Beach_MU

I will gladly accept the opinion of the majority of archaeologists, but I will accept it for what it is... opinion. A lack of archaeological evidence doesn't necessarily prove that something didn't occur nor that it did, but that at the present time we don't know. We can guess all we want but tomorrow something may be discovered that proves us both wrong. As far as the last part, I certainly don't think that any archaeological evidence that disagrees with the Bible is therefore by definition invalid, but it likewise usually doesn't definitively prove anything either.

Beach_MU

As I've said before I'm not a historian and so I don't claim to be an authority on it. I admit I'd never heard of Anaximander before and would also have to agree that the example relating to a circular earth isn't a good example simply because it doesn't prove anything.

Skeptical

</strong>

A1)For someone who claims to have done research, this question alone shows you have zero knowledge of geology. It's called "plate tectonics":

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/flood.html#flood" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/flood.html#flood</a>

Please also read all of:

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/flood.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/flood.html</a>

So that you don't waste time by posting more nonsense that has been answered time and time again by scientists who study these topics for a living.

</strong>

A2) Start here:

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html</a>

and here:

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html</a>

To save time, I'll give you the cliff notes version: "All of the scientific evidence we have shows that the earth is 4.55 billions years old + or - 1%" Anyone who claims there is scientific evidence to the contrary is misinterpreting someone elses data or they are lying.

A3) I'm so glad that you have done research on this so that I don't have to answer trivial questions.

There are several ways that fossils can form, none of them require a global flood. Start here:

<a href="http://www.angellis.net/Web/BGN/ff1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.angellis.net/Web/BGN/ff1.htm</a>

Hmmm, looks like there are at least 9 ways which have been posited that fossils could form, none of which require a global flood.

Also, please explain how all of the thousands and thousands of animals that died _simultaneously_ just happened to float to the bottom and get _layered_ in just the right way to fit with evolutionary theory? For example, why is there not a single case of a human skeleton being found in the same strata with a dinosaur skeleton? Man, what are the odds!

It is patently absurd to believe that all those animals dying simultaneously would have left layered skeletons in the fashion we observe. Whatever research you think you have done about the fossil record, you are painfully mistaken in your conclusions.

See A2. The earth is far older than 10,000 years. Trying to argue its not shows either ignorance or self-deception. It's also not necessary.

The OT and NT are books of religion, not science. You would be much better off to accept that and argue about their worth as topics of religion.

Beach_MU

You are correct that women were treated as 2nd class citizens until the end of the 19th century but I don't think it's fair to say that Christians were at the forefront of keeping them oppressed. I also assume that by "the Church" you are refering to the Catholic Church which definitely did many bad things and had a skewed view of what the Bible teaches.

Beach_MU

This argument, besides making a senseless attack on Christians, doesn't answer anything. If you've read "The Beak of the Finch" then please summarize it, because I can't say I'm going to go out and buy the book as interesting as it may be.

Beach_MU

I've seen the answers to these "problems" and I think the idea that upthrusts and faults would shift the fossil remains of sea creatures to high alititudes is quite a stretch.

there are very few fossils relative to the number of organisms that have existed, exactly as we would expect. these fossils have always, ALWAYS, been found in a particular order in the ground. Had there actually been a flood all the fossils would have been either mixed into a jumble, or sorted out by size, neither of those is what we find

Actually the fossils haven't always, always been found in a particular order and I don't see how a flood would suggest that the fossils should be sorted by size. Also the animals in the fossil record all appear abruptly without any sign of ancestors.

Vorkosigan

You clearly haven't studied slavery AT ALL, or you would know that Roman slavery was every bit as brutal as slavery as practiced in the American south, maybe more so.

This topic comes up all the time among Xtian apologists, who generally play on the ignorance of their audience to write nonsense about slavery. I have replied to an article by Daniel Wallace, a well-known scholar and apologist, on his website.


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Daniel Wallace on Slavery

Last week Nomad recommended the <a href="http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/soaptoc.htm" target="_blank">
Prof's Soapbox</a>, Daniel Wallace's site on the New Testament, Evangelical Christianity, and sundry topics of interest to fundamentalists and evangelicals. Wallace believes the Bible is the word of God and inerrant. He also subscribes to the inhuman and evil beliefs that such people have about the world, believing that it is an evil, hostile place where people are alone without their Bible, and that it is "dying." While I could have much to say about the rationality and morality of people who hate the world around them and believe a compilation of holy fictions is without error, we will pass on to Wallace's thoughts on slavery.

The Biblical attitude toward slavery is of course one of the most profound of the many moral failures of the New Testament. Slavery is accepted by both Paul and Jesus. Explaining away this problem is an acute issue for fundamentalists, judging from its constant appearance at article sites such as this, and on boards where such things are discussed.

