Proof-existence of an intelligent Creator+His Purpose for humankind

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

To quote the Moderator in this thread "no need to increase his google rank."

There's a big difference between a guy that goes around spamming forums with posts and a site that is well resourced and documented with scientific references.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The fish would have been basically fresh water and developed a tolerance for salt water as the oceans became saltier. This sediment you speak of would not have been so sever in a young earth. Our fresh water species do quite well in high water today. Some would have been lost but, others would have thrived with the increased food supply.

And who did Noah's children marry to continue the human race? And how is that newborn babies were judged "evil" enough to need drowning along with everyone else? And why would God bother with having Noah save the animals when he could just wave his magic god-wand and put them all into suspended animation or something similar?

You should just answer "Magic" every time someone asks a question about impossible things that happen in the Bible. Trying to use logic to explain the inexplicable is just a waste of time: as long as God is drowning the world in water that he has created ex nihilo and then draining it all offstage when he's done, there's no point in trying to logically explain anything else about the story either.

Do you consider yourself a Biblical literalist - do you claim that everything noted in the Bible is true? If so, how do you reconcile one of the (but not only) direct contradictions of one part of the Bible with another - the last words of Jesus, which are variously rendered as "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew); "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit"(Luke); "It is finished" (John). Which (if any) of these is the truth - because they can't all be LITERALLY true.

This isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of direct experience - if you can read, you can look and see that it is impossible - I repeat, impossible - for the entirety of the Bible to be literally true. Therefore, if you claim that it IS so, nothing else you say can be taken seriously; you have already as much as admitted that you prefer your unsupported and errant beliefs about what you THINK the bible says to the actual things it DOES say.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Before the flood it is surmised that there was one large land mass. After the flood there may have been more than one. They may have been connected by a land bridge as well. I don't know.



Wood from the ark wouldn't last for ever. Wood rots. Wood erodes. Wood is food and homes for animals. If I was Noah and his three sons I might have recycled parts of the ark in order to make smaller ships and other things. It would have been the only material available. There might be some drift wood as well but, the choices would be limited. Do you know of any wooden structure that is even a thousand years old and still recognizable? I don't.

The reason why I suggested that Noah would not have stuck around is the notion that the ark landed up high on a mountain. Living and growing crops are a lot easier down in the valleys. Fish would also have been a likely early food source. If I were in their shoes I would have followed the water as it receded.

Aye, fair enough. There is a boat that was made for Cheops that is still kicking around in Egypt, but our timelines are conflicting so that probably doesn't mean anything in this discussion. The evidence says that boat was built ~2500 years ago and you might believe that it was built 5 minutes ago, and that would open up a whole 'nother discussion.

Re: Noah and his three sons, how long did it take them to build this boat, and how did they do it? Did they have slaves? And wasn't Noah something like 700 years old when he put this thing together?

[OBCT]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

Here's the thing - it seems to me the concept of "fall of man" causing mass extinction is incompatible with the concept of evolution. For instance, trilobites have been extinct for roughly 250 million years, much before any human was around to possibly be blamed for everything. Also, the so-called "Champagne Supernova" is from a galaxy roughly 4 billion light years away, meaning that the star exploded roughly 4 billion years before any man was around to fall. To say that extinctions and supernovae were caused by 2 people eating the wrong piece of fruit seems absurd.

It is possible that evolution is a demonstration of a designer, but that contradicts the idea of a "fall of man". Theists argue that either God created 2 people (who displeased him), or he set up in motion the rules that eventually ended up with people. And who determines who the first humans were? Were they australopithecines, or neanderthals, or cro-magnon? How did they displease God? Or, did God let evolution create animal and plant diversity, and then created 2 separate beings?

The creation story of the book of Genesis is either literally true, an allegory, or complete fiction. If its literal truth, then God really did not plan things well. He figured out that the animals need to have sex to procreate, but he initially created only one male human. Before creating a woman, God paraded all the animals in front of him looking for a compatible "help meet" (Gen. 2:19-21). Only after Adam rejected all the animals did God think to make a woman for him. The problem with using the bible as an allegorical tool is interpreting what is literal truth, and what is allegory. If we accept that the earth wasn't created in 6 literal days 6000-odd years ago, do we also reject as allegory the story of Jonah and the whale? Noah's ark? The virgin birth? The resurrection? The talking snake? Original sin? Parting of the Red Sea? The 10 Commandments? The burning bush? Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt? The feeding of the 5000? Jesus' miracles? Heaven? Hell? Satan? Angels? Demons?

