- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Do you get the tone here?
This run away slave has become my fellow laborer in the gospel work which is all the more to YOUR benefit Philemon - slave owner of this run away. The more he assists me HERE the more of a blessing it would be for YOU.
Paul was in the spiritual and heavenly realm pulling down blessings on those he served and prayed for. The run away slave Onesimus found a high purpose to live for. He was co-working with an apostle of Jesus Christ, assisting him.
Paul wanted to KEEP Onesimus as a useful colleague in his gospel work. But he would not do so since he knew legally he belonged with the master he ran away from Philemon.
"But without your mind I did not want to do anything, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but voluntary."
The tone: I want you to receive him back voluntarily, not because you have to.
And that not to punish him but to welcome into the church life as a beloved brother now.
"For perhaps for this reason he was separated from you for an hour, that you might fully have him forever.".
Don't just receive him back to punish him.
Don't just receive him back for him to finish out his term of servitude.
Receive him back for eternity as a beloved brother in Christ with equal preciousness, equal status, equal dignity with you and every other Christian saint regardless of their social status.
This is the one new man in action as Paul wrote in the other letter to the church there:
" . . put on the new man, which is being renewed unto full knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,
Where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, SLAVE, FREE MAN, but Christ is all and in all." (Col. 3:10,11)
More latter
@bigdogg saidAll that because you found out that God supports slavery in the bible. You support pedophiles, murderers, rapists, and all manner of crooks and thieves, because these perpetrators commit their crimes over and over and they walk free among decent citizens in your society. I have never heard you complain about that.
The 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.
(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
Again, Paul has the ground to command Philemon. But instead -
"Therefore though I have much boldness in Christ to charge you what is fitting, Because of love I rather entreat, being such a one as Paul the aged and now a prisoner of Christ Jesus." (v.9)
He reminds the slave master Christian brother how the church in Colossi was established on his [Paul's] revelation, teaching, and prayers. He has poured out his whole life in service of the local churches. He has some ground of authority to instruct the elders of a church under his ministry. He does not use that ground. He would rather entreat the man to be sensitive to his own conscience on the matter.
While Paul was in prison he caused this run away slave to have faith in Christ.
He must have been in prison and in considerable trouble for being a run away slave. He probably had reason to fear for his wellbeing. He probably had no inclination to return to his master. Maybe he had stolen from his master.
Paul says if Onesimus owes Philemon anything charge it to his [Paul's] account.
And Paul gently reminds the slave master that he owes his life to the Apostle Paul himself.
"And if he has wronged you in anything or owes anything, charge that to my account. I, Paul, have written with my own hand: I will repay; not to say to you that you owe me even your own self besides." (v.18,19)
Philemon may have have been a wreck when Paul's gospel brought him to Jesus Christ like it brought Onesimus to Jesus in his tribulations.
The tone: "Remember slave master Philemon how badly a wreck your own life was before I led you to Jesus. Or otherwise, Paul's gospel came to be believed by Philemon saving his life.
Paul is not leaving the man a whole lot of wiggle room in his conscience.
28 Jul 21
@rajk999 said"I have never heard you complain about that."
All that because you found out that God supports slavery in the bible. You support pedophiles, murderers, rapists, and all manner of crooks and thieves, because these perpetrators commit their crimes over and over and they walk free among decent citizens. I have never heard you complain about that.
I haven't yet complained about bestiality on this forum, so I guess that means I support it. I've also haven't complained about child sacrifices on this forum, so I must be cool with that too.
@sonship saidSo pure unadulterated opinion padded out with misconception and ignorance rather than facts or any scientific basis for creationism.
@kevcvs57But 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:
[b ...[text shortened]... [/b] to be some animals that lived once on earth which apparently no longer live. That's all.
There is a massive amount of genetic variation in the human family if your not racist enough to exclude Africans who, because of the reality of the homo sapiens migration out of Africa contain more genetic diversity than the rest of our human family put together. There are plenty of sources for the “Out of Africa” explanation of the low genetic diversity outside of the African continent so I’ll assume that your video source ignored it for editorial reasons.
