Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory | |
newtome User ID: 77279146 Australia 01/11/2019 10:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "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. Your friend accepts Christian values, excellent. We were discussing foundations so are secularists planning on overturning the basic tenets of the Magna Carta and rule of law? Quoting: newtome 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. Yes, even the church is capable of original thought provided there are scriptures to support it, live abolition of slavery. Quoting: newtome 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. |
Spur-Man User ID: 75814481 Australia 01/11/2019 10:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "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. Your friend accepts Christian values, excellent. We were discussing foundations so are secularists planning on overturning the basic tenets of the Magna Carta and rule of law? Quoting: newtome 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. Yes, even the church is capable of original thought provided there are scriptures to support it, live abolition of slavery. Quoting: newtome 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. "Your friend talks about today They have evolved" The french revolution is happening today? "Yes the Magna carta is supported by scripture just live abolition of slavery" Show me where the scripture is against slavery. "Not talking about where they are but where they came from." You're talking about the inception of America and Australia. You said Judeo-Christianity is the basis for government and law for those specific countries. Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/11/2019 10:21 PM |
newtome User ID: 77279146 Australia 01/11/2019 11:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. |
Spur-Man User ID: 75814481 Australia 01/11/2019 11:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Read a history book about the abolition and how religious folk used the Bible to abolish slavery. Quoting: newtome 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. Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/11/2019 11:20 PM |
newtome User ID: 77279146 Australia 01/11/2019 11:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Read a history book about the abolition and how religious folk used the Bible to abolish slavery. Quoting: newtome 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. |
Spur-Man User ID: 75814481 Australia 01/12/2019 12:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Read a history book about the abolition and how religious folk used the Bible to abolish slavery. Quoting: newtome 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. |
newtome User ID: 77279146 Australia 01/12/2019 12:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Read a history book about the abolition and how religious folk used the Bible to abolish slavery. Quoting: newtome 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. |
Spur-Man User ID: 75814481 Australia 01/12/2019 12:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Spur-Man 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. Which makes it erroneous to call it the basis. 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. Many enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery prior to the church, you can't ignore their influence on culture. Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/12/2019 12:23 AM |
newtome User ID: 77279146 Australia 01/12/2019 12:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: newtome 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. |
Spur-Man User ID: 75814481 Australia 01/12/2019 12:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Spur-Man 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.) |
newtome User ID: 77279146 Australia 01/12/2019 12:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: newtome 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. |
Spur-Man User ID: 75814481 Australia 01/12/2019 12:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Spur-Man 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. Strawman fallacy. You're still trying to pretend that I think the abolition movement didn't use the Bible. I said that legally, slavery in the US was abolished on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. There is no requirement that laws in the US adhere to scripture. The enlightenment philosophers were a huge influence on western civilization. To credit the Bible for the abolition, after 2000 years of Christianity, when the Bible existed -mostly unchanged- for that entire time makes no sense. There were many great thinkers and movements between Australia and Jesus. |
newtome User ID: 77279146 Australia 01/12/2019 12:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [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. |
newtome User ID: 77279146 Australia 01/12/2019 01:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Spur-Man User ID: 75814481 Australia 01/12/2019 01:11 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to constitutioncenter.org (secure)] Quoting: newtome Yes, slavery was unconstitutional because they passed an ammendment to make it unconstitutional. Seems you like to argue using false arguments. Which was based on their interpretation of the constitution, not the scripture. "Just because you think it makes no sense doesn't mean it didn't happen." Use some logic here. The Bible existed for 2000 years. Slavery was abolished a couple hundred years ago. Maybe there was another factor? If you suddenly broke out in a rash, does it make sense to say that the rash must be caused by the shirt you've been wearing for 15 years? There was a time when Christianity was the basis for law. It's called the dark ages. |
newtome User ID: 77279146 Australia 01/12/2019 01:12 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You do know this was spelled out in an earlier post including the changed philosophy about natural laws.I typed this when describing how the Magna Carta came about. Maybe the Church was ahead of its time. Last Edited by newtome on 01/12/2019 01:21 AM |
Spur-Man User ID: 75814481 Australia 01/12/2019 01:28 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. Quoting: newtome 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. |
newtome User ID: 77279146 Australia 01/12/2019 01:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. Quoting: newtome 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. |
Spur-Man User ID: 75814481 Australia 01/12/2019 01:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. Quoting: newtome 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. 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. 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. Quoting: newtome Huh? How are those things comparable? |
newtome User ID: 77279146 Australia 01/12/2019 01:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. Quoting: newtome 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. 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. 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. Quoting: newtome Huh? How are those things comparable? Not with regards to slavery |
Spur-Man User ID: 75814481 Australia 01/12/2019 01:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Spur-Man 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. 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. 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. Quoting: newtome 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. |
newtome User ID: 77279146 Australia 01/12/2019 01:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: newtome 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. 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. 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. Quoting: newtome 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. ... Quoting: newtome 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. 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. 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. Quoting: newtome 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. 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. Last Edited by newtome on 01/12/2019 02:01 AM |
Spur-Man User ID: 75814481 Australia 01/12/2019 02:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Spur-Man 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. ... Quoting: Spur-Man 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. 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. |
newtome User ID: 77279146 Australia 01/12/2019 02:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. |
Spur-Man User ID: 75814481 Australia 01/12/2019 02:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Spur-Man 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. ... Quoting: Spur-Man 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. |
newtome User ID: 77279146 Australia 01/12/2019 02:29 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: newtome ... 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 Last Edited by newtome on 01/12/2019 02:33 AM |
Spur-Man User ID: 75814481 Australia 01/12/2019 02:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Spur-Man 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 Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/12/2019 02:43 AM |
newtome User ID: 77279146 Australia 01/12/2019 03:11 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: newtome 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 Chicken and egg The question is whether your ratonalist/humanist values were really any different from those philosophised by the Church centuries earlier. From what i posted about the Magna Carta and changing Church philosophy they seem extraordinarily similar. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 64535133 United Kingdom 01/12/2019 04:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 64535133 United Kingdom 01/12/2019 04:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |