quote:Originally posted by Timo: It still boils down to who gets to call himself the Catholic Church locally. That is, who gets to decide what the Pope really said or wrote, and how it reflects on the sacral or secular lives of the local community. That's pretty much as tricky as deciding what Jesus or God really said or wrote.
That's what the Catechism's for.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Put short, if religion was something so simple it could be enforced equally on all practitioners, who'd be interested?
Timo Saloniemi
The Pope sure would!
So...Jesus put Peter in charge of the Church?! Pre or post-mortem? If "Pre" it shows a huge ego on Jesus' part to think that there would be anything after him but a few deciples spreading his "word". Did "Church" as a word even exist as a word before Christianity came to power in Rome?
Seems iffy: If a cult leader was just killed and his right hand man suddenly announced that he was chosen as sucessor, I'd see it as a attempt to seize/ maintain power before the movement fell apart.
From my detached POV mind you.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Aren't there levels of laws in the Bible? Whatever came first was superceded by Mosaic Law, then Mosaic Law was superceded by Christianity? Since the Mosiac Laws were ment for the Jews, pre conversion, and after the conversion they went with the New Testement?
Also, how accurate is the Bible, with they way it was decided which books were to be included. Being rushed for time they included the present books, dropping the debates of the others that could have been included.
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Slavery of a foreign people due to their differing religon is good with the bible.
If a) prisoners of war, which we've covered, or b) already slaves. Actually enslaving random foreigners isn't permissable. So again, which would be better: slaves to a pagan or slaves to someone who will expose you to the truth?
I wouldn't assume the Bible to be true, though.
Of course, but since I'm the one trying to justify this of stuff, I think I'm allowed to make what assumptions I please. Unless you can disprove them, of course.
we can see that it condones a practice which the majority of people today would consider abhorrent.
Which practice, exactly? The practice of keeping prisoners and making them work? I've got no problem with that. The practice of buying someone who's already a slave, placing them in circumstances that make thier lives better? Some have problems with that, but just what are you suggesting should have been done otherwise?
Religion breeds hipocracy
Humanity breeds hipocracy, or at least lack of understanding. It's like a bunch of the kids I know, for an example. They can be mean, inconsiderate and rude, but it's not because they're hypocrites, as if they're telling people to stop being mean and inconsiderate and rude. They just honestly don't get that they're not supposed to be that way. Ignorance and weakness the problem, not hypocracy.
"An eye for an eye" and "Turn the other cheek" are bound in the same book
Ah, but if you actually read that book, you'll see that they were addressed to two different groups of people. Case in point, no teaching of Christianity involves "an eye for an eye" except to say "screw it".
And I doubt that anywhere in the Bible justifies killing burglars.
Depends on what they're gonna do if you don't kill 'em, of course. The one rule of Christianity is "Love everyone", where love so far as I can tell is defined as doing what's best for them. This leads to some rather extreme pragmatism: based on whatever information you have on hand, you must always do what you think is best for everyone else. If it's a choice between killing one person and letting others die, then you kinda have to kill 'em. It's what's best for the greatest number of people. So no, killing a burgler for nothing but trying to steal your laptop would probably not be justified. Wounding him, though, I'd say would be.
Jesus appointed Peter to be Head of The Church
I must have missed that verse. In fact, I'm rather sure that Paul said that Christ himself was the head of the church. Heck, read Acts. If anyone, James seemed to have local authority over the church in Jerusalem, not Peter.
If "Pre" it shows a huge ego on Jesus' part to think that there would be anything after him but a few deciples spreading his "word".
While I don't agree that Christ put anyone in charge of the church on earth, I think the living incarnation of God would be allowed to assume certain things about the future, wouldn't you say? Were he a human being, of course, you're right, but there are other options.
I thought you were supposed to hand over your children to them for sexual pleasure, in hopes they went away?
If that's a reference to Lot, nobody ever held up Lot as a paragon of virtue.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Sweet motherfucking jesus.
quote:If a) prisoners of war, which we've covered, or b) already slaves. Actually enslaving random foreigners isn't permissable.
