Thanks for the compliment nn23!




Evolution, being a natural process, is inevitably timed on a longer scale than Religion. Religion is modeled after the lives of humans, thus it follows a more finite timeline.

While a bit of a stretch in Evolutionary proof; I always find it interesting that people turn such a blind eye to the mulititude of species populating the Earth. There are animals fully adapted to living in a specific habitat. Through Plate Techtonics, we have deduced that the terrain of the Earth and thus habitats have changed. How then did these specific species come to be? If the habitat to which they are suited did not exist until recent times, how can their adaptations be explained?

Furthermore, Evolution seems to be viewed only as represented by drastic physical changes. In fact, it is really a representation of favorability when it comes to breeding. So, while we may not see a deer capable of hopping from car to car across the road in or lifetime; those that have figured alternate routes to a destination because they have evolved to associate paved roads with danger may prove more productive during the mating season.

Just some ideas...

bg04

Am I to understand that the bold text is fact? Are we discussing a theory or not? What scale is used?
I find it interesting that you have chosen to say adaptation is the same thing as the theory of evolution.
Firstly, its Plate-Tectonics, secondly...when you say "we"...whom are you talking about? And can you provide a source or two with the opinion that "Plate Tectonics has caused habitat change."
Who views it that way? Its all about micro-changes over millions of years.
What driving force determined the "favorablitiy"? What determines the more successful breeds? And if "Evolution" is merely a representation of subjective observation, then it must require just as much faith to believe in as say...believing in a Divine Creator.
This is not a good example, and not an example of evolution at all. What does learned behavior have to do with genetic-information-change/mutation over long periods of time?

If I train my dog to sit.. I.E. - I say "sit" with food in my hand, and when her bum hits the floor, I reward her with the food. After 3 days of 15 minute training sessions, she sits on command. Is that an example of rapid evolutionary change? Quantum Leap perhaps? I don't believe so.

Hahaha... Some of these, come on now. But, here goes:



You can make fact of whatever you wish. Who am I to say for you? But, for me, yes I would say that the theory of Evolution is presented as a process that occurs in nature. As for scale, now you are just being difficult... ~3.9-4.1 billion years for Evolution, ~6000 years for Christianity, ~4100 years for first man-recorded history.



I did not necessarily equate the two, however, adaptation leads to natural selection leads to evolution, in theory. They are married to a degree. Adaptations to a specific environment can increase a creatures reproductive success, inviting greater progeny with that adaptation, resulting in the evolution of a species.



LOL, my bad man. Been a few years since geology class.
By we, I mean a large body of scientists and common people. Not all atheists either.
Well damn jwinathome, I bet if we took California and broke it from the continent, and cast it into the middle of the Pacific the habitat would change dramatically. Considering ocean currents/storms, rainfall, etc... However, it appears that outside the theory of Evolution, there is not enough time for the planet to have gone through such changes.

Or the idea that a volcano erupting might happen to change a local habitat? Or a sudden rift (due to a Divergent Fault) that allows water to flow from a lake towards the ocean, creating a river?

Pangea
Interesting Reading 1
Interesting Reading 2




Hahaha, touche! Some people have that view, you never know... No insult intended.



Probably the female! I mean, they really decide who gets some and who doesn't. Off the top of my head: ability to reproduce, ability to procure food, ability to defend itself/mate/offspring. Simply, the more successful breeds will produce more offspring. I don't see how this can be viewed as subjective; if one group has 5x the offspring as the other, and this continues for 100 years, I would say that one is more successful than the other. Perhaps we have different notions of subjectivity? So, no, the data precludes the need for 'faith'. It becomes fact that one groups is better at finding food and making babies.



I agree, this is a terrible example.

How about this example about Irish Elk?

In the end though, this is all about trying to find a way to explain that which we haven't yet. Some lean towards the dominance of Man, some towards the dominance of Nature. But, they are only ideas, lashed into frameworks within our minds. IMO, it is the role of public education to emphasize scientific aspects of the World. It is the role of private education to emphasize spiritual aspects of the World. Neither is more important than the other, and neither should usurp the other.

We owe it to our children to teach them critical thinking skills, which are not heavily fostered by faith-based endeavors. We also owe it to our children to teach them humanity, which is not overtly glorified by science-based endeavors.

Is this fun or what?!

My belief is that is sure is evolving into fun.

*reads jwinathone's response to me*
huh?