The fact is, the God as described in the old testament is a jealous, capricious genocidal maniac who supports slavery.

As I've said, it's not something I easily grasp and it's not something I have every answer for. I'm definitely still reading and discussing and learning (which is why I like threads like this that don't devolve into rubbish mudslinging).

Fitting my understanding of "The Fall" as literally described in Genesis into a current scientifically sound understanding of history may not be possible. Maybe it's not meant to be.

One of the main problems I have with the link T@T offered a few pages back is this idea that the Bible was (or should've been) written to a timeless, universal audience. First of all, this is strictly impossible (though I believe the Holy Spirit offers guidance, instruction and wisdom to believers if they ask for it and wait for it - sometimes it is subtle). Furthermore, it seems sensible that we'd try to read these stories in the context of their time. If we're interested and so inclined, it might be possible to find out information about when it was written, who the author was, and who the intended audience was.

After some very brief searching on the subject, I came up with a couple of references to a book by Tremper Longman III, called How to Read Genesis. Here's a link to an excerpt [in pdf format]. Page 4 of the pdf, or 22 of the book, contains an interesting paragraph:

Originally Posted by Longman III

"The historical, cultural and literary distance we are at from the time of the author makes Genesis difficult to grasp without study. Indeed, one of the biggest mistakes we can make in interpretation is to read it as if it were written for us today. For instance, later we will criticize those who read Genesis 1—2 as if it was an apologetic against modern scientific understanding of the origins of the world (Darwin), when in actuality it was an apologetic against rival ancient understandings of creation (Enuma Elish)."

I have not read up on the this to verify it's claims for myself (though I intend to), but I just think it goes to show that there is most certainly more than meets the eye in the Genesis account.

As for the off-putting characteristics of God as described in various parts of the Bible, here are my thoughts:

jealousy. He created us to interact with us and for us to worship Him - yes, I'd call that jealousy, and yes, I'd call it justified. (This is hugely hypothetical, but I know I'd get jealous if I created a high-tech robot with AI and some "free will" - with a few important parameters for safe functioning - and it decided not to follow some of those parameters, got broken, searched everywhere but me for a repairman, eventually found a mediocre temporary "fix", then agreed to act as the spokesrobot for that other guy. )

capriciousness. Fair enough. I guess my point would be that He can do as He wishes; His will and His ways are beyond our understanding and there "must" be a good reason for it - such as the anthropological hypothesis offered in your link. That said, I can understand why this explanation might not be fully satisfying to you.

genocidal. It's true. No explanation other than to say that certain actions deserve consequences. We don't know how many warnings were offered or just what the depths of these people's evils were. From my perspective, I agree that genocide seems... harsh. As you might expect me to, I defer to God's divine wisdom and put it on Him. He can take it.

slaver. I can't say I'm a proponent of slavery, but humanity has been generally okay with it in some form or another for millennia. I'm not going to be the one to put my view on something like slavery above God's. There are specific qualifications laid out in the Bible that keep it ... well, humane. So, even inasmuch as I would not like to see slavery brought back to North America (for example), it's existence in ancient times was in a different context and surely looked different then than it did more recently in our world's history. Could it be that slavery can be done rightly and wrongly? I won't be the one to judge.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by OBCT

Could it be that slavery can be done rightly and wrongly? I won't be the one to judge.

You can't make that call? You're just not sure that slavery is wrong?

I'm pretty sure of something right now; I don't need an old book to tell me that some people are too stupid to reach.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

There's a big difference between a guy that goes around spamming forums with posts and a site that is well resourced and documented with scientific references.

And that is why I didn't respond to your last post. You like to see your self as the final judge between what is bad and what is good science. Creation science= junk ; Evolutionary science= well resourced and documented. Well just because you can find an article or paper that refutes something I say doesn't mean the assessment is fair or even truthful. Your qualifications doesn't exclude you from being wrong. There are people far more qualified in these areas than you or I who don't agree on much. Sure your side have got the numbers but, your position is also where the money/prestige is.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There are people far more qualified in these areas than you or I who don't agree on much. Sure your side have got the numbers but, your position is also where the evidence is.

Fixed

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

And that is why I didn't respond to your last post. You like to see your self as the final judge between what is bad and what is good science.

