Pt1
Aslan wrote
>Nowhere in Judges 21 does it say that God told the Israelites to slay inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead ……….And the virgins were taken as WIVES not sex slaves! (verse 13).

Unlike you I can see my error and I stand corrected it was a oath breaking and they were given as wives. Can you then show where they were punished by God them for killing the innocent women and children and stealing young women girls for wives after killing their parents? Doesn’t get any better for you Asaln, since he didn’t one can only say he must of condoned it.

BTW amazing what looking up that passage pointed out that not only does God condone slavery he practiced it so he certainly punished the Israelites when he wanted to.
Judges 2:14, 3:8, 4:2,

>Last verse of Judges 21 is interesting though. It summarises your own ethical relativism quite nicely: “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.”
You see, Neohuman, when there is no law and no law enforcer, everyone does whatever they like and atrocities occur.

Say I grant your take that ethical relativism means everyone’s does what they like and atrocities occur, (which I don’t) then there is no substantial difference between a the two stances because atrocities are perpetrated by those holding to a divine command theory stance, same outcome.

>Exodus 21:21 literally says slave “is his money” which is a Hebrew idiom for “is his investment”…... loss of slave's cost and manpower (ie. economic loss).

Irrelevant the main point is whether they were abused or treated inhumanely which they were & confirms that they were property so you have contradicted yourself.

Philo I've no problem with that some parts of the Bible but the contradiction is that other parts of the mainly the OT -which is supposed to be divinely inspired- are the opposite. By not condemning Biblical slavery and instead rationalizing it makes a mockery of your absolute moral system and turns it into a relativistic one.

Neohuman,

It has become obvious your obsession is putting down those upholding Christ teachings. You ought to have a go at Orthodox Jews and Muslims who uphold the very exact theology of the OT even today. I as a Christian neither support slavery, nor the capture of virgins as wives; in fact I publicly denounce such practise as vile and evil, as the slave trader John Newton said, "Amazing grace that saved a wretch like me".

The UNHCR has just past laws on the vilification of Islam, in western Media. This Resolution was passed in April. It specifically calls for combating of defamation of religions, highlighting Islam. It was proposed by the Organisation of Islamic Conference. Alarmed at the continuing negative impact of the events of 11 September 2001 on Muslim minorities and communities in some non-Muslim countries and the negative projection of Islam in the media, and the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims.
44th meeting
12 April 2005
[Adopted by a recorded vote of 31 to 16,
with 5 abstentions. See chap. VI, E/CN.4/2005/L.10/Add.6]

I am more interested in what Christians practise and teach today. If you have a moral beef with injustice Christians are involved in today, identify it and expose it. But I suggest you put foward the ideal model so we can evaluate its relative benifits.

Aslan,

SLAVERY

I took only a quick read of Rummel’s work Herein, I gain the impression he is a humanist, promoting liberal libertarianism. He does not seem to debate topics as we have in this Forum. Rather, Rummel appears set against “authoritarianism”; preferring instead more democratic forms of government. In this frame, it could be argued both Christians and Non-Christians alike are guilty of the most atrocious deeds. Power is politicised, be it Stalin leveraging Marx or the Christian (or any) Church subjugating leveraging ignorance. Herein, I note what Philo says about early Christian compromises to paganism. Relatedly, I would posit Constantine, who only a marginal Christian and Christian Church Fathers were just as fallible as anyone when selecting gospels to include in the Bible.

SCIENCE

The Great Divergence following on from the Enlightenment involved the coming together freer thought, the rediscovery of Greek geometry, the importing of unification technologies from the Oriental East via the Byzantine Empire, printing and bridging of theory to practice.

The Church/Christianity was like driving a car with the brake and accelerator pressed down. The Church controlled and suppressed knowledge, while Christianity afforded Science models: e.g., the notion of creation and design.

DNA

DNA is a time machine in that across=-species genetic markers are evident; in humans, other primates, mammals, all the way through to ancient anaerobic organisms deep in the Earth’s crust.

What you say about the lack polymorphism in the Y chromosome does have support. Relatedly, it is felt that Indian clans (e.g., Sioux) are the descendants of only ten people, whom crossed into North America.

A more orthodox view is there was greater diversity in the very remote pass. However, diminished polymorphism occurred about 40,000 years ago, due to the Ice Age. So, with this event, divine intervention aside, Science and the Bible do approximate each other. It’s a matter of scale. That is, perhaps, there were a few score of familially-related Adams around 40,004 BCE, emerging from the Ice Age. Nonetheless, the evolutionary process before this time still stands. Palaeolithic ecological forces killed off alternative clans.