Simply saying that because something is complex it must have an intelligent designer is childlike in its nativity about the nature of reality and it’s almost infinite possibilities. We can see evolution right now with COVID variations starting from a single individual variant to being the dominant strain in an incredibly short time.
It’s interesting that you and your video source focused on Darwin’s 19th century colonial Christian missionary mindset which has no actual bearing in the scientific facts of evolution but I understand why you and your fellow travellers would make use of it in order to muddy the waters and try to conjure up some semblance of equivalence for your pseudo scientific god of the gaps.
I’m old enough to remember when the I.D brigade got exited about the human eye and cited it as evidence of intelligent Design only to be shot down on flames by a very simple explanation of the very simple natural evolutionary mechanism for its development.
If you really want to know why the human race outside of Africa is relatively low in genetic diversity you could do worse than following this link
Lol the link I will replace the one that ran off the page and down the street with as soon as I can get one.
Or you could just Google ‘Out of Africa’ and follow the wiki link.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
29 Jul 21
1 edit
So pure unadulterated opinion padded out with misconception and ignorance rather than facts or any scientific basis for creationism.
Which one/s of the scientists quoted showed misconception and ignorance?
Collins? Shapiro? Cairns-Smith? Meyer?
Which did you take issue with as to misconception and ignorance?
There is a massive amount of genetic variation in the human family if your not racist enough to exclude Africans who, because of the reality of the homo sapiens migration out of Africa contain more genetic diversity than the rest of our human family put together.
I have no racist intention to do so. My ancestors were African.
So you took issue with the quotation from the video Francis Collins?
"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 are plenty of sources for the “Out of Africa” explanation of the low genetic diversity outside of the African continent so I’ll assume that your video source ignored it for editorial reasons.
If you mean editorial reasons that the video not be too long, that is the only editorial reason I could see happening.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Simply saying that because something is complex it must have an intelligent designer is childlike in its nativity about the nature of reality and it’s almost infinite possibilities.
When I read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe I was introduced to the problem of irreducible complexity. It is not just that something like the bacterium flagellum is complex. Like many other things arriving at this complexity by gradual evolution is doubtful. As you run the reducing of its parts in reverse the whole thing doesn't work. And there is not enough time in the universe to stumble into some of these things.
Maybe you never read Darwin's Black Box is you were negatively influenced by its critics. I have heard many rebuttals to irreducible complexity which I think Behe has fielded very well. The book is about ID not creationism.
Another thing I appreciated about Behe's book was he answered criticisms as to ID not being predictive. When Behe came and spoke at a local university I went to hear and ask him a question.
I asked what would he say about those who criticize him for throwing up his hands saying that he doesn't know therefore he opts for intelligent design, his answer stuck with me. He said that his decision to pursue Intelligent Design as a discipline was not based on what he didn't know but rather on what he knew.
Don't be annoyed that a child might also know that something like the information caring DNA molecule is not something that happens without intelligent planning.
We can see evolution right now with COVID variations starting from a single individual variant to being the dominant strain in an incredibly short time.
If you want to say that is ALL there is to evolution, sure, breeding different kinds of dogs is evolution. And mutating viruses into other viruses is evolution. That is one definition of evolution that we can say has been observed.
But the kind of evolution saying fish gradually became amphibians or apes gradually became humans, that has not been observed. It has been speculated based on the observation that finch beaks changed in size on finches or moths of one color gradually overtook the population of moths of another color.
Why don't you recognize that the extrapolation is theoretical and not inescapable scientific fact?
Let me ask you a question:
Do you think MIND only came after MATTER?
Or do you think it was the other way around?
I think MIND, some MIND preceded MATTER.
I don't think MATTER eventually evolved to produce MIND.
What do you think?
It’s interesting that you and your video source focused on Darwin’s 19th century colonial Christian missionary mindset which has no actual bearing in the scientific facts of evolution but I understand why you and your fellow travellers would make use of it in order to muddy the waters and try to conjure up some semblance of equivalence for your pseudo scientific god of the gaps.
