29% of UK teachers favor teaching creationism

Actually India was wealthy, perhaps far more wealthy, before the British. It was that wealth that Britain wanted. In fact the Mughal Empire was both wealthy and culturally advanced with more religious freedom than many European nations.

I know it's popular here to insist that Christians are supposed to be held to the Levitical laws, and get all indignant about our supposedly not really being Bible-believers if we don't, and any attempt to tell you that orthodox Christian theology is a completely new thing just gets rejected as some kind of phony rationalization, so I usually stay out of these discussions.But that's the case. Israel was a theocracy and God was teaching them, and us through them, that sin deserves death. We are not a theocracy, we understand that sin deserves death, but Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more, He did not uphold the Levitical law that would have had her stoned to death. It is His teaching we follow. Yes, adultery is a sin deserving of death, so is homosexual sex, so are a lot of other things, so in fact is ALL sin. That's what we're to learn from the OT.Jesus came to teach us that He Himself is the remedy for sin, the salvation of sinners, which all of us are. He took our punishment for us so we don't have to take it. He took it for adulterers of all kinds. for homosexual sinners, for murderers, for liars, for blasphemers, for all sinners. We have to REPENT of our sin and we have to BELIEVE that He died for our sins, otherwise we're still sinners headed for ultimate judgment.So, sure, there's a lot of complicated theology involved in all these things but that's the general difference between the OT and the New. The OT was to teach us what sin is, how sin deserves death, and punishment, how we are incapable of NOT sinning, so how we all deserve death and other punishments, how only sacrifice can atone for sin, and how God planned to send the Messiah to BE the one and only sacrifice that could really pay for our sins etc etc etc.The Messiah has come.We are still to execute murderers, as God commanded BEFORE Moses, to Noah. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Don't patronise me please. I am well aware of how modern Indians view the Raj as a double-edged sword. But the fact remains that they threw the British out. Do you think they would welcome being conquered again? Perhaps a few more massacres would help them out some more. Dinesh D'Souza is a liar and a scoundrel, but insofar as we might accept his point, what difference does it make? Do you truly believe that the British Imperialists stole and killed for the benefits of the conquered? Do you imagine that Britain fought the Opium Wars out of piety or humanitarianism? They didn't, they acted out of greed, pure and simple. They wanted to exploit the markets and resources of the countries they invaded. If that is the behaviour of godly men, then I am relieved that your God has become marginalised in the UK.Mutate and Survive

India has a whole class of stupendously impoverished people the Dalits or Untouchables. I don't think some of the classes above them do a whole lot better, but maybe. In any case there is no poverty in western nations at that level. I happen to be in touch with a little ministry in India that preaches to the Dalits, that feeds and clothes them, that helps when their settlements are destroyed by fires and the usual seasonal monsoons. They barely have enough to eat and wear, they go everywhere barefooted, they live in thatched huts, the roads are muddy tracks. The ministers themselves are just about as poor, they get around on bicycles they've been able to buy through foreign donations. In ministering to the Dalits this preacher I hear from caught typhoid a few years ago, almost died of it, prayed his way out of it. I dunno, jar, seems to me the wealth in India goes to the upper upper classes. Maybe now that they HAVE at least a toe in the modern world there's more of a middle class. All those guys you have to talk to when your computer breaks down for instance.

So, you claim that the average indian today is less wealthy and living in worse conditions than the average indian before colonization? Do you stand by that claim?

While I don't doubt that you send money to them, that's about all I believe in your post.

