@bigdogg saidThe only thing vile is the amount of sick criminals - rapists, murderers, pedophiles, kidnappers, allowed to roam about in your depraved society, unpunished and protected by law, because you and your type have abandoned God and the precepts laid down by God, and instead spend your time condemning those who have not abandoned God. You people cannot even decide what sex you are... you are big joke.
Hah!
If you think I'm ever going to let you forget how vile you really are, you're mistaken.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
By modern standards, both Darwin and Paul made sexist statements. What's your point?
What's yours?
How often have you, for instance, pointed out Darwin's chauvinism as compared to you reminding here Paul should be devalued for the same reason?
Do you see more Internet noise about Darwin's comments or Paul's?
If your point is that both are sexist, when in the last several years here did YOU remind anyone here that Darwin said some questionable things on both race and sex? I think either you were unaware or you prefer your religion of evolution to New Testament faith.
If women would find objectionable things written by both, pop anti-Christian skepticism as done a good job of hand waving about Paul and keeping it mum on Charles Darwin.
As you peruse the Internet I think you'll hit ten times more complaining towards Paul then toward Charles Darwin.
Search and find how much objection you have against Darwin's evolution by secular women as compared to that against Paul's instructions to churching people.
And concerning objectionable statements concerning racial superiority of some kind, you find no such ground for slander in all Paul's 13 letters.
@sonship saidThe difference is that no one follows those beliefs by Darwin. Christians still follow the sexist beliefs of the Bible.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
By modern standards, both Darwin and Paul made sexist statements. What's your point?
What's yours?
How often have you, for instance, pointed out Darwin's chauvinism as compared to you reminding here Paul should be devalued for the same reason?
Do you see more Internet noise about Darwin's comments or Paul's?
If your po ...[text shortened]... cial superiority of some kind, you find no such ground for slander in all Paul's 13 letters.
@sonship saidBut you haven’t even dented the inescapable scientific fact of evolution.
@kevcvs57
Apparently you did not hear the quotations from Darwin's own pen
in the video. Its only 26.30 minutes.
2:30 " I believe, in this extreme part of South America, man exists in a lower state than any other part of the world."
Ie. These people are the least evolved of all human beings.
3:05 "While going along one day on shore of Wa ...[text shortened]... lution [/b]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqHLt7d_wTE&ab_channel=CornerstoneTelevisionNetwork
All you’ve done is prove that arrogant middle class white Christians of the 19th century were arrogant enough to think they were the pinnacle of evolution, I dare say some still do but where is your science based proof of the “truth of creation”?
Is this a forum whereby only us lowly ones have to answer questions.
To summarise evolution is a very basic indisputable fact of life and if your model of reality does not incorporate evolution as outlined by Darwin and later evolutionary theorists your model is false.
@rajk999 saidThe difference between you and me is that you actually support the depravity practiced in the Bible, whereas I don't support any of the depravity you mentioned.
The only thing vile is the amount of sick criminals - rapists, murderers, pedophiles, kidnappers, allowed to roam about in your depraved society, unpunished and protected by law, because you and your type have abandoned God and the precepts laid down by God, and instead spend your time condemning those who have not abandoned God. You people cannot even decide what sex you are... you are big joke.
(As far as the transgender thing, I am not against it, but I also fail to see the 'depravity'. Surely people have a right to live their own life as they see fit ...?)
Your idea of 'God' is so openly evil, that you might as well be following the devil.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThe question seems fair on one hand. But on the other there is an assumption in it, imo, that the ONLY thing the apostle had to write about slavery was "accepting it as the natural order of things".
Can you point me to where Paul condemned slavery (for example) rather than just accepting it as the natural order of things?
I would not let go by unchallenged that with Paul you only have a passive, even "conservative" attitude that the church's reaction to that institution is ONLY "accepting it as the natural order of things"
With that understanding I would address any example of him condemning the institution, if I can find something. Give me some time.
@sonship saidTake all the time you need. Come back with something solid.
The question seems fair on one hand. But on the other there is an assumption in it, imo, that the ONLY thing the apostle had to write about slavery was "accepting it as the natural order of things".
I would not let go by unchallenged that with Paul you only have a passive, even "conservative" attitude that the church's reaction to that institution is ONLY "accepting i ...[text shortened]... d address any example of him condemning the institution, if I can find something. Give me some time.
Paul clearly was cool with slavery and had a sexist view when it came to women.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
But you haven’t even dented the inescapable scientific fact of evolution.
I can understand you wanting to place me on the defensive to offer an alternative theory. As far as Darwin's chauvinistic comments are concerned, more modern science research contradicts him.
Darwin proposed "sub-species" among humans. But Francis Collins wrote:
7.05 into the video -
"Thus, by DNA analysis, we humans are truly part of one family. This remarkably low genetic diversity distinguishes us from most other species on the planet."
There is then no "inescapable scientific fact" that as Darwin wished, there are evolutionary superior and inferior races of humans. At present the research on DNA contradicts that.
All you’ve done is prove that arrogant middle class white Christians of the 19th century were arrogant enough to think they were the pinnacle of evolution, I dare say some still do but where is your science based proof of the “truth of creation”?
