National Geographic's Slavery article

[T'ai Chi]

There wasn't one mention of religion in the slavery article.

I guess people who cry religion = slavery are perhaps deluded somewhat?

[LeFevre]

perhaps

[The Mad Linguist]

The point isn't that the two are intrinsically linked. The point is that the fact that religion didn't see that slavery was wrong doesn't do much for religion's claims of moral authority.

Whether that argument stands up is a separate question, and has been addressed on more than one thread, but whether it does or not can't be decided based on whether an article on slavery blames religion for it or not.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
The point isn't that the two are intrinsically linked. The point is that the fact that religion didn't see that slavery was wrong doesn't do much for religion's claims of moral authority.

Whether that argument stands up is a separate question, and has been addressed on more than one thread, but whether it does or not can't be decided based on whether an article on slavery blames religion for it or not.

You'd think that if religion is slavery or causes slavery, etc., that an exploration of very large high and low tech. slave markets would have at least some religion in the mix?

But the article kept mentioning economic issues, not religion as the cause. In fact, it didn't even mention religion AT ALL, except for a Baptist minister actually helping to stomp slavery out by setting up something like a halfway house.

[jj]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/slavery.htm

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj
http://www.religioustolerance.org/slavery.htm

That's a great link, but we are talking about modern religion, not religion in the 19th century and even further back.

The National Geographic article is current information.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


That's a great link, but we are talking about modern religion, not religion in the 19th century and even further back.

The National Geographic article is current information.
But... when people here talk about slavery and religion, they are talking about 19th century slavery and religion. They make the point that 19th century religion didn't do anything to help the 19th century slaves.

So, how, exactly, does the article on 20th century slavery have anything at all to do with a discussion of 19th century slavery and 19th century religion?

You seem deeply confused by something, but I can't tell what it is.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Yahzi

But... when people here talk about slavery and religion, they are talking about 19th century slavery and religion. They make the point that 19th century religion didn't do anything to help the 19th century slaves.

So, how, exactly, does the article on 20th century slavery have anything at all to do with a discussion of 19th century slavery and 19th century religion?

You seem deeply confused by something, but I can't tell what it is.

So people talk about slavery and religion, but they are talking about the issues in the past? That isn't exactly a deterrent for present issues. You might as well argue to avoid science because a lot of scientists, in the past, were alchemists.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


You'd think that if religion is slavery or causes slavery, etc., that an exploration of very large high and low tech. slave markets would have at least some religion in the mix?

-sigh- Now read what I actually SAID.

The claim is not "religion is slavery". The claim is not "religion caused slavery". The claim is "in the 19th Century religion did not work strongly for the abolition of slavery, which cast doubts on the claim of religion to be a moral authority".

It's like if someone sits in a corner and does nothing while someone else murders babies... is that person a baby-murderer? No. Is that person causing the murder of babies? No. Is that person's moral authority undermined by their inaction? Yes!

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


So people talk about slavery and religion, but they are talking about the issues in the past? That isn't exactly a deterrent for present issues. You might as well argue to avoid science because a lot of scientists, in the past, were alchemists.
What you fail to understand is that modern Christians assert that the tenents of Christianity do not change. If modern scientists were defending the conclusions and practices of alchemists, then there would be valid reasons to argue. It is the assertion of the Christian that God's word is revealed in the Bible, that it has been revealed for 2,000 years, and that it does not change, that allows us to point to 19th century Christianity as a valid topic for discussions of 20th century Christianity.

The fact that God's revealed, unchanging word did not oppose slavery in the 19th century is relevant to the person who asserts that God's revealed, unchanging word opposes slavery in the 20th century.

Edit: you know, if you actually read the link, you might understand this.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
[B]
The claim is "in the 19th Century religion did not work strongly for the abolition of slavery, which cast doubts on the claim of religion to be a moral authority".
/B]

I love how people who disagree with you ALWAYS reply with something like "if you had actually read..." blah blah.

Anyway, MANY people back there were pro-slavery, religious and non-religious. Some were anti-slavery, religious and non-religious.

Founding fathers of country owned slaves. To slant your agenda towards religion is dishonest. To talk about religion and slavery instead of slavery in the bigger picture, is one big huge ugly agenda.

[The Mad Linguist]

Yes, plenty of people were both pro-slavery and con-slavery, religious and non-religious. Yes, I know that at the time society at large looked favourably on slavery (until it all changed and they didn't any more, so they abolished it). None of that affects the basic argument.

Let me run that argument by you one more time:

Christianity claims to have a superior moral code, based on the notion that God gave it to them.

Slavery is immoral.

However, despite the actions of some individuals within Christianity, Christianity as a whole did not oppose it. The Bible was actually used to support the practice.

Nowadays, however, Christianity comes out strongly against slavery.

As you point out, this is understandable if Christianity's code is just a human moral code like any other. But THEY CLAIM it is an unchanging divine moral code. Their religion's changing attitude towards slavery is evidence against that claim.

If Christianity's claims about the origin of their moral code is true, we should expect it to display a higher moral standard than contemporary society. Here is a clear example of a case where it did not.

Now what exactly is it that you don't get about that?

[T'ai Chi]

"Christianity claims to have a superior moral code"

Please show us where "Christianity" says *exactly* that, as YOU claim.