How?
Resist what? Jwinathone, i am truely sorry that in missing my point you took this as a personal attack at Christianity. I merely used Christianity as an example to represent religion in the point that within both religion and science scams take place. Any illedged Christian denomination that cheats and lies is obviously not a true representative of the belief as is any lieing scientific authority that presents falsefied evidence not a scientific authority, this was the point i was trying to make...i really am SO sorry you took it in another way, that honestly was not my intention. If i had the chance again i'd have referred to another religion like Buddhism instead of Christianity.

Yes and this is the very point where science and religion differ and can not be compared. This is a prime example of the point i was trying to make in the first place.

Are things that are just semantics invalid?

One devalues a "small" example using an example of oppression from another continant. I was not refering to foot binding, i was refering to shoe size in general, which is not one example, it is many examples represented evidently in many antique clothes shops and displays/museums. Even shoes which were not very pointed in style, for example in the 1920's were massively smaller in size than that of today. Hmmm, i think heights another one isnt it? Havent we become alot taller? I think there are some "denominations" of the theory (theres SO many ) that allow for changes that have come as a consequence of mans affect on the environment, in height this would be to do with oxygen transportation in blood affecting growth because of pollution...i think? something like that anyway.

The point i have been trying to make before being taken off into different directions with misunderstandings is that Evolution theory is not trying to "take over" in the education system as the ultimate truth because the reference to it as a theory disclaims it as the truth.

I have not once said either that creationism is wrong or that evolution is correct. And on a personal note i have no judgment on this matter either. Any implications percieved of this are simply the subjective assumptions of those that have failed to understand the point stated.

CHILL WINSTON!!!


nn23

Hello nn23,

Actually, not only foot size but overall size of humans have been increasing (due to better food, better health care IMO). This is an example of Natural selection (genetic variability withing a species) in action, not evolution. Natural Selection is observable repeatable, and testable, therefore provable. It is also reversible as environmental conditions change. Natural selection is not evolution, it is genetic flexibility. Despite 6000+ years of natural selection dogs are dogs, cats are cats, apes are apes, and humans are still humans. for evolution to work it requires new genetic information to be added to an organism. most would say that this is done through genetic mutation that does happen naturally. Studies in mutation have reveled that most mutations are harmful not beneficial. Even in the ones that are beneficial, the mutation is caused by either a loss of genetic information or a gene turning off that used to be active. not a single mutation that has been studied to date has shown the appearance of new genetic coding in the organisms studied. This includes microorganisms (antibiotic resistant bacteria) as well as larger animals.

Seafox14

Well said seafox...thats it in a nutshell. Like I posted before, because of the genetic information factor, the theory of evolution is a science-fiction novel at best. And I will say again...this reason (genetic information), among many others, is why particles-to-people evolution is a less and less accepted explanation of the origins of life. It seems to be pushed into teachings and the science community by people that aren't willing to accept observable truths, but stick to wild theories that require too many assumptions to count. Oh, and it is also basically a humanist movement which in itself constitutes teaching religion in school......

Many people do not realize that the teaching of evolution propagates an anti-biblical religion. The first two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), signed by many prominent evolutionists, are:

1. Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
2. Humanism believes that Man is a part of nature and has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

This is exactly what evolution teaches. Many humanist leaders are quite open about using the public schools to proselytize their faith. This might surprise some parents who think the schools are supposed to be free of religious indoctrination, but this quote makes it clear:

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational levelâ€â€�preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the newâ€â€�the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism … .

It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive. (J. Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, The Humanist, Jan.–Feb. 1983, 23, 26)

Now that is one fantastic movie!!

Heres a little quote to chew on....

"Science itself makes no sense if the scientific mind is itself no more than the product of irrational material forces."

B&G...I read through the link about the big 'ole deer. What exactly is that supposed to show me? Can you explain?



I could not agree more...that's why particles-to-people evolution should be taught privately. Because it is not science, it does in fact require faith, and often complete blind-faith to believe. It is presented as fact in schools, and often PUSHED upon children in their most influential stages, and as I said before, if you really want it, I will cite you thousands of examples, it will only take some time.

Although I have been busy playing the Devil's Advocate, I must say that this quote is quite disturbing. I find it interesting that the 'grass is always greener' on the other side.

What is so wrong with allowing people to learn whatever they want?

Of course, this begs the question from some; what is the role of academic science in explaining the origin of man?