Ah, so it's OK to take slaves in the name of god as long as they worship another deity?
quote:So again, which would be better: slaves to a pagan or slaves to someone who will expose you to the truth?
Would YOU want to be "exposed" to someone elses' "truth", zealot?
quote:Of course, but since I'm the one trying to justify this of stuff, I think I'm allowed to make what assumptions I please.
In other words, pulling shit out of your ass that fits your interpretation.
quote:The practice of buying someone who's already a slave, placing them in circumstances that make thier lives better?
Oh yes, forcing your beliefs on people is BOUND to make their lives better.
quote:Humanity breeds hipocracy, or at least lack of understanding.
More than a fair share of which is contributed by religion.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
[quote] quote:Humanity breeds hipocracy, or at least lack of understanding. More than a fair share of which is contributed by religion. <\quote]
I know a lot of people that aren't religious that are hypocitical in the extreme, so I would call it more than a fair share.
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
An amusing juxtaposition, given what Catholics believe about the nature of Jesus' mother.
Would YOU want to be "exposed" to someone elses' "truth", zealot?
Now see, this is our whole problem here. When making all these points, I'm operating on the assumption that what the Bible says is correct. If you deny that assumption, then the discussion has no point at all. Mind you, you're welcome to accept or deny whatever assumptions you please, but trying to argue that God's laws are wrong while simultaneously claiming that they're not God's laws at all is kind of stupid. My point is that IF they are God's laws, they do make sense in the context in which they were given to the people to which they were given.
Ah, so it's OK to take slaves in the name of god as long as they worship another deity?
You're oversimplifying. Assuming your people are ruled exclusively by God, and that you only go to war when He tells you and not just because you WANT some slaves, then yeah, turning prisoners of war into slaves would be fine. Back to the uber-pragmatism: name the better option. It's not as if you can just let the enemy army go intact, at least not in those days, so you either kill 'em or render 'em neutral. Keeping them in a pen would be a drain on resources with no return, resources that might not be available. Thus, slaves. It was the best option available at the time for all concerned, including the slaves. Yet another reason why slavery in America was a totally different institution from slavery in biblical Israel.
In other words, pulling shit out of your ass that fits your interpretation.
Specific examples, please?
Oh yes, forcing your beliefs on people is BOUND to make their lives better.
You can't force beliefs on people. For example, that statement makes me believe that you're a moron, but no matter what I could hypothetically do to you, you'd never understand why. I can't force that belief on you either.
More than a fair share of which is contributed by religion.
How can a lack of understanding regarding religion be caused by religion? I mean, if you've got a religion where only a select few people have access to the basic tenets, perhaps, but that's not the case with any major religion I know of. Apparently, I'm not the one pulling things out of my proverbial ass.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
If you deny that assumption, then the discussion has no point at all.
In that case, why don't you yield?
...trying to argue that God's laws are wrong while simultaneously claiming that they're not God's laws at all is kind of stupid.
I'm not arguing they aren't god's laws here, unless you can provide a quote to the contrary, of course.
It was the best option available at the time for all concerned, including the slaves.
Let me guess: no-one asked the slaves for their opinion.
Yet another reason why slavery in America was a totally different institution from slavery in biblical Israel.
A prison with diamond bars and walls of gold is still a prison.
You can't force beliefs on people.
And yet, christianity did a pretty good job at it during the first, oh, seventeen centuries A.D. Y'know, convert or die, and all that.
For example, that statement makes me believe that you're a moron, but no matter what I could hypothetically do to you, you'd never understand why. I can't force that belief on you either.
Well, since you've already made up your mind...
How can a lack of understanding regarding religion be caused by religion?
I was referring to hypocrisy. But, re: how religion can breed a lack of understanding between humans: do I really need to cite examples of *that*?
[ May 27, 2003, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: Cartmaniac ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
I believe the passage usually interpreted this way is the one where he nicknames Simon "Rocky" and tells him he's going to build a church on him.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: You can't force beliefs on people.
