Valoran

Actually, science itself has rejected numerous pieces of dubious evidence in favor of evolution. I'm sure you'll remember it was scientists who did the hard work and came up with evidence that the Piltdown Man was a hoax, for example, and not the creationists (who, as usual, did nothing but talk). Trying to act as though you're being on the side of the open-minded and chiding those who don't accept your views isn't going to work unless you actually have any solid evidence to back up your position. Until then, all you're trying to do is substitute proof with empty and baseless cajolery.

For what it's worth, this argument would be standing on much stronger grounds if you actually had any evidence of "anything to the contrary". Theist arguments are debunked often because they are false. I won't say that every single theist argument is baseless, but unfortunately from what I can tell, that is the case most of the time. The fact is that there are no serious scientific research endeavors set up by Christians to investigate Christianity. There are no Christian scientists doing the hard work and producing credible evidence to prove their pre-determined conclusions. There are only Christians consoling themselves with the thought that the only reason that theist arguments get debunked is because the odds are stacked against them. Self-consolation is certainly much easier than doing research and trying to find solid evidence for your claims. But hey, don't let that stop you...

But if there is a spiritual world (an alternate dimension that interacts with ours) that is involved, then naturalism is based on a lie. Thus even a working conclusion isn't the real truth. What do you call a statement containing 99% truth and 1% untruth? Acceptance of that 1% untruth can result in grave consequences. And yet there is no evidence whatsoever that a spiritual world actually exists. Right now, the choice we have is between workable explanations founded on empirical data that can be seen, tested, and verified, versus hypothetical explanations based on unproven assumptions.

Interestingly enough, all the verses you quote here expressly refer to Israelite slaves. Non-Israelite slaves were treated as inheritable property, were not to be freed, and could be legitimately obtained by conquering enemy populations and pressing them into service, assuming those enemy populations weren't indiscriminately slaughtered outright. I'm also not sure what to make of your claim that slavery was often voluntary for Israelites. Given how was allowed for men to sell their pre-pubescent daughters into slavery, the question is voluntary according to whom? Do we have any information on what was the alternative to this "voluntary" enslavement to determine that it was truly voluntary?

There is a difference between knowing what an ideal "best" for a specific situation would be, and coming up with a general definition for "best" that covers all conceivable situations. I notice you tend to emphasis the latter, perhaps deliberately, because there is simply no one-size-fits-all solution to every single moral issue out there. The fallacy in your argument arises when you try to imply that because general definitions do not exist, it is impossible for non-theists to accurately judge specific situations on a case-by-case basis either. If we're going to talk about specific situations, however, the question becomes much more answerable. The same-sex marriage is an issue of equality and freedom of choice, where we strive to progress towards a society that rejects discrimination based on sexual orientation. When we narrow it down to individual issues, that's when the theist is reduced to Bible-thumping, unable to produce any reasonable justifications for their moral stand other than "well, it's what God says!". Are we honestly expected to believe that such a moral system is objective in any shape or form? Very good. Are you aware, however, that the exact same is true for your world view as well? Truth and morals are two different things entirely. Truth is objective, while morals are not. Truths and facts can be used as data to produce a moral stand, but trying to suggest that morals are truth is being silly. Again, I ask the question: Christians claim to be in possession of the best and objective set of morals. How do you prove this? PGA, the usual rule of thumb when trying to take the moral high ground is to do it after you have demonstrated that you possess the superior moral platform, not before. As for zero explainability, can you tell us how a set of "morals" that is based on "because God said so!" has any explainability whatsoever? You ask how can morals exist without mind to conceive of them, when the fact is that every one of us has a mind, making your question moot. As I've explained to LuftWaffle, something that arises from a mind instead of being discovered via observation or logical deduction is, by definition, subjective. In trying to use objective morals as an argument for God's existence, the conclusion of the moral law argument undermines its own premises. It's a self-defeating argument that gets you nowhere. You need to understand that what is moral and what actually happens in the real world are two different things that don't necessarily agree. Again, you are asking for broad, one-size-fits-all answers that do not exist in both atheist morals or Christian morals alike; God was perfectly happy to forget his loving side and sanction the slaughter of Jerusalem when it suited His purposes, for instance. If you're willing to quote a specific issue, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you. Again, please provide any specific examples that you want to discuss. With regards to the same-sex marriage issue, it's a change for the better since equality and social rights are triumphing over discrimination grounded in a religious basis, which in turn has no grounds whatsoever. If the fact that 'right' can take various meanings depending on the situation really amazes you, perhaps you have been ignoring reality for far too long in favor of an illusion you have allowed yourself to be lulled into because it fits your religious beliefs. Why do you think humans are capable of exercising judgment? Why do you think judges can hand out varying sentences for the same crimes, committed under different circumstances? They're certainly not doing it because it amuses them. Isn't God the wisest being ever who knows all? Isn't God timeless, unchanging, and eternal? If the Old Covenant suited God and His people just fine for over 5000 years, why do we need Jesus and the New Covenant? Or could it possibly be that Christians and God are apparently also just as capable as non-believers to make a change for the better as the circumstances dictate, despite how hard they try to condemn it in non-believers? The pleasure's all mine. You're more than welcome!