It seems that everything requires faith; mathematics, language arts, physical education, etc...

Hi everyone - I left my PC for a couple of days and a book has been written!

I thought we already "disproved" evolution using "DNA"? As you might have observed, I'm no scientist, but when we did figure out that the world is not flat, what do you call that if it is not a "disproof"? (I'm kinda laughing at this question)

I agree people have been getting larger over time with better nutrition, etc, but in this leftist world, we will see no more of "survival of the fittest". After all, Florida kept Terri Schiavo on life support for 15 years, even though her brain stem was GONE all that time. Florida spent outrageous money keeping this dead woman alive instead of helping injured/disabled Floridians under the age of 62.

This idea of teachers teaching our children anything morally positive is unfortunately, not something I would bet a nickel on: after all, we have professors encouraging children to 'experiment with homosexuality'; the only thing our government can think of is abstinence. America fired a Surgeon General for mentioning 'masturbation'. How insane is this? If we could just call it "self-pleasuring" we could teach a coping mechanism for children, a safe release for those pent-up hormones and keep themselves safe and healthy. Yes, I admit it, I taught that to my children as theywere growing up. They called me "gross" and "weird". Years later, my daughter asked how to do masturbation. When I told her to (blah blah blah) until orgasm, she said "YOU MEAN WOMEN HAVE ORGASMS???" I told her THAT's why children (and she was in her later teens) had no business having sex with anybody: see how women can be abused!!! (And yes, Catholic cannon teaches against the M thing)

This idea of Humanism is IMO the pitts, and I (Christian) certainly oppose it. What is wrong with the last five Commandments? Nevermind where they came from, but who can argue with ethics and morality that include avoiding murder, unmarried sex, envy of others' good fortune, stealing, and telling lies about other people; (aren't these the rules learned in kindergarten?) and that where we came from involves a "human debate" that some believe a Divine being (aka God capital G) and some believe it was a series of random accidents. Evolution, the idea that the bone structure of a bat looks like a human hand is pretty far fetched, especially since there's no DNA to back that up. Keep it simple, but give them both options. When children start asking how/why God created them, tell them that is a subject of many Religions that exist in the world, and encourage them to "google" God or Religion and tell them that is a subject taught in "Sunday school" at their local church, and is not a subject for public school: get their "three R's" in school. That way, they know the names of the subjects they can further research: they might even go home and ask their parents, starting some real dialogue! We Christians must not be a silent majority anymore! Just as "love each other as you love yourself" results in giving one's life to save another's is a Christian (maybe also Jewish) precept, why do we see so much of that in America, and why did a schoolhouse in another country burn down with only the teachers getting out alive? It is because of our Judeo/Christian heritage. Hey, I just googled that word, and look what I found at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/...pancasila.html:

"The five precepts of lay Buddhists
1. I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
2. I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.
3. I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.
4. I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.
5. I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness. "

Doesn't this make more sense than teaching children that humans evolved on Earth? What about the probability, oops possibility of alien life?

We all want to know why we are here (right?) LIke, really, do Athiests/agnostics believe this life is all there is? And, like, why ARE we here? (sorry, I attended a wedding yesterday and conversed with a bunch of young people)

Jesus's teachings Rock

PS to my friend BG04, people must know that things exists before they can pursue learning about them. Just a clarification: giving children options in school gives them more opportunities to study that which interests them.

Why is anything living on earth? No one really truly knows ‘for sure’. Some have ‘Faith’ and some believe strictly in science and some feel that science and Faith can be good friends.

Re: "Doesn't this make more sense than teaching children that humans evolved on Earth? What about the probability, oops possibility of alien life?".

I do wonder what harm it does to teach our children the optional belief that “humans evolved on Earth”. Whether we teach our children religious beliefs or ‘science’ or a combination of both, it’s teaching them that there are many, many things mankind have learned, continue to learn and yet may never know about other things – at least within our lifetime. To open up a child’s mind to many things and to teach them to think for themselves can only surely be a gift?


Re: “LIke, really, do Athiests/agnostics believe this life is all there is? And, like, why ARE we here?”

As one of those ‘atheists’ – gentle smile – I can only speak for myself. (Believe it or not, ‘atheists’ and ‘agnostics’ are as varied as any other group of people in their beliefs – another gentle smile).

