Hey!  Its Stathei!

That actually reminds me.  I was going to ask you, Ben, if you thought it reasonable that a person should actually read the Bible before summarily rejecting it.  StAth hasn't read a lick of it and wonders why we accuse him of blanket misrepresentations and third grade caricatures of Christian positions.

:)

Welcome back, Stath.

"I am a secular humanist,"

Hmmm.  I don't think Stalin was, though, was he?

No, he wasn't.  Let me make it as simple as I can:

Theism (Standard English word, pending replacement word) does not posit any ethics.  Atheism does not posit any ethics.  Neither prescribes nor proscribes any conduct whatsoever.

Christian theism posits ethics.  Secular humanism posits ethics.  Both prescribe and proscribe conduct.

Which Humanist Manifesto do you cling to?  There have been a number of versions.  I'm sure that would have nothing to do with the earlier versions not being up to the task.

The humanist minimum statement:

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

As we learn more through reason and free enquiry, of course it is going to change.  Earlier versions were not 'up to the task' and the current version will, I'm sure, undergo changes in the future.

And all the vedas, sntjohnny?  Have you studied the Upanishads?  They are quite entertaining, you know.  Myself, I prefer Kalidasa, if I'm going to have to read a lot of Sanskrit works. 

"And all the vedas, sntjohnny?  Have you studied the Upanishads?  They are quite entertaining, you know.  Myself, I prefer Kalidasa, if I'm going to have to read a lot of Sanskrit works."

What, this isn't going to end until I admit I haven't read the entire library of congress?

I've read a substantial number of the vedas, some of the upanishads, the baghavad gita of course.  The kama sutra was nice.  :)  And for the Koran, I also read some of the hadith.

If any of you people think that it is reasonable to reject a position without even taking the time to make sure you know what you're talking about, trust me, that says much more about the validity of your positions then anything that I could say.  So just keep it coming.

I read voraciously.  Not as much as I did in college, but still quite a bit.  Just because one or two of you wants to justify your strawman bashing doesn't mean that every Christian has to be the same way.  And, incidentally, for things that I haven't studied as much, I don't speak to them.  Some people might take a lesson.

SJ, I'm not "back" - it really does feel good not to argue with the Mad Hatter any more! I believe that I know enough about the bible to reject it and that an encyclopedic knowledge of it is not necessary. This reminds me of one of your most hilarious claims - that you had performed your own translation of the original Hebrew version of the Bible and found it to be different in meaning to the King James! Classic.

"If forced to pick, the most recent one that I have read - HM 3 seems OK."

I would agree it is an improvement.  It still lacks one critical thing:  an explicit recognition that man is not, by nature, 'good.'

"I tip my hat to you, sir.  I don't know how you can read L. Ron Hubbard."

It was tedius.  I read Dianetics and skimmed through one of his sci-fi novels.  Crazy stuff.

"They did.  Tell me, where is the Bible version 2 where slavery is condemned ?  Where women have equal standing ?  Oh, wait, that never came out."

Why, you make it sound as though you already know that slavery is wrong and inequality is wrong.  But that would just be your subjective POV, wouldn't it?    Please don't issue condemnations of the moral system in the Bible as though you thought there was an objective standard to make it.

But in fact, speaking on both points, you might want to look at Galatians 3:26-29  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GAL%203;&version=31;

You should not confuse the idea that there is a created 'order' with questions of equality.  Men and women aren't equal in a real sense, are they?  Men, you may have noticed, have penises.  Women have vaginas.  That they might have a different place in the created order wouldn't be an arbitrary leap, but based on observations about the birds and the bees.  However, acknowledging that they are not perfectly equal does not mean that they are not equal in other respects.  Cimics, as I recall, disagrees with me on some of that, but again, going from memory here, I think he would agree with me that we're talking about a complementary relationship, where each adds to the whole in their own created way.

As it had definitely become the custom among the Jews at that point (I do hope you remember that the first Christians were all Jews) that women were the property of men, you can see how the passage above would definitely have been an 'update' to the prevailing wisdom.  I believe you should withdraw that example and provide another.

