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.