Aslan and Philo,

I do not hold that absolute morals exist in an ethereal sense. Just the same I do feel humanity is very capable of establishing its own moral values. Moreover, societies will often hold different collective opinions as to what is moral. While it might note be possible to completely separate morality from context, I respect that it is possible to create a very human devised hierarchy of moral behaviour/assessment. Developmental Psychologists have looked at this issue: Herein, I would refer you Lawrence Kohlberg, six stages/orientations:

· Stage 1: Punishment-Obedience Orientation
· Stage 2: Instrumental-Relativist Orientation
· Stage 3:Good Boy, Nice Girl Orientation
· Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation
· Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation
· Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principles Orientation

I would venture to suggest that the Bible is all over the place with regard to the stages. As a Humanist I would try for Stages 5 & 6, and, avoid Stage 1 (Yahveh), and, concede Stage 4 in most instances (Moses). So, when I read accounts of Christians in the Bible, I see the major players fitting in with their environments, rather than trying to transcend their peers. Jesus, temper tantrums aside, would rate very highly. So, maybe, the historical Jesus does stand above other Biblical persons. Here, as to day, various people held opinions but did not agree with each other. Our domestic society is possible high-end stage four: Little wonder Yahweh and tribal societies are criticised in this Forum.

Someone from the twenty-first century West (forget the OECD thing) now looks back and sees God acting like a Hebrew chieftain. Surely, an Almighty God is above this?

Aslan, I hope I have answered your question

PT 2
>1 Peter acknowledges the injustice of a brutal master. That was not the way it was meant to be.

Accept their freedom :)

Irrelevant again the point was were they abused and they were therefore same as African slaves.

Since it would have been in their power is there any evidence of early Christians refusing to own slaves or freeing them once they converted to Christianity?

You said: “only fellow Israelites had any hope of freedom.”

Not true. Non-Israelites could be redeemed by a relative, or would be set free, by law, if badly mistreated (Exodus 21:26).

Ok granted on a technicality, so I should have said only the fellow Israelites had any hope of freedom without being maimed first.

Not sure that is much better than an African slave you had to lose an eye to get your freedom and it also confirmed abuse occurred.

>In summary, your objections are baseless.

Baseless to a person that is in denial and condones abuse and the ownership of other human beings.

Slavery is fundamentally about owning another human being, not their labor or how well they are treated, or whether they were better treated than African slaves-which isn’t even the case for Biblical slaves as they could be beaten to within a inch of their life-you've already admitted that's OK by you I’m happy to leave it there.

BTW “Mitochondrial Eve they are talking about the last common female ancestor we all share so in no way invalidates current theories.

Philo Asaln what worries a lot of non-Christians that your uncritical rose colored approach to your religion will lead to Fundie intolerance, anti-science rhetoric and bigotry that is happening in the US.

Philo the sort of enlightened model would be the religious humanist approach http://www.sof-in-australia.org/, appreciation that this is a human construct which was a work in development and while it has it’s amoral elements still has some valuable teachings as do many of the other world’s religions. I've asked that they set up a forum and we can discuss their model with them, I'm finished here bye.

It is interesting to note that within this last year one of the world's leading physicists has come to faith; believing in a designer mind behind the universe. Even in my own church we have one of Australia's former leading professors of elecrophysics, involved in developing computors for the earlier Space exploration programmes. Though he is retired he is still a consultant on astrophysics. He as a young scientist built the first computer in Australia. The church also has one of Australias leading biochemists developing biotechnology for waste recycling. Your argument that Christianity hinders a scientific understanding of the universe is spurious. By the way they are both design creationist.

The Church fathers of the 2nd century wrote:
"We know many among ourselves who have sold themselves up to slavery, in order that they might ransom others. Many, too, have surrendered themselves to slavery, that with the price that they received for themselves, they might provide food for others."

Some slaves were becoming Christians, so that Christians would buy their freedom from Church funds so Irenaeous wrote the following.
"Despise not slaves, either male or female; but neither let them be contemptuous, but let them labor the more as for the glory of God, that they may be counted worthy of a more precious freedom, which is of God. Let them not desire to be set free out of the common fund, lest they be found the slaves of lust." Human nature being what it is some accepted faith as a means to freedom, still tried today by some prisoners and detainees