But being an atheist also gives me a great deal of freedom – the freedom to believe what I choose but to feel safe and strong enough to admit I could be wrong and to not judge others for not choosing my path.

I honestly believe it is not religion that makes a better world – or the belief in science. It’s individuals with or without faith that makes them ‘good or bad’ people and our world a better place to live.

As for myself, maybe I’m simply here to live. Just like flowers and birds and butterflies. Maybe, if I’m lucky, I’ll hopefully touch another life or two on my way through this journey and somehow, perhaps even without knowing it, help to make this place a better world for someone else.

And when I die, the thought of death doesn’t fill me with terror that I may go to ‘hell’ for any transgressions I may have committed. Rather, I think of myself dying the way I think of, for instance, a flower dying. I lived, laughed, loved and cared and hopefully my ashes will be a temptation for a pretty pink flower to bloom upon.

Hi Mara - thank you for the response. You are a very special person, your sense of ethics and morality shines through your posts. Where did you get them? That's what I'm trying to figure out... I only know a few Australians that I really liked, that it was colonized by England like the U.S. Here, there are a few who are trying to change America - in direct opposition to what made us truly great (before about 30 years ago). Now, filmmakers are making fun of our Forefathers, those who made place for the Middle Class, and set aside tax money for the needy elderly and disabled, so they could maintain their dignity. Now, I see the results of certain laws that have been passed: we now have a small middle class, and a gap between the rich and the poor widening. Americans are struggling while the gov't ignores our Sovereignty and language to hand over American tax dolalrs to lawbreakers. This is happening after generations of soldiers fought for our sovereignty: and the gov't is ignoring their wishes to leave the border wide open. And some very bad people are using this opportunity.

Where does one get ethics and morals if not from some spiritual source? When you say you wish to make a positive contribution to someone elses life, that is a highly ethical and moral stance. Perhaps your culture is less diverse than ours, making it easier for people to live together and commit less crime. When we had a melting pot, and finally got our act together to provide real civil rights to black americans, we had a great culture. It didn't take long to break that melting pot: about 16 years...

I like science (of course, I see it as God's handiwork that man discovers and uses); and there are some religions that I fear, and some that are IMO downright dumb: for example, I don't expect God to drive my car, and when people let their children die when medical care is available - that just doesn't make sense to me. I cannot imagine anyone really thinking that an evil deed will take them to "heaven" so they can commit more evil deeds. I cannot imagine teaching children to hate, or to cheat people out of their own sovereignty. So where do we get our set of morals and ethics? Where did you get yours? You are such a pleasant person, your manners impeccable. Is that the culture of Australia? That would not surprise me at all, based on the Aussies I have met. PS: Is Crocodile Dundee anywhere near a real Australian? I'd love to visit, but am not sure I could handle the animals. I only just got used to seeing a black snake in my yard, and appreciate them eating my grasshoppers.

Hi Joy Green, I promised MaraM, I wouldn't let the cat out of the bag as they say. MaraM and I are actually neighbours.
We get on like a house on fire.We share the same interests and opinions. Yes,if everybody had neighbours like MaraM, the world would be a happier Place.IMHO.
I will let 'MaraM' respond to your Friendly Post,but I thought I would have my 2cents worth First.
PM.As far as Snakes go we have only 10 of the Worlds Deadliest.Heres a link to familiarize yourself with them,if you decide to make the trip.

http://www.reptileallsorts.com/deadliest-snakes.htm

I enjoyed your point-of-view Mara. Just so I may understand more....to what purpose do you attribute wanting to make someone else's life a little better? In other words, why would someone else's enjoyment/satisfaction matter to you?

And just because I don't know...I will ask. Are you a proponent of particles-to-people evolution?

Are some particular people more particulate than others?

Not to be overly particular,

but doesn't the bible say something about

God creating Adam out of the "dust of the earth"

or similar particulate matter?


Just wonderin'?

Indeed John, it does say that "God created"

However, we do not know the mechanism by which God created...

Perhaps the theory of Evolution is missing something vital, that may very well be. But the fact remains that we are all adherent to natural processes. Why then, is there such upheaval at some who try to connect the dots?

A belief in natural selection and evolution does not necessarily eliminate the need for God. All the Scripture says is that Man was created by God. There is no explanation of path or process. Is it so unrealistic that an eternal being would take some time to create Man? After all, what is 4+ billion years when compared to infinity?

Just things floating through my finite skull....

