AGNOSTIC Accountability Groups Starting Up

[Salvador]

for me personally, the stem cell research thing is not a christian issue. it's a moral issue. the "god" i believe in has no requirements or instructions with regards to the stem cell research, it is up to man to decide what should or should not be done.

here is my basic reason.

1. i don't accept the premise that these biological bodies are "god" imbued. AFAIC they are closer to that of monkeys and other mammals than they are to god.

i believe that christians mislead themselves into believing that our bodies are the "temple" of god. yes, i intentionally used a quote to make my point. obviously there is a lot of so called "evidence" in the bible to support such a premise. again, "evidence" is in quotes for a reason. biblical quotes are not "EVIDENCE". the bible is NOT the "word" of god. the "word" of god as discussed in John 1:1 is the greek word "logos" which we call "truth". Truth cannot be encompassed in a "bible" or any book.

so what is "EVIDENCE" for anything? how can you prove anything? it's difficult. ultimately you have to make some assumptions, build theories around those assumptions and work towards proving that end.

a. Physical universe is "real" and examination of the physical universe will yield ultimate truth.

b. Physical universe is NOT real, it is all a figment of god's imagination and ultimate truth can only been achieved by understanding the "truth" or "evidence" revealed to us from GOD.

both are hypothesis or premises that we begin at.

here are my hypothesis or premises.

1. GOD is ULTIMATE reality. he encompasses all things. Whethor or not the physical universe is real is IRRELEVANT, either way, same result.
2. In the beginning, before the creation of any free will beings, God existed, complete, perfect and whole. all was exactly as God desired it. every molecule, every atom, every iota of existence was completely an extension of God's will. Then God created Free will beings. beings with the ability to make choices. this changed the substance of the universe.

anyway, that's the basis of my beliefs.

Tell us how you really feel about religion. Dude.. You spend far too much time on this OT forum. Don't you have any real friends?

Sal

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

umm, when did this thread mushroom?

i can't read the whole thing....

my 2 cents:


Religion is fine, but ultimately, I regard it and faith in god as a psychological trait that can be BOTH advantagous and debilitating. Faith in God (god), helps people cope with life (i.e., the human experience), control their emotions about things that are for the most part, beyond the scope of human influence, and extend their sense of control over their environment.

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: HotChic
Valsalva, did you used to be Elledan?

Interesting question!

Yeah, but Elledan was still posting while Valsalva was.

Nah. Look at the way they write, they're two different ppl.

You used the same excuse when I accused you and Valsalva of being alter egos. It's not hard to change your voice when writing. People keep multiple accounts all the time.

But I don't think Elledan and Valsalva are/were the same. Elledan was always acting like he was a robot or at least not human.

I'm still out on Val and QT. The two of you play yes-man to each other often enough to make me wonder.

No. We are two different ppl as well. Great minds think alike.

And so do yours!
*rimshot

I am not impressed with your 4 word wannabe pithy statement .

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: TrevelyanYou know, it really upsets me when you talk of an open-minded debate, and then degenerate into calling Christians (and only Christians, mind you, not other religious groups) stubborn, blind, crude, and ignorant because their views disagree with you.

I never used 3 of those terms, and the fourth one was a touche in response to a Christian using the word "ignorant" on me. I have never called Christians "crude, blind, or stubborn"...this is an example of certain Christians convince themselves that something is true because it is convenient for them, when there is, in fact, no bearing on reality
I have already stated previously why Christians are singled out -- I encourage you to find that posting. I hate repeating myself.

Now why are you attacking Christians so passionately Valsalva?

I have already expressed things that I dislike about certain Christians in the second post in this thread. I suggest read it before asking more stupid questions.

you post in religious threads a lot, and where reprimanded once for doing so in the Hot Deals forum.

That's because the it was hot deals and the Christians cried bloody murder to the mods.

So, why are you attacking Christians? No one here seems like the Christians you describe with your broad generalizations with no factual support.

The statements that I make usually either a) self-evident, meaning they are general observations that nobody with half a brain could disagree with (example: many Christians try to recruit people) or b) supported DIRECTLY from what a Christian has wrote (example: pointing out that when a Christians demands respect, then turns around and refers to people by "bitch" and "pussy," this constitutes hypocrisy). If there is any statement that you feel needs "factual support" I will attempt to provide it for you. Otherwise, I suggest that you address my points directly rather than making broad generalizations yourself!

No one here is trying to convert you

The other thread is attempting to at least "plant the seed" and "spread the word," if not overtly attempting to convert people who are non-Christian. Metalloid, the original poster, even admitted to this and I have quoted him direclty in this thread. You are clearly wrong in this regard.

I find it hard to talk civil, however, when someone is verbally desecrating my beliefs and then labeling me the agressor.

I have already provided numerous examples in this thread of how Christians are the true aggressors, including discussions of how they attempt to deprive millions of people the right to rejection-free organs by opposing stem-cell research, "In God We Trust" on our currency, "One Nation Under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, attempting to deny a woman's right to choose, etc. These are all discussed at length in other segments of the thread. Either read them or shutup.

Valsalva

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: CPAYou know I was all ready to say "sign me up", that is until I started reading some of Valsalva's diatribe (your list of page 2 is way inaccurate Valsalva, if you think Christian's are the only one trying to "convert" others, you are sadly mistaken).

Compared to the number of Buddhists, Muslims, Agnostics, and Hindus actively attempting to convert people, I would say that Christian recruitment efforts overwhelmingly exceed the "conversion activities" practiced by these three groups. I think you are sadly delusional if you think otherwise.

I really don't care to associate myself in a group which has some members who can not intelligently argue a point without name calling or showing hatred towards one particular group.

Ironically, I have yet to see an "intelligent" argument from any Christians ppl thus far.

Valsalva

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: HotChic
Valsalva, did you used to be Elledan?

Uhhhhhh no.

Valsalva

 

[Palek]

Dear Valsalva,

There are plenty of observations made by others in this thread to back up my interpretation of intent. Hatred, bias are the mood of the day. And you seem to fuel it all.

