Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory

"Your head is stuck in the OT over 2000 years ago. The evolution of the values of the Church is completely ignored by you."

This was your response to me when I pointed out that the scriptures don't support the ideas in the magna carta.



What are you talking about? Why do you think he accepts Christian values? Australia and America have always been secular. The magna carta was about challenging the absolute authority of the king. Why would secularists overturn it?



Well supported by what? All you do is tell me experts agree with you and point to the Magna Carta. There's a difference between saying something is so and actually backing it up.



Churches (there are many) have made up all kinds of things not supported by scripture. Like purgatory. The church changed their tune once public opinion started shifting. As my friend said: "Western legal codes became what they are today when we collectively began to push back against Christianity"

He also recommends you research the french revolution, and its hostility to the church, which led to napoleon legal codes all across Europe.

Your friend talks about today
They have evolved

Yes the Magna carta is supported by scripture just live abolition of slavery

Not talking about where they are but where they came from.

Read a history book about the abolition and how religious folk used the Bible to abolish slavery.

Do you really think i am going to give you different answers if you just keep asking the same questions in a different way over and over while ignoring anything I ask of you and by never offering anything yourself.

I have. I've also read the Bible. I challenge you to show me where it condemns slavery. Because you said the abolition of slavery was supported by scripture.

You're not giving me answers at all. Western civilization can be traced back to the influence of the Romans and Greeks, pre-christianity. After Rome adopted Christianity as a state religion, its laws were largely unchanged.

Hundreds of factors influenced the evolution of western civilization, before America or Australia were ever founded. To credit Judeo-Christianity as the foundation for either of those countries is revisionist history designed to inflate the achievements of Christianity.

Revisionist history in a world where Christianity is being attacked at every opportunity? That's laughable.Amazing how modern leaders of the UK and Australia and America have talked about the Judea-Chistian roots.

Human dignity as described in the Bible trumped slavery and if you have read the history you would know that.

You're just full of fallacies aren't you. Christianity is being attacked at every opportunity? What a victim complex.

Politicians say what ever pleases the lowest common denominator. Another appeal to authority.

So according to you, America was built on the foundation of Judeo-Christianity, yet America had slaves, which is apparently against the scripture... So again, you're saying Christian values just change at the whims of the church/society.

Yes
It was a very contentious issue while writing the constitution, many Founding Fathers wanted the abolition in the constitution including Jefferson and Franklin who were slave owners but they list the argument. Later the Puritans and others changed slavery using the scriptures to support their stance. I have typed this before, do you actually read what i typed and looked at the links.

I read what you type/paste, and you have never given me a scripture that condemns slavery. Have you even read the Bible?

Slavery was abolished on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, not that it was unbiblical. The laws are not determined by their adherence to scripture.

The fact that some people tried to twist the scripture to support their views against slavery is irrelevant, that wasn't the deciding factor.

Yet it was deemed constitutional for 100 years including by Founding Fathers who owned slaves so the constitution was reinterpreted as many things are. The US Supreme court does this all the time.

Again, human dignity trumped Slavery.

Slavery wasn't abolished on the grounds of what scripture says about human dignity. US law is not bound to the scripture.

The church was pro slavery for nearly 2000 years, then suddenly a couple hundred years ago their views changed. You're ignoring recent influences, such as the enlightenment philosophers, and their part in changing the politics of western civilization (prior to the founding of America and Australia.)

Now who is being the revisionist. You do know that the abolition movement and their use of the Bible is EXTREMELY well documented. Try reading some.

[link to constitutioncenter.org (secure)]

Yes, slavery was unconstitutional because they passed an ammendment to make it unconstitutional.

Seems you like to argue using false arguments.

Rationalists of the enlightenment argued against slavery for violating natural rights. The same natural rights the Church philosophised just prior to the writing of the Magna Carta.

Many of those rationalists believed in natural rights, while rejecting Christianity. The two are not inseparable.

Yes, the church cooked up some original ideas a thousand years after Christ, and those influenced the Magna Carta over 800 years ago. America and Australia took parts of what worked from earlier countries, but they were never required to adhere to scripture or Christianity as a basis.

There's nothing stopping me from believing in human rights while believing Christianity is based on a myth.

Then don't claim rationalists came up with new concepts or ideals when all they did was accept ideas from the Church which took them hundreds of years probably because they refused to accept anything the Church thought was a good idea.

Not wanting to believe in God or divinity is another matter. It is no different to Einstein refuting the big bang theory because of its acceptance by the Church.

That's false. They did present new ideas, as well as draw from ancient philosophers. The Magna Carta was long before the abolition. As the church lost power, our freedoms increased.



Huh? How are those things comparable?

Not with regards to slavery

The Magna Carta didn't prohibit slavery. The rights proposed by the church of England were contingent on humans being created by the Christian god.

The Rationalists proposed the existence of rights independent from Christianity, which made the Bible's support of slavery irrelevant.

The Magna Carta didn't prohibit slavery. The rights proposed by the church of England were contingent on humans being created by the Christian god.

The Rationalists proposed the existence of rights independent from Christianity, which made the Bible's support of slavery irrelevant.

Natural rights were proposed by the Church before the Magna Carta and the Magna Carta reflects these natural rights.

I never said you need to believe in God to accept natural rights.

At the time of abolition the rationalists didn't have enough political clout by themselves. Christians also argued these natural rights using the scriptures.

They tried to, but they were met with opposition by other Christians that said the Bible condoned slavery. Having read the Bible, it does in fact condone slavery, and no where is it condemned. This isn't a problem for me, because we should not use the Bible as a basis for law, which is the point of separating church and state.

Yep, and if some Christians weren't arguing against slavery it would have taken even longer for its abolition so their contribution was invaluable.

Sure, they helped. Christians were also arguing for slavery, as they had been for nearly 2000 years. Other western countries were already beginning to abolish slavery in the decades prior to America doing so.

Yes they were and Christians were fighting that fight basically on their own. Remember that the Pope also made a proclamation against slavery as I posted before.

My phone isn't liking posting for some reason

But not on their own. To only credit 'christian values' as the basis for the abolition would be dishonest. Also, remember that in the past (and still today sometimes) it was practically suicide to admit you're an atheist. Despite your idea that the Christian majority are constantly under attack, atheists suffer much persecution.

The pope also accepts evolution. It has come full circle

OP, please watch this video about the soft tissue, don't just see what Creationists have to say.

Why wouldn't they? All the evidence is on their side. 99% of scientists accept it.