The evidence of intelligent design I think is abundant in the DNA scheme of all living things on earth. I don't think the identity of the source of such intelligence is scientifically proven. If one honestly wishes to go where ever the evidence leads he cannot exclude the theological implications somebody bigger than you and I invented that scheme.
It may not be "proof" of creationism. It is perhaps enough to inform us that we are on the right track to believe a Divine Creator of infinite designing ability.
world renown Atheist Anthony Flew finally caved in to Deism when no longer able to deny micro biology and biochemistry made Darwinian unlikely to him as process responsible for life.
This is after writing many books defending atheism astutely. The "inescapable scientific fact of evolution" he saw as no longer so.
Quite aside from chauvinistic concepts on sex and race evolutionists themselves here and there have confessed real problems with the theory. From The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel: [My spacing]
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Although popular for a while, the RNA theory has generated its share of skeptics. Evolutionist Robert Shapiro, a chemistry professor at New York University, said the idea at this point "must be considered either a speculation or a matter of faith."
Origin-of-life researcher Graham Cairns-Smith said the "many interesting and detailed experiments in this area" have only served to show that the theory is "highly implausible."
as Jonathan Wells noted in my earlier interview with him, biochemist Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Center was even more blunt: "you have to build straw man upon straw man to get to the point where RNA is a viable first bio-molecule."
---------------------------------------------------------
These comments are applied to an important problem of how on earth the first replication could occur so that natural selection could then take over. RNA replication was proposed to kick off the evolution program. How life originated in a realm that is much less complex than DNA is a dilemma information processing that makes your "inescapable scientific fact" not so inescapable.
" . . . we're right back on the same problem of where the information came from. . . for a single strand of RNA to replicate, there must be an identical RNA molecule close by. To have a reasonable chance of having two identical RNA molecules of the right length would require a library of ten billion billion billion billion billion billion RNA molecules - and that effectively rules out any chance origin of a primitive replicating system." - [Stephen Meyer]
I realize that some will quickly point out that that is an origins of life problem and not a problem with evolution, a totally different theory. But I think if you construct a "tree" of evolutionary development where the "roots" make no sense there is no "inescapable scientific proof of evolution" to boast about. You do have a theory.
We have not observe certain key aspects of the theory. As long as man has observed life limitations of descent of the same kind of organism has only been seen. Germs remain germs over long experiments. Dogs remain dogs for generations of breeding new kinds of dogs. Bugs like fruit flies remain bugs though mutations in the lab process caused defects like two sets of wings to occur.
Some will say, the process takes millions of years and therefore cannot be repeated. That's their own problem then. And since it is not repeatable as the scientific methods requires, it is theoretical and not inescapably proven as a scientific fact.
You didn't do the work. You just inherited the smugness.
You put your trust in someone the way I do. I just admit it.
Maybe you have a religion and don't admit it - "inescapable scientific proof of evolution."
So I welcome alternative proposals. Altogether now - "That's how science progresses". And it progresses that way without disdain for where the evidence may lead. ie. intelligent creation.
Is this a forum whereby only us lowly ones have to answer questions.
To summarise evolution is a very basic indisputable fact of life and if your model of reality does not incorporate evolution as outlined by Darwin and later evolutionary theorists your model is false.
There is an indisputable fact of LIFE.
I think there is no indisputable fact that descent by modification in random selection over eons allowed dirt or a rock to give rise to the intelligent mind you display here arguing about Darwinism.
In your next post you can explain any indisputable proof you have that the interaction of material by random means cause a self conscious thinking being to evolve from rock or soil.
" . . . Crick a philosophical materialist, has conceded: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so may are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
If the ROOTS of your evolutionary "tree of life" are not nearly established there is no inescapable scientific proof of the whole tree theory a undeniable theory.
Maybe you should reframe your challenge for me to produce an alternative theory rather than suggesting evolution is proven beyond anyone's doubt.
Fossils of extinct animals prove to me that there use to be some animals that lived once on earth which apparently no longer live. That's all.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Take all the time you need. Come back with something solid.
Paul clearly was cool with slavery and had a sexist view when it came to women.
I am not interested in what an unbeliever thinks Paul was "cool with". I am more concerned with how POSITIVELY he was for God's purpose. You may read the Bible only with the thought of "What can everybody get away with?" or "What are the apostles cool with?" I am more interested in their proactive instructions to further God's interests.
If I do take the time to write I would like to think you would take the time to read carefully. Somehow what I have ALREADY written concerning Paul and women I don't have great confidence that you read it.
Anybody who only points out "women keep silent in the church" yet ignores "there cannot be male and female" at best is just on confirmation bias. Taking in all the evidence like asking their husbands at home I think crucial doctrines being defined to the church is what Paul meant. What question needs to be asked about praising, praying, prophesying or proclaiming God one by one in a church meeting.
"For you can all prophesy one by one that all may learn and all may be encouraged." (1 Cor. 14:31)
I can see two sides of the issue and not just one. Paul was a scholar of the Hebrew Bible. Surely he knew of Deborah, Ruth, Esther, the woman who slew Abimelech, Jael who slew Sisera, the prophetess Huldah, Miriam sister to Moses, and other women of note who were vital in God's purposes with Israel. His traveling companion Luke writes more about the women assisting Jesus as Luke latter recorded in his Gospel and the women assisting Paul in Acts.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Let's be honest. You're not really interested in anything that contradicts you.
