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.)