Strong Nuclear Force

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What? Are you saying that I said that everyone believed the bible promotes slavery? Or are you saying that before Abe Lincolin there were no christian slaves?

I would like to know where exactly I said that everone belived in biblical slavery.
 
Upvote 0

alexgb00

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2002
649
26
38
Klamath Falls, OR United States
✟1,218.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Leviticus and I belive it is Philimon is used to support salvery let me repeat slavery.

Gimme a passage.

Philimon was a slave who ran away from his master (both men Romans, i believe), Paul protected Philimon from getting killed because he knew his master. Paul didn't encourage slavery -- he stepped in for a slave. In America in the 1800's people would call that an act of courage.

How many times have you seen Jesus painted with black hair or even looking halfway middle eastern? That in itself can be concidered bigotry.

No person living today knows how Jesus looked. Probably dark skin (from the climate), black hair, and predominantly Jewish facial features. But just because Jesus belonged to one race and not all of them doesn't mean bigotry. Just like saying that since i'm white, that makes me "demeaning" to Japanese and Brazilian people.

As strange as it may sound most caucasians picture Jesus as being caucasian.

Yeah, Africans picture Him as black, and Chinese picture Him as Oriental. What is your point, Lewis?

About that site you just used... Funny, it makes my point about the bible being misused for evil purposes and bigotry for me...

Sorry, Lew, i think you're a little sleepy. You didn't read something right or something. That is Hitler's Hit List. And i'm fourth on it. :)

And notice how they conveinently forgot about Jesus being Jewish but concidered him "Aryan".

Who are you talking about? I've never even seen a picture of Christ with blond hair and blue eyes (in other words, "Aryan").
 
Upvote 0

alexgb00

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2002
649
26
38
Klamath Falls, OR United States
✟1,218.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
What? Are you saying that I said that everyone believed the bible promotes slavery? Or are you saying that before Abe Lincolin there were no christian slaves?

I would like to know where exactly I said that everone belived in biblical slavery.

No, no, Lewis. I don't think we understood each other. I was talking to Nick and said that thanks to Bible-believing people like Lincoln there is no more slavery in the US today. You may not disagree, but hey! It's America.

God bless you, man!
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So the Bible has never been missused to support slavery or bigotry or any other evil thing? Okay... Well that is against all of the rest of history but you are intitled to believe the sky is pink too I guess.

And you love Physics and Biology except for all those pesky little parts that go against a litteral interpretaion of the Bible... That is fine too.

As far as I am concerned though the truth is more important than any literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe that the Bible is worth far more and holds far more truth than just the simple deffinition of it's words.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
So the Bible has never been missused (sic) to support slavery or bigotry or any other evil thing?

1. The operative word is misused. You do have to misuse and torture the text of the Bible if you want to use it to promote racism or slavery.

2. Interesting that you're focusing entirely on slavery, which does not necessarily have anything to do with racism. Slavery was around for thousands of years worldwide, it has taken on many different forms, and people who have been slaves were not necessarily of a different race than their masters.

3. When you dig up your Biblical references, be sure to compare them to Darwinian views ("higher races like the Caucasian would develop into more advance species while barbaric races like Negroes... would be eliminated." and "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior of the average white man.").
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Is the misuse of the scientific ideas behind biology physics and evolution proof that the ideas themselves are bad?

I don't care If Darwin thought that evolution could be used to support a bad pholosophy. The fact that Hawkings uses physics to support agnostic ideas doesn't thrill me but I cannot deny the math behind the science, just the jump to philosophy he makes.

Hitler used Christianity to support what he was doing, do I throw it out because of that? Many slaveholders were beleiving members of the Church too do I throw it out? The inquisition was supported by believers in the Bible, should I throw it out yet?

If I threw out anything that has ever been associated with evil acts at one time or another I would be living in a cave naked and starving.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Is the misuse of the scientific ideas behind biology physics and evolution proof that the ideas themselves are bad?

Of course not. Funny you should ask that, though. I don't ever recall seeing anyone make the claim that because science has been abused, science is immoral or should be abandoned and not studied.

But I see a LOT of evolutionists repeatedly cite the misuse of the Bible as evidence that believing the Bible is bad. Interesting double-standard.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
Originally posted by npetreley


Of course not. Funny you should ask that, though. I don't ever recall seeing anyone make the claim that because science has been abused, science is immoral or should be abandoned and not studied.

But I see a LOT of evolutionists repeatedly cite the misuse of the Bible as evidence that believing the Bible is bad. Interesting double-standard.