Do you mean bad and good science, or bad and good results? Bad science can be identified without having to be an expert on the subject; no references, no evidence, makes no predictions, is not falsifiable, poor methodology, presumed conclusions, published in poorly refereed journals (or not published at all) tons of things can show that things are bad science.

Good science is the opposite of these things.

I'm not the judge, the scientific process is the judge. I'm just going over what the current consensus is and why.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Creation science= junk ; Evolutionary science= well resourced and documented.

That isn't my fault, and I suspect you mean it backwards to the way I actually think. Creation science is junk not because it's creation science, but because it's junk. I don't classify it as junk right off the bat, it has to be evaluated. Don't forget, I used to be on the other side of this fence.

If you have scientific papers or resources that support your views, please present them. 95% of what I read from creationist resources though isn't actual positive evidence with positive statements, it's just sitting back and trying to poke holes. Science cannot be done by criticism alone.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Well just because you can find an article or paper that refutes something I say doesn't mean the assessment is fair or even truthful. Your qualifications doesn't exclude you from being wrong.

If I reference a paper it doesn't preclude me from being wrong.. but if that paper is heavily referenced, has been through peer review, is well supported, accepted by the scientific community, makes verified predictions, etc... all the things that make good science, what I am saying is that that paper is the best understanding of things as they currently are. If you want to overturn that, you have to come up with something better.

You seem to think a scientific paper is something just written on a whim and published without any opposition. Hardly.

Something appearing in a reputable refereed scientific journal is light years away from some article posted on Answers in Genesis.

If you think I am wrong, show it. Bring your evidence, not hand waving.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There are people far more qualified in these areas than you or I who don't agree on much. Sure your side have got the numbers but, your position is also where the money/prestige is.

Sure there are, but just because someone disagrees does that mean their disagreements have any merit?

With respect to evolution, the qualified ones who disagree are very few, and don't do so based on the science but on their faith. If they disagreed with their science and had good reason to, they would publish. I know you will say that they can't but that's baloney, I've already demonstrated historically how science has been completely overturned before.

There is no doubt in the scientific community about the modern synthesis of evolution; the evidence is vast and can only be willfully ignored.

It's interesting though that you bring up people more qualified that don't agree, I assume to try and give some support to your position? I know Christian scholars who could spend years showing you why a literal view of scripture isn't supported, I would guess though that that wouldn't have the same impact on you as you are expecting your statement to have on me?

Evangelical Christians who accept evolution have been brought up in this thread yet you are silent on that.

No response on my offer for books?

[The Fonz]

When does the Bible say that the great flood happened?

[T@T]

You know a certain someone in here reminds me of a guy that knocked at my door a stupid amount of times a few years back. My wife wouldn't tell him to piss off but just said "sorry, I don't let strangers in my house when my husbands not home"

Anyway the guy was relentless and finally caught me at home, after arguing with this nuthead for what seemed like 15 minutes I got choked and said:

"Fine buddy, you can come into to my house and show me what you got but only after you give me 15 minutes of your time to show you a vid on why I don't believe in any religion or any god you can come up with"

He politely declined and I never seen him again.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

When does the Bible say that the great flood happened?

I,m far from a bible expert but i think it was supposed to be around 1700 bc.

Interesting enough though the Chinese have writings about great floods dating back 2500bc, the Sumerians 3200bc.

Probably many many more, but of course because it's in the bible...it is the GREAT flood.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by T@T

You know a certain someone in here reminds me of a guy that knocked at my door a stupid amount of times a few years back. My wife wouldn't tell him to piss off but just said "sorry, I don't let strangers in my house when my husbands not home"

Anyway the guy was relentless and finally caught me at home, after arguing with this nuthead for what seemed like 15 minutes I got choked and said:

"Fine buddy, you can come into to my house and show me what you got but only after you give me 15 minutes of your time to show you a vid on why I don't believe in any religion or any god you can come up with"

He politely declined and I never seen him again.

I find if you answer the door buck naked, they usually leave quickly and never come back. If they do, well...you've made a new freind.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Wood from the ark wouldn't last for ever. Wood rots. Wood erodes. Wood is food and homes for animals. If I was Noah and his three sons I might have recycled parts of the ark in order to make smaller ships and other things. It would have been the only material available. There might be some drift wood as well but, the choices would be limited. Do you know of any wooden structure that is even a thousand years old and still recognizable? I don't.

