I'd add, @MPaul, that it seems like you have a real concern, perhaps a fear even, that if any portion of Scripture is not literally true and historically accurate—that if, for example, Adam and Eve were not real people who lived in a real Garden of Eden—then nothing in Scripture is trustworthy. This seems to be coupled with a perception that rejection of the historical accuracy of something like Adam and Eve being real people is automatically a rejection in toto of any possibility of divine revelation in the first chapters of Genesis.
Is that so? If it is, why do you think that?
I'm trying not to put words in your mouth (or thoughts in your head) and would be interested to know your perspective on this.
I'd add, @MPaul, that it seems like you have a real concern, perhaps a fear even, that if any portion of Scripture is not literally true and historically accurate—that if, for example, Adam and Eve were not real people who lived in a real Garden of Eden—then nothing in Scripture is trustworthy. This seems to be coupled with a perception that rejection of the historical accuracy of something like Adam and Eve being real people is automatically a rejection in toto of any possibility of divine revelation in the first chapters of Genesis.
Is that so? If it is, why do you think that?
I'm trying not to put words in your mouth (or thoughts in your head) and would be interested to know your perspective on this.
I am not into confessionals here. Suffice it that evolution is on many levels inconsistent with scripture. Pussyfooting around that is simply stupid. You do not have a ‘both and’ choice here. It is not a hard choice for someone who knows the power of God. The fruit of evolution among other things was Nazi view of higher races and the whole of the arrogant imperialism of the 19th century was predicated on it among other things. It reduces humanity to higher animal status. That s why it was OK to hunt aborigines in Australia.
Sorry. I didn’t realize that seeking to understand your position rather than characterize it, and possibly mischaracterize it, involved confessionals.
Suffice it that evolution is on many levels inconsistent with scripture.
Sorry again, but that doesn’t suffice at all, not by a long shot. If you’re going to make that claim, you need to give specifics.
Pussyfooting around that is simply stupid. You do not have a ‘both and’ choice here. It is not a hard choice for someone who knows the power of God.
So, just so I have this straight, if I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, that is evidence in your mind that I don’t know the power of God?
MPaul - you want to judge a body of thought based on the worst things some people claiming that body of thought as their inspiration have done?
You sure you really want to go there? In a world which spawned Tomas de Torquemada, Bloody Mary, Matthew Hopkins, a world which came up with Witch Trials, Ulster Sectarianism and the Crusades?
And presumably to enslave other people too ... oh, wait.
Absolutely. Prove the contrary if you can.
Well, given that Western oppression of native peoples in their empires predates Darwin by a couple of hundres years or more I think the ball's in your court there. Do you have any idea what Columbus did to the people he found in the Americas?
And presumably to enslave other people too ... oh, wait.
Absolutely. Prove the contrary if you can.
You do know the entirety of the Bible predates the theory of evolution? And it has actual rules how to treat slaves? Which kind of suggests that ancient slavery has nothing to evolution at all?
Sorry. I didn’t realize that seeking to understand your position rather than characterize it, and possibly mischaracterize it, involved confessionals.
Suffice it that evolution is on many levels inconsistent with scripture.
Sorry again, but that doesn’t suffice at all, not by a long shot. If you’re going to make that claim, you need to give specifics.
Pussyfooting around that is simply stupid. You do not have a ‘both and’ choice here. It is not a hard choice for someone who knows the power of God.
So, just so I have this straight, if I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, that is evidence in your mind that I don’t know the power of God?
And presumably to enslave other people too ... oh, wait.
Absolutely. Prove the contrary if you can.
You do know the entirety of the Bible predates the theory of evolution? And it has actual rules how to treat slaves? Which kind of suggests that ancient slavery has nothing to evolution at all?
Anyone? Bueller?
And you know that is a red herring. Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.
[/quote]So, just so I have this straight, if I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, that is evidence in your mind that I don’t know the power of God?[/quote]
I do not have an opinion about that. You are a merely a voice on the internet.