By all means, let's be honest.
I am interested in things which rub my convictions the wrong way. That is how I have progressed and expanded over the years in my diving into the Scriptures.
Maybe someday I will outline HOW I changed - giving up prior notions and expanding to adopt new ones. I expect to change more in the future.
I like it when I find God cannot be put totally into a box.
I like it when my toes are stepped on.
I have come to realize I cannot 100% systematize the Bible.
If anyone likes everything they read in the Bible, I wouldn't trust them.
Now to the problem at hand. I will write something about Paul and slavery but on more of a PROACTIVE scenario. How did Paul relate the problem of slavery to God's economy - God's dispensation.
Fortunately, a good place to start is all in one book dedicated to the apostle's dealing with slavery - the book of Philemon. Its short. have you ever read it? Do so now so my comments on Philemon have some context for you, if you're truly interested.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Folks, lots of insight into how Paul thought about slavery is in the book of Philemon. This short letter is about Paul writing a Christian who was an owner of a slave who ran away. When the slave, Onesimus ran away he ended up somehow with Paul in prison. Paul then led him to Jesus. Paul then writes his master Philemon opening his heart to him about what the future of this man he hopes will be.
Some abbreviated comments:
First, Paul's short letter is a church matter. It is a matter internal to the Christian community. Paul is NOT writing a letter at large to Roman society either as a social activist or commentator on Roman laws and politics. This is a matter touching the local churches and the one new man which he wrote about to the same church in Colossi where the slave master was.
I don't read Philemon as a letter about what laws Rome should enact.
Paul's letter is not a protest or petition to Roman government. It is not a
recommendation of what national laws must be or not be legislated.
It is a letter of the apostle who labored to build local churches as communities of Christian disciples forming a kind of anti-testimony to the surrounding sinful world of people under the administration of God. Ie. "In this thorny issue of two Christian brothers - one being an escaped slave and the other being his slave owner, THIS is how I desire that we handle the matter."
cont. below
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Paul writes to the slave master as a fellow worker. He and slave master Philemon are proactively about the same project - building up Christian churches. Paul travels around to do so. Philemon stays in one place to do so.
"Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy the brother, to Philemon our beloved and fellow WORKER."
The tone - Philemon, you know we are colleagues. We are co-workers working for the same enterprise. My co-workers and I are in one accord. I write this letter to you not individually but WITH another colleague of mine Timothy. He is observing all the matters of this affair we are about to discuss.
Not only is Timothy looking on. Two other "fellow soldier[s]" of Paul are observing the handling of this matter - "Apphia the sister and . . Archhus our fellow soldier." In fact the letter seems to be addressed to "the church, which is in your house."
The churches usually started in the homes of certain disciples. The church which was in the house of Philemon was the church of the Colossians. By addressing the letter to the local church in Colossi as "the church which is in your house" I think Paul is bringing this thorny matter completely in the light of fellowship of Philemon's fellow Christian brothers and sisters who regularly met in his house.
The purpose of this letter, I feel, is to touch the CONSCIENCE of the slave master / brother in Christ Philemon.
The tone" You're a Christian brother, my fellow worker, and your home is a meeting place of Christians who are now observant of this thorny issue of your run away slave who has now become a Christian brother like you and I. And everybody in the church there should understand what the ramifications of this situation are in complete transparency.
Then "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."(v.3)
"Houston, we have a problem".
Rather "church in your house, church of the Colossians, we have a problem."
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Okay, I will try to speed it up. But please READ the short letter of only 25 verses.
1.) Paul does not command Philemon, though he has the ground to do so. Rather he ENTREATS him to do the right thing according to the new testament church life.
"I entreat you concerning my child, whom I have begotten in my bonds, Onesimus."
2.) The run away slave is [now] considered by Paul his own CHILD, That is spiritual child since Paul led Onesimus receive the Lord Jesus as his Lord and Savior.
The tone: I am writing you about my CHILD here. My CHILD is precious to me.
3.) Paul says Onesimus being a run away slave on one hand seem USELESS to his master. Under God's sovereignty the very name Onesimus meant necessary I think or "useful"
4.) According to society a run away slave has become useless to his master. And maybe this slave stole something from his master also. But in the church life that Paul and Philemon are co-laboring on, the run away slave NOW a Christian brother has now become useful to BOTH the apostle Paul and the brother Philemon.
Paul convinced Onesimus to return to his master. But now he is Paul's own spiritual child and Paul's laboring colleague. Now he is Philemon's colleague also.
"Who was formerly was useless to you but now is useful both to you and to me. Him I have sent back to you - him, that is, my very heart - " (v.12)
He is sending back his own heart. He loves this man. And he even wanted to keep the man with him. But he deemed the right thing to do was to send him back to his master. That is sending him back as if he were sending his own son.
"Whom I intended to keep with myself that on your behalf he might minister to me in the bonds of the gospel." (v.13)