John:
"Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary:
"Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me:
"Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"

John:
"If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."

Me:
"What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John:
"Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."

Me:
"That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary:
"Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me:
"Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John:
"Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me:
"Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary:
"Oh yes, all the time..."

Me:
"And has He given you a million dollars?"

John:
"Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me:
"So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary:
"You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."

Me:
"Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John:
"My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me:
"Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John:
"Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

If anyone wants to see the rest I'll post it

Quoted: Quoted: Then honestly why did you start this thread, did you really think someone here would convince you there was a GOD ?? or did you want to poke fun at Christians?? I was hoping someone who was in my position could help me out.  I always try and keep my options and ears open.

You already said you are convinced there is no God ,

what kind of help are you looking for?
just so you can score some points with your date?

... I'm in the same boat 1GUNRUNNER. I have sincerely tried many times over the years, organized religion just doesn't cut muster with me.

... I don't like the premise of being rewarded for being good or punished for being bad. These attributes should be in one's heart and constitution - people shouldn't be coaxed or threatened into a specific behavior.

Quoted: You were born knowing there was a god? I am here to discuss, hence the reason the board is here. Already living in sin with her.

I wish i could say something to convince you there was a God, I have never had any problem believing there was one. Maybe i was born that way.

next time you are outdoors, look around and ask yourself is all of this really an accident, or was it created.  

by the way i am one of those born again Christians, i didnt accept Christ until i was 24. but i still believed there was a God before that happened.  I was not  raised in a religous family either.

Quoted: Quoted: next time you are outdoors, look around and ask yourself is all of this really an accident, or was it created.   I was in Seattle a few weeks ago and was saw some things that I am sure hope he is not proud of creating.

What you likely saw, then, were creations of some human being, and not something created by God.

BTW, was it still  raining in Seattle while you were there?

Eric The(IThoughtSo!)Hun

Quoted: ... I'm in the same boat 1GUNRUNNER. I have sincerely tried many times over the years, organized religion just doesn't cut muster with me. ... I don't like the premise of being rewarded for being good or punished for being bad. These attributes should be in one's heart and constitution - people shouldn't be coaxed or threatened into a specific behavior.

+1 on that.  I had a Lutheran preacher's daughter as my first roommate in college.  I'm not lutheran, but I went to church with her a couple of times.  I stopped going after attending a "women in the bible" study group and being appalled.  A couple of weeks she told me that I would be going to hell.  When I asked her why, she said, "Because you aren't a Lutheran".

I would adore it, if THAT is my biggest sin when I reach the pearly gates.

Quoted: Quoted: next time you are outdoors, look around and ask yourself is all of this really an accident, or was it created.   I was in Seattle a few weeks ago and was saw some things that I am sure hope he is not proud of creating.

My wife and I have an ongoing debate about a related issue:

She won't let the kids call anyone stupid.  Her reasoning, "God didn't make anyone stupid!"

My perspective. "OK, but some people have sure worked real hard to get that way and it seems a shame to not honor that effort by withholding the title!"

I don't think God creates any of us bad, stupid, immoral, evil etc. (I know some Christians disagree), but I do think some of us work real hard at being all of the above.  It is interesting to me that when the book of Proverbs refers to fools they are called that not because of their IQ, but because of their CHOICES!

Quoted: Quoted: ... I'm in the same boat 1GUNRUNNER. I have sincerely tried many times over the years, organized religion just doesn't cut muster with me. ... I don't like the premise of being rewarded for being good or punished for being bad. These attributes should be in one's heart and constitution - people shouldn't be coaxed or threatened into a specific behavior. +1 on that.  I had a Lutheran preacher's daughter as my first roommate in college.  I'm not lutheran, but I went to church with her a couple of times.  I stopped going after attending a "women in the bible" study group and being appalled.  A couple of weeks she told me that I would be going to hell.  When I asked her why, she said, "Because you aren't a Lutheran". I would adore it, if THAT is my biggest sin when I reach the pearly gates.

So neither of you discipline your children or believe that there should be laws or prisons or any kind of punishment?

The Christian idea of God is a bit skewed in my opinion, only because those in the bible that actually met the guy really only took his word for it. I mean honestly if I was a soul-searching Hebrew in 600 BC I would likely do anything a burning bush told me to do as well. Currently I think I would maintain my skepticism regardless of pyrotechnics...

I do believe in God though, I just think he's more of a business man. Personally I think that at least gives life a purpose. Omnipotent beings (Christian, Muslim, Judaism) have no use for anything, let alone a bunch of meat-puppets like human beings. I'd like to think I'm worth a bit more than that...

If there is a god then i'm sure one day science may find the answers. ( some amazing NDE studies going on in the UK).
Now i am no believer but then again i am not a disbeliever, I am certainly open to suggestion. If believing in god makes people comfortable and gives them a purpose in life then who has the right to take that away from them. Each to their own.
When i look around and see the wonders of the universe and planet i tend to enjoy the scientific explanations as to why and how but having said that ......................................
There is a lot of unexplained amazing things happening on this little globe so maybe, Just maybe.
At the end of the day we could sit at our pc's for eternity arguing this one but in reality none of us know for sure.
Sorted!!  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: next time you are outdoors, look around and ask yourself is all of this really an accident, or was it created.   I was in Seattle a few weeks ago and was saw some things that I am sure hope he is not proud of creating. What you likely saw, then, were creations of some human being, and not something created by God.

Something created by man, that God isn't proud of? Hmmmm. He probably saw a big old Christian church.

I'm about a close to an atheist as it gets, but I can't honestly deny the following:

God's existence is logically necessary.

There cannot exist an actually infinite chain of first causes.  There must be an uncaused first cause.

Of course, that is not saying much about the nature of God, although I am willing to state also that there must be a purpose to everything, if there is an uncaused first cause.

That seems to make sense to me.