Strange. I have seen quite a few people who claimed that science was responsible for moral decay, crime, inappropriate contentography and all kinds of "immoral" acts.

Goes to show that stupidity is not connected with philosophy.
 
Upvote 0
But I see a LOT of evolutionists repeatedly cite the misuse of the Bible as evidence that believing the Bible is bad. Interesting double-standard.

Maybe what you are seeing is evolution"ists" repeatedly citing the misuse of the Bible as evidence that misusing the Bible is bad.

1. The operative word is misused. You do have to misuse and torture the text of the Bible if you want to use it to promote racism or slavery.

Or, you can point at verses like Exodus 21:20-21, 1 Timothy 6:12, Leviticus 24:44-46, and Ephesians 6:5-6, and say - "look the plain meaing of the text advocates slavery." Then you can say, "only a complete moron can look at these passages and say they weren't intended to show us how we should think about and understand slavery!" Then, when the Godless Abolitionists point out that your advocacy of slavery is only justified by your personal interpretation of that scripture, you can look them dead in the eye and say, "if you are too stupid to tell the literal from the metaphorical, then you are too stupid to breathe."

Would that qualify as "misuse" of the Bible? Is the use of the Bible to attack science by similar techniques and rhetoric also "misuse", or not?

When you dig up your Biblical references, be sure to compare them to Darwinian views ("higher races like the Caucasian would develop into more advance species while barbaric races like Negroes... would be eliminated." and "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior of the average white man.").

Are you sure these are Darwinian views? Can you tell me who wrote those words, and in what publication? The reason I ask is because you said this later in the thread:
I don't ever recall seeing anyone make the claim that because science has been abused, science is immoral or should be abandoned and not studied.

Therefore, I question whether those are actual darwinistic views you cited there, or whether they are misuse of science. If they are the latter, may I assume you weren't using them to criticize Darwinism?

By the way, I have a reference for you: some Creationist views on racism...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/racism.html
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This subthread really probably belongs in General Apologetics. I would point out that honesty compells us to admit that, with no recorded exceptions before the late 1500's, the entire Christian church believed that the Bible endorsed slavery. Someone wrote a counterargument in 1594, and was roundly laughed at. When abolitionists started showing up in numbers (mostly within the Quakers, I believe), they were attacked with 1 Timothy 6:1-5, which says first that slaves should obey their masters, and specifically says that their masters, should they be believers, are "faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit." ... and then goes on to say that anyone who teaches otherwise, he is a liar, disputing words and trying to corrupt God's word.

While I happen to agree with the conclusion that slavery is contrary to God's will, I am obliged to admit that the case for slavery arguing from the Bible is a strong one; I merely observe that God is exceptionally patient with us when we are blinded by our cultural upbringing, and I presume that He forgave people who kept slaves, and I hope that he will also forgive us the things we accept without question, but which are wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
48
Visit site
✟12,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Freodin, please visit this webpage: target=_blank>http://www.creationism.org/ackerman...WorldChap09.htm

It talks about a case where an 80-foot whale was buried in diatomacious earth, standing on end! If you know what diatoms are, doesn't it seem strange that this could've happened? In our world, if a&nbsp;sea animal dies, it settles to the floor and is picked apart quickly by different critters. Here is an example of a full skeleton preserved in <I>diatoms</I>. To cause this, there must've been something that kicked up so many diatoms and buried a whale standing up. Like... a flood, for instance?

&nbsp;&nbsp; Yeah, that's one of my favorites.

<B>The Real Story: Just the Facts</B> Had anybody taken the time and trouble to check the facts, they would have found that the story by Russel (1976) took some liberty with the facts and lacked very important information. First, the skeleton was not found in a vertical position, but was lying at an angle 50 to 40 degrees from horizontal. Finally, although at this angle, the whale skeleton lay parallel to the bedding of strata which at one time was the sea floor on which the dead whale fell after its death. These facts were confirmed by inquiring with the people at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History who excavated the whale. Although nothing had been published on the whale, Russel (1976) clearly identified the staff who excavated the skeleton and they could have been easily called at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles, California. The strata containing the whale consists of diatomites that accumulated within deep bays and basins that lay along the Pacific coastline during Miocene times. As a result of folding and tectonics associated with the formation of the Transverse Ranges, the strata containing the enclosed skeleton has been tilted into a less-than vertical position. These sediments lack any sedimentary structures that would indicate catastrophic deposition. Rather, the strata exhibit laminations indicative of slow accumulation on an anoxic bay bottom. Within the adjacent strata, several hardgrounds occurs. A hardground is a distinctive cemented layer of sedimentary rock that forms when the lack of sediments being deposited over a very long period of time on the sea bottom allows the surface sediments to become cemented (Isaac 1981, Garrison and Foellmi 1988). In fact, identical sediments are currently accumulating without the involvement of a Noachian-like flood within parts of the Gulf of California (Curray et al. 1992; Schrader et al. 1982). Furthermore, a partially buried, articulated whale skeleton slowly being covered by sedimentation in the deep ocean off the coast of California was observed by oceanographers diving in submersibles. It is an excellent modern analogue of how this particular whale fossil was created without the need of a Noachian Flood (Allison et al. 1990; Smith et al. 1989). The geology of these quarries is documented by publications of the California Division of Mines and Geology (Dibblee 1950, 1982) United States Geological Survey geological maps (Dibblee, 1988a, 1988b), graduate students at University of California, Los Angeles (Grivetti 1982), and field trip guidebooks (Isaacs 1981). The other whale skeletons which have been found in these quarries lie parallel to the bedding and owe their modern attitude to tectonics rather then some mythical catastrophe. The written documentation for the attitude of the whale skeletons is contained within field notes and locality records of the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles, California.

&nbsp; To sum up: The whale lay at a 50 degree angle, which wasn't surprising because that was the angle the strata was at. It wasn't sticking through strata, but running parallel with them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

alexgb00

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2002
649
26
38
Klamath Falls, OR United States
✟1,218.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
So the Bible has never been missused to support slavery or bigotry or any other evil thing? Okay... Well that is against all of the rest of history but you are intitled to believe the sky is pink too I guess.

A person who says that the Bible supports bigotry or racism either has a serious bias, or is severely mistaken. I think you're just mistaken, my friend. "All of history" doen't in any way point to the Bible as being the root of evil. Far from it.

And you love Physics and Biology except for all those pesky little parts that go against a litteral interpretaion of the Bible... That is fine too.

Nothing in physics or biology goes against the Bible. Evolution, which biology predates by hundreds, maybe thousands of years, isn't in agreement with the Bible. (By the way, biology doesn't interest me much, just the physical sciences.)

As far as I am concerned though the truth is more important than any literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe that the Bible is worth far more and holds far more truth than just the simple deffinition of it's words.

Yes, and i don't think the Bible is all literal either -- 100% true, but but some parts are figurative.

Sorry i didn't get back to you yesterday. My computer (56.6 connection) tends to stop working on the internet after a while. God bless you, Lew.
 
Upvote 0

alexgb00

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2002
649
26
38
Klamath Falls, OR United States
✟1,218.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Originally posted by Freodin
Strange. I have seen quite a few people who claimed that science was responsible for moral decay, crime, inappropriate contentography and all kinds of "immoral" acts.

I haven't. I'm a Christian, i go to a good Church, and nobody there believes this. Maybe Amish folks say this, but i'm not against science. I know not every scientist can be a moral person, but i like technology, science, reading magazines like Popular Mechanics and learning about space flight. I don't know where you get your claim, Freodin. Are you sure you're not making this up?

Goes to show that stupidity is not connected with philosophy.

Well, we can't all be as smart as you.
 
Upvote 0

Caedmon

kawaii
Site Supporter
Dec 18, 2001
17,359
570
R'lyeh
✟49,383.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Oooh, humble.. looks like you have been indoctrinated by those evil chemicalists. You probably believe the chemicalist lie that water is made from hydrogen and oxygen. But did you know that hydrogen and oxygen make hydrogen peroxide? It's been proven in a lab! Yet the godless chemicalists still tell you that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen!!

What are you talking about?! Water is a fundamental element!!! It's indivisible!!!

Lies, lies... ALL LIES!!! :mad:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Caedmon

kawaii
Site Supporter
Dec 18, 2001
17,359
570
R'lyeh
✟49,383.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by alexgb00
Jerry, you must agree that evolution is a controversial topic. Biology isn't, chemistry isn't, physics isn't.

Quantum physics isn't controversial?!? *BLINK* :eek:

I, being a Christian, have never had a problem with astronomy,&nbsp;chemistry or physics -- i enjoy learning all three. They teach me about the basics of this world and how things are set up. There is nothing in either of the three that disagrees with God's Word.

Which physics courses did you take? Have you ever studied cosmology?
 
Upvote 0