The Kurds can verify such weapons, or are we to believe Saddam over Kurdish bodies. We would all love a World where people would listen and act on humanitarian reasons. But when you have Hitler believing in racial supremacy, and religious exclusivists believing their religion must rule the World; tell me how you are going to have a reasoned conversation.

I can see this discussion getting bogged down about war/iraq/wmd's, when the article is about so much more.

I don't know why people who disagree always demand magic solutions to their questions. No one said its easy. Talk/compromise does work. War should always be the last resort and it hasn't been the case in Iraq. Also, Phil, if you have "in your posession" documents proving the existence of WMD's (either now or in the past) how come no one else has? How come this is the first we've heard about it? And that is all I am saying to the pro war contingent.

Back to the article, which is about a way in which the christian church can engage with many issues and bring about a positive method of working together with people of a variety of beliefs. How can anyone think that is so wrong - well I guess they're from the Right. I'm not so sure about the Left not getting it as I think I do. I am more than happy to work with religious people - I believe in live and let live after all. Apparently that makes me a leftie.

Any way, John best religious topic I've read on this web site.

Philo, the North Korean's like everyone else will respond to the offer of economic wellbeing. The west needs to make it worth their while to abandon nuclear weapon development, while (and this is important) ensuring that they feel that the decision was their own.

This is actually what seems to be happening according to the more savvy commentators. Nth Korea is making big agressive noises but the offer of more aid - without stings attached - is what they really want.

Saudi Arabians are rilly rilly pissed off with the US because it supports their totally corrupt royal family and again, the ordinary Saudi in the street has no hope aspiring to economic success.

The problems in Indonesia are also the result of the corruption of their government but they are being ameliorated by reason and talking. It does take time but then so does invading a country like Iraq. That has not been an instant success, surely.

David Boaz If God's revealed standards are so bloody obvious why don't we all see the same things when we read the bible?

What makes you such an expert on interpreting the different forms of 'abomination'? I keep asking you this but never get a rational answer.

All the bible quotes you provide seem to me to indicate that you have got it all wrong.

Why don't you 'be TRANSFORMED by the renewal of your minds"..... Your mind sure needs renewal.

You seem to think that 'our culture' is something rigid and unchanging. Which culture do you imagine that people are attacking - the one we had in the 1950's or would you go back even earlier? When was your golden era?

Boazdavid, my assessment of the scriptures, is no more lacking in credibility than your understanding of faith and grace. Snide references to "New Testament Introduction-101" add nothing to this discussion, and frankly what you call evidence I call self-serving, albeit interesting literature (well, some parts are interesting; others are not). Only to those who have faith, does the bible seem to amount to "evidence".

And as others point out, interpretation and selective quoting does rather blemish the evidentiary integrity of the bible (new or old testaments, or both - take your pick).

I don't believe in a vengeful God, or a god who despises the lives that some people are born into, or chose to live. I think the God whom you apparently thrill to imagine being repulsed by the sight of men having sex, is the creation of men. A few men. I'm pretty sure that most people who have sex that you disapprove of boazdavid, are indifferent to you and your lifestyle. There is no "agenda" other than to hope to be able to live without interference by strangers with strange obsessions about the sex lives of others. Yours is an obsession, boazdavid. It is difficult to find room in such a heart in which you might find faith of a more loving and inclusive kind, but perhaps in time you will.

Quote Xena " I don't know why people who disagree always demand magic solutions to their questions. No one said its easy. Talk/compromise does work. War should always be the last resort and it hasn't been the case in Iraq. Also, Phil, if you have "in your posession" documents proving the existence of WMD's (either now or in the past) how come no one else has? How come this is the first we've heard about it?"

Hi! I am not expecting magic solutions just practical solutions. To object is easy, talking is cheap, action is costly and someone will be hurt - that is the sacrifice of protecting our values and creating social revolution.

Xena,I suggest you write a script for the negotiators seeking the release of David Wood. These are the minds we must change, they will shoot before they hear what you have to say. For them if you are a woman you are a lesser being and have no say, unless you are appropiately attired you are influenced by western values, unless you bow in submission you will not be accepted in their presence.

With regard to the United Nations Report on Iraq; I have friends and relatives involved in the Elite Australian Armed Forces who were involved in Iraq and with the war equipment preperations. It is not the first time these UN reports are available. The UN constantly monitored Iraq before the Coalition invasion.

I am a Christian and hate physical combat but sometimes it is the only course of action to protect the people we value. Jesus never outlawed soldiers, in fact he ministered to Roman soldiers Matt 8: 9. Paul uses soldiers equipment as an example of spiritual warfare. The final revelation of Jesus is a dramatic war of the world. Jesus never spoke against war, or slavery; but it has been Christians who have led the way in outlawing slavery.

Philo, I said war is the last resort - something the USA has forgotten.

Now please return to topic if U have something to say. You claim to be a christian so where are your 'christian values' of compassion, equality and justice for all.

John is talking about applying the values of christianity to world problems not the hijacked right wing version which only serves the wealthy.

Read the article again. Please.

A very interesting article. As others have said, it is refreshing and some good idea's. I really like the Campolo approach of a clear seperation between the civil and religious aspects of marriage.

I do suspect that christians on the "left" make the same mistake that christians on the "right" make by ignoring the parts of the message that don't suit. The author appeared to make this point but then included statements which looked to me as though he was ignoring some significant parts of the bible.

- The biblical accounts of God ordered wars do not look like a strong anti war position.

- Support for the poor is not as many on the left would have us believe. The bible is much more pragmatic on the issue, try 1 Timothy 5:9-16 and see how well it fits with the left's views on welfare. Sorry about the King Jim language, plenty of King James on line and not much else.

1Ti 5:9-16 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn [to be] idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan.

Robert, have you listened to any of Tony Campolo's messages ? I'm rather glad to hear his name mentioned favorably by those who are not quite on the same side of the spiritual fence as me, and ironically, it was Grace Pettigrew who suggested that my 'right wing fundamentalist bigot' friends like Campolo, are not worth listening to.
Rob, Campolo is not exactly my cuppa on every issue, but he is an inspiring and committed Christian with a very radical message, and hilariously funny on some things. Pls do a search and have a listen to "It was friday, but sundays comin". There are many other good talks, addressing issues of poverty and 3rd world involvement.

Ringtail, (and fiona)
I fail to see why disagreeing with you, and taking a stand on particular moral issues immediately classifies us as "without compassion". We may not be expression an image of God which suits you, but it sure is the Biblical God. Fiona, I dont see where I represented God as 'vengeful' ? but I will proclaim Him as 'JUST'.

Fiona, the issue between your assessment of scripture as 'interesting but self serving documents' and mine as 'the light of life' should be able to stand the test of scrutiny. I don't see any 'self serving' in scripture, if u can find some, please let me know. Without doubt it will ultimately come down to a 'faith' issue, but along the path to that conclusion, there is much of value that can be discussed.

Paul preached a message which he knew would (and did) result in great personal suffering, I find little 'self serving' in that. He talked the talk and walked the walk and we are blessed because of him.

I would like to focus on one of the other issues not yet commented upon, in an offering that is refreshing for the frankness contained, given that it is from a religiously motivated source.
Quote,"Wallis briefly touches on the underlying greed and individualism that form the foundation for our capitalist society. He exposes the myth of modern advertising which claims that more goods will make us happy. While Wallis merely scratches the surface on this issue, it is certainly a fertile area for Christians to contribute positively yet radically to the social policy debate." Unquote.
From this quote it would appear that Wallis is against greed, which is to be applauded. It is a universal human foible that creates problems for society regardless of where it is manifested. What I do have a problem with, is the idea that individualism should be viewed in the same light. It is no suprise that Wallis should denigrate individualism, because there are very few religions, Christian or otherwise, that do not make greater or lesser demands of conformity on their members. Herein is the fundamental [pun intended] problem for religious intervention in the political process, i.e. when religious belief is utilised to create political discipline. The techniques of advertising and religious proselityzing are often indistinguishable from each other, and certainly borrow from each other as expediency dictates.
Individualism is a powerful force for the creativity and imagination that is needed for the advancement of humankind, and it is painfully obvious that we still have a long way to go, so why seek to muzzle it?, unless your motivation amounts to the sort of corruption that Wallis apparently, and justifiably, rails against elsewhere.

Even more to the point, if your vote is not an individual decision, then there is evil of one sort or another at work, and the democratic process is threatened.
Majikthise

I think John, in his supportive review of Jim Wallis's book has one of the most ironic titles imaginable. "Reading the Bible with a pair of scissors" properly highlights Jim Wallis's approach.
Both Jim and John seem to support the concept of forcing people to be charitable (i.e. Taxing for social security), a concept found no-where in the bible.
Certainly Jim must cut out many parts of the bible to support the promotion of the homosexual agenda.

As a Christian, I too believe we should not automatically support any party, but instead use our power to vote to support the candidate which is on the correct side of the most important issues. This is obviously the abortion issue. The murder of innocent defenseless humans sanction by the government has more victims than just the unborn child. It adversely affects the mother, the father, future children of the mother, and so indeed, affects all of society.

My biggest problem with the left side of politics is that 'social progressives' seek to remake how society is structured away from a family unit towards some more state centric unit. This is not biblical. The push for more moral freedom, and yet enforcing charitable donations is a hypocrisy that highlights perhaps their motives are not as clear cut as people like John and Jim try to claim. Ultimately, destroying the foundations of society by moving towards a socialistic model has been shown time and again to be fatal to the well-being of everyone is society.

I don't oppose the left because I disagree with the problems they are supposedly addressing, I disagree with the left because their solutions will not solve the problems, but instead cause more problems. And that is something that John and Jim fail to grasp

Boaz_David,

yep I have listened to a fair bit of Campolo's stuff, read some books, seen him speak etc. I certainly would not regard him as a "right wing fundamentalist bigot". If anything he seems to fit fairly well my picture of what John is suggesting in his article, not necessarily the views John endorses but the attempt to combine an understanding of christianity with the realities of the world. John Smith does some similar stuff, lots of places where I disagree with them but they look at the world and their faiths with a refreshing honesty. I've always tended to think of both as being somewhat on the left of politics.

The "It's Friday" message was funny but much less impacting than his description of choosing between orpaned kids (in latin america I think) and knowing that he was probably leaving some to die in order to save others.

There are planty of places I disagree with both but they present their social challenges in a way that cannot be lightly dismissed by those who care about the type of world we live in.

If the church spent more time listening to Campolo and Smith and less time listening to ones who get a TV program (or celebate unmarried old men living in spendor and isolation) it's message might be a lot more relevant to the rest of us.

Sorry Mod but I might not be able to help myself here.
Again we see the bigotry of the rabid right of Christianity and it usual attempts to highjack the debate.
Phil how long ago was it that woman in the western world were thought of as less then men? Why do people like Phil think the sectarian violence by other faiths is some how worst then the sectarian violence done within Christianity? As for my friend BOAZ_DAVID you should know as well as anyone that the unchanging word of the bible has in fact been changed and continues to be changed. Devotees have tried to use the bible to disprove evolution, prove the earth centred universe, rewrite recorded history, a round planet, and much, much more. The supposedly rigid rules the Christian have to live by have ebbed and flowed with the local culture. Have a read of peter 3 would that stuff be mentioned at hillsong? I find that the typical leftwing Christian wants to help while the rightwing is all about control

Fiona, historians can give us some insight into whom Jesus might have been. It is hard to breakdown the Jesus composite you mention: However, Edward Gibbon of The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire fame did suggest Jesus was a Jewish Messiah whose human sacrifice aimed to release the Jews from having to continually in indwell in Rites. According to Gibbon (1776), Jesus' idea was to have one, for all time sacrifice, to do away with the all the ritual.

The roots of the non-Jewish Christian church were established during rule of the Hadrian, when the Gentile accepting Christains split from the exclusive Jews, after there had been fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem (nor Rome). Albeit, after the fall of The Temple, the Bishops of Jerusalem actually resided in Pella.

Seemingly, Chistianity, as a Catholic religion, was founded at Aelia Capolina in the time of Hadrian. Many of our Christian feast days are the residue of converted Roman Gentiles reverting to Pagan customs. Moreover, there is evidence that the "Catholic" Christian prelate was the Latin, Marcus, not, St. Peter. Here, I have used the word "Catholic" literally: i.e., universal

Erratum regarding above: the FIRST "Catholic" Christian prelate was the Latin, Marcus, not, St. Peter. Here, I have used the word "Catholic" literally: i.e., universal. Sorry.

"Reading the Bible with a pair of scissors" - Ironic title because this is exactly what Wallis and McKinnon do.

Wallis and McKinnon pick out all the nice easy-on-the-ears stuff in the Bible but ignore the bits about truth, judgment and repentance.

McKinnon says: "The religious Right, according to Wallis, misses the real essence of Jesus’ moral teaching, and in blindly pursuing its two key issues, actually ends up opposing much of what Jesus said."

Strong claim. No evidence or argument, just massive (and baseless) stereotyping. We must be reading different Bibles or talking about different Jesus. McKinnon has an MA in NT, so must have read Romans 1 and Paul's chastisement of the Corinthians! Maybe he needs to go back and read the OT, which the NT depends on.

And how can Wallis and McKinnon pretend to know what motivates Christians on the 'religious right'? Do they really think we are indifferent to the poor? Why do you think so many join the Liberal Party? Because socialism has never gotten anyone out of poverty - it just equally distributes poverty!

Who do they think started all those aid agencies? Worldvision (before being co-opted by lefties), Samaritan's purse, CCF, Christian Blind Mission, MAF etc etc.

McKinnon observes: "This book...is [not] a comprehensive analysis of current US policies...On the other hand it is not a biblical commentary or deep theological work. It is not intended to be a scholarly work but contains plenty of referenced facts alongside numerous personal anecdotes and opinions."

Not surprising. No deep, scholarly, theological analysis which come up with this tripe. Instead, Wallis and McKinnon have tried to "trim" the Bible with their scissors to make it fit their own preconceived socialist ideas.

Unfortunately there are many Christians who hold such syncretistic views. They substitute moral outrage for morality, equality and fairness for justice, and talk about 'right and wrong' but don't know the first thing about truth. They don't understand that the most loving thing you can do for someone is tell them the truth - even if it hurts or offends them...

Boazdavid, we are sailing dangerously close to agreeing on something. A breakthough! a Houston-we-have-liftoff moment!!

ie. that for those who have faith in the bible, the bible IS evidence ("revealed standards" no less). And for those who don't, the bible is just a collection of various people's articles and essays, endlessly refutable, internally inconsistent, tremendously open to many different interpretations from all colours of the political rainbow (the product of countless translations across generations, language and idiom).

You say it's evidence, and you and others keep picking out the bits you favour to support the line you want to champion (and ignoring the less favourable bits and interpretations). Notice that I haven't gone fishing for the ones that favour my views (and there are many of those; see Bishop Shelby Spong in general, and 'Rescuing the bible from fundamentalism' in particular) - because however convenient it might be to my opinions, it still doesn't cut it as evidence.

So it's all about what you have faith in. It's about the 'standards', the ideas and the notions in which you have faith - in your own judgement. It's not about evidence at all.

By all means live your life according to the interpretation you wish to apply to those parts of the bible to which you want to give most weight. May it serve you well. Just don't impose. There is no evidence that your interpretations and opinions are more correct, more proper, more blessed or more morally virtuous than mine. Yours are different, but for my part that is all they are.

Fiona
us, agreeing ? heaven forbid :)
Well, lets not get too carried away here, because I'm about to don my biblical storm troopers uniform and come 'afta ya' :)
Now, you said one thing "Endlessly refutable, internally inconsistent, and open to many interpretations etc" Wellllll dear girl, I absolutely 'blitzkrieg' that idea. If it were the case, then our language should be put in a granny's home. I'd like to see you apply that little set of whiz bang ideas to say "Romans" ? or 1Corinthians ?

I haven't really done much 'selective' quoting, but in terms of 'most relevant' I've mentioned Romans 1 because it is a) crystal clear and b) it was intended to be a systematic account of the condition of man and his need for divine grace. And indeed it IS those things ...on steroids :)

A very central message of the New Testament is that we love Him because HE first loved us. Paul recognizes the futility of life without Christ, and Bishop Spong would do well to read more of Paul and less of his own ponderings :).. no, I'm not a fan of bishop Spong by any means. (I'm not a fan of Pastor Fred Phelps either) I AM fan of Tony Campolo, while I have some reservations about some of his views.

Friends,
Jim Wallace primary issues why Christians should be involved in politcs are: 1. Overcoming poverty, 2. Overcoming war, 3. Overcoming social injustice. These major problems are not solved merely by political will but by revolutionary social change in attitude.

For example the abolition of slavery occurred similtaneously with a dramatic Christian Revival that was contemporary with William Wilberforce, and the dramatic spiritual conversion of the slave trader - John Newton who wrote the words of "Amazing Grace". The thinking of the time was saturated with Paul's Theology that; in the Church there is neither male of female, slave nor free, as all persons were equally loved by God. Harriet Becher Stowe writings of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" summed up the sentiments of the slaves and impacted the consciences of those unjustly treating slaves as tools or animals of labour. A proper teaching of the theology of the Christian NT with passion as a message from our Creator has and will change a society.

The niave assumption that war is caused by poverty cannot explain the Third Reich, or Japanese Imperialism. It is blatently obvious other attitudes motivated their agenda. The fact is the anxiety and displacement of persons by war is one reason for poverty, another is lack of education or resources to deal with the environment. You can give charity to some people all their life and they will never attempt to build a sustainable food source. This also happens here in Australia. Change their minds and give hope of building their own world will take them off Charity.

These major problems will only be overcome with a spiritual awakening and the sweat of the brow. Poverty does not cause war, greed causes war, as does unjust oppression of the weak. The real answer is one of the mind and spirit, and not one of enforced law and the allocation of funds. There is a real need of personal enlightenment and politicians are rarely in the forefront of spiritual change.

Fiona,

You seem to be espousing a post-modern deconstructive view of language where meaning is determined by the reader rather than the writer.

The meaning of the Bible is determined by those who wrote it (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit). While most of Scripture is pretty straight-forward, there are a few passages where it is more difficult to determine the author's meaning due to the time and culture gap between Biblical times and modern times. However, with some careful study, thorough research and hard work it is possible to understand these as well.

Psalm 53:1 says: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, and their ways are vile"

How many different ways can this be understood?

Rom 1:26-27 says: "Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

How do you interpret this?

You said: "By all means live your life according to the interpretation you wish to apply to those parts of the bible to which you want to give most weight. May it serve you well. Just don't impose."

This is classical relativism. Do you realise that your statement contradicts itself?

Do you not see that by telling Boaz not to impose, you are imposing on Boaz? Why is Boaz forbidden to impose but you see no problem with imposing your view on him?

You add: "There is no evidence that your interpretations and opinions are more correct, more proper, more blessed or more morally virtuous than mine."

In other words, you believe Boaz is wrong and you are right, and so its not simply a case of both interpretations being equally valid - you think yours is superior.

If you want evidence that my interpretation of Romans 1:26-27 is superior to yours then I'd only be too happy to take you through a thorough exegesis of the text.

Let me see if I can work this out; Boaz is right,Fiona is wrong; no, mollydukes is right and I'm wrong.... no maybe Xena is right and Aslan is wrong; no that's not it... Garra is right and pericles is wrong.

Everybody is right and everybody is wrong.

That is it!

Religion cancels itself out.

Aslan, what Fiona is probably doing is establishing a personal "Boundary". Doing so might be phrased in terms of asking David to get his nose out of her life it but it is more likely to be about a desire to exercise some control/responsibility over how she lives her own life.

Doing so is a very healthy thing to do. It is very different to attempting to impose your will on other peoples lives (regardless of what tricks can be played with semantics).

There are some good books available on the topic, try the books by Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend for a christian perspective.

As for the rest, I've come across plenty of fools who believe in the christian god (and plenty who don't). Quoting a verse of the bible does not make it so.

If you want evidence that Aslan suffers from a superiority complex, look no further than this:

"If you want evidence that my interpretation of Romans 1:26-27 is superior to yours then I'd only be too happy to take you through a thorough exegesis of the text."

Ringtail is right religion will eat itself.

To all those who have contributed, and even those who have 'ripped into' me :) thanx for being a vital part of our democratic process.

Ringtail, *pat* it doesn't cancel itself out. But some peoples statements tend to show up as rather shakey under close scrutiny.

Robert, glad u have heard some of Campolo's stuff, next time Grace Pettigrew shows up, tell her my descriptions of people are believable :).

Yes, some of Tony's stuff is heart wrenching, and shows just how things can pan out when one gives ones-self to aid or helping underpriveliged countries. I remember an old man who had a horrible ulcer on his ear oozing fluid, at a remote village of Borneo, and he asked if I can help ? There was zero I could do, no medicines, no training in that area, and in my heart I knew that soon he would die from it, as the infection had reached the bone. You tend to become not less compassionate, but less impacted by tragedy because you just cannot do ANYthing about it sometimes.

Aslan has some points that should be noted by the 'its all how you interpret it' mob, key point "What did the author intend".

You're all precious, even Kenny has value :) not much of what he says does, but HE does :)

PHILO:

According to Thorstein Veblen (c.1919) societies rapidly modernising from a feudal base trend towards Fascism. Veblen cited Germany and Japan, as examples. Moreover, in the case of Japan, Japan needed oil to establish an Asian Co-prosperity zone. Germany suffered under the burden of WWI reparations. Poverty, followership, ambition and a sense of racial superiority were some of the prime movers. To see a poverty-religion didactic one could look at England versus Ireland.

ALL, ESPECIALLY DAVID AND FIONA

The Good Book is a good book, but it is not infallible. Look at Michelangelo’s, “Moses”. You will note the statue has horns, because, at the time, the translation of the Bible, said Moses had horns. Later studies reveal what was meant is “rays of light”. Probably, not a big issue; but what if a word like “Iesous” or “Messias” was mistranslated. This is why one should use multiple sources to confirm or refute (Popper) events. Moreover, given there are many Bibles and many, many more Gospels: Which Bible…? Which Gospels…? (Some these "selections" have already been for us and by very human editors.)

As shown above, the renowned historian, Edward Gibbon, posits an alternative cause to Jesus’ mission. Is Gibbon right? I don’t known. However, I would suspect he cross- verified his data and read many books, including original source material.

I see at least four Gods in the Bible: the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, Jesus of the Gospels, and, a Pauline Jesus. I think each would rate differently on Kolberg’s Scale of Moral Development.

My observation of those who believe in verbal negotiations to solve conflict or war; it seems they fail to communicate understanding or concession. It has become obvious that conflict or different world views are not solved by words alone.

PHILO:

It has been said that "object of war is peace ... peace on one's own terms": i.e., to faciltate a change favourable to the instigator. Peace or appeasement will not prevail over a strong will forge change.

Chamberlain had no chance in changing Hilter's mind. Albeit, it was England that actually declared war. In a nuclear war, with the prospect of Mutually Assured Distruction, no-one's post-war agenda can be achieved.

I fear we have wandered from the topic?

Sorry Ringtail - you failed to worked it out.

You need to read more carefully. Relativism is wrong. Absolutes exist. This can be easily demonstrated by noting that the statement "Everything is relative" is part of everything, yet it is an absolute statement. Ergo, everything is not relative and absolutes exist.

This means that Fiona's or anyone else's relativistic rantings are automatically wrong.

RObert,

Fiona is not merely setting a *personal* boundary for herself - she is setting a boundary for Boaz_David as well, and telling him what he should and shouldn't do. Therefore, she violates her own relativistic stance. She is indeed imposing her will on Boaz_David and I'm not using any semantic tricks to show this (if you disagree, show me which 'tricks').

You said: "I've come across plenty of fools who believe in the christian god (and plenty who don't). Quoting a verse of the bible does not make it so."

This is another example of you distorting what I said. I never claimed that all fools are exclusively atheist, nor did I argue for the truth of this verse (although I do happen to think it is true). I merely quoted it as an example of a clear Biblical statement which can only be interpreted in one way.

Oliver,

You ask: which Bible? The Biblical text is the most reliable ancient document in existence by many orders of magnitude. Regarding the New Testament, we have approx 5500 partial and complete Greek manuscripts plus 12000+ Latin manuscripts, not to mention all the other ancient versions. In fact, even if we had not a single actual manuscript we could reconstruct the entire Bible from quotations from the church fathers. When all this documentary evidence is examined, the number of variants is relatively small and many are simple differences in spelling and obvious copying mistakes.

No serious scholar - even a non-Christian one - would doubt the reliability of the Biblical text.

Amen to that Aslan !

Most of the critical voices of the reliability of the Scriptures appear to have gleaned their opinions from either populist writings or 60 minutes.

Oliver, I can see your aiming at serious input, so I draw your attention to what Aslan says re scripture, the 'many gospels' thing should be considered in the light of some very easy to check history.

As for Peace/War, negotiate/appease etc.

Well the main problem here is that the intigators of war usually are doing it for very clearly defined goals "You have it, but I want it, so I'm going to take it".
This is what happens when populations expand, resources dwindle and we find 'they' have what 'we' need, and the usual course of action is to 'take' for 'my mob'. The invasions and expansions of the Saxons in Brittain is illuminating, how each side simply understood the world in terms of its own group, and all others were simply 'in the way' of the other groups manifest destiny (i.e. to have the nicer farmland currently inhabited by the other group, the celts) how 'just' it was when the Normans came back and kicked saxon butt, aided of course by some Celts of Brittainly who's memories were not dulled by a few generations.

I’m not surprised that a faith based person has trouble understanding reality base thought.
“No serious scholar - even a non-Christian one - would doubt the reliability of the Biblical text. “ Aslan that is so wrong it defies reason. There is simply little secular evidence that concurs with biblical history, in fact it the opposite is the case. However your statement about relativism is a excellent insight into the faith base thought process. Never let facts get in the way of your faith.

Love it - the Xtreme right contingent telling each other how right they are. Of course Aslan & BD U go on thinking how right and superior you both are. All you have achieved is to highlight the articles title "why the Right gets it wrong"

Judging from the positive posts for John McKinnon it would appear that the left does indeed get it.

Kenny objects to my statement that "No serious scholar - even a non-Christian one - would doubt the reliability of the Biblical text."

He adds: "There is simply little secular evidence that concurs with biblical history, in fact it the opposite is the case."

And concludes that I "never let facts get in the way" of my faith.

Well, Kenny, for someone who says they value facts, your posts (on this topic and every other one you have posted on) are totally devoid of facts. Your posts do, however, contains lots of ad hominem - which is normally a good indication of weak or non-existent arguments.

If you disagree with my claim about no serious scholars doubting the reliability of the Biblical text, then all you need to do is cite a reputable scholar who disagrees and the reasons why. I won't hold my breath.

Little secular evidence concurs with Biblical History? You've got to be kidding! Apart from the fact that the Bible refers to people and places for which we have archaeological evidence of their existence, you should spend some time walking around the British Museum. The Museum has even produced a chunky guidebook (on sale in their bookstore) called "The Bible in the British Museum" jam packed full of items that relate to the Biblical record. Or if you are in Rome, check out Titus' arch at the Colosseum end of the Forum. On the inside of the arch their is a wonderful engraving depicting the plundering of Temple treasures - including the unique 7 branched candle-stick depicted EXACTLY as the Bible describes it - after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

Xena, your ad hominem posts are not worthy of a response.

Aslan, absolutes may exist, but how do you know the ones that do are the ones you think they are?
Because the Bible tells you so is a great answer for those who sincerely believe the Bible is the word of God, for those of us who think it is an interesting book of philosophy and history, such an answer means little.
Human beings can, in my view, only be relativist, because the assumption that one set of human beings knows the truth and the other lot doesn't, is really just an opinion. It may be true, but, equally likely, it may not be.
Relativism rules, trying to turn this concept into an insult simply doesn't wash with me. Give me a relativist, a doubter any time ( it may be called humility) over an absolutist. One leaves me room to be me, the other wants me to be just like him/ her. One remains open to new ideas, to growth, the other has decided they already know everything, absolutely.

I agree enaj, and have made almost exactly the same point in these forums when confronted by repetitive claims from the Christian far right that their 'truths' are absolute - simply because they are derived from the Bible, which they believe to be a factual account.

However, I've given up wasting my time debating this with our resident preachers, because their minds are utterly closed to the possibility that their 'absolute' truth and morality are just as relative as those claimed by followers of other religious faiths.

My own perspective is similar to yours: while absolute truths do indeed exist, they are not derived from religious texts or beliefs. I am an advocate of cultural relativism, and since religion and knowledge systems are cultural phenomena, they too are only valid within their own cultural parameters.

No religious morality (or truth) is absolute enough for its proponents to have the right to impose it on those who don't share their religion - which is what our resident Christian zealots persistently attempt to do in these forums.

Aslan I’ve supplied links in the past that you don’t bother reading what’s the point of suppling more, find them yourself?
The Bible history and real history are very different things go to any secular history department in the western world and you will see if you had your eyes one.,
The bible say’s the world was made around 6,000 years ago and the rest of it goes down hill from there. Saying it got a few names right is like saying the movie “Titanic” was historically accurate because it got a few names of some of the passengers right.

Garra, you made the classic mistake of jumping from 'We hold there are absolutes, Biblical ones" to ==> "They want to IMPOSE this on us"

There is no connection between the two. We DO hold there are absolutes, ultimate truths, "God so loved the world, that he gave His only son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life" is one such. How are we 'imposing' this on you ? It is enough that we hold the position, proclaim it, the rest is up to any hearer to do what they wish with it. I resent strongly the attempt to classify and categorize myself or Aslan or any Christian here in the box "You want to IMPOSE your truth on us" .

Firstly do 'impose' such would be unbiblical and a denial of our very faith.
Secondly, as the kid who was told to SIT DOWN by his father at the dinner table, began smiling, and when asked by his dad WHY he is smiling after such a stern rebuke, replied "I'm sitting down on the outside, but on the INside I'm still standing up" ! :) So, imposing truth simply does not work.