Hi PGA, First off I'd like to say that you strike me as an otherwise sensible person who is perfectly capable of raising sound arguments, but I can only describe the quoted paragraph above as incredibly ignorant and irresponsible. If the Bible is really as objective as is claimed, you wouldn't need to argue about whether God supported slavery; its status would be clearly outlined in the Bible. With that said, I personally believe that its a gross misrepresentation to equate employer-employee relationships with slavery. An employee exchanges his services in return for wages, is free to leave as he pleases, and has his rights and benefits protected by law. The relationship is clear-cut with healthy and well-defined boundaries spelled out for both the employer and the employee. A slave on the other hand is the property of the master. Period. Just because the Bible contains some ambiguous guidelines on how to treat slaves ("you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly" can not only be interpreted in a very broad manner, but guilt on the master's part is virtually impossible to prove), does not in any way mean that slavery is similar to the employer-employee relationship. The only similarity between the two cases is that one party works for the other in return for remuneration (for slavery, this "remuneration" may simply mean that the slaves are allowed to live), and apart from than that I highly doubt there is any other parallel that can be possibly drawn that still falls within the boundaries of common sense. You keep bringing up what Jesus said regarding love, but what you cannot deny is that Jesus was silent on the issue of a man being owned and treated as another's property. Since the Bible doesn't condemn it, does that mean you're willing to accept slavery as an institution, as long as masters "love" their slaves and do not treat them "ruthlessly"? If you don't, then why not, and what is the basis for your choice? Frankly, no atheist I know is presumptuous enough to claim that their personal view is the 'best'. To the best of my knowledge, not even the most militant atheists on the public media have said anything that could even be remotely construed as such, and they would be sorely mistaken if they did. The argument that any one party possesses the 'best' view is quite strictly attributable to theists, and what makes it even more amusing is that theists take their very own position, turn it into a straw man to project onto unbelievers, and, in an incredible display of hypocrisy, castigate them for it. You make the argument that all we have to work with is our preferences, likes, and feelings. At the end of the day, that's not too far off from the truth. Christians like yourself operate along the same lines as well, where you choose to accept the morals presented by the Bible because it fits your worldview. Can you demonstrate why should we heed Jesus' command to love, for example? If your reply is that it's because what God ordered, you've simply demonstrated a preference. If on the other hand you try to rationalize it using reason, you're falling back on naturalistic explanations that have nothing to do with God and are, by your own argument, non-objective. I think this might be a good time to point out again that, when I stated that there are some morals that are broadly agreed upon by most people, that should not be taken as an endorsement that the majority view is always right. The right view may indeed happen to be the majority view and vice versa, and there is a certain degree of correlation between the two, but to claim that the two always coexist with each other is quite fallacious. Second, I don't think it's a bad thing to be "wishy-washy" if it's done for the right reasons. There is nothing inherently bad with change, assuming it's a change for the better. Reason, justice, and setting right mistakes that were made in order to move forward are more important than obstinately sticking to the outdated rules of yesteryear out of sheer hubris. Despite your arguments against "wishy-washyness", Christians are in fact quite capable of it as well, and have been doing so. Why do you think slavery was abolished? Why do you think women are now allowed to speak in churches? Why do you think that Christians accept the New Covenant instead of sticking with Moses' laws? Why do you think Christians don't lead armies around slaughtering unbelievers anymore, or gave up on witch-trials, or accept that the Earth revolves around the sun, or condemn pedophilia nowadays? To be honest, modern society and institutions have grown so complex that it's hardly accurate anymore to blame any one event on any one man's sole decision or action. But other than that, my example was given as-is, without any allusions to any political events anywhere. I don't think, for example, that it's right to punish the rich simply because they're rich. Do you? Hm, I'm fine either way. If there's no risk of running the thread off-topic, I'm happy to do as you suggest.

