Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Faith writes: "Bound?" No, I said He's prudent and reasonable, He isn't going to do something to wrench a whole society into ruins even for the best of reasons, besides which as I started out saying, the people would not obey such a law, it would hit them as too absurd and it would wreck their relationship with God completely, which didn't go too well down the centuries anyway.

Have you ever read the Bible Faith. When Pharaoh agreed to let the Israelites go didn't God harden Pharaoh's heart and make him change his mind?

Faith writes: And again, all ye who think you are above God, remember again that NO SOCIETY ANYWHERE EVER abolished slavery until it was abolished on the basis of the Bible. If it hadn't been for the Bible you'd all be happily living with slavery and justifying it.

Do you know anything about history Faith? Do you have any evidence of slavery ever being abolished on the basis of the Bible?

When a society comes under judgment for sin then it may be destroyed. That's not the context here, which is life in normal times.

Do you know anything about history Faith? Do you have any evidence of slavery ever being abolished on the basis of the Bible?

Wilberforce who was responsible for England's giving up the slave trade, argued against slavery on the basis of his Christian principles. John Newton, who had been an officer on a slave ship, gave it up and preached against it when he converted to Christ. The abolitionists in America made their case based on the Bible

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: Wilberforce who was responsible for England's giving up the slave trade, argued against slavery on the basis of his Christian principles. John Newton, who had been an officer on a slave ship, gave it up and preached against it when he converted to Christ. The abolitionists in America made their case based on the Bible

And there were Christians using the Bible to justify and support slavery at the same time.

So where is the evidence? Where is a government document that says "We outlaw slavery based on the Bible"?

The US Constitution outlawed slave importation but not based on the Bible.

The Emancipation Proclamation outlawed some slavery under specific conditions but not based on the Bible.

Economics, secular humanism and politics did lead to ending direct slavery but it would take over another 100 years to begin the effort to grant civil rights to African Americans and again, religion, particularly Christianity, supported both sides of the struggle.

the fact that some justified slavery based on the Bible doesn't change the fact that it was abolished based on the Bible.

Wilberforce argued the case against the slave trade in Parliament on the basis of his Christian principles. Newton gave up his part in the slave trade and condemned it based on his newfound Biblical Christian faith. Abolitionists in America were often Christian preachers.

The Constitution took a lot from the Bible it never acknowledged. Same with Western Civilization in general including the principles of the Enlightenment. All that grew out of the Christian mindset of the west.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: The Constitution took a lot from the Bible it never acknowledged. Same with Western Civilization in general including the principles of the Enlightenment. All that grew out of the Christian mindset of the west.

You keep claiming such stuff yet never seem to support it with evidence.

So where is the evidence? Where is a government document that says "We outlaw slavery based on the Bible"?

Faith, 2015 writes: The Constitution took a lot from the Bible it never acknowledged.

John Adams, 1788 writes: It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

I meant it in the sense that the concepts were inherited from the Christian mindset of western civilization. The very idea of government by Constitution owes something to that mindset. Compare Mayflower Compact. The idea of liberty which was fought for in the Revolutionary War was preached from Galatians 5:1, "stand fast in the liberty with which Christ has made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." True that was just the inspiration for the war but freedom is surely one of the biggest ideas supported in the Constitution. The idea of checks and balances is considered to be the constitutional answer to the Fall, recognizing that all humanity is subject to misusing power if put in that position. The Fall is clearly biblical, has no other source in human thought.

Faith writes: The idea of checks and balances is considered to be the constitutional answer to the Fall, recognizing that all humanity is subject to misusing power if put in that position. The Fall is clearly biblical, has no other source in human thought.

More utter nonsense straight from the apologists. Where is the evidence that the idea of checks and balances has any connection to any alleged Fall?

Where is the Biblical support for "The Fall™"?

The Fall is most definitely simply the product of Christian marketing.

You are just once again showing that y'all will makeup anything to support your fantasies.

I believe perhaps a Roman or a Greek philosopher may have considered that slavery is a bad thing once upon a time, although I'm not entierely sure about that, but neither the Romans nor the Greeks gave up their slaves. It's been a pretty universal practice throughout history and across cultures.

Only furthers the point that it would have been a wonder to behold God's awesome power in eliminating the practive of slavery.

But no, He told us that you just can't beat them to death, go ahead and beat them a little bit, because even though they are other people they really are your property.

That's still reprehensible, Faith. And all of your moral-relativism combined still cannot get out of that fact.

Here's how the thinking goes about this interpretation you reject.

That's all just a bunch of made-up (not by you) bullshit, though. Its a post-hoc rationalization to save face.

There's nothing at all honest about it, its just whatever needs to be said to keep the faith true to its course.

Oh, the desperation.

quote:

---

The idea of checks and balances is considered to be the constitutional answer to the Fall, recognizing that all humanity is subject to misusing power if put in that position. The Fall is clearly biblical, has no other source in human thought.

---

The idea that it is specifically about the Fall rather than a recognition of the dangers of giving too much power to any one individual or institution is simply unsupported. Obviously there are more likely sources. It could be a response to and a rejection of the - Christian - idea of the Divine Right of Kings ? - an issue more relevant to the American Revolution. Or it might be inspired by classical history (it is not for nothing that some of the authors of the Federalist Papers chose a pseudonym relating to one of the founders of the Roman Republic).

Until a real connection to the specifically Christian idea of the Fall is introduced the Fall story as such - which is all that can be claimed to be unique to Christianity is irrelevant bluster, meant only to obscure the lack of any real case.

The idea of checks and balances is considered to be the constitutional answer to the Fall,

Just when I think that you cannot make a more ridiculous argument, you go and surprise me with something like this.

You, mam, are just rich.

Seriously, that was just great. I'm astounded!

Faith writes: I meant it in the sense that the concepts were inherited from the Christian mindset of western civilization.

And much of that mindset is Catholic, derived from Greek.