I want to apologize to QT. Obviously you did at some level desire intelligent discussion, and I am sorry I have overlooked that. Just for future reference, it does not help if your post is dripping of sarcasm, which it was since your post was clearly a parody of the Christian accountability thread. Sarcasm does not leave much room for honest, open discussion, instead it puts people on the defensive (look what it did to me... ). This will be my last post responding to Valsalva, I do not indend to take this thread further off course.

That is clearly an opinion and unsubstantiated by fact. You cannot quote a few lines and draw a completely ludicrous conclusion from it. This isn't Sunday School.

What else can I draw my conclusions from? I am sorry, but you and I, everyone does this. I can only operate with what you give me. And your posts did not contain anything else apart from what I have already mentioned. I think Netopia hit the nail right on the head with that analysis...

Link Christians are the most common religion here and outnumber any other group by at leaset a factor of 2-3. Christians are the ONLY group I've seen attempting to systematically convert anyone they can into their religoin, reminiscent of the "Borg."

I would not trust a poll on a message board, and even if I did, I would need more than 514 votes from a board with over 100 thousand members to accept it as representative. It could be simply that Christians were more open about their faith... Which is, as we know, something many people here, yourself included, find offensive.

This is because people here are RESENTFUL of the continuous barrage of Christian attempts at recruitment, especially over in hot deals where the deals are not hot, just more annoying attempts of Christians to "spread the word." On the other hand, it was the CHRISTIAN accountability thread that specifically requested that only CHRISTIANS could participate...Metalloid even, at one point, specifically asked people who were agnostic to leave.

Finally the truth comes out. You at least admitted you were harboring resentment. As for the continuous barrage, I can only speak for myself, but the Christian accountability thread was the first Christian thread I have seen in probably over a month. Admittedly, I do not ever visit Hot Deals, but I just did a quick check of the first hundred topics, and I could not spot a single Christian deal. Could it be (and notice I am asking) that your fear/resentment towards Christianity just magnifies everything in your eyes and when you see a single deal offering Bibles etc. it is so much in your face it drives you mad?

It is unfair to exclude certain groups because this is Anandtech, not ChristianTech. Agnostic people may not have wanted to participate i nthe actualy accountabilty GROUPS, and naturally, nobody asked to join...however, many people wanted to participate i nthe actual THREAD because ATOT is open to the public, not Christians only.

Again, I cannot help you with this one. Christian accountability is something that involves supporting a fellow Christian in their walk with God through encouragement, advice and prayer. Do you HONESTLY want to partake in that? Do you think you could be of any support to a Christian? I just cannot understand why you keep pushing.

WRONG AGAIN!! Direct quote from Metalloid, the original poster of that thread: "The thing is that I don't know all of the people who are Christians on this forum, and I would really like to spread it to non-Christians."

Okay, you got me there.

You think posts about porn, cheating, and adultery are digusting??

Yes, but I do not go into those threads to cry foul, and I most certainly do not demand that they also start discussing Disney cartoons.

I think watching millions of people with failing hearts, lungs, and kidneys DIE a miserable death while hooked up to ventilators, central lines, catheters, etc. as their families crowd over their bedside in tears...and then I watch religious leaders in our country advocating AGAINST stem-cell research which has the potential to ultimately provide life-saving rejection-free organ transplants. I see children and young adults in wheelchairs because they're paralyzed from the waste down...their legs atrophied from disuse, their behinds plagued with pressure ulcers and stool because they are incontinent. And you know what? Then I see the religious majority in this country preach about how their religion admonishes stem-cell research, imposing their views at the detriment of millions of Americans. And you complain about a few discussion threads about porn and cheating???

You see, I did not at any point say I was against stem-cell research. I am aware of the graveness of the issue, and I did in fact mention in my original post that I would welcome intelligent discussion on the topic. Please do not succumb to such nasty tactics.

Your conclusion might have merit to yourself, but once again, there is no relationship between what you've concluded and reality.

Starting to sound like a broken record here, but my reality to work with was limited to about 70 posts, and none of them made an attempt to start that intelligent discussion the topic was intended to initiate. Right now there are actually enough good posts in here and that is the reason why I apologized to QT, and that is why this will be my last response to you. I want to stop hijacking the thread.

Ironically, paranoia is a symptom of a psychotic disorder, and since you demonstrate DELUSIONS, you might actually have one too.

Ehm... Moving on...

WRONG AGAIN!!! "Freedom of religion" only implies that the government cannot restrict the practice of religion...I, as a citizen, can say almost whatever I want regarding your particular religion as part of Freedom of SPEECH.

You can say whatever you want, and I did actually say myself that I was all for free speech. You however have no authority to limit my rights to practice my faith, though any kind of action - like demanding that Christians do NOT have a private accountability group. Of course I am not American, so all this free speech/freedom of religion stuff is still a little foreign to me...

No, they only THINK they've had first-hand encounters with God.

If you had known me before and after I became a Christian, you would have trouble making your point. But you seem to only want to mock my faith, so I will not go into this in more detail.

See, there you go with your delusions again. At what point did I attempt to STOP fellow "Christians from speaking freely about their faith?" That's only a concept that YOU concocted in your head...again, it has no bearing on reality.

So what is it exactly you want? Please share. And do not attack my person, instead say what is on your mind. Of course this could be difficult if all you have in your head right now is hatred. But stop attacking and get with the program. Start sharing your thoughts and convictions, like QT did.

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Unfortunately, I don't have time to address all of your points because there are other people who have posted more solid arguments that I'd like to have time to respond to. Sorry, Netopia...but you really don't have anything new to say this time.

ValsalvaYourHeartOut, you have been making some statements that don't actually fit the facts. Considering you're a scientist, I would think that you would be absolutely sure before making any assertions about anything. Maybe I'm wrong... maybe you do have some facts that I've over looked. You often seem to make statements similar to the following:

It's inherent in the biblical text -- that "everybody else" is going to hell ...

1) If you do not believe in Jesus Christ, you cannot seek salvation, and you are going to hell.

5) God is allowing half the world to go to hell because they have never heard of Jesus Christ. This is clearly unjust.

You seem to treat these statements as fact and yet I cannot find any Bible verse to support what you say. Please give reference to support your theories. Further, please do not pull a text out of context and please also supply supporting verses from other Scripture. Treat it as you would something scientific... you would use ALL possible data to test a theory, so please use ALL SCRIPTURE to support what you think Scripture says.