(1) The existence of God.  I've always been a very skeptical person, especially of any kind of authority figure so I've wrestled for years with the existence of God.  Of all the ways I've thought of this question, the most persuasive to me is the idea of irreducible complexity.  Stop for a moment and take a look at something as simple as say, your hand.  Looking at the skin, we know that it is composed of billions of individual cells, all organized in a complex structure, underneath which are blood vessels, muscles, bones, and other equally complex structures.  Each of those cells in and of itself is incredibly complex, with miniature organs, DNA, RNA, etc.  And you can keep going with complex molecules composed of complex atoms, composed of complex protons, neutrons, and electrons and so forth.  Now everyone knows this, of course, but think of the implications.  Without making any assumptions, without saying "I will believe X unless proven otherwise" ask yourself whether it makes more sense that some powerful being created this structure, or that this was an accident.  Now you cannot prove either way, but for me the sheer complexity of the universe cries out for the idea of a "first cause," of God.  Think of it this way, if you didn't know what the Spinx was, and walked up to it in the middle of the desert for the first time, what would you think?  Would you think it was an accident?  After all, its just a big rock, and natural forces like wind and water can shape rock into many various forms.  My guess is that you, like me, would guess that someone made it.  Its shape is simply too complex, it looks too much like a person's face to really seriously believe that it wasn't made that way according to some design.  This idea of irreducible complexity is largely what persuades me of the existence of God.

(2) The existence of the Christian God.  Having come to the conclusion that God exists, what kind of God?  Well, the only thing we really know about God is that he is a creator, and that he has created a creation that is at the same time beautifully and wonderfully made, and yet at the same time horribly flawed.  Think of a beautiful women.  There is no doubt in my mind when I see a real beautiful women that this is a good and wonderful thing, that this part of creation is wonderful.  Yet that same woman can ruin your life, because she like all things is flawed.  Christianity, of all the world's religions, of all the conceptions of God, to me fits this understanding of the world the best.  If you really want to understand Christianity, start by reading three books of the Bible.  Read Genesis first, then skip to Romans, and then finish with Revelations (read this one quick, you won't get all the symbolism right away).  There you will undestand the broad theme of the Bible.  God's creation of the world, its corruption through sin, and its redemption and renewal through Christ.  Moreover, unlike any other religion I've come across, Chrisitanity has God doing the heavy lifting.  Christianity is much more than the usual "perform the right ritual, don't do bad stuff" religion.  Christianity had God, through Christ, fixing the world, which is something I would expect a creator God to do.  If I built a gun, and it broke, I wouldn't just stand around all day going "well, it's either going to fix itself, or it won't," I'd try and fix it, because its my creation, and I created it because it was something that I loved.  That is what the Christian God has done for us with Christ.

Does this mean that I don't have questions about the universe?  Absolutely not.  The Bible does not answer every question, and don't let the born again types tell you otherwise.  The Bible answers one question very well - man's relationship to God.  And for all those questions which are left unaswered, such as what happens to those who die as children, or who are born into a time or place where they never hear God's message, I take comfort in this fact.  My God was willing to suffer unspeakable torments upon the cross for me, not because He had to, but because He wanted to show us how much He loved us, in a manner we could understand.  Whatever He chooses to do with all of those who have not found Him, I know that it will be just, and it will be done out of a love deeper than I could understand.

I hope you find this useful in your own search for God.

 

Quoted: I'm about a close to an atheist as it gets, but I can't honestly deny the following: God's existence is logically necessary. There cannot exist an actually infinite chain of first causes.  There must be an uncaused first cause. Of course, that is not saying much about the nature of God, although I am willing to state also that there must be a purpose to everything, if there is an uncaused first cause. That seems to make sense to me.

I half agree with you.   There must be an uncaused  first cause, but as you say, the nature is unknown.   I don't think purpose is required, I think we as human beings must find purpose in our lives.

The uncaused first cause may be called God if you wish, but its just as likely to be along the lines of the asian concept of Tao, or a Pantheist's concept of the universe.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm about a close to an atheist as it gets, but I can't honestly deny the following: God's existence is logically necessary. There cannot exist an actually infinite chain of first causes.  There must be an uncaused first cause. Of course, that is not saying much about the nature of God, although I am willing to state also that there must be a purpose to everything, if there is an uncaused first cause. That seems to make sense to me. I half agree with you.   There must be an uncaused  first cause, but as you say, the nature is unknown.   I don't think purpose is required, I think we as human beings must find purpose in our lives. The uncaused first cause may be called God if you wish, but its just as likely to be along the lines of the asian concept of Tao, or a Pantheist's concept of the universe.

I agree.  The nature of the first cause is unknown--and unknowable for that matter.

Does it make sense though, to say that anything does something for no reason at all?  Doesn't action show purpose?

Creation is an act of will.  How can an act of will have no purpose?

Again, it is difficult at best to state what the purpose actually is.

Quoted: The Christian idea of God is a bit skewed in my opinion, only because those in the bible that actually met the guy really only took his word for it.

Actually, no, they didn't.

Christ's teachings are a good set of instructions for behavior, and you will be well served by them.

Unfortunatly in every religon there are people who do not want to think. They want the religon to be a remote control for them. They stop thinking for themselves.

I am a believer in God, and I look to christ fro my forgiveness, but I do not tolerate surendering my critical thinking, and need for proof. I filter the christians i meet just like I filter the Muslems, or athiests I meet.  Lunatics and control freaks are everywhere.

You would like a non spirit filled church. Just remember if someone claims to be speaking in toungs you need to run far and fast. Or even better. If they suddenly decide to ROAR like a lion infront of people because of the lion o judah is comanding it.

I found God in a quiet wisdom. Not a circus tent.

.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm about a close to an atheist as it gets, but I can't honestly deny the following: God's existence is logically necessary. There cannot exist an actually infinite chain of first causes.  There must be an uncaused first cause. Of course, that is not saying much about the nature of God, although I am willing to state also that there must be a purpose to everything, if there is an uncaused first cause. That seems to make sense to me. I half agree with you.   There must be an uncaused  first cause, but as you say, the nature is unknown.   I don't think purpose is required, I think we as human beings must find purpose in our lives. The uncaused first cause may be called God if you wish, but its just as likely to be along the lines of the asian concept of Tao, or a Pantheist's concept of the universe. I agree.  The nature of the first cause is unknown--and unknowable for that matter. Does it make sense though, to say that anything does something for no reason at all?  Doesn't action show purpose? Creation is an act of will.  How can an act of will have no purpose? Again, it is difficult at best to state what the purpose actually is.

agreed  purpose can mean many things

the natural purpose of a man could be seen as simply as eating, fornicating, and defecating.    That seems rather low for a purpose to me.

When I say the universe may not have a purpose, I mean that it may just be a natural occurence with no guiding plan or inherent aim.     It has a natural purpose, as do all things.  I think any thinking , reasoning being (like humans) have a higher purpose that comes from within and we give greater meaning to our lives through this purpose.

also just wanted to point out that by using creation, you have already decided that SOMETHING existed to be the creator.   It could just as likely be that what happened was a natural occurence, not a Supernatural Creation.