More as an aside, here is a list of ancient wooden structures still recognizable, some of which are much more than 1000 years old. A couple even predate the great flood. Here is another.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by OBCT

jealousy. He created us to interact with us and for us to worship Him - yes, I'd call that jealousy, and yes, I'd call it justified. (This is hugely hypothetical, but I know I'd get jealous if I created a high-tech robot with AI and some "free will" - with a few important parameters for safe functioning - and it decided not to follow some of those parameters, got broken, searched everywhere but me for a repairman, eventually found a mediocre temporary "fix", then agreed to act as the spokesrobot for that other guy. )

But jealousy is such a human emotion - it should be far beneath a deity worthy of praise. Not only is he jealous, he takes jealousy to a whole new level. As mentioned in the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20:4-5):

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me


No wonder he has no problem with causing genocide, or with enslaving people, or raping virgins.

[OBCT]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You can't make that call? You're just not sure that slavery is wrong?

I'm pretty sure of something right now; I don't need an old book to tell me that some people are too stupid to reach.

I really appreciate your ability to keep a discussion civil and free of unnecessary insults.

Beyond that point, I am actually serious. As peter12 mentioned earlier, I find that people in today's "civilized" culture are often too quick to assume that the way we do/see/understand/believe things today are far superior to the way things used to be. I disagree.

The Bible was written in a different time. Today, lots of people are into relativistic morality and truth, so here's a comparison that might work for them. Back in Biblical times, slavery was right for them. I do not know exactly what the history of slavery is for humankind, but I know that it was prevalent for many many years (and still, sadly, is in some areas). One way or another, many societies "functioned" - without economic collapse or constant uprisals leading to social upheaval - under a system that either allowed or promoted slavery. This does not mean that we are wrong today - I am certainly not pro-slavery! - but it does mean that it was a long-embraced part of our (recorded) history.

Now, as far as God's stance on the subject... again, I'm not sure He needs my defense. I will say that the Bible was in most ways not written to promote social reform (at least not directly). It calls believers to act in propriety, and if that means having the grace to free their slave, as example, the Bible certainly leaves open that option. A lack of codemning does not necessarily imply condoning. The instances where slavery is mentioned, it is basically commanding readers not to take advantage of their slaves (or for the slaves to be loyal).


*** Unsatisfied with my own explanation, I decided to do a google search. Wikipedia has this to say in it's introduction to the topic:

Originally Posted by wikipedia article

The Bible contains several references to slavery. The Bible uses the Hebrew term ebed to refer to slavery; however, ebed has a much wider meaning than the English term slavery, and in several circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant or hired worker[1]. It is common for a person to voluntarily sell oneself into slavery for a fixed period of time either to pay off debts or to get food and shelter.[2]
Although slavery is now universally condemned as a crime against humanity, it was customary in antiquity, and taken for granted as part of the economy and society of the time.[3] The Bible does not regard it as an abomination, and regulates its practice,[4] and occasionally compels the enslavement of others.[5]

Additionally, this article supports my suspicions and views on the subject. Biblical slavery is very different from the "man-stealing" practices of (primarily) 19th century white Americans against Africans.

[T@T]

I like this.

Look at historical gods


The belief in "god" seems to be ubiquitous through the ages.
We know, for example, that the ancient Egyptians believed in their gods so fervently that they built massive structures like the Great Pyramid -- still today one of the largest and most enduring human constructions ever created. Despite that fervor, however, we know with complete certainty today that the Egyptian gods were imaginary. We don't build pyramids anymore and we do not mummify our leaders.

More recently we know that tens of millions of Romans worshiped Jupiter and his friends, and to them they built magnificent temples. The ruins of these temples are popular tourist attractions even today. Yet we know with complete certainty that these gods were imaginary because no one worships Zeus any more.

Much more recently, we know that the Aztec civilization believed in their gods so intensely that they constructed huge temples and pyramids. In addition, Aztecs were so zealous that they were sacrificing hundreds of human beings to their gods as recently as the 16th century. Despite the intensity, however, we know today that these gods were completely imaginary. The Aztecs were insane to be murdering people for their gods. Killing a person has no effect on rainfall or anything else. We all know that. If the Aztec gods were real, we would still be offering sacrifices to them.

Today's "God" is just as imaginary as were these historical gods. The fact that millions of people worship a god is meaningless.

