Slavery

[Rían]

Another verse mentioning slavery -

from Galatians 5:26,28
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus ... There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

I can't write a detailed response now, but I just wanted to point out that verse, and also the following: There are much worse things, IMO, than slavery - one of which is being told that I am a completely accidental occurance that resulted from time and chance and mindless selection mechanisms originating from a single-celled thingy that no one has any idea where it came from. And another is going to hell, even if I have never been a slave. As Valandil said, God would "rather I be a slave who loves and serves Him than a freeman who neither loves nor serves Him". And I would much rather have it this way, too!

Really, people, I don't see why you object to an accidental combination of cells being submitted to slavery. However, if you have the viewpoint that people are magnificent beings that are lovingly designed by an incredible God, then it makes perfect sense to object to slavery, doesn't it?! And as Valandil pointed out, the Christians figured very largely in abolitionist movements.

And this is why I give the Bible the benefit of the doubt, and why I don't just throw it out if someone objects to a part of it - because no other worldview, IMO, makes as much sense as Christianity. If some part doesn't immediately make sense, I take the time and trouble to think it through; I don't just toss the whole thing out - that would be ridiculous! It's been too consistently solid to explain everything I see around me for me to toss it at the slightest objection, and again, I've never seen anything that makes as much sense as Christianity. I may not completely understand everything, but if Christianity makes, say, 90% sense, why toss it when every other philosophy makes no better than 50% sense? That's ludicrous. It only makes sense that I won't understand everything, so why not stick with the best option?

No one human will ever understand everything, but as I posted before (and I will elaborate on later) I can see good reasoning behind why a blatantly explicit verse about not having slavery is not included in the Bible. What I can't make sense of is how someone with the view that there is no God can object to slavery with any kind of intellectual integrity. Can you guys explain it to me?

BTW, has anyone read Uncle Tom's Cabin? What a great book, and with very strong Christian morals. I can't read of Uncle Tom's death without the tears pouring down my face. Tom had great faith in God, and great love for others (real love, BTW, loves even when there is hate returned), and it showed in his life, and he had tremendous victory even in death. If there was ever a person like this in real life, I'm sure he has great, great honor in heaven, and when I get to heaven, I would give him great honor, too, for being victorious in such terrible circumstances. IIRC, Abraham Lincoln called the author of this book something along the lines of "the little lady that started the Civil War".

[Rían]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Of course. The really strong reason for the wrongness of the latter is intensely theological, and naturally, the atheist doesn't consider that when determining what he thinks is right or wrong, as he doesn't believe in it.

Excellent point, Gwai!

People with different worldviews put different values on different things.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Valandil
JD, I think you're just posting without really paying attention to what you're reading. Seems there's no way I can insulate my posts from your misinterpretation - when you're bound and determined to mininterpret / mis-state / over-state them

From G-le-M's post, you can even see that there is a wide view WITHIN Christianity of how the Bible is to be taken. But that's a whole 'nuther thread. I wasn't going to touch on it myself - but there it is. To REALLY understand all that... debating on a thread won't come close! It will literally take years of studying scripture, theology, church history - and then some. Cheers

I went to Catholic school all my life - I'm not ignorant of christianity. But all I have seen from chirstians is defense of the bible under all circumstances. Did you not say...."you don't REALLY expect Rian - or me - to make that kind of admission about the Bible, do you? As a cornerstone of the faith, we Christians tend to give the Bible every benefit of the doubt we can."?

Why wouldn't you say that the bible is wrong in this regard?

[Rían]

JD - I think we cross-posted and you may have missed my post - Valandil doesn't quite speak for me when he said "you don't REALLY expect Rian - or me - to make that kind of admission about the Bible, do you? As a cornerstone of the faith, we Christians tend to give the Bible every benefit of the doubt we can." I think I know (and agree with) what he means, but I don't quite agree with his wording. See my posts above yours.

[Valandil]

JD - I was talking about readily discarding our beliefs about the Bible - just because we're faced with something where we (I should say "I") don't really know the answer to a particular question. Should I then lightly dismiss the truth that I DO see in scripture. See also my post right after G-le-M's... my own persuasion allows for some leeway regarding particulars... but personally, I prefer to give the Bible all the benefit of the doubt I can. I see how it can be possibly misunderstood - or hard to understand - on some finer points. There is much that I don't understand about it myself. But I just outright respect it too much to say "it's wrong" when my more accurate response is "I don't know"

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Another verse mentioning slavery -
I can't write a detailed response now, but I just wanted to point out that verse, and also the following: There are much worse things, IMO, than slavery - one of which is being told that I am a completely accidental occurance that resulted from time and chance and mindless selection mechanisms originating from a single-celled thingy that no one has any idea where it came from.