MPaul - you want to judge a body of thought based on the worst things some people claiming that body of thought as their inspiration have done?
You sure you really want to go there? In a world which spawned Tomas de Torquemada, Bloody Mary, Matthew Hopkins, a world which came up with Witch Trials, Ulster Sectarianism and the Crusades?
Really?
How is any of that relevant to the point? The logical end of evolutionary thought is: man =animal.
And you know that is a red herring. Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.
Nice swerve. I deliberately said ancient slavery, and you most definitely (unless you want to deny scripture, of course) have no answer to that.
People behave like shits given the opportunity. The convenient excuses merely change (or even evolve...) over time.
So, just so I have this straight, if I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, that is evidence in your mind that I don’t know the power of God?
I do not have an opinion about that. You are a merely a voice on the internet.
How strange to say you don’t have an opinion on the meaning of what you wrote.
And you know that is a red herring. Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.
Except that what you call slavery of Africans linked to 19th Century imperialism started in the 17th Century, and those Africans were treated as less-than-human from the outset. This is simply not a coherent argument that you’re making.
Nick Tamen:How strange to say you don’t have an opinion on the meaning of what you wrote.
If you are determined to feel judged and put upon then fill your boots.
The alternative is to heed that wise commandment..
'Do not easily take offence'
And you know that is a red herring. Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.
Nice swerve. I deliberately said ancient slavery, and you most definitely (unless you want to deny scripture, of course) have no answer to that.
People behave like shits given the opportunity. The convenient excuses merely change (or even evolve...) over time.
No. You deliberately reinterpreted the context of the discussion from 19 century to ancient slavery.
Do you not think that is dishonest?
And yes people often are selfish; it is called sin. Darwin gives us quite an excuse for it neh?
Nick Tamen:How strange to say you don’t have an opinion on the meaning of what you wrote.
If you are determined to feel judged and put upon then fill your boots.
The alternative is to heed that wise commandment..
'Do not easily take offence'
I am not determined to feel judged, nor do I easily take offense. For that matter, I’m not particularly concerned about your opinion of my faith, and I wonder why I bother trying to engage with someone who doesn’t seem to want to engage—indeed who regularly avoids it—and who consistently caricatures beliefs that are not his own.
But I do think it’s worth suggesting that you take responsibility for what you write. You have a pattern of saying things, and then brushing aside any suggestion that you actually meant what you said, preferring to blame others for taking offense at the plain implications of your words.
Not the case. You persistently imply that personal judgement has occurred. It has not. You somehow feel bad because I said someone who knows God's power has no difficulty believing the Bible? Well fine..feel judged, feel bad and enjoy feeling superior if that is where it leads. I am not responsible for how you want to read what I said.
MPaul - you want to judge a body of thought based on the worst things some people claiming that body of thought as their inspiration have done?
You sure you really want to go there? In a world which spawned Tomas de Torquemada, Bloody Mary, Matthew Hopkins, a world which came up with Witch Trials, Ulster Sectarianism and the Crusades?
Really?
How is any of that relevant to the point? The logical end of evolutionary thought is: man =animal.
Biologically man is an animal. You don't need evolution for that; morphology is sufficient.
The relevance of this is your attempt to declare evolution false based on the actions of some people claiming it as their inspiration. Applying that logic to Christianity would declare it false because of the terrible deeds of some of its adherents.
Not the case. You persistently imply that personal judgement has occurred. It has not. You somehow feel bad because I said someone who knows God's power has no difficulty believing the Bible? Well fine..feel judged, feel bad and enjoy feeling superior if that is where it leads. I am not responsible for how you want to read what I said.
"Travellers are all thieves"
"I'm a Traveller. Don't call me a thief"
"Did I call you a thief? Why are you so determined to take offence? I can't help how you choose to interpret my posts!"
And you know that is a red herring. Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.
Nice swerve. I deliberately said ancient slavery, and you most definitely (unless you want to deny scripture, of course) have no answer to that.