We are expressing our view, which is that without a valid and enduring foundation, most choices for 'good' in the field of human endeavor are wishful thinking or sentimentality. We proclaim Christ as "The Way" yes, the only way to salvation and to reconciliation with God. This is not suggesting we are 'superior'- if anything it is a confession of our own sinfulness and recognition of our own need.

Such liberty cannot be imposed, it can only be shared, spoken of, made known.

Aslan,

The raw data you quote cannot be disputed: Agreed.

However, it is risky to assume prolific equates with reliable. Equally, some might say the “Thoughts and Words of Mao” is prolific, but that does not really attest to its reliability. External reliability is best measured by the triangulation of various objective dispassionate sources.

Written Christian scriptures, to the best of my knowledge, first appear a generation after the death of Christ. Pauline writings and the Gnostic gospels much later still. Next, we have the Council of Nicaea (321) trying to sort things out:

Aslan, it is your right to believe what went into the Council of Nicaea equalled what came out of the Council. However, to me, it would seem that “many” gospels were written after the time of the Ebionites and during the time of the Gnostics. Moreover, there were several pre-Nicaean “versions” of the Synoptic gospels.

Further, an interpretation of an inflection can have significant consequences in meaning: e.g., what is bound on Earth by St Peter, and, yes or no to transubstantiation. Likewise, a word, say “alone”, or, more to the point two words, “Sola Fide” can completely change the means to salvation and the concept of “righteous justification” and “substitutionary ransom”. So, it is really not just as insignificant as, did Moses have horns or rays (Just my “testable” example)?

What must be appreciated is, there are “multiple interpretations” of the reasons for The Crucifixion. Moreover, very early Christians were Jewish. There was a schism post the fall of The Temple… later in the time of Hadrian, whereby, Christian Gentiles took one road and the Jewish Christian sect took another road to obscurity. According to accounts by Eubenius, Constantine I (partly?) converted c. 313 to Christianity, after the Battle of Pons Mulvius. Constantine proclaimed 25 December, Christmas Day, in honour of his win and in parallel with the pagan feast of the all-conquering sun god.

To understand what happened, we should not just cite numerous biased, concentrated sources. We must evaluate multiple divergent accounts, testing our position(s) against other findings to better understand history.

It appears the debate has gone off the rails and descended into strongly held and irrelevant opinions that do not tackle the subject of right and left wing political opinion; and what should be a true Christian position on politics. On what are the primary values of relevant Christian based Political Party's philosophy?

It is irrelavent to debate if the Bible has Divine authority, the established authority is the evidence of a life lived to the highest ideals. As Jesus said, "He that has the will do shall know the truth". Truth is enlightenment that releases the mind for the greater blessing of all. It is life giving, it is best known practise, and optimum function. True Christian based life is energetic and passionate about demonstrating the divine graces of character that enhance others wellbeing and improve the function of society. Ideally Christianity is not a dogma, or doctrine or a ritual, it is relationships functioning for the blessing of even an enemy.

Poverty a mind-set
If we observe how two starving men behave if given a bag of grain and a tin can, it will give us a clue as to their attitude and future independence.

The one with a poverty mind-set will store the grain in a safe place and will each day take a handful and boil it in the pot of water and make porridge. One year later he will again line up at the charity distribution for another bag of grain. This man will take no risks, but will sit back till his grain runs out. He did not sacrifice his grain to the elements. His attitude is selfish!

The man that saves half his grain in storeage and scatters the other half in the soil he has cultivated and watered each day, with the tin can, will in six weeks add to his diet green vegetable and in four months a yield of grain ten times the amount he sacrificed to the ground. The next year he gathers twenty times the amount of his needs and is able to assist his neighbour who has just made breakfast with his own grain for the last time, and sell the rest. His attitude is generous!

What has been the difference in the attitude of the two men? As Jesus said he that preserves his life will loose, while he that sacrifices his life will save it. Overcoming poverty means taking risks, and hard work.
Think:
1. Does he give one/tenth to his neighbour as charity so they both have food?
2. Does he sell half his harvest to the neighbour for his neighbours land?
3. If his neighbour steals half; does he put his neighbour in jail for stealing; and feed him porridge?
5. Does he allow his neighbour to starve because of his slothfulness?
6. Suppose his neighbour try to kill him to inherit twenty years supply of grain?

7. Or suppose his neighbour is killed in the struggle?
Who deserves justice? Is the possession and sale of goods a sign of greed as the socialist left imply?

Philo:

Humanism, compassion and empathy are all high human values. Herein, you are correct, we don't need to assert divinity. By your yard-stick, the Gods of Abraham and Moses would not have achieved the standards reported of Jesus' teachings.

So,

The Gods of Abraham and Moses: To the far right

Jesus: The compassionate left

Pauline representations: The compromised left.

Remember, Paul would need to have kept the Greco-Roman Corinthians on short-leads, lest they believe in a truly personal god, without a church.

Oliver
Abraham is very much like Jesus, see his attitude in regard to Lot and the selection of grazing area for their growing flocks. Lot was the 'right wing capitalist' and Abe was the 'compassionate lefty' :)

To see the heart of God the father, have a read of the book of Ruth, it's not only romantic but VERY informative on a cultural social level. You will discover from that book why I use Boaz as my nick here.

If I may digress a tad, in regard to the reliability of oral tradition and the gospels. The traditions were oral initially yes, but guarded by eye witnesses who were present and living. Only as these began to die, were the scriptures recorded in writing (this may not be entirely true, there may have been written ones also). Again, the truthful ones were guarded by the eye witnesses and/or those who knew them well.

This process is quite well illustrated by the Islamic Hadith. There are what they call 'chains of narrators' and the reliability of a particular hadith was based on the same result coming down through different identifiable chains. i.e. different people.

The more one scrutinizes the New Testament specially, the more one will be amazed at the trustworthiness of the documents. I've heard some irrational criticism from VERY scholarly people suggesting that such and such a letter was not written in "Paul's style" so could not be authentic, yet at the end of the said letter, we find it was actually written by an emmanuensus, (secretary) I mean 'duh' :) how flawed is it to say "This is not Pauls style" when the letter openly states its written by his assistant, who gives a personal greeting among the greetings of Paul to the listners.

Appreciating Enaj's post of Wed 11 May..... Respectful and one to respect.

Enaj,

You ask: "absolutes may exist, but how do you know the ones that do are the ones you think they are?"

ie. how do you know who's right and who's wrong? How about the person with the best arguments!?!?

You said: "Human beings can, in my view, only be relativist, because the assumption that one set of human beings knows the truth and the other lot doesn't, is really just an opinion. It may be true, but, equally likely, it may not be."

Let me ask you - do you think your view is right and mine is wrong?

Answer is clearly "yes" otherwise you wouldn't be arguing against my view. As a relativist, you can't say that something is right or wrong because those concepts assume absolute standards. You can only say that *for you* my view is not right.

But this is just *your opinion*. If this is just your personal opinion about the nature of truth and reality, then why are you telling me and everyone else? Why should we care if this is merely what you believe, or feel, is the truth?

You said: "Give me a relativist, a doubter any time (it may be called humility) over an absolutist."

Consider a person who believes that because your car is much nicer than their own, this is, to them, unjust because you clearer got that car by exploiting others and you have another car anyway. Would you object if they feel justified in themselves about stealing your car? You cant say its wrong. It may be wrong, but it may not be.

You said: "[relativism] leaves me room to be me, the other wants me to be just like him/ her. One remains open to new ideas, to growth, the other has decided they already know everything, absolutely."

As a relativist who, by definition, thinks that all points of view are equal, why is it that when I think I am right, I am, by implication, a restrictive, narrow-minded, arrogant know-all, but when you think you are right, you are humble, liberated, and open-minded?

enaj, fiona, garra - respecting all your posts. Thank you for having breadth of thought.

I notice also that you don't insist that others believe as you do, nor do you question the right of others to post their opinions, which is what this forum is all about.

Oliver,

The text of the Bible is not reliable simply because we have many copies. It is reliable because we have many copies that were produced over the centuries dating back to the early 2nd century, and these copies overwhelmingly agree. All differences are either obvious minor copying mistakes or can be resolved by cross-checking them against different families of manuscripts or by quotations and commentary by early church fathers.

Reliability of content can be confirmed by the masses of archaeological discoveries verifying Biblical people, places and events, by references in the Jewish Talmud and by historian Josephus who was a contemporary of Jesus.

BTW, your church history needs some work. The Council of Nicea was in 325 (not 321) and the discussions were about Arius' teachings regarding the divinity of Christ. The Council overwhelmingly rejected Arius' teachings. Neither the text of Scripture nor the Canon was an issue.

You said: "To understand what happened, we should not just cite numerous biased, concentrated sources. We must evaluate multiple divergent accounts, testing our position(s) against other findings to better understand history."

Agreed. This is what textual critics do. Their work is used as the basis for all modern Bible translations.

You said: "What must be appreciated is, there are “multiple interpretations” of the reasons for The Crucifixion"

There may well be "multiple interpretations" but that does not mean that they are all equally valid, coherent, and supported by evidence.

This debate has really lost its way. Now its turning into a "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" diatribe. Yaaawn. This is why I find the more dogmatic posters very dismaying indeed.

However, one thing this forum has shown very clearly is just how open to interpretation the bible really is. There are as many definitions as there are people.

I hope John McKinnon contributes another article to this forum. Although I am an atheist I love a well reasoned and respectful POV.

LOL

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm
every whatch the movie Titanic Aslan?

Ringtail and Fiona you guys seem to be mixed up in a mutual admiration club :) I don't find ANY reference to 'You MUST believe as we do, I find lots of references to 'can you dispute this point with reasonable evidence' which is rather different.

Kenny, well there u go, at least this time I understood you :)
Now, as for Josephus, you missed the goal posts again, "Scholars say" is a pretty lame approach to such a piece of history, but be that as it may, and lets just say for arguments sake, that they passage you refer to IS a later Christian intsertion, a re-writing of history to suit a current view. The intersting thing is, that a possibly more important passage is also in Josephus, which to my knowledge has not been disputed by anyone, and it refers to James the Brother of Jesus, and his execution (James) The arguments against the main passage are weak at best, often resorting to a clearly biased Arabian version which OBVIOUSLY leaves out any strength of text concerning Jesus divinity, because it was edited by Muslims who have a vested interest in Jesus fitting 'their' mould. On the whole, I find the arguments against the authenticity of the main Josephus passage to be from 'silence' and lacking in credibilty, seeming more to reflect a 'I dont WANT to believe' attitude rather than the facts as they stand. I think even judge Higgins would throw out the 'against' arguments.

But to the TOPIC :) surprise x2 ... Lot is a good example of right wing 'shareholder value at any cost' type, and Abraham is a good example of how to trust God for the future, sadly, there is no place for the 'wishful thinkers' on the left of the spectrum who seem to have the idea that others 'should' think as they do. But, as Ringtail once said "I guess its how the brain is wired" People need more than 'hey this is good because it is' to be motivated to compassionate self sacrifice in this very limited lifespan.

Aslan,

I applaud your scholarship and respect your considered argument. Nonetheless, I posit that relying on multitudinous crosschecking over the centuries, merely demonstrates internal consistency.

But the story doesn’t end there. One needs to take more time outside the nuclear environment of a prolific but narrow set of documents. More external sources cross-validating Pliny the Younger and Suetonious would help. Josephus did write about the Roman-Jewish wars but his references to Jesus do not appear until Middle Ages’ manuscripts. Please correct me, if I am wrong.

There are a few early rabbinical references to the person of Jesus. However, Seneca and Pliny the Elder did not seem to feel the activities of Jesus to be the Current Affairs event of the time.

I did plan to attempt some quick internet research prior to this posting, but gave up because of all the Da Vinci Code nonsense. Busy with other studies too.

I stand corrected, 321 refers to the Synod of Alexandria were Arianism was debated, prior to The Council of Nicea in 325. Nonetheless, it would seem that the act of giving Jesus (equal) divine status had the affect of giving the Synoptic gospels canonical authority. According to Ferguson (1958), “A Survey of European Civilizations”, non-conforming gospels and religious works were put to the flame.

But, just to be on the safe side, I now restate my assertion; more gospels came into the fourth century than (canonical) gospels entered the fifth century.

Once, I was privileged to meet an Egyptologist, an expert on Tut Ankh Amon. She told me Egyptian scholars rely on Greek sources rather than Egyptian sources, when studying the Pharaohs. She felt this approach more objective and avoided interventions. Similarly, I once quoted to this Forum’s good friend BOAZ_David, Confucius; “One can not see the face of the mountain from inside the mountain”.

Herein, theists and atheists must externally validate arguments. For example, were we hoping to confirm the skies darkened when Christ died, we could check astronomers’ reports. In this frame, there are bound to be records. If confirmed, we could correct the calendar too :-).

Dear Boaz

you state in your post that "scholar's say is a poor argument". That's strange because you've used exactly that argument in an earlier post. Can we spell hypocrite?

You talk about the text of Josephus. Unfortunately you don't really understand what the hell your talking about. Josephus was a romanised jew. He wrote two extensive works that mention the Jesus of the Gospels. The Antiquities of the Jews & The Jewish Wars.
The reference to Jesus as mentioned in the section of The Antiquities known as the testimonium flavium is KNOWN to be a fake. Why? For two reasons. 1) The writing style is not that of Josephus. But more importantly 2) Josephus argued that the jewish prophecies concerning the messiah refered to one person & one person alone...The Emperor Vespasian.

In order for the passage to which you refer to be authentic Josephus would have had to interrupt his argument mid way through, reverentially talk about how jesus was the messiah, then return to his original thesis that the true messiah was Vespasian.
Somehow I don't find that remotely believeable.

The spurious passages concerning Jesus in Josephus' other opus The Jewish wars are confined solely to an appendix known as the 'Slavonic additions'.

My advice to you & your fellow running dog Aslan is to get your noses out of those fundy books you've been reading & read some real scholars. Better yet try learning latin so you can read Josephus' text in it's original language. Until you can read any text in it's original language, & yes that does include scripture, then you're just playing games when you claim to be interpreting the text.

Bosk the all-knowing

Xena,

Perhaps the discussion has ebbed and flowed with respect to the kernal of the topic. Nonetheless, I have found some postings very interesting.

Atheists and Theists can be equally religious and entrenched. What I would propose is, researcher concurrently hold ascendant and degraded heuristics with respect to knowledge. A bit like mainly believing in the Big Bang, without "totally" throwing-out the idea of the Sold State universe.

Truth is allusive. Essentially, a Greek construct, which was later modified by Peter Abelard and very recently by Michael Polyani.

Building on Lakatos, maybe, we should hold various views, rated by proability. But, we must never rest, we must test our views and the nul hypotheses too.

Given I have raised questions for theists.So to be even handed, here is one for you, Xena. How how can superposition be resolved to create the Universe in Planck time?

BOAZ_David,

I will read Ruth next week. Busy now. I think in Masonic tradition BOAZ is also tied in with one pillar (representing strength?) of the Temple? Need to check. Was BOAZ a progenitor to the House of David?

Cheers to all :-

Oliver, I really doubt that I have given the impression that I profess to be a Quantum Physicist, however I shall do my best:

"In the era around one Planck time, 10-43 seconds, it is projected by present modeling of the fundamental forces that the gravity force begins to differentiate from the other three forces. This is the first of the spontaneous symmetry breaks which lead to the four observed types of interactions in the present universe."

There's more but thats enough for today, kiddies ;-)

ps What has your question got to do with the topic?

Bosk, thanx for your encouraging and upbuilding and sympathetic treatement of me and my fellow 'running dog' Aslan :)

In your signature you neglected to add the adjective 'humble' to "all knowing"

OK.. I'm happy to accept your rather pointed 'bone' at us re Josephus, would you mind giving us your source for the statement "The Jesus statements only appeared from the middle ages onward"

I can claim with confidence that Eusebius writing in 263 refers to Josephus account of both John the Baptist and then of Jesus.

Josephus accounts were known and not challenged from the 3rd century right up to the 12th, only then was it claimed to have problems.

Do I need to say more to show that your claim is fallacial, and just plain wrong ?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm

I'm sure I can dig up many other sources, and we can play 'sort the documents and the chronology' but 350 words is a bit limiting.

So, before you display yourself to the world as a a 'knowitall', check your facts as I have done. Your welcome to challenge the sources I've noted here, but do it with some sources of your own.

'Running dog' <== would that be an indication of where your own nose has been dwelling, somewhere left of marx :) ?

Grace v Law

Christians need balance and wisdom in applying law and grace to present legislation. The Christian view (the kingdom of heaven) is not enshrined and enforced State Law as being edicts from God, which is the primary principle in view in some other major religions where law equates as of more value than the person. Law must serve society for best social order and not society serve the absolutes of the law. Compare what the apostle John says (John 1: 18), “The law was given (to Israel) by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus the Christ”. The focus of the good news from God as revealed through Jesus, is that God loves and values all men equally above the justice of the law and is willing to forgive the vilest offender of His law.

The Christian view is: humans by nature are imperfect, therefore absolutes of religious law must not be enforced otherwise it violates a persons worth and dignity. The Christian view for relationships is that, sacrificial love is voluntarily and not enforced. Those in the kingdom of God live in the Spirit, and do not violate the principles of good relationships, otherwise confession and forgiveness applies. Love for God and neighbour is the character that guides those in the kingdom of God - not law. The Divine graces cannot be enforced as law. Law deals with a violation of an accepted standard of behaviour other than perfect. Under the perfect standard of divine graces we have all failed, therefore some level of penalty applies to the pain we caused. Because we have violated God’s perfect relationship we now require a greater level of tolerance as acceptable within society.

The fact is a Christian world-view places the value of the person over the justice of the law. It is the basis of a Christian view that a person is innocent till a court proves his guilt, unlike other tribunal systems where the offender is guilty and he must prove his innocence. The Divine value of humanity itself influences the Christian formation of State law

Grace of God toward law breakers

Australians have previously been influenced by the words of the Christian “Our Father” community prayer as taught by Jesus, “we forgive those who have offended us”, which demonstrates a level of tolerance and our release of persons causing us pain. It is a grace of tolerance to turn the other cheek when falsely accused. This is the demonstrated behaviour of Christ who when reviled did not revile back, and at his crucifixion said, “Father forgive them because they do not understand what they do”. The intolerant Judaist lawyers were enforcing the punishments for their religious law of blasphemy upon Jesus because his speech had violated their law. Judge Higgins please recognise Jesus was put to death for his words.

The religious vilification tribunals established in Victoria upon the recommendation of the Multicultural Foundation do not equate to a Christian world-view of freedom and the grace of tolerance for an offending individual, i.e. verbal vilification has now become an offence, whereas Jesus encouraged us to forgive such false verbal accusations made against us. Matthew 5:11 “Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake”. Jesus was condemned to death by the lawyers of the ancient Judaist religion because they believed his words were blasphemy. Islam has adapted this Mosaic and Talmud law and view Shari’ah law as more important than the person

Philo the problem with your theist is that whenever a Christian theocracy has implemented a justice system it does not look anything like what you’ve said. Christians have been just as zealous in killing people it don’t like. Western style Christianity has been shaped and quietened by the rise of secular humanistic ideas.
BOAZ_DAVID there were many incorrect “truth” that were not challenged during the dark ages of Christian ruled Europe like the flat Earth?
The point that needs to be remember about old Flavius works of Jewish history and while it indeed an excellent source, it does contains many errors and omissions.

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/JOSEPHUS.HTM

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.htm

After all that's been said, I still find it refreshing to be able to imagine Christians who don't assume an entitlement to insert themselves into other adults' sex lives, or to interfere in other people's families (and family size) and who don't try to twist biblical fundamentalisms to serve their own political dogmas.

Pity this forum seems to be more of a magnet for argument than agreement. Note: before any of the usual suspects here purse your lips and tap out a finger-pointing riposte at me, let me say I include myself in that. I certainly didn't start posting here with a view to being pursuaded by your numerous posts to a dogmatic position that says it's OK (even morally virtuous) for you to interfere and impose your mantras on me.

To Aslan (10 May, 12.32) - All writing (regardless of the writers' intentions) is subject to interpretation by everyone who reads it. If you mean that only someone like YOU can interpret passages of the bible correctly, unlike someone like ME - well isn't THAT a convenient argument. You win!

And you ask me how I interpret Rom 1:26-27 - well I don't. It's writing. Not evidence. No contest. No-one wins!

Best of all, your opinion that "by telling Boaz not to impose, [I am] imposing on Boaz". Yep, if that's what 'imposing' privacy rights and respecting private lives means. But let's examine this concept: if I insist (as I do) on respecting some stranger's privacy and I refuse to barge into his 'house' without his/her? permission, do you seriously believe I am imposing more than that stranger who wants to barge in on mine. You gotta be kidding! But I'll be generous - you win!

I don't envy your certitude, but two-out-of-three ain't bad!

Oliver,

Yes, there were numerous other "gospels" but these were rejected because they conflicted with the OT scriptures, were clearly occultic, conflicted with the gospels that no-one disputed, were totally contradictory to long established tradition and practice etc etc. See the standard reference works on the NT Canon by FF Bruce and Bruce Metzger.

You said: "Truth is allusive. Essentially, a Greek construct"

Consider this statement: "It is always wrong to torture babies for fun."

Is this statement true - or is it a "construct"?

Bosk,

I don't read fundy books. And I was never referring to testimonium flavium which I agree is highly likely to be a fake. Boaz already referred to the passage about Jesus' brother James.

Kenny,

you said: "whenever a Christian theocracy has implemented a justice system it does not look anything like what you’ve said. Christians have been just as zealous in killing people it don’t like. Western style Christianity has been shaped and quietened by the rise of secular humanistic ideas."

Not sure what you mean by Christian theocracy. However, a Christian worldview established the legal systems of England, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Our own constitution acknowledges the blessings of God.

Persecution by Christians is extremely rare in history. You have it the wrong way around: the greatest amount of killing was done by non-Christians. RJ Rummell in his book "Death by Government" docouments that 170+ million people were killed (conservative estimate) by their own governments. The ideas that led to this slaughter did not come from Christianity - most of them came from Socialism and Secular Humanism. And Rummell didn't count all those babies murdured in their mother's wombs...

And very few educated people - Christian or not - believed in a flat earth. That is historical nonsense invented by fiction writer Washington Irving. The British Historical Society noted that this is one of the biggest historical fallacies of all time.

Kenny, you really need to check your facts before you post because otherwise you just end up looking very silly.

Dear Boaz

I said NOTHING about any addition to Josephus during the middle ages. It seems you need reading glasses. Nor did I identify Myself as a follower of Marx. Does everyone who oppose you & your ideas have to be left wing? As a matter of fact I believe that the binary oposites of right wing & left wing are obsolete in today's political climate. My opposition to your views springs from the fact that I used to be a fundie. I was the bigot's bigot. Yes Boaz even moreso than you & Aslan. That is until I started to study ancient history (I hold a Master's in it), & Logic (An honours). Care to debate? I can assure you the sources you refer to are disreputable in the extreme. But then I've found, to My great regret at the time, so many fundie publications, Josh McDowel, Harold Hill, et al quite deliberately twist their information to suit their theological views.

Remember i WAS a fundie. I've read, & regretably believed, the stuff that your quoting now. How can this be? Because most fundie books are incestuous. They quote each other endlessly & rehash each others ideas.

Bosk the humble & all knowing :)

Thanks for reminding me.

PS: I can refer you to the book number of Josephus if you like. However I would like to ask how you intend to look it up since you seem to be getting your information from excerts in a christian apologetics book. Pssst. How do you know their ideas aren't just misinformation unless you look it up yourself? Just like I did.

Astounding post Bosk - inspiring, refreshing. There a few absolutes but to continue to learn, keep an open mind is a good one.

Xena,

I liked your quantum physics reply and note your good efforts to keep us all on the original right-left topic. :-) Herein, there has been some contributor drift – no doubt. Nonetheless, I feel some of the issues raised are important, maybe justifying a few asides.

With the Planck Time thing on one level, I was just having a little joke. Well, I was trying at least. On a more serious level, I was saying that if a Christian theist needs to justify contradictions in the Bible, why shouldn’t an atheist explain how the physics of the Big Bang fits in with Schrödinger’s cat paradox. Superposition would suggest the need for an “observer” to resolve the paradox to allow the creation of four-dimensional space-time. Who was the observer?

... and that’s why you see, creation can be. Since observed by,

Yours faithfully, God.

(With thanks to Ronald Knox)

My point is that whether you are a theist or atheist you need to test propositions and, even try to develop arguments against your own position. Don’t merely indwell in the domain of the like minded. Change roles and think through what other equally intelligent people are saying and LISTEN. Herein, never rest on a final position. Search, search and search again. Question, question and question again.

(My own views are, (a) that there is too little known about Jesus to convincingly label him divine, (b) quantum physics needs to resolve many in-house issues, before it tries to establish a Theory of Everything with Cosmology, and (c) recent ideas about the self-organising properties of matter are highly worthy of investigation.). In all cases, we need more input and propositions framed in refutable constructs. In sum, we need more thinking, more revision and fewer embedded advocacies.

Bosk, I'll second Ringtail's comments. Great post.

Fiona, I've been trying to think of a good parallel to get a different look on some of what you are saying (re telling others not to try and tell you how to run your life) and the confusion that has caused some. I'm not there yet but it occurs to me that the following might do.

You want to have a nice quiet evening at home (a long soak in the bath/watch a favourite tv show/read an interesting book etc) so you lock the door on home. That should post a strong message to others not to wander in. Someone else's plan for the evening includes a visit to you (uninvited and unwanted by you) so they consider it OK to force a window open to come visit. Their visit is important, you might be reading a book they don't like or watching something they don't approve of.

Very different ethical and behavioural issues in my view, I still can't understand why some think that they are the same.

I quite like that analogy, Robert. When, as occasionally used to happen, godbotherers of one brand or another would darken my doorstep in order to try and preach whatever nonsense they were into, I would meet them at the gate and politely but very firmly tell them that I'm not interested. If they persisted, they would then have to contend with the dog loose in the yard in order to reach the door. If, despite all reasonable attempts of mine to preserve my 'peace and quiet enjoyment' they still persisted in invading my personal space they would either be invited in for a satanic ritual or an orgy, depending on my mood. They haven't been back.

I employ a similar approach to the pests who telephone me trying to sell my stuff I neither need nor want, except I tend to be less polite.

As for these forums - I've learnt that to engage these religious nutters only encourages them. It's the equivalent of the foot in the door or talking to a telesales drone. So now I just talk about them sometimes with reasonable people, but only when it amuses me.

Oliver, thanks for the reply I found it very interesting and appreciate the points you made.

I will continue to question, try to keep an open mind. This article has certainly brought in some fresh ideas. Enjoying that.

The world as we know it has ended aarrgh.. Xena is being NICE, Bosk admits to his newfound humility, and Ringtail.. well just needs another pat :) (becos she is always nice)

Now Bosk, I need to 'deal' with you me boy :)

How do u know that I also don't have umpteen zillion degrees phd's etc etc..... hmmm ? and in similar topics. I'll bet I know your answer, 'because the stuff you posted showed you are thus and so" :) well, there are limits to how much one can source and sift in 350 words. So, ones selection is not neccessarily an indication of ones overall position.

OH. I don't have any degrees, :) I'm a humble techician who never went to uni, so clearly you have it all over me right ? 0_-
But I know a bit about sources, and delving into issues to the appropriate level, and recognizing incestuous re-hashing of material.

Former FUNDY ? aarggh again, nothing worse than a reformed smoker eh :) allllways picks on the other smokers with a passion unrivaled by even Pastor Fred Phelps.

You claim I should 'trust you' about Josephus being flawed, well, 'why' ? You should back that claim up with a chain of evidence, not just a source, and each link in the chain should have some comment about 'why' they view things as they do, including what kind of daddy they had :).... (see the other thread about atheism and fathers)

We could debate Archeology if u like, my good buddy Dr Cliff Wilson will be my brains trust :) he has done digs in Israel among other places.

What a pity we are not all in Melbourne, we could have a nice get together and rip each other to pieces until we actually do know where the others are coming from. I strongly sense most of us are viewing the rest thru very stererotyped blinkers

Garra
it might surprise you but I tend to take a similar approach to JW's and Mormons. (not the invite to a satanic ritual or orgy though)....

We don't come here invading anyone's space, we contribute freely. Its just that you dont agree with us :) and that's your personal choice.

blessings

Kenny,
Nations call themselves “Christian” but they have enshrined Mosaic Law, rather than the grace principles Jesus taught. Jesus taught the divine character graces such as, “love your enemy” as evidence of being a child of the kingdom of God. Nowhere in the New Testament is the use of violence or death encouraged against unbelievers. Unlike the Qur’anic theme: god hates infidels and this calls for jihad. True followers of Christ do not kill offenders of the divine law, because they believe all men have violated the divine law, and now God offers all forgiveness and new-life. Unfortunately the grace-based teaching of Christ of the first 300 years AD gave way to the Holy Roman Empire’s syncretised version of Christianity.

A religion or philosophy that enshrined absolutes within State law will punish violators by death (eg a woman caught in adultery must be stoned under Mosaic and Shari’ah law, whereas Jesus released her saying, “go and sin no more”). Law doesn’t give life and freedom from its penalty, forgiveness is a grace offered by society. Jesus death as punishment announced the new covenant atonement for violation of the divine law. When Christians formulate State law, they should have in their minds the concept of true repentance and rehabilitation, rather than revenge as justice causing actual or financial pain or death. Citizens may desire lesser penalties for tax or road violations, but when they suffer injury or pain they may expect equal injury or pain as justice.

Taliban Islamist follow the Shari’ah law and endeavour to enforce a perfect religious State in the Earth according to what they believe are divine absolutes. They equate divine law as equivalent to the State law. Whereas Christians believe the punishment of God is finally applied upon unatoned violation of the divine law after death when we stands alone before God and justify attitudes and deeds. That is why Christian faith must be personal and not enforced as totalitarian law. Because the primary character of God is: sacrifical love and forgiveness available for all, rather than punishment being the basis of State law

Law v Grace
The apostle Paul, a convert to Christ from Judaism, who had formerly killed followers of Christ with the endorsed authority of his Judaist religion, wrote the following passage after his conversion. He himself was ultimately put to death under Roman law upon false charges brought by the Judaists.