The "God" and the "Jesus" that Christians worship today are actually amalgams formed out of ancient pagan gods. The idea of a "virgin birth", "burial in a rock tomb", "resurrection after 3 days" and "eating of body and drinking of blood" had nothing to do with Jesus. All of the rituals in Christianity are completely man-made. Christianity is a snow ball that rolled over a dozen pagan religions. As the snowball grew, it freely attached pagan rituals in order to be more palatable to converts. You can find accounts like these in popular literature:

• "The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable. Egyptian sun disks became the halos of Catholic saints. Pictograms of Isis nursing her miraculously conceived son Horus became the blueprint for our modern images of the Virgin Mary nursing Baby Jesus. And virtually all the elements of the Catholic ritual - the miter, the altar, the doxology, and communion, the act of "God-eating" - were taken directly from earlier pagan mystery religions."
• "Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of the World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 is also the birthday or Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Even Christianity's weekly holy day was stolen from the pagans."

It is extremely hard for a Christian believer to process this data, but nonetheless it is true. All of the "sacred rituals" of Christianity, and all of Christianity's core beliefs (virgin birth, resurrection, etc.) come straight from pagan religions that were popular around the time of Jesus. Articles like this and this can help you learn more. Once you understand the fundamental truth of Christianity's origins, the silliness of this whole thing becomes apparent.


Obviously the pagan believers, from whom Christianity derived its myths, worshipped gods that were imaginary. And thus our "God" today is just an extension of these imaginary forerunners. All human gods are imaginary.

A Christian will often rationalize this situation by saying, "Yes, the Egyptians and the Romans worshipped false Gods, but Christianity is real. Just look at the billions of people who believe in Jesus Christ." This strength-in-numbers rationalization may feel comforting, but it is meaningless. The fact that millions of people worship a god is meaningless.
It was once the case that most people believed the world to be flat. Widespread belief did not change the fact that the world is a sphere. The scientific and observational evidence that we have available today is undeniable -- the world is a sphere.
All scientific evidence shows that God is imaginary. So does all historical evidence. This leads any rational person to conclude that Christian beliefs are pure mythology. Christianity is just like every other mythology that mankind has dreamed up through the ages.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That same argument is used to point to a huge climate altering event namely: a flood. The fossil record is a record of extinction. Mass extinction starting right after the flood and then slowing but continuing to this day.



Embryological evolution was something that was considered a solid proof of evolution when I went to school. They had discovered that in the early stages of human development the embryo has what appears to be a tail. It later disappears. The thought of the day was that they were seeing a glimpse of the tail mankind sported earlier in his development. Turns out they were wrong. What they thought was a tail was part of the spinal column. The developing legs move down the body. The "tail" doesn't disappear at all but rather the body grows around it. Hopefully the powers that be have gotten around to correcting the text books.

The eyes develop in the embryo as part of the brain and move out towards the eye sockets later in the developing baby. They are not part of the spinal cord or the nervous system. The problem with the supposed links to the developing human eye is that none of them originate anywhere near the brain. They can't be part of the development of the human eye. Actually even if they had a direct connection to the brain it would be a huge jump to consider them as links to the development of the eye. The eye works differently. The theory that the eye evolved relatively quickly is being flogged because there is no evidence of said development. One would expect to see evidence of development if millions of years were involved. Also two holes in the skull are hardly a beneficial trait for survival. Anything less than functioning eyes in those holes would be a distinct disadvantage in nature.

Bottom line: Believing science has found plausible evidence of the development of the human eye is akin to believing Christ made an appearance in your cheese grilled sandwich. You've got to use your imagination, look at it from just the right angle, and really want it to be true.

Speaking of really wanting something to be true, I watched an interesting program on PBS this weekend about the theory that birds descended from dinosaurs and the evidence favouring such a view. We've all heard of feathered dinosaurs, and some of the better read may be aware of the skeletal morphology of the bird-like theropods that is so similar to birds. But what was most interesting was the developments in genetic analysis. Scientists observed that in the egg, birds have a tail with many more vertebrae than a hatched bird and noticed that as the egg developed, the extra vertebrae were lost in the development of the foetal bird. Prior to losing the vertebrae in development, the foetal chicks had the same number of tail vertebrae as Archaeopteryx. Interestingly, after much experimentation, these scientists have figured out a way to delay the activation of the genetic switch that leads to the loss of vertebrae in the tail and they have developed chicks with many more vertebrae than a naturally born bird, although fewer than an Archaeopteryx would have had. (They delayed the activation of the switch but haven't been able to halt it) The interesting thing about this discovery of course is that the early foetal stage of a bird really does resemble it's early ancestors, and it is a genetic switch that makes the difference between a bird tail and a dino tail.