People behave like shits given the opportunity. The convenient excuses merely change (or even evolve...) over time.
No. You deliberately reinterpreted the context of the discussion from 19 century to ancient slavery.
Do you not think that is dishonest?
And yes people often are selfish; it is called sin. Darwin gives us quite an excuse for it neh?
No more than the doctrine of Original Sin does. Both say we're programmed to act in this way because of events in the past.
MPaul - you want to judge a body of thought based on the worst things some people claiming that body of thought as their inspiration have done?
You sure you really want to go there? In a world which spawned Tomas de Torquemada, Bloody Mary, Matthew Hopkins, a world which came up with Witch Trials, Ulster Sectarianism and the Crusades?
Really?
How is any of that relevant to the point? The logical end of evolutionary thought is: man =animal.
Biologically man is an animal. You don't need evolution for that; morphology is sufficient.
The relevance of this is your attempt to declare evolution false based on the actions of some people claiming it as their inspiration. Applying that logic to Christianity would declare it false because of the terrible deeds of some of its adherents.
Obvious really, but there's none so blind.
Indeed. As far as evolution is concerned, biology is all of it.
Not the case. You persistently imply that personal judgement has occurred. It has not. You somehow feel bad because I said someone who knows God's power has no difficulty believing the Bible? Well fine..feel judged, feel bad and enjoy feeling superior if that is where it leads. I am not responsible for how you want to read what I said.
"Travellers are all thieves"
"I'm a Traveller. Don't call me a thief"
"Did I call you a thief? Why are you so determined to take offence? I can't help how you choose to interpret my posts!"
What defines a traveller? How do you know if you are one? Is the definition up for grabs? And if I am confident I am one why would I care what you think?
So, just so I have this straight, if I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, that is evidence in your mind that I don’t know the power of God?
I do not have an opinion about that. You are a merely a voice on the internet.
How strange to say you don’t have an opinion on the meaning of what you wrote.
And you know that is a red herring. Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.
Except that what you call slavery of Africans linked to 19th Century imperialism started in the 17th Century, and those Africans were treated as less-than-human from the outset. This is simply not a coherent argument that you’re making.
Does that actually matter? It is undeniable that a match to petrol increases the fire. I remember Christopher Hitchens getting quite disturbed in his urbane way, at the very suggestion by Berlinski, in a debate, that Darwinian thinking was a driver of the Nazi holocaust.
MPaul - you want to judge a body of thought based on the worst things some people claiming that body of thought as their inspiration have done?
You sure you really want to go there? In a world which spawned Tomas de Torquemada, Bloody Mary, Matthew Hopkins, a world which came up with Witch Trials, Ulster Sectarianism and the Crusades?
Really?
How is any of that relevant to the point? The logical end of evolutionary thought is: man =animal.
Biologically man is an animal. You don't need evolution for that; morphology is sufficient.
The relevance of this is your attempt to declare evolution false based on the actions of some people claiming it as their inspiration. Applying that logic to Christianity would declare it false because of the terrible deeds of some of its adherents.
Obvious really, but there's none so blind.
Indeed. As far as evolution is concerned, biology is all of it.
Given that evolution is a subfield of biology, surprise surprise. What did you expect? A recipe for authentic Swiss Fondue? A concerto for dulcimer and orchestra in F#?
What are you on about? Origin of Species came out in 1859, the Transatlantic Slave Trade started collapsing in the 1780s, was outlawed in the British the other Empires in the 1820s and 1830s and came to an almost total halt by the 1860s.
It's not possible for Evolution to have impacted on this slave trade because the idea hadn't been developed yet.
People didn't need scientific theories to dehumanise others - they had religious texts for that.
So, just so I have this straight, if I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, that is evidence in your mind that I don’t know the power of God?
I do not have an opinion about that. You are a merely a voice on the internet.
How strange to say you don’t have an opinion on the meaning of what you wrote.
And you know that is a red herring. Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.
