>>12094230

>>12094230

>Christian doctrine doesn't say people are evil

>they might do evil.

>they are not, themselves, evil

This is one reason why those who pick proof texts out of their context makes for absurdity:

Matthew 7:11 (ESV): If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

If the full range of scriptural data is taken into account, the position one must come to is closer to the one you hold. But if one takes the NT picture of demonology seriously, one must allow that humans may BECOME evil and not merely DO evil. The act originates from the condition of the heart.

Luke 6:45 (ESV): The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

>>12094421

An absence of inherent righteousness by God’s standard, does not establish that everyone is as bad as might be possible, or that people are not capable of doing some good.

Was the Samaritan not doing good in tending to the beaten man? Does that parable misrepresent the fallen human condition and its possibilities?

Biblical anthropology is far more nuanced than isolated texts plucked out of their context will demonstrate. Proof texting is not exegesis, and it’s certainly no basis for responsible theologizing.

>>12094474

What about our own intel agencies?

>>12094644

The Brits had a lease on HK, with a predetermined end date. They really didn’t have a choice, if international law was to be respected. The Americans did not have the same obligation regarding the Panama Canal - the reasons were political. Not locking in long term management of the Canal by American interests was foolish; but so was granting Chinese companies interests in US ports. No strategic justification, so someone/s were undoubtedly incentivized.