The problem for me B&G...is that the Bible does not support billions of years, particle-to-people evolution. And based on my lengthy studies, neither does science. I still hold fast to the belief that it actually requires more faith and way more assumption for the theory of evolution work.

And also, with evolution, there is no mechanism. My upheaval with the education system is that the theory is based around fantasy science. If you are going to teach such a poorly substantiated theory in science class...why can you not offer the alternative? Its clear why though....a materialistic agenda.

Oh, and B&G, I really appreciate your discussion. You raise some great questions.

I'll answer your first question the only way I can ... "Why wouldn't I want to 'be myself' and show kindess to others?"

And re second question ... Nope, I'm not a "proponent of particles-to-people" or a "proponent" of much at all - gentle smile. (I 'know' few things 'for sure'). When I die I, right or wrong, I believe whether cremated or buried, my remains will simply add some vital nutrients to the soil (('giving back' for the last time ) - and I mentioned ashes simply because I've chosen to have my remains cremated.

I've said it before many times but it always remains true - I have the greatest respect for many who have Faith and I and so many others would fight to the end for someone to believe in their God of their choosing (as long as they do no harm to others). My only sadness is that mankind seems to have this inate urge to convince everyone that as individuals, we and only we, are right about so many things. I often do wonder if mankind, including people of varying religions and people like myself could all live in harmony if we'd only 'live and let live'.

(To our Moderators ... if we are veering 'off topic' here, please just let us know and perhaps a more applicable thread could be started).

JoyGreen, I think DSTM is teasing you For, in fact, while he lives in Australia, I live in Canada. But come to think of it, we are all neighbours ( thank you, Mr. Rogers! Huge smile).

Re: "Where did you get them? That's what I'm trying to figure out" . Thank your and DSTM's kind words, JoyGreen. I've been trying to understand quite what it is being asked. Perhaps it's your kind and polite way of asking how it's possible that someone with no religious belief system can be 'normal'? Another gentle smile.

But to answer your question ...

While science didn't teach me to be who I am - nor did religion - an analogy of things may be that I would think of myself the 'cake' and everything and everyone I come in contact with, whether in a positive or negative way, is the 'icing' on my life. I truly do realize I have an "odd take" on life - gentle smile - and while it surely wouldn't be for everyone, it's simply who I am.

But back to the topic ... I'm not at all sure that all schools do teach evolution as 'fact' - rather as a science, at least iin our area.

That aside, as I've mentioned before, few if any wars have been fought over schools teaching 'why does the apple fall from the tree?" versus a school filled with children from various backgrounds and Faiths - and being taught in a public school that one and only one religion is right? Eep!

It's possible - just possible - that none of us are solely 'right'? And really, does it matter who is 'right' and who is 'wrong' - that really old adage of, "Be true to yourself" is a lovely one. As long as we feel we are 'right' within ourself, surely the urge to convince others to 'reform' lessens?

Right back at you jwinathome!

None of us will get anywhere if we are afraid to question one another respectfully.

While I can appreciate where you are coming from on a Scriptural basis, I often wonder...

Is the reason that the Bible doesn't support billions of years a result of God or of Man? I mean, it does seem a bit conveniant that the beginning of the World coincided so neatly with the beginning of Man. Could this be a result of our Human-Centric view of the Universe?

Because so much of Faith is based on conjecture, it stands to reason that at some point we have to argue against such; or at least analyze it from an antithetical point of view.

Regards,
bg04

Consider what one ordinarily means by "fact."

Facts are verifiable. Anyone, in a "position to know" can validate the truth-value of the proposition. This makes facts a matter of public knowledge (as Nietzsche writes, "Truth begins with two"). To disprove a fact, or to change its acceptance-status, is to show that it "doesn't fit" in a jarring manner with the surrounding facts, or cannot be duplicated by myself try as I might, or is contradicted by a "stronger" fact.
The attempt to confound "fact" with "opinion" as some wish to do seems to ignore this everyday distinction. I trust this is not being done with the purpose of relegating all sorts of facts and knowledge to opinion.
Regards,
John

Never let facts interfere with a good Story.