Except that what you call slavery of Africans linked to 19th Century imperialism started in the 17th Century, and those Africans were treated as less-than-human from the outset. This is simply not a coherent argument that you’re making.
Does that actually matter? It is undeniable that a match to petrol increases the fire. I remember Christopher Hitchens getting quite disturbed in his urbane way, at the very suggestion by Berlinski, in a debate, that Darwinian thinking was a driver of the Nazi holocaust.
And the Rwandan genocide was caused by a warped reading of Christianity. What's your point here?
You know my Three Tier model of creationism above? "Evolution is the cause of racism/slavery/genocide" is a standard bollocks argument from the Originators, passed down the chain.
Not the case. You persistently imply that personal judgement has occurred. It has not. You somehow feel bad because I said someone who knows God's power has no difficulty believing the Bible? Well fine..feel judged, feel bad and enjoy feeling superior if that is where it leads. I am not responsible for how you want to read what I said.
Nor, apparently, are you responsible for what you say.
IIRC, "The curse of Ham" was a medieval construct.
But yes, MPaul has started on a Gish Gallop and won't stop any time soon. Pinning him down and forcing him to admit that slavery was (and possibly even still is) Biblical is a futile task. He'll simply move on to saying feminism, human rights, voting and a free press are the evils that evolution brings us, and we'd be much better off under a patriarchal slaving-owning theocracy.
Certainly, acknowledging that slavery predated evolutionary theory, and that the Bible had rules for good slave-keeping, would be a starting point.
We can move on from there as to whether he thinks those rules are timeless and applicable now.
Not denied and irrelevant. No one said evolution caused slavery just that evolutionary thinking helped justify 19 th century imperialism..also the holocaust was certainly enabled by it..survival of the fittest could become domination of the strongest with a bit of sleight of hand. My point is that evolutionary thinking devalues us..leads us into decisions that make us less than imagio dei.
The fruit of evolution among other things was Nazi view of higher races . . .
Interestingly Hitler never cited Darwin or evolution as inspirations for his political beliefs. He did return to one particular scientific metaphor time and again though, the idea of the Jew (and other untermenschen) as bacteria in the body politic. Hitler compared himself to Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch, but never Charles Darwin. If any scientific theory can be said to have inspired the Nazis it's germ theory.
Germs are, of course, a non-Biblical idea like descent with modification (a.k.a. evolution).
And you know that is a red herring. Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.
Except that what you call slavery of Africans linked to 19th Century imperialism started in the 17th Century, and those Africans were treated as less-than-human from the outset. This is simply not a coherent argument that you’re making.
Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in November 1859. The claim that this represents the origin of slavery, or even the trans-Atlantic slave trade, is laughable.
MPaul - even if there were validity to your association of imperialism with evolution (though Church leaders at the time, many of them Creationist by default if not by conviction, given the novelty of Darwin's theory at the time do not seem to have acted as any kind of brake on it) it would only serve as an illustration of argument by negative consequences.
That is a bit like saying "this ladder is not at risk of toppling because if it did I would risk serious injury".
Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in November 1859. The claim that this represents the origin of slavery, or even the trans-Atlantic slave trade, is laughable.
So who made that claim pray tell?
Regarding the other, the idea that some races are purer or cleaner or superior, was a staple for the last 150 years. It certainly is consistent with the influence of Darwinism.
It is my opinion that if we think of ourselves as higher order primates, then we very easily devalue the very young,the very old and the disabled.
If we are in God’s image, then our value is independent of such things as race,intelligence or able bodied ness. As a believer in Christ, I am actually an embodied spirit with an eternal hope and destiny.
As a higher order primate, I am simply lucky to have existence and any further prosperity is a bonus.
Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in November 1859. The claim that this represents the origin of slavery, or even the trans-Atlantic slave trade, is laughable.
Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution.