Galatians 5: 13 "Brothers you were called for freedom; but do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh, but through love be servants of one to another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: You shall love thy neighbor as yourself. 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by bitterness. 16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh conflicts with the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in battle the one with the other; so that you may not do the things that you should. 18 But if you are lead by the Spirit of God, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, 21 envy, drunkenness, reveling, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things do not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 meekness, self-control; against such there is no law. 24 And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts. 25 If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit we shall also walk"

The apostle Paul, a convert to Christ from Judaism, who had personally killed followers of Christ with the endorsed authority of his Judaist religion, wrote the following passage after his conversion. He himself was ultimately put to death under Roman law upon false charges brought by the Judaists.

Galatians 5: 13 Brothers you were called for freedom; but do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh, but through love be servants of one to another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: You shall love thy neighbor as yourself. 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by bitterness. 16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh conflicts with the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in battle the one with the other; so that you may not do the things that you should. 18 But if you are lead by the Spirit of God, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, 21 envy, drunkenness, reveling, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things do not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 meekness, self-control; against such there is no law. 24 And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts. 25 If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit we shall also walk

Ah boaz, boaz

What am I to do with you boy? Cliff Wilson is a complete & utter fundie. TOTALLY unable to use the inductive method he was taught when it would challenge his theological position.

I've already said I don't trust fundies as far as I can throw them. Your answer? Propose the thoughts of another fundie! But that's fundie logic (?) for you. :D By the way love the analogy of Me giving up fundamentalism with an ex-smoker giving up smoking. Especially since I would argue both smoking & fundamentalism are poisonous to the person indulging.

Dear Aslan

My sincere apologies for lumping you in with Boaz here. It's just that your posts sounded so much like the tripe I was spouting 30 years ago.

If you're an interested layman, try reading "It aint's necessarily so..." by Matthew Sturgis (it is an excellent popularisation of modern archaeology). Or try "Testament" by John Romer. Both will explain that archaeological concensus holds the position that archaeological evidence & the bible don't agree most of the time. For example when Joshua crossed the jordan he & his forces conquered Jericho & AI according to scripture. But both cities were abandoned by Joshua's time.

Bosk,

Your logic seems to be: if written by a fundamentalist who believes their argument, it can't be so; if written by a secularist who believes their argument, it must be so.

The writer does not matter but their arguments, and their source, do.

I am afraid you are making the technician appear the superior logician.

But you had already lost me when you started trotting out those degrees. Pseudonyms are a great leveller; they allow the professor to argue with the milk-maid - we know nothing of the poster except their argument. Now we know something of you and I, for one, would rather not,

Pez

There's certainly mix of contributors here and it may well range from professors to diary boys and girls, Pez. One variety that doesn't seem to be here in appreciable numbers is what I will (for convenient differentiation, but respectfully) call the "small-c" Christian - the kind who prefers to live their life in ways that might attract others to the values they believe in, rather than the self-righteous, argumentative, sarcastic, I've-got-the-bible-on-my-side-so-prove-me-wrong hectoring types who seem drawn to these forums like moths to the 40 watt bulb.

Really I'm grateful to know some Christians who aren't in the least bit like some of the putative 'Christians' above, whose approach is utterly repellent.

Dear Ringtail & RObert

I am grateful for your praise. Thank you so very much. My (yes let's use the word) bigoted period is not something that I'm very proud of. I wish I could blame it all on fundamentalism but I can't. True I was lied to & tricked but my bias, ignorance & egotism were all my own doing. Faults i am struggling to correct.

Dear Pez

You are of course quite correct. Allow me to rephrase. Any authority who privileges his/her own position by, for example, using induction to examine their opponents evidence but never their own; who demands that the principle of falsifiability be accepted by their opponent but refuses to use it themselves are, I would contend, indulging in illogic & bias. It is illogical therefore to look upon such an authority as a reasonable source of information. Hence my statement. PS: If I have given anyone the impression that secular authorities are always correct then you have my profound apologies. I can think of 3 scholars off the top of my head whose opinion I prize & who are extremely devout. 2 are christian & 1 is jewish. But they are prepared to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Even if it goes against their faith. It is scholars like those that have taught me the importance of allegience to the truth above all!!
Bosk the 99.9% all-knowing

Aslan,

TRUTH:

Many popular Greek philosophers used, and, Greek influenced teachers, use, the technique of Dialogue, where, there is a Master and Learner in discourse. The Master carefully moves the Learner to a revealed truth. Peter Abelard took issue with this notion of following others to reveal the orthodox truths. Herein, in Sic et Non, Abelard (1120) states:

“There are many seeming contradictions and even obscurities in the innumerable writings of the church fathers. Our respect for their authority should not stand in the way of an effort on our part to come at the truth…. In view of these considerations, I have ventured to bring together various dicta of the holy fathers, as they came to mind, and to formulate certain questions, which were suggested by the seeming contradictions in the statements. These questions ought to serve to excite tender readers to a zealous inquiry into truth and so sharpen their wits…. By doubting we come to examine, and by examining we reach the truth.”

Moreover, Abelard (1120), also suggests that the Churches dodge issues by blaming the scribes, not political theologians, for the discrepancies in the scriptures:

“In the Scriptures, when anything strikes us as absurd, we may not say that the writer erred, but that the scribe made a blunder in copying the manuscripts, or that there is an error in interpretation, or that the passage is not understood. The fathers make a very careful distinction between the Scriptures and later works. They advocate a discriminating, not to say suspicious, use of the writings of their own contemporaries.”

Thus, Abelard argues, in the words of Elvis Presley, “A Suspicious Mind”. Think and research for yourself, don’t accept truth from authorities, unguardedly. Don’t accept scholars blaming the scribes.

Abelard was outspoken on the above and passionate in many ways. As a result, he lost his keys to the Ecumenical Council.

I will draw a conclusion with the next posting. I won’t post immediately below, lest I am in breach of the Forum protocols.

Word limit … to be continued

p.s. I know there are other Greek schools.

Imputed righteousness
Divine law is absolute: State law is relative. Societies apply variations of relative standards. As behaviour descends from divine law it becomes more morally decadent. Divine law identifies the absolute perfect character, while State law identifies an acceptable or tolerable standard of social behaviour. Every society will set different benchmarks where behaviour becomes unacceptable before applying penalties.

If one keeps the absolutes of divine law no punishment applies, but one offence and penalties apply. The penalty for violation of divine law is the separation of our spirit from the absolute holiness of God. Because we have all violated the divine standard, this is the reason the NT talks about imputed righteousness to sinners so they can be reconciled to God. This is the message of Christianity: that Christ paid for us the penalty of divine law. Christianity is not about the balance of our good deeds against our misdemeanours; such theology is Zoroastrianism.

The Mosaic Law required the payment of life to reconcile the difference. Christianity is about our faith in the death of Jesus Christ to atone for our falling short of divine law. That God in grace imputes perfect righteousness to us who accept this covenant. The Christian position is: there is none who has lived as God intended therefore we are all guilty. The good news is that He has imputed righteousness to us who have turned away from sin and now aspire to follow in His Spirit.

Jesus said, Matthew. 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law… I have not come to abolish but to fulfill them. 18 … until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven … 22 … anyone who is angry with his brother without cause will be subject to judgment…and in danger of the fire of hell.

Christ and the Lawyers

Christ identified that the standards that the Judaist Judges of the law were applying condemned even them. They were administering what they supposed was the divine law while they were less than perfect. They had hatred in their hearts for him. Jesus taught that if one even hates his brother then the divine law had been violated. The Judaists believed they were applying the penalties of divine law by stoning adulterers, or blasphemers. Jesus released a woman caught in the very act of adultery and for blasphemy he was threatened by stoning.

The fact is when mere mortals assume to administer divine law they become obsessed with punishment rather than the gracious nature of God who makes reconciliation possible. The true Christian position is to teach the character of divine behaviour and encourage aspirants to live in the Spirit this is above any standard set by society. The true Christian aspires for the perfection of character that is represented by absolutes of divine law, whereas the natural desires are focused toward lesser values and such a person is in need of repentance.

Leftwing Christians, excuse or condone behaviours that are well within human capacity to correct. Example: They condone the slaughter of innocent children in the womb, while they protest about the war. Their aspirations are not toward perfecting behaviour but of excusing or ignoring the behaviour. They expect acceptance while they undermine social values. They want to continue in their behaviours that they have no real intention to abandon, yet expect forgiveness.

Because right wing Christians identify sin it is easier for them to see it lived out in others rather than themselves. The Right need to practise the encouragement of love and self-awareness to save others from the downward spiral into unrighteous behaviours.

Mt. 7:12 “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law”. The balance is making State law is to causes some conviction for unacceptable behaviour while upholding the focus upon worship, tolerance and forgiveness as the perfect character – God

Well this is really good ! :)
Bosk, I'm sending the cheque to Pez for his support in due course :))
kidding, but I did appreciate his input there.

Bosky, I know Clif is a 'fundy' in some senses, but he is also an enquiring mind and a hands on Archeologist. He would without question write from a conservative evangelical viewpoint, but not as you put it 'without reference to evidence'.

The weakest part of your position is that you assume most scholars do in fact follow where the evidence leads, rather than where they would LIKE the evidence to take them. To indulge this misconception would almost be an insult to your intelligence because you know its not the case, because ego is so much at work, and the desire to 'snatch the next batch of funding' etc. The old 'publish or perish' is also at work and many other influential pressures on scientists.

My view, without apology, is that what I cannot reconcile with the Biblical record, I'll withhold judgement about until more information is available. The reason for this is well founded on the many instances where it has proven the appropriate pathway, as the bible has been shown to be correct. There are still issues which are unresolved and I accept these as 'a work in process'.

Bigotry is quite different from a sincerely held faith conviction, unless u want to lump all people who hold a sincere belief in the 'bigot' basket.
Our belief is based on primarily an encounter with Christ. This immediately makes us 'hyper subjective' :) wow, confession eh :)

I've met people like the 'old' you, and they are rather obnoxious.

FIONA yes, Pez expressed his view very well. But I still feel you are so 'anti' that anyone who expresses a view with is tighter than a handful of earthworms ranks as a bigot to you. Your position is quite noticably rigid, so I hope you can see past that 'beam' in ur eye dear :)

Dear Boaz

I fear that I have been badly explaining myself. I'm alleging that cliff wilson privileges his own point of view. That is he demands more evidence from others who hold an alternate opinion than he would think fair if they demanded it of him. I've seen this before, people who demand 100% proof before they'll accept that their wrong but argue for their position on the basis that SOME evidence supports it.

On your point about some scholars not being totally honest, I couldn't agree more. Although this is not restricted solely to scholars. For instance see the Answers in Genesis group who quite regularly create whatever evidence is required.

Now because of your generous admission here's one from myself. While most traditionalist biblical scholars would agree that evidence for the invasion of Israel by Joshua is sorely lacking they would argue that some invasions left little to no evidence of the event (e.g. the Norman invasion of England). They would also use the phrase that was pounded into my head by my lecturers "Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence). And they look forward to the day that evidence will come to light that will support the biblical account.

To me however & a large number of archaeologists, some of whom have made working at sites like Ai & Jericho their life's work, this is an exercise in futility. I compare it to this: at one point the Roman Catholic Church held that the sun went round the Earth. In Gallilleo's trial they even quoted scripture. I'm sure that when it became more & more certain that the Sun, not the Earth, was the centre of the solar system some clerics looked forward to the day when evidence would be found that proved their view of scipture right. It didn't happen & now most christians would interpret verses that speak of the sun going round the Earth in a poetic manner.

I wish you well Boaz
Bosk

Boazdavid you have missed the point in your haste to share your feelings about my posts.

BIGOTRY
There are plenty of people who possess thoroughly obnoxious, absurdly off-the-mark negative stereotypical views about others (other races, cultures, religion, gender, sexuality, lifestyle; other other other). Fortunately some have been touched by enough good manners, civility, respect-for-privacy or plain old self-preserving don't-offend-lest-they-offend-back insight - to resist the impulse to impose their opinions on others.

I have opinions and beliefs I expect some others would find odious. Unlike some, I don't demand they conform with my lifestyle or agree with me and accept as truth the books I may choose to nominate as revealing some kind of truth.

It is not difference of opinion or the expression of views to which I take offense. Read my posts instead of kneejerking with cheap, childish, sarcastic shots boazdavid - it is the IMPOSITION of opinions, laws, moral and culture wars with the intention of enforcing a strict lifestyle code - that I find deeply offensive.

Like for instance, people, who imagine their entitlement and then seek (eg. through influencing law making) to prevent particular combinations and kinds of people from marrying, migrating, having (or not having) children, etc. I call that bigotry.

BEING RIGID
Boaz, you of all post-ers comment on my "noticably rigid position"..... <pause here for mirthless chuckle>

I have a commitment to such principles as live-and-let-live and do-no-harm and respecting the autonomy of individuals. A pretty rigid commitment to those things too, I hope. And nothing I have read here has influenced me to think that I should instead accept the imposition of some people's allegedly biblically based positions on various issues (albeit that there's disagreement as to interpretation anyway), or influenced me to assume I am just as entitled to be an imposer as impose-ee..... I won't even pretend I was amenable to trading my values when I first posted here bd. Did you? Rigid? For failing to agree with you? OK, then yep, call me rigid.

EARTHWORMS?
Don't know much about them bd, but I understand they're very good with bullsh**

Bosk,

I too have an Honurs in logic and a Masters in Biblical Studies and Theology. I can read the original texts in both Hebrew and Greek. I can also struggle through most Latin texts. My studies in the original texts have led me to my conclusions not "fundie" textbooks. I put it to you that your views are simply regurgitations of "liberal" textbooks. For example, your comments regarding the destruction of Jericho & AI are the standard liberal objections to Biblical history. However, you must know that such objection are based on a disputed and problematic chronology resulting from the inherent difficulties of constructing a Hebrew chronology based on Egyptian chronologies. You should check out Ken Kitchen's (Emeritus Professor of Egyptology and Archaeology, University of Liverpool) book "On the Reliability of the Old Testament".

I agree with Pez - your argue is siply that "fundies" are always wrong and "liberals" are always right.

You were foolish enough to uncritically accept everything "fundies" told you before, and now you uncritically accept everything liberals tell you.

Oliver,

Not entirely sure what you are getting at. The Greeks philosophers rejected relativistic teaching. They held to the correspondence view, or to paraphrase Aristotle: "If you say it is and it is, or if you say it isn't and it isn't - thats true. If you say it is and it isn't, or if you say it isn't and it is - thats false."
See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

Any "contradictions" in Scripture are only "apparent" ones and can be easily resolved if you bother to do your homework. There are no actual contradictions.

Why should I believe anything Abelard says?

Fiona dear.... Look at bosk, and learn :)
See how well we are getting along in our differences ? No name calling, no 'forcing', not 'turn or burn', no "your Infantile" just a steady working through issues.

What you miss also, in the field of culture, law and society is that the existence of a law, then the repealing of that law, thru political activism, is quite ok for you, (when its a law you don't like) but the RE-imposition of such laws by the SAME democratic means is suddenly anathema to you and those members of the community driving that agenda who well may be a majority, are now in your mind "bigoted, narrow minded, infantile etc etc etc". The fairness of this somehow escapes me.

I think if we did a word analysis of your posts and mine, (Calling TIMKINS)we would discover a considerable number of ad hominims and personal attacks from you to me, but from me its pretty much the issues. I never did like to play the man in footy. I think the most forceful I've used is "you are rigid" which seems reasonable to me based on the evidence.

I'm rigid too, and entitled to be. I dont recall any of my posts saying YOU MUST follow this or that. I have explained the claims of Christ, but not DEMANDED you obey them. So, where is all this 'you want to impose, you demand, you want to force" coming from ? perhaps in your own mind ? :) With the exception of course, to any reference to legislative change for which I democratically do not apologise.

BOSK as for Cliff, I know he is human :) and fallable. I'll avoid getting into a 'my scholar can kick your scholar's butt' thing. In fact he always calls me by my COUSIN'S name, but I'm getting him trained ..gradually.

FIONA again, wait till I get started on the 'autonomy of women' and what they should wear .. if I irritate you now, I'll send u off the deep end with my views there :)

[Post deleted for flaming. Poster has been suspended for 24 hours]

Aslan,

Thanks for your reply and reference, which I will read with interest.

You asked, consider this statement: “ ‘It is always wrong to torture babies for fun’ ”. Is the sentence a “true statement” or “a construct”?

I would say it is a statement of opinion, with which, many people including me would agree. A psychopath might hold the statement to be false. Right and wrong are very spurious for the creation of refutable constructs.

I was referring to one particular style of Greek dialogue, as previously described. It you have a copy of Conjectures and Refutations (Karl Popper) on your bookshelf, have a look at Chapter 14, the dialogue between Theaetetus and Socrates. The naïve learner is “lead’ by the master. I feel Abelard took issue with this form of construction, because the learner is too passive in the process of learning. Instead, we should always question.

You shouldn’t believe Abelard or the writers of the gospels. You should question all. Thus, ironically and paradoxically, Abelard’s advice would apply to himself. Here, we are left with the situation, wherein, we build propositions, walls, if you like. Having built the wall, we, ourselves, test for the loose brick. Here, Nobel Laureate, Sir John Carew Eccles, states, “I can now rejoice even in the falsification of a cherished theory, because even this is a scientific success”

Bosk,

I never said "no scholar disputes the accuracy of the biblical text" nor did I backtrack. What I said was "no SERIOUS scholar - even a non-Christian one - would doubt the RELIABILITY of the Biblical text."

Furthermore, that particular statement was actually refering to the reliability of the Biblical text itself, not the truth of its content. I am well aware of Kenyon & Finkelstein etc. They are the one's I was referring to in my last post concerning the dating of Jericho and AI. Therefore, not only have you attributed to me what I never said, and misquoted what I did say, you have also "quoted" me out of context. THAT, Bosk, is DISHONEST scholarship!

I would imagine that whatever credibility you had has just evaporated.

I note the ad hominem at the end of post ie. calling me a bigot and telling me to go hang myself.

Ad hominem est ad nauseum. And its a sure sign of weak or non-existent arguments.

Oliver,

In resposne to my proposition, "It is always wrong to torture babies for fun", You said "I would say it is a statement of opinion, with which, many people including me would agree. A psychopath might hold the statement to be false."

If its merely a matter of opinion then what right to do you have to call someone who disagrees a psychopath? Surely, he is no different to someone who prefers coffee with 3 sugars rather than your one sugar (for eg)? In fact, if you really believe what you said then you should object to all criminal proceedings since they ultimately arbitrary. Why should one or more person's opinion be held above someone else's differing opinion?

PART ONE

Wow… That was a quick response.

I used the word psychopath because the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders would likely have a similar (perhaps more technical) designation for baby killers and thrill killers. People having a sweet tooth are not listed.

Re: baby killing. My point was a fraction of the community hold one opinion, and, the vast majority would have another opinion on baby killing. Both groups hold an opinion.

When categorising behaviours anthropologists refer to etic and emic behaviours in the vast majority of contemporary societies (not all) baby killing is condemned. It is probably safe to call this etic behaviour. In a society, having a prohibition against the ingestion of pork or “sugar” is emic behaviour. That is, the custom is localised.

Personally, in my opinion, I do not object to all criminal proceedings. All I was saying is criminals hold opinions at the time of the crime. So does, the Judge, the Jury and the Public, before and afterwards. Extreme anarchists might disagree with laws altogether. Again, an opinion.

In conclusion, when you asked me, whether your sentence was (a) a true statement, or, (b) a construct; I, chose, (c) an opinion. I could not connect with the options offered, for the reasons previously stated.

PART TWO

What did you think about Abelard’s remarks? If Abelard himself posted the citation, what would be your reply?

Thank you for your engagement in this debate.

Aslan – you said, “that particular statement was actually refering [sic] to the reliability of the Biblical text itself, not the truth of its content” – what then is ‘reliability’ in this context, if not ‘truth’? Surely the ‘reliability’ of the Biblical text has got everything to do with one’s assessment of its truthfulness? Or by ‘reliability’ are you talking about the Bible being a dependable door-stop, or some other practical use?

I do not agree with you about Bosk’s credibility having evaporated, Aslan. On the contrary, Bosk’s comments, as well as those of Oliver and Fiona, are highly credible,I think, and a breath of fresh air in this otherwise very stale discussion.

BOAZ-David – I think you should stop picking on Fiona. You’re beginning to look suspiciously misogynous. “Wait till I get started on the ‘autonomy of women’ and what they should wear” How very patronising.

Bosk – I admire your bravery in admitting your former narrow-mindedness. I am curious to know what a self-confessed former bigot such as yourself now thinks about homosexuality?

Jane

Jane, thanks for your comments, although I think it worth noting that boazdavid's continuing jousts are off the point, increasingly puerile and snide - making him come across as a bit, well, idiotic.

Fiona, now we add 'idiotic' to your list of 'name calling' ? I have little regard for the opinions of name callers Fiona.

And Jane wonders why I focus on you ? You are the one calling me names, ridiculing my position, so, I guess the sharpest needle gets the 'ouch' response.

Jane, as for sounding mysoginistic, have a read of my post on the 'sex lies etc' thread, it should really get you going.

I deliberately make provocative statements in these areas (female autonomy etc) because it opens up some valuable areas of much needed discussion. We have one very sick society, which keeps on claiming it is making wonderful progress, while it falls apart around us. (morally)

Jane, let me repeat one very firm assertion I made in the other thread, "Females have ZERO autonomy apart from power relationships with males". (even the protection of the law relies on such power relationships) U think thats over the top ? I'll debate the accuracy of that statement without so much as one reference to the scriptures and I guarantee I will win that debate :) I may not win any new friends, but I assure you this is a fact of life that is not easily defeated. Having said that, a good read of the book of Ruth in the Old Testament will not only show the social reality of this, it will also show how DIFFERENT things are when a man puts God first in his heart and life. (in regard to his behavior toward women)

Jane, don't confuse a vigorous debate with Fiona as an attitude against women, I take people as the are and represent themselves.

Call this a vigorous debate, boazdavid? Oh you dear little man.

Jane,

You ask: "what then is ‘reliability’ in this context, if not ‘truth’? Surely the ‘reliability’ of the Biblical text has got everything to do with one’s assessment of its truthfulness?"

If you look at my post on this matter it is clear that reliability relates to actual text of the Bible. ie. we can be sure that the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 - Beresit bara elohim et hassamayim wa'et ha'arets - is what Moses actually recorded, and the Greek text of John 1:1 - EN ARXH HN hO LOGOS, KAI hO LOGOS HN PROS TON THEON, KAI THEOS EN hO LOGOS - was what John actually wrote.

Oliver,

Why would the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders have such a designation for baby killers and thrill killers and not for people with a sweet tooth?

You said:"My point was a fraction of the community hold one opinion, and, the vast majority would have another opinion on baby killing. Both groups hold an opinion."

Does that mean that truth and morality is decided by the majority?

Regarding "etic" and "emic" behaviours, why do anthropologists makes such distinctions? How do they decide what is etic and what is emic? On your view isn't it just a matter of opinion?

You view torturing babies for fun as an opinion (which you and most others agree with). If someone tortured your baby, would you prosecute them? Given that you accept that it is not wrong in their opinion, if you decide to prosecute, on what basis would you do so?

Abelard's skepticism is self-defeating. By suspending judgment about reality he is in effect making a judgment about reality ie. that it is unknowable. How does he know this?

Some interesting links that are on topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/opinion/15kristof.html?hp

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1531851,00.html

http://www.counterbias.com/287.html

As for the bibles reliability, well if you look at any Christian website you would think so , but as with anything like that it is base on whish full thinking rather then facts. But I’m sure that on of the GB’s will tell how the Aussie version of the good news bible faithfully records what the actors said in the other versions.

Dear Fiona, at least you balanced 'little man' with 'dear'

But how can one have a vigorous debate if one party degenerates to name calling (the list is becoming quite long now) of another ? It appears that as soon as someone expresses a view which is contrary to yours, they attract a littany of mean names. Never mind, thats how it goes I guess.

The 'point' of the topic was about the right getting it wrong and the left not getting it. We have been exploring some of the reasons for this. It mainly revolves around the left picking and choosing selectively about the teaching and life of Jesus to suit their agenda and the right doing the same. Neither of them gets it or gets it right. We have been looking at WHY this occurs. I'm saying that we cannot have a 'cut and paste' Jesus, we have to deal with the BIBlical one. So, then, when I present the 'real' Jesus of scripture, you call me names and suggest I'm bigoted. (as did Bosk at first).

My position is that problem presented by the article is SOLVED by taking the whole and real Jesus into account. This leads to the issue of the reliability of Scripture and Aslan has been saying quite a bit about that. You have challenged this point, and thats kinda where we are up to (except that you are doing a lot of name calling when apparently you don't have any more to contribute to the actual issue.)

Aslan and others (should you choose to join in):

The key word in my more recent responses to your contribution is “opinion”. Both the “majority” and the “minority” hold an opinion. In the “opinion” of the Community of Practice of Behavioural Scientists” having three lumps of sugar does not warrant psychiatric classification. Perhaps, other people hold alternative “opinions”. All hold “opinions”.

Etic and Emic qualifiers are used by anthropologists to make distinctions between behaviours that trend towards (a) universal or (b) local behaviour, respectively. Marriage is etic. Alternatively, wearing a wedding ring is emic. Yes, it is a matter of opinion, based on the observation of behaviour. I recommend you read, “Culture and Social Behavior”, by Harry C. Triandis for a better understanding.

I have the “opinion”, that etic behaviour would be highly entrenched, perhaps, yielding to major ecological events, such as an Ice Age. Paradigms tend exist in response to the state of prevailing knowledge. Regarding paradigms, I recommend you read, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, by Thomas S. Kuhn. An example, of a paradigm shift was from the Christian Church’s belief in the Ptolemaic Geocentric universe to the heliocentric solar system in a larger universe. The Christians held their opinions. And pioneers of science held, alternative opinions.

Herein, had the majority or at least those in control retained the Christian opinion, we would still be in the Dark Ages. Nonetheless, we are talking about opinions. When the West rediscovered the opinions of the Greeks and replaced the opinions of the Church, we moved into a period of History called, The Enlightenment. I recommend you read, “Science and the Enlightenment” by Thomas L. Hankin,“A History of Knowledge” by Charles Van Doren, and, the “Ascent of Man” by Jacob Bronowski.

Abelard, I feel, would be happy with self-defeat. Progress is achieved by self-defeat: That is, the whole idea of Science. Were it not for self-defeat, we would be still swinging in the trees.

Dear All, am I making sense to you? Aslan and I are having docking.

Approaching word limit… I will wait a few hours before I continue.

BOAZ_David, Yes, I saw your post on the other thread. I notice you haven’t bothered to respond to my comments there.

Your argument re female autonomy,or lack thereof, is specious. The power relationships between the state and individuals apply just as much to males as females. The law doesn’t let males do whatever they like and only exercise power over women. And “the law” is not comprised solely of men – there are some women there as well, or hadn’t you noticed? (Not nearly as many as there ought to be, but we’re working on it.) And as for females having no autonomy vis-a-viz individual men, as I said on the other thread, I don’t need the protective relationship of any male anywhere, and I’m sure the same goes for many women.

Maybe if you stopped being so pompous with your comments, Fiona would feel less inclined to call you names.

This is an active little thread - so I will add my view - Christian beliefs should guide the individual to know right from wrong in the Macro sense.

They should not be used to direct the individual in deciding what right from wrong in the micro sense because such micronistic analysis will invariably be subjective.

Relying on the Bible, a loose reinterpretation of a chain of handed down opinions on “Gods Word”, is not going to help – especially when vast tracks of said book have been massaged to suit a particular agenda and other tracts deliberately omitted by the same “agenda shapers”.

Quite honestly anyone who thinks a Christian “revivalism” is likely in politics or any other arena is having a hallucinogenic moment. Organised religions have proved their inadequacy to manage their own affairs ethically – God help us if they think they can ever aspire again to manage the country.

Leaving this post with a bit of one of my heroines Dear Margaret Thatcher to ponder on – a woman who aspired, achieved and stood as a beacon of Morality and lucid thinking -

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.” – you won’t get those values from a bunch of God botherers.

Col,
To quote you, “We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

You have made some good points, as this is exactly what the freedom of Christianity is about, personal conscience, and social responsibility. Each man is fully accountable for his own behaviour, unless his behaviour violates the accepted social standards then the State must act. The Church or for that matter a totalitarian State must not rule over the conscience or against the personal will of a person. The person must be free to choose if he is fully accountable for his / her behaviour. A role of the Church is to educate the conscience not govern thought and behaviour.

Aslan,

(1) Abelard, I feel, would be happy with self-defeat. Progress is made by self-defeat: That is, the whole idea of Science. Were it not for self-defeat, we would be still swinging in the trees. Why admire Abelard is that he made observations 500 years ahead of his time. He was a brave and brilliant scholar (in my opinion), who was a Christian. Had he been an adult in 1776, I think Abelard's sceptical mind would be saying: Is Edward Gibbon right? What are Gibbons' sources? Should I remain a Christian?

Aslan, I was hoping you would address Abelard's Doctrine of the Power of Scepticism.

2) Michael Polyani addressed the issue of truth and reality. He argued, that when we adopt a proposition, the most we can do is make a commitment to reality in an indeterminant future.

3) Can you be sure the Moses spoken would have spoken in Hebrew as his primary language? I think “maybe” Hebrew or “maybe” an Egyptian tongue?

4) I did not say that most people believed in baby killing. I did not say, I did. Your original statement adds the word, “wrong”. Transcription is dangerous, even today. :-)

5) If you want to understand about reliability, I would recommend, “Scale Development – Theory and Applications”, by Robert F. DeVellis.

6) I had read from the Bible and even Reference Bibles. So, I do practice what I suggest.