The point was the kind of slavery the Egyptians practised and that is similar to slavery in the America of yesteryear. This was and is something that the Bible never condoned but always condemned. I pointed out to Stargazer some similarities to the type of slavery that God allowed and the reason it was put in place was to benefit the less fortunate Hebrews, plus the fact that God, even in the OT commanded love for their neighbours, the very thing that Jesus said the law hinges on, other than to put God first and foremost. No, not in regards to the kind of slavery practised in Egypt, the harsh and cruel treatment of others; that is something that God has always been against. As for some of what was happening in the churches during the first century regarding preaching, that was addressing specific circumstances, but other admonitions, such as modesty is always applicable. The 613 Mosaic laws addressed certain issues that applied to the specific people, but some are also applicable to us, for we learn by them. Some of the judicial laws have been adopted by many countries of the world. The drawing of blood was a practice that continued into the late 1800's, to my knowledge, but way back when God had told His people that the life was in the blood. The same goes for the laws of cleanliness such as in regards to leprosy and contagious diseases with regards to isolation, or destroying mold and mildew by burning it. Yes today we have more advanced methods of preventing mold but the principles are still the same; it is still unhealthy to be around. That fact has not changed. These are things that God instructed way before it had been confirmed by modern science and practises. As for same-sex marriage, the practise was condemned both in the OT and NT. It goes against the standard that God made in regards to marriage. As such it will always be wrong, no matter what any particular society thinks about it. The point is how does a relative subjective society establish the measure when the measure keeps changing? Who is right? Which society? Why is our current attitude towards same-sex marriage right today when 30 years ago it was considered wrong? I contend that it is because a minority pushed their preference until it swayed the majority. Does preference make something right? Or is there an objective standard that we can compare right to? Light exposes what is in the darkness. God's light gives the standard of righteousness. When you read the Bible the context is important in whom is being addressed as well as how the ideas, practices and morals are revealed and expanded on in the NT, the New Covenant, because the New Covenant is addressing not only to the Jews, but all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Peter I understand what you're trying to say, PGA. However, I'm not trying to pin down Christianity as supporters of inhumane slavery; rest assured that that isn't my intention. My argument was that, for better or for worse, there were some types of slavery that were deemed to be accepted as a practice in ages past, while in modern societies today all forms of slavery are not tolerated, and that the situation today does not reflect what is acceptable and what is not as outlined in the Bible. Ergo, we can see a shift over time, a shift that Christians seem content to accept. With regards to your argument that same-sex marriage was condemned in both the OT and the NT, a similar argument applies to slavery where nothing was said in either the OT or the NT that slavery as an institution was not acceptable and needed to be abolished. In particular, Jesus had nothing to say about the status quo. The problem with trying to explain away these discrepancies by sticking to the context that Jesus tells us to love, is that when you have direct evidence that the context is wrong or does not apply, the evidence is dismissed for the sake of sticking to the pre-conceived context. Is slavery acceptable as long as you love your slaves? Jesus seemed to think so. As for your minority-majority argument, a simple example will demonstrate why I do not agree with it. Assume that only 10% of a nation is wealthy, and the rest poor. The majority demands that the minority give away their hard-earned wealth gained through honest work. Is it wrong for the rich to refuse because they are in the minority?