I'd be more inclined to believe that 19th century slavery was much more clearly bolstered by 18th and 17th century slavery rather than a scientific theory first promoted in 1859, but apparently your mileage varies. If anything, the timing would suggest Darwin's theory of descent with modification was detrimental to the institution of slavery, especially if such a theory could be seen as replacing an earlier, Biblically-based theory of a racial caste system. That's further than I'd go, but it's arguable and fits the known historical facts better than your assertions.
If we are in God’s image, then our value is independent of such things as race, intelligence or able bodied ness. As a believer in Christ, I am actually an embodied spirit with an eternal hope and destiny.
And yet people who believed themselves in God's image seemed not at all averse to enslaving others who they also considered to be in God's image, with the eternal hope that their destiny would involve "wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces", to quote a noted orator on the subject. Noted Christian theologians who claimed to have held beliefs like your were nonetheless tireless advocates for the expansion of African slavery.
Certainly, acknowledging that slavery predated evolutionary theory, and that the Bible had rules for good slave-keeping, would be a starting point.
We can move on from there as to whether he thinks those rules are timeless and applicable now.
Not denied and irrelevant. No one said evolution caused slavery just that evolutionary thinking helped justify 19 th century imperialism..also the holocaust was certainly enabled by it..survival of the fittest could become domination of the strongest with a bit of sleight of hand. My point is that evolutionary thinking devalues us..leads us into decisions that make us less than imagio dei.
But address this point: you are saying the OT is not authoritative with regard to slavery (dentistry, accountancy etc), but somehow is authoritative with regard to the earth science over and above all other evidence. Why should it be?
Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in November 1859. The claim that this represents the origin of slavery, or even the trans-Atlantic slave trade, is laughable.
So who made that claim pray tell?
Regarding the other, the idea that some races are purer or cleaner or superior, was a staple for the last 150 years. It certainly is consistent with the influence of Darwinism.
It is my opinion that if we think of ourselves as higher order primates, then we very easily devalue the very young,the very old and the disabled.
If we are in God’s image, then our value is independent of such things as race,intelligence or able bodied ness. As a believer in Christ, I am actually an embodied spirit with an eternal hope and destiny.
As a higher order primate, I am simply lucky to have existence and any further prosperity is a bonus.
This simplistic confusion of a scientific model with sources of values may fly at the front of a fundy church, but it's pretty thin gruel to an audience less inclined to hear what they want to hear.
Nothing in evolutionary theory speaks to whether humans are made in God's image. It cannot, and does not seek to, answer spiritual, religious or philosphophical questions. It provides a model of allele frequency change over time, and provides a model for the appearance of biodiversity across differing ecosystems separated by and both space and time, as evidenced in the fossil record.
Why the origin of species by descent with modification threatens the idea of humanity being created in imago Dei in a way which the development of the human foetus through cell division, gene expression and tissue differentiation apparently doesn't threaten the idea of the individual being the creation of God is a bit of a mystery to me.
All this besides, you have dismally failed to show any correlation between acceptance of evolutionary theory with people treating other groups badly. Indeed, considering the racist history of especially the Southern States, where fundamentalist Christianity is strongest, and the general trends over time, I think both human geography and history are rather against that hypothesis
But address this point: you are saying the OT is not authoritative with regard to slavery (dentistry, accountancy etc), but somehow is authoritative with regard to the earth science over and above all other evidence. Why should it be?
Not to mention the astronomical sciences. The cosmology of Genesis is that the world is under a massive vault (NIV) or firmament (KJV), above which there is a massive amount of water. (There's water underneath, too). The sun, moon, and stars are all hanging on this vault/firmament, so they're more or less all the same distance from the earth. Additionally there are floodgates (NIV) or windows (KJV) in the vault/firmament which God can open whenever he feels a little genocidy, allowing the waters above the firmament to flood the earth.
This image is consistent with other Middle Eastern cosmologies of the time, which posited a flat earth under a dome, with water both above and below. Modern science thinks it knows better with its stories of deep space and gravitational attraction across vast gulfs of nothing, but those who take the Bible serious know this is all a desperate fake, like the supposed Moon landing. [/sarcasm]
Certainly, acknowledging that slavery predated evolutionary theory, and that the Bible had rules for good slave-keeping, would be a starting point.