Why is that such a terrible thing? see - you are blinded by your faith. You won't even open your eyes to science. It's what many early scientists were put to death for - contracticting religious teachings - even though today we know the SCIENTISTS were correct. And I'm sorry - can not believe that you woudl actually state that you feel that accepting slavery is better than evolution.

And another is going to hell, even if I have never been a slave. As Valandil said, God would "rather I be a slave who loves and serves Him than a freeman who neither loves nor serves Him". And I would much rather have it this way, too!

Why is it a requirement to LOVE and SERVE him? Is he so egotisitcal that he needs love? What about just being a good human being and caring about your fellow man? Isn't that more important than worshipping him?

Really, people, I don't see why you object to an accidental combination of cells being submitted to slavery. However, if you have the viewpoint that people are magnificent beings that are lovingly designed by an incredible God, then it makes perfect sense to object to slavery, doesn't it?! And as Valandil pointed out, the Christians figured very largely in abolitionist movements.

And christianity figured very promimently in the pro-slavery movement. What does that mean? A lot fo people use the bible to support their racist feelings too - like beng against inter-racial marriages. The bible is very contradictory in what it says about many things.

And this is why I give the Bible the benefit of the doubt, and why I don't just throw it out if someone objects to a part of it - because no other worldview, IMO, makes as much sense as Christianity. If some part doesn't immediately make sense, I take the time and trouble to think it through; I don't just toss the whole thing out - that would be ridiculous! It's been too consistently solid to explain everything I see around me for me to toss it at the slightest objection, and again, I've never seen anything that makes as much sense as Christianity. I may not completely understand everything, but if Christianity makes, say, 90% sense, why toss it when every other philosophy makes no better than 50% sense? That's ludicrous. It only makes sense that I won't understand everything, so why not stick with the best option?

Will yiou admit though that the bible has flaws? That is doesn't speak out against slavery? Where is the "thou shalf not own another Human" commandment? That would have made it VERY clear.

No one human will ever understand everything, but as I posted before (and I will elaborate on later) I can see good reasoning behind why a blatantly explicit verse about not having slavery is not included in the Bible. What I can't make sense of is how someone with the view that there is no God can object to slavery with any kind of intellectual integrity. Can you guys explain it to me?

What do you mean you don't understand how someone who doesn't believe in godf can't object to slavery? I object to slavery because I feel we are all humans - flesh and blood and it would be terrible to treat another human as property. Believing in god does not give one sole dominion over compassion you know. I suppose you think I should be a murdering, cruel,self centered animal because I don't believe in god.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
... What I can't make sense of is how someone with the view that there is no God can object to slavery with any kind of intellectual integrity. Can you guys explain it to me?

Your question is highly insulting, RÃ*an. Why would I approve of one human being owning the life of another? If we are all equal (which is NOT an exclusively Christian viewpoint, and has NOT always been a Christian viewpoint as has been demonstrated with the biblical verses condoning slavery), then why should one person's freedom be taken from them because of the station they were born into? Your question is so far away from reality that I'm not sure if you thought it through before posting it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Why is that such a terrible thing?

For one thing, if we are accidents, then that bastardizes our value as human beings, and indeed reduces it to nil. Also, if we are accidents, then so are all the other creatures of the world, therefore, their value is non-existent, as well, and we may slaughter beasts and rape the countryside just for our amusement. This is, after all, the logical end of "survival of the fittest." If we can, then we should, to aid evolution.

you are blinded by your faith

On the contrary; you are blinded by your faith, meaning no offense (or is it only acceptable to say such things to Christians?). You have faith that there is no God; therefore, it is impossible for you to believe that He created the world. It is possible for the Christian to believe that we evolved; it is not possible for the atheist to believe that God created the world.

Why is it a requirement to LOVE and SERVE him? Is he so egotisitcal that he needs love? What about just being a good human being and caring about your fellow man? Isn't that more important than worshipping him?

1. Because that is our purpose.
2. No, of course not; He created us also to exalt us, and that we might share in His divine life, says the Church you have known from childhood.
3. Why on earth would it be? It makes no sense for man to be more important than God. Is a pot more important than the potter? I'm sorry, but I really see no logic to this.