Quoted: I think the real question you need to ask yourself is if your lack of faith stems from your perceived lack of facts, or it comes from the fact that this kind of faith contradicts the way you live your life? Sometimes people refuse to believe, because to believe would mean that they would have to change the way they live.

Yep.

Pride. When a man makes himself god, he cannot accept any other.

Quoted: 1GR, If as you say there is no God and no Heaven, then there must be no Satan and no Hell.  If this is the case, then there is no difference between say Stalin or Hitler and Mother Theresa or Billy Graham.  At the time of their death, they all meet the same fate?  Seems like a great waste to me then.

Leave the philosophy to people who understand what they are talking about. Where the hell did you come up with that. Do you really believe that completely ignorant line of reasoning? What does them all meeting the same fate have to do with anything, who is the great waste in your little illfounded world view? It seems like a great waste if your a christian, have you ever thought that it may just be the way it is? Why does there have to be some purpose in life? Why cant we all just go out and do what we want, good or bad, and then die and become dust without going on to heaven and hell. Maybe you think Mama Teresa was just a great waste if there is no heaven or hell, or was Hitler the great waste? I mean for real, do you really think that if there is no heaven or hell that Mother Teresa was great waste?

Belief in God and belief in the bible are not the same thing all you people. Leave the bible out of these discussions. I think it is easier to beleive in God without the bible. It is possible to believe in God and still think the bible is not Gods words.

Quoted: Logic , door number one or door number two. If you have faith in God and are right you go to heaven, if you are wrong you lose nothing. If you have no faith in God and are right no problem, if you are wrong you will fry like a worm on a hot rock

LOGIC?  Where does it say there are only 2 doors?  Second how do you know that the one of those doors leads to frying worms? Oh you dont. But that is some damn good logic. BTW its called Prisoners dillema.

Quoted: If God does not exist, there is no such thing as right or wrong. There may be things you would prefer people do, and things you prefer people would not do, but there is no RIGHT or WRONG. If there is no God, how can you condemn a pedophile? Who are you to say his love of children is "wrong"? If there is no God, why should you remain faithful to your wife? A blowjob on the side, every now and again, isn't "wrong" When you deny the existence of God, you open up a realm in which there is no good, or evil, only different choices.

I mean for real , I have never seen so many idiots in one thread in my life. I do not believe in God and yet I think all those things are wrong, yet how could that be? I just toatly proved you wrong, bamm, you are toally wrong. It shows how sad you christians are to believe that if there is no God there is no right or wrong. See I dont believe in God and you were just wrong. I think that is how they keep christians christians. Tell them that if you dont believe in God then everything will be considered ok. if that is your reason for being Christian then you are one intolerant narrow minded feeble minded "sheep." Who teaches you guys this nonsense. Do you really believe this? Are right and wrong mutally exclusive to making choices? I am just floored at what i am hearing in this religiuos section. No wonder the libs are trying to take away our guns, they dont want people who think like fanatical muslims carrying them.

Quoted: Quoted: THAT is what christianity is -- never having to admit you're wrong. Its good to see you are so open minded. Do you have any other stereotypes about Jews? Hindus? Muslims? I would hope not.

Oh there he goes playing the race, oh I mean religion, card.

Quoted: Quoted: The Christian idea of God is a bit skewed in my opinion, only because those in the bible that actually met the guy really only took his word for it. Actually, no, they didn't.

Quoted: Quoted: 1GR, If as you say there is no God and no Heaven, then there must be no Satan and no Hell.  If this is the case, then there is no difference between say Stalin or Hitler and Mother Theresa or Billy Graham.  At the time of their death, they all meet the same fate?  Seems like a great waste to me then. Leave the philosophy to people who understand what they are talking about. Where the hell did you come up with that. Do you really believe that completely ignorant line of reasoning? What does them all meeting the same fate have to do with anything, who is the great waste in your little illfounded world view? It seems like a great waste if your a christian, have you ever thought that it may just be the way it is? Why does there have to be some purpose in life? Why cant we all just go out and do what we want, good or bad, and then die and become dust without going on to heaven and hell. Maybe you think Mama Teresa was just a great waste if there is no heaven or hell, or was Hitler the great waste? I mean for real, do you really think that if there is no heaven or hell that Mother Teresa was great waste?

Its actually a very persuasive philosophical position.  He's basically restated Dostievsky's position that "if God is dead everything is permissible."  You might want to take a few philosophy courses before you start telling someone they are ignorant of philosophy.

Quoted: Quoted: If God does not exist, there is no such thing as right or wrong. There may be things you would prefer people do, and things you prefer people would not do, but there is no RIGHT or WRONG. If there is no God, how can you condemn a pedophile? Who are you to say his love of children is "wrong"? If there is no God, why should you remain faithful to your wife? A blowjob on the side, every now and again, isn't "wrong" When you deny the existence of God, you open up a realm in which there is no good, or evil, only different choices. I mean for real , I have never seen so many idiots in one thread in my life. I do not believe in God and yet I think all those things are wrong, yet how could that be? I just toatly proved you wrong, bamm, you are toally wrong. It shows how sad you christians are to believe that if there is no God there is no right or wrong. See I dont believe in God and you were just wrong. I think that is how they keep christians christians. Tell them that if you dont believe in God then everything will be considered ok. if that is your reason for being Christian then you are one intolerant narrow minded feeble minded "sheep." Who teaches you guys this nonsense. Do you really believe this? Are right and wrong mutally exclusive to making choices? I am just floored at what i am hearing in this religiuos section. No wonder the libs are trying to take away our guns, they dont want people who think like fanatical muslims carrying them.

Alright, who's troll account is this?

Quoted: Its actually a very persuasive philosophical position.  He's basically restated Dostievsky's position that "if God is dead everything is permissible."  You might want to take a few philosophy courses before you start telling someone they are ignorant of philosophy.

only to a psychopath.

Is the only reason you don't misbehave fear of punishment?

Like Pascal's wager, the error is  that the it only recognizes 2 options:  moral absolutism and moral relativism.

A third option is moral universalism

If you had ever had any philosophy classes, you would have heard of moral universalism.

Quoted: Quoted: Its actually a very persuasive philosophical position.  He's basically restated Dostievsky's position that "if God is dead everything is permissible."  You might want to take a few philosophy courses before you start telling someone they are ignorant of philosophy. only to a psychopath.