We can move on from there as to whether he thinks those rules are timeless and applicable now.
Not denied and irrelevant. No one said evolution caused slavery just that evolutionary thinking helped justify 19 th century imperialism..also the holocaust was certainly enabled by it..survival of the fittest could become domination of the strongest with a bit of sleight of hand. My point is that evolutionary thinking devalues us..leads us into decisions that make us less than imagio dei.
But address this point: you are saying the OT is not authoritative with regard to slavery (dentistry, accountancy etc), but somehow is authoritative with regard to the earth science over and above all other evidence. Why should it be?
Just to say this is moving the goalposts and is not relevant to the discussion. If you wish to discuss slavery in the Bible start a separate thread.
Stars? Pah. They could be a lot smaller and a lot closer than those evolution-believing godless scientists like to tell you.
Nah, speed of light must have slowed down. Or God created the light in transit, which means we've never actually really seen the more distant stars, around 99.99999 keep going with 9s for a bit % of the physical universe.
I was going to say let's not do MPaul's job for him, but it saves time and we might as well get the comedy items out first. Will we get whales outrunning velociraptors to the tops of mountains so they only appear above them in the fossil record now or later I wonder?
confusion of a scientific model with sources of values
Well what is scientific about it? It is really a speculation, an emperor with no clothes.. completely unobservable.
But the values discussion IS worth having. A basic test of any belief system is where it leads to in terms of behaviour. My claim is that Darwinism and Neo Darwinism do not have good fruit. I think all the claims and burden of proof is yours if you adhere to it.
Regarding the fruit of Christianity, while there are abuses, let is not forget that pretty well all of the good discoveries of Science and in western European civilisation are based on a view of man as created in God's image or by men who believed it.
By the way, there is no Gish gallop here. I am not jumping from point to unrelated point. It is others shifting the focus of the discussion on to things like the origin of slavery..something I did not bring up.
Regarding the fruit of Christianity, while there are abuses, let is not forget that pretty well all of the good discoveries of Science and in western European civilisation are based on a view of man as created in God's image or by men who believed it.
Does the discovery that antibiotic resistance in bacteria is caused by evolution at work count as a "good discovery"? Or would it be better to conceal that information lest people think bacteria aren't created by God? Maybe it's all a hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy of godless evolutionists and pharmaceutical companies and there isn't really such a thing as MRSA!!!
Comments
I repeat the question I asked upthread:
I'm trying not to put words in your mouth (or thoughts in your head) and would be interested to know your perspective on this.
Sorry again, but that doesn’t suffice at all, not by a long shot. If you’re going to make that claim, you need to give specifics.
So, just so I have this straight, if I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, that is evidence in your mind that I don’t know the power of God?
You sure you really want to go there? In a world which spawned Tomas de Torquemada, Bloody Mary, Matthew Hopkins, a world which came up with Witch Trials, Ulster Sectarianism and the Crusades?
Really?
Well, given that Western oppression of native peoples in their empires predates Darwin by a couple of hundres years or more I think the ball's in your court there. Do you have any idea what Columbus did to the people he found in the Americas?
You do know the entirety of the Bible predates the theory of evolution? And it has actual rules how to treat slaves? Which kind of suggests that ancient slavery has nothing to evolution at all?
Anyone? Bueller?
And you know that is a red herring. Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.
I do not have an opinion about that. You are a merely a voice on the internet.
How is any of that relevant to the point? The logical end of evolutionary thought is: man =animal.
Nice swerve. I deliberately said ancient slavery, and you most definitely (unless you want to deny scripture, of course) have no answer to that.
People behave like shits given the opportunity. The convenient excuses merely change (or even evolve...) over time.
Except that what you call slavery of Africans linked to 19th Century imperialism started in the 17th Century, and those Africans were treated as less-than-human from the outset. This is simply not a coherent argument that you’re making.