PGA, whatever justifications you may make for slavery in the Bible, it's a fact that slavery is an unacceptable practice in modern civilized societies, regardless of the circumstances. Unless Christians are going to advocate slavery in whatever form, we have a Biblically-sanctioned practice which is is no longer tolerated today. It is clear then that at least a part of what the Bible considers acceptable or otherwise is subject to times and circumstances. Christians actually appear to be fine with this, given how they accept the abolishment of slavery, allowing women to preach and lead in churches, and a large part of the Deuteronomic laws falling out of practice (among numerous other issues) without too much of a fuss. I suspect that this homophobia is a temporary fad as well, and Christians five or ten decades from now will look back on us the same way we now look upon those who defended slavery during the last century.

Once again, you are mis-characterizing what I've said, for like the third or fourth time now, and it is never going to work for you. I know that liberal tolerance only works one way and that anything a liberal can't defend gets labeled hate or discrimination or irrational. Try another tack because that one will not work. I have stated that homosexuality is wrong. That does not constitute an attack. When you claim that homosexuals "really have no wish to marry beyond obtaining a financial benefit from such a union", "do not have respect for the institution of marriage", and that "their wish to have the right to marry is merely an effort to degrade morals further and make marriage itself meaningless", you are going beyond stating that homosexuality is wrong. You are attacking homosexuals outright with generalizations and presuppositions about their motives. You are trying to demonize them with exaggerated claims that, to be honest, are not grounded in any sort of reality, whether secular or biblical. Again, I fully respect your right to speak your mind and advocate the Christian viewpoint, even more so given how this is a Christian forum. But it's really regrettable that, having said what you said (anyone can refer to post #518, which I copied and pasted from), you're now trying to run away from your own words and cower from taking responsibility for them.

Is this not true for both sides of the issue? OldShep, you're absolutely right. But let's look at what both sides are asking for. The homosexuals are asking that a consenting couple of legal age be granted the right to marry, just like everyone else. The Christian lobbies are asking that a particular segment of society be denied the right to marry, and the basis behind their request is a purely religious one. The Christian lobbies argue that homosexuality is a dangerous trend, but who's more dangerous here, really? One side is seeking a basic social right, while the other is trying to impose its religious beliefs on everyone else whether we're religious or otherwise, and has made it clear that it cannot be reasoned with because its justifications are not up for debate. I understand that homosexuality is a sin according to Christian beliefs. However, I think that it might be more beneficial both for homosexuals and the Christian cause itself if the Christian lobbies were to spread the message in a less confrontational and condemning manner, such as setting up counseling centers and offering aid to homosexuals who wish to change themselves (I assume there must be some who do). Because, let's face it, what is brandishing hateful attitudes in public going to solve?

Homosexuality is more than the act of sex itself, it's a sexual orientation. It is this sexual orientation that isn't voluntary. Again, your attacks on homosexuality is based purely on religious grounds, and you've apparently made it clear that you'll brook no discussion regarding your opinions. That's all well and good if you're a Christian, but why would you expect the rest of the public at large to accept such a heavy-handed argument? If you're going to point to the governments in authority to define what marriage is, then you have no argument if those same governments in authority decide to change their definition as necessary. No, I do not expect you to say that homosexuality is acceptable. What I am surprised by is how you come out swinging with hateful, bigoted claims that are based purely on your personal opinions and then try to pass yourself off as a dutiful Christian, and how many other Christians try to do the same thing as you do... but then again, I'm in no position to judge anyone myself either. You are still operating off the assumption that homosexuality is immoral in the first place. If we try to inspect the premise behind your assumption, we find only a religious basis, which you've already made clear is not up for debate. If we remove that assumption, your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. It's rather difficult to reason things out with someone who's indicated that he's already made up his mind and will accept no further input. But the fact is that "morals" (what a general term, don't you think?) is often used as a carte blanche blanket excuse to oppress and discriminate against certain segments of society, as has been demonstrated by various fascist/racist groups and governments throughout history. People who are truly on the side of morality seldom need to invoke "morality" as a justification for their actions, because their actions are already self-evidently moral. History has taught us that it's invariably the side that shouts itself hoarse that it's championing "morality" that we need to keep an eye out for. Well, if you aren't concerned about gaining allies in championing your cause and don't mind if you alienate everyone else at large, I suppose that explains a large part of your actions. Cobalt, apparently when you post hateful opinions, it's called "saying the truth", but when others point out what you're doing, it's called trying to stop you from speaking. You're right that I'm not here against my will or forced to read your rants. But if we're going to bring the topic of will into it, the homosexuals aren't forcing you to join them and recant your Christian beliefs either. They're perfectly willing to live and let live, at least for now. Why do you try to apply such gross double standards; one for yourself and Christians, and one for everyone else? Do you think that's moral, too? But there's another reason why I'm posting in this thread. You may not be forcing me to read your rants, but you and people like you are trying to lobby the governments in authority into listening to you. Despite the principle of separation of church and state, the Christian lobbies are attempting to push onto legistation their views which are not only grounded solely on a religious basis, but they will brook no discussion about it either. This is a very dangerous direction for the country to go in.

