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?