A lot fo people use the bible to support their racist feelings too - like beng against inter-racial marriages.

Now, why is it that you do not think of any positive examples of Christianity? No doubt you will know that I have brought it up; but on your own, you think of the bad, yet you claim to not be against it.

Also, JD; you say that you believe Good and Evil are defined by what we think they are. Are you then so arrogant as to think that the opinion of those people who "just happen to be walking about" determines Good and Evil for all times and ages, or did what the people of the time determine what was evil and what was not for then? Really, if you're going to be relativist and not believe in an absolute, it is ludicrous and inconsistent to determine that your particular beliefs constitute the good for all; for then your beliefs become the absolute. In fact, when you said that the Bible "IS wrong" for not condemning slavery, you did exactly that; you made your view into the absolute, thus essentially enthroning yourself in the Throne of God. If you believe that what determine to be wrong, IS wrong, unquestionably and infallibly, then what else can describe that; for who but God has such authority?

"I will be like the Most High."

Will yiou admit though that the bible has flaws? That is doesn't speak out against slavery?

That depends on what you mean by flaws. I don't believe that absolutely 100% of it is literally true, as I stated on (I think) the homosexuality thread. I don't consider that to make it "flawed"; it isn't a textbook of physical literacy, but a teacher of spiritual truth. It often also overlaps into the former, but not always. And as for the second, I would say that no, it doesn't. It seems to me that if you say that, then you say that it speaks against persons being male or female, or descended of an ethnic group. The Bible DOES, however, speak against and condemn evils which come from slavery.

I suppose you think I should be a murdering, cruel,self centered animal because I don't believe in god.

I do not, and I highly doubt Rian does. However, do you think it is wrong to own a pet? If not, and if you hold that we and animals are both accidents, that man is a higher animal, then it is illogical to feel that it is wrong to own another human. Indeed, it falls under the "survival of the fittest" motif. If you add morality to the mix, then survival of the fittest is invalidated.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this post is intended to offend. I consider JerseyDevil, Ruinel, and numerous other atheists to be among my friends. However, I do have different views than they, and am willing to discuss and debate this. Indeed, I believe that the thread of friendship runs under debate, and that each can strengthen the other.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
The bible is flawed. Only a fundamentalist Christian would disagree with that. The bible was written by human beings, maybe men (but how do we really know that only men wrote the bible? I know that I certainly was not there), and it can not be used to define social theory, scientific or historical fact. Scripture reflects the human communities from which it arose. These communities included, men, women, Jews, Gentiles, statesmen, philosophers, freemen, slaves, etc., etc., all properly acting according the very human social and cultural mores of their time. Scriptures reflect the reality of the times in which they were written. As such the Scriptures are a valuable tool in evaluating the cultural anthropology of the historical communities from which they arose.

However, the primary emphasis of Scripture is not human reality. The Scriptures tell us of divine reality, and not necessarily in connection to the human limitations of the historical circumstances surrounding the human cultures they reflect. It is the Christian’s purpose to reduce the truths about the divine from the mythology of Scripture. If all you have to work with are the Scriptures, then admittedly it becomes very difficult to separate the limitations of its human reflections from what Scripture indicates about the divine. All too often it boils down to personal opinion.

Is there slavery in the bible? Well, yes, of course there is, because slavery was part of the cultures reflected by the Scriptures. Does this mean that what the Scriptures say about the divine is illegitimate? There's no way to make that kind of connection. These are two distinct realities we are dealing with: the human limitations of Judeo-Christian mythology, and what this Judeo-Christian mythology tells us about God. Does the presence of these human limitations bring into question the divine inspiration for this mythology? No. God does not dictate laws from above, but speak to men and women of every culture and generation... this is exactly why the inspired Word of God is presented as a mythology... because only mythology has the power to transcend time and place and become applicable to all people of all times and places.

fabulous post. *clapping* Im completely impressed. why this kind of thinking is so hard for all christians to understand has always been beyond me.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
For one thing, if we are accidents, then that bastardizes our value as human beings, and indeed reduces it to nil. Also, if we are accidents, then so are all the other creatures of the world, therefore, their value is non-existent, as well, and we may slaughter beasts and rape the countryside just for our amusement. This is, after all, the logical end of "survival of the fittest." If we can, then we should, to aid evolution.

That is only your opinion. You misunderstand.