This actually leads to the hypothesis that foetal development may mirror evolution to a point, but determination may be difficult without understanding the genetic switches that steer foetal devolpment away from the precursor forms to the modern form.

To some degree the old 'discredited' statement of Ernst Haeckel that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' may actually have some truth to it, although not in the way Haeckel envisioned it. (Since he doctored his results)

[photon]

Exo 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Exo 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Not take advantage of their slaves, but you can beat them as much as you want as long as they don't die within a few days of the beating.

The Bible has some good moral teachings, but it also has many bad ones. Viewed in the context of when it was written, that makes sense. But to even recognize that means that the Bible isn't the ultimate source of morality.

From that article:

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society.

Someone should tell those who try to push their morals they say they derived from the Bible on society as a whole.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by OBCT

I really appreciate your ability to keep a discussion civil and free of unnecessary insults.

Beyond that point, I am actually serious. As peter12 mentioned earlier, I find that people in today's "civilized" culture are often too quick to assume that the way we do/see/understand/believe things today are far superior to the way things used to be. I disagree.

How are we not superior in our way of 'things' from the ancient civilizations of 2000 years ago?

The Bible was written in a different time. Today, lots of people are into relativistic morality and truth, so here's a comparison that might work for them. Back in Biblical times, slavery was right for them. I do not know exactly what the history of slavery is for humankind, but I know that it was prevalent for many many years (and still, sadly, is in some areas).

Well the key is how do you view the bible, inerrant fact, allegory, or outright man made fairytales. Back in biblical times, lots of things were right for them, if the bible is a book of morality which many non literalists agree it is, how do you get around slavery, infanticide, genocide, etc..?

One way or another, many societies "functioned" - without economic collapse or constant uprisals leading to social upheaval - under a system that either allowed or promoted slavery. This does not mean that we are wrong today - I am certainly not pro-slavery! - but it does mean that it was a long-embraced part of our (recorded) history.

Yes which was justified with the holy books from various religions, if you approach the world from a naturalist view, a non religious view, even 2000yrs ago you know its wrong to suggest one race is superior to another.

Now, as far as God's stance on the subject... again, I'm not sure He needs my defense. I will say that the Bible was in most ways not written to promote social reform (at least not directly). It calls believers to act in propriety, and if that means having the grace to free their slave, as example, the Bible certainly leaves open that option. A lack of codemning does not necessarily imply condoning. The instances where slavery is mentioned, it is basically commanding readers not to take advantage of their slaves (or for the slaves to be loyal).

God needs a lot of your defense, as Lucy said "He's got some splaining to do!"

Slavery is wrong today is it was then, you would think an all mighty creator would clearly want to state that in his divine wisdom to humans, but clearly the God of the old testament and new testament is a human, fallible and very outdated 'being' that deserves no worship, no fear and in my own case no belief.

Additionally, this article supports my suspicions and views on the subject. Biblical slavery is very different from the "man-stealing" practices of (primarily) 19th century white Americans against Africans.

See this is the problem, you have a worldview that has a dogma, a book, and in all likelyhood is what you have known since childhood as your only worldview.

Instead of looking at this stuff with a raised eyebrow, you seek like most people clinging to their beliefs, a supporting argument to give you that comfort of thinking, there is a reason for all this.

While I view all this with a non believer eye and shake my head at the attempts of people to justify the biblical accounts of slavery, not to mention the vast other problems with those texts.

Not to mention the council of nicea, the testaments NOT chosen and those we've seen that describe jesus as a misfit teen, authors that see jesus and his story as something that happened in a mystical realm.

The idea Jesus was a living person in history is being critically analyzed now, something similar to the Jesus project, and we know have Sam Harris' Reason project wich deals with the ludicrious Bible issues.

http://www.reasonproject.org/

[T@T]

On the day Moses comes down from Mount Sinai with the stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments, he discovers that the Israelites have created a golden calf. To punish the people, Moses gathers a group of men and takes the following action.

Exodus - 32

Moses says to the men. "This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "
The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died.

Isn't it ironic one minute we have God carving into a stone tablet, "Thou shalt not kill." Then the next minute we have God telling each man to strap a sword to his side and murder thousands.