Jane,

It is grand modern society is trending towards giving individuals more choice in their preferred lifestyles. Relatedly and belatedly, society is recognising ability is a general human attribute and not a product of a sex chromosome. Herein, I think that Eleanor Roosevelt would have made a great world leader. I also admire the intellect of your Forum namesake, Jane Goodall. In Oz, on loan, Susan Greenfield, is another favourite of mine. Well should forget all that Adam's rib nonsense too

Get over yourself boazdavid. I suggested you're coming across as a bit "idiotic" given the puerile, snide way you have been responding to my posts - and you magnify that into a "litany of mean names". Litany? Que?

I think a tendency to unwarranted exaggeration is also idiotic; thank you for further justifying my point.

<insertpuerileemoticonofyouchoicehere>

Oliver,

You didn't answer my question: If someone tortured your baby, would you prosecute them? Given that you accept that it is not wrong in their opinion, if you decide to prosecute, on what basis would you do so?

On May 17 you said: "I did not say that most people believed in baby killing. I did not say, I did. Your original statement adds the word, “wrong”. Transcription is dangerous, even today."

This makes no sense. I have no idea what you are referring to. Regarding the morality of TORTURING (not "killing") babies for fun, I was referring to you comment on May 15: "I would say it is a statement of opinion, with which, many people including me would agree."

BTW, Michael Polanyi (not Polyani) was highly critical of logical positivism ie. that something must be "proved" to be known and that the observer is neutral. He noted that the observer always has worldview filter and pointed out the importance of tacit knowledge and intuitive knowledge - he did not resort to skepticism.

1. Welcome on board Col.

2.(a) Aslan,

Yes, I would try to prosecute based on my opinion. In our society, many people would agree with me. A very few people might not. We all have opinions.

(b)I do know how to spell Polanyi, but my fingers don't ;-). I have read five to six books of his, written between the late 1940s and the mid-1970s. Knowledge: Actually, he relates explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge, saying these forms of knowledge are coefficient. He also recognises intuition and presents an account of the teenage Einstein thinking about the basis of Relativity. Pol... (being careful now)... anyi is a participative realist.

P.o.l.a.n.y.i held that we make a commitment to an indeterminant future, as I previously commented.

To support:

"Real is that which is expected to reveal itself indeterminately in the future. Hence an explicit statement can bear on reality only by the coefficient associated with it (aside:He is refering to explicit knowledge not intuition). This conception of reality and tacit knowing of reality underlies all my writings." - Polanyi (1964)

My comment on scepticism related to Peter Abelard and presumably Edward Gibbon, regarding which, I await your reply with interest. Thanks. If you have read Polanyi (my guess is, "Science, Faith and Society"), you have also possibly read Karl Popper, and, should be aware of the dangers of self-confirmation prevalent in Pychoanalysis(Freud & Jung), Marxism and Religion. Relatedly, citing all these like-minded bible scholars, only shows internal consistency not accuracy. Remember, what Confucius said, above.

Aslan, please remember to comment on Abelard with an argument, not a question.

Thanks for the agreement Philo – Agree the individual is the unit of all action, decision, compassion and conscience – such characteristics are impossible for anything larger than a very small community where every one knows everyone else, certainly impossible for contemporary society as a whole and definitely beyond the “class based” nature of organised religion.

The church role to “educate” – most religious “education” has been formulated on a doctrine which includes fear and denial (just look at the doctrines of the RC’s with all the hang-ups about sex and where excommunication is but one of the weapons used to ensure the faithful (gullible?) conform to ther directed role). Similar doctrines of compliance permeate just about all “organised” religions – that is why I avoid them and argue against any influence they may wish to exercise across our secular society.

Aslan,

RE: The above 1964 was a publication date. The original work was is copyrighted, 1946. The quote is from his 1963 forward.

The tacit-explicit knowledge thing, was more pronounced in Polanyi's writings from about 1958. Polanyi does relate intuition to science in context with aspects of reality (Like the Einstein example). To paraphase Polanyi, intuition is said to direct interpretation. That is why we make a commitment to something we realy don't know. Hence, the "idea of exactitude has to be abandoned" (Polanyi,1963).

Just reverting back to the second last sentence of the above paragraph, even though we really don't know, "we know more than we can tell" (again, Polanyi, from memory).

It would nice to debate Abelard.

Oliver,

You said you would prosecute. What if the jury decided he was not guilty - according to their opinions?

I already responded to Abelard's skepticism. His view is nonsense because it is self-refuting. Science did not progress through incoherent reasoning. It progresses through cycles of observation, proposition, testing and interpretation.

Regarding Gallileo and heliocentrism - both you and Bosk made some inaccurate and untrue comments which I cannot let pass.

Bosk said: "at one point the Roman Catholic Church held that the sun went round the Earth. In Gallilleo's trial they even quoted scripture...now most christians would interpret verses that speak of the sun going round the Earth in a poetic manner."

You cited Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and said: "An example, of a paradigm shift was from the Christian Church’s belief in the Ptolemaic Geocentric universe to the heliocentric solar system in a larger universe. The Christians held their opinions. And pioneers of science held, alternative opinions."

Actually, it was the scientific establishment who held - not to the Ptolemaic system - but to Brahe's system. Kuhn points out in ch7 that the Ptolemaic view was in trouble before even Copernicus proposed his alternative. Remember that Copernicus was a bishop(!) who was reluctant to publish out of fear from scientists but did so with encouragement from other churchmen. BTW, the Ptolemaic view did come from the Bible - it came from Aristotelianism.

Galileo was not persecuted for his heliocentrism (the Jesuits were more Copernican than he was!) but for disobeying a papal order and personal and political reasons. See Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers.

BTW, the "Dark Ages" were anything but dark, the opinions of the Greeks (regarding science) were all wrong, and "The Enlightenment" should be called "The Endarkenment."

Oliver if that doesn’t make you understand that it is pointless agreeing with GB then nothing will. Remember the basic tenant of GB is that they are always right and everyone else is wrong. Their ability to reinvent history is second only to their ability to reinterpreted the bible.

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

Martin Luther, Tischreden
As for Copernicus being a bishop, anyone wanting to study nature at that time who was not a member of the church was in serious risk of being called a witch.
The reason the bibles physics is the same as Aristotle physics is because they were being dream up at the same time.

The misquoted event in the life of Joshua is not what the text supports.
The text is 11 "The LORD cast down large hailstones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died. There were more who died from the hailstones than the children of Israel killed with the sword.
12 Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel:

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon;

And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”
13

So the sun stood still,

And the moon stopped,

Till the people had revenge

Upon their enemies.
Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. 14 And there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that the LORD heeded the voice of a man; for the LORD fought for Israel.
15 Then Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to the camp at Gilgal.

In the poetry of Jasher recorded in the Biblical text it states Joshua actually commanded the sun and the moon themselves to cease their function. The function of these solar bodies is to give light. What Joshua had planned as his battle strategy was that they would rout the enemy in darkness, so he desired darkness to continue. YHWH answered his prayer, as 10: 14 says, “God harkened to the voice of a man”. Is the text suggesting that YHWH does not normally answer the prayers of man? Such a view is nonsense.

The sun and moon have two active observed motions, (1) to give light, (2) as the earth rotates to move. Assuming the sun and moon ceased movement for a period if 10 hours and God held them; such would have little affect on Joshua’s battle strategy. The periods of daylight are calibrated upon the rotation of the Earth so the suggestion that the Earth stopped rotating for 10 hours so that darkness continued (or sunlight as some believe) is absurd nonsense. What Joshua wanted was an extension of darkness not more sunlight and this was accomplished by the hailstorm and the continuance of heavy cloud. The sunlight period was shortened because the wish of Joshua was granted.

The Hebrew word “damam” (Strong 1826) means be silent, or cease your activity, or rest. What the sun and moon normally did they were not to do, i.e. give light. The Hebrew word “amad” (Strong 5975) is also used to define Joshua’s command to cease, remain or tarry. The word for middle (Strong 2677 Heb “chetsiy”) indicates that even though the sun was in the sky it ceased to give light ie did not shine almost the whole day.

_____________________________________________________________________

Kenny,

I love it when you post. It gives me another opportunity to expose your ignorance.

The quotation you cited (inaccurately) from Luther was a single off-the-cuff remark, during a “table talk” in 1539 - four years BEFORE the publication of Copernicus’s book!

The “Table Talk” was based on notes taken by Luther’s students, which were later compiled and published in 1566 – twenty years after Luther’s death. Furthermore, the verse Luther cited (Josh 10:12) in support of his apparent skepticism, was easily explained by Johannes Kepler using Luther’s own principles of Biblical interpretation, which took into account the language of appearance. Since this was Luther’s only recorded comment on the subject, it cannot be construed as part of a thoughtful and concerted attack on Copernicus or Copernicans.

Your other comments don't deserve a response.

Kenny,

Normally, when debating people with opposing views, I show them respect and will acknowledge valid points; herein, i.e., there are loads of manuscripts and there exist Christian scholars, who do work hard. Beyond that, it seems hard to agree on anything. Herein, I feel, I am failing effectively to communicate alternative positions to Aslan. I believe anyone running down my posts would see some pretty heavy weight scholars cited, capable of taking the broader historical picture and providing sound advice.

I’ll try again:

Aslan,

1. Then the jury would have found the perpetrator innocent according to the opinions.

2. I countered that scepticism would have sat well with Abelard. That had Abelard lived in the late eighteen century, he might have considered Gibbon’s proposition.

The next sentence is true. The last sentence is false. We have self-reference. That does not make the sentences without meaning. Philosophers write chapters on this phenomenon.

I don’t find what Abelard said incoherent.

3) The main two conflicts between the Church and Galileo were:

a) Galileo lampooned the Pope as a simpleton in a dialogue.

b). The difference between Instrumentalism and a Hypothetical Construct. The Church would not allow Galileo to deviate from the heliocentric universe, as a matter of fact. He could only use his theory. No… Well, that’s the point, Galileo, wasn’t allowed to have a theory, only a contrivance of measurement.

The Church forced Galileo to recant under threat of torture. He died under house arrest. Moreover, the Church held that four moons circling Jupiter could not exist, because these moons could not have any astrological affect on humankind.

4. Chapter Seven of Scientific Revolutions is about the discovery and the emergence of knowledge. The “pioneer” scientists were struggling to assert themselves in a hostile environment. These pioneers confronted “tradition” (Kuhn), manifested by the Church and had difficulties with peer communication, because of the “absence of printing”.

5. Claudius Ptolemaeus was a Greco-Egyptian, mathematician, who compiled the Almagest containing his astronomical theory, c. 150 BCE: About 170 years after Aristotle was dead. (Albeit, Aristotle did believe the Earth was stationary).

For those believe the Sun did stop in the sky:

One:

The Earth doesn’t “rotate” around the Sun. Actually, the Earth spirals around a centre of gravity warped by mass, as the solar system moves through space-time. Had God stopped the Sun, God would have also had to stop time. Had God stopped time locally, when the Universe was expanding faster than c. Well, the physicists can work it out. But, it would not be very pleasant.

Two:

“But, God suspended the Laws of the Universe”, is the retort? Then, I think the meticulous record keeping Chinese astronomers might noticed a little thing like the Earth stopping its rotation on its axis, even if God suspended inertia.

Three:

Boaz, How “literally” do you take the Bible? Is wrong to critique the Bible? If yes, why? I still have not made it to Ruth. Busy with other research :-).

I have been reading many posts in the Forum, and many people here are very educated and intelligent. Having said that, I think that the way to engage the Right is to frame political issues, like Religion & Politics, in more simplistic terms. Professional republican strategists know this very well, and that is the reason why conservative politicians are so effective in getting many conservative voters to vote against their own interest.

Actually all you’ve done Philo and Aslan is demonstrate I’m right in my assertion that Christians read what they like in the bible and re-invent the meaning of passages when science shows them to be wrong.

It is quite clear that many Christians don’t agree with you’re reasoning.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c016.html
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/joshualongday.shtml
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/longday.asp

Aslan as you should know old Copernicus wrote down his ideas many years before the official publishing date. He did not give consent until he was on his death bed for fear of persecution from religious hardliners.

So Aslan which bits of the bible are wrong ? Or is it just that current interpretations may be wrong?

Oliver
I take the Bible literally when the clear intention is for it to be taken so :)

I know the difference between anthropomorphic language and also cultural expression. When it speaks of the 'nostrils' of the Lord, its anthropomorphic, when Jesus said "gouge out the eye which sins" and "hate your mother and father" etc.. its culture at work. If he had NOT spoken that way, they would not have got the point as powerfully as intended, but did the disciples understand 'hate parents' as we would understand those words ? of course not. They knew what he was on about.

Oliver, one has to use ones God given brain when reading the Bible. While we believe it is the inerrant inspired Word, there are sections which have to be viewed as they stand, example, when Pauls emanuensus records in Romans 1:22

"I Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord."

What are we to make of this ? Its a simple greeting. Paul also distinguishes between commands from the Lord, and his own opinion. Lets not become in bondage to the doctrine of inspiration, but take the facts into consideration under the umbrella of that concept. A greeting from Tertius is 'inerrant' and 'inspired' doctrinally, but I can't see many lessons in the greeting except perhaps for 'It is good to find an assistant' :)

"I take the Bible literally when the clear intention is for it to be taken so" Boaz when YOU interpret that its intention is clear. What may be clear to you is not necessarily so....

Oliver, loving your posts even though I do have to read them twice! But you are making a lot of sense and giving the religious mafia a run - I am enjoying the sport.

I'm with you Xena - also enjoying Oliver's posts. I was really enjoying Bosk's posts too, until he got suspended for flaming :-((

If you're still reading this thread Bosk, please come back.

I'm no biblical scholar, so won't try to mix it with these guys (not that "biblical scholarship" necessarily guarantees an ability to argue coherently, as is evidenced by some of the posters here) - but I'll keep reading, and hope that Bosk returns to help take the cement-heads apart.

Oliver,

You're communicating fine - I just find your alyernate positions untenable.

You said: "the jury would have found the perpetrator innocent according to [their] opinions."

Would you accept this decision?

Another example: A woman is raped. The perpetrator admits she said "no" but in his opinion she was just playing hard-to-get and really meant "yes". Should he be convicted?

Scepticism may well sit well with Abelard, but it wouldn't sit well with the rape victim above.

You said: "The next sentence is true. The last sentence is false. We have self-reference. That does not make the sentences without meaning."

In what sense is the next sentence true and the last sentence false? What meaning do they convey? They are nonsense sentences which have as much meaning as "Black is white. White is black."

That you don’t find Abelard's view incoherent is irrelevant to whether it actually is incoherent. Something cannot be A and non-A at the same time. Abelard says nothing can be truly known, but in doing so, he is asserting that he truly knows this. That is a contradiction so Abelard's view must be false.

You said: "Had God stopped the Sun, God would have also had to stop time. Had God stopped time locally, when the Universe was expanding faster than c. Well, the physicists can work it out. But, it would not be very pleasant."

The Bible makes it clear that this was a miracle ie. supernatural ie. not subject to natural law - so the physics is irrelevant.

You argue: "I think the meticulous record keeping Chinese astronomers might noticed a little thing like the Earth stopping its rotation on its axis, even if God suspended inertia."

Joshua is dated to around 1400BC. The Chinese did not begin meticulously recording astronomical events until the first millenium BC, and even then most of their records were destroyed when Emporer Shi Huang Di (221-209BC) became first ruler of China.

Kenny,
Quote "Actually all you’ve done Philo and Aslan is demonstrate I’m right in my assertion that Christians read what they like in the bible and re-invent the meaning of passages when science shows them to be wrong".

We believe the God of Creation to be right, and the Biblical text has supported the facts all the time, but the assumption made by a past theologian has become the focus upon what subsequent commentators have written. Science does not disprove the text, it clarifies the text. Christians from different denominations agree on the Bible when it comes to values of life and behaviour. It is sometimes varied on how these values are applied to society.

The Early Church did not enforce Moses law:

Acts. 15:5 Some of the believers who belonged to the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and obey the law of Moses.”
Ac. 15:6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.
Ac. 15:7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them:
“Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. Ac. 15:8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them...
Ac. 15:9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified
their hearts by faith.
Ac. 15:10 ... why do you try to test God by putting on the
necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers
have been able to bear?
Ac. 15:11 We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
Ac. 15:12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to
Barnabas and Paul ...
Ac. 15:13 ... James spoke up: “Brothers, listen to me.
Ac. 15:14 Simon [Peter] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself.
Ac. 15:15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
Ac. 15:16 “`After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent...,
Ac. 15:17 that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the
Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ [Amos 9:11,12] Ac. 15:18 that have been known for ages. Ac. 15:19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles... Ac. 15:20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food dedicated to idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

The Church established minimal laws for new Christians and certainly did not impose them upon unbelievers.

Kenny,

I don't see where any of those articles you posted disagree with my reasoning. The Reasons article focuses on the myth about NASA finding a missing day, and the AIG one agrees it is a myth. Both the AIG and the Christian Answers articles affirm that this event was a miracle performed by God.

You said: Aslan as you should know old Copernicus wrote down his ideas many years before the official publishing date. He did not give consent until he was on his death bed for fear of persecution from religious hardliners."

Yes, Copernicus wrote his ideas long before he published, but he did not fear his fellow clergymen - he feared the scientific establishment which was committed to Aristotelianism. It was Cardinal Schönberg and another bishop who urged Copernicus to publish his ideas and when it finally appeared in 1543 it contained a dedication to Pope Paul III. Note also that at no time in history has the church ever declared Copernicus’ theory to be heretical. Although the book was placed on the Vatican Index, this did not occur until 1616, and it was removed again in 1620 after some minor changes.

You ask: "So Aslan which bits of the bible are wrong?"

None of it.

Xena and Jane,

Since you are enjoying Oliver's posts so much, perhaps you could respond to the following:
You are raped. The perpetrator admits you said "no" but in his opinion you were just playing hard-to-get and really meant "yes". Should your abuser be convicted? If the jury lets him off because in their opinion he was right to interpret your "no" as a "yes, but I'm playing hard to get", would you accept that decision or would you feel cheated and outraged?

A set-up Aslan, for which there is only one answer as you well know. If you think my answer will win your argument with Oliver, then think again.

I know you will never back down from your beliefs despite any evidence that is offered to you. This is why I prefer to sit back and watch the scholarly exchange between you and Oliver - he has the philosophical education I lack.

Your attempt to coerce myself and Jane is an act of sophistry on your part and reeks of desperation.

This debate appears to me, in my simplistic and naive way, to be about the search for truth. I found an interesting article in the Washington Post that relates, somewhat, to the exchange between Aslan and Oliver. It tends towards the middle ground.

I hope it is of interest to others:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/18/AR2005051802040.html

I believe it is relevant to this topic as it too concerns belief and interpretation. It also illustrates the need to learn from history and to revise our world view as knowledge increases.

Ringy, I read your link, and found it quite good, but I find one glaring problem with the whole concept of using History as our launching pad for morality. Firtly, the foundation on which the Nation of the USA is built, and from which the professor speaks, is one of unbridled greed and rampaging opportunism which saw the slaughter of untold indigenous people, and now, they can relax in their peaceful Spring Afternoons in their nice rocking chairs on the verandahs of their glorious dwellings and colleges all built on stolen land, and 'contemplate the moral value of history'.

This also reveals why some people are so passionate about Revelation being a far superior source of morality. The scriptures equally condemn the idolatry of the first nations, and the greed of the more powerful European settlers. All people and nations are called in scripture to live under God, and to live with their neighbours best interests at heart. Had this been followed the world would not be in the shape it is now (demographically). All the wars to come, have their seeds in the corrupt and vile practice of our forbears.

People dont forget, when the Normans invaded now Saxon England, their left flank consisted of an army of CELTS who had been exiled from England to Brittainy. This was 2 generations removed from those exiled.

I read your link, I offer one for anyone interested a link which might prove edifying.

Tony Campolo,

http://www.tonycampolo.org/messages.shtml
message "Living in the Nth Degree" (real audio)

THANKS

Xena and Jane, thank you for your support. Anyone who will put up with my poor typing and wayward fingers is a friend.

LANGUAGE

Aslan and Kenny,

I believe you will find that, “Tischreden”, refers to an after dinner speech, not idle chitchat, Aslan. Herein, Kenny is not reporting “off the cuff” remarks. Moreover, I would think, a scholar like Luther would have presented a formal, considered lecture(s). Of course, I don’t know. But, Kenny’s account seems to make the most sense by a mile.

Aslan,

Why I mentioned that Moses “might” have spoken an Egyptian tongue was that (a) Moses is an Egyptian name and (b) many Habiru remained in Egypt after for c. 350 years after the expulsion of their clanspersons by Ahmose I in 1567 BCE. The people, who were not expelled, were mercenary soldiers and trades folk (Quigley 1961). So, there was plenty cross-societal intermingling going-on up-until c. 1300 BCE.

The link between Moses and the Habiru seems to be a subordinate Canaanite tribal God called, “Yahveh”. This minor God of the Canaanite Baal was the God who supposedly protected murders and the “landless and kin-shattered”. Moses was a murderer and the Hebrew Habiru were poor and lineage challenged. A match made in heaven and a God made on Earth!

“Daman” (1826) in Hebrew also means, “to stop” and “be still”. “Amad” (5975) … the root means to stand, and, also stand still and stand firm. Chetsiy (2677) means middle and can also mean “mid-“, as in midnight. Moreover, Strong is not a general Hebrew translation text, but a companion translation text to the Bible (King James Version?).

Aslan,

More later. Busy now.

Boaz,

Thank you for your response. I knew a guy, a theologian, who thought the Bible’s recording of exaggerated speech, as used by Jesus, was a form of humour known to the people of the time. (Like MAD Magazine) Yes, the use of language needs be seen in its context.

He started to study Comparative Religions for his Masters thesis, he subsequently became a doubter, based on the historical records, he encountered.

You know Boaz, I’ve done a lot of dumb things in my life, made many mistakes and I’d like to think I have learnt from them. I am certainly a more giving tolerant person than the callow 20 year old I used to be. My point is; I didn’t need the bible to get there. I have a conscience – it works very well, too well sometimes.

I checked out your link, was not surprised to find that it was a full on Christian site, rather than anything I could relate to. You see, I have problems with phrases like “surrendering to Christ” or “turning you love life over to god”. Also it promotes values that I already hold such as “service to others can bring personal fulfilment and engender joy” as if Christians hold the monopoly on such values. You don’t.

I also had problems with “materialistic values of our secular society” excuuuse me, but I know plenty of religious people who own far more material goods than do I. Yet once again the implication is that to believe in a Christian god is to be some how morally superior to every one else.

I don’t disagree with your view of the USA, however the average American is more likely to believe in god than the average Aussie. Besides that is not a good enough reason to dismiss learning from history.

Cheers

Good on you Ringtail, appreciate that you actually had a listen.
Christians may or may not at times be morally 'superior' to non Christians, just as they might at times be morally inferior, if we just look at behavior. We all it 'walking in the Spirit', we are not immune to misbehavior, mistakes, SINS, our degree of 'moral' attainment, depends at any give time on our daily walk with Christ, and how much we allow His still small voice to go from the head to the heart.

CONSCIENCE. quite right, you have one, and I'm sure by and large are guided by it. I only suggest that it is a 'socialized' concience :) i.e. one which has inherited the overall value system in which you were brought up. Personally, I try to go deeper than my upbringing.

MATERIALISTIC SECULAR SOCIETY. Yes, point taken, many Christians have done very well thankyouverymuch, they call it 'redemption and lift' where your life turns around, no more pokies, booze, smokes and voila, suddenly u have a 30% pay rise :) which translates into a more abundant lifestyle. But sadly, some who attain higher material well being, quickly forget He who gave all for us, and just enjoy the fruit of their labor in a selfish way.

But I learned long ago, never to use weak or failing Christians as an excuse to either be so myself or deny the reality of life in Christ.

All your points have validity, they just need more than 350 words of discussion to explore satisfactorily.

Aslan,

With all heinous crimes – i.e., all sickening examples – all the jury can do is listen to the evidence, deliberate and deliver a considered verdict. It is a fallible system. However, it is the Court’s role to present as much evidence as possible to aid in that deliberation. So, if we were look at the case for the existence of God we weigh-up all the evidence. Sometimes, we have a hung jury. A judge might advise the jury reconsider the evidence.

The Qin (Ch’in) dynasty was the first unification period.

Histograpgically the Sinic Civilisation (2000 BCE – 400 CE) gave rise to Ancient China and Ancient Japan. In the approximate geophysical area of we now call China, there were three feudal periods, predating the Qin dynasty, namely; going back in time, the Chan Kuo period, the Ch’un Ch’iu period, and, the Early Chou period. This takes us back to about 1,030 BCE. The preceding Shang Kingdom was contemporary to the time of Joshua. Herein, within this period, recordings of astronomical events appear on oracle stones. The author of your source should visit the Nanjing Museum, which shows Chinese (word used in the modern sense) astronomy goes back 5,000 years.

“The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false.” The sentences do have meaning, as those sentences demonstrate the existence of paradox. “Black is white. White is black.” Those last two sentences do not demonstrate paradox. Just ask Mr Black from Norway and Mr White from Nigeria.

Any further debate on Galileo or Luther? I’m with Kenny on the latter.

Why I like Abelard, the Christian, is that he doubted. He may have remained a Christian, but he did do so, after questioning the fallibility of Holy Writ. Given his time, the lack of science and conditioning, it was an honest choice, after deliberation. I wonder if Thomas was his favourite saint? :-)

Boaz,

I am just trying to coax you guys to take in a bigger picture. Re-evaluate the evidence.

The Right and Left conflict:
The conflict began between the teachings of Christ motivated by devotional love to God and neighbour and the Religious Zealots enforcing religious Law. When the Roman Empire syncretised Christianity into its laws; the precedent they knew from the background of Christianity was the commandments of Moses. So ultimately the educated Pharisees the right wing of the Church finally emerged to administer Moses law as State law.

However the primary teaching of Christ is founded in attitude and behaviour motivated by love and devotion to God and not in enforced behaviour imposed with legal penalties. The role of law is to define the standard and impose penalty for violation. So there is a dichotomy within Christianity, one that believes man is autonomous and personally accountable to God: and the other that the State must enforce an acceptable level of behaviour for the good management of society.

These positions have ebbed with moral and social trends, the religious right unhappy with the behaviour of society will move to stem the drift toward debauchery by strict law. The tolerant left, though not happy with the moral decline, persevere with a message of forgiveness, and they tolerate evil because they work among the poor and oppressed. The left carry a message of forgiveness but tolerate their evil, while the right expect repentance and change as the result.

These dichotomies apply within every society not only Christian. Take the principle of training children, when a parent enforces behaviour there is conflict but children are more secure within the boundaries of behaviour, when bad behaviour is tolerated children continue to test the limits and usually cause the parent great anxiety and the child feel insecure and unloved. This conflict also applies within Muslim States, the messengers carry the message of monotheism to those they feel are infidels. However the Hardliners (extremists) are not happy with the tolerant attitudes to evil within the State and act to enforce the ancient Islamic shari’ah law. The hardliners enforce behaviour against the will of the person in every Totalitarian State.

How does poetry from the poetry of Jashar quoted by Joshua’s scribe become relevant to establish Biblical authority of a Christian world-view? Ignorance from the fathers of the Roman Catholic Church caused such misrepresentation. A poetic quote taken out of context does not prove fact. This failing by the RC Church does not establish divine authority, rather establishes the fallible human factor.

Understand Joshua’s battle strategy: They were to advance upon the enemy in darkness (Joshua 10: 9). Soldiers prefer to be unseen not exposed in bright sunlight. Joshua prayed the sun would not shine till it set over Gibeon to the west of Gilgal (examine-map). He prayed for darkness, though the sun was in the sky that it wouldn’t shine. At dawn a hailstorm of giant proportions falls upon the enemy at Azekah as far as Makkedah and kills many of the enemy. If claimed by some that the sun appeared still in the sky at midday means it still had to traverse to Gibeon, thus extending the period of sunlight. Unlikely! The morning started with a darkened sky. The context of Joshua’s request cannot support such an event, because what Joshua desired he received. If you have been in a hailstorm you will notice that the clouds darken the sun. Hardly an answer for more sunlight, or a longer day? The standard movement of the sun across the sky measured the period of that very day (note verse 13b). If the day had been lengthened as proposed there would have been no standard to measure the period of light, they had no clocks! Another poetic impression was that day seemed long because they were tired after they had marched all the night before.
Dawn ><hail -------- midday heavy cloud ----------- short period of sunlight ><sunset.

This issue has no relevance whatsoever to a Christian world-view on politics, unless we are discussing a war strategy that involves God, eg. The invasion of France by the English under the cover of a descending dense fog. Was this an answer to the English prayers in their war strategy?

Oliver,

Why you are directing comments re Habiru and Hebrew of Joshua 10:12 to me... I never mentioned Habiru and I can read the text myself in original Hebrew. Let's get back to the point shall we?

Re jury deliberations over evidence: I was not talking about a case where evidence and facts are disputed, but about a case where jury believes, based on their own opinions and morals, that no actual wrong was committed. eg. offender was not wrong to ignore girl's "no" statements.

Again, if its a matter of opinion then why should anyone be tried and convicted of any crime - serious or not? Answer the question, Oliver.

Re Chinese astronomy: Yes, some obervations were made several thousand years back but serious and systematic recording did not occur until around 1000 BC. As I said, when Shi Huang Di took over all China most of those records were destroyed. Ergo, it is not at all surprising that Chinese accounts of Joshua's long day do not exist. However, an account does exist in Book of Jasher.

You said: “Black is white. White is black.” Those last two sentences do not demonstrate paradox. Just ask Mr Black from Norway and Mr White from Nigeria.

But sentences do not say: "Mr Black is White. Mr White is black." These qualifiers not only remove ambiguity, they remove the circular reference as well. Try again.

Re Luther: His "Table Talk" comments may have been an after dinner talk but they were not a formal lecture. Why do you think they were called "Tischreden" (Table Talk)?!? The comments came from recollections of students after Luthers death. They are off-the-cuff because they were made once only to his students in an informal setting rather than in a sermon or commentary, and 4 years BEFORE the full details of Copernicus' view were available. As I said, this is clearly not a concerted attack on or response to Copernicus' view.