Hi foreveryoung, None of it matters. Only the actions and their motivations matter. The truth is that Britain acted out of greed and arrogance. That their actions had some positive outcomes does not mitigate this.I understand that the imperialists of the time did not view themselves as evil, but what does that matter? Hitler did not view himself as evil. The slave owners of America did not view themselves as evil. Men will always find a justification for their evil acts. It should not surprise us that the Imperialists of the past sought to shroud themselves in piety and claim divine support for their criminal acts, but for Faith to do the same, in the Twenty-first Century, is profoundly offensive. a) That isn't true, India was a collection of prosperous nations before the East India Company got involved.b) For many Indian citizens today, they might as well be living in the Dark Ages for all the good it does them.

quote:

---

Poverty in India is widespread, with the nation estimated to have a third of the world's poor. In 2011, World Bank stated, 32.70% of the total Indian people fall below the international poverty line of US$ 1.25 per day (PPP) while 68.7% live on less than US$ 2 per day.[1]

​

According to 2010 data from the United Nations Development Programme, an estimated 37.2% of Indians live below the country's national poverty line.[2] A 2010 report by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) states that 8 Indian states have more poor people than 26 poorest African nations combined which totals to more than 410 million poor in the poorest African countries.

​

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India

---

c) If Britain had not "colonised" India, then the world might have been spared the tragedy of partition, a tragedy that is still claiming lives to this day. Obviously, but that is the wrong question.All that matters is whether Indians of the time wished to be governed by outsiders. Given the numerous attempts to resist or oust the British, it would seem a safe bet that they did not. I understand and to an extent I agree, but the same can be said of many appalling situations. A similar point might be made of US slavery; many people of African descent now live comfortable lives in a developed nation, where instead they might have been born in poverty in Africa. But does that mitigate the evils of slavery, even by a little? I would say that it does not.Mutate and Survive

I didn't even say I sent money to them. I used to, can't afford it any more. Fortunately I'm only one of a circle of people who are in touch with them.What don't you believe? I get pictures from this ministry all the time so I've seen their condition. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's not what I said.But the evidence does show that the average Indian was living in better conditions than the average Briton under the Mughal Empire. The British interest in India was to move the wealth from Indians to Britons.it really was that simple.

Oh I believe pictures are great marketing.

I did not say they were "godly men," what I said was that the great prosperity of Britain and its great power were the RESULT of the blessings of God on the nation.I wish I knew more about the history of these things but just because they were there to make use of the wealth of the nation didn't necessarily mean a merely exploitative mentality dominated all their actions. India was a COLONY, and it was also in the interests of the conquerers to better their condition, and they did work to better the condition of the Indians. They did compensate them for their work, they developed education in the country and built a modern infrastructure and brought a lot of other benefits that they would not have had otherwise.The British were no doubt snobs and racists but if they had the evil character you are now imputing to them it's not likely their descendants could have inherited much better so watch out for your habit of treating your ancestors with such disdain.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I am not talking about whether ordinary britains were worse off than ordinary indians before colonization. I am talking about whether or not indians were better off as a result of colonization. I claim that the average indian today is much better off today than his ancestors were in precolonial india. Do you agree or not?Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

But that is irrelevant, almost everyone is better off today than they were three or four hundred years ago.But did being conquered by the British help them?I can't think of any way that British colonization helped the Indians.Would they be as well or better off today had the British not raped the sub-continent?I don't know anyway to say.

True but the idea is that she was to 'sin no more' but her previous exploits are wiped clean. The alternative idea is that she could go on with her adultery but being saved she would not need to be killed. The Law still stands but Jesus effectively pardoned her.This conundrum is an example of what we don't talk about, here. We quietly ignore religious belief and it is considered improper to say to a believer: 'your beliefs are internally inconsistent'.My wife tells me off at social occasions.

Fine, but you are wrong. It was the result of men, with guns, stealing and murdering others. Do you truly believe that God rewards murderers and plunderers? I wish that too.A viable alternative would be for you to learn about a subject before you opine on it. These are the same arguments that are used as apologetics for slavery. Tell that to a modern German.For the record, I don't think that the people who created the Empire were evil, but I do regard their actions as evil. Sometimes good people can be persuaded to do evil things and invoking "the blessings of God" is a frequent justification for bad behaviour. Bad enough that the Empire builders engaged in this kind of offensive rationalisation themselves, without you doing it too. The British Empire was nothing more than the Mafia with a navy. There's nothing "blessed" about it.Seriously Faith; what do you think Jesus would have done? Invade other countries and subjugate them? Do you think Christ would have started a war to defend his right to sell opium? Really?Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.