If you understood what went into making this planet a life supporting planet and all that took place through billions of years to get us to this place in time, where we are sitting at machines that send electrons in small packages that are taken apart and decoded later at another machine that allows you and I to communicate our thoughts which are also little impulses in an organ in our heads... you would not have posted something so ignorant, Gwai.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this post is intended to offend. I consider JerseyDevil, Ruinel, and numerous other atheists to be among my friends. However, I do have different views than they, and am willing to discuss and debate this. Indeed, I believe that the thread of friendship runs under debate, and that each can strengthen the other.

Likewise.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Really, people, I don't see why you object to an accidental combination of cells being submitted to slavery. However, if you have the viewpoint that people are magnificent beings that are lovingly designed by an incredible God, then it makes perfect sense to object to slavery, doesn't it?!

Of course, it is possible to hold a third opinion: that there is no God, and no morality or purpose other than our own. Which makes it all the more important that we respect each other.

If the righteous go to heaven in the end anyway, what does it matter how enslaved they are in the temporal realm?

Of course, it would be a contradiction for an atheist to believe that God created the world. Just like it would be a contradiction for a Christian to believe that Christ was just an ordinary bloke.

If there's any myopia going on here, it would seem to be the inability to see that morality can possibly exist outside of a Christian context.

* joins in clapping for GleM's post *

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
...therefore, their value is non-existent, as well, and we may slaughter beasts and rape the countryside just for our amusement. This is, after all, the logical end of "survival of the fittest." If we can, then we should, to aid evolution.

do you think it is wrong to own a pet? If not, and if you hold that we and animals are both accidents, that man is a higher animal, then it is illogical to feel that it is wrong to own another human. Indeed, it falls under the "survival of the fittest" motif.

your logic regarding "survival of the fittest" is in error however. it doesnt mean if im physically stronger then you i can kill you. it uses "fit" in its truest sense. that of survivability. doing something like killing or dominating another human does NOT necessarily make you more powerful. in fact killing another human can be regarded as a low fitness behavior if it is done too often and without reason because it will inevitably lead to trouble on the part of the killer. so the truly "fit" would be the non killers who stand a better chance of surviving in our species then the mindless killers do. understand?

If you add morality to the mix, then survival of the fittest is invalidated.

morality can enhance survivability in our species thus making it a great example of fitness.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
For one thing, if we are accidents, then that bastardizes our value as human beings, and indeed reduces it to nil. Also, if we are accidents, then so are all the other creatures of the world, therefore, their value is non-existent, as well, and we may slaughter beasts and rape the countryside just for our amusement. This is, after all, the logical end of "survival of the fittest." If we can, then we should, to aid evolution.

That is one of the reasons for religion. People have to believe that we are better than other creatures. I however really don't think we are anymore than intelligent animals. As for "raping the countryside" it is in our best interest NOT to. Everything in the world is interconnected. YOu destroy all the trees - there won't be any air to breath, pollute all the rivers - there will be no water. This to me is reason enough not to slughter beasts and rape the environment haphazardly.

On the contrary; you are blinded by your faith, meaning no offense (or is it only acceptable to say such things to Christians?). You have faith that there is no God; therefore, it is impossible for you to believe that He created the world. It is possible for the Christian to believe that we evolved; it is not possible for the atheist to believe that God created the world.

No - because I at one time did believe that. Then it didn't make any sense and I saw how narrow minded people were. I don't care if their is a giod or not. it doesn't affect my life. I affect my life and the people around me affect my life.

1. Because that is our purpose.
2. No, of course not; He created us also to exalt us, and that we might share in His divine life, says the Church you have known from childhood.

Oh - so god created people so he could have things to worship him? Again very egotistical if you ask me.

3. Why on earth would it be? It makes no sense for man to be more important than God. Is a pot more important than the potter? I'm sorry, but I really see no logic to this.

Why wouldn't man be more important? So then - as long as you worship god - I suppse I can kill someone I don't like. God says not to kill - but surely if I do it in his name it must be okay.

Now, why is it that you do not think of any positive examples of Christianity? No doubt you will know that I have brought it up; but on your own, you think of the bad, yet you claim to not be against it.

I am against it - but the bible does state these things. And people do VALIDLY use them to condone their own prejucism. To deny this - is complete blindness.

