Evilution VS Evolution

[joshua 1 9]

Oh, c'mon. That's stupid and silly. That's why indentured servitude is ruled illegal.

Many countries still have contract labors but there are more laws now to protect them. The laws in the Bible were designed to protect them. I know many people that have worked under contract in many countries. The reason there are laws to protect them is because the Bible has had a positive influence on the world we live in. Skeptics and scoffers attack the Bible to their own demise and in the end they will reap what they sow. God does not stop people in the beginning of their sin and transgression, He lets them go to the very end and then they are punished. He allows them a fullness of their sin or a completion just to see how far they are willing to go with it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

"The War of Northern Aggression"?

Even if the North was more evil than the South. Still the South had made a completion of their sin and God said it is enough. So they were judged for their sin and their transgression. This is a theme that plays over and over again in the Bible. The time had come when God judged the south for their sin that mostly involved slavery and the way they treated people.

Abolitionism could not end slavery because the constitution allowed slavery. You had to change the law and that is what Lincoln wanted to do. He wanted to change the constitution to make slavery illegal.

 

[AV1611VET]

"The War of Northern Aggression"?

Is that what they call it across the pond?

And let me guess:

The War of 1812 was called the War of Eastern Aggression?

Pearl Harbor was the War of Western Aggression?

The Spanish-American war was the War of Southern Aggression?

Think about it.

If we hadn't fought the War of German Aggression, you would be posting in German right now.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is that what they call it across the pond?

And let me guess:

The War of 1812 was called the War of Eastern Aggression?

Pearl Harbor was the War of Western Aggression?

The Spanish-American war was the War of Southern Aggression?

Think about it.

If we hadn't fought the War of German Aggression, you would be posting in German right now.

To the American South, many neo-Confederates and Confederate sympathizers call it The War of Northern Aggression because they claim that it was the northern states who started it.
And no: The War of 1812 is not called 'The War of Eastern Aggression', the attack on Pearl Harbour was not 'The War of Western Aggression', the Spanish-American war was not called 'The War of Southern Aggression' and the Second World War was not called 'The War of German Aggression'.

Just use some common sense now and again.

 

[AV1611VET]

To the American South, many neo-Confederates and Confederate sympathizers call it The War of Northern Aggression because they claim that it was the northern states who started it.

Oh, I'm sorry.

My bad.

I thought Chris B was in the UK.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh, I'm sorry.

My bad.

I thought Chris B was in the UK.

It's the internet. People from any country can use any term from any other country.

Also, your comment just didn't really make much sense: "Scientists - still fighting the Civil War." Care to elaborate on that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, your comment just didn't really make much sense: "Scientists - still fighting the Civil War." Care to elaborate on that?

It's really quite simple.

Scientific methodists are arguing that God supports slavery in the Bible.

Now ... being as the Bible is our guide for faith and practice ... that means we could have slaves, if we wanted them.

That is the attitude of the South, just before the North gave them an attitude change.

As I have said here several times ...

Here are my Cliffs notes on the Civil War:

1. The South was pro-slavery.
2. The North was anti-slavery.
3. God broke the tie.

If we believed like most scientific methodists say we should believe, we would be flat-earth, geocentric, slave-holding, genocidal, child-beating, Jew haters.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's really quite simple.

Scientific methodists are arguing that God supports slavery in the Bible.

Now ... being as the Bible is our guide for faith and practice ... that means we could have slaves, if we wanted them.

That is the attitude of the South, just before the North gave them an attitude change.

As I have said here several times ...

Here are my Cliffs notes on the Civil War:

1. The South was pro-slavery.
2. The North was anti-slavery.
3. God broke the tie.

If we believed like most scientific methodists say we should believe, we would be flat-earth, geocentric, slave-holding, genocidal, child-beating, Jew haters.

... riiight...

 

[TheQuietRiot]

How are you defining intelligence in this context?
It's easy to knock others for doing what we can't do. If there's no intelligence in our ability to eat and breathe from the same orifice, then what does that say about your intelligence?

Is it really so hard to understand that breathing and eating from the same orifice is a terrible design?

