Evilution VS Evolution

[Chris B]

Shame God couldn't come up with a democratic way of doing so,.

Let's not end up worshiping democracy (or even Democracy). It has its own flaws and weaknesses, even if not so dire ones as other forms of governing that have been tried.
The most effective form of government is almost certainly that of an enlightened benevolent dictator.
The problem comes with ensuring your dictator is and remains that way, and how to change the ruler if they are not.

Cue:
"King, are you? Well I didn't vote for you."

 

[florida2]

Let's not end up worshiping democracy (or even Democracy). It has its own flaws and weaknesses, even if not so dire ones as other forms of governing that have been tried.
The most effective form of government is almost certainly that of an enlightened benevolent dictator.
The problem comes with ensuring your dictator is and remains that way, and how to change the ruler if they are not.

Cue:
"King, are you? Well I didn't vote for you."

Ok, let me rephrase it as 'a political solution'. Better?

 

[Hoghead1]

That is not what the Bible says. You really need to be careful how you represent the God of the Bible. We are told that we are not to "oppress one another". That means we are not to do wrong to one another. In my case I was actually a CEO in that I did not want to work for other people so I ran my own business. I find that even today there is some degree of oppression when your work for people that is not acceptable to me. So if you think that the Bible says it is ok not to treat people right, then you do not understand the message that God has for us in the Written Word of God. His message is one of love, mercy, grace and forgiveness.

25:13 In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession.
25:14 And if thou sell ought unto thy neighbour, or buyest ought of thy neighbour's hand, ye shall not oppress one another:

The fact of the matter is that Exod. 21 does condone and sanctify slavery, selling your daughter into slavery, and beating slaves, just as long as you don't kill then. Read Exod. 21.

 

[Chris B]

Ok, let me rephrase it as 'a political solution'. Better?

Certainly.
If we are going by biblically sanctioned methods, we could always have a lottery for the leader/ruler

 

[Hoghead1]

I have known many people that were contract workers in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, and other countries. The problem in American is that we get an idea of slavery from what was going on in the South and that is preventing people from understanding what was going on.

The Indians here in American use to take slaves usually as children. There were times when the slaves were given their freedom and they did not want to go out. Because they had heard very scary stores about the white people and they were afraid of them. Often they ended up as scouts and they were not really white and not really Indian and they did not really fit in anywhere. So it was difficult for them to get a job.

The Bible is not talking about contract workers, the Bible is talking about slavery, period.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

Oh, baloney. There are no biblical laws that give slaves any real protection at all. It is nice that it points out you shouldn't beat them to death, but as long as they don't die, OK, put the whip to them. In fact, the biblical sanctification of slavery was cited by Jefferson Davis as a rationale for slavery in the South. You are simply trying to pout lipstick on a pig here.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

That isn't the point here. The point is that the OT does in fact sanctify slavery, period. Paul does , too, when he tells the slave to go back to his master.
Also, we are getting way, way off topic here.

 

[Hoghead1]

... riiight...

No, that isn't correct. Any serious biblical scholar will tell you that the OT did in fact sanctify slavery. Read Exod. 21. In the NT, read Paul.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

If you are so really into the Civil War, I'm sure you remember that Jefferson Davis cited the Bible, among other sources, as his justification for slavery.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

Now just a minute here, sir. That isn't what Winston Churchill thought at all and you know it. We were late to the party, but you guys really did need us. There is no doubt about that. Those of you in Brittin sure needed a lot of our knittin'. And no, we definitely did not claim all the glory. Where did you get that idea? We bent over backwards to let de Gaulle be the first to march into liberated Paris, not us. Ah, well, typical Brit. Too proud and cocky to admit he needed help. Anyhow, great topic to discuss. However, we are getting way, way off topic here.

 

[Hoghead1]

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, but we are getting way off teh topic of this thread. I am not sure that was the result of the S-A war. But again, that discussion, though interesting, belongs in another thread.

 

[Hoghead1]

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

Why? Is Cornwall in Wales? Off topic, but I am curious.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is that the OT does in fact sanctify slavery, period.

The only way you can make that charge stick is pluto "servant" to "slave," isn't it?

Typical method of unbelievers.

They don't have the guts to use the terms the Bible uses.

That's because they know better.

Does the NT sanctify slavery as well?

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

If Paul was a slave, are we Christians slaves as well?

If Paul wasn't a slave ... well ... so much for plutoing.

 

[PsychoSarah]

At the time of Darwin they studied Science and the Bible. There are still people that do that today. For many of the mainline denominations you need a college degree to get into Seminary.

That response has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, so would you actually respond to me?

 

[PsychoSarah]

The only way you can make that charge stick is pluto "servant" to "slave," isn't it?

Typical method of unbelievers.

They don't have the guts to use the terms the Bible uses.

That's because they know better.

Does the NT sanctify slavery as well?

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

If Paul was a slave, are we Christians slaves as well?

If Paul wasn't a slave ... well ... so much for plutoing.

He said in the Old Testament, not the New Testament AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

Any serious biblical scholar ...

... can take a hike.

If they can't talk without having to pluto terms in the Bible, they can take their garbage elsewhere.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you are so really into the Civil War, I'm sure you remember that Jefferson Davis cited the Bible, among other sources, as his justification for slavery.

Jefferson Davis is in aitch.

And if he were alive on earth today, I seriously doubt he'd be spending too much time in our church.

 

[AV1611VET]

He said in the Old Testament, not the New Testament AV.

He's a smart cookie, ain't he?

I'll bet he knows more about Pluto than I, too.

 

[PsychoSarah]

He's a smart cookie, ain't he?

I'll bet he knows more about Pluto than I, too.

I guess you mean the planet, but it is more humorous to imagine you mean the Romanized version of the Greek god Hades. You probably think that if us atheists don't know more about that now, we will soon enough and the dark humor of that and wordplay that are at my expense don't humor me any less for it.

 

[Hoghead1]

... can take a hike.

If they can't talk without having to pluto terms in the Bible, they can take their garbage elsewhere.

Typical anti-intellectual rant.