I presented a syllogism, which is a set of premises from which conclusions can be drawn...not every line is a premise, but rather some logically "follow" from the previous line. The only two premises I need to support are
a) According to the bible, if you do not believe in Jesus Christ, you cannot go to heaven and instead go to Hell.
b) God is a just God.
Please let me know if you disagree with either A or B. Otherwise, the syllogism is intact. End of discussion.

It's amazing how pervasive the Christians are in our lives....[deleted, irrelevant]

....and would not be related to anything universally immoral, such as human cloning.

"Universally Immoral" MY, that is an interesting concept from one who doesn't believe in God. Please do give us your thesis on how things can be "universal" and also about how anything can be "immoral"... if we are just animals and nothing more then why should there even be a concept of "right and wrong".

Universally immoral is a term I use to refer to things that the overwhelming majority of rational thinkers, religious groups, schools of thought, etc. would all agree as immoral. Example: Killing a 5 year boy for not eating his carrots. On the other hand, you seem to imply that in the absence of your God, there can be no right or wrong, no moral or immoral -- this is, of course, and extremely arrogant perspective to take. (but understandable, because you probably have never been exposed to a material on moral philosophy outside of Sunday School...so don't feel too bad).

An ex-Christian??? Please share your story...I'm sure we'd all love to hear about your "Agnostic walk."

Practice what you preach. I've asked you before for your history. Why you have such anger at religion and Christianity in general, but you always seem to slip and slide your way out of it. So please.... lead by example, give us your Agnostic Testimony.

My "agnostic testimony" is irrelevant to this thread, and I choose not to discuss personal details of my life. Please, why don't you share with us some personal details from YOUR life: such as your SSN, home address, employment, education, etc.

You have said that they stick their nose's in others' business... that they are annoying and preach what they believe... and yet you yourself do these exact same things! Isn't there a word for that sort of behaviour? Oh yeah... hypocritical!

I have never said that Christians "stick their nose into others' business"...you are clearly equivocating unrelated statements I have made previously. Furthermore, I do find it annoying when Christians preach about living a Christian life, etc...however, I was doing none of those things. I was merely suggesting to this individual that he avoid his Christian friend who was trying to desperately convert him back to Christianity. I find the behavior of his friend intrusive and offensive and I stated so.

I've found that much of Christianity is based on a series of unfalsifiable claims.

And none of what you say is? Please see the top of this post.

All of my formal arguments follow a systematic logical approach of conclusions that follow rationally from premises. I make no unfalsifiable claims. Clearly, you do not quite understand what constitues and "unfalsifiable claim" and I request that you search for my "invisible pig" example and study it a little better. Next time, you'll be more prepared.

so I did a search of AnandTech to find all of the posts every by ValsalvaYourHeartOut.

WOW!! I have over 500 posts!!! I think you're getting a little too serious here ,man...if you're that obsessed with this thread and infatuated with my remarks, you should really seek help. It's not normal to do things like that!!!

Contrary to common belief, he does post other than in religious threads.

Thank you. I knew that already, but most of the Christians of Anandtech convinced themselves otherwise because they really wished/hoped/prayed it was true...and so it became.

Another interesting thing... he says very little about himself at a personal level. He tries hard to leave no beloved patriot in his armor where anyone could say anything against him at a personal level. When others ask him to back up comments or ask him about why he is the way he is, his normal tactic seems to be to deflect the question by attacking the person and asking them what right they have to order him around or make demands on him.

This is usually because people asking these questions of me do so in a condescending and abrasive manner. I have no obligation to discuss ANY aspect of my life with people on the Internet whom I do not know...if you disagree with this, then I ask you once more to post your SSN, work phone, employment, and education here. Thanks. Put up or shutup.

[irrelevant remarks about Harvey]

I don't think most of us have that sort of respect for ValsalvaYourHeartOut. He just comes bashing people.

I only bash people who ask for it. You belong to that group.

You can't get to know him because he appearently doesn't want people to know him...

Oh, I'm sorry, is this the Anandtech Dating Game? Are you bachelor #1? What kind of idiot are you? When did all of this "getting to know you" malarkey come up???

he only wants the world to be the way he thinks it should be and everyone else had better get out of his way. Even over the last couple dozen posts, there have been athiests/agnostics who have given some of the same sentiments about him.

Nope, just one or two...and that's not my problem. And several people have posted to agree with what I've said too. I know what you're trying to do...you're trying to defame ME because you're worried about your very own self-image. But alas, whether or not the Christians of AT love me or hate me is absolutely IRRELEVANT to my arguments...even a 2 year old with cerebral palsy (who is incapable of understanding who Jesus Christ is and is going to hell as a result) could tell you that.

Valsalva

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: Revolutionary

I agree that the promise they hold for medical science is potentially incomprehensible: but then, the same was said (and true) for many of the human experiments conducted by the Nazis upon Jews.

You are attempting to argue that stem-cell research may not be acceptable because you feel that the MEANS are immoral (e.g. Nazi experiments on Jews). However, I don't think you adequately explain how stem-cell research is in itself, immoral -- therefore, the analogy is nonparallel.

Anyway, there are LOTS of people who protest it because they are simply uncomfortable with the idea of creating a life, much less a human life, for the purpose of destroying it.

Embryonic stem-cells used for research are those that are obtained from fertility clinics that would otherwise be discarded...therefore, there is no LOSS of human life because they never would have been implanted. Similarly, there is no CREATION of life either...the precursor to a fetus, the embryo has already been created by the fertility clinic...this is irrespective of stem-cell research! All stem-cell research does is utilize individual cells of the embryo at the stage where they are still totipotent and undifferentiated in order to induce them to grow into organs and tissue. In order to obtain more cells for research, the individual stem-cells can be induced to divide to give rise to daughter stem-cells in a continuous line... There is no destruction or creation of "human life." The stem-cells are no more representative of human life than a brain cell or a liver cell.

Perhaps destruction is not the word we use, we merely "arrest development..."

The "arrest of development" occurs at the time where an embryo is produced by the FERTILITY CLINIC with the purpose of intrauterine implantation. This is irrespective of the stem-cell research.

