I wouldn't say that God wrote those drives. A lot of circumstance will change a man's view on things. Also some things will drive one man and not the other. I wouldn't blame God if a man would decide, given the chance, to disobey a commandment or not.
This is consistent with a "no plan, less than total foreknowledge" god. As that seems to be the god you're working with, I can't take issue with this. Conversely, if god did have a plan, even if he ONLY made the first two people and just 'retired' to watch mankind sprout from there, then something in the original source code must have programmed the man to disobey (and god would have known this at the start, for all people). If he bears no responsibility for the actions of man, has no foreknowledge of how each of us will act, truly we have free will, and then such a character can be surprised, and even mad, at what happens. But if he's ALL POWERFUL, it's still morally superior to make changes without harming anyone at all. Do you disagree? Some people say "what about justice?!" But that's a human construct, one that has changed ALL the time. Because he makes choices that harm people actively, oftentimes innocent people who aren't even involved (Jephtha's daughter, Job), his choices are wicked, not good.
Are you referring to that God created those people from the dirt like Adam and Eve or are you saying that since they are human, they are part of God's creation?
I'm used to talking to people that say god is the author of all creation. If you're saying that this less than total foreknowledge, no plan god had no direct involvement with the creation of the Amalekites, I can't argue it, but if you think god's the source of all things and all people, we have a disagreement. I don't want to get wrapped around the Amalekite axle, though, we can discuss them specifically at another time if you like.
really feel that the slavery in the bible is little more grey than what we know as slavery today and in America, so I can't really give a good answer on what the Bible says. I will, however, agree that ownership of another human being by force or purchase would be immoral in any circumstance and the consistent "hand me down" of slave families would also be immoral.
That's fine and again, appreciate the honesty. My issue, then, with this explanation, is that the word "slave" is used when the bible uses plenty of other words that don't carry the association that this word has and always had. A 'servant' for example invites a different reaction than a 'slave.' My point is if you don't want people to think "slaves," then maybe don't say slaves. If you are going to do some research on biblical slavery, first of all don't put it in your work browser :), second of all note that there are indeed rules on how severely you can beat a slave provided they're foreign. Was it moral back then to beat a foreign prisoner of war you've conscripted into service in your home? I'm sure neither one of us think that's moral either! But it's in the bible, and long a problem for so many. After all, those passages were used to support the slavery institution in American agriculture we both find so abhorrent. Often you get the argument that "Oh yeah?!? Well the bible was ALSO used to abolish slavery!" To which I say great, but why are both messages clearly in the bible, the word of god himself...and if that's something he gave rules to, then in my view, yes, he's wicked as a result.
Again, I do not agree with the gay lifestyle. I think it is wrong and contrary to nature, but to each his own I guess. ...I believe that a gay person will choose to be that way in some form or another.
While I disagree with both of these, I do firmly believe you have the right to think as you will, you're not infringing on anyone else. And as you do not believe in an all-knowing directly involved in every fetus development version of god, I can't really argue against your notion that he wouldn't make something contrary to his law. I will say, however, your version of god, though it makes sense to me, does not seem very much like the all knowing, all powerful, eternally wise version I'm used to working on.
RE: Taliban:
They have a flawed culture of dominance and control.
Do you think some of your Christian brethren (not all, not a majority, but SOME) would prefer America this way? Because they sure can legislate like it. My worry here is being the frog in a slowly boiling pot of water, you know? And again, THANK YOU FOR THE CIVIL DISAGREEMENT.