You said: "I’m with Kenny [re Luther].

Too bad (for you) that truth is not decided by a majority vote...

Aslan,

ON MEN CREATING GODS

Regarding the Habiru and Moses, I was extending on the “possibility” Moses & Co spoke an Egyptian tongue and well as Hebrew. With respect to the shift from Henotheism to Monotheism, I did not mention it, but, I was leading towards how religion can be used to disparate peoples, as would seem to be the case with Islam (c.620), who pulled a prophet out of the hat, under pressure from the encroachment of Christianity. In a sense, see some similarities between Moses and Mohammed. We can drop this, is you like.

JURY DELIBERATIONS

Yes, again, I would assume juries are deliberate based on their opinions based on the evidence. (There would be personal dynamics, as in any group). In this case the jury has decided to ignore the “no” statement weighed against other evidence. In the court, next door, where the “I said ‘no’ ” statement case was more strongly put a different verdict might have emerged. People can be tried on the basis of considered, deliberated opinion, with the help evidence – preferably broad and triangulating evidence. People in our system are tried as previously discussed, based on considered opinion, because it is the least faulty system we have.

BLACK AND WHITE

The kernel of my example was, my sentences –unlike yours- were true self-references and have meaning. I was just attempting a bit of fun with our Norwegian and Nigerian friends. Ms, Mr Messrs and Mesdames are qualifiers: Ms Brown and Lord Green. "Captain" Brown will only have Brown on her shirt.

I will pause a few hours, before the next post.

Aslan, the Second,

LUTHER

I did some quick research about “table talk” more generally. It seems that the idea is that students meet with academics in casual surroundings and discuss a topic, which would suggest a degree of focus to the course of discussion. So, it would appear to be neither a lecture nor a quip, but, rather, discussion on a predefined topic in an informal atmosphere.

Regarding, Luther and Copernicus, Kenny and I are jointed by Silver (1998, pp. 53-54), The Assent of Science, Oxford University Press:

“It was the Lutherans who perhaps put up the first serious opposition to Copernican suggestion of the heliocentric universe, which they saw as a direct attack on the literal truth of the Scriptures. Luther said of Copernicus, ‘the fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside down’.”

We shall continue to see Luther had plenty of Protestant company.

… “In 1549, his friend Melanchthon said of the heliocentric hypothesis: ‘Now it is want of honesty and decency to assert such notions in publicly, and the example is pernicious’. The straightlaced Protestant John Calvin also blasted Copernicus, but reason was not exactly the strong suit of Calvin, whose God arbitrarily and irrevocably sorted out souls for Heaven or hell, before birth.” Presumably, the 144,000 (?) thing. Six billion people now live and 80 billion people have lived. Them… ain’t good odds.

ANCIENT CHINESE ASTRONOMY

My source for the oracle bones was Lucian Pye: A big name in Sinology. Pye is supported by NASA :
“By 2300 BC, ancient Chinese astrologers, already had sophisticated observatory buildings, and as early as 2650 BC, Li Shu was writing about astronomy. Observing total solar eclipses was a major element of forecasting the future health and successes of the Emperor, and astrologers were left with the onerous task of trying to anticipate when these events might occur. Failure to get the prediction right, in at least one recorded case in 2300 BC resulted in the beheading of two astrologers.”

(http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/pages/traditions_Calendars.html#China)

Oliver,

RE jury deliberations - you still didn't answer the question. You just repeated what you said before. I am not talking about a case where the jury members have differing opinions about the facts of the case, but a case where the jury members refuse to conclude, based on their own opinions, that the facts amount to a crime. eg. a girl goes out wearing a very skimpy outfit. A guy approaches her but she tells him to get lost. He grabs her. She again protests. He rapes her while she protests. Jury accepts all facts, but thinks she deserved it because she dressed like a whore => No guilty.

Put another way: why is rape wrong? Don't say "because the law says so" - why does such a law exist? If it is merely the opinion of the law makers and by extension, society at large, do you admit that rape may be legal one day? Is it a simple case of "might makes right" - the majority rule?

You said: "my sentences –unlike yours- were true self-references and have meaning"

No they don't have meaning. In what sense is the next sentence true and the last sentence false? What meaning do they convey? I asked this before and you didn't respond. BTW, its a cyclic reference not a self-reference.

You said: "Regarding, Luther and Copernicus, Kenny and I are jointed by Silver"

Silver cites the same Table Talk account, ergo he too is incorrect. Something that is objectively wrong, remains wrong regardless of how many people refuse to accept it.

Melanchthon expressed early disapproval of heliocentrism as a description of reality but later softened his position. See Bruce T. Moran, "The Universe of Philip Melanchthon: Criticism and Use of the Copernican Theory," Comitatus 4 (1973) 14.

Oliver,

Re Chinese astronomy - the NASA piece is VERY brief and contains no supporting refs. The earliest solar eclipse recorded in China was allegedly in 2136 BC, but there a major problems with Chinese chronology and the reliability of early astronomical records. See Douglas J. Keenan article on this published in East Asian History:
http://www.informath.org/EAH02a.pdf

According to F Richard Stephenson who has written extensively on this (and to who's work the "More Information" link on the NASA site refers), states that reliable records of solar and lunar eclipses go back only as far as 750 BC.
See http://hbar.phys.msu.su/gorm/atext/histecl.htm

In any case, your criticism is an argument from silence which is a logical fallacy. Just because we do not have or cannot find any (Chinese) record of Joshua's long day does not mean it did not happen.

Aslan.

LUTHER

You, Popper and I agree that the serial repetition of a fallacy is in appropriate. Are you denying the original report? I thought you felt Luther as just speaking in an unconsidered manner. Please clarify, so we can continue in the same ballpark. Thanks.

CHINESE ASTRONOMY

NASA should have posted its referencing. Nonetheless, what it states is supported by Lucian Pye and Joseph Needham (guru status) with respect to China. Stephenson appears to be an excellent astronomer (FRAS) but might not have appreciated several factors. (Please note, thus far, I have only skimmed the Web link). The Chinese were good at Mathematics but did not develop geometry like the Greeks. So, they made mistakes in non-mathematical areas. Chinese society was organised around the solar-lunar calendar. I have been to an invited lecture on the Chinese solar-lunar calendar at the Singapore Asian Civilisations Museum. Unfortunately, I can’t remember the Chinese dates. Nonetheless, believe there was greater emphasis on lunar vis-à-vis solar calculation. Thus, the Chinese were more likely to record lunar events than solar events. Stephenson is cherry picking. Needham is a more authoritative source on astronomy in China. Yes, I do appreciate that (Logicians aren’t keen on argument based on authority, either :-).

TESTING SOME INTUITION

Aslan, when is the Sabbath? Optional… I wont press you.

Aslan,

Quote, "In any case, your criticism is an argument from silence which is a logical fallacy. Just because we do not have or cannot find any (Chinese) record of Joshua's long day does not mean it did not happen".

As much as I respect the intelligence of you two, you argue from opinions of others and fail to research the physical application of the Biblical text. The use of the term day in verse 13 refers to the normal period of a day from sunrise till sunset. It does not imply there was almost two days in one day. Whatever was happening lasted almost the whole normal day. It does suggest that the sun set as normal at the end of the day. I ask when did Joshua pray "Sun stand still over Gibeon"? Was his prayer at the end of the day of battle when the sun was about to set over Gibeon? Gibeon and Aijalon were on the western horizon from Azekah and Makkedah, hardly the middle of the sky (midday). To me it seems his request was granted until the sun reached almost the horizon at Gibeon. That is; ceased to shed light before it set over Gibeon.That is why I contend the ceaseation was to shed its light, not ceased to traverse its normal course.

I still fail to see how this debate applies in determining what is best practice in applying balance in a Christian view of law and politics

Alsan,

JURY

1) Rape is prosecuted not merely because a court says so, but, because, in our society, generally, the Court exercises the cultural belief system of society. Under some fiefdoms the Lord had the legal entitlement to have his way with the bride before the bridegroom. That was a different legal system. Were we to place fiefdoms and liberal democracies side-by-side, we would see a different locus of power. Herein, on a practical level, I find the scenario you outline unlikely because that was the sort of thing we have been trying to stop. So, rape is seen to be wrong in our society, as an opinion, as an evolved social order and law.

No, majority does not rule, the locus of power rules. In Western democracies compared to alternative systems in just happens there some degree of positive agreement. Our society would need to change, before rape would be legal.

2) In our system the law is an extension of the community not the other way around, as you suggest. (I would accept a dotted feedback loop.)

3) Under our system, a jury freeing a “whore”, who did not welcome sex, would be acting against consensus of the society that created the anti-rape laws in the first place. It would need to be regarded as exceptional behaviour a body of people would respond this way today. It would be a failure on the jury’s part in not following society’s guidelines.

4) Most our socially evolved society would disagree with the verdict and that rape is wrong.

(Aside) More commonly, rape is not a so much a response to sexual enticement , but has more to do with aggression and empowerment, owing to feelings of inadequacy. A whore, as you put it, is more likely to be a victim of homicide by a religious zealot: Sodom in miniature.

SENTENCES

Agree: My sentences are cyclic references in Logic. However, Philosophy also permits direct and indirect self-reference. I am happy to accept many logicians would agree with you. So, let’s call it a circular reference.

WILL ADDRESS LATER, PHILO - SPACE

Since the text is in the form of a prayer or poetry. It is couched in words like a warrior might use, "May the sun cease to shine on those from Gibeon, and the moon no longer shine in the valley of Aijalon". Meaning that the enemy would find their fate there; for the enemy the sun and moon would no longer shine upon them. But the miracle was that the Lord slew most of them with hailstones as they fled toward Gibeon and Aijalon, thus Joshus's prayer was answered. For the enemy the sun and moon ceased shining upon them.

It seems the reference to the presence of the moon is also relavent, as this seems to have some importance in his prayer. No issue is made about the moon standing still. However the claim would be the earth failed to rotate on it axis for about the whole day which would have affected the gravitational relationship between these two bodies.

Philo,

The debate is primarily about objective morality, historical fact and hermeneutics – all of which need to be set in order before we can even begin to talk about “best practice in applying balance in a Christian view of law and politics.”

Oliver,

According to Jewish reckoning, the Sabbath was on a Saturday – although there were also numerous special Sabbaths which could occur on any day. See Leviticus 23.

Re Luther, you ask: “Are you denying the original report? I thought you felt Luther as just speaking in an unconsidered manner.”

I do not deny that Luther made those remarks. I DO deny that they were a considered opinion and a thoughtful response to, or attack on, Copernicus and his view. As I have explained several times now, the remarks were made on one occasion only around a dinner table with students, and were not part of any of Luther’s published sermons, writings or commentaries, and were made several years before Luther could possibly have known all the details of Copernicus’ view. How could any reasonable person consider that a thoughtful response?

Re Chinese astronomy, you said: “[I?] believe there was greater emphasis on lunar vis-à-vis solar calculation. Thus, the Chinese were more likely to record lunar events than solar events.”

Kind of defeats your argument then, that Chinese would have accurately recorded Joshua’s long day…

Re Juries, you said: “No, majority does not rule, the locus of power rules. In Western democracies compared to alternative systems in just happens there some degree of positive agreement.”

And the difference between majority rule and locus of power rule is….
Sounds awfully like majority rule to me.

You said: “Our society would need to change, before rape would be legal.”

Agreed. Its unthinkable now. But then 100 years ago, homosexuality was a criminal offense and universally regarded as totally perverse behaviour. Now it is acceptable. Pederasty is currently illegal but homosexual pederast lobby groups are constantly trying to lower the age of consent. They already have it at 10 in South Africa, 12 in Holland, and 14 in Hawaii.

Aslan,

When it comes to moral purity I would be called right wing in politics as I believe the best practise is founded in absolutes. I uphold the moral purity of traditional Christian values as a demonstration of devotion to God and sexual relationship is exclusive between husband and wife. In both these issues we have thousands of years of human history that proves these are the best practise in society.

It has been in this generation that we have again realised the importance in maintaining good environment practice. The ancient generations that followed the Biblical wisdom of the land were able to maintain a sustainable life. This principle can be carried to all aspects of life and behaviour. In long discussions with gays they acknowledge same sex is not their ideal, but merely sublimates their emotional and sexual need. All their creational purpose remains unfulfilled, as well as an increase in disease.

God is the God of an ordered creation, so it is important to understand his ideal purpose in every created thing. Though every misuse is forgivable it is not to be ignored and must be turned away from so its purpose is fulfilled. If we have made an environment saline by removing trees it is obvious the best practise is not remove trees, though we can lower salinity by decellenation ponds.

Aslan.

SABBATH

:-). I agree with your interpretation. Also, I feel comfortable about my speculation.

ASTRONOMY

Previously, I was using Ancient Chinese Astronomy Lite. Actually, the Chinese saw the Moon as a small star, which is interesting, because this shows a knowledge of absolute and relative size of celestial bodies.

Had Joshua’s prayer been answered by the Earth stopping, the Chinese would have likely noticed, because it would have messed-up their plotting of convergences. Given divine intervention, Philo's account seems more sound to me.

In China, unification technologies tended to be retained to sustain dynasties. I have discussed this last point at lunch with the Director of Asian Studies at an HK university. The Sinic calendar based on astronomy is a unification technology, which buttresses the Emperor’s power.

LOCUS OF POWER

Locus of Power is the true value, not majority rule. It only just happens majority rule is the form the Locus of Power takes in The West at this time in history.

LUTHER

A definitive position is difficult, without resorting to constructionism for both our positions. Perhaps, Kenny can add more information to direct discourse.

Heliocentrism was a topic of discussion around the time of Luther. The informality of table-time seems to me to relate to the setting, not the scholarship.

Philo,

JOSHUA

I have found your posts very interesting. My basic position is that it is hard to discuss, “How the chicken crossed the road”, when I feel the chicken did not cross the road in the first place. Time restraints would make it hard for me to research the background underlying your personal interpretations and insights, which are certainly respected.

THE POLITICS OF GOD

Do you feel that the God of Moses, Abraham, and, Jesus, and, the Pauline representations are aligned politically. Relatedly, it would seem to me there is some God Cop, Bad Cop, here. If you are familiar with Lawrence Kohl berg, do you see consistencies or inconsistencies with respect to the moral outlook of these representations of the Judeo-Christian God?

ABOVE BREVITY

Busy.

Oliver,
Quote" Do you feel the God of Moses, Abraham, and, Jesus, the Pauline representations are aligned politically. ... do you see consistencies or inconsistencies with respect to the moral outlook of these representations of the Judeo-Christian God?"

I believe God is revealed in the history of human thought. It has never been perfect in any generation, but we have insights into human frailty and divine wisdom revealed.

Terah, father of Abraham was polytheistic unlike Abraham who was monotheist and from his father's gods chose ElShaddai to represent God. Jacob while in Edom identifies God as Eloah (as in Job)these view God as essentially celestrial, but the hope of Job is she would be revealed in the Earth. When God is revealed to Moses as YHWH whose presence is demonstrated in the Earth by His miraculous acts, administering justice and mercy in every realm of political life; total obedience to Moses law was absolute.

Jesus demonstrated God could love and forgive those that had failed and give them new hope. God is revealed in acts of mercy, words of wisdom enhancing life, eternal salvation for even sinners. According to those administering the law they believed Jesus had violated, so this suggest that forgiveness and love motivate the heart of God rather than judgment and punishment. Paul outlines what is acceptable behaviour within the Church, and considers the world outside merely his mission.
1. The law of God is perfect (above Moses law)
2. No one has attained the perfection of divine character
3. God offers forgiveness and full reconciliation
4. State law of a democratic society should reflect a mean standard of that society. The battle is constant between the perfect character and the debauched, and this is moveable as the expected standard of social values change.

5. Christians are focused toward the divine character with values well beyond the social norm, so their aspirations will cause conflict. Those that advocate live and let live place no check on declining values in society.

Oliver,

You said: "Had Joshua’s prayer been answered by the Earth stopping, the Chinese would have likely noticed, because it would have messed-up their plotting of convergences. Given divine intervention, Philo's account seems more sound to me."

You're attributuing modern day science and hindsight to the ancient Chinese. They could not possibly know that something like this would mess up their plotting! In any case, it is an argument from silence. They may well have recorded it but most of the records were destroyed.

I'm having trouble making sense of Philo's view.

You said: "Locus of Power is the true value"

What do you mean by this? In your skeptical view how do you know what is "true"? I thought all we had were "opinions".

You said: "A definitive position is difficult, without resorting to constructionism for both our positions."

I don't need to resort to "constructionism" - that's what you are doing. I simply cite historical fact.

"Perhaps, Kenny can add more information to direct discourse."

Kenny can't help because he knows nothing about this (or about much else for that matter). He simply pointed to the oft-cited Tischreden comment with no knowledge of the circumstances.

You said: "The informality of table-time seems to me to relate to the setting, not the scholarship."

Scholarship implies reading and studying a particular topic from all sides. Luther could not read and study Copernicus' view because it had not been published nor did they have any known correspondence.

You appear to think that the Biblical picture of God varies substantially between Moses, Abraham, Jesus and Paul.

Why do you think this?

As I said Oliver it is impossible to have a reasoned discourse with religious fanatics. Aslan follows the well worn path of fanatics of any faith in that they will distort and twist anything. Their reveled truths change with the culture but they will not admit it. Aslan believes he is the greatest scholar the world has known because his source is the Christian bible. The bible time scales say the world is only around six thousand years old so therefore it is. All of modern sciences knowledge of this area must be wrong because it doesn't agree with the bible. I’m sure that Aslan thinks is it the work of the devil anything that does not appear to confirm biblical accounts. He must be in rude good health.

Just remember in Aslans world pi is equal to three now where’s the logic in that

I remember a well known lecturer at my old College in 1961, now former professor of OT studies at Sheffield University, David Cline saying, "Debate matters of opinion, discover by research matters of fact".

Matters of fact have a physical signature that may or may not leave a historical record. There is a historical record of Joshua's prayer, but it is not written as history but as poetry. How we interpret poetry does offer option to variant opinions. Unless we have other collaborating evidence of an opinion held we cannot be dogmatic, and it remains a preference of opinion. There is no ground here for dogma, and different opinions pose no threat to interpretation of Divine revelation. I have proposed two other possible opinions of my preference of interpretation of Joshua's prayer and how God answered his prayer. I have real scientific and physical difficulties in believing the Earth actually stopped rotating for about 10 hours. If such gravitational evidence could be demonstrated in physics then there could be a case to introduce new evidence. God who created physics uses natural physics to perform his will. Darkness and hailstorms are natural physics, and in the answer to Joshua's prayer of death to his enemy was not by the sun contuing to shine, but the darkness and hailstorm. In fact for the enemy the sun and moon ceased to shine upon them.

Aslan,

ASTRONOMY

I will try again:

The pre-unification Chinese were capable of measuring the convergences and conjunctions, as I stated. Herein, they calculated alignments to a time scale of up to million years. Relatedly, modern Radio Astronomers use Chinese records --- which do exist --- to read the signatures of novae and super-novae. I cite Joseph Needham (1970),

“On the 7th day of the month, a chi-ssu day, a new star appeared in company with Antares”. 1,300 BCE (Shang)

The situation with the unification of China would have been like after WWII, wherein, both the West and Russia, wanted to capture the German scientists. Destroying astronomical records would have been like burning the plans to the V2.

Put simply, your source is wrong.

LOCUS OF POWER

My “opinion” is our Western democratic and the legal systems, were have inherited from the Greeks, Romans, Magna Carta and Westminster; today, representing just one form of governance (Locus of Power) amongst many (Loci of Power) held throughout history. You seem to hold an alternative “opinion”.

Put simply, we have divergent opinions.

JASHAR

Wasn’t Jashar written in medieval times. Does this document really make references to Minotaurs?

LUTHER

I adopted a Constructionist approach, because, (a) Luther was a high profile academic clergymen, (b) the remark would not be unconsidered, because it would displace Humankind from the centre of the Universe, and, (c) the Catholic church’s clamp-down was stronger 80-100 years afterwards.

Were I to apply your standard and reject my Constructionist acceptance of Jesus as a “historical” person, based on the Jewish understanding of Messiah, what I have read about first century Jesus sects and his encounter with Pilot, I would need to conclude Jesus did not exist at all

Aslan and Philo,

I find representations of God in the Old Testament to be far more right wing and the God of the New Testament. Thus, I would invite Jesus to a dinner party, but would think JHWH too short tempered, especially, with brimstone and fine china. Lastly, Paul, had to seek compromise and re-brand from a Jewish sect.

JHWH and Moses’ timelines intersect at Sinai. However, JHWH roots are founded earlier in the animism. I cite Toynbee:

“He [Yahweh] first came within the Israelites’ ken as the jinn inhabiting a volcano in North-West Arabia.”

Later, this tribal God was adopted the principalities of Ephraim and Judah.

Aslan, as an argument, I think that Philo’s points are the stronger.

Philo,

I feel that Aslan might not take kindly to your Constructionism. Were there a God, changing the laws of physics would have all sorts of problems relating to light leaving stars to predestination, for Aslan. That is, changing physics would have profound philosophical implications.

Kenny,

I have been trying to coax Aslan to appreciate the wider historical panorama. It seems you might tried too and failed?

Nonetheless, I do see scholarship evident in religionism, but, it is far too narrow. A priori validation, the lack of null hypotheses and the avoidance of triangulation, does not seem the way to prove the existence of any god.

Were I trying to build a religionist case (I'm not), I would look towards studying Superposition in Planck Time and how proteins are built in DNA, not the Bible.

Philo,

Are you saying that during the battle sunlight shone on Joshua's army but not on their enemies?

While Joshua's prayer in vv12-13a is poetic, the narrative description of what actually happened in v13b is not. According to standard grammatical-historical exegesis, both the sun and moon stood still in the sky. I don't see why natural law would stand in the way of the God who created it, and the universe.

Kenny,

Your arguments goes like this: "The scientific consensus is that the earth is 4.5 billion years old so therefore it is. All Biblical propositions on this area must be wrong because it doesn't agree with those all-knowing gods we call scientists."

Yet the history of science shows that the consensus of scientists has been wrong - indeed hopelessly wrong - time and time and time again. In contrast, the Bible's historical propositions have _never_ shown to be wrong.

That infidels link you gave contains all the same tired old alleged discrepencies that have been refuted time and time again since Aquinas' day. There are several books available written by scholars refuting these pithy nonsense claims.

You said: "Just remember in Aslans world pi is equal to three now where’s the logic in that."

Actually, in my world pi does not equal 3. However, I'm curious to know what you think pi equals? Please Kenny - indulge me - tell me what you think the value of pi is?

Oliver,

You said "Destroying astronomical records would have been like burning the plans to the V2. Put simply, your source is wrong."

My source is Douglas J. Keenan who has published his research in a peer-reviewed professional journal (East Asian History):
http://www.informath.org/EAH02a.pdf

You have simply made baseless assertions. May I suggest that it is you who are wrong?

The Book of Jasher (or the Book of the upright one) was an ancient book of Israelite songs and prayers. It is also mentioned in 2 Sam 1:18. Unfortunately no copies have been preserved.

Oliver,

You said: "Were I to apply your standard and reject my Constructionist acceptance of Jesus as a “historical” person...I would need to conclude Jesus did not exist at all."

That would be an illogical conclusion, and says alot about your grasp of logic.

You said: "My “opinion” is our Western democratic and the legal systems and the legal systems, were have inherited from the Greeks, Romans, Magna Carta and Westminster; today,representing just one form of governance (Locus of Power) amongst many (Loci of Power) held throughout history. You seem to hold an alternative “opinion”. Put simply, we have divergent opinions."

Ok. That means that Hitler's Nazi regime was also a locus of power. Was this locus of power wrong to kill 6 million Jews? They didn't violate their own law in doing this, so what - if anything - is wrong with what they did?

Asian,
Quote, "Philo, Are you saying that during the battle sunlight shone on Joshua's army but not on their enemies?" Poetry does not always represent actual physical events, as is evidenced by the writings of Isaiah. The precedent is, in poetry the sun and moon shining upon one can indicate blessing even as darkness and gloom indicate curse. It can be a picture of speech. For those that would die they would no longer see the sun at midday or the moon at night. For them this blessing ceased, and I am suggesting this is what Joshua prayed. Joshua was not concerned essentially about the need of more sunlight or darkness but he was concerned that God give him the victory over his enemies.

However God performed this in the miracle of the hailstorm, Joshua did not have to do it. The extended darkness was across the whole area of battle as the sun ceased to give light even at midday which extended till late evening because of the heavy cloud.

Haven't we been here before?
I nowhere near have the training of either side here and they say a little bit of learning is a dangerous thing.

Can you tell the difference between a sophist and a sincere 'philosopher/logistician' is there a difference when our cognitive processes can bias our decisions.

I see a similar debate going on between the creationists and mainstream science and the Global warming advocates vs the sceptics?

When one either side could conceivably cheery pick their premises what is the lay person to do? And what happens when as during the 1920’s and eugenics whole scientific disciplines do get caught up in social/institutional bias?

It get even more complicated individually for even for arguments sake Aslan and Boaz are under severe confirmation bias how could you point it out to them their internal logic says they are right.

I always thought that slavery in the Bible was always a problem for Christians to justify but Aslan and Boaz will easily sidestep it and say well slaves were treated better back then and will not see any contradiction in what they have just said. Is there a contradiction? BTW Aslan & Boaz you are invited to post at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=125033

I’m beginning to think that these sort of debates (and many others) are not rational/logical but non-rational partly psychological rationalizations cloaked in rational/logical language. So there is no contradictions just circular rationalizations.

Aslan talks about absolutes then justifies slavery in the bible but I would guess that quite a few on the other side value human life but not extend that value to a human zygote and see no contradictions because in their world view it is still coherent.

Anyway carry on.

Aslan,

CHINESE ASTRONOMY

Keenan’s article mainly relates to recording the solar eclipses. The Chinese were more interested in lunar eclipses. The Shang bones record events that are invisible to the modern naked eye but can be confirmed via Radio Astronomy. Of course, what I assert is baseless, if oracle bones and radio telescopes don’t exist. I happen to believe both do exist. If you don’t believe in oracle bones or radio telescopes, may I suggest you visit Nanking and Parkes. I think you will find some very convincing evidence.

The Chinese Court Astronomers guarded their instruments and techniques. Other astronomers made things made-up. Herein, Keenan remarks would be of no revelation to a Sinologist. He is reinventing the wheel.

East Asia History is published by ANU, which has an excellent Asian Studies Department. Nonetheless, this publication does not retrieve, when I tick the peer-reviewed box on my university’s database. Significant articles in peer-reviewed journals can sometimes be identified by the review process history posted above a formal abstract.

HITLER

Those in power determine the law. So, yes, genocide was legal under the NAZI regime.

Is genocide wrong? Yes, in my opinion: It was very wrong of Hitler to massacre the Jews and the Poles. Similarly, in my opinion, the genocide of the indigenous Tasmanians was wrong, as would the genocide of the Hittites. In my opinion, all these aforementioned acts are heinous. Under the systems in place today, Hitler, the Colonials and Yahveh would be in the dock and judge in The Hague.

Relatedly, Aslan, do you feel God was wrong had children been killed in Sodom? (Youngsters; the innocent offspring of prostitutes.)

YAHWEH

“He [Yahweh] first came within the Israelites’ ken as the jinn inhabiting a volcano in North-West Arabia.” Later, this tribal God was adopted the principalities of Ephraim and Judah.

Do you disagree with Toynbee

Aslan,

SCIENCE

Science being wrong all the time is what makes it so powerful. There is recent evidence matter might “leak” energy. Were the energy to leave the 4-D space-time continuum, my guess is that the 4.5 billion years might need a small readjustment. That would be progress.

My creed might be Sol is a third generation spectral class “G” star. Relatedly, the Earth appears to be 4.5 billion years old and matter between 12.5-13.5 billion years old. Aslan, presumably, you believe that the Earth is around 6,000 years old. The difference between us is I am not affixed in the face of new evidence. My propositions are tentative.

Aslan, under what conditions would you rip Mark out of the NT and replace it with Thomas? Scientists basically did this, when the Big Bang replaced the infinite universe.

Philo,

I would agree any divine entity would act within the confines of the laws of physics established. Herein, Aslan, I feel, does not appreciate our 3-D world is melded with time. If we change physicists, it has ramifications for causality. Play with causality and determinism comes under review and free will becomes doubtful. Were a divine entity to construct 4-D space-time to include Joshua’s prayer, Joshua has no free will.

Again, Philo, I agree with you regard to poetry. Various reviewers “indwell” (Polanyi) in a performance and make personal interpretations. Gestalts also display is quality.

Reviewing the above two paragraphs, I see at least three Joshua interpretations:

1. A miracle within God’s ordered universe (Philo)
2. A miracle with a Hebrew God playing with Physics like an Olympian God would with people (Aslan)
3. It was a stormy day (Oliver)

Maybe, our good friend, Kenny, might suggest 4., nothing happened

Oliver,

Re Chinese astronomy: Your proposition was that if Joshua's long really occurred, the Chinese would surely have recorded it, but since we don't have any record it must not have occurred.

I respond:
1. Joshua's long day occurred in a period of history before Chinese had seriously begun systematically recording astronomical observations. Yes, obsevations were made during this period but they are relatively few and far between.
2. As Keenan (and others) points out, when Shi Huang-di came to power, he had most of the records burned and those that were retained were subsequently destroyed in the civil war following his death.
3. If the Chinese did happen to record Joshua's long day, it is highly likely that the record was destroyed.

Thus, not only is you argument an argument from silence (which is a logical fallacy), the facts of history provide a highly plausible explanation for this silence.

In other words, your objection is toothless, and all your ramblings about Shang bones and radio astronomy are totally irrelevant.

Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp, Oliver?

Re East Asia History you said: "this publication does not retrieve, when I tick the peer-reviewed box on my university’s database."

