Science standards under threat in Arizona

[Avoice1C]

... Did you forget that early post that you quoted? A decent Hebrew that sold himself into the equivalent of indentured servitude could convert themselves into a slave for life and owners would get them to do that by "giving" them a wife, and that wife having children with him. Those were also the slave owner's property forever and a decent man would try to take care of his kids.

Only if he loved his master and his wife and children. Being married after selling one's self did not make one a slave for life without free will. Read it in the Complete Jewish Bible. Your version may be picking and choosing a meaning from Strongs that caters to a liberal mind-set. And before you jump on me again that does not say a conservative, such as myself, accepts slavery or believes it existed in a just form at any time in history.

 

[Avoice1C]

That is only unsupported speculation. Early Christianity caught on with the poor. Poor people were often "persecuted". Christians were not that special and did not get extra attention, unless they drew attention to themselves.

And what you claimed against Paul does not take any less speculation and is not supported by his words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only if he loved his master and his wife and children. Being married after selling one's self did not make one a slave for life without free will. Read it in the Complete Jewish Bible. Your version may be picking and choosing a meaning from Strongs that caters to a liberal mind-set. And before you jump on me again that does not say a conservative, such as myself, accepts slavery or believes it existed in a just form at any time in history.

Right, if the owner tricked him by "giving" him a wife (who was still the masters property and would remain with him) and by her having children (again the verse that you quoted pointed out that those two were the master's property) would he state (probably a lie) that he loved his master. A decent man will do almost anything to stay with his wife and children.

And I have not stated that you supported slavery, but it is clear that the Bible does. You simply do not understand the book that you follow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And what you claimed against Paul does not take any less speculation and is not supported by his words.

His words are pretty much useless. And what are you talking about? I try to avoid speculation but some members here almost demand that I do so.

 

[Bear Wild]

It seems to me that Christianity was persecuted for being good to people, why add to the hatred of the religion by telling Christian Slaves what they already knew or inciting rebellion against master and the Government. Paul was trying to tell them how to make the best of a bad situation and gain their freedom a legal way if possible? Or are you forgetting that the Roman way was the world's way at the time?

Christianity was not so persecuted for being good to people and in the early period they were not that persecuted - it was not until much later that they were used as a scapegoat so that argument does not work.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because we are interested in whether there are other intelligent beings in the universe?

I'm failing to see what that has to do with evolution. In all likelihood, similar processes of evolution would be operative on other planets. So?

So... you still have a problem of infinite regression, a problem of Fermi's paradox, a problem of SETI finding nothing... many problems, actually.

 

[Polymath257]

So... you still have a problem of infinite regression, a problem of Fermi's paradox, a problem of SETI finding nothing... many problems, actually.

I don't see infinite regression as being problematic.

As for Fermi's paradox and SETI, it *is* interesting, but not completely unexpected given the difficulties in the leap to multicellularity and the issues of how long a technological species might survive. I'm guessing life (bacterial) is fairly common, but technology is short-lived and relatively rare (perhaps lasting less than 1000 years--which makes the probability of overlap quite low).

But even if we are the only life in the universe, why is that a particular problem? I agree it would be *very* interesting. But a problem? Not really.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I was a born again. Now I am dead, not again, yet.

Ciao

- viole

Begs the questions:

1) What is a "born again" to you? Because I've heard many atheists say, "Was in church" but I've NEVER heard an atheist say, "Was in church and had a relationship with Jesus, He and I interacted".

2) What happens when you die? Will you be born again then?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Um, because scientists want to know if there is life beyond ours. They don't assert that aliens created life on earth though. Do you think aliens designed life on earth?

The issue in a nutshell is, what should be taught in science classrooms? The answer is science.

In science class, we study proven theory, gedanken, and new theories. You believe in evolution, you believe in a large, diverse universe, with many planets, you believe it is possible for higher life forms and lower life forms to have evolved elsewhere (you accuse Christians of being Earthnocentric in certain ways, including Creation), you believe scientific minds can legitimately believe aliens capable of communicating are worth millions spent on SETI... you question me about aliens designing life on Earth, thinking to entrap me, despite the fact that PROMINENT evolutionists have taught/do teach space seed theory, when you know I ALREADY BELIEVE AS A CHRISTIAN THAT AN ALIEN ENTITY INTENTIONALLY FASHIONED LIFE ON EARTH. Good one!

...You believe we should not even CONSIDER space seed in science classrooms because you accept NO possibilities beyond proven science, you would have therefore said "NO SETI!" just as surely you continue to preach "No praying toward God until we prove He exists!"

Nice triple standard, there... You want us 1) to spend money to shoot radio signals into space to contact presumed, non-proven entities, but you will 2) neither waste words to pray to God to possibly inherit eternal life and miss eternal Hell, nor do you 3) want our precious children to be exposed to the philosophical and scientific underpinnings to SETI.

