Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Using the Old Testament to justify slavery is a perfect example of a misuse of the Bible. Period.

Funny, I would have thought I made some good points on this thread. Turns out I'm stupid. Oh well, must be whatever I was born with that turned me into a FCPF, right?

It's a prophecy. Prophecies aren't commands.

Saying anything to you is a very bad idea since you twist it. But I don't recall saying anything that violates separation of church and state, that's some notion of your own, and I don't recall having much of a position on what Ham is doing either. I said I don't see why he thinks he needs Christian employees but that maybe he has a case for it and I'm waiting to find out. I also said most recently I wish he'd drop the case, give up either all-Christian employees or the tax exemption, but I'm not judging him in relation to the First Amendment at all. Mostly what I'm doing here is objecting to the way he's treated by others here. Charlatan? Scam? Talk about hostility to FCPFs.I have no clue to the rest of your post, the usual undecipherable Percyisms. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's a prophecy too. It's not a command or a recommendation or a suggestion.

But of course, that's what makes it so useful. I love it. Now THAT paragraph is priceless, a perfect case of the hostility in question. Jihad even, my my my. No, the jihad comes AGAINST Christians. Oh but I can't say that, can I? Lemme see, well I can't think of any way to agree with you about Christians declaring jihad since it doesn't exist. I suppose you're blaming the messenger who warns people about God's judgments. A thankless role but we try.

But it's a wrong basis for justifying slavery. The best that can be done with that prophecy curse, the same that is done with the slavery in the OT in general, is claim that slavery is not outright condemned in the Bible, and it isn't. The OT prescribes humanizing laws to govern it, while the NT gently suggests perhaps a slaveowner should let his Christian slave go free, but slavery as such is not condemned until modern times. And then it is condemned on the basis of the Christian message of freedom, the equality of races implied throughout and so on. You can say it's not outright condemned in the Bible but that's simply to accept the cultural status quo that the Bible also accepts and that has been universally accepted throughout history, but you can't say it's *justified* in any sense at all. OK, they used these facts in the Bible to defend slavery, but that's only to defend the universal cultural practice, not justify it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Gosh, "nutcase." And it doesn't even trigger the censor. Major nutcase too. Great, maybe I can tack that on to the title, Fanatically Conservative Paranoid Fundamentalist Major Nutcase. Yes, I like it! No way to miss that point, Percy, it's loud and clear. And totally wrong. Actually, whenever I do claim to be speaking truth, which isn't as often as you make it out to be, though it's interesting that it seems to have stuck with you. Maybe it will eventually have a good effect. Anyway, it's from His Word and it's from His mouth to my ear, through His Word. Oddly enough I've never condemned anybody to hell, though I believe I've issued the customary Biblical warning in some cases that certain actions and attitudes will get you there. I'm also not particularly emotional about it, I'm just trying to be faithful to the Biblical message. So as I said it's the usual Blame the Messenger I'm getting from you. Sole possession? But God's Law is written on the human heart, even yours. I've found it helps to speak it out sometimes though, since this world is bending over backwards to violate it and that's only going to bring down God's wrath on the planet.Again you are accusing me of violating the First Amendment in defending Ken Ham? Really don't see that I've said anything to that effect, though you've certainly put such words in my mouth.It's interesting that just about everything you say to me lately is Ad Hominem. I'm a fanatic, I'm genetically incapable of appropriate behavior, I'm a nutcase and so on and so forth. But there's no hostility toward us FCPFMNs. Naa.

I get sloppy but I don't care since you misread everything anyway.

I'm not missing anything, I'm just trying to get out of this madhouse without leaving too much unanswered.

If it were true that it protects Fundamentalist Christianity then the Oregon bakers would not have been driven out of business and subjected to harassment by LGBT vandals and thugs and fined a ruinous punitive amount for simply obeying the Bible. Nor the Colorado baker fined, nor the four or five other Christian business owners abused, whose First Amendment protection has been similarly violated, and I'm sure it's only going to get worse when the Supreme Court issues its judgment on gay marriage. No, there's no hostility in this country to Christians, meaning of course FCPFMN Christians. And I'm sure you'll go on being blind to it for a LONG time to come. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No no no no no, I LOVE the label and am going to continue to use it because it so perfectly characterizes the view from the Opposition. It also gives me a way to distinguish my group from all the other "Christians" that make up the biggest percentage of those who claim the name, without having to deal with the usual stuff I get when I call us the True Christians. So FCPFMN, that's who I am. Love it.A fundamentalist Christian adheres to the traditional orthodox reading of the Bible, which prescribes meekness and patience and kindness and dying passively for the faith and that sort of thing. Not that I'm good at it personally but that's what my Authority tells me to do. Fundamentalist Islam on the other hand prescribes killing infidels so that "moderate" Muslims who reject such teachings are like "liberal" Christians who reject a lot of the Bible, only the effect isn't the same. There really is no such thing as a "fundamentalist" mindset, all it means is adhering closely to what your religion teaches.There's no point in saying any of that though, I've said it before and all it does is bring on more objections and long arguments.

Yup, revisionist interpretation of the Bible for starters, and new invented laws that make a cause celebre out of normalizing and legalizing what used to be regarded as sin --at least a violation of Nature --, and now the legal system and all the LGBT thugs, and even Brits who have no business commenting on any of this, can persecute us to their heart's content and call it righteous and legal and good. I congratulate the devil, he's done his work well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Weird, I thought I had. Must be one of those things that requires Spiritual Discernment.

Trying to humanize a universal practice that is embedded in the economic life of a culture and is SO universal there is no way to ask people to give it up, is not to my mind the same thing as condoning it; it's simply doing the best you can with a necessary evil. And it's the OLD Testament, not the New, that offers the humanizing rules.abe: About the cursing of Canaan the point is that it will simply happen, MAKING it happen, which is what justifying slavery on the basis of the curse would be, is something else and I don't see how it can be justified at all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.