It retrieves fine on my university's database.

You said: "Significant articles in peer-reviewed journals can sometimes be identified by the review process history posted above a formal abstract."

Nonsense! I can't think of one journal which publishes its review history. I know of one journal (a Christian science journal) which publishes the date the paper was received and the date it was revised but thats it. You are simply trying to diminish Keenan's credibility and research. Nice try.

Re Toynbee's idea of Yahweh - of course I don't agree with his fantasy!

You said: "Science being wrong all the time is what makes it so powerful"

My first response to this was to just burst out laughing. My second response is...No, this statement is just so silly and absurd I'll just let it speak for itself.

Oliver,

You said: "Is genocide wrong? Yes, in my opinion: It was very wrong of Hitler to massacre the Jews and the Poles. Similarly, in my opinion, the genocide of the indigenous Tasmanians was wrong, as would the genocide of the Hittites. In my opinion, all these aforementioned acts are heinous. Under the systems in place today, Hitler, the Colonials and Yahveh would be in the dock and judge in The Hague."

But on what basis can the Hague or, after the war, the Nuremberg trials, condemn these acts and prosecute the offenders? If its just your opinion, or the UN's, or the Hague's etc then its just an opinion. What right do you or the UN or the Hague have to impose your own morality on Hitler and co.? In Hitler's opinion, genocide is not wrong. Why should he submit to your or the Hague's view of morality?

If you say the locus of power (ie. Hitler was ultimately defeated in the war) then you are basically affirming "might makes right" ie. anything is 'right' provided you have the power to do it and resist any challenges.

You see Oliver, in your view, you have no basis to criticise another country's or culture's morality or laws. As soon as you do, you break your own rules and demonstrate that you really do not believe what you say you believe.

NeoHuman
thanx for the invite, I'll check it out mate.

SLAVERY. Neo, its not possible to discuss this issue without referring to a lot of history and to be truthful, it is also not possible to simply say that Aslan or myself simply 'sidestep' the issue.

We don't condone the concept of slavery which appears to be in your mind, but we recognize that in the ancient near east, there were many FORMS of slavery, we just use the one word for them all. Perhaps this is our biggest problem. There is a world of difference between a person captured from an invading army (who were not successful) and who is then enslaved as forced labor, and a man who willingly offers himself to a creditor to make up for a debt owed. Both were called 'slavery' but they are obviously not the same. Dare I say "even" you can see this ? :) at risk or your wrath, but its downright true.

Some forms of attachment to others for labor, (a better term) clearly had a social welfare goal in mind. You need to read up on this very comprehensively. Not ALL slavery was as manifested in the American south and other plantation colonies of the past.

Aslan,

ANCIENT CHINA

I did not say it East Asia History was not peer reviewed. I said that I could not retrieve it as a peer reviewed journal. That is, if I use the library’s general catalogue it retrieves. If enter, physical sciences, astronomy and tick the peer review box, it does not retrieve. More recently, I went to the journal’s site. It would appear to be a referred journal for students. My “guess” is doctoral students publish here for feedback, before their topic defence. Some journals show the dates of revisions above the abstracts.

With the oracle stones you can point a Radio Telescope to confirm the position of star that no longer exists based on its radiation signature. I think that is pretty amazing.

Relatedly, the Christians went on a book-burning spree in 391. Nonetheless, many records survive from earlier periods. Similarly, records survived in China.

SCIENCE

There is a maxim in Science, “ninety percent of the published works in physics do not have permanent stature”. Look back at Sir John Eccles’ comment on theory. Einstein made a very similar comment to Eccles. Science highlighting its own fallibility equals progress. What you see as a weakness, humour even, I posit is a great strength. No other primates can do think like us.

BIBLE

Under what conditions would you remove a one gospel and replace it with another? It doesn’t have to be Thomas replacing Mark.

Would you oppose God killing innocent children in Sodom?

Should a Christian work for a Bank (usery)?

Why do you feel Toynbee is wrong? Akin to Gibbon, he is no lightweight historian.

More in a few days… busy.

Philo,

I just re-read an earlier post. Are you saying the poetry in the Bible can be metaphorical, in the sense that radiance or a blessing can be represented as, non-literal sunshine? Interesting.

Neo,

Welcome.

Thanks Oliver

Boaz you may try the social welfare or the 'it just wasn't like that' argument but when the bible talks about the OT God saying kill the neigbouring tribe and take the virgins as sex slaves, well it comes up short. Some Fundies are quite happy saying well he is God he can do what he wants but I don't think you are in that crowd. You may want to take it up on that link while it is active.

Don't worry I believe that most world views by their nature cannot be consistent or non-arbitrary but that's another topic.

Pls Boaz and Aslan consider posting on that thread I'd be very interested to hear your point of view explained.

The level of scientific understanding by some of the GB's is really quite astounding.
Please everybody remember in the GB’s world earth quakes are cuased by a unhappy God:-)

At the creationist museum of Earth History in Eureka Springs Arkansas
they belive that Tyrannosaurs rex was a vegetarian and only started eating meat after the apple incident.

Aslan,

PART ONE

I actually printed off Keenan’s paper and read it.

You will note that the coefficients used with parabola appear to relate to levels of luminosity. Herein, Keenan seems to wish to impose tighter conditions, with respect to the level of “calculated brightness”. In this regard, he finds that for a period of 960 seconds that the Ancient Astronomers’ observations would not meet an acceptable standard of shadow to be called an eclipse. It would seem the Chinese were designating the penumbra, as the ellipse. Also, it would seem the Ancient Astronomers also wrongly added atmospheric phenomena into their calculations or more accurately did not deduct these darkness factors to increase the coefficient, so, the level of brightness was to great to be designated an eclipse.

Keenan mentions Earth is inconstant in its rotational speed, but does not mention, how he creates a common orbit time for his modern calculation and the eclipse. This is necessary because the Earth is slowing in its orbit. In primary school we learned that when we calculate using fractions, we look for a common denominator. Similarly, when comparing times across millennia we need to do the same. We can use scientific seconds or relate both observations to a common frame, i.e., the length of the “1901” orbital year. Perhaps, this factor is buried somewhere in his NASA tables? But he did not say so.

Thus, we find we are talking about the shadow was in umbra or penumbra over a period of 960 seconds, without knowing if modern calculations make allows for Sideral Time or whether other atmospheric further darkened the Chinese Astronomers’ sky. For goodness sake! I for one admire their accomplishment.

Now, regarding Joshua, even given, we are looking at earlier period still, surely, the Chinese would recorded the Earth stopping dead on its axis for 36,000 seconds and what would have been 15 degrees of the planet’s rotation.

Kenny,
I'd like to post what the Bible say on creation as compared to what AIG believe, but this may not be within the scope of this topic.

Oliver,
The text of Joshua 10: 14 says,"God harkened to the prayers of man". I would not have thought this unusual, but what was unusual was that his prayers regarding the sun and moon were answered with the extended darkness caused by the heavy clouds. The text says, "the Lord fought for Israel", which was identified by the giant hailstones. Reading verse 8 - 10 indicates Joshua's real conviction was; there would not be a man of the enemy standing after the battle. Joshua came upon the enemy at night and disturbed them under the cover of darkness and this was to Israels advantage. Joshua did not want the sun to shine untill he had destroyed every Amorite. It would appear that the heavy cloud extended most of the day (verse 13b. What is astounding about his prayer is the intervention of God over natural conditions, ie the extended darkness.

The nature of poetry written by a warrior could well be expressed in terms eg,, "may the sun not shine on (the inhabitants of) Gibeon and the moon not give its gentle light to Aijalon until we have destroyed all our enemies". However in poetry when a triumph song is sung over a dead enemy, they could well say, may the sun ceased to shine upon them now they have entered the eternal darkness. Poetry can have several associated meanings. Calling the sun to cease shining upon an enemy is a form of psychological preparation for battle, or a triumph song. Compare Ex. 10:21 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand towards the sky so that darkness will spread over Egypt — darkness that can be felt.”
Ex. 10:22 .. and total darkness covered Egypt for three days".

1Sa. 2:9 He will guard the feet of his saints, but the wicked will be
silenced in darkness. “It is not by strength that one prevails".

So philo when they say God is Love or Truth, Light etc whatever or Jesus is the word made flesh than that is just poetry?

Please tell me how you are supposed to know the difference between poetry, midrash and actual historical events. Spong thinks much of the NT is midrash and cannot be used as a hitorical document.

Quote, "So philo when they say God is Love or Truth, Light etc whatever or Jesus is the word made flesh than that is just poetry?"

I could be equally as smart in my comment but I will give you the benifit of intelligence. Obviously you infer that poetry is just wimsical immagination, and has no reality. Ask peots if what they felt was real or not.

The context will identify the intention of the writer. The above character qualities identified with God, love, truth, enlightenment etc, are what was manifest in the life and character of Jesus. The eternal qualities of God were witnessed in his life, wisdom and acts, i.e. the character (Spirit) of God was incarnate in Jesus. Hardly poetry, but certainly a wonderful expression of a human life that has done more than any man to inspire divine aspirations in those who believe him.

Aslan ,

PART ONE (Cont.)

Actually that’s 150 degrees of the Earth’s rotation!

Sorry, Aslan, I really can’t see such an event not being recorded elsewhere in the world. (Yes, I know about argument from silence.)

PART TWO

Remember, the Ancient Chinese were excellent mathematicians but poor geometricians. Look at Figure 1. (Aslan’s earlier psot) Draw a line of “best fit” between Mars, Saturn, Mercury and Jupiter. Think more in terms of variance to fit. What do see? A four planet conjunction (of fit)on a common axis, perhaps?

Philo,

Hmmm… Not a metaphor, then. Between modern prayer and incantation? A A summoning? Some modern Arabs seem to adopt a similar style, when they curse another. "May you and family, dogs that you are ... ."

Kenny,

I confirmed your finding regarding fundamentalist Creation. Herein, I found these guys believe not only did dinosaurs live contemporaneously with humans, but, that Noah chose baby dinosaurs for the Ark, because grown dinosaurs took up too much room.

http://rense.com/general65/inark.htm

Boaz,

I suspect you might not hold fundamentalist views. Herein, would you see the Flood (or Gilgamesh) being an atypical event around the Tigris and Euphates? The Creationist belief, that the Flood created the Grand Canyon, is really, really hard to accept.

Philo it is a serious topic in the philosophy of religion that many religious concepts are a misuse of language and in fact many Christians take statements that God is love literally.

I would take it that you are familiar with the term midrash and how it is used to rehash concepts through stories by the Jews to convey ideas and their relationship with their God.

Once a lay person understands that it is an integral part of the OT and is argued the NT, that there is a strong argument backed up by archeology and history that the Jewish and therefore the Christian religions are mythologized constructs with real historical people and events thrown in, and they can no more be used as historical documents than a contemporary historical fictional novel.

So I agree that you must look at the content and intent of the writer and that is one of the reasons why much of Christianity has got it wrong concerning the Bible they have disregarded the midrashic intent of the OT and Spong would argue the NT as well.

Oliver,

Re Journal "East Asia History", you said: "if I use the library’s general catalogue it retrieves. If enter, physical sciences, astronomy and tick the peer review box, it does not retrieve."

That's because it is not a science journal - its a HISTORY journal! I thought that would be obvious when the title is "East Asia History"!

You said: "My “guess” is doctoral students publish here for feedback, before their topic defence"

Your guess is wrong. East Asia History web site: "Contributions are invited from scholars working towards degrees as well as from those already well-established. Manuscripts will be read by at least two referees and under conditions of anonymity as far as possible."
Stop trying to minimise the published research Oliver.

You said: "With the oracle stones you can point a Radio Telescope to confirm the position of star that no longer exists based on its radiation signature. I think that is pretty amazing."

Irrelevant!

You said: "Relatedly, the Christians went on a book-burning spree in 391."

A gross distortion of the facts. See
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qburnbx.html

You said: "Nonetheless, many records survive from earlier periods. Similarly, records survived in China."

I never disputed this. The problem is that most were destroyed.

I'll answer your other questions when you answer mine:
On what basis can the Hague or, after the war, the Nuremberg trials, condemn Nazi acts and prosecute the offenders? If its just your opinion, or the UN's, or the Hague's etc then its just an opinion. What right do you or the UN or the Hague have to impose your own morality on Hitler and co.? In Hitler's opinion, genocide is not wrong. Why should he submit to your or the Hague's view of morality?

Oliver, Aslan is making a sad attempt to get into a position the thread so he can say that moral codes can only come from his God. Only his god has the right to impose his will.

You know the one that made the world around six thousand years ago and everyone and everything lived in happy harmony until that evil snake came walking (yes walking) along. Remember Aslan is the greatest intellect the world has ever know, he knows the truth never mind all those all those nasty scientist, never mind all those heretical biblical scholars, and lets not even mention any other religions. Aslan is as all knowing as that god he talks about anything that doesn’t agree with his world view must be wrong. There is simply no question that a little thing like evidence may change his worldview, not like that flaky science stuff how can you have moral certainty when you keep changing the story.

But then again I’m a Atheists and we know what the bible says about Atheists

Kenny,

For someone with your understanding of science, it is not surprising that you think GB's understanding of science is "astounding"

BTW, what is the value of pi? You never answered.

Philo,

No need to post difference between what Bible says and what AIG (and others) say re creation. AIG believes what the Bible says.

Neohuman,

Spong is not a Bible scholar or any scholar for that matter. No-one (except media outlets) takes him seriously. We can tell the difference between poetry, midrash and actual historical events by analysing the form and style of the text. Eg. we know that Genesis is historical narrative, because we can see a pattern of beginning qatal (perfect) verb forms followed by a progression of wayyiqtol (waw-consecutives imperfect) forms. These grammatical markers (along with several other markers) are indicative of classical Hebrew historical narrative. That Spong thinks much of the NT is midrash just reinforces the fact that he has no idea what he is talking about.

Here are a couple of good articles explaining Midrash:
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/wcas/midrash.htm
http://www.moriel.org/sermons/uses_abuses_midrash.htm

Oliver,

you said: "Sorry, Aslan, I really can’t see such an event not being recorded elsewhere in the world. (Yes, I know about argument from silence.)"

Are you being disingenuous Oliver - or just not paying attention?
How many times have I explianed that even if we assume that the Chinese simply had to record such an event, it would most likely have been destroyed along with the majority of ancient astronomical observations as Keenan points out.

A bat is not a bird.
Aslan provide endless hours of entertainment to all, you wouldn’t have a clue what my knowledge of science is. I’ll tell you one thing it is enough to know that pi is not 3.

Had any astrological readings lately Aslan? Did they tell that the earth was flat (Isaiah 40:22) Aslan as has been said before, religious mems are a evolutionary deadend.

Aslan,

BOOK BURNING GENERALLY:

Thank you for the site. Nonetheless, I know much of this history. It goes to show records do survive purges Christian and Non-Christian, alike.

CHINA:

The records would have survived for several reasons:

1. Astronomy is a unification technology valuable to the State
2. Knowledge was protected familially by Court Astronomers
3. Documents were secreted
4. Ancient China had a Diaspora – Reach.
5. Many Shang records would have been already old and buried (missed destruction) and recently discovered

Moreover, Keenan appears to be an Astronomer not an historian.

I don’t feel any reasonable person would believe it irrelevant the Shang recorded Novae, when we are reviewing the capacity of the Shang to record such events. Think, these stars explode and disappear within a few days, the bones can’t be forgeries. It has only been in the last fifty-years or so, we have had the capacity to verify the data, which is convincingly confirmed.

One can’t see a society based largely around celestial mechanics and the calendar would not record the event and protect the record. Were your world run over by the Grand Unification Dynasty of Kenny, are you going to destroy all copies of the Bible - of course not.

HITLER & CO:

Right and wrong are moral concepts. Power is a political expression. So, “might is right” does not gain traction. The people in power after WWII were able to exercise that power. The Locus of Power for the Soviet and the Locus of Power for the West were different. Stalin and the People, respectively. Stalin had the power to exercise his opinion. Democracies exercised popular opinion. After being caught, the accused had little say in the matter beyond a Court Room defence. On the gallows, war criminals have opinions. In executing war criminals, the court is acting in accordance with its collective opinion. Is that right? Well, it’s a matter of opinion. :-)

GOSPEL

Now it is your turn: You can start with stating under what conditions would you rip out and replace a gospel. Which gospel is the least reliable? Thanks.

Aslan,
I recognise the practise of your faith and your good character above how we might individually view certain beliefs, or events of history. I agree, the views of Spong do not resemble a Christian view, but the religion of Spong.

I can appreciate your defence of AIG but their view of Romans 5: 12 is a misrepresentation. Here are extracts from my 30 page article:

To evaluate the text of Genesis 2: 17 where it says, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it: for in the day that you shall eat of it, you shall die". I ask the question: In the terms of Genesis 2: 17 "in the day" - when did Adam die, and what was the nature of that death that we also inherited as mentioned in Romans 5: 12 – 21. Conversely what is the nature of the “new life” we now receive from Christ?

The Apostle Paul states in Acts 17: 24 – 27 that God determined each man’s time and place in history, so it wasn’t Adam who determined the length of his organic life span by his sin. The very fact that Adam survived 930 years after Eden meant he had a fair innings in an organic body. So the "death" recorded as "on that very day" mentioned in Genesis 2: 17 hardly applies to his organic death, even as the opening of his eyes did not apply to his natural sight (Gen 3: 7)... The substance of the breath was not oxygen as all other living creatures had already received; it was in fact the very spiritual and moral nature of God.

The literal Hebrew text of Genesis 2: 17 says, “in your dying you shall die” completely dead, twice dead (Jude 12 +) and refers to man as a total being. The text records the word twice and the second death is the eternal death of the spirit. Even as Cain was in his spirit dead, though he roamed the Earth.

Aslan not sure where Spong sits but many different sources Jewish, Christian and others come up with the same conclusion that the Bible cannot be used as a reliable historical source he isn't doing too bad.

Trouble with my link your link is that it doesn’t give the weight of authority(yes I know the fallacy) qualification and where it stands in relation to others who study that and similar fields. Any loon can trade links, lets try the Raelians. Now for arguments sake you were a Raelian if the only sources of info you chose where those that upheld the Raelian viewpoint trading links won’t get you anywhere because you will have no idea that the Raelian stance is so at odds with so many academic disciplines and evidence to make it nonsensical just by looking at a few links.

As a lay-non Raelian I don’t have the time to go through their arguments the best I can do is look at their stance within the framework of current human knowledge and academic disciplines as I do with all religious traditions. I don’t suspend by scepticism for them so why should I do that for you, you certainly don’t afford other religious traditions the same latitude towards evidence and the laws of physics.

I won’t debate or trade links with a creation science advocate, anyone who will argue that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that dinosaurs strolled with humans are under a severe case of confirmation bias and there is no amount of evidence alone will change their minds.

Now if you are trying to argue that God could stop the laws of physics and give the earliest day light saving and BTW no other civilization happened to notice it when they noticed comets eclipses etc it’s not looking good.

BTW are you or Boaz going to post on that slavery link?

It is said that one shouldn't get into an argument with a fool, because it soon becomes difficult for a third party to distinguish between the protagonists.

I'd like to commend Oliver for his persistence in presenting reasoned and rational refutations of the cleverly presented, but nonetheless essentially superstitious, claims presented by fundamentalist Christians such as Aslan.

Clearly, Oliver is no fool.

BOAZ_David, you say, "it was Grace Pettigrew who suggested that my 'right wing fundamentalist bigot' friends like Campolo, are not worth listening to."

Exactly where have I ever mentioned this Campolo person Boaz?

I will say it once again, stop telling fibs or you will go blind.

Kenny,

You said: "I’ll tell you one thing it is enough to know that pi is not 3."

This goes to show that you know precious little about maths. Pi is an irrational number which means it is inappropriate to talk about its "value". Rather, it can only be approximated eg. 3.142 or 22/7 or 3.1415926535897984626. None of these represent the value of pi - they are approximations of varying precision. So 3 is actually a valid approximation of pi (to 1 significant figure). BTW, the calculation of pi=3 from 1 Kings 7:23 assumes the metal Sea was perfectly circular, that the given measurements were not rounded up/down and that the brim did not fan outwards. If any of these are not true, the deduction of pi=3 fails anyway.

Oliver,

You said: "The records would have survived for several reasons"

But as Keenan pointed out, it is an historical fact that most of the records did NOT survive, so your speculations are pointless and irrelevant, not to mention logically fallacious.

You said: "Keenan appears to be an Astronomer not an historian."

Yes, he is an astronomer writing about the history and accuracy of Chinese astronomy.

I would not rip out any of the gospels nor replace any of them under any circumstances. All are equally reliable and focus on different aspects of the life and ministry of Christ.

Oliver,

You said:"Right and wrong are moral concepts."

In your view they are meaningless concepts because you only have opinion.

For West, "might" lies with people. In USSR, "might" lay with Stalin. ie. might is right.

"In executing war criminals, the court is acting in accordance with its collective opinion. Is that right? Well, it’s a matter of opinion. :-)"

Your relativistic view was the Nazis main defence at Nuremberg. But their opinion counted for nothing because the "might" or "locus of power" lay with the allies and the Court.

Your relativistic view is incoherent, and means you have no business objecting to behaviour which "in your opinion" is wrong, heinous, criminal etc. Such moral language is meaningless in your view. You only have opinion.

Philo,

"In the terms of Genesis 2: 17 "in the day" - when did Adam die, and what was the nature of that death that we also inherited as mentioned in Romans 5: 12 – 21."

Extract from my 300 page dissertation:

In Gen 2:17, "in the day" is literal translation of beyom which is idiom for "when" so this is not referring to a fixed point in time. Older translations are inconsistent in rendering beyom. Newer ones such as NIV, NET render it consistently as "when". Secondly, the Qal imperfect verb form implies action which is (1) dependent upon the event of Adam and Eve eating fruit, and (2) in the future with respect to time that they ate. Thirdly, Hebrew "ki beyom akalek mimenu mot tamut", literally reads: ‘for in the day of your eating of it, dying you shall die.’ When infinitive absolute precedes finite verb of same stem (as here), it strengthens or intensifies the verbal idea by emphasizing its certainty ie. the emphasis is on certainty of death rather than precise timing or chronology.

Link between sin and physical death is highlighted by chiasmus in Rom 5:12:
A Therefore, just as sin entered the world
B through one man,
C and death through sin,
C’ and in this way death came
B’ to all men,
A’ because all sinned

"This goes to show that you know precious little about maths. Pi is an irrational number which means it is inappropriate to talk about its 'value'."

Huh? Irrational numbers still have values Aslan, even though you can't write them down. Such approximations are often refered to as "the value of Pi to x decimals places".

Aslan,

Had the Gospel of Mark been excluded from the mandated collected Biblical works in the fourth century, would you agree to the inclusion of the new fourth Gospel of Mark today? Please justify your response.

garra,

Thanks. Your feedback is appreciated.

Come on Aslan be a sport, post on that slavery link.

You can show when God said to butcher the neighboring tribe and take the virgins as slaves it wasn't an act of barbarity, but all part of his divine plan.

Or that if these slaves weren't treated as bad as its made out there is no reason why this form of slavery shouldn't be practiced today.
If not why not?

In fact instead of foreign aid we should just have some of the worlds poor sent over as household slaves or send them fruit picking it isn't so bad after all.

The one I couldn't understand was if God could turn their world upside down by saying he was the one and only, part seas and the like, surely telling the Jews that slavery under any circumstance is wrong would be a piece of cake. Go figure!

You beleive in moral absolutes so choose, are you telling us slavery is under certain circumstances is Ok or is your God morally corrupt?

As a theologian, Aslan makes a rather ordinary mathematician. Pi is simply the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, or (if you like) the ratio of a circle's area to the area of a square whose side is the radius.

It's only 'irrational' in the strict sense that it can't be expressed as the ratio of two integers.

And why is it inappropriate to talk about values in the context of irrationality? Fundamentalist Christians do it in these forums all the time.

I don't think I need to add anymore to the pi thing. I would love to read Aslan thoughts on slavery and I was also wondering if he has seen a Gadites lately.

OPINION

From my recollection, the main defence during the Nuremberg Trials was, “I was just following orders”. So, we are not in agreement here.

An opinion is a judgement. Alternatively, right, refers to that which is, “true”, “just” or “most favourable” (Collins Dictionary). Herein, you seem to want to substitute my predicate.

Opinion=Judgement… Presumably, that is why the trial is referred to as “Judgment at Nuremberg”. We have been here before, however, I iterate, the judges and the defendants had opinions. In some cases perhaps, those on trial went against their opinions, owing to fear under the NAZI regime. My opinion is war criminals should stand trial, but not face the death penalty. I am opposed to the latter. Am I right? As I said before, it’s a matter of opinion.

SETS OF NUMBERS

The sum of the set of all irrational numbers is greater than the sum of the set of all rational numbers. Rational integers are in the minority, albeit, an infinite minority.

As Duec correctly notes that since a complete irrational number cannot be represented as a decimal, it does not follow irrational numbers does not exist. Similarly, one cannot draw a “perfect” circle.

ASTRONOMY

According to Needham, Ancient Chinese contemporary to the Ancient Egyptians (date not specified) knew the positions of the Constellations on an hour by hour basis, even when the stars were on the other side of the world: i.e., in Chinese daytime, they knew the skies over parts of the world not visible to them

Aslan,
Quote, "Hebrew "ki beyom akalek mimenu mot tamut", literally reads: ‘for in the day of your eating of it, dying you shall die.’"

The act of eating fruit caused them to die on that very day. They were separated from God on that very day, unless we take a day as a 1,000 years. The death that characterises the nature of sin as found in Romans is spiritual seperation from God: the life Christ gives is spiritual renewal of relationship to God not organic life. Adam caused this death, Christ restores this life. Christ never restores our DNA to an eternal life.

We inherited death via the DNA from the first human; set in place from the creation of life. Every organic system functioning in the living body is designed to renew the body from occurring decay.

Metabolism is the process of renewal of the cell. In very fact as we burn up body cells, decay is the nature of being alive. The digestive system feeds carbon and nutriment to the body and the respiratory system feeds oxygen to the circulatory system that nourishes each cell and in the complete process removes dead tissue, impurities and carbon dioxide by excretion, perspiration and exhaling. The function of the nervous and healing systems is of self-awareness to protect from mortal injury and to fight infection. The reproductive system by complementary male and female union upon maturity gives total renewal of the organic system itself. All organic systems are about renewal because mortality of the cell has always been present. This includes all complex vertebrate species as they have operated on these systems from their very beginning. To suggest otherwise is to support a recent evolution in the DNA of every living species since creation. The fact is the very function and design planned by the Creator of the DNA is that death should occur. For us to imagine or suggest that if Adam failed to take in oxygen or nourishment he could not die organically before his disobedience defies the created design, and defies the gasping need of the body

Deuc, garra, Neohuman,

Before you accuse me of ordinary mathematics, why don't you work on your reading comprehension?

I never said pi has no value. I said it is "inappropriate to talk about its value" in the sense that pi = 3 or 3.1415926 etc.

garra says: "Pi is simply the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter"

This is the _definition_ of pi - not its value.

garra says: "It's only 'irrational' in the strict sense that it can't be expressed as the ratio of two integers"

Duh! That's a truism if I ever heard one.

Oliver,

Mark was not excluded so your question is pointless.

you said: "According to Needham,...[blah blah blah...totally irrelevant factoids]..."

I'm not going to repeat myself again. If you don't get my very simple point now, you never will.

Neohuman,

I barely have time to post here. If you are really interesting in the practice of slavery in the Bible (and I very much doubt you are), see the thorough discussions in standard academic reference works such as New Bible Dictionary, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, or Anchor Bible Dictionary. All your questions (and many more) are answered there.

Philo,

When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, their death became a certainty. They began to die. They became "dead men walking". That is what the Hebrew grammar is communicating.

We do not inherit death. We are naturally mortal since only God is immortal. The fruit of the Tree of Life was what gave them everlasting life. Romans talks about normal physical death. Just as the process of death took time, so the process of life is not instantaneous but eventually our bodies will be restored. This concept is described in CS Lewis's book "The Great Divorce".

Oliver,

you said: "the main defence during the Nuremberg Trials was, “I was just following orders”. So, we are not in agreement here."

It's the same thing. "I was just following orders" is an admission that morality is determined by the locus of power (superior officers) rather than by an objective standard.

You said: "Opinion=Judgement…"

Actually, opinion = MORAL judgment.

You said: "We have been here before, however, I iterate, the judges and the defendants had opinions."

Indeed. But note that the judges didn't say to the Nazis "Oh. You have a different opinion to us. We respect your opinion. Not guilty." The Nazis were found guilty and punnished. And Robert H Jackson, counsel for USA made it clear that this was not a case of power - the victor judging the loser - but a case of violation of a higher moral law.

Again, if you really believe what you are saying then you have no right to criticise anything or anyone.

Your view can only produce a world which is either effectively lawless or totalitarian. Do you really want to live in such a world?

Yes repeatedly asking you and Boaz to post on Slavery, reading through that slavery link and others to see what apologists like yourself regurgitate, shows that I’m not at all interested in the subject.

But it would have been a waste a time anyway you would have used the standard defence to deny that this form of slavery was as bad as is made out (even though none seem to think they could get away with it today)or to mistranslate the text.

Your response does answer a question though you are a cop out Christian fundie troll sophist/apologist on par with the creation science troll fundies, who is on the extreme end of the Christian blind spot inconsistency regarding amoral practices carried out in the Bible.

You won’t post there because you know you are on a hiding to nothing on slavery which in a absolutist moral system is unjustifiable under any circumstance.

Oliver, Kenny, Fiona and others, feeding trolls only encourages them if you want to keep Aslan as your pet resident troll by all means, I think I’ll look for some moderate Christians for any discourse, and hope they can call a spade a spade

Aslan,

The point of my question about Mark is "if" it were now excluded would you include it. This scenario provides a test of your willingness to accept new interpretations not based on a priori validation to your code. You see, you do accept the four gospels, now - without question. The hypothetical is, that if there were only three gospels, would you accept or reject the fourth gospel, you now accept?