Also, JD; you say that you believe Good and Evil are defined by what we think they are. Are you then so arrogant as to think that the opinion of those people who "just happen to be walking about" determines Good and Evil for all times and ages, or did what the people of the time determine what was evil and what was not for then? Really, if you're going to be relativist and not believe in an absolute, it is ludicrous and inconsistent to determine that your particular beliefs constitute the good for all; for then your beliefs become the absolute. In fact, when you said that the Bible "IS wrong" for not condemning slavery, you did exactly that; you made your view into the absolute, thus essentially enthroning yourself in the Throne of God. If you believe that what determine to be wrong, IS wrong, unquestionably and infallibly, then what else can describe that; for who but God has such authority?

As I have ALWAYS stated - you can not judge the past on the morals of today. I have always said that I am against slavery today, but would I have been against it in the 1600's. i don't know - i doubt it. As for enthroning myself on the Throne of God - society is god. Society determines what is right or wrong - and sometimes people disagree with society. People make up their own rules on what they think is right or wrong - but if it goes against the established laws of the community then they have to pay. Some people think that stealing paper clips from Target is no big deal (it's only paper clips) but societ has said that it is stealing.

[jerseydevil]

That depends on what you mean by flaws. I don't believe that absolutely 100% of it is literally true, as I stated on (I think) the homosexuality thread. I don't consider that to make it "flawed"; it isn't a textbook of physical literacy, but a teacher of spiritual truth. It often also overlaps into the former, but not always. And as for the second, I would say that no, it doesn't. It seems to me that if you say that, then you say that it speaks against persons being male or female, or descended of an ethnic group. The Bible DOES, however, speak against and condemn evils which come from slavery.

The thing that comes from slaveryis already covered though under the general laws for humans. Why seperate the two? Any why not condemn the henious act of slavery?

I do not, and I highly doubt Rian does. However, do you think it is wrong to own a pet? If not, and if you hold that we and animals are both accidents, that man is a higher animal, then it is illogical to feel that it is wrong to own another human. Indeed, it falls under the "survival of the fittest" motif. If you add morality to the mix, then survival of the fittest is invalidated.

See - i put humans above animals you see. I don't want them to be wholesale slaughtered or made to suffer for no reason - but I do support animal testing in man's interest. It is also one of the things that I find funny about people's outrage toward Planet of the Apes. The apes were the superior beings - of course they would treat humans as just animals and do testing. People can't expect not to be treated like that - but my feeling today - in today's world - is that no matter what your religion, skin color or sexual orientation - you are human and should be respected and treated as such.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this post is intended to offend. I consider JerseyDevil, Ruinel, and numerous other atheists to be among my friends. However, I do have different views than they, and am willing to discuss and debate this. Indeed, I believe that the thread of friendship runs under debate, and that each can strengthen the other.

i agree. I don't determine my friends by their beliefs. I have many "real life" friends who insist evolution is wrong and I have many friends who a extreme left politically. It doesn't mean anything to me. It's just difference of opinion. I do feel that religion though narrows a person's perseption too much. As I said - I don't care if their is a god or not. If their is - fine you were right - if their isn't then what does it matter.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

your logic regarding "survival of the fittest" is in error however. it doesnt mean if im physically stronger then you i can kill you. it uses "fit" in its truest sense. that of survivability. doing something like killing or dominating another human does NOT necessarily make you more powerful. in fact killing another human can be regarded as a low fitness behavior if it is done too often and without reason because it will inevitably lead to trouble on the part of the killer. so the truly "fit" would be the non killers who stand a better chance of surviving in our species then the mindless killers do. understand?

I agree; fit does not necessarily mean physically strong. But, it does refer to some strength; strength of intelligence, for instance. Homo sapiens did not (considering evolution to be true) evolve into what it is by being compassionate, saving the whales, etc.

Also, you did not address the point of the value of accidental slime. By the way, as an agnostic, do you believe that man is an accident, or do you believe that, if there is Something out there, that It planned man?


JD:

That is one of the reasons for religion. People have to believe that we are better than other creatures. I however really don't think we are anymore than intelligent animals. As for "raping the countryside" it is in our best interest NOT to. Everything in the world is interconnected. YOu destroy all the trees - there won't be any air to breath, pollute all the rivers - there will be no water. This to me is reason enough not to slughter beasts and rape the environment haphazardly.

Your first sentence is, I think, basically indefensible, to be frank. What of those Hindus who consider animals as in all likelihood being men from past lives, and refuse to kill an animal? What of ancient Egypt, which placed many animals ABOVE man? To paraphrase a wise man, "Why only take Christianity into account?"