THINK BIGGER, darling, to paraphrase Tom Hardy!

 

[viole]

Begs the questions:

1) What is a "born again" to you? Because I've heard many atheists say, "Was in church" but I've NEVER heard an atheist say, "Was in church and had a relationship with Jesus, He and I interacted".

2) What happens when you die? Will you be born again then?

I was born again, for the same rason you probably call yourself born again.

You know, that accepting Christ as Lord and saviour and stuff like that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

I've already said I stand corrected I read your verse that was posted and responded. Do you also argue with my post that NT slaves could buy their freedom or someone could buy it for them?

Hebrew slaves could (unless they were tricked, of course). Not any others - they were treated as property and were slaves for life.

Every time I talk to Bible believers about this, they completely ignore the non-Hebrew slaves. The reason is obvious, I think.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In science class, we study proven theory, gedanken, and new theories. You believe in evolution, you believe in a large, diverse universe, with many planets, you believe it is possible for higher life forms and lower life forms to have evolved elsewhere (you accuse Christians of being Earthnocentric in certain ways, including Creation), you believe scientific minds can legitimately believe aliens capable of communicating are worth millions spent on SETI... you question me about aliens designing life on Earth, thinking to entrap me, despite the fact that PROMINENT evolutionists have taught/do teach space seed theory, when you know I ALREADY BELIEVE AS A CHRISTIAN THAT AN ALIEN ENTITY INTENTIONALLY FASHIONED LIFE ON EARTH. Good one!

Umm, you're the one that brought up aliens. I was wondering why, as well. Perhaps you were trying to entrap yourself?

...You believe we should not even CONSIDER space seed in science classrooms because you accept NO possibilities beyond proven science, you would have therefore said "NO SETI!" just as surely you continue to preach "No praying toward God until we prove He exists!"

Who do you think teaches "space seed theory?" and what do you claim it is?

I didn't say anything about not accepting and exploring things that are possible. Most things are possible, but what I want to know is if they are probable, and what tests we can perform to verify them.
We don't teach every single idea anybody has ever had in science classrooms. We teach things that have been scrutinized and verified via scientific methodology. Why do you disagree with that?

Nice triple standard, there... You want us 1) to spend money to shoot radio signals into space to contact presumed, non-proven entities, but you will 2) neither waste words to pray to God to possibly inherit eternal life and miss eternal Hell, nor do you 3) want our precious children to be exposed to the philosophical and scientific underpinnings to SETI.

Wow. When did I say any of that? Are you having a conversation with someone else in your head?

THINK BIGGER, darling, to paraphrase Tom Hardy!

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Avoice1C]

Right, if the owner tricked him by "giving" him a wife (who was still the masters property and would remain with him) and by her having children (again the verse that you quoted pointed out that those two were the master's property) would he state (probably a lie) that he loved his master. A decent man will do almost anything to stay with his wife and children.

And I have not stated that you supported slavery, but it is clear that the Bible does. You simply do not understand the book that you follow.

I’ve wondered where you were coming from that we were at such odds about this side issue. I finally put my finger on it. You are approaching slave ownership in a worldly way. You highlight the worldly slaveholder. I, on the other hand, am approaching the whole subject from God’s perspective. God expects people to treat each other with respect and kindness. This includes servants and slaves from what I know of the Scriptures.

Abraham is the image of the kind slaveholder. He had delegated responsibilities to the most responsible of his servants. I thought my original response made it clear I was NOT approaching any point I made from a worldly perspective. I may have erred in regard to non-Hebrew slaves, but I understand God’s way and He said, “If the slave loves his master, his wife and his children…” Not something like “If the owner gives him a wife and they have children…”

I wonder which one of us understands the God who the Bible is about better. I thank God for any slaveholder in U.S. history who treated his slaves like family. Those who did not, will find their lives to be their own reward and that goes for ancient Roman and Jewish too.

 

[Avoice1C]

Hebrew slaves could (unless they were tricked, of course). Not any others - they were treated as property and were slaves for life.

Every time I talk to Bible believers about this, they completely ignore the non-Hebrew slaves. The reason is obvious, I think.

Yea, Christians are supposed to treat the people they meat as brothers not foreigners.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’ve wondered where you were coming from that we were at such odds about this side issue. I finally put my finger on it. You are approaching slave ownership in a worldly way. You highlight the worldly slaveholder. I, on the other hand, am approaching the whole subject from God’s perspective. God expects people to treat each other with respect and kindness. This includes servants and slaves from what I know of the Scriptures.