Personally I think it is perfectly reasonable for non-religious people to have a sense of morality. I think there is an interesting example that highlights this, which is slavery. While the christian bible does not promote or require the institution of slavery, it certainly condones the practice. There are several passages in the bible which regulate the treatment of slaves (see for example Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:26-27 and Leviticus 25:44). Now, in modern times the institution of slavery is seen to be extremely immoral. I personally do not know anyone, christian or otherwise, who would condone slavery. So, the question is: What is the source of this moral judgement on the unacceptability of slavery? It does not have a spiritual source (at least not for christians).

I may be throwing myself in at the deep end here,as I haven't picked up a Bible in 40 yrs.Everyone brings up the book of Leviticus regarding the Bible condoning Slavery.From what I remember,the slaves at that time were not treated as harshly as a lot of the slaves were on your Southern Plantations before having Slaves was made illegal.
The Slaves in the Bible, back then were treated more as one of the Family.And after about 7 yrs they were free to leave the Family with whom they worked.I also remember something about if the Slave chose not to leave,they were made one of the family.I think there is a vast difference to the term Slave in the Bible to the term Slave in the modern Era.I am only going on memory here,and if someone Learned disagrees with me,I welcome your input.

To compare "slavery" in the old testament with any form of slavery today is a complete misunderstanding. I hate to be so blunt, but its true.

God...according to the Bible, everything was created in 6 days, not billions of years. I have no reason, spiritually or scientifically, to believe that days were any longer then, than they are now.
Actually, if anything, it shows that God had a specific purpose for man. I personally don't have a human-centric view of the Universe. Jesus is the center.
Now that is interesting. I don't know how to argue this point without going semantical. Perhaps you can clarify what you meant... If Faith is theoretically true, but you feel the evidence available is not adequate to "prove" its existence and purpose...you have to directly oppose it? If that were the case, then how could you possibly approach evolution apologetically?

I realise that slavery in biblical times was more akin to what we would call "bonded labour" today. But I do not believe this distinction alters the thrust of my argument.

You did say that the Bible "condones" slavery. It clearly does not. I'm not really sure what the "thrust" of your argument is.

I don't think things are so clear. There are passages in the bible which regulate the treatment of slaves, and I think it is reasonable to conclude, on this basis, that slavery is condoned.

Regulating behavior does not equal approval.

Nor does it equate to disapproval. So my question still stands: What is the source of the moral judgement on the unacceptability of slavery?

My point in all this is to state that I do not believe that morality requires a religious basis.

Then what pray tell is your opinion of "the basis of morality."

To add: I would appreciate your reference of the passages regulating slavery. It may be a good idea to illustrate your concept of the Bible condoning slavery.

I personally believe that the basis for morality is conventional: the rules of morality were fabricated by human beings over many generations as a reflection of the culture of the particular society and a general inclination of the type of society that people wish to inhabit.

Biblical references to slavery:

Exodus 21:2-6
Exodus 21:7-11
Exodus 21:20-21
Leviticus 25:44-46
Ephesians 6:5
Timothy 6:1-2

I was actually hoping you wouldn't just list passages. It would be much better if you built your case by explaining how you interpret those passages with regards to "condoning slavery".
If they were indeed fabricated as you say...what happened before there was any established morality? Do you have any ancient writings that helped you form this conclusion?

Take this passage, which I quoted in an earlier post.

Leviticus
25:44 As for your male and female slaves who may belong to you – you may buy male and female slaves from the nations all around you. 25:45 Also you may buy slaves from the children of the foreigners who reside with you, and from their families that are with you, whom they have fathered in your land, they may become your property. 25:46 You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually.

Personally, I don't see how this could be interpreted in any other way except as condoning slavery. It specifically states that "...you may buy male and female slaves...".

I have no ancient writings to back up my beliefs on morality - and I personally don't need them. Although, you could always try the Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle (never read it myself).

Of Human Bondage

From what we know of ancient civilisations, slavery was an accepted and common practice throughout the known world where the modern concept of human rights extending to each and every person was as foreign as was the knowledge of electricity.
Perhaps the Jews were somewhat more humane in their treatment of slaves, but nevertheless they, too, accepted the idea, especially when the slaves were from a subjugated nation. Indeed, many classical nations had lengthy and precise laws describing the legal treatment of slaves; whether these were actively followed by the common citizen is another matter.

Nowhere in the Bible---as I remember--- can one find an outright and unequivocal condemnation of slavery as an institution. Ironically in this regard, what is NOT said is as important as what is said.