Did you pull that straight out of the Hillary Clinton school of debate?  Recognizing the flaws in secular moral philosophy hardly qualifies as psychopathy.

Is the only reason you don't misbehave fear of punishment?

Pretty much.  Oh, I'm quite normal in that I get warm fuzzy feelings for being nice to people, and get little nasty icky feelings when I am not, which by the way, disqualifies me from being a psychopath.  This, however, is a weak foundation for a moral code given the human mind's capacity for rationalization.  Read a history on slavery in the Roman Empire.  You'd be amazed how well they were able to rationalize the most reprehensible of behaviors.  The only firm foundation for morality, in my opinion, is in a system of both temporal and eternal rewards and punishments.

Like Pascal's wager, the error is  that the it only recognizes 2 options:  moral absolutism and moral relativism. A third option is moral universalism If you had ever had any philosophy classes, you would have heard of moral universalism.

Pascal's wager has nothing to do with moral universalism.  Pascal offered a reason to be moral, he never claimed to offer the only reason to be moral.  Personally, I find moral universalism to be quite a weak reason to modify one's behavior for two reasons.  First of all, the devil is in the details.  All societies condemn "murder," but the definition of what constitutes murder varies so greatly from, say, a fundamentalist Islamist society to Chinese society to Greek society, that to claim there is a universal prohibition on "murder" doesn't really tell you much of anything useful at all.  Secondly, moral universalism requires a faith that the rules held in common by all societies are in some way beneficial, rather than simply being an expression of the desires of the ruling classes in each such society.  Consider, for instance, the issue of slavery.  For the vast majority of human civilizations, in the past 30,000 years of human history, slavery has been a fact of life, and has always been permissible.  Slavery does not exist in the modern world ONLY because the United States and Britain, in the ninteenth century, forced everyone else to give up the slave trade by force of arms.  However, if I was looking for the moral consensus among the majority of civilizations, I would conclude that slavery is permissible.  This is so, naturally, because the strong make rules to benefit themselves.  Hence the reason I find moral universalism to be an exercise in futility.

Quoted: John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary." Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us." Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?" John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you." Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?" John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass." Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..." Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?" Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..." John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us." Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?" Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..." Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?" John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town." Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?" Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you." Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?" John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money." Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?" John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it." If anyone wants to see the rest I'll post it

Please, I would LOVE to see the rest of this

Disconnector

RIF

I never said Pascal's Wager was about moral universalism, I said it shared the same flaw with your statement.   It only recognizes 2 options when more than two options exist.

And the US sure as hell did NOT force everyone to give up slavery in the 19th century.   That was the noble work of Great Britain, we had to fight amongst ourselves to get it straightened out first.

You may not like moral universalism, but it is how the world works.   Concepts like the world court, human rights, international law, and crimes against humanity are all new terms that are part of global efforts to bring a universalist, equal, and common moral justice to all peoples.

You also have no understanding of what moral universalism is.   Yes, slavery existed throughtout the historical world.   So did torture, rape, and murder.   There were always voices who spoke out against those ills for moral reasons.   That it took so long for us to behave in a moral way when it came to slavery is a mark of how imperfect we are.   Its not an indication that slavery is a good thing.

The entirety of our history is full of examples of men commiting evil acts on other men and finding ways to justify it.    That justification is a sign of moral relativism, not moral universalism.

Quoted: Please, I would LOVE to see the rest of this Disconnector

Kissing Hank's Ass

Sketchy Albedo writes:

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

"Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss his ass?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, he'll kick the shit out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do what ever he wants, and what he wants is to give you a million dollars, but he can't until you kiss his ass."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has he given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and he kicks the shit out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think he'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise; maybe you'll win a small lotto; maybe you'll just find a twenty dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?

John: "Hank has certain connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass he'll kick the shit of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to him, get the details straight from him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss his ass?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss his ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl's got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on "From the desk of Karl" letterhead. There were eleven items listed:

  1. Kiss Hank's ass and he'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
  2. Use alcohol in moderation.
  3. Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
  4. Eat right.
  5. Hank dictated this list himself.
  6. The moon is made of green cheese.
  7. Everything Hank says is right.
  8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
  9. Don't drink.
 10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
 11. Kiss Hank's ass or he'll kick the shit out of you.

Me: "This would appear to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says Everything Hanks says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me: "But #9 says 'Don't Drink,' which doesn't quite go with #2. And #6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2; 9 just clarifies 2. As to 6, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon came from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."

Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because he says he's right.'"

John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary blushes. John says: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"

John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary looks positively stricken. John shouts: "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

Mary sticks her fingers in her ears: "I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary faints. John catches her: "Well, if I'd known you where one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

Quoted: RIF I never said Pascal's Wager was about moral universalism, I said it shared the same flaw with your statement.   It only recognizes 2 options when more than two options exist.

But that's like saying a course on philosophy is flawed because it does not cover biology.  Apples to oranges.  Pascal's Wager is an argument that following Christian morality has no cost.  You can be happy and you get the added bonus of the possibility of immortality.  Personally, I disagree with it, but it is absurd to say that it is flawed because it does not address moral universalism.  

And the US sure as hell did NOT force everyone to give up slavery in the 19th century.   That was the noble work of Great Britain, we had to fight amongst ourselves to get it straightened out first.

Great Britain certainly had the larger role.  However, in the late ninteenth century the United States Navy aided the Royal Navy in the suppression of the slave trade.

You may not like moral universalism, but it is how the world works.   Concepts like the world court, human rights, international law, and crimes against humanity are all new terms that are part of global efforts to bring a universalist, equal, and common moral justice to all peoples.

Its hardly how "the world works."  Human rights are essentially western concepts imposed upon the world via the relative power of European and American civilization, and extend only so far as we let them.  The world works as it always has, the strong do as they will and the weak submit as they must.  Thankfully, the strong are currently much nicer folks than they were in the 7th century, largely due to the influence of Christian morality.

You also have no understanding of what moral universalism is.   Yes, slavery existed throughtout the historical world.   So did torture, rape, and murder.   There were always voices who spoke out against those ills for moral reasons.   That it took so long for us to behave in a moral way when it came to slavery is a mark of how imperfect we are.   Its not an indication that slavery is a good thing. The entirety of our history is full of examples of men commiting evil acts on other men and finding ways to justify it.    That justification is a sign of moral relativism, not moral universalism.