All readings are interpretations and one is as good as another.
You feel that my interpretation of say, Jesus ' words..
"He who made them from the beginning made them male and Female.."
suggests that Jesus believed Genesis.. is wrong.
Your alternative reading then is..what exactly?
Jesus was a bronze age incarnation of God who lacked modern Darwinian insights?
Please enlighten.
The alternative is to heed that wise commandment..
'Do not easily take offence'
No. You deliberately reinterpreted the context of the discussion from 19 century to ancient slavery.
Do you not think that is dishonest?
And yes people often are selfish; it is called sin. Darwin gives us quite an excuse for it neh?
But I do think it’s worth suggesting that you take responsibility for what you write. You have a pattern of saying things, and then brushing aside any suggestion that you actually meant what you said, preferring to blame others for taking offense at the plain implications of your words.
Biologically man is an animal. You don't need evolution for that; morphology is sufficient.
The relevance of this is your attempt to declare evolution false based on the actions of some people claiming it as their inspiration. Applying that logic to Christianity would declare it false because of the terrible deeds of some of its adherents.
Obvious really, but there's none so blind.
"Travellers are all thieves"
"I'm a Traveller. Don't call me a thief"
"Did I call you a thief? Why are you so determined to take offence? I can't help how you choose to interpret my posts!"
No more than the doctrine of Original Sin does. Both say we're programmed to act in this way because of events in the past.
What defines a traveller? How do you know if you are one? Is the definition up for grabs? And if I am confident I am one why would I care what you think?
Given that evolution is a subfield of biology, surprise surprise. What did you expect? A recipe for authentic Swiss Fondue? A concerto for dulcimer and orchestra in F#?
What are you on about? Origin of Species came out in 1859, the Transatlantic Slave Trade started collapsing in the 1780s, was outlawed in the British the other Empires in the 1820s and 1830s and came to an almost total halt by the 1860s.
It's not possible for Evolution to have impacted on this slave trade because the idea hadn't been developed yet.
People didn't need scientific theories to dehumanise others - they had religious texts for that.
And the Rwandan genocide was caused by a warped reading of Christianity. What's your point here?
Bless your heart.
But yes, MPaul has started on a Gish Gallop and won't stop any time soon. Pinning him down and forcing him to admit that slavery was (and possibly even still is) Biblical is a futile task. He'll simply move on to saying feminism, human rights, voting and a free press are the evils that evolution brings us, and we'd be much better off under a patriarchal slaving-owning theocracy.
But apparently this doesn't seem to change his view of the Bible, for reasons I can't begin to understand.
Certainly, acknowledging that slavery predated evolutionary theory, and that the Bible had rules for good slave-keeping, would be a starting point.
We can move on from there as to whether he thinks those rules are timeless and applicable now.
Interestingly Hitler never cited Darwin or evolution as inspirations for his political beliefs. He did return to one particular scientific metaphor time and again though, the idea of the Jew (and other untermenschen) as bacteria in the body politic. Hitler compared himself to Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch, but never Charles Darwin. If any scientific theory can be said to have inspired the Nazis it's germ theory.
Germs are, of course, a non-Biblical idea like descent with modification (a.k.a. evolution).
Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in November 1859. The claim that this represents the origin of slavery, or even the trans-Atlantic slave trade, is laughable.
That is a bit like saying "this ladder is not at risk of toppling because if it did I would risk serious injury".
So who made that claim pray tell?
Regarding the other, the idea that some races are purer or cleaner or superior, was a staple for the last 150 years. It certainly is consistent with the influence of Darwinism.
It is my opinion that if we think of ourselves as higher order primates, then we very easily devalue the very young,the very old and the disabled.
If we are in God’s image, then our value is independent of such things as race,intelligence or able bodied ness. As a believer in Christ, I am actually an embodied spirit with an eternal hope and destiny.
As a higher order primate, I am simply lucky to have existence and any further prosperity is a bonus.
This guy.