Here we are now in the 21rst century. And in hindsight many have seen the harmful damage, especially in Social Darwinism, that the theory had. I grant that we have learned from experience that aspects of the theory are detrimental.
But the religious devotion to the core idea is exposed. Discarded concepts still managed to be published in school text books long after the 19th century.
You can still find current school texts which reprint long discarded explanations.
Kent Hovind is a good source for showing still repeated debunked evolution concepts in modern science books. I do not agree with everything Hovind says and I know he can be annoying. But for showing corrected and discarded evolution ideas are STILL taught to kids in schools.
Why Evolution is Stupid with 100 Reasons
&t=3575s&ab_channel=TheBible-smithProject
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
I’m old enough to remember when the I.D brigade got exited about the human eye and cited it as evidence of intelligent Design only to be shot down on flames by a very simple explanation of the very simple natural evolutionary mechanism for its development.
Tell me all about the human eye arriving by long periods of lucky accidents.
You've been overly hyped by critics of ID.
Take a look at this animation of the activity going on in a living cell.
Then imagine how even ONE of these machines arrived by trial and error
evolution like. Take this walker along a cyto skeletal element carrying a bundle along the way to its destination. How in the world do you think THAT among other THOUSANDS of operations in a cell, all coordinated together, arose with no planning intelligence?
The Inner Life of the Cell by Harvard and HHMI narrated by Tydell
&t=231s&ab_channel=AP120Dr.Tydell
If you really want to know why the human race outside of Africa is relatively low in genetic diversity you could do worse than following this link
I'll keep my eye open to that issue you mention.
I take it that you found Francis Collins over generalizing and not paying
significant attention to some African / non-African issue.
As for me who is of African American ethnicity, I was never so excited to hear human life started in Africa. Like "Yea. We were here first." The whole concept of an ape like creature one day giving birth to a human I find a dubious distinction no matter where it is said to have occurred.
Like you are concerned in education about the separation of Church and State, I'm concerned about the separation of Ape and State.
29 Jul 21
@sonship saidI take issue with the fact that they simply decided to add their interpretive opinion to reality without offering any scientific evidence for a creator. I don’t know if you are being obtuse but deciding in your own head that complexity requires motive and thus there must be a creator is simply wrong, the video in the first minute purported that it would demonstrate the truth of creation. I can accept as valid the idea that super intelligent beings may have the ability to kickstart evolution but there is not one shred of evidence that they did!
@kevcvs57
So pure unadulterated opinion padded out with misconception and ignorance rather than facts or any scientific basis for creationism.
Which one/s of the scientists quoted showed misconception and ignorance?
Collins? Shapiro? Cairns-Smith? Meyer?
Which did you take issue with as to misconception and ignorance?
[quote]
There is a m ...[text shortened]... ial reasons that the video not be too long, that is the only editorial reason I could see happening.
The evidence that a claim for a creator requires is evidence of a creator not just saying whatever is happening is happening because of a creator.
I’ll keep it simple you cannot call yourself a scientist if you do not restrict yourself to empirical evidence there is no empirical evidence for any kind of creator, supernatural or otherwise and the video certainly did not provide any.
That’s my issue with all of the ‘scientists’ in the video,
29 Jul 21
1 edit
@rajk999 saidNo. Most Christians don't think that OT style slavery is acceptable in today's times. You made it clear that you would have no problem with it happening now. That's why you got singled out.
All that because you found out that God supports slavery in the bible. You support pedophiles, murderers, rapists, and all manner of crooks and thieves, because these perpetrators commit their crimes over and over and they walk free among decent citizens in your society. I have never heard you complain about that.
And no, I do not support pedos, rapists, etc. committing crimes with impunity. This is simply a desperate, false claim on your part.
The reason you don't hear me speak of those subjects is that they don't much make for interesting conversation. Most everyone agrees that those things are wrong (duh).