Interestingly, far more of the middle-ground Christians claimed Democratic Party membership than Republican.

Your study was conducted on a college-student sample at one particular campus and is therefore only generalizable to college kids at your college. Your results are definitely NOT applicable to the general population of the United States.

Third, Creationism. [blah blah]

It would seem that tacking Christianity on top of evolution adds an entire set of unfalsifible claims that only marginally improve the explanation of natural phenomena. It seems contrary to Occam's razor that you would attach such a set of unsubstantiated unverifiable theory (creationism) ON TOP of a scientifically derived theory (evolution) which has merit. I agree that the Big Bang theory has only wavering support, but I think God creating a garden, some trees, a serpent, and some dude named Adam is far less likely and definitely a few orders of magnitude less scientifid.

Lastly, I think it was Petrek that made a very relevant observation. Those of us who claim to know God really have had experiences with Him. We are deeply aware both of our own souls and of Him. Frankly, there's no point in arguing with either A) someone who has experienced God, or B) someone who hasn't and insists that you can't. Its like trying to argue with a Mexican that there's no such thing as Spanish.

Unfortunately, it is very easy to mistaken certain unexplainable event and emotions as something related to God, souls, angels, miracles, divine intervention, etc. I again cite the fairy tale of Henny Penny (the chicken) who was struck on the head by an acorn and instead interepted this to be the sky falling. Thus, she went around to all of her farm animal friends and convinced them all that the sky was indeed falling, and they eventually got eaten by the sly fox who realized they were all idiots. The problem was, Henny Penny was not sophisticated or intelligent enough to draw a reasonable conclusion as to why she was struck on the head... the same might go for a Christian who thinks he hears God responding to him during a prayer.

Furthermore, it has been recently discovered that a consistent region of the brain is metabolically activated in people who pray, and this has been validated across religions (they essentially conducted PET scanning on people who were praying vs. doing something else and compared)... While PET scanning only tells us what parts of your brain are active, we can reasonably conclude that a particular part of your brain might be responsible for making you inundated with warm feelings and peacefulness while "communicating" with your God. Like it or not, our emotions can be largely explained by varying levels of specific neurotransmitters in strategic portions of the brain.

BTW, your argument that "it's like trying to argue with a Mexican that there's no such thing as Spanish" is textbook petitio principii (or "begging the question") because the inherent assumption is that there obviously *is* such thing as Spanish...this is assuming the conclusion in the premise and therefore begs the question.

You have much better points than the average AT Christian...glad you could participate i nthis thread.


Valsalva

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Netopia
Revolutionary.... very good post!

QTArrhythmic

,

Christianity is a faith, a relationship and lastly a religion. Regardless of the group of people one is meeting with, ultimately they must be at peace and in agreement with themselves and God through whatever knowledge and personal understanding they have. Lastly they should be a part of a greater community made up of generally like minded but still fallible humans. We see dimly now... we do the best with what we can... as I've said before, The Lord doesn't judge us on how much we know, only on how much we do with what know.

If you are looking for a religion where everyone is in complete agreement on all things religious, you won't find it in mainstream Christianity... The Lord left us too much leaway for that.

Joe

That still doesn't explain why people would chose Christianity over anything else. Example: I won the lottery. If I was a Christian, I would say "Gosh, this is divine intervention, God came down and rolled the balls for me so I would win." But I can't see God coming down and rolling the balls in my favor, and I can't go back in time and see what would have if I wasn't Christian, played the lottery and see if I would have won.

In addition, you said "The Lord doesn't judge us on how much we know, only on how much we do with what know," which seems to me contradictiory to the gospels message, which requires knowledge of Christ to begin with; in order words, it we don't have knowledge we are then not accountable. So if I didn't know it was wrong to have a premarital relations, then I shouldn't be accountable.

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: Palek
Dear Valsalva,
contain anything else apart from what I have already mentioned. I think Netopia hit the nail right on the head with that analysis...

Netopia is actually an obsessive-compulsive psychotic who went through 500+ of my prior posts yet still was unable to draw an unbiased and impartial conclusion...what he essentially did was formulate his delusional (i.e. not based on reality) opinion about me and pretended like he was able to psychoanalyze who I was. The ironic part is that he then expressed how frustrated he was because I never revealed anything about myself and how he couldn't "get to know me." Sounds grossly inconsistent if you ask me...another psychotic Christian on AT. Just what we need.

I would not trust a poll on a message board, and even if I did, I would need more than 514 votes from a board with over 100 thousand members to accept it as representative. It could be simply that Christians were more open about their faith... Which is, as we know, something many people here, yourself included, find offensive.

You are probably correct in that the poll is not the most accurate source, however, I would venture to say that the percentage of Christians here is even HIGHER just based on the Christian percentage in the general population. Secondly, I have NEVER specifically stated that I am offended by Christians being "more open about their faith." This is putting words in my mouth and I CHALLENGE you to find a quotation of mine that reflects that sentiment. I'm quite sick and tired of certain individuals on this forum who have the reading comprehension of middle schoolers attempting to quote me as saying this or that.... you can quote me on THAT if you want.

This is because people here are RESENTFUL of the continuous barrage of Christian attempts at recruitment, especially over in hot deals where the deals are not hot, just more annoying attempts of Christians to "spread the word." On the other hand, it was the CHRISTIAN accountability thread that specifically requested that only CHRISTIANS could participate...Metalloid even, at one point, specifically asked people who were agnostic to leave.

Finally the truth comes out. You at least admitted you were harboring resentment.

WRONG AGAIN!!! I wrote that "people here are resentful," not "I am resentful." I was explaining why sometimes Christians are singled out by people on AT. This is another example of how you take a phrase that has a CRYSTAL CLEAR meaning and you twist it around to fit your own agenda...this may be acceptable for sunday school interpretations of ambiguous bible passages, but not when I say things that have blatantly clear meaning.

Admittedly, I do not ever visit Hot Deals, but I just did a quick check of the first hundred topics, and I could not spot a single Christian deal. Could it be (and notice I am asking) that your fear/resentment towards Christianity just magnifies everything in your eyes and when you see a single deal offering Bibles etc. it is so much in your face it drives you mad?