But, it has not always been in our best interests not to. Does this mean that when the earth had so many vast, rich forests, that there would have been nothing wrong with setting fire to parts of them to watch them burn, or to cut trees down and leave them to rot? Was it just fine when vast herds of wield creatures roamed to destroy them for enjoyment?

No - because I at one time did believe that.

So? Note the words, "At one time". Some of the most vicious Catholic-haters are ex-Catholics; yet the fact that they were once in the Church for some reason exempts them from any accusations of prejudice.

Note: I am not saying that you are a Catholic-hater; far from it. But simply because you once believed it does not affect the fact that you do not now. You don't believe that God exists; therefore, he could not have created the world. I do believe that God exists; but He could have used evolution to bring life to Be.

Oh - so god created people so he could have things to worship him? Again very egotistical if you ask me.

You must have missed my second point. That we might share in His DIVINE LIFE! "God became Man that men might become gods." This is only a slight exaggeration of the destiny which God has for men. We will, ultimately share in His perfect life of holiness! That is a truly awesome thought, and not in the least egotistical, but altruistic. Chesterton wrote: “They have ripped the soul of Christ into silly strips and labeled them altruism and egoism, and they are equally puzzled by His insane magnificence and His insane meekness. They have parted His garments among them, and for his vestures they have cast lots; though the coat was without seam woven from the top throughout.�
Also, to truly worship and glorify God is a wholly good, fine, and pleasant experience. It could just as easily been for us as for Him; and I think it was. There are few things more glorious than giving the glory to Him.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Why wouldn't man be more important? So then - as long as you worship god - I suppse I can kill someone I don't like. God says not to kill - but surely if I do it in his name it must be okay.

Why would he? To the rest: No, it is not okay. Worshipping God is most important; but "If you love me, you will keep My commandments." Someone who has this few cannot, I believe, truly love and worship God. The closest they can get is Matt. 15:8 "These people draw near me with their mouth, and honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me."

I am against it - but the bible does state these things. And people do VALIDLY use them to condone their own prejucism. To deny this - is complete blindness.

By "it", I meant Christianity. One who sees the negative only, or even primarily, is against something.

As I have ALWAYS stated - you can not judge the past on the morals of today. I have always said that I am against slavery today, but would I have been against it in the 1600's. i don't know - i doubt it. As for enthroning myself on the Throne of God - society is god. Society determines what is right or wrong - and sometimes people disagree with society. People make up their own rules on what they think is right or wrong - but if it goes against the established laws of the community then they have to pay. Some people think that stealing paper clips from Target is no big deal (it's only paper clips) but societ has said that it is stealing.

With all due respect, you didn't answer my question.

The thing that comes from slaveryis already covered though under the general laws for humans. Why seperate the two? Any why not condemn the henious act of slavery?

I don't think that slavery necessarily is "heinous". Racial slavery is, yes; slavery without a hope of freedom is, yes; slavery by birth is; yes. But slavery is not, in and of itself, evil, in my opinion.

See - i put humans above animals you see. I don't want them to be wholesale slaughtered or made to suffer for no reason - but I do support animal testing in man's interest. It is also one of the things that I find funny about people's outrage toward Planet of the Apes. The apes were the superior beings - of course they would treat humans as just animals and do testing. People can't expect not to be treated like that - but my feeling today - in today's world - is that no matter what your religion, skin color or sexual orientation - you are human and should be respected and treated as such.

I agree with your last question; all should be respected. However, if humans are, as animals, accidents formed (or oozed, rather) from slime, why would they be above animals?

i agree. I don't determine my friends by their beliefs. I have many "real life" friends who insist evolution is wrong and I have many friends who a extreme left politically. It doesn't mean anything to me. It's just difference of opinion. I do feel that religion though narrows a person's perseption too much. As I said - I don't care if their is a god or not. If their is - fine you were right - if their isn't then what does it matter.

Something similar that I've heard is, "If you're right and it's all just a big lie, then it has no real consequence. If I'm right, though, and it's all true, what happens then?"

If you understood what went into making this planet a life supporting planet and all that took place through billions of years to get us to this place in time, where we are sitting at machines that send electrons in small packages that are taken apart and decoded later at another machine that allows you and I to communicate our thoughts which are also little impulses in an organ in our heads... you would not have posted something so ignorant, Gwai.

Sorry, Ru, didn't see this before.