About Slavery:

Slavery certainly has nothing to do with the created order, and is a result of the fall of man.  (much like the treatment of women as property among the Jews was).  But if you're looking for a clear condemnation of slavery as a mark of its 'progress' as though you know on some other basis- one you're treating as objective, mind you, dear subjectivist- you won't find it in the way that you want, though not for the reasons you think.  Let's also keep in mind that our notions of 'slavery' today are much different then during that time.  Our views our colored by the hideous examples here in America.  A 'slave' in yesteryear could very well have many rights and freedoms.  But that is a small part of the solution.

The big part of the solution comes simply by understanding the context in which the NT was written.  As I reminded you, the first Christians were Jews.  That is, they were people living under the oppression of the Romans, and this remained the case even for the converts.   In other words, the first Christians were by a vast majority in the class of the enslaved and the oppressed, and not the enslavers and oppressors.  And this is how it remained for hundreds of years.  In other words, it isn't reasonable to expect the NT to treat on this subject.

And yet, it is not silent.  You think it is silent, but perhaps you should read it for yourself to see how justified this position is.  Let me suggest Philemon:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philemon;&version=31;

It is very short, so it won't kill you to read it.

You skeptics never seem to know about this letter.  Paul writes to the slave owner, Philemon, to forgive the slave, Onesimus.  The slave seems to have run off, and now Paul is sending him back.  In contrast to the larger culture which I just mentioned, here we have a case where a person with power actually has become a Christian... I have the feeling you will not be able to connect the dots, so here is a passage:

"8Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9yet I appeal to you on the basis of love."

ORDER Philemon?  ORDER him to do what?  "the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good

"What does it mean to say a species' nature is good or not good ?"

That's a good question.  It's one that I can answer but you can't, which I guess was my point.

""Why, you make it sound as though you already know that slavery is wrong and inequality is wrong.  But that would just be your subjective POV, wouldn't it?""
"Yes."

At some point you guys really should explain why we should care about your subjective POVs.

"I don't.  I issue subjective condemnations of the moral system in the bible as one that causes greater harm and suffering than our current United States' moral system."

Sounds like you just backdoored your way into having an objective standard.  One would almost get the impression that you think 'harm and suffering' is bad... or wrong.  But you can't be saying that....

"That passage negates the ones about women not having authority over men, etc. ?"

I'm nervous about digging into all of these passages unless you've actually read the Scriptures enough to contextualize it all.  (see:  Stathei).  It looks like you're doing ok..... I'll give a brief comment...  No, the passage wouldn't negate it, but then, 'authority' does not necessarily mean 'unequal,' either.  A police officer can have authority over me under certain parameters, but I don't in the slightest think that he is not my equal.  He has got a different role to play, that's true.  And ideally, one would still posit that within the grand scheme of things, he still must abide within the system equally, despite his role.  (ie, I can be arrested for breaking the law, but that doesn't mean that he can break the law).

The passage you speak of I do not believe applies across the board.  I have no authority over another man's wife.  Every man does not have authority over every woman.  Many Christians take the passage and limit its scope to just the church, but I think they would do better and limit it just to the marital unit- a man and a woman.  Complementary, equal within the system, but having different roles, hopefully inline with their natural strengths and passions, etc.  And let me hasten to remind you that I think that in this fallen world, this idealistic structure is going to be difficult to obtain, and if it is obtained, it will be imperfectly.

"I am not treating it as objective.  You are the one who keeps equating subjective = anything goes.  All of my moral opinions are subjective - as are yours and as are the bible's authors'."

Well, it goes without saying that you treat mine and the biblical authors as subjective.  I knew you thought that.   I don't actually think that people who believe in subjective morality believe that 'anything goes.'  I think they believe that but act as though morality is objective.  You will place constraints on that behavior, (ie, 'harmful or suffering') and insist that this is not the same as raising an objective moral code... the net result is that you (hope that) will get all the benefits of having an objective code without any of the messy implications if there really is one.

"What a strange letter.  "A prisoner of Christ Jesus" ?  Is the part about Onesimus being Paul's son literal ?"