This is because the mods had placed restrictions on religious hot deals for a while and because the usual posters realized that they would get flamed if they posted their religious hot deals (which were, in reality, recruitment tools and not really a "deal," per se)...they also found that their 90% of their threads would get locked anyway. This is why you see far less religious hot deals. It's amazing how you concluded that "my fear/resentment towards Christianity just magnifies everything," which is so far from the reality that I just delineated.

WRONG AGAIN!! Direct quote from Metalloid, the original poster of that thread: "The thing is that I don't know all of the people who are Christians on this forum, and I would really like to spread it to non-Christians."

[/quote]Okay, you got me there.[/quote]

Eat it.

You however have no authority to limit my rights to practice my faith, though any kind of action - like demanding that Christians do NOT have a private accountability group.

Wohhh, there goes your delusional disorder again. At what point did I demand that Christians NOT have a private accountability group? Never. This is only something you came up with in your own imagination then convinced yourself it was true. Amazing...dear God.

So what is it exactly you want? Please share.

For starters, I want people like you to stop talking out of your anal verge, stop engaging in delusional fantasies about what you THINK I wrote, etc. That would make the world a better place.

Valsalva

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: kranky

Originally posted by: MindStorm
The reason why we don't bitch about the Koran being taught is because it's not nearly as widespread as the Bible being forced upon us in school. If more and more people and trying to preach the Koran, as much as the number of other mindless Christians, then yes, we'll start bitching about the Koran too. But the fact is that the followers are smaller in number, and are more respectful and tolerant of different beliefs.

Secondly, separation of church and state prohibits religion in the school - I don't care how much you try to twist it to fit your views, religion doesn't belong in school. Supreme Court rulings have set that precedence, and only if other judges would follow it.

In the Byron, CA school district, seventh-grade students were required to adopt a Muslim name, chant and pray to Allah, dress as Muslims, learn verses from the Koran, and use a dice game to simulate a jihad. Many in the community downplayed any controversy, saying it was just learning about different cultures.

How dare they try to educate their students about different cultures!!

Well. You educate kids about different cultures in other ways.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Actually, I have a question specificly for you QT. There are two quotes from you below. One from this thread and one from the christian accountability thread.

No, no, no. You have it all wrong. I am Christian, I don't hate Christians

It will be a great way for us Agnostics

Now, since agnosticisim, by definition means to be unsure of where or not there is a God and Christianity means to devote you life to God don't you have a difficult time pulling both of them off? Just curious. Unless you have multiple personalities the two groups your profess to be part of seem mutually exclusive to me.

I'm culturely Christian in the sense that I will still go to church will family, maybe once a year. But I am ideologically agnostic.

ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Chris·tian ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krschn)
adj.
Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.

Sorry, your explination doesn't really hold. Pick one. I was raised in a Christian family too yet I do not profess myself to be Christian. Going to chuch once a year and being raised in a Christian home does not make you a christian any more than standing in a forest makes you a tree.

Interesting choice of definitions. Notice how the "Christian" definition makes no mention of "God"? Mentions of "teachings", "qualities", and some other aspects, but nothing about "God" or "Deities". Of course this definition isn't quite how "Christians" would define it, but the choice is interesting(to me anyway) nontheless. If Christians would adhere to this definition without adding to it, I think Christians would be more Christian, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: HotChic
Valsalva, did you used to be Elledan?

Interesting question!

Yeah, but Elledan was still posting while Valsalva was.

Nah. Look at the way they write, they're two different ppl.

You used the same excuse when I accused you and Valsalva of being alter egos. It's not hard to change your voice when writing. People keep multiple accounts all the time.

But I don't think Elledan and Valsalva are/were the same. Elledan was always acting like he was a robot or at least not human.

I'm still out on Val and QT. The two of you play yes-man to each other often enough to make me wonder.

No. We are two different ppl as well. Great minds think alike.

And so do yours!
*rimshot

I am not impressed with your 4 word wannabe pithy statement .

That was comedic GOLD, man! I waited all day to drop that line!

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Secondly, separation of church and state prohibits religion in the school ....

Have you read history? The founding Father's wanted the Government to not get involved in controlling religion, NOT the other way around! Why do you think they had a Chaplain for Congress? Why do you think they PAID missionariers to preach the Gospel to Indians? Why do you think that to this day they have Chaplains in the Military?

BTW.... "Seperation of Church and State" was coined by Thomas Jefferson in his governing of the Commonwealth of Virginia and was later hijacked and applied to the Federal Government. It appears nowhere in the constitution.

Joe

they also accepted slavery. there were some compromises the founders had to make because of the realities of the day.

and considering the disdain the founders held for organized religion, i'd say the opposite is true.

 

[melchoir]

The Bible also accepts slavery: Text
Add me to the list please =)

 

[petrek]

The New Testament (which came after the Old Testament) teaches "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself", a clear indictment against slavery.

D

 

[melchoir]

Maybe if you had read the link I provided you'd have read

BUT THE BIBLE TEACHES US TO LOVE ONE'S NEIGHBOUR

The precept to love one's neighbour is found in Leviticus 19:18 (surprisingly it doesn't appear in the 10 commandments - listed in Exodus and Deuteronomy). But it is in the very same book of Leviticus that God tells the Israelites that they may buy slaves from the people around them. If God considered slavery incompatible with loving one's neighbour he would hardly have then gone on to tell the Israelites "You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you... and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life." (Leviticus 25:45-46).

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: petrek
The New Testament (which came after the Old Testament) teaches "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself", a clear indictment against slavery.

D

So essentially, there is a contradiction in the bible. The old Testament endorses slavery, and the New Testament prohibits it. Gee, for such a PERFECT God, how come he can't make up his mind? With so much omnipotence and miracle-making power up His sleeves, how come he can't make up his mind? How come he cannot unambiguously express His wishes regarding slavery? This is the same God that can create Eve out of Adam's rib (while simultaneously removing the Y chromosomes), yet he can't even get the story right when it comes to slave ownership? All these questions can be answered with unfalfisiable claims such as: "God works in mysterious ways," or "You're only human and there's no way you could understand God and what he does" or "What if God was one of us...doot-doot-doo...Just a slob like one of us...doot-doo-doo."