Wallace attempts to solve the slavery problem with two strategies. First, the old "it wasn't that bad" argument:

• 1. Slavery in the first century was quite different from slavery in early American history. For one thing, Roman slaves were either taken as the spoils of war or were such because they sold themselves into slavery (known as "bond-servant"). They were often well-educated (cf. Gal 3:24 in which the "tutor" or better "disciplinarian" or "guide" of the children was usually a slave). The normal word for "slave" in the New Testament is the term dou'lo", a term that in earlier centuries usually referred to one who sold himself into slavery; later on, it was used especially of those who became slaves as the spoils of war.

Wallace apparently thinks it is OK to make humans into chattel so long as they were taken in battle or came into it "voluntarily." In fact, African slaves sold in the Americas were taken in raids, wars and through sales as well, among the many methods by which they were taken.

Further, Wallace has missed a key point: being a slave was not an unlucky state affecting individual persons, but a permanent status. The children of slaves were also slaves. Thus, Romans got their slaves exactly the same way as Americans did, and there are no significant differences between the two cultures in their practice of slavery.

• 2. Although the masters had absolute rights over their slaves, they generally showed them respect, very unlike the South in the days of Lincoln. They often treated them with human dignity and, although they could beat them, such does not seem to be as regular a practice as it was in America. [snipped]

Wallace here has constructed a Christian fantasy world. In reality, with the exception of a minority of slaves who were educated and served as household slaves in urban areas, slavery in the Roman world was every bit as harsh as slavery in the Americas. Revolts were as common as rain among rural slaves, who lived a life of constant torture, hard work, little food, and death at a young age. Such slaves worked in the mines, fields, forests, in construction gangs, and on large estates. Slaves also rowed ships until they died, and served as gladiators in contests where a lucky slave could win wealth and fame. For the vast majority of Roman slaves, life was a living hell leading to an early death.

From <a href="http://vassun.vassar.edu/~jolott/republic1998/spartacus/slavelife.html" target="_blank">http://vassun.vassar.edu/~jolott/republic1998/spartacus/slavelife.html</a>

Making up the largest percentage of the slave population were the field hands, or familia rustica, who constituted the major work force on the large agricultural and mining farms of the Roman aristocracy. On one estate alone, as many as 40,000 slaves could be kept, forced to work in extreme conditions. As a result of this, however, field slaves provided Rome with its greatest source of economic wealth. This was especially crucial in the later republic as expansion became less and less profitable.

From the same site:

Secondly, rural slaves were forced to do work that was both physically and emotionally straining. Field hands were given a life expectancy of about ten years due to the physical exhaustion they encountered on a daily basis. Among the jobs they were expected to perform were as ploughmen, hunters, ditchers and forester. Slaves were expected to work all day on very little food and water, and were whipped or beaten when they did not. The extreme nature of the environment in which rural slaves lived is best exemplified by the number of slave revolts which resulted from rural area as opposed to urban areas. Urban slaves had very little to complain about, as will be discussed later, and revolt only would have led to their execution, whereas for rural slaves death was the outcome no matter which route they chose to exercise.

All urban slaves, however, did not experience the surroundings of luxury that the fortuitous were able to enjoy. Many slaves that lived in urban areas were property of the government, kept to aid in the erection of public buildings and roads. The atmosphere in which these slaves were kept rivaled that of rural slaves in work expectancy and living conditions.

Let me add that slaves on such urban construction gangs were beaten, manacled, and kept in underground prisons at night.

A moment's research into the topic at the library or on the Net will quickly dispel the deliberate delusions of Christian apologists. For the vast majority of Roman slaves, life was hell. To argue that slaves in such conditions should submit to their masters, as Paul does, is degenerate moral bankruptcy.

Wallace then goes on to begin construction of his apology for this failing of Paul's and Jesus'.

• When we think through this issue, it is plain that the NT writers simply could not outright condemn slavery (the disastrous results of Spartacus' rebellion [in spite of the Hollywood portrayal] would have been etched in their minds). Further, to whom would such a directive be pointed? To the pagan masters? They do not place themselves under God's law and are not a part of his kingdom program. Paul's exhortations to them would be meaningless. To the slaves? They are powerless to bring about their own freedom apart from overt actions (e.g., rebellion, running away). Further, such actions hardly comported with the gospel: change is to take place from the inside out, not from imposition on social structures. (The one exception to this had to do with ultimate allegiance and worship: civil disobedience was always encouraged when it came to having to choose between Christ and Caesar.)

Wallace's do-not-rock-the-boat position on social issues is pretty silly. Paul does not hesitate to condemn other Roman practices. The Christians were already on the ban list, and Romans considered Christianity atheism. Wallace's assertion that the slaves were "powerless" flies in the face of history: revolts were extremely common. Individual slaves could and did run away.

Wallace states his personal beliefs as they apply to Paul in the following:

• As much as I believe that Christians should become involved in several aspects of society (we are, after all, "the salt of the world"), when we exchange the gospel for a merely social agenda we contaminate our mission. I believe there are social implications of the gospel that are quite extensive, but let us never forget that our primary task in relation to the world is not to change political structures, but to offer forgiveness of sin in the name of Jesus Christ.