By all means explain how moral universalism works, as your conception of it seems to be entirely circular.  Wikipedia describes the position as follows:

Moral universalism is a moral view, often related to humanist philosophy, which claims that the fundamental basis for a universalist ethic—'universally' applicable to all humanity—can be derived or inferred from what is common among existing moral codes. It stands as a compromise between moral absolutism, and moral relativism, where situational human factors, like culture, dictate moral value.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

So apparently, we look for common ground in the moral codes of societies as evidence that a particular thing is moral or immoral.  Except, according to you some things that the majority of societies would recognize as moral are actually immoral.  The problem, of course, is that if the basis for morality is the fact that something is universally regarded as being moral, then it would be absurd to say that something universally regarded as moral (slavery) is actually immoral.  Such a statement would be a direct contradiction to the very premise of universalism.  It would be like a Christian declaring one of God's commandments to be immoral, which would of course be absurd.  

Quoted: Quoted: RIF I never said Pascal's Wager was about moral universalism, I said it shared the same flaw with your statement.   It only recognizes 2 options when more than two options exist. But that's like saying a course on philosophy is flawed because it does not cover biology.  Apples to oranges.  Pascal's Wager is an argument that following Christian morality has no cost.  You can be happy and you get the added bonus of the possibility of immortality.  Personally, I disagree with it, but it is absurd to say that it is flawed because it does not address moral universalism.

you still can't read.

Pascal's wager only recognized 2 possibilities.  1) God does not exist  2) God exists and he is the Christian god.     It ignores the possibility that it might be another deity who will cast you into some sort of  eternal punishment for believing the heresy of the Christian religion.  It ignores the idea that it might be a deity who values deeds over creeds.  It ignores anything but the Christian concept and the atheistic concept.  There are many other religions to choose from besides Christianity.  

In the same way, your statment implies there are only 2 possibilities.   Moral absolutism or more relatavism.   You may not agree with (or understand) moral universalism, but it is a 3rd choice viewed by philosophers as a middle ground between the two extremes.

I never stated that Pascal's wager had anything to do with moral universalism.  I simply state that the error in both arguments is the same (i.e. using a limited subset of the choices, instead of all of them)

In both cases the argument is set up using only 2 of the possible choices, therefore both arguments are questionable at best.   In regards to Pascal's wager, philosophy 101 covers why it is a false argument (at least it did at the boat school), so someone who was exposed to it should know that.

Now, should I draw you a picture, or does that about cover it?

eta:
You can use slavery to attack universalism, but you can use slavery to attack absolutism or relativism as well.   You also have to ignore the definition you posted do so.  The majority of moral codes in existence view slavery as evil.  You can only get your result by only looking at ancient cultures and ignoring modern cultures.   Its a sad commentary on human beings that we took as long as we did to see it for the evil it is.

Quoted: you still can't read. Pascal's wager only recognized 2 possibilities.  1) God does not exist  2) God exists and he is the Christian god.     It ignores the possibility that it might be another deity who will cast you into some sort of  eternal punishment for believing the heresy of the Christian religion.  It ignores the idea that it might be a deity who values deeds over creeds.  It ignores anything but the Christian concept and the atheistic concept.  There are many other religions to choose from besides Christianity.   In the same way, your statment implies there are only 2 possibilities.   Moral absolutism or more relatavism.   You may not agree with (or understand) moral universalism, but it is a 3rd choice viewed by philosophers as a middle ground between the two extremes. I never stated that Pascal's wager had anything to do with moral universalism.  I simply state that the error in both arguments is the same (i.e. using a limited subset of the choices, instead of all of them) In both cases the argument is set up using only 2 of the possible choices, therefore both arguments are questionable at best.   In regards to Pascal's wager, philosophy 101 covers why it is a false argument (at least it did at the boat school), so someone who was exposed to it should know that. Now, should I draw you a picture, or does that about cover it?

I read quite well, thank you very much.  My problem is with your position on Pascal.  You seem to have the idea that unless an argument addresses every other philosophical idea in question it is invalid.  This is, of course, absurd.  Philosophy, if practiced according to your rules, would require a 1000 page appendix to every work dealing with all other possible schools of thought.  Pascal, like every other philosopher, is fine as far as it goes.  You are correct that Pascal doesn't deal with every possibility.  Pascal's basic position is that Christianity is costless, and therefore why not be one.  Its not an argument that I find persuasive, but I think it is absurd to say that it is ipso facto flawed.  Like any other philosopher, if you accept his assumptions (that one can be perfectly happy following Christian moral principles) then the logic of his position follows.  Same can be said for Hobbes, or Kant, or pretty much any philosopher.  

eta: You can use slavery to attack universalism, but you can use slavery to attack absolutism or relativism as well.   You also have to ignore the definition you posted do so.  The majority of moral codes in existence view slavery as evil.  You can only get your result by only looking at ancient cultures and ignoring modern cultures.   Its a sad commentary on human beings that we took as long as we did to see it for the evil it is.

This is an extraordinarily weak rejoinder to the argument I listed above.  If you looked at the roughly 30,000 years of human history, across all civilizations, you'd find that for 29,850 of them, slavery was a well accepted practice.  For the last 150 years, it has not been, but solely because anti-slavery was imposed upon the rest of the world by Britain and the United States.  The current universal prohibition of slavery is the direct result of the geopolitical power of the western world in general, and the United States in particular.  If the United States, and a few other western countries were to magically cease to exist tomorrow, slavery would come back with a vengance in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and many parts of Asia.  In fact, with regards to forced prostitution, the trafficking of women, and the Chinese prison system, it is tacitly in extence today in many parts of the world despite the power of the United States.  Where you see moral evolution and consensus, I see the imposition of the values of the dominant culture.

Our civilization came to prominance in large part due to the values imparted to it by the Christian church (along with Roman jurisprudence and Germanic culture).  I find an imagined and poorly defined "consensus" among several "cultures" to be a poor substitute for this foundation.  YMMV.    

Quoted: I have been looking into Christianity here lately and the more I dig the less I seem to care about it.  The stories and tales are so far fetched it is like a fairy tale gone weird.   I guess I am getting down to the bottomline of.... If you can believe there is some guy that lives in sky that you can't see, what could I get you not to believe?  Seems to me if you can be convinced of that, there is not much that you could not be convinced into believing. Sorry to be so brutal about it but, I am definately not getting it.