Abraham is the image of the kind slaveholder. He had delegated responsibilities to the most responsible of his servants. I thought my original response made it clear I was NOT approaching any point I made from a worldly perspective. I may have erred in regard to non-Hebrew slaves, but I understand God’s way and He said, “If the slave loves his master, his wife and his children…” Not something like “If the owner gives him a wife and they have children…”

I wonder which one of us understands the God who the Bible is about better. I thank God for any slaveholder in U.S. history who treated his slaves like family. Those who did not, will find their lives to be their own reward and that goes for ancient Roman and Jewish too.

Please, don't give me that "God's perspective" nonsense. That is only your interpretation of God's perspective. It is not even well supported by the Bible. What I can tell you is how the Bible treats slavery. In the Old Testament, as long as Hebrew men were not enslaved, God had no problem with it. Even female Hebrews were slaves for life. You are reinterpreting parts of the New Testament to support your beliefs. And surely you can't be so naive as to take that verse about loving one's master literally. Now you are sounding just like a defender of southern U.S. slavery who claimed that the slaves were happier here than they were in Africa.

 

[Avoice1C]

That is only unsupported speculation. Early Christianity caught on with the poor. Poor people were often "persecuted". Christians were not that special and did not get extra attention, unless they drew attention to themselves.

May I ask where you get that? Paul was executed for believing there was one God. The History Channel and Smithsonian have had programs on the persecution of Christianity. For a time, it was illegal to practice the religion.

 

[Avoice1C]

... (except if you sold your daughter into slavery, she was a slave forever too) .

Exo 21:7 "If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to go free like the men-slaves.
Exo 21:8 If her master married her but decides she no longer pleases him, then he is to allow her to be redeemed. He is not allowed to sell her to a foreign people, because he has treated her unfairly.
Exo 21:9 If he has her marry his son, then he is to treat her like a daughter.
Exo 21:10 If he marries another wife, he is not to reduce her food, clothing or marital rights.
Exo 21:11 If he fails to provide her with these three things, she is to be given her freedom without having to pay anything.

 

[Audie]

I’ve wondered where you were coming from that we were at such odds about this side issue. I finally put my finger on it. You are approaching slave ownership in a worldly way. You highlight the worldly slaveholder. I, on the other hand, am approaching the whole subject from God’s perspective. God expects people to treat each other with respect and kindness. This includes servants and slaves from what I know of the Scriptures.

Abraham is the image of the kind slaveholder. He had delegated responsibilities to the most responsible of his servants. I thought my original response made it clear I was NOT approaching any point I made from a worldly perspective. I may have erred in regard to non-Hebrew slaves, but I understand God’s way and He said, “If the slave loves his master, his wife and his children…” Not something like “If the owner gives him a wife and they have children…”

I wonder which one of us understands the God who the Bible is about better. I thank God for any slaveholder in U.S. history who treated his slaves like family. Those who did not, will find their lives to be their own reward and that goes for ancient Roman and Jewish too.

That last-thanking god for slaveholders-
has to about the most repellent thing I ever read.

 

[Audie]

Please, don't give me that "God's perspective" nonsense. That is only your interpretation of God's perspective. It is not even well supported by the Bible. What I can tell you is how the Bible treats slavery. In the Old Testament, as long as Hebrew men were not enslaved, God had no problem with it. Even female Hebrews were slaves for life. You are reinterpreting parts of the New Testament to support your beliefs. And surely you can't be so naive as to take that verse about loving one's master literally. Now you are sounding just like a defender of southern U.S. slavery who claimed that the slaves were happier here than they were in Africa.

If not happier yet, they soon would be, being baptised so's
they could go where the good darkies go.

 

[Avoice1C]

Please, don't give me that "God's perspective" nonsense. That is only your interpretation of God's perspective. It is not even well supported by the Bible. What I can tell you is how the Bible treats slavery. In the Old Testament, as long as Hebrew men were not enslaved, God had no problem with it. Even female Hebrews were slaves for life. You are reinterpreting parts of the New Testament to support your beliefs. And surely you can't be so naive as to take that verse about loving one's master literally. Now you are sounding just like a defender of southern U.S. slavery who claimed that the slaves were happier here than they were in Africa.

Hardly, Some slaveholders treated their slaves like family members. I remember at least one mention of a slave being considered as an heir to the estate of the slaveholder. Another was so trusted that he was sent to pick a wife for his master's son. These are not obscure either. I have been, in this discussion, defending God's view as seen through the Commandments except the foreign slaves. That you insist there was no such thing as a godly slaveholder, says more about you than I want to know.

Exo 21:7 "If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to go free like the men-slaves.
Exo 21:8 If her master married her but decides she no longer pleases him, then he is to allow her to be redeemed. He is not allowed to sell her to a foreign people, because he has treated her unfairly.
Exo 21:9 If he has her marry his son, then he is to treat her like a daughter.
Exo 21:10 If he marries another wife, he is not to reduce her food, clothing or marital rights.
Exo 21:11 If he fails to provide her with these three things, she is to be given her freedom without having to pay anything.