I disagree. Regardless, without some motivating force, something that wanted us, it still makes us nothing but accidents, no matter how long it took to make those accidents. We are still without any true purpose, nothing but accidents. Just one of the many drafts of a never-completed work.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
The bible is flawed.

I would say that depends on what you think the purpose of the Bible is

I might call a lovely, delicate crystal vase flawed if I tried to use it as a stepladder (and conversely, a stepladder would make a lousy flower holder!) However, from what I understand to be the purpose of the Bible, it's perfect, IMO.

I would say that it's flawed in the sense of having syntactical errors and the occasional transcription error and things like that, tho. But that's meaningless.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Your question is highly insulting, RÃ*an. Why would I approve of one human being owning the life of another? If we are all equal (which is NOT an exclusively Christian viewpoint, and has NOT always been a Christian viewpoint as has been demonstrated with the biblical verses condoning slavery), then why should one person's freedom be taken from them because of the station they were born into? Your question is so far away from reality that I'm not sure if you thought it through before posting it.

I think you didn't read my post carefully; I think you just reacted to what you THOUGHT I was saying. Please re-read it, and note that I am ONLY talking about INTELLECTUAL integrity. I think GrayMouser is quite correct and honest on the Offshoot thread when he notes the INTELLECTUAL problem of the existence of morality for those that don't believe in God.

I'm sorry if you were insulted. I don't mean to insult you or anyone; again, it is an INTELLECTUAL question that I honestly don't see a logical answer to. And your answer does not answer my question, BTW. In fact, it strengthens it - why would you be insulted if you didn't have moral feelings?

See, you DO have moral feelings, don't you? I'm not denying that you have them; indeed, I know that you have them and I'm glad that you have them. I am merely pointing out the logical inconsistency of having moral feelings, and making moral judgements, if everything just came about by chance happenings. There is no morality in rolling a dice, or in something passing thru an impersonal filter called "natural selection", is there? Would you say to the wholly theoretical animal that mutated and was more fit, when this animal passed thru the filter of natural selection, "Good for you, animal! You did the right thing! I know you were tempted to die out, but you made the right moral choice in a difficult situation, and I commend you!" Of course you wouldn't!

There can be no logical basis for morality in the creatures that are the result of evolutionary processes. And the really irritating thing (for your side) is that it's clear that you have morals!

This is a LOGICAL problem for you and JD and others that hold the evolutionary belief - the observed fact is that you DO have moral feelings and make moral judgements, but there can be nothing to base these on, in your worldview.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Your first sentence is, I think, basically indefensible, to be frank. What of those Hindus who consider animals as in all likelihood being men from past lives, and refuse to kill an animal? What of ancient Egypt, which placed many animals ABOVE man? To paraphrase a wise man, "Why only take Christianity into account?"

Why is it indefensible? The only animal that Hindus don't kill is the cow and that because they believe it is the holding vessel for the soul while it is in between lives. They eat chicken and other animals. The reason I was talking strictly in terms of Christianity is because you guys seem to only think that it is the only one that has answers. Every single thread turns into a christian discussion. Even the ones about general religion.

By the way - ancient Egypt didn't really put animal above man - just that many of their gods had animla forms. They still ate meat. Just becuase I have two dogs - doesn't mean I worship them or think they are better than me. Just because I won't kill them - does not mean that I would put them above a human.

But, it has not always been in our best interests not to. Does this mean that when the earth had so many vast, rich forests, that there would have been nothing wrong with setting fire to parts of them to watch them burn, or to cut trees down and leave them to rot? Was it just fine when vast herds of wield creatures roamed to destroy them for enjoyment?

In hindsight - no. But did we? yes. Look at what we did to the Buffalo. The Indians weren't all enviromentally friendly like we try to believe in our politically correct world. They did their fair share of bringing animals to extinction and destroying environment.

So? Note the words, "At one time". Some of the most vicious Catholic-haters are ex-Catholics; yet the fact that they were once in the Church for some reason exempts them from any accusations of prejudice.

Note: I am not saying that you are a Catholic-hater; far from it. But simply because you once believed it does not affect the fact that you do not now. You don't believe that God exists; therefore, he could not have created the world. I do believe that God exists; but He could have used evolution to bring life to Be.

I think to understand the truth - you have to first accept that there may not be a god.

[Valandil]

And, JD... why did you take my opening statement, mis-interpret it (which I tried later to amend) and then ignore the rest of it?