With all due respect to the subsequent posts, I will just address the original post.
I was agnostic. Extremely skeptical but not Aetheist. After having kids I am now convinced miracles happen everyday. Not because they were born, but because I ask for guidance and forgiveness for not wanting to kill my teenager everyday. It is granted.

Accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior in our society takes a *HUGE* leap of faith. To go along with this, it takes *ULTIMATE* responsibility to follow his word, scripture in the Bible, especially in U.S. society. There is more to this but I'll leave it at that.

Quoted:
Quoted:
I have been looking into Christianity here lately and the more I dig the less I seem to care about it.  The stories and tales are so far fetched it is like a fairy tale gone weird.  

I guess I am getting down to the bottomline of.... If you can believe there is some guy that lives in sky that you can't see, what could I get you not to believe?  Seems to me if you can be convinced of that, there is not much that you could not be convinced into believing.

I don't know..have you ever seen Alexander the Great? How do you really know that Abe Lincoln was truly shot? Actually seen a creature that was in the middle stage of evolution?  Seen the Big Bang?
Scientists are actually trying to create a cell from scratch to try and prove that you don't need an intelligent designer behind it.
Funny since they are intelligent and trying to create, and can't?

If someone nowadays tried saying that Hitler was really a nice guy and wasn't behind  the deaths of all those people, all kinds of people living would stand up and say BALONEY! WE WERE THERE!
Same thing would have happened back in the time  when people wrote about Jesus.
The apostles who were terrified of being killed once Jesus was arrested, were the same ones that stood right in the center of town after He had risen with no fear of death.
There are people who die for their beliefs all the time. I.e., the suicide bombers.
However, noone would defend something to their death that they knew was a lie.
 We have things written down in history for a reason, so we know. If you can't believe what was written in the Bible of actual people, events, etc., you can't believe nothing else as well.
 

EDIT> Try and think of something that doesn't exist yet, without having something already made to create it.
Let's say we are living in a totally black , white, and gray colored world. No colors at all.
Could you think of a primary color? No.
Can't make up a God neither if He never existed.

Quoted:  You are correct that Pascal doesn't deal with every possibility.  Pascal's basic position is that Christianity is costless, and therefore why not be one.  Its not an argument that I find persuasive, but I think it is absurd to say that it is ipso facto flawed.

 that is the issue.  He assumes it is costless because he assumes only 2 possibilities, when a myriad of possibilites actually exist.   The basic premise of his argument is flawed.  

Quoted: Why doesn't he show up tomorrow and put and end to all of this?  Why did 2006 years ago he send his kid down to do his dirty work?  Like so many men in todays world having what they call a 'second family' after the first one ended and ditched the old lady.  Have another kid.  How come he picked 2006 years ago, what was the signifigance of the time then.   How come no one has parted the seas lately? How come no one has built an ark lately? How come no one has walked down the mountain with some new stuff?

Why doesn't he show up tomorrow and put and end to all of this?

He very well could. Since God says in the Bible that He wishes noone to perish, He may be waiting on you Gunrunner  

Why did 2006 years ago he send his kid down to do his dirty work?

His dirty work? His kid? Son of God is a title. Jesus was also called the Lamb of God. He sure wasn't going around bleating.
Jesus was God who came down to live the perfect life that Adam was supposed to have lived. Jesus is referred to in the Bible as the second Adam.  1 Corinthain 15:21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

How come no one has built an ark lately?

Have you taken a good look at cruise ships today?

Before the flood,  water came up form the ground. Kind of like underground sprinkler systems. In the book of Genesis it says that God opened up the skies. It also says in Genesis that at that time, Noah and his family were the only ones that found favor in His eyes. (Genesis chapt 6 and also  7:11)

No reason for a flood to wipe out the earth. The ending of this world is already a done deal and written in the book of Revelation on what will happen.

How come no one has walked down the mountain with some new stuff?

I take it that you are referring to the 10 commandments? (or 10 suggestions as most people want to see them)

The "law" was made so people could see that they were all guilty of sin. Plus, I think the 10 pretty much covers it.

Quoted:Where you see moral evolution and consensus, I see the imposition of the values of the dominant culture. Our civilization came to prominance in large part due to the values imparted to it by the Christian church (along with Roman jurisprudence and Germanic culture).  I find an imagined and poorly defined "consensus" among several "cultures" to be a poor substitute for this foundation.  YMMV.

Funny how you want to give credit to Christianity, when the Bible was used to justify slavery in our country.   There were many Christians who fought for abolition but so did many non-Christians.   Good people in many nations deserve the credit.  

I disagree that the United States had anything to do with the outlawing of slavery worldwide.  The power in those times was Great Britian, we didn't have the strength to do anything back then, and we lagged 40 years behind Great Britian in outlawing it.  We were one of the last of the modern nations to ban slavery.

I think you are wrong in your idea that slavery would come back.   The demand for slaves is very low and mainly in the sex trade business.   A slave in colonial times was worth around $40k in modern dollars.   You can buy a girl from her family in Thailand for $1000.    The demand is down because its cheaper to use technology to perform the labor.   Most historians agree slavery would have ended without a civil war just do to technology difference.  A sad effect of the lower need for slaves is that they become disposable.  Its cheaper to get rid of a girl and buy another if she gets sick or pregnant.  

Now if you include people like migrant works in the US as slaves, you might have a point, but I have hard time including people who work for low wages as slaves.  Hell by that definition, a lot of Americans are slaves.

Quoted: Quoted:Where you see moral evolution and consensus, I see the imposition of the values of the dominant culture. Our civilization came to prominance in large part due to the values imparted to it by the Christian church (along with Roman jurisprudence and Germanic culture).  I find an imagined and poorly defined "consensus" among several "cultures" to be a poor substitute for this foundation.  YMMV.

Funny how you want to give credit to Christianity, when the Bible was used to justify slavery in our country.   There were many Christians who fought for abolition but so did many non-Christians.   Good people in many nations deserve the credit.  

I disagree that the United States had anything to do with the outlawing of slavery worldwide.  The power in those times was Great Britian, we didn't have the strength to do anything back then, and we lagged 40 years behind Great Britian in outlawing it.  We were one of the last of the modern nations to ban slavery.