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
I take issue with the fact that they simply decided to add their interpretive opinion to reality without offering any scientific evidence for a creator.
Do you think the DNA molecule inherent in all known life arose without an intelligent plan?
Just answer me that much. That's all.
I don’t know if you are being obtuse but deciding in your own head that complexity requires motive and thus there must be a creator is simply wrong, the video in the first minute purported that it would demonstrate the truth of creation.
Do you think the functional ability of the DNA molecule present in all known life arose from accidental interactions of atoms over a long period of time, requiring NO plan, NO intelligent concept?
I can accept as valid the idea that super intelligent beings may have the ability to kickstart evolution but there is not one shred of evidence that they did!
Super intelligent beings designing the functionality of DNA comes up to the a plausible explanation that ID was involved.
The evidence is I think SOME form of intelligence originates its existence and functionality. Unless you really think lucky accidents over billions of years groped its way around to result in this astounding library of instructions.
The evidence that a claim for a creator requires is evidence of a creator not just saying whatever is happening is happening because of a creator.
DNA is a fact. Does it evidence what time and random accidents can do? Or does it evidence what extremely capable intelligent planning, concept, forethought, foresight, and the ability to "look ahead" towards a desired goal, can do?
I’ll keep it simple you cannot call yourself a scientist if you do not restrict yourself to empirical evidence there is no empirical evidence for any kind of creator, supernatural or otherwise and the video certainly did not provide any.
I do not claim to be a professional scientist.
But what elitism dictates that I cannot look at the functioning DNA molecule and tell that things like that do not happen by accident?
That’s my issue with all of the ‘scientists’ in the video,
I think the point is forgivable given other people can be just as devoted to a secular religion in which the people in white coats are the high priests whose orthodoxy is beyond questioning.
I wrote a probably thousand or more logical computer routines in my career.
Any algorithm involving about 30 steps is going to call for debugging to
perfect its function, correct its problems, and check if it is doing what it is suppose to perform correctly.
You are asking me to believe that the algorithm of evolution required no ability to "look ahead" to see how the process is performing the desired functionality. Big TIME simply had luck prevail for natural selection to be applied to a thousand operations in just ONE cell to be debugged and perfected.
You know you're asking me to believe in a miracle.
Intelligent agency is the better explanation.
30 Jul 21
1 edit
@sonship saidNo no it isn’t because you’ll still need to answer the question of where the intelligence came from. I’ll give you a clue; unless it came from a puff of magic smoke it must have developed, now if only there was a theory for living things developing intelligence,
@kevcvs57
I take issue with the fact that they simply decided to add their interpretive opinion to reality without offering any scientific evidence for a creator.
Do you think the DNA molecule inherent in all known life arose without an intelligent plan?
Just answer me that much. That's all.
[quote]
I don’t know if you are being ...[text shortened]... know you're asking me to believe in a miracle.
Intelligent agency is the better explanation.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Jul 21
@kevcvs57
Thanks for your RNA article above. I am reading it with interest.
Comment latter.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
No no it isn’t because you’ll still need to answer the question of where the intelligence came from. I’ll give you a clue; unless it came from a puff of magic smoke it must have developed, now if only there was a theory for living things developing intelligence,
You need to answer a similar question.
Motility in cargo transport in walking motor proteins had to evolve like everything else biological.
How much time do you think elapsed between these two hypothetical events?
In the evolutionary trial and error development of the left leg of this walking molecular motor protein as it learned to walk along a cytoskeletal track, and the registering of its the successful movement of the LEFT leg long enough for the trial and error development of the RIGHT leg to do the same thing for successful walking?
From the moment when the FIRST leg stepped to the moment when the other leg learned to step, how much time do you think elapsed? Just imagine a span to of time to arrive at this, record the successful operation, replicate it so the other side catches up to do the same thing holding in place the partially successful balanced maneuver.
See animation at
Ron Vale (UCSF, HHMI) 1. Molecular Motor Proteins
&t=3s&ab_channel=iBiology