Better explanation: Jesus N Pals is just ANOTHER human-derived story created centuries ago when our understand of the natural world was limited. Such was also the case with the Greeks and mythology, the Aztecs and Monteczuma, etc. Back then, doctors also thought disease was caused by imbalance of the four "humors" and people could be cured by blood-letting. However, in the subsequent centuries, medical science progressed to its advanced state today because people formulated new theories and tested and re-tested old ones, and slowly we improved our knowledge and undersatnd of disease and the body -- if people had accepted ancient medical theory on blind faith, we'd be prescribing leeches for heart attacks. In sharp contrast, Christian religoius theory has stagnated across the centuries -- that is as our knowledge based improved, the Christians still held dearly to their same belief system. While their theories of immaculate conception, water-parting, and rib-ripping may have made sense two thousand years ago, they seem ludicrous to any non-Christian now. Yet they CHOOSE to believe in explanations that clearly contradict clearly established principals of what is possible and highly implausible, and the shared delusions of God are propagated and perpetuated among communities of Christians and in Church. It's analogous to a little girl who holds dearly to her belief that Santa Claus is REAL...a belief that is maintained by many of her fellow classmates in kindergarten who also believe in Santa and debate what He will leave for them under their tree this year. And if "Santa" doesn't leave anything under that tree, the little girl might be very disappointed and think she has been naughty for the past year or perhaps concoct an explanation that Santa's sleigh broke down, Rudolph's nose went dim, or her chimney was too narrow for Santa's behind. Likewise, Christians will concoct explanations and hand-waving arguments for why things don't go according to the bible.

People who believe in Jesus had ought to believe in Santa too. Can you PROVE Santa never existed? Every now and then people receive gifrts from "Santa" under their tree and they never quite know who they're from. Those are miracles. When I"m making my list of things I want I feel a peaceful "connection" to Santa and sometimes I can hear his reindeer talk to me. When Dec 25 is approaching, I can almost here is Ho-Ho-Hello, Valsalva, how are you? HO HOHO!!! But how come we don't have real pictures of Santa...how come we've never seen reindeer fly, only read about it??? Well, my friends. Santa works in mysterious ways.

Does my description of believing and connecting with Santa sound ridiculous to you? That's because the same logic required to believe in Santa is the exatt same level of irrational thinking required to believe in Jesus. I don't believe in Santa OR Jesus...I am being consistent...

are you??

Valsalva

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: petrek
The New Testament (which came after the Old Testament) teaches "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself", a clear indictment against slavery.

D

It goes both ways.

 

[Netopia]

a) According to the bible, if you do not believe in Jesus Christ, you cannot go to heaven and instead go to Hell.
b) God is a just God.
Please let me know if you disagree with either A or B. Otherwise, the syllogism is intact. End of discussion.

For a syllogism to be true, the major and minor premises up which the conclusion is drawn must also be true. Simply stating the following does NOT make the whole thing true:

1)Oranges are purple.
2)Purple is the color of royalty
Therefore, oranges are royal.

Since Oranges are NOT royal (a premise) the conclusion is also faulty. And so it is with your reasoning. Please show, as politely requested before, all supporting Biblical texts regarding your premise "A". Please be sure to read the entirity of Scripture to ensure that you have neither taken a text out of context nor used a text which is not supported by the whole of Scripture. If you either cannot or are simply unwilling to compy, we will all be forced to come to the conclusion that you don't know what you are talking about and are simply throwing around personal opinions and treating them as fact. A hair megalomaniacal if true.

As for immoral... I believe in absolutes and it would appear that you do not. So be it... we will go by the more common usage of the word indicating only what behavior is agreed upon by most people in a society. Of course, if you really want to go with this definition then you also have to say that, for instance, slave holders were moral people because in their society it was gernerally accepted behavior. If you don't believe that though... what "higher good" leads you to hold them guilty?

My "agnostic testimony" is irrelevant to this thread, and I choose not to discuss personal details of my life. Please, why don't you share with us some personal details from YOUR life: such as your SSN, home address, employment, education, etc.

Why don't I share? I do! It appears I've done a LOT more homework on you than you have on me! If you read the couple thousand posts I've made since the last large server crash you could find TONS of info on me. My different work environments, job history, educational history, family life, person hobbies, state and probably city that I live in, religious affiliations.... I'm pretty transparent, I don't have anything about me personally that I need to hide from people on here. You, OTOH, don't even give your real name or state in your PROFILE! You won't allow anyone past your false internet persona. Do you find yourself so hideous that you are afraid that if people got to know you they would reject you? Again... practice what you preach... do as you've requested others do.... or remain hypocritically hiding... it's your choice. Either way you are exposing some of your charecter.

All of my formal arguments follow a systematic logical approach of conclusions that follow rationally from premises.

As I've already pointed out, if your premises are false then your conclusions are worthless.

Clearly, you do not quite understand what constitues and "unfalsifiable claim" and I request that you search for my "invisible pig" example and study it a little better. Next time, you'll be more prepared.

Ok... does the Judeo/Christian God exist? You should be careful how you answer.... make sure it lines up with everything you've posted to date.

WOW!! I have over 500 posts!!! I think you're getting a little too serious here ,man...if you're that obsessed with this thread and infatuated with my remarks, you should really seek help. It's not normal to do things like that!!!

Not normal? But I thought as a scientist you would be willing to search available data! You are in interesting individual who has a unique ability to be irritating at almost all times. If you were a plant, would one not seek the chemical that made you so irritating? I'm simply trying to get a view of your id, your ego, your self... and the only things I have to go on are your posts. Not much of a scientist if you're not willing to do research, are we?

I only bash people who ask for it. You belong to that group.

I believe you. Hitler and Stalin also only "bashed" people who asked for it. We've eventually found out what most of their criteria were.... what exactly is yours?

I know what you're trying to do...you're trying to defame ME because you're worried about your very own self-image.