I think you are wrong in your idea that slavery would come back.   The demand for slaves is very low and mainly in the sex trade business.   A slave in colonial times was worth around $40k in modern dollars.   You can buy a girl from her family in Thailand for $1000.    The demand is down because its cheaper to use technology to perform the labor.   Most historians agree slavery would have ended without a civil war just do to technology difference.  A sad effect of the lower need for slaves is that they become disposable.  Its cheaper to get rid of a girl and buy another if she gets sick or pregnant.  

Now if you include people like migrant works in the US as slaves, you might have a point, but I have hard time including people who work for low wages as slaves.  Hell by that definition, a lot of Americans are slaves.




Hi Dino!
I don't think we have ever "chatted" with each other before?
I have to say I have had some chuckles with some of your one-liners on these posts. This last one about  Hell by that definition, a lot of Americans are slaves. had me rolling!

Anyway, once again I have a lengthy post. Bear with me? Hopefully I am not going to run out of room on the post, so I am going to copy/paste, just in case.

I totally understand where you are coming from as well as others when it came to slavery in the Bible. When I first was checking out  the Bible it was to find answers to things that bothered me. I had many, and slavery was one of them.
I also disagree with happycynic that it was the Christians who got rid of slavery.  There were people quoting Bible verses trying to KEEP slavery going on.
 
How does the Bible’s position on slavery mesh with the idea of a loving God?

Has the Bible been responsible for the oppression of slaves in the past? No, it has not. In fact, an in-depth look into the biblical account that reveals God’s attitude toward slavery shows just the opposite.

In Matthew 19:3-10, the Pharisees came to Jesus, attempting to trap Him with questions about the Old Law. They asked: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” Jesus informed them that divorce was not in God’s plan from the beginning. Thinking they had trapped Him, they inquired: “Why, then, did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and to put her away?” If it was in the Old Law, they suggested, then it must be God’s ideal will. But Jesus’ answer quickly stopped that line of thinking. He responded:

   "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

Jesus’ point was crystal clear—some things permitted in the Old Testament did not necessarily represent the ideal. Due to the hardness of ancient Israel’s heart, God tolerated (and regulated) some things under the Old Law that He did not endorse. As He did so, however, He progressively revealed His divine will to mankind, clarifying that will more fully through Christ.

Many of the injunctions found in the Old Testament pertaining to slavery fall into the category of regulating something that was “less than ideal.” Even in the Old Testament, God desired that all people love their neighbors as themselves (Leviticus 19:18). Yet, in a time when God used the children of Israel as His arm of justice to punish evildoers, certain questions arose. What was to be done, for example, with the survivors of those wicked nations? What was to be done with a man who was so far in debt that he could not repay his lender? These issues, and others like them, necessitated that God institute some form of humane regulations for “slavery.”

Alot of people think and will use certain verses from the Bible that it actually condoned slavery.

However, certain types of slavery are not morally wrong.
When a man is convicted of murder, he often is sentenced to life in prison. During his life sentence, he is forced by the State to do (or not do) certain things. He is justly confined to a small living space, and his freedoms are revoked. Sometimes, he is compelled by the State to work long hours, for which he does not receive even minimum wage. Would it be justifiable to label such a loss of freedom as a type of slavery? Yes, it would. However, is his loss of freedom a morally permissible situation? Certainly. He has become a slave of the State because he violated certain laws that were designed to ensure the liberty of his fellow citizen, whom he murdered. Therefore, one fact that must be conceded by anyone dealing with the Bible and its position on slavery is the fact that, under some conditions, slavery is not necessarily a morally deplorable institution.

In the Old Testament, immoral nations who practiced unspeakable evils surrounded the Hebrews. In order to rid the world of their destructive influence, the children of Israel dealt with them in several ways. One of those ways included forcing the wicked nations into slavery. Many of the slave regulations in the Old Testament deal with the treatment of individuals and nations who had committed crimes against humanity that were worthy of death. The wicked people were graciously allowed to live, but they were subjected to slavery, much like a lifetime prison sentence in modern criminal cases. Let us look more closely at this situation. In Leviticus 18:21,24 we read that the Lord told Moses to instruct the Israelites as follows:

   "And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech.... Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you."

 In order to understand this scenario, it is important that people understand what the phrase, “pass through the fire to Molech,” means in verse 21. In brief, it means that the nations around the Israelites were burning their own children as human sacrifices to a pagan god named Molech.

 Would it be morally permissible for God to allow a government (e.g., the Israelites) to punish those people who were viciously murdering their own children? We must answer in the affirmative. What punishment would be appropriate for a person who had committed such heinous crimes as to murder his or her own innocent children? The answer to that question rages even in our own society today when instances of child homicide arrive before the courts of our land. Legitimate answers often include the death penalty, or a life in prison in which many freedoms are revoked.

 As additional evidence along these lines, in Exodus 22:1-3, the Bible discusses a situation in which a man was caught in the act of thievery. The thief was instructed to restore what he stole, returning four sheep, and five oxen, for every one stolen. The text further states: “He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft” (vs. 3). Being sold into slavery was often a government-regulated punishment based on a criminal action.

Old Testament laws regulating slavery are troublesome by modern standards, but in their historical context they provided a degree of social recognition and legal protection to slaves that was advanced for its time (Exodus 21:20-27; Leviticus 25:44-46). We must keep in mind that on occasion it was an alternative to the massacre of enemy populations in wartime and the starvation of the poor during famine.

Frequently, “slavery” in Bible times was much more of an employer/employee relationship than an owner/slave situation.

 The Greek word doulos meant “slave,” but that it also was used “in a wider sense” to denote “any kind of dependence.” In 2 Corinthians 4:5, the apostles are called the douloi (plural of doulos) of the Christians. Christ took on the form of a doulos, as stated in Philippians 2:7. Paul designates himself as a doulos of Christ in Romans 1:1, Philippians 1:1, Galatians 1:10, and numerous other passages (1967, pp. 205-206). The term can describe a person who is obligated in some way, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, to another person. Due to this broad use, various translations have employed a wide range of words to render the meaning of doulos in English. Using Romans 1:1 as a case in point, the NKJV has “bondservant,” the New Living Translation has “slave,” the KJV and ASV have “servant,” and the Darby Bible has “bondman.”

 The Hebrew word ebed is similar to the Greek doulos, in that it can be translated as “slave” or “servant.” In Exodus 4:10, Moses referred to himself as the “servant” (ebed) of God. Abraham called himself the ebed of the angels who came to visit him in Genesis 18:3. In Genesis 39:17-19, Potiphar’s wife described Joseph as the Hebrew ebed, and Genesis 24:2 talks about the eldest ebed in Abraham’s house, who “ruled over all he had.”