Were you stating a fact when you said that homosexuals made a choice to be homosexual? Were you stating a fact when you said that homosexuals do not respect marriage, and wish to degrade marriage in particular and all morals in in general? Were you stating a fact when you said that homosexuals do not have the right to marriage? What you're trying to pull here is to inject hateful and intolerant personal opinions about homosexuals into your post, and then later claim that you were just stating facts and saying that homosexuality as a behavior is wrong, when the truth is that your posts went well beyond that to bash and demonize homosexuals. If you can post emotionally-charged, baseless attacks on the character and motivations of homosexuals, you should at least be willing to stand by your words and take credit and responsibility for them.

There's plenty of literature from biological and psychological studies that dispute your assertion. Here are a few. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gays-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html?feedId=online-news_rss20 http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/tip_sheets/orientation/#s3 http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation There's no conclusive agreement on what causes homosexuality, but what is pretty clear is that it isn't a conscious choice. You and I cannot become a homosexual simply by wanting it any more than a homosexual could do the opposite. What IS a choice, however, is whether someone is homophobic or not. Cobalt, you make the very intriguing argument that homosexuals never had the right to marry - do you know that white supremacists used to make similar arguments that blacks had no right to vote? Who made the decision that homosexuals have no marriage rights? Not the church, certainly, since the church doesn't have the authority to decide who has the right to marry and who doesn't. If the church had that authority, they wouldn't need to lobby the government to ban same-sex marriage in the first place. Can you explain how does same-sex marriage degrade morals and make marriage meaningless? Homosexuals are people, like everyone else. Their wish to be accorded the same rights doesn't necessarily need to be construed as an attack on you or anyone else. I'm just pointing out that behavior like yours only damn the church in the eyes of the public. I certainly cannot prevent you or anyone else from speaking your minds, but do I wonder what benefits are there to be gained from such hatred and intolerance, or how does it help the Christian cause. The Bible also tells us to love, forgive, and not be judgmental, but I guess that might be harder to adhere to; it's certainly easier to go on a homophobic ranting spree and then try to pass oneself off as a good and dutiful Christian. I used to be, but I'm finding myself slipping away from the faith for various reasons.

If we're going to invoke what God created in the beginning as a measure of what is good and right and what isn't... God didn't create crippled people in the beginning either. Does that mean we should rebuke the physically disabled too the same way we rebuke the "evil" homosexuals? Your problem is, God gives us a very clear definition of just exactly which sexual unions are permissible and which ones are not. He left absolutely no doubts about what was acceptable and that is only a man and a woman joined in a marital relationship. Period. No other sexual union is permissible. Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible along with adultery and fornication in totally unambiguous terms. God did not create homosexuals, and being crippled is not biblically prohibited. I fail to see your point. My point was that God not creating homosexuals in the beginning has no bearing on the Christian viewpoint towards homosexuality, so it's quite pointless to bring it up. With that said, I really doubt that trying to discriminate against people and take away a basic social right from them based on purely religious grounds is going to convince many members of the public. If anything, it's really bad PR for the church.

Teaching evolution is a step in the right direction, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's everything there is to be done. When you put students through the education process and have them come out at the end of it still believing in pseudoscientific concepts like creationism, it tells you that there's still things with the education process that could use some improvement.

If we're going to invoke what God created in the beginning as a measure of what is good and right and what isn't... God didn't create crippled people in the beginning either. Does that mean we should rebuke the physically disabled too the same way we rebuke the "evil" homosexuals?