Hence, one can readily have a picture of a pre-bellum plantation owner sitting on his veranda of a Sunday evening, sipping mint juleps and listening to the faint singing down at the slave quarters, congratulating himself on his Christian treatment of his "darkies," and noting that none of them had been given the lash during the week. He would have no uneasiness reconciling his way of life to Biblical teaching.

As the prior discussion in the thread demonstrates, the scriptural text is open to both internal and external interpretation since---unfortunately--- the Biblical writers did not have the crystal clarity of a Kant when they wrote. One brings to the understanding of the text, then, both a knowledge of the time in which it was written, as well as a general sense from a knowledge of the entire Bible of what morality is proper to the Deity.

Regards,
John

And in your very post, you compare it with modern-day westernized slavery.

lol...I've never heard Kant described as anything other than "notoriously difficult".

Yeah,

but isn't his notorious difficulty chrystal clear?

Because we have differing presuppositions, I am not going to be able to explain this to your liking. Let me use the illustration of abortion though....it exists....it sucks, and I personally oppose it. However, since it obviously cannot be completely banned in its current state, I am in support of regulating it, until there is a FINAL resolution to it. Now because I am in support of regulating it, does not mean I condone it in any way. Now, you can ignore the entire New Testament, which is completely devoted to freedom from bondage, or you can look at Biblical text as a whole, and understand what God was doing.

The main objection I have is when people attempt to compare "slavery" of the OT to modern-day westernized slavery.


On a side note....why in the world would you recommend a book that you have never read? And since you don't have anything whatsoever to substantiate your claim how are we supposed to get the "thrust" of your argument?

I didn't claim that Kant was easy, just very clear.



And what I did claim was that at one time, it was quite easy to reconcile being a Christian with owning human beings. While I chose the pre-bellum Southern US, it would have been just as easy to point to the post-Justinian Roman Empire. What has changed very recently has been our conception of the immorality of slavery as an institution no matter how benign, as well as the (Western) conception of the worth of every individual and the right of freedom.


John

Where in the world do you reconcile being Christian and "owning human beings."

I don't know what you mean by "approach evolution apologetically"? Faith, IMO, requires no proof, from view of the outside world. It cannot exist anywhere but in our minds. So, it is completely subjective. Therefore, it follows that naturally there will be objective thought given to a specific Faith and it's alter-image. The science of evolution seems to be a bit more constrained by hypothetico-deductive reasoning.

Was Jesus not a man?

Also, are you not a proponent of teaching the Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy?

Respectfully,
bg04

"Where in the world do you reconcile being Christian and "owning human beings.""

I was making the point that in earlier periods of history, this reconciliation was an historical fact, since there were "levels" of human beings at the bottom of which were slaves. And since the Bible does not absolutely make slavery immoral, one could own slaves and still consider oneself a "good Christian."
Regards,
John

I mean simply defending it...because the majority if not all of evolution is based on pure speculation and conjecture...therefore its existence as being taught in school as the explanation of the origin of life should be questioned.
To make such a statement, you would need to be omniscient.
I don't oppose the opposition of faith based on personal preferences, however, claiming that evolution discounts faith, or that science discounts faith is patently absurd, and again would require omniscience.
Its constrained by much more than that. Try logic, observable proof, reproduction, etc.
Okay...I'll bite.........Jesus was a man. What are you getting at?

Of course I am! Countless experiments have verified it.





Im confused...where were Christians in the Old Testament...did the law of Moses get passed on in the NT?

From the context of what I wrote, and this is perhaps my fault for not making it clear, the "good Christians" should have been taken in a historical sense; one today might be more inclined to separate the teachings of the OT from the NT, but at the time, this was not the case. The Bible was seen in toto as divine and without the blemish of contradictions.


The NT is equally silent about the institution, but not about the correct conduct of slaves:

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." (1 Peter 2:18)
"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive." (Titus 2:9-10)

God may or may not approve of the institution, but it is clear that the writers of the two testaments accepted it, as did the rest of the world at the time. And, I think, writings of this ilk make slavery acceptable to many who called themselves Christians at one time. In all fairness, at a later date, the abolition of slavery was lead by Christians, who had re-interpreted (correctly I would like to think) the real meaning of Christian morality which made owning people odious.

Regards,
John

Thank you for clarifying John. I understand your view.

I hasten to add that this change of perspective was not caused by some miracle of God, but by scientific discoveries and by the influence of doctrines held by LIBERAL HUMANISTS!
Cheers,
John