These two most common terms for a slave is to show that our modern use of the word slave generally evokes mental images of cruelty, injustice, and bondage against a person’s will. While such ideas could be included in the biblical usage, they do not necessarily fit every time the words are used. Instead, the picture that we often see when the biblical words for “slave” are employed is a mutually beneficial arrangement similar to an employer/employee relationship. Job describes this relationship quite well:

  "If I have despised the cause of my manservant (ebed) or of my maidservant, when they contended with me; what then shall I do when God riseth up? And when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?" (Job 31:13-15) Job’s dealings with his slaves provided a mutually acceptable situation for master as well as slave.

The true nature of much Old Testament slavery, Abraham’s relationship with his slave Eliezer being one.
In Genesis 15:2-3, Abraham lamented the fact that he was childless. In his dialogue with God, he stated that the heir of his wealth was Eliezer of Damascus. In verse three of chapter 15, Abraham described Eliezer as “one born in my house.” Later, in Genesis 24:2, Abraham’s oldest servant (probably Eliezer) “ruled over all that he had.” Add to this the fact that Abraham armed 318 trained servants (Hebrew ebed) to bring back Lot after he had been captured (Genesis 14:14-15). If the slave/owner relationship was anything less than mutually trusting, Abraham most likely would not have intentionally armed his slaves.

Due to the mutually beneficial nature of much Old Testament slavery, some slaves did not even want to leave their masters. Deuteronomy 15:16-17 says:

   "And if it happens that he [a slave—KB] says to you, “I will not go away from you,” because he loves you and your house, since he prospers with you, then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant forever. Also to your maidservant you shall do likewise."

Do the actions and words of Abraham’s slaves, or those found in Deuteronomy 15, seem like the actions and words of tyrannized, oppressed people? Hardly. Rather, they seem more like the words and actions of people enjoying a mutually beneficial and consensual relationship.

During Paul’s time, the master-slave relationship provided sufficient benefits and opportunities, such that it dampened any thoughts of revolutionary behavior. One freed slave had inscribed on his tombstone: “Slavery was never unkind to me....” More often than not, it was the free workers rather than slaves who were abused by foremen and bosses. (After all, an owner stood to have an ongoing loss if he abused his slave.)

But suppose a master did abuse his slaves in Old Testament times, and those slaves decided to run away. In Deuteronomy 23:15-16, God made it unlawful for runaway slaves to be returned to their masters.
  "You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him."

This passage shows how costly cruelty to slaves was. It also shows that slaves had the freedom to choose where, and with whom, they wanted to live.

 Slavery as such is not protected or rendered sacrosanct under Israelite law. At the very least it can be said that such a law probably presumes that runaway slaves will be the exception, not the rule. This lends further weight to the view that normally slavery in Israel was not oppressively harsh. It would certainly not have been, if the spirit of the slavery laws of Exodus and Deuteronomy were put into practice.
 
 Also the fact that kidnapping a man and selling him as a slave was a crime punishable by death, as said in Exodus 21:16: “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.”
 
 Also note that the slavery regulated in the Bible had absolutely nothing to do with race, color, or ethnic background. While it is true that certain nations, as a whole, were captured and enslaved because of their wicked, idolatrous practices, it is not true that they were enslaved due to their allegedly inferior nationality. Leviticus 19:34 states: “But the stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” Deuteronomy 24:14 reads: “You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether one of your brethren, or one of the aliens who is in your land within thy gates.” And, although certain regulations applied only to Hebrews who found themselves enslaved (Deuteronomy 15:12-14; Exodus 21:2), it was not because they were a “superior” race or nationality, but simply because they were citizens of the nation of Israel (a similar concept would be the fact that a person who is born in the USA is not inherently any less or any more valuable than any other person, but, under the law system of the United States, that person would possess certain rights and privileges that a non-citizen would not enjoy). Deuteronomy 10:17-19 illustrates God’s impartiality as well:

   "For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore, love the stranger; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."

Quoted: Quoted:Where you see moral evolution and consensus, I see the imposition of the values of the dominant culture. Our civilization came to prominance in large part due to the values imparted to it by the Christian church (along with Roman jurisprudence and Germanic culture).  I find an imagined and poorly defined "consensus" among several "cultures" to be a poor substitute for this foundation.  YMMV.     Funny how you want to give credit to Christianity, when the Bible was used to justify slavery in our country.   There were many Christians who fought for abolition but so did many non-Christians.   Good people in many nations deserve the credit.

Funny how you do not wish to give credit to Christianity when we all know that Abolitionism was exclusively a Christian endeavor.

As was the Civil Rights Movement in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s.

Of course, back in those days, the United States was an exclusively Christian nation.

So, some evil men attempted to defend the indefensible by citing Bibical passages?

What else is new?

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. ~ Antonio, The Merchant of Venice, Act I, scene iii

Can you cite the Scripture in the Bible that encourages Christians to make slaves of other men?

(I thought not)

Eric The(JustHereToKeepAllMenHonest)Hun

Oops, one more thing Dino...

 It can be argued convincingly that the American Civil War was fought primarily over this very issue. Politicians raged on both sides of the matter. Interestingly, so did religious people. Abolitionists, as well as pro-slavery advocates, went to the Bible to marshal arguments for their particular view. Abolitionists armed themselves with verses such as: “Therefore whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12); or “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you all are one man in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Religious pro-slavery activists fired impressive scriptural guns by quoting passages such as: “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh” (1 Peter 2:18); and “Servants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of your heart, as to Christ” (Ephesians 6:5).

However, once you study the Bible and know the culture back then, etc., you'll see what I was getting at (maybe?)

Quoted: Sorry to be so brutal about it but, I am definately not getting it.

Don't blame yourself because you benefit from a 2000 year jump on  ancient mythology taken as fact.

Those who wrote the book and belief system simply didn't know any better. Consider yourself fortunate that you're indifference is likely based on common sense fostered by the last 2000+ years of human developement & understanding of the world we live in.

Logic, science and common sense have a long, long historical pattern of debunking out dated mythology & superstitions. Some take longer to die off when entire institutions have been formed around them.

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism
----------------------------------------------

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

George in Tom Stoppard, Jumpers
--------------------------------------------

“I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.”

"We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

Stephen F Roberts