Not really. The designer designed time, space, and matter which means he's also able to exist outside these concepts. Can you explain how you suppose a supreme being would be designed outside of time, space, matter? You wouldn't even know where to start, yet you boldly declare it a rabbit hole with no satisfactory ending.

In essence, what your argument suggests is that if we can't understand who designed the designer then a designer makes no sense, but that argument depends on the arrogance that reality can only be defined based on our ability (or willingness, in some cases) to understand it. Is that how science, curiosity, and truth work? We dismiss what we don't understand?

No, my argument suggests that it is faulty logic to assume that because of the complexity of humans and the world we occupy we must of been designed. When this logic is turned to the supposed designer I am told that he doesn't require a designer because he exists outside space, matter and time. What a convenient loophole for proponents of ID.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

If we hadn't fought the War of German Aggression, you would be posting in German right now.

This old tripe.

The UK and the USSR would of beaten Germany eventually with or without US help.

Late to the party and still claim all the glory. Typical yanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

The UK and the USSR would of beaten Germany eventually with or without US help.

Then you would be posting in Japanese.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Then you would be posting in Japanese.

What language are you posting in AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

What language are you posting in AV?

Hey, that's pretty good!

I had to give your post a "touché like" for that!

 

[joshua 1 9]

Is that what they call it across the pond?

And let me guess:

The War of 1812 was called the War of Eastern Aggression?

Pearl Harbor was the War of Western Aggression?

The Spanish-American war was the War of Southern Aggression?

Think about it.

If we hadn't fought the War of German Aggression, you would be posting in German right now.

The war of 1812 established a boarder between United States and Canada. The Spanish-American war established a boarder between Mexico and the United States.

 

[AV1611VET]

The war of 1812 established a boarder between United States and Canada. The Spanish-American war established a boarder between Mexico and the United States.

Interesting.

I didn't know that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Interesting.

I didn't know that.

Not technically true on the 1812 part. A border had already been established between the nascent USA and British America (Canada) after the American Revolution. The War of 1812 just shifted it a bit.
Also, the Spanish-American War had nothing to do with Mexico, since the war was mainly focused in Cuba and Spanish holdings in the Philippines. The border with Mexico was sorted after the Mexican-American.

(EDIT: Got the War of Texan Independence mixed up with the Mexican-American war. Fixed it)

 

[Chris B]

Is that what they call it across the pond?

No, it's what a proportion call it in the USA.
There's history and how people see history.
(And then there's the Hollywood version)
I encountered the term in a story from UK's Sandhurst officer training college.
An American professor, employed to give lectures on the American Civil War
(politics, economics, military strategy and tactics)
was found to be teaching "The war of Northern Aggression"
A post-modern element here of there being "more than one story" that can be told, alongside the "orthodox one"
The right thing at the beginning of post-modernism was that the conventional mainstream "story" or world-view doesn't have to be right. In pushing that to "everyone has their own true story and legitimate perspective" a more-or less consensus (true or not) moved towards a more-or-less chaos.
How can we have a decent debate/fight if we haven't got a patch of common ground on which to hold it?

 

[Chris B]

I
If we believed like most scientific methodists say we should believe, we would be flat-earth, geocentric, slave-holding, genocidal, child-beating, Jew haters.

Which is why I would say some of the nicest Christians I have ever met have been as they are because their humanity was better than their application of the bible.

 

[Chris B]

Oh, I'm sorry.

My bad.

I thought Chris B was in the UK.

I am, if you count Cornwall.
Cornwall doesn't always so count itself.

 

[florida2]

It's really quite simple.

Scientific methodists are arguing that God supports slavery in the Bible.

Now ... being as the Bible is our guide for faith and practice ... that means we could have slaves, if we wanted them.

That is the attitude of the South, just before the North gave them an attitude change.

As I have said here several times ...

Here are my Cliffs notes on the Civil War:

1. The South was pro-slavery.
2. The North was anti-slavery.
3. God broke the tie.

If we believed like most scientific methodists say we should believe, we would be flat-earth, geocentric, slave-holding, genocidal, child-beating, Jew haters.

Shame God couldn't come up with a democratic way of doing so, rather than having to resort to the death and suffering of tens of thousands of people. Then again, he does seem quite keen on that sort of thing in the OT.