I'd be more inclined to believe that 19th century slavery was much more clearly bolstered by 18th and 17th century slavery rather than a scientific theory first promoted in 1859, but apparently your mileage varies. If anything, the timing would suggest Darwin's theory of descent with modification was detrimental to the institution of slavery, especially if such a theory could be seen as replacing an earlier, Biblically-based theory of a racial caste system. That's further than I'd go, but it's arguable and fits the known historical facts better than your assertions.
And yet people who believed themselves in God's image seemed not at all averse to enslaving others who they also considered to be in God's image, with the eternal hope that their destiny would involve "wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces", to quote a noted orator on the subject. Noted Christian theologians who claimed to have held beliefs like your were nonetheless tireless advocates for the expansion of African slavery.
But address this point: you are saying the OT is not authoritative with regard to slavery (dentistry, accountancy etc), but somehow is authoritative with regard to the earth science over and above all other evidence. Why should it be?
This simplistic confusion of a scientific model with sources of values may fly at the front of a fundy church, but it's pretty thin gruel to an audience less inclined to hear what they want to hear.
Nothing in evolutionary theory speaks to whether humans are made in God's image. It cannot, and does not seek to, answer spiritual, religious or philosphophical questions. It provides a model of allele frequency change over time, and provides a model for the appearance of biodiversity across differing ecosystems separated by and both space and time, as evidenced in the fossil record.
Why the origin of species by descent with modification threatens the idea of humanity being created in imago Dei in a way which the development of the human foetus through cell division, gene expression and tissue differentiation apparently doesn't threaten the idea of the individual being the creation of God is a bit of a mystery to me.
All this besides, you have dismally failed to show any correlation between acceptance of evolutionary theory with people treating other groups badly. Indeed, considering the racist history of especially the Southern States, where fundamentalist Christianity is strongest, and the general trends over time, I think both human geography and history are rather against that hypothesis
Not to mention the astronomical sciences. The cosmology of Genesis is that the world is under a massive vault (NIV) or firmament (KJV), above which there is a massive amount of water. (There's water underneath, too). The sun, moon, and stars are all hanging on this vault/firmament, so they're more or less all the same distance from the earth. Additionally there are floodgates (NIV) or windows (KJV) in the vault/firmament which God can open whenever he feels a little genocidy, allowing the waters above the firmament to flood the earth.
This image is consistent with other Middle Eastern cosmologies of the time, which posited a flat earth under a dome, with water both above and below. Modern science thinks it knows better with its stories of deep space and gravitational attraction across vast gulfs of nothing, but those who take the Bible serious know this is all a desperate fake, like the supposed Moon landing. [/sarcasm]
Albeit round and round in circles...
Nah, speed of light must have slowed down. Or God created the light in transit, which means we've never actually really seen the more distant stars, around 99.99999 keep going with 9s for a bit % of the physical universe.
I was going to say let's not do MPaul's job for him, but it saves time and we might as well get the comedy items out first. Will we get whales outrunning velociraptors to the tops of mountains so they only appear above them in the fossil record now or later I wonder?
But the values discussion IS worth having. A basic test of any belief system is where it leads to in terms of behaviour. My claim is that Darwinism and Neo Darwinism do not have good fruit. I think all the claims and burden of proof is yours if you adhere to it.
Regarding the fruit of Christianity, while there are abuses, let is not forget that pretty well all of the good discoveries of Science and in western European civilisation are based on a view of man as created in God's image or by men who believed it.
By the way, there is no Gish gallop here. I am not jumping from point to unrelated point. It is others shifting the focus of the discussion on to things like the origin of slavery..something I did not bring up.
I'm waiting for the explanation about how trees run faster than ferns and flowering plants run faster than either.
Does the discovery that antibiotic resistance in bacteria is caused by evolution at work count as a "good discovery"? Or would it be better to conceal that information lest people think bacteria aren't created by God? Maybe it's all a hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy of godless evolutionists and pharmaceutical companies and there isn't really such a thing as MRSA!!!