I doubt that Onesimus is Paul's literal son.  Onesimus appears to be a convert who was very dear to Paul.  By 'prisoner' Paul is referencing that he is in jail in Rome on account of his testimony about Jesus.  He is probably putting it that way to illustrate how he is not asking Philemon to do anything less than what Paul himself has done for the sake of his Christian faith.  Paul is in jail... Philemon is merely being asked to release Onesimus, which pales in comparison.

"You'll have to point out the part where it says something about setting all slaves free, that people are not to be owned by others.  This sounds like a letter asking for a special exemption, possibly on the basis of "Christians shouldn't be owned by Christians" (as you suggest), possibly on the basis of being a relative of Paul's. "

Like I said, we need to remember the context of the times.  Most converts to Christianity were not members of the upper crust, but were rather the downtrodden.  You can read it as looking for a special exemption if you have it thoroughly fixed in your head that the Scriptures uphold slavery as good and right.  Can't stop you.  It should be enough to soften the accusation, however.  The fact is that we just don't have enough information to go on (ie, did Philemon have other slaves, etc).  What we can safely say is that the goal of Christianity was not and is not to achieve social change, but rather the salvation of souls.  This theme surfaces often when slavery is mentioned, as well as gender issues.

In a nutshell, your personal freedom should not come at the expense of someone else's d--nation.  You should be bigger than that, since you know the ultimate end of things.  That's the general gist.

"The NT doesn't promote equality.  Although I don't want to get into a bible quote pissing match, either."

That depends on how you construe 'equality.'  Naturally, if in your mind mere authority negates equality, that's simply a different view on both issues.  The truth is that the NT promotes equality at a much grander level then you suppose.  So much larger, in fact, that merely acquiring 'equality' in society is small potatoes.  Read Ephesians 1-3 for a taste of what I mean.

"That is exactly what I am saying.  I think harm and suffering is something I wish to avoid, and that causing unnecessary harm and suffering is wrong.  Every time I say something is wrong or bad I am saying it with the understanding that it is subjective."

And this is illustrative of exactly what I meant.

"Was it this thread or another where I said I doubted we would even agree on the meaning of moral ?"

Well, given the nature of the forum and the nature of the differences between theists and atheists, that there are such disagreements is not very surprising.

"You just rephrased what I said.  You do believe that subjective = anything goes, and when people who believe morality is subjective do not act that way, they are acting as though morality is objective.  We aren't."

You are.  You just did it above.  You insist that morality is subjective and yet believe 'harm and suffering' is wrong.

"We are acting as if morality is subjective - as if our ideas of right and wrong conduct are derived from our subjective desires to avoid pain and suffering."

Well on this I think perhaps you have yourself to blame.  In the other thread you suggested that desires carried a moral charge.  If you said:  "It is an objective fact that people subjectively desire to avoid pain and suffering" I wouldn't be leveling the accusation.  Rather, you said:  "..."causing unnecessary harm and suffering is wrong."

I care about convincing you because I believe that there are things that really are right and wrong.  Your position allegedly is that there are no such things.  If true, I don't need to care about it- except from a 'might makes right' sense.  But I have yet to meet an atheist that embraces that sentiment.  So, end the confusion:  are their objective moral realities?

Thanks for dropping by and offering some comedic relief.  After the last thrashing I gave you, where you accused me of issuing a private belief about what Christians think and a couple of other Chrisitans jumped in and basically affirmed what I said, I wasn't suprised to see you go.

Was that the same thread where you deliberately feigned a tolerant attitude in order to mislead about your psychotic beliefs? The fact that two other psychotics piled on made the whole thing quite a tea party. Thrashing? I suppose it was as much of a thrashing as you've ever given me with the little wet sock of your intellect.

I "went" because there was no point in staying - it really is like talking to someone with a major mental illness.

*edit* if anyone cares, here is the thread in which SJ "thrashed" me http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=9876720bb7639084e04145575039d364&topic=2350.0 . And SJ wonder where his Atheists have gone...