Don't fool yourself. I don't have to defame you, your own words and attitudes are the witnesses against you. I've spoken neither libel nor slander. I've asked you to come forward into the light. To be obvious and not lurking in hidden darkness throwing out your verbal poisoned darts at any who would dare bring light near you. If I were worried about my own self-image (or even public image) I would not have so often and for so long posted all sorts of things in the past. Read.... it does a mind good.

But alas, whether or not the Christians of AT love me or hate me is absolutely IRRELEVANT to my arguments...even a 2 year old with cerebral palsy (who is incapable of understanding who Jesus Christ is and is going to hell as a result) could tell you that.

Who made you the Judge of this 2 year old? Who are you to damn that child to hell? Or is it your understanding of the Bible again? Please post support scripture for this premise also...

Joe

 

[Rogue]

I don't believe in God because people sit around all day arguing about it rather than just going out and being a good person without regard to classification or segregation of other humans.

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Rogue
I don't believe in God because people sit around all day arguing about it rather than just going out and being a good person without regard to classification or segregation of other humans.

Thats one way to look at it.

 

[Revolutionary]

Well, this will be tough since I'm responding to 2 responses to my own post. And I gotta say this: thanks for avoiding the ad hominem. One other thing: its clear to me that you two haven't actually searched the Scriptures intently. I don't know why and I don't care, but you would find your own answers to these questions if you really cared.

1. Valsalva: Yes, currently stem cells are harvested from non-viable, unimplanted "waste" embryos. But unfettered pursuit of the technique would invariably involve the production of embryos. It was for this specific reason that the moratorium was placed on the research. If it doesn't ever degenerate to that, I'm all for it -- and that is precisely why I support legislation to control the technology and its implementation, rather than a wholesale ban on its furtherance. There of course is nothing immoral about the technique itself. However, you can't separate the means and end. Maybe YOU can, but you can't expect a moral person to do the same thing (no, I'm not calling you immoral). Your moral set may differ from another persons to allow for such a means (assuming, as I said, that means was relevant); however, that is still a moral argument. In this case, it would be you projecting your own moral set upon the world of the other, who may reject it. But lets leave it at this: we agree that the technology is not immoral; I (and many others) merely think creating embryos to destroy them would be immoral. It can even be separated from abortion, where the rights of the mother are weighted as superceding the rights of the fetus. In this case, the rights of the fetus are superceded by the rights of an unrelated stranger with Parkinson's. That is fundamentally unjust. (And yes, fetus' do have rights, its clearly established jurisprudence. You can't perform your own abortion, you are charged with double homicide for killing a pregnant woman, you can't leave a newborn or premature baby to die without being prosecuted, etc). But I don't want to turn this into a debate on the start of life, there are other threads for that.

QT: I think this also addresses your second protest. Its not the use of waste, its the possible use of viable, created-to-be-destroyed embryos. As to the first, yes, the Christian position derives from such scriptures. They are interpreted to mean that God granted humanity at the beginning of existence, not consciousness. That would be conception throughout the embryonic and fetal stages. But again, the issue ISN'T (at least for intelligent people familiar with the technique) the use of non-viable waste embryos.

2. Valsalva: You CLEARLY didn't read my post, since it already stated that it was not a survey of a college campus. It was a nation-wide survey of American citizens conducted by the Pew Center for Political Research. The N was around 3,200, which, if case you aren't familiar with survey research, is double the standard N=1,500 required for random sample.

QT: The point I was trying to make was that A: the Christians that have political sway ARE NOT a majority in the United States. Far from it. The majority that describes themselves as Christian is heavily Democratic and liberal. A small minority are conservative and Republican. They are, however, very well organized. To be honest, I really make the point because I personally despise the influence of fundamentalism in American politics. I want it to be well understood that not every Christian is Fundamentalist ("fundies" as we call them). MOST of us are just like everyone else politically. We even tend to vote Democratic more than Republican. Nonetheless, there is a subset of American fundamentalist Christians who believe that they have a moral responsibility to try to keep the laws and actions of the American people pure, because they are obsessed with the idea of a "Christian nation." Most of us know that there never was such a thing, and there never will be. That's just not what Christ called us to, and its pretty clear in the scriptures. Bottom line: Don't generalize. Christians are not the problem; misguided Christians are. But then, its not like Christians aren't allowed to be misguided, or that non-Christians never are. As my pastor likes to say: "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven."

3. Valsalva: Again, you didn't read the post, or at least, you didn't understand it. I am not "tacking Christianity onto Evolution." The point is that the two are not mutually exclusive. You can be a Christian evolutionary scientist. Really. I have friends and professors who very easily qualify. Because, as I pointed out, the oppositional viewpoints are Creationism and Naturalism. As theories of origin, they are diametrically opposed. Naturalism suggests that the universe and life are entirely the result of randomized natural processes with no predilection of design or intent. Creationism maintains that A) naturalism cannot disprove design or intent, B) there are evidences for (or at least reasons to consider) design and intent, and C) the mechanisms inherent in Naturalism (chance introduced in physical systems) do not preclude the existence of design or intent. And obviously by design and intent, I mean God. The point I made, despite your clearly sardonic language, was that we are not bound to believe in a literal 7-day creation, a literal garden, or a literal couple called Adam and Eve -- yet we can still believe in God as the creator and beginner of the universe, acting to develop that universe and the life it contains through principals that he also introduced -- chance, entropy, etc. In this way, evolution is hardly "attached" to creationism. You and I can literally believe the exact same things about the timeline and forces involved in creating the universe and starting and developing life. You simply think that Chance is the fundamental guiding principal, while I would suggest that Chance is the agent of the Creator. And I wasn't suggesting that the Big Bang theory only has wavering support. Merely that there is no theory of origins that tackles the fundamental question of where matter and energy came from. I think it was God. When you come up with a theory that explains these origins and specifically precludes the possibility that God was involved, then I have a problem.