Neo,

I see and have experienced the point you make, but, I might hang-on in there with this Mark/Gospel thing, for a while.

What Aslan does not seem to appreciate is that I am not attacking his right believe, rather, I am trying to coax him (?) to be critical of what he reads, before forming a belief. Moreover, all beliefs need to be tentative. Adopting an a priori position and remaining affixed gets us nowhere. If the word is mighter than the sword, the question mark is the word's most powerful character.

Good. We agree that there is such thing as a Locus of Power. Progress.

Some Germans would have agreed with the NAZIs and some would not. It is a matter of opinion. Nonetheless, personal opinons would have often been secreted in Hilter - fear.

In war crimes courts deliver judgements, which may or may not agree with their personal opinions of the judicial officers. They are there to interpret the law. Nonetheless, it is probable judges would hold opinions aligned to their own society, but, that is not a certaintly.

"In the Opinion of the Court", having the Locus of Power, the opinions of defendants are weighted and after deliberation a verdict and perhaps a penalty is handed down.

I don't see the existence of millions of opinions is threatening. It is respect for diversity and the apt channeling of debate that is important. Well, that's my opinion.

So you agree with me that pi is not 3 Aslan?
Yes I know NeoHuman that’s what this thread is about, but morbid curiosity leds us to keep him talking to see what foolishnesses he'll come out with next.
I wonder if Aslan shares his Gods unhealthy interest with beetles?

Fair enough Oliver, you can try but I don't think you'll get anywere.

I will say that it is the fudies who usually cop the slavery question and the moderates escape because they don't tend to get up

other peoples noses.

& in the end I don't think it is possible for a moral system to be complete and consistent anyway and I back him on abortion against some liberal Christians and my fellow atheists and humanists.

I would like though if you are going to continue on mark to find a neutral forum maybe invite some others with some qualifications. But then again even with heavy hitters these debates don't tend to get anywhere.

BTW Oliver are you a ethical relativist?

Asian,
Quote, "When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, their death became a certainty. They began to die. They became "dead men walking". That is what the Hebrew grammar is communicating."

Exactly!! What was the nature of the very death that happened that very day? The nature of the death that characterised their death though still alive, as you say, "dead men walking"? All organic functions in the body, like growing from a single cell to a full human being are established in the DNA, that is the beautiful life cycle. (Eccl 3: 1 - 15)

The chemistry of “the field”, to use the Biblical term of Genesis, is the ordered principles of Creation, expressed in the very ionic chemistry of matter. There is a dynamic implanted by God from the beginning inherent in the DNA that is manifest in the particular species and unfolds in that species emerging growth to reproduce itself, and diminishes as the role of its self-existence as a species depletes and dies.

God calls organic death "beautiful" in Eccl 3: 1 – 12 and he applies it in Job 1: 21, whereas spiritual death is an abomination and cannot exist in His presence and was enticed by natural passion, hence Adam being cast out of God's presence (Gen 3: 24). This was the nature of the death Adam experienced on the very day he sinned.

Quote, "We do not inherit death. We are naturally mortal since only God is immortal. The fruit of the Tree of Life was what gave them everlasting life. Romans talks about normal physical death. Just as the process of death took time, so the process of life is not instantaneous but eventually our bodies will be restored."

Could you list the places in Romans where the death of the body is mentioned? Pauls use of the term life, refers to spiritual life not organic life. The God breathed life Adam received was not what every other living creature experiences, it was the spiritual nature of Himself

Death in the book of Romans:

Death of Christ vicarious and Judicial for our sin, our death in the body is natural.
Rom 1: 32
Rom 4: 24 - 25
Rom 5: 7, 10 – 17
Rom 6: 9 – 10
Rom 7: 24
Rom 8: 38
Rom 14: 8

Death of the Spirit, as a result of sin is restored by Christ

Rom 5: 21
Rom 6: 3 – 4
Rom 6: 13 – 16
Rom 6: 21 - 23
Rom 7: 5 – 6
Rom 7: 10 – 13
Rom 8: 2 – 6
Rom 8: 36

(Paraphrase) Romans. 7:8 – 14: But sin produced in me every kind of covetous desire. Without law, sin is inactive, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Then that which is good, put me to death. But in order that sin might be recognised as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.

Romans. 8: 8 – 14: The mind of the flesh is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. The sinful nature does not control you if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is (considered)dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness

Oliver,

If Mark was excluded by the Church Fathers it would have been for a very good reason, and I would no doubt follow their judgment. But Mark was not rejected.

OTOH, Gospel of Thomas WAS rejected - and I continue to reject it for the same reasons the Fathers did.

You said: "I am trying to coax [me] to be critical of what [I] reads, before forming a belief."

A rather presumptuous comment don't you think?

You said: "Moreover, all beliefs need to be tentative."

This is a nonsense statement. The following syllogism shows why:

1. "all beliefs need to be tentative"
2. "all beliefs need to be tentative" is a belief.
3. Therefore, the belief that "all beliefs need to be tentative" should be held tentatively.
4. A tentative belief may later be accepted or rejected.
5. If the belief that "all beliefs need to be tentative" is later rejected, then obviously all beliefs need not be held tentatively.
6. If the belief that "all beliefs need to be tentative" is later accepted, then that belief is no longer tentative!

Kenny,

I agree Pi does not equal 3, but I do think that 3 is a valid approximation of Pi.

Neohuman,

Clearly you think that slavery as it was practiced in Biblical times was wrong/immoral.

Why do you think it is wrong/immoral? On what basis are you making this moral judgment?

You said: "slavery...in a absolutist moral system is unjustifiable under any circumstance"

How so? In Biblical Christianity, absolutes come from God. If God allowed the practice of a specific form of slavery (where slave owners had to obey strict rules), then how can you say it is "unjustifiable"?

You're welcome to post my comments on the other forum if you want.

Neohuman,

And if Biblical Christianity is so bad because it allowed a particular form of slavery in the Bible, then why is it that in history, it is only Christians - indeed, evangelical "fundamentalist" Christians - who have stood up against slavery, and eventually made sure that it was abolished?

Philo,

Just a few points.
1. In Romans death is used to refer to physical death and as a metaphore for separation from God.
2. Many Christians refer to this separation as spiritual death but that term is never used in scripture. Our spirits do not "die" - they are eternal - even for those who end up in Hell.
3. Romans 5:12 refers to physical death. You cannot directly compare the death that came through Adam as the direct opposite to the life that came through Christ. Romans 5:15-17 emphasises that "the gift is not like the trespass".
4. When Adam and Eve first sinned, physical death did indeed enter the world at that time. God killed animals for skins to cover Adam's and Eve's nakedness.
5. You said: "The God breathed life Adam received was not what every other living creature experiences, it was the spiritual nature of Himself". Not true. The same expression is used as a reference to physical life in Genesis 7:22 and v 23 makes it clear that both humans and animals are in view.

Aslan,

"If" you are adopting a position of infallibility in the Church's traditional lineage via ecumenical magisterial authority,it would become hard to accept much Protestant doctrine, as legitimate, when against the Catholic Church's teachings. In this frame,would you say the Founding Fathers were infallible in matters of faith? If so, is the Roman Pope, also infallible (ex cathedra)? If not, are you saying it was reasoned judgement by the (Catholic)Founding Fathers to include some gospels but exclude others?

Relatedly, if the Scriptures were open to "interpretation" during the Reformation, why not in 1st-4th centuries?

Neo and Aslan,

On other matters, back in the few days

Aslan,
1. When we sin against the perfection of God, our spirit is seperated from God, and the price of that sin is the eternal death of our spirit, ultimately in hell. The organism of the body never enters hell, or heaven, only our clothed spirit. When Adam sinned he was seperated from the presence of God - he needed to find atonement to be restored.
2. All living organic cells identified by DNA use and excreate waste and dead cell tissue. Living is part of dying, as energy breaks down carbon, and transfers ions into another form.

3. Trees grow tall on zylum produced on the outer layer of dead cells otherwise they would not grow beyond 600mm tall. So if there were trees in Eden dead tissue abounded before the disobedience of Adam. Organic death was part of the nature of the chemistry of ionic transfer causing life, change (decay) and death. Organic death was not introduced as punishment for moral behaviour, unless we had a previous inert existence in heaven before being clothed in clay.

Aslan wrote
Why do you think it is wrong/immoral? On what basis are you making this moral judgment?

You said: "slavery...in a absolutist moral system is unjustifiable under any circumstance"

How so? In Biblical Christianity, absolutes come from God. If God allowed the practice of a specific form of slavery (where slave owners had to obey strict rules), then how can you say it is "unjustifiable"?

Thank you Aslan that is all I wanted, for you grant that your God allowed slavery and that you as an individual think slavery, ownership of another human being is OK within your absolutist moral system. Enough said.

Personally I'm a meta-ethical relativist so I cannot argue the case for a absolutists including slavery but I imagine they do -just like murder probably on a combination of the Golden Rule and other moral considerations- for it would be hard to think that they wouldn't include it, others may wish to push their case.

As to your statement that absolutes come from your God well even as far back as Socrates and the Euthyphro humans knew that relying on devine moral statments is problematic I suggest you look it up.

Neo,

I have never described myself as an "ethical relativist", but, I certainly feel empathy with that camp. Moreover, I feel moral issues can present themselves "not" absolutely in different times and places against conflicting ethical dilemmas: e.g., stealing to save a live. (Aslan, I don't wish revisit sickening scenarios, please.)

I am comfortable with idea for the concurency of a favoured and degraded propositions: e.g., the Big Bang and the Solid State universe. Consequently, perhaps, I am a Freethinker, rather than an atheist. Herein, God might exist, but the probability, based on the evidence is very low: Something like the proverbial toaster orbiting Pluto.

Religious works do have value to sociologists and kin. In this stream, I have noted Moses organising the Hebrews - a somewhat similar organising event as occurred with Mohammed. Likewise, the evolution of Yehweh from a volcano spirit, to a henotheist tribal god to a monotheist god, shows a rough parallel to the progress from animist spirits to god of the region to Emperor workship in Japan.

Aslan,

My presumption is based on the feeling that you might be less willing to reject Christian Scripture than other histographical works. Herein, I am not talking about scholarship "inside" the shell. You are treating Scripture, as "a special case".

My responses,

I will be offline for a while, but, look fowrd to skimming the comment.

Aslan wrote "How so? In Biblical Christianity, absolutes come from God. If God allowed the practice of a specific form of slavery (where slave owners had to obey strict rules), then how can you say it is "unjustifiable"?"

Strict rules like when it's okay to beat your slave to death.

Aslan, I am a litle surprised that no-one has yet challenged your "syllogism".

>>1. "all beliefs need to be tentative"
2. "all beliefs need to be tentative" is a belief.
3. Therefore, the belief that "all beliefs need to be tentative" should be held tentatively.<<

So far, so good. I see no contradiction in the above conclusion. But on what basis do you presume to change the rules by introducing a second phase to the syllogism?

>>4. A tentative belief may later be accepted or rejected.
5. If the belief that "all beliefs need to be tentative" is later rejected, then obviously all beliefs need not be held tentatively.
6. If the belief that "all beliefs need to be tentative" is later accepted, then that belief is no longer tentative!<<

For one thing, this argumentation does not conform to the rules of the syllogism, which demands two premises and a conclusion. The construction you have used is:

4. Premise
5. Postulation 1
6. Postulation 2

There is no reason that you cannot rebuild this into another pair of real syllogisms, by positing 3 & 4 and 3 & 6 as the pairs. But one of the problems with this is that you haven't let us in on the "rules" under which a belief can be accepted or rejected. Do you intend that acceptance/rejection causes the belief to change into something else? Or if, after acceptance/rejection it retains its status as a belief, why can it not also retain its status as being tentative?

Or was it just a playful bit of sophistry?

Aslan and Pericles,

Thank you Pericles.

My understanding also is that a syllogism must have two premises and a conclusion, and, be composed of three propositions, “no more, no less” (Popkin and Stroll). At most mine is an isolated affirmo (A) statement. Moreover, as Pericles correctly points out, I had no intention of framing a syllogism. It just was not on my mind. Put simply, I was saying we should continue to question.

Also, I would say re: “2. ‘all beliefs need to be tentative’ ” is a “tentative” belief. Beliefs can be tentatively accepted or tentatively rejected. Hence, a belief that is rejected now can be accepted “tentatively” in the future, then, latter still rejected. The cycle could go on for a million times.

Lastly Aslan, I do see that the statement, “all beliefs need to be tentatively” is itself tentative. Then again, I could use a Zeno Paradox to demonstrate, it will take an infinite number of steps to reach the front door.

If you hold your acceptance in the Bible as being merely tentative, this course opens up a whole universe of remarkable possibilities to you. Herein, you can form a null hypothesis and throw a multitude of scientific and sociological disciplines to test your belief and challenge the Scriptures, unshackled. This “higher” standard is applied generally and effectively in truly academic disciplines. Otherwise, one remains arrested.

SLAVERY:
The principles of Christianity are built upon the revelation of Christ, his words, attitudes and character. What Jesus Christ had to say differed from the national law of Moses, which defined negative behaviour e.g. "Thou shalt not kill", which is what law defines; compared to Jesus Christ who taught positive principles like, "Love and forgive your enemy". That is behaviour above the acceptable norm. The Bible record is a development of revelation, and writers did not have all the facts we have today. In its time it was relative, and the laws concerning slavery in Israel were put in place to protect the excessive abuse of slaves as practised by other nations i.e. Egypt from which they themselves had been slaves, working seven days with no days off work. Hence the introduction of the Sabbath day of rest, where they or their slaves were forbidden to work.

Slavery in its day employed and fed people in a disciplined manner that would otherwise starve, or plunder to survive. It was the compassion and sense of Christian teaching that all men are equal before God that ultimately denounced slavery as unchristian.

(From my earlier post) "For example the abolition of slavery occurred simultaneously with a dramatic Christian Revival that was contemporary with William Wilberforce, and the dramatic spiritual conversion of the slave trader - John Newton who wrote the words of "Amazing Grace". The thinking of the time was saturated with Paul's Theology that; in the Church there is neither male of female, slave nor free, as all persons were equally loved by God. Harriet Beacher Stowe writings of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" summed up the sentiments of the slaves and impacted the consciences of those unjustly treating slaves as tools or animals of labour. A proper teaching of the theology of the Christian NT with passion as a message from our Creator has and will change a society."

All,

History would seem to support Neo on the matter of slavery. Herein, I quote Robin Lane Fox:

“ Christian leaders did nothing to disturb it [slavery]. When Christian slaves in an Asian church community began to propose their freedom should be bought from community funds, Ignatius of Antioch advised firmly against the suggestion.”

Relatedly Aslan, Philo and Boaz,

What is your take on 1Timothy 6.1?

“Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.”

Thus, would not the Bible recommend that slaves endure their beatings and carry heavy loads? Moreover, prior to the Pauline period would it have been proper for slaves to be forcibly circumcised in line with Jewish rites?

Given that servants “under the yoke” appear to form a part of God’s doctrine:

Firstly, does that doctrine apply today? (Philo, presumably not?)

Secondly, does a slave have the right to exercise free will against a Master, without blaspheming?

There is a sad history between ancient times and Lincoln. Moreover, even in the US example, Lincoln was at best minimally anti-slavery and was much more interested in the preservation of the Union.

Philo, I need to review your recent post. The above was written beforehand.

Philo, I didn't think I had to put you in the same class as Aslan but it looks like I'm going to have to after all. But then again this is a massive blind spot in your religion.

You just don't get it.

>The Bible record is a development of revelation, and writers did not have all the facts we have today.

They didn't need the facts they had revelation, a direct line from your big cheese, so why couldn't your God just say right from beginning that slavery is WRONG?

He could tell them not to eat pork but couldn't say slavery was wrong?

What a joke.

BTW where in the NT did Jesus condemn slavery?

>Slavery in its day employed and fed people in a disciplined manner that would otherwise starve, or plunder to survive.

You are serious aren't you?

If you want to help people, w-h-y n-o-t b-e c-o-m-p-a-s-s-i-o-n-a-t-e and feed, shelter people or pay them a honest wage, not turn them into slaves for frigs sake?

>It was the compassion and sense of Christian teaching that all men are equal before God that ultimately denounced slavery as unchristian.

False. Some parts of the Bible may preach equality but because others condoned slavery many so Christians wanted to keep it.

Factor in the econmic factors and your position doesn't cut it.

philo by all means highlight the good in the Bible but accept the bad don't rationalize it.

Neohuman,

It is obvious you have little understanding of the practical events of the history slavery or of Biblical revelation, or of the factors that influenced development in human thought. But you certainly have a preconceived view of divine wisdom revelation that is not factual.

Quote, "If you want to help people, w-h-y n-o-t b-e c-o-m-p-a-s-s-i-o-n-a-t-e and feed, shelter people or pay them a honest wage, not turn them into slaves?"

THESE PEOPLE WERE SCAVENGERS, SO GATHERING THEM TOGETHER TO WORK FOR FOOD, SHELTER, AND SHARE THE PROTECTION OF THE OWNER GAVE THEM SOME DIGNITY. WAGES WERE PAID IN FOOD. THEY DID NOT HAVE A COMPLEX ECONOMY, WHAT ELSE DID THEY NEED? I SUGGEST YOU VISIT DROUGHT STRICKEN PLACES IN AFRICA TO GAIN SOME UNDERSTANDING. FIND OUT WHAT CHRISTIAN COMPASSION IS DOING IN THESE POOR COUNTRIES. DON"T CONTINUE IN YOUR ANTAGONISTIC IGNORANCE!!

Kenny/Oliver,

Re beating/striking slaves: case law of Exodus 21:20 is only reference to this. But this can hardly be regarded as condoning senseless beating of slaves. Firstly, if slave is killed as result, owner is punnished. Secondly, if slave sustained serious injury or lost any faculties, he/she was to be released (Ex 21:26). These laws were unprecedented in ancient world where master could treat his slave as he pleased. Thirdly, a master was allowed to hit his slave for disciplinary reasons. This is analogous to parents being permitted to spank their children.

Slaves were acquired as prisoners of war, by purchase from other owners or merchants, by birth (children of slaves), by restitution (payment of fines and damages), by default on debts (the major cause of slavery in biblical times), by selling yourself voluntarily to escape poverty, and by abduction, which was an offence punishable by death.

There were also limits to length of slavery. Insolvent debtors had to give 6 years. All Hebrew slaves had to be release at year of Jubilee but could be bought out sooner by relative.

Some slaves even came to love their masters and willingly stayed with them when they could legally go free. These were called bond-slaves.

Suffice to say, Biblical slavery was nothing at all like the African slave trade, which - as I pointed out - was opposed and eventually stopped by evangelical Christians.

Neohuman,

You claim that I think slavery, "ownership of another human being is OK". Well, if we take ownership to mean a controlling interest in another person, then yes. Indeed, it is not that different from a parent's authority over their child. A parent effectively "owns" their child. The parent provides food, clothes and shelter (as slave owner did for slave), and the child is expected to do chores for parent around the house.

As an ethical relativist, you are being inconsistent in passing judgment on Christianity/Bible re slavery. In your view, ethics are decided by individuals. You can only say that Biblical slavery is wrong for you, but your views are totally irrelevant to anyone else

Pericles and Oliver,

My syllogism was actually 2 syllogs conflated.

1. "all beliefs need to be tentative"
2. "all beliefs need to be tentative" is a belief.
3. Therefore, the belief that "all beliefs need to be tentative" should be held tentatively.

Now, 3 becomes first premise of 2nd syllog:

1. the belief that "all beliefs need to be tentative" should be held tentatively
2. A tentative belief may later be accepted or rejected.
3. If the belief that "all beliefs need to be tentative" is accepted or rejected, then that belief is no longer tentative!

Now, you could say that all beliefs remain tentative because you are not yet at the point of accepting or rejecting them, but this denies reality. Do you tentatively believe in the name your parents gave you? Do you tentatively believe your phone number? Your address?

Come on Oliver, this relativistic view is just complete nonsense. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it - because no-one can possibly live as a relativist. Reality prevents you from doing so.

You think your view leaves you free and unshackled - indeed, it does - but you are now floating in space with your feet firmly planted in mid-air!

21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money

Philo keep the rationalizations coming.
Have a go at rationalising the wholesale slaughter of a tribe and the taking of the virgins as slaves.
(Again BTW I think in ethics we all do this it is just with some they have to do moral metal gymnastics to make certain ethical concepts mesh.)

Now we have the surrounding tribes as scavengers who had to be slaughtered and taken as slaves for their own good.

Does that include the scavengers that lived in cites and villages?? Or are scavengers just your way of describing the poor and destitute? Nice one Philo kill and enslave the poor just the sort of solution we need today.

Now why don’t we do that today, because in an absolute moral system moral requirements are have no historical context. What is wrong now was wrong 2000+ years ago, and your all knowing God would know that and could have told that to the Jews but rather he said not to eat pork.

Keep digging that hole Philo, you are doing my work for me.

Aslan yes I’ve seen the controlling interest argument like some Christians say they own their children, they should try selling their children ands see what happens. There is a world of difference between a controlling interest and ownership. Read that link. See Philo and Aslan you don’t have to own a person to be concerned and act on someone’s welfare, has that sunk in yet?

Aslan I’m totally consistent in telling you that you moral system is inconsistent that is a cognitive judgment. So I’m not telling you are morally wrong, you are just making a cognitive error in the belief that one morals are absolute and two that your moral system is consistent. I do hope to get around to fixing meta-ethical relativism thinking of calling it neo-meta-ethical relativism has a nice ring don’t you think?

>Come on Oliver, this relativistic view is just complete nonsense

Now you get it, relativism and all ethics/morality is nonsense better described as reasoned non-rational judgments.

Aslan, you are clutching at straws here. Your "new" syllogism doesn't hold water either. You propose that premise 2 is self-evident, "[a] tentative belief may later be accepted or rejected". It is not, it is a self-contradiction. One "holds" a belief, one doesn't accept it or reject it.

If I said to you "I believe it was 1970 that Collingwood won the Grand Final", we can go to the record books and check it, since it is a recorded fact. So I used the word "believe" in the same way as you did in "[d]o you tentatively believe in the name your parents gave you? Do you tentatively believe your phone number? Your address?". This is to mischaracterize facts as beliefs. Naughty.

If I said to you that "I believe there are 90 billion stars in the Milky Way", it is still a verifiable (or disprovable) statement, but has to remain in the category of a belief, since the means to check my sums do not exist at the moment. Nevertheless, I am still playing a little fast and loose with the word "believe" in this context, since it refers to a disputable fact. In the end, I may be proved either "right" or "wrong".

If I said to you "I believe that the world is being carried through space on the back of four elephants called Berilia, Tubul, Great T'Phon and Jerakeen" you might suggest a number of ways to "disprove" my belief, but you are unlikely to convince me. This is because I use the word "believe" in its most literal form - my belief is not bound by rational thought or susceptible to logic, it is, and remains, just a belief.

I and many others on this forum respect your right to hold your beliefs, and in doing so to characterize them as being "right". Just don't try to bend the rules of logic in order to so.

Aslan and Philo,

SLAVERY

I think over and beyond the economic system there are social and religious issues. That is,

(a) The subordination of the slave and the need for obedience. This appears to be a relationship issue not in keeping with a reasonable social welfare system.

(b) Rejection of obedience by a slave is said to be a blasphemy. Why should a slave owner be essentially deified in this manner? How does Timothy sit with the First Commandment, here?

Both traditional Jews and Christians seemed to have practised the ownership of slaves, themselves. Moreover, nomadic peoples survived (perhaps subsistence) for hundreds of thousands of years, before the City-State (Sumer to Rome and after). Survival would be related to ecological factors, migration and population (Malthaus).

Aslan mentions that parent parents in effect own their children. Perhaps, I would have chosen terms like guardianship, care and love for, responsibility for and stewardship. Nonetheless, I believe, I take the general point. Now lets look at Rome in the time now under our review:

“The traditional Roman ‘patria potestas’ defined a field within which a head of a family could exercise personal discretion and control (Hamilton, in Redding). From this developed systems of jurisdiction which attempt to place boundaries around individuals without prescribing individual behaviour … the stability of Western society rests on such variations, on the acceptance of boundary restraints … by more or less independent individuals.” (Redding)

Thus, for free people there were laws but nonetheless a significant amount of “independence”. Alternatively, in establishing relationships between owners and slaves, Christians, we as guilty as all others in not recognising an individual’s “inalienable rights” and that “all men [sic. Humanity] are created equal”. Thus, a model of equality did exist, but consciously was not adopted by slave owners, Jews, Christians or the Bible.

•SLAVE mentioned in Jeremiah 2:14 is not found in the original Hebrew text. The word “slaves” in Revelation 18:13 is the Greek word meaning “bodies.” The Hebrew and Greek words for slave are usually rendered simply “servant,” “bondman,” or “bondservant.”

Slavery as it existed under the Mosaic Law has no parallel today. The laws concerning slaves did not originate with Moses but Moses regulated an already existing custom (Exodus 21:20, 21, 26, 27; Leviticus 25:44-46; Joshua 9:6-27). The gospel of Christ in its spirit and genius is hostile to slavery in every form, and cultures that came under its full influence have caused it to disappear totally. Compared to Islamic shari’ah law who still place those outside their religion as lower class citizens upon whom taxes are levied and equality of privileges are removed.

Jesus attitude toward the Roman Centurion’s slave is found in
Matthew 8:5 – 9: And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came to him a centurion, saying, “Lord, my servant lies at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented”. And Jesus said unto him, “I will come and heal him”. The centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy that thou should come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goes; and to another, Come, and he comes; and to my servant, do this, and he does it”.

Philo,

EXODUS:

21:20

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21:21

Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

It would seem a slave/servant could be bashed to within an inch of death, provided actual death did not occur. 1 Timothy 6.1 is also problematic. These teachings seem way out of line with the teachings attrbuted to a humanist Jesus.

Just what is Moses view of persons having slaves? Slavery was used by persons repayning debt, but to assit the person in recovery they were to be generously assisted on their release. This must happen in the seventh year, unless the slave preferred to continue his/her labour.

DEUTERONOMY 15: 9 – 16 (paraphrase), Beware no wicked thought arise in your heart on the seventh year when he must be released, and you covet your prosperity against your poor brother, and you give him nothing; … You shall give him generously, and your heart shall not be grieved: because for this act the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that your hand performs. For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command you to open your hand wide unto thy brother, to the poor, and to thy needy, in thy land. And if thy brother be a Hebrew man, or woman, sold to you, and they serve you the six years; then in the seventh year you shall let them go free. And when you free him, you shall not let him go away empty: You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, and out of grain grain, and out of your vineyard: of all the things the LORD your God has blessed you. And you shall remember that you were a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you: therefore I command you this thing to day. And if he says to you, I will not go away from you because I love you and your house, because we get on well together. (He may stay forever as your labourer)

Aslan,

Karen Armstrong (A History of God) seems agree with Toynbee on Yahweh starting out as a volcano god. Are you aware of any debat on this topic?

She also makes reference to the council of El and Yahweh Sabaoth. A war god on a council?

Philo,

Please note:

LEVITICUS

25:44

Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

25:45

Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

25:46

And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Above, it would seem, perhaps, Mosaic Law makes a distinction between Hebrews (brethren) and stangers (heathen). Lastly, please note, the reference to "for ever". Presumably, one could rule with rigour over stangers, who were not Hebrew?

Aslan and Philo,

What is your take on Timothy a few days above? Is this position consistent with Jesus' teachings and the First Commandment? If not, then, Alsan, this is the sort of thing I meant, when advising critical evaluation

Pericles,

You claim premiss 2 of my 2nd syllog is "a self-contradiction" because "One 'holds' a belief, one doesn't accept it or reject it." And then claimed I "mischaracterize facts as beliefs. Naughty."

But if you bothered to go back and look at the context of Oliver's claim re tentative knowledge, we were talking about the authenticity and historical reliability of Mark's gospel.

So its actually you, Pericles, who's confusing facts and beliefs.

Neohuman,

You object to my parent-child ownership because Christians would not endorse selling their children. True - but it is just an analogy. Obviously the parent-child relationship is not exactly the same as the master-slave one.

You claim: "you don’t have to own a person to be concerned and act on someone’s welfare". It's not just a matter of concern but also ensuring that a slave complies with the master's instructions. This is a CULTURAL ISSUE. Slavery was a part of middle-eastern economics. There were no courts (at least in the modern sense), no industrial relations commission. Just because slaves were owned by masters and could be bought and sold does not mean that they were to be treated as less than human, killed, or abused. Indeed, Biblical law introduced specific remedies to stop these.

Slavery (even the Biblical form) is not practiced in Western countries today because we have an entirely different economic and cultural system. There is no theological inconsistency - just a change in cultural context.

No doubt you will not find this explanation satisfactory, but I doubt you would accept any explanation.

You said: "I’m totally consistent in telling you that you moral system is inconsistent that is a cognitive judgment."

But you need to show this by assuming my view. ie. you need to show that the Bible both condones and condemns slavery, either directly or indirectly. You have not done this.

Oliver,

"individual’s “inalienable rights”...“all [Humanity] are created equal"

Where did these come from? There was no UNDHR in Biblical times...

To Aslan Pt 1
>It's not just a matter of concern but also ensuring that a slave complies with the master's instructions. This is a CULTURAL ISSUE.....

>Slavery (even the Biblical form) is not practiced in Western countries today because we have an entirely different economic and cultural system. There is no theological inconsistency - just a change in cultural context.

Aslan are you having an identity crisis? I thought I was supposed the ethical relativist and you the moral absolutist, please don't change sides now.

>But you need to show this by assuming my view. ie. you need to show that the Bible both condones and condemns slavery, either directly or indirectly. You have not done this.

First does a book on animal husbandry technically condone the raising and use of animals for human use? I would have to say no, but putting such a book within its cultural and practical context, the society from whence that book came would condone the raising and use those animals. Don’t you think it a reasonable inference to make?