Of course. Torture and death are mere political problems. The really important thing is getting people to come to their fictional god. What a sick, hateful and inhuman philosophy! I always accuse Christians of being nihilistic, and it is hard to argue with me when passages like the one above represent serious arguments. The really urgent thing, for anyone filled with love of others, as Christians claim they are, is to end the torture and pain.

• 5. Now, with this background in mind, let's look briefly at a couple of passages: Col 3:22-25 and 1 Cor 7:17-24. The first text only gives instructions to those who are slaves to perform their duties well. I think that if Paul lived in Dixie 150 years ago, his advice to Christian slaves would be the same.

I don't think there is any need to comment on the sick inhumanity of that last sentence. I suppose that makes all the humanistic Christians who fought Southern slavery failures, since they were focusing on the body, and not the soul. Never mind the atheists and humanists who did so.

• His advice to Christian masters would be quite different: he would ask them to treat their slaves with dignity and respect and hope that they would come to recognize the incompatibility of slavery with the gospel.

How? How could masters come to recognize the "incompatibility of slavery with the gospel" when that is never openly, clearly and directly stated anywhere in the gospels? When Jesus' parables are full of master-slave relationships? When Paul quite clearly calls for slaves to "submit to their masters"? The answer is that masters could not recognize such an "incompatibility" -- what a weak weasel word! -- because there isn't one.

In fact, as Wallace surely knows, southern masters taught their slaves Christianity precisely because they expected it to make the slaves weak and docile. Nor would they have done so over and over, for many generations, if that effect had not been obtained.

• He could certainly write on this topic, too. But Paul would not tell the slaves to rebel or run away. He always sought change from the inside.

Paul did not seek concrete change. He merely sought to expand the influence of his religion. Whether humans were chattel was unimportant, so long as they worshipped the Canaanite sky god Yao and his putative son, Jesus.

• Finally, on 1 Cor 7, Paul does make one significant pronouncement: In v. 23 he says, "You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men." Here we clearly see his attitude toward slavery and the seeds of social freedom embedded in his words. The gospel and slavery are incompatible because someone else has already purchased us.

Ah, now we understand. Christians are slaves of god.

Yeesh!

&&&&&&&&&&&&
Vorkosigan
Here is a post on Daniel Wallace's apologetic pi

Beach_MU

First off, look at your source. You can't possibly tell me that a site entitled "Anti-Creationism" is a reliable unbiased source of information. Secondly the site doesn't give any support or evidence, it merely says it was caused by plate techtonics. I hope this isn't your idea of research, because there aren't any facts about fossils on the site. Tell me what the likelihood is that in every case of a sea creatures fossil being found at high altitudes that it is the result of some earthquake causing a section of the earth to suddenly appear at high altitude? Can you give me even one case of such a thing happening?

There are several ways that fossils can form, none of them require a global flood.

You are absolutely correct that there are many ways that fossils can form but did you actually read the methods in which they are formed? I don't think tarpits or volcanic eruption is going to account for all the fossils we have. The article you provided itself says Theory 3 is extrememly unlikely, because of predators. The idea of an animal falling into a sinkhole is an interesting theory and possibly true but I still don't think we've accounted for even a fraction of the fossils. Theory 8 is discussing a completely different idea, because a skeleton is entirely different from a fossil and while an animal becoming entombed in ice would preserve it that still isn't the definition of a fossil.

Mageth

Tell me what the likelihood is that in every case of a sea creatures fossil being found at high altitudes that it is the result of some earthquake causing a section of the earth to suddenly appear at high altitude? Can you give me even one case of such a thing happening?

Does anyone claim such a thing happens? The continental plates move very slowly (a few inches a year, at most). The Teton Range in Wyoming, the youngest mountain range in North America at @9m years, is still rising, at the rate of @4.5 inches per 100 years on the eastern front!

The Himalayas are still rising. The Indian plate is continuously moving north at the rate of @2 cm per year. The Himalayas are rising at the rate of @5mm per year!

But given millions of years, it adds up...

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Beach_MU

Vorkosigan,
I at no point said that Roman slavery wasn't brutal or that there was cruelty. There is no doubt that there were many rebellions but regardless it doesn't suggest that slavery was viewed exactly the same during that time period. You make assumptions about what the authors of the Bible should have said and then figure that since they didn't say it, it means they condoned if not promoted slavery and were the cause of the slavery in America. You ignore that there were many Christians who fought to end slavery in America and seem to assume that atheists made some incredible effort to end slavery long before that time that was foiled by Christians. Your article, while well worded, is not based on the complete facts but rather on your intensely biased hatred of Christianity and on mere speculation and opinion. And lest we hear it again in your next post, the fact that you were in the Peace Corp does not mean that you non-violent or peaceful anymore than being in school guarantees intelligence or being in church means you believe in God. You may very well be a very peaceful person but given the conversation up to this point I haven't seen many signs of it. Lastly, your use of Biblical verses taken out of context doesn't prove anything either.