Really? Christians abducted Africans, never allowed them to practice their native religons, denied their children the chance to even learn for generations and forced them to participate in ritualized christianity. In fact, the white slavers made their participation in church services the only non-degrading part of their lives. Today (200 years later) people of African desent no longer even know what god or gods their ansestors worshipped and attend church services becaue it's all they've ever known. Slavery in the name of the Judeo/Christian god destroyed their religion. But you defend it by saying it "improved their lives by exposing them to the truth"? Sounds like it improved their white christian master's lives to me.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
I'm not arguing they aren't god's laws here, unless you can provide a quote to the contrary, of course.
Okay, "Would YOU want to be "exposed" to someone elses' "truth"?" It's implicit that God's laws as stated in the Bible are not necessarily the truth, which is the assumption I'm making.
Let me guess: no-one asked the slaves for their opinion.
Well, if they wanted to die instead of being slaves THAT badly, they could have, oh, attacked their owner, run away, or just refused to move from the spot they were standing. Assuming, of course, you still don't have a third option for what Israel could have done with a captured enemy army.
A prison with diamond bars and walls of gold is still a prison.
Again, you seem to be implying that all forced labor is wrong regardless of circumstances. Obviously this is false, given examples that I've already shown. It's a question of the circumstances and the alternatives.
And yet, christianity did a pretty good job at it during the first, oh, seventeen centuries of this millennium. Y'know, convert or die, and all that.
...which is not forcing beliefs on people, it's forcing actions on people.
Today (200 years later) people of African desent no longer even know what god or gods their ansestors worshipped and attend church services becaue it's all they've ever known.
You're saying that slaveholders two hundred years ago forced Christianity on people of today? That's reaching, and you know it.
Slavery in the name of the Judeo/Christian god destroyed their religion. But you defend it by saying it "improved their lives by exposing them to the truth"?
Did I say that with regards to African slaves in this country? Sorry, must have missed that...
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Any time you enslave a people and supress or destroy their culture for your own ends you are a evil fucking bastard. Any God that says this is okay is an evil bastard as well. You are confusing "forced labor" of prisoners with slavery in many of your defenses: Prisoners have comitted crimes against their societies and serve a sentence. A prisoner works untill he has paid for his/her crimes: their children are not bound by this. Slaves are captives forced to be another's property forever as well as their children after comiting no crime other than being of another race or creed. It all comes down to those in power being too damn lazy to work for themselves and opressing others by force of arms. Re-read that bible passage and see if you can tell the diffrence now.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Slaves are captives forced to be another's property forever as well as their children after comiting no crime other than being of another race or creed.
Say it with me, Jason: in our society. We are NOT talking about our society. In the time period in question, the slaves we seem to have reduced our discussion to were a) existing slaves that were bought from people passing through, or b) prisoners of war. Slaves that were bought from foreigners passing through the country were better off with a Hebrew master than with their foreign master, so buying one would actually be a good thing for them. As for prisoners of war, again, what alternative for them would you propose? (Always under the assumption that all wars are just, which was the assumption that the law was given under.)
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: [QB] Slaves that were bought from foreigners passing through the country were better off with a Hebrew master than with their foreign master, so buying one would actually be a good thing for them.
Who says? You? What foreigners? Why were they sold? You're assuming a heck of a lot. You really think slaves were treated well? Slaves were not treated well (historically) by anyone. Ever.
You really think that just because the new owners of thsese slaves were Hebrew that they were better off? Hebrews back then make today's most extreme Islamic fundamentalist look like Martha Stewart.
There were indentured servants in the far east that were treated well to be certain, but we're talking about the middle east. Biiiig diffrence. I made the alalgy with America;s slavery of Africans because they used that same bible to justify all their brutality.
And as you pointed out: God would know whats going to happen, so why give slavery of any kind the big thumbs up?
If Buhddaists came and enslaved your family, then sold you to Islamists, what would you say? It's OK'd by your god after all. You were sold to your new masters by your former owners so it's alright....right? That is what the passage says after all: it does'nt specify a time limit. ...or does that passage only apply to "foreigners". You would be a forigner to the people the passage was written for after all.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