You have me in the detail, for when I hear your God is said to be a loving, benevolent ,compassionate being that also espouses some proto-equality, that there are indeed passages in the Bible to back it up. You may actually want to help me out there, since I’m taking that on faith.

to Aslan PT 2
I’m also arguing from a sort of for folk/intuitive (at least in some cultures) morality that assumes that concepts like love, compassion, benevolence, (& BTW would be compatible with the Golden rule) is incompatible with murder ,racism, torture, slavery etc etc which I actually think is the case in modern Western societies or at least they like to think so.(Accept for Neo-con’s who think torture is a ends justifies the means case:)

I had thought that those Christians who trumpet the benevolent qualities of their God and believed in an absolutist moral system would also believe that the above acts are incompatible, but it seems you and other Christians would seem to have proved me wrong. You win.

Personally I think those opposing moral concepts and meanings are flexible/plastic enough within our -if I can mix the terms- bounded non-rational rationality to allow them to be compatible and consistent and it just comes down to your point of view and which side can enforce what they think is right.

It also depends on whether you think ethics is rational/logical system of morals or reasoned non-rational mores but thats a whole different kettle of fish.

The Bible isn't a catalogue of divine edicts spoken from the sky as eternal absolutes. It is however the recognised reliable reports of historical facts and higher wisdom from its time. Much of the Bible was established as records of events identifying the presence of God. For example, the writer of the Gospel of Luke correlated a complete account from the many eyewitness records (Luke 1: 1 – 4).

Oliver you seem assume the Christian Church controlled the State at the time of Paul and should have outlawed slavery. The ruthless imperial character of the Roman Empire employed slaves, and some of them became Christians. For a Roman slave to disobey his master certainly meant flogging, this Christian slaves were encouraged to avoid. The Christians at that time had no political influence over Roman citizens who engaged slaves, unless their masters became Christians. Paul encourages Christian slaves to apply themselves as though they are serving God, and not man. Paul identifies with this attitude by calling himself a bondservant of Christ Jesus. So the message of the letters of Paul have a context of obeying the State, obeying your master, and by doing this you obey God.

Romans 7: 20 – 23; Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. Were you called while a bondservant? Do not become concerned: even if you cannot become free, use it rather. For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord’s freedman: likewise he that was called being free is Christ’s bondservant. You were bought with a price; become not bondservants of men. (You are free! Do not imagine yourself as a slave of man.)

Remember Joseph was a slave, but instead of sulking he applied himself in his captivity and became the chief steward in Egypt. Remember Daniel as a child was captured by Nebuchadnessar though a captive he excelled in his ability to advise Kings and Rulers. Following God is not about radical political protests against the State, but it is about living by superior wisdom, that inspires character and aspirations of achievement

Aslan,

ONE:

“ What Aslan does not seem to appreciate is that I am not attacking his right believe, rather, I am trying to coax him (?) to be critical of what he reads, before forming a belief. Moreover, all beliefs need to be tentative. Adopting an a priori position and remaining affixed gets us nowhere. If the word is mightier than the sword, the question mark is the word's most powerful character.” – carried down

Mine was a generic comment about beliefs, which followed from our discourse on editing the Bible. I was saying that you should broadly question and not accept information a priori. Don’t remain affixed.

Why is the Bible a special case? Were its writers infallible? (Please see earlier posting on infallibility.) I would really like to explore this.

TWO

The quotation is abridged from Thomas Jefferson, who was also Christian slave owner and seemly also a hypocrite. In ancient times citizenship often carried with it rights: This is true of both the Roman and the Greek citizens. Like Moses to Constantine (maybe not Clement), from Washington to Lincoln, even Eisenhower, there were “other classes”.

(If memory serves, Paul had special rights being Roman?)

THREE

Ancient Laws: Tough though it was the Hammurabi Code tended to be less severe on slaves than Mosaic Law. Moreover, surely slave beating is a mild variation of “Thou shall not kill”. Also, beatings were destructive of God’s alleged creation.

FOUR

So, we should accept slavery, because it was the economic system of the times: Now, who is the relativist?

As mentioned earlier, whether the economy/population can support itself depends on its relationship the Malthusian limit. If the owners and slaves can survive under slavery, they probably can survive with out it. Productivity does not require organic capital to be enslaved, only that it be meaningfully employed.

p.s. I see, Neohuman noted the relativism too. :-) (My post was time blocked.)

Aslan, first rule of finding yourself in a hole is - stop digging.

>>But if you bothered to go back and look at the context of Oliver's claim re tentative knowledge, we were talking about the authenticity and historical reliability of Mark's gospel.

So its actually you, Pericles, who's confusing facts and beliefs.<<

Syllogisms require universal application, i.e. need to be true in all circumstances. If you wanted your proposition to be true only within the context of Oliver's claims, this should have formed part of your argument.

Mind you, I haven't the faintest idea how you would phrase it. You simply cannot use logic in this way, and I do wish you would stop pretending you can.

Pericles,

You said: "first rule of finding yourself in a hole is - stop digging"

You need to take your own advice.

Again, we were talking about "beliefs" with respect to verifiable truth claims ie. actual knowledge (eg. Is Mark's gospel authentic? Did Brisbane win 2004 premiership?) not beliefs with respect to faith positions.

Therefore, my syllog is perfectly valid and universally applicable. Oliver's claim that "all beliefs need to be tentative" is self-contradicting, nonsense position.

Neohuman (and Oliver),

There is no identity crisis or switch to relativism. Under Biblical principles, there is nothing inherently wrong with "owning" and controlling another person's labour. If we did not have the legal and governmental institutions we have, I suspect slavery would still be in use. However, this is not the case. There is simply no need for it anymore.

You ask: "does a book on animal husbandry technically condone the raising and use of animals for human use? I would have to say no, but putting such a book within its cultural and practical context, the society from whence that book came would condone the raising and use those animals. Don’t you think it a reasonable inference to make?"

No, its not reasonable. A book on animal husbandry would most likely not even speak re its ethics, and if it did, it would no doubt argue in support, given its primary use.

You said: "when I hear your God is said to be a loving, benevolent, compassionate being that also espouses some proto-equality, that there are indeed passages in the Bible to back it up."

Which means you have a 1-dimensional view of God, and you are criticising a God and a religious worldview you clearly know nothing about.

Aslan you seem to forget that you are out of step with the vast majority of Christian scholars. It seem to me that only US style protestants groups like AIG are pushing these truths. I’m you even think you know Catholic history better then the Vatican, RE you comments about heliocentric Universe. AS for the mistranslation thing you guys always fall back on it really is ripe.

Paul imprisoned,
ACTS 24: 26 – 27 “Felix hoped that Paul would have given him money: therefore he sent also for the oftener, and communed with him. But when Paul had spent two years in prison, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and desiring to gain favor with the Jews, Felix left Paul in bonds.”

Acts 26: 29 – 31 And Paul said, I would to God, that whether with little or with much, that all that hear me this day, might become such as I am, except for these bonds. And the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them: and when they had withdrawn, they said one to another, “This man has done nothing worthy of death or of bonds.” And Agrippa said unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.

Paul used his Roman citizenship to appeal to Caesar the highest authority so his message would be heard in the Palace. His writings show he was not concerned about his imprisonment, but the impact of the message he carried.

Christ has removed our mere servitude to the law by empowering us to live beyond expectations.
Galatians 3: 28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 6: 5 – 9 Servants, be obedient unto ... your masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as unto the Lord, and not unto men: knowing that whatsoever good thing each one doeth, the same shall he receive again from the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, and forbear threatening: knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with him.

Sorry Aslan, you are not going to dodge this particular bullet.

You have a very shifty way of blurring the lines between "facts that can't be easily verified" and "beliefs". The former are such unknowns as the number of stars in the Milky Way - there is an absolute number involved here, but we have no way to determine what it might be. So we use the conceit "It is my belief that there are 90 billion stars in the Milky Way".

The same conceit may validly be used to discuss whether this guy or that wrote a particular gospel. We can speculate, but it is unlikely that anyone will be able to deliver conclusive proof one way or the other.

But when you say stuff like...

"When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, their death became a certainty. They began to die. They became "dead men walking". That is what the Hebrew grammar is communicating."

...there are actually a number of beliefs that you must necessarily hold, before you can utter such statements. You need to believe in Adam and Eve, to begin with, then you need to believe they physically ate some fruit at some point in time, then you need to believe that before they ate said fruit, they were immortal, then you need to believe that it was at this particular point - and no other - that they ceased being immortal... and so on.

These are beliefs that you hold. They are essential to your interpretation of the world, which is fine, but they are not and never can be verifiable facts.

Let's have another look at those beliefs-that-are-actually-opinions.

Whatever we call them, they can only exist in a state of uncertainty. Once that uncertainty is removed, they cease to be beliefs.

This is what finally undermines your logic; as soon as the "fact in dispute" ceases to be in dispute, it changes its nature from a belief into a fact. While such dispute exists, it is fair to hold your perception of it - call it belief if you will - tentatively.

Aslan,

"Under Biblical principles, there is nothing inherently wrong with 'owning' and controlling another person's labour."

I find the above an alarming statement. On what basis can the Bible hold such abhorant principles not 'inherently wrong' and by extrapolation the ownership of other people and by even further extrapolation the treating other humans as family inheritence? What gives these cruel and primative Biblical principles status above modern humanism, justice, equality, rights of self-autonomy and independence?

Surely, you are not saying that slavery is okay, because the Bible condones it. Some people hold Mien Kief in similar esteem. Truly, I hope your assertion is merely a slip on the keyboard.

Philo,

I am not fluent in the writing of Paul, but, I do appreciate that Paul was written before the Fall of Rome (c.476). What I find surprising is such an allegedly moral people falling in line with such a sad practice. What you said about debts and bond servitude is in no doubt correct, but, the extent of Christian slavery seems to go beyond this limited case. It seems that the wealthier Jews and Christians jumped on the same ride as the Romans.

Philo, you seem to put some effort and scholarly referencing into your posts. Something I do recognise. Herein, you do appear to have some tether with the physical world and modern knowledge. Herein, I wonder to what extent you feel the Books of the Bible should be held against external standards? Likewise, even if only for the antiquity, the Books of OT, must have encountered "Chinese Whispers". Similarly, the NT was written at time of enormous Roman-Jewish friction - thus, there would be political overtones?

Pericles,

You said:
"You have a very shifty way of blurring the lines between "facts that can't be easily verified" and "beliefs". The former are such unknowns as the number of stars in the Milky Way - there is an absolute number involved here, but we have no way to determine what it might be."

Again, the subject of my syllog is facts that can be verified. Specifically, Is Mark authentic and historically accurate? This question is no different from your "number of stars in the Milky Way" question. Either Mark is authentic and historical, or it isn't. We may not have all the info to be definitive, but the info we do have all points to the affirmative answer.

Re Adam and Eve etc: the semantics of the Hebrew vocab and grammar are certainly verifiable, but yes, the truth of this account remains a faith-based belief, in the same way that biological evolution is a faith-based belief (although you need an awful lot more faith to believe in evolution). I never claimed otherwise.

You said: "This is what finally undermines your logic; as soon as the "fact in dispute" ceases to be in dispute, it changes its nature from a belief into a fact."

I agree! That's my point! The "belief" is no longer tentative! I used the term "belief" in my syllog because that is the word Oliver used, and he was referring to "beliefs" like the authenticity of Mark.

Oliver,

You use the terms "abhorant", "cruel", and "primative". But as a relativist who has no absolute moral standard, just opinions, you have no right to use such language. You can only say that's your opinion, and you have no right (on your view) to criticise another's opinion.

Nor can you claim the superiority of humanism, justice, equality, rights, self-autonomy and independence. That implies an absolute standard and you don't have one. In fact, if you accept self-autonomy and independence, then you should have no problem with slave owners who exercise self-autonomy by owning slaves.

Aslan,

I said that I have never called myself an "ethical realist" but I do have empathy with that camp. So, I will wear that label, even though the fit might not be perfect.

From my earliest postings, I maintained different people have different opinions. Herein, it is my opinion that given the state of development in the Roman Empire, the Christians (and others) had the opportunity to adopt alternative non-slave economies.

I did not claim Christian slave masters did not have opinions. Those descripters of mine, you cite, are my own. I am happy with that. Alternatively, presumably you and the slave masters agree - that is your opinion. Moreover, "relative" to context, though they be, these views are primative, in that, such views would not be widely held twenty-first century by people in OECD countries. Some, like you, might stay with old views, as a matter of opinion.

Thus,

* Some Christians, believe everything in the Bible accepting, genicide, racism and slavery, as a matter of opinion.

* Some NAZIs, believe everything in Mien Kief accepting only generide and racial superiority, as a matter of opinion.

* A Humanist like me, would hold as a major positive proposition, much of the works of Carl Rogers and the essential ideals of freedom and democracy, as a matter of opinion. Fundamentalist

Christians and NAZIs are likely to differ, as a matter of opinion.

Because an opinion cannot be absolute, it does not follow it cannot be moral or expressive. If you hold an opinion cannot be moral, then, it must be non-moral or amoral. We are running out of options here... which is it?

I thought the owning of one by another would weigh more on the side of encroachment than autonomy.

Aslan, do you doubt "anything" in the Bible? Was it not compiled by fallible humans? Please answer.

I just looked up the word "belief" (Oxford. There are two broad meanings (a) certainty and sureness, and, (b) opinion, principle and tenet. Herein, I state that (b) opinions, principles and tenets, in my opinion, should be held tentatively and tested.

Oliver,
The Code of Hammarabi on slaves, as you know, pre-dates the National law codified by Moses. Note the peamble presents the divine polytheistic authority for him to establish national law, and the postscript the curses that apply if the law is violated or neglected.

He was the divine instrument for rule, opinion, and judgement. There are at least 17 articles that refer to slaves, so it was and ancient practise that required respect for and deliniation from the dominant culture.

The monotheist Job worshipped God under the Edomite title Aloahh but was tried under polytheistic laws. He had servants, and the attempted charges laid against him, he has not cared for the poor servants etc is the reason for his suffering. Because he suffered the curse identified by Hammarabi they identified him as displeasing the Elohim. The administrators of Hammarabi law concluded guilt upon opinion found unsound. Job upheld Aloahh (celestrial) will be revealed on the Earth to justify his righteousness. We recognise the Babylonian trained Hebrew scribe identifies YHWH has control of the violent desert storm that took the life of Job's children. The Babylonians attributed the sandstorm to a lesser El, but Job believed YHWH had given and YHWH had taken away. Job recognised the universe operated as a complex and diverse unity.

My reading the code of Hammarabi does not show the same compassion toward slaves as the DEUTERONOMY. The cultures of the time were based upon tribal structures even as Arabic and African Muslim culture is today eg Osama bin Larden. A leader emerges and he sets the principles of behaviour within that society. He gathers people around him to achieve his vision and goals, who work for food and lodgings. The structure is totalitarian, or even dictatorial, as the leader says who lives and who dies under his law. Those captured by the tribe must accept the world view and cooperate in the society or they die. This is the nature of Muslim reverting theology, Christians do not hold such views.

Thanks Oliver for helping clear up the Aslan "believe it, or not" debate. It supports my contention that when dealing with issues such as this, we should take extra care with our use of the language. It has always been one of the major irritants to me on this board that so many of the Aslans of this world appear to have attended the Humpty Dumpty school of semantics, where a word means what they choose it to mean.

So are we clear now, Aslan? Facts can be researched, and proved true or false; beliefs can be held, and argued. You can tentatively hold a belief, or you can suspend judgement on a disputed fact. These are fundamentally different concepts.

It follows that your proposition that biological evolution is a "faith based belief" does not make any sense at all. Christianity is a faith-based belief; biological evolution is a theory that will, over time, and by its very nature, be proved or disproved. Just as the stars in the Milky Way will eventually be counted. Evidence for or against biological evolution will be gathered, and can, and will, be tested. Being entirely faith-based, you can never "prove" Christianity in the same way. Nor, I suspect, would you want to.

Is that clearer now? Facts. And. Beliefs. Are. Two. Entirely. Different. Concepts.

Aslan wrote
>And if Biblical Christianity is so bad because it allowed a particular form of slavery in the Bible, then why is it that in history, it is only Christians - indeed, evangelical "fundamentalist" Christians - who have stood up against slavery, and eventually made sure that it was abolished?

Sorry I forgot to reply to this point but it does ask a pertinent question, my answer:

1. Because some Christians thought that even while the Bible indirectly condones slavery the ownership-not your attempt or Philo’s to misrepresent it , the human and the labor was owned by the master- it was wrong. Also they just happened to belong to the religious majority in England so of course they would be Christian and be the ones in power to changes things.
2. If you had read that other link you would have seen evidence that it was also opposed by Christians both in England and US, because again, the Bible indirectly condones slavery, so why should they stop. I guess I know what side you’d be on :)

So why Aslan Philo would they want to end slavery in the first place if by your twisted logic it is Ok?
It certainly wasn’t on economic grounds.

Aslan and Philo have a go at rationalizing this one, not only do we have genocide, but the killing of women and children and the taking of virgins as slaves

JG 21:10-12 "... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." They do so and find four hundred young virgins whom they bring back for their own use.

Neohuman,
Quote: "So why Aslan Philo would they want to end slavery in the first place if by your twisted logic it is Ok? It certainly wasn’t on economic grounds."

READ DEUTERONOMY 15: 9 – 16, and prove economics was not involved.

"Aslan and Philo have a go at rationalizing this one, not only do we have genocide, but the killing of women and children and the taking of virgins as slaves JG 21:10-12 "... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." They do so and find four hundred young virgins whom they bring back for their own use."

It has become apparent you cannot read without posting your antagonistic bigotry on how you read our discussion on the subject. My agenda is about creating a better society. Your agenda has become evident you are about degrading persons who differ from you. I have never stated I support slavery, or the genocide of a people. I have put what happened into the cultural context of its time, and that does not mean I believe it is OK. To understand the culture of the time; understand the Muslim extremist mind operating today. Eg, Ambon, Aceh, Zimbabwe, West Papua, where males are hacked to death with machetes, women raped and children taken as sex slaves. All who do not confess to believing in Allah die. In West Papua they are attempting to eradicate the native population with AIDS. These People follow the primitive religion of the ancient Arabic fathers.

Nowhere do true Christians support genocide or slavery, our heritage may have arisen from such genetic roots. True Christianity is to everyone of us that we are loved and our deeds forgiveable.

MY ONLY INTEREST IS IN BUILDING A GREAT SOCIETY. I FIND THE ATTITUDE AND MISSION OF TRUE CHRISTIANS IS WHERE I WANT TO BE.

"MY ONLY INTEREST IS IN BUILDING A GREAT SOCIETY. I FIND THE ATTITUDE AND MISSION OF TRUE CHRISTIANS IS WHERE I WANT TO BE."

What Rot what's a true Christian because there are Christian groups that do support genocide and slavery. Just as there are Muslim groups that believe the Koran doesn't condone the actions of some Islamic extremist. Philo your agenda is to have a Christian theocracy and the reason is because you believe that every other belief system is wrong and evil. Otherwise you would have to except that you may be utterly wrong in your beliefs.
It’s only when you can except you maybe wrong that you can hope to find the truth, step into the light embrace the healthy skepticism the science teaches us.

Religious fanatics would have us handling in caves still frightened of the angry Gods

>READ DEUTERONOMY 15: 9 – 16, and prove economics was not involved.
I’ll look it up and get back to on that I’m in a rush.

Again with the cultural context , oh but I’m sorry Philo I didn’t think you could be a relativist and Christian at the same time. Aslan is just plain confused, he is quite happy to use relativist arguments to support his absolutist stance. So yes if you are a relativist by saying slavery wasn’t wrong you haven’t condoned it, but then how could you go on an say:

“understand the Muslim extremist mind operating today. Eg, Ambon, Aceh, Zimbabwe, West Papua, where males are hacked to death with machetes, women raped and children taken as sex slaves. All who do not confess to believing in Allah die. In West Papua they are attempting to eradicate the native population with AIDS. These People follow the primitive religion of the ancient Arabic (correction Semitic) fathers”??

which appears to put it in a negative light, but how could that be, since first you are a relativist, and second it is the exact same thing YOUR GOD told the Jews to do. You cannot deny your roots and accept the divine status of Jesus it’s a package deal and no trade-ins BTW.

>Nowhere do true Christians support genocide or slavery, our heritage may have arisen from such genetic roots. True Christianity is to everyone of us that we are loved and our deeds forgiveable.

Sorry No True Scotsman Fallacy, so I take it before slavery was abolished there were no true Christians, does that in the twelve apostles?

Degrade you, no, no, Philo just like your Christian brothers I don’t hate the sinner just the sin, which in your case and Aslan’s is denial and the moral hypocrisy. Aslan may escape he is just confused.

So please back to the point justify the command by your God to commit genocide, the killing of women and children and the taking virgins as slaves. The same one you got your Ten Commandments from and is part of your trinity.

Pericles,

You accuse me of making words mean whatever I like. Your accusation is baseless. I have never changed any meaning. In my discussions with Oliver I used "belief" to refer to verifiable truth claims which may not yet have been verified. This is a valid use of the word, and is the way Oliver employed the term.

You said: "biological evolution is a theory that will, over time, and by its very nature, be proved or disproved."

Wrong again. Biological evolution is meant to explain the historical emergence of life. Since no-one was there to observe it and we cannot travel back in time, it is impossible to know what actually happened. Furthermore, because evolution is meant to be driven by mutations and natural selection it is therefore totally unpredictable. Therefore, it is unverifiable. It is a fairytale which must be accepted on faith.

You ask: "Is that clearer now? Facts. And. Beliefs. Are. Two. Entirely. Different. Concepts."

This was always clear to me. You were the one having trouble.

Kenny,

You just make me laugh. You said: "Religious fanatics would have us handling in caves still frightened of the angry Gods"
Actually, if it wasnt for Christians there wouldnt be any science!

Earlier, re heliocentrism you accused me of relying on AIG and out of step with Catholic scholarship. But my sources were actually "The Sleepwalkers" by Koestler, "Galileo" by Ronan, "Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo" by Drake, "The Crime of Galileo" by Santillana, "The Sun in the Church" by Heilbron, and Galileos own writings (plus others).

Why not pay more attention to Oliver and Pericles? They also talk alot of rubbish but at least they sound intelligent.

Neohuman,

You ask: "why Aslan Philo would they want to end slavery in the first place if by your twisted logic it is Ok?"

You obviously haven't been paying attention. The abolitionist Christians objected to, and stopped the abhorent African slave trade where innocent people were effectively stolen, abused, killed and treated as less than human with no way of regaining freedom. This is NOT the Biblical practice of slavery.

Oliver,

Whatever you call yourself, you have made it clear that you do not accept any absolute standard. Do you now admit that you have no right - on your view - to criticise any other view, and that everytime you do so, and employ moral language as you have done, you violate the view you claim to hold and affirm the view that I hold?

You said: "Christians (and others) had the opportunity to adopt alternative non-slave economies"

Indeed - and they did! It's called "western civilisation".

You said: "these views are primative, in that, such views would not be widely held twenty-first century by people in OECD countries"

And your point is...?

You kept calling Polanyi "Polyani" and now you keep call Mein Kampf, "Mien Kief". For someone who claims to be well read, you have displayed astounding ignorance on several occasions. And don't blame it on typos. You used these same erroneous spellings on more than one occasion.

You said: "Because an opinion cannot be absolute, it does not follow it cannot be moral or expressive."

Relativism is not simply an alternative morality - it is a total rejection of the moral project. Moral language only has meaning in an absolute system. By your own admission, there is no right or wrong, just opinions - all of which are valid.

You ask: "Aslan, do you doubt "anything" in the Bible? Was it not compiled by fallible humans? Please answer."

Actually, it's your turn to do some explaining.

The 20th century saw the most mass murder in recorded history. R J Rummel in "Death by Government" counted just under 200 million killed by their own govts. None of these people were killed as a result of Christian ideas. They were killed as a result of atheistic ideas such as humanism, socialism and Marxism.

Neohuman & Pericles,
I ask, where are those upholding implicity the teachings of Christ that deliberately murder innocent women and children in the name of God? Please name them! Religious maybe: Christ followers hardly!

You are the ones now upholding judgment on absolute moral values. ie If it is wrong now it must have always been wrong. I wonder what cultural religion influenced such a conclusion? Christians upheld the equality of women, stating that the principle that a man ought to have only one wife as the Adamic model. During wars with hostile neighbours many men were killed so the practise of multiple wives seemed acceptable. Acceptable yes: desireable not ideal.

Christ teachings clashed with the teachings of Judaism which had him killed as a deceiver and heritic. It would seem his influence on Western Culture is now what shapes your moral values. I suggest you ought to read more of his ideas.

PT 1
Aslan Wrote
>You obviously haven't been paying attention. The abolitionist Christians objected to, and stopped the abhorent African slave trade where innocent people were effectively stolen, abused, killed and treated as less than human with no way of regaining freedom. This is NOT the Biblical practice of slavery.

Sorry no, you obviously read your Bible with rose colored glasses and live in denial

Lets see

1. African Slaves :Innocent people were effectively stolen

Biblical Slaves:

JG 21:10-12 "... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." They do so and find four hundred young virgins whom they bring back for their own use.

(Lets not forget the genocide the killing of innocent women and children and the taking of virgin sex slaves)

SAME

2. African Slaves: abused, treated as less than human

Biblical Slaves:

EX 21.20-21: When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property.

1PE 2.18-19: Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly.

Same:(or isn’t being beaten to an inch of your life abuse?)

My Dear Aslan,

I engage this Forum for recreation from having to look things up in dictionaries. Regarding the Polyani/Polanyi thing, it is a typo, in so much as it has become a habit, like a typist always typing "teh" instead of "the". With Mein Kampf, I have only browsed a copy once several years ago. True, I did not know how to spell Kampf, so I typed an approximate selling and Goggle replied, "Do you mean Mein Kief?". So, too hurriedly chose that spelling. Better smite me for that one.

"And don't blame it on typos." (Aslan) I do blame it on typing and perhaps a little laziness on my behalf. Similarly, what is worse, I do sometimes start sentences conjections... But, even great scholars have been known to start sentences with conjunctions.

Moreover, I have never claimed to be a brilliant scholar. So, it is true, Aslan, I am ignorant, very ignorant. The more I learn, the more I realise just how ignorant, I am. However, from that ignorance, I have developed the ability to marvel at the Universe and question, why? Herein; in my grand ignorance, poor spelling and laziness and all; I do not live in a bubble inside a bubble, inside bubble, inside a bubble, inside a bubble: I am free. Being so overwhelmed by ignorance, I find very little time to be stupid. Its really nice... "I feel good!"

Albeit, massively weighed-down by ignorance and lack of scholarship, I do know about; "The Fallacy of Argrumentum ad Hominiem" : "argument that is 'directed against a person, rather than what a person says, in order to show what he/she says cannot be true'". Otherwise put, try personal attack, when one can't win an argument.

In my Philosophy book, Argrumentum ad Hominiem (Please notice, how I articulated "Argumentum ad Hominiem", rather than say "it".) appears just before "The Fallace of Arguing from Authority". Hmmm, relatedly, is the Bible, authoritative, Aslan? It's Sophie's choice time, Aslan... What is it? The Bible or Logic? Also, please stop avoiding the infallibility issues.

In all my glorious ignorance,

Oliver

PT 2
3. African Slave: with no way of regaining freedom
Biblical Slave:

LE 25.44-46: Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Same, only fellow Israelites had any hope of freedom, notice the use of the word property Aslan Philo?

4. So it appears the only major difference was that an African slave could be killed outright and a Biblical slave couldn’t. Which isn’t conclusive as it is dealing with the severity of beating leading to death, not the fact you couldn’t kill your slave. Like today you can kill your livestock but have to do it humanly.

Even if let you off on that one 3 out of 4 for all practical purposes they ARE THE SAME.

Ok for you to Philo lets not say justify, let say instead how do you account for your God the father telling the Israelites to commit war crimes?

JG 21:10-12 "... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy."

So “Christ teachings clashed with the teachings of Judaism “ or put another way the teachings and words of God the father.

To a Christian this new deal makes sense, saying the teaching of Jesus trumps that of the OT God, but it just makes just as much sense to say Muhammad trumps Jesus and his is the final word & BTW he was only a prophet not the son of God anyway.

Aslan,

GENOCIDE

Given you hold R.L. Rummel, as an authority on genocide, I quote your source, verbatum:

“In ancient times captured cities or towns would be pillaged and their inhabitants massacred; whole lands would be turned into regions of ruins and skeletons. Even the Hebrews, according the Bible, put to the sword those they conquered.”

There’s more…

“And the Crusades of the Middle Ages should not be ignored. In the aforementioned 1099 sack of Jerusalem, besides the 40,000 to over 70,000 Moslems that may have been butchered, the Crusaders herded surviving Jews into a synagogue and burned them alive.”

And more…

“… scapegoats for major human disasters. The presence of Jews in Christian Europe has always provided an easy explanation for catastrophes like the plague. "Why are people getting sick and dying on mass? Because the Jews are poisoning the water." Jews everywhere were thus attacked during the Black Death of 1347-1352 … Jews were massacred wholesale. For example, in Mainz, Germany, 6,000 were recorded killed; in Erfurt 3,000 died. "By the end of the plague, few Jews were left in Germany or the Low Countries.”

Would you believe, still more…

“Even among those Christian states [United States] that prided themselves on their humanity, prisoners of war were treated with less than humanity. During the American Civil War, for example, Northern soldiers held in the Southern prison of Andersonville over a six-month period in 1864 died at an annual rate of 79 percent. In total 10,000 perished. Northern prisons were only a little better. For the whole war their death rate for southern prisoners of war was about 23 percent, about the same death rate as the Soviet gulag.130 Overall, 19,060 Southerners died. For both North and South, many of these deaths of prisoners were avoidable had proper food, clothing, and medical care been provided.”

Aslan, how can you agree with the actions of the Soviets, NAZIs [also Rummel], or Christians?

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

There is a time machine, its called DNA. Pericles can travel back to the past. You see the Enlightenment was that bad afterall, it gave us Science.