QT: Your question is FAR more poignant. And frankly I'm writing a book about this, so lets just say that there's a lot that can be said! But the bottom line is that it isn't "adding or detracting" from the scripture to interpret the meaning of the text as well as the authors intent. Without wasting too much space, Genesis was written by Moses after the Israelites departed from Egypt. And its intent is clear: there was no contemporary written account of who the Israelites were, how they got to where they were, and who this God Yahweh was. And much of their oral history had been lost, as is demonstrated by verses in Exodus, to which events Moses was a direct witness. And so Moses set out to clearly establish the identity of Yahweh in the history of the Israelites; moreover, to do so in specific antithesis to the reigning cosmologies of the Amalekites/Sumerians (into whose land they were venturing) and the Egyptians (from whose lands they were departing). They were more familiar with the gods of those cultures than their own. So Moses wrote a cosmology of their own, as it was given to him, to stand in distinct contrast with those and to establish Yahweh as the One true God. And it is penned in the specific genre of the cosmologies of that age, and can be read as an accurate counter-point argument to those cosmologies, which I don't have space to adequately describe. Moreover, Genesis changes gears dramatically once Moses arrives at events that are within current memory (the transition of Abram into Abraham and the descent of his lineage) and the book becomes historical (we can see this because the language changes dramatically, as well). The bottom line: the only part that matters is "In the beginning God." The rest of the passage of Genesis 1-2 represents value prescriptions governing life and the world. Is it relevant to us that Moses told the Israelites that the whole thing took 7 days, when 7 was a relevant number in both Sumerian and Egyptian cosmologies, rather than spelling it out for them that the journey they were embarking on was 14 billion years in the making? No. Is that "stretching" our interpretation of the book to fit our experience? Sure, but he never said not to! Adding nor detracting from it means not altering the meaning or impact of the scripture by including our own thoughts which seem right or would be expedient, or removing sections that we simply disagree with or aren't comfortable with. This is a matter of interpretation, which is different. He never said that he wanted the Bible to be the sole basis and meter of our knowledge. General revelation via the Book of Nature (ie, understanding God through scientific study) has always been an accepted facet of Christian theology, and thus a viable source of knowledge. It is derived as a principal in part from Romans 1:20, which I referenced earlier. He never said we should disbelieve anything that didn't jive with the exact literal wording of the scriptures. Only that we should love and meditate on his law, and hide it in our hearts so that we don't sin against him, and that we should flee from anything that suggests that He is not the One True God (which is idolatry) or doubts calls into doubt his righteousness (which is faithlessness).

3. Lastly, Valsalva and QT: First, I'm not talking about a "warm fuzzy feeling." Like I said, I can't describe how I know him, merely that I know that I do. If you can't understand what I mean, I'm sorry. That's as close as I can get to it. I've been high on life, substances, etc. Its not the same.

And I'm familiar with the alpha-wave and neurotransmitter arguments. However, they don't resolve the issue because they also presuppose, in this instance, that brain function and chemistry are seminal, or rather, that these are the first stimulus in a religious experience. This is a Post Hoc fallacy. Because pray-ers experience brain activity, the brain activity is responsible for the feelings that result from praying. This assumes a Naturalistic premise that there is nothing beyond the physical reality of the emotion or brain-wave. But I can just as easily postulate that the act of prayer or worship, which was actually measured in that study, involved a supernatural reality, which then acts upon the physical reality of the brain. The physical brain reaction is the only observable evidence. How do you know that alpha waves aren't the primary gateway between the physical and the spiritual (which, incidentally, was one hypothesis that the researchers in that study could not discount)? Since you can't disprove the existence of the spiritual, it is certainly a plausible explanation, no matter how impossible it seems to you. And I'm not saying that a lack of evidence against the spiritual is evidence for the spiritual. There are certainly other evidences to say that the spiritual exists. This is also a complex cause fallacy. You assume that the only reason the person feels something is because of a physical reaction, when in reality it could in fact be the effect of the spiritual on the physical in addition to the physical reaction which produces the perception of God. No matter how you slice it, you can't preclude God. Nobody ever has been able to. And since I know that I know him, on a level you maybe just can't fathom, I'm going keep on doing so.

As an aside, and I say this in complete sincerity: Valsalva, I feel very sorry for you. You spew venom and contempt continually, and its clear that you are hurting for some reason. I recognize that you don't see it, and that's okay. I'm not trying to isolate or patronize you. I just want you to know that I'm not angry with you. And no matter how you feel about it, I'm praying for you. (because it's my prerogative! ;-)

Regards all;


JD

 

[Revolutionary]

Originally posted by: melchoir
Maybe if you had read the link I provided you'd have read

BUT THE BIBLE TEACHES US TO LOVE ONE'S NEIGHBOUR

The precept to love one's neighbour is found in Leviticus 19:18 (surprisingly it doesn't appear in the 10 commandments - listed in Exodus and Deuteronomy). But it is in the very same book of Leviticus that God tells the Israelites that they may buy slaves from the people around them. If God considered slavery incompatible with loving one's neighbour he would hardly have then gone on to tell the Israelites "You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you... and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life." (Leviticus 25:45-46).

This is hardly a contradiction. The word "testament" means "Covenant" or "promise." You can consider it like an operating system: it is the set of rules by which God promises to deal with us, and also the rules that he establishes for us to follow in relating with him. It is New, in that it supersedes the Old promise which God first made to Abraham, and then to Isaac, Jacob, Moses, all Israel, David, etc. It is the final Covenant, and it hinges on Christ's sacrifice.

The New Testament does in fact stand in contrast to the Old Testament in places because Christ came to supersede and free us from the law, the fundamental measure of the old covenant. Thus, under the law, it was acceptable to own slaves -- provided that they weren't of Israelite origin (more on that below). But under Christ, slavery can be seen as contrary to the equality provided by His Grace. Thus, as Christ summarized, "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your strength and all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourselves," means respect the creation of your God, respect my gift for that person as much as for yourself, and seek to provide to all men the freedom that you enjoy.

As for why it was acceptable for the Israelites to own foreigners as slaves: the Israelites were God's instrument of judgement against the natives in the Promised Land (the Amalekites). He had sent them prophet after prophet, chance after chance, to repent. Yet they continued to sin against him. And so he fostered in the Israelites a love for Himself, and used them to enact his judgement on the Amalekites (as he says to Abraham upon promising him the land, "but first your seed will go down into Egypt, for the sin of the Amalekites is not yet full [ripe].") Slavery was part of that judgement. Unfortunately, the Israelites themselves began to sin by making slaves of other nations and of each other, something which also earned them judgement.