"Slavery is immoral."

I don't agree with slavery, but, morals are relative, at least judging by history.

"However, despite the actions of some individuals within Christianity, Christianity as a whole did not oppose it. The Bible was actually used to support the practice."

Um, apparently many groups as a whole did not oppose it, because slavery is still around, in religious and non-religious communities. Again, you are obviously singling out religion.

[Filippo Lippi]

Again, you are obviously singling out religion.

No, he's responding to your post

[T'ai Chi]

No, and triple no, he's singling out religion.

[The Mad Linguist]

Thanks Filippo. T'ai Chi, I'm not going to answer your questions, because what you are failing to notice is that this is not my argument. It's an argument I've seen made frequently, which I broadly agree with, but I'm not the one putting forward a claim.

I reiterated the argument for YOUR benefit to try and explain that you were heading off on an irrelevant tangent.

The reason you are heading off on an irrelevant tangent is that you are not addressing the same question as the people you are trying to refute. I have tried to point this out but am getting slapped down for my trouble. So once again:

The question that the original argument addresses is "Does Christianity possess a divinely-imparted moral code?"

The question that you are addressing seems to be "What causes slavery?"

Now, if that was the question in hand, your point about singling out religion would be valid (as there were indeed many other, more important factors). But it isn't so it isn't.

No one is claiming that religion is the sole (or even the main) cause of slavery.

Hopefully, this combined with my previous posts will illumine you as to why the article that you cite, on the causes of slavery in the modern age, has no relevance whatsoever to an argument which merely uses 19th century slavery as an example in an argument which is about the quality of the Christian moral code, not about slavery per se.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Please show us where "Christianity" says *exactly* that, as YOU claim.
You are asking us to show you where Christianity claims to have a superior moral code?!? The whole bit about how Jesus is the one and only way to Heaven just didn't faze you a bit, eh?

I'm sorry, but you have just demonstrated your complete and total ignorance of the entire subject. All of your other arguments are easily refuted, but I an not going to bother, because there is no point. You complain about us "singling out religion," but you don't even know what it is.

You are truly too stupid to talk to. It is not mere ignorance, but wilful stupidity: you are not merely unaware of the facts, but are invested in re-interperting all facts and words until you are always right. Welcome to /ignore.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
There wasn't one mention of religion in the slavery article.

I guess people who cry religion = slavery are perhaps deluded somewhat?

Greetings T'ai Ch.

I hope you are well and happy.

Words stated but not applied into daily actions are just words and empty. The Buddha called this a flower without any fragrance.

8. As a flower that is lovely and beautiful but is scentless, even so fruitless is the well-spoken word of one who does not practice it. 51.

9. As a flower that is lovely, beautiful, and scent-laden, even so fruitful is the well-spoken word of one who practices it. 52.


Your tag lines/ quotes at the end of your post say and say well The soft overcomes the hard;
the gentle overcomes the rigid.

Violence has a habit of returning.

I mean no disrespect and it is just what I believe but your words and actions do not reflect in this case what is said and the meaning of your quotes.

You are clearly bothered if not angry because someone may believe something you do not, they may say or believe religion and slavery are one in the same or have gone hand in hand etc.

This clearly bothers you and you have in this case have not offered the soft to over come the hard, you have not offered the gentle overcome the rigid.

Knowing that no one can make you mad, happy or sad etc you have chosen in this case to become angry due to others beliefs. This is a cause of great suffering as history has shown. No one can make you angry without your permission.


Hatred is not diminished by hatred at any time. Hatred is diminished by love this is the eternal Law.....( Buddha)

Just what I believe.

[T'ai Chi]

"You are asking us to show you where Christianity claims to have a superior moral code?!? The whole bit about how Jesus is the one and only way to Heaven just didn't faze you a bit, eh?"

That is *your* interpretation of if. In fact, "Christianity" does not say specifically what you are claiming it does.

Since you put me on ignore, I expect you to reply very soon.
;)

[Pahansiri]

We look so hard for a black and white to support or position in everything but the fact is there are few if any black and whites

To say “religion = slavery” is illogical.

To say no religion turned a blind eye to it and or did not encourage it is also illogical.

To say “religion” this or that is also illogical. Many religions, mostly God based did of course condone and encourage or at least turn a blind eye to it, but not all.


T'ai Chi my friend to say that Judeo-Christianity on a whole today does not condone and encourage slavery would be greatly correct.

To say it did not in the past or that the teachings or the NT and OT did not teach and so condone it would be dishonest.

The OT of course condones many passages doing this as does the NT. Mohammed also owned and condoned beating slaves.

I may be wrong but believe you may be leaning as to this conversation towards the Christian belief.

Remember of the many OT passages concerning this EX 21:20,21 God clearly says we can beat slaves to death.

Exodus 21
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

As to Jesus Luke 12
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

This of course is not in line with the great quote at the bottom of your post.
The soft overcomes the hard;
the gentle overcomes the rigid.

Violence has a habit of returning.

Your point that “religion = slavery” is wrong is true when said in any sweeping fashion as to say religion if free or has clean hands as to it is also wrong when said in a sweeping fashion.

To say the National Geographic's Slavery article points to today and does not mention some religions means religion has no hand in it at all is not a clear look at the roots of this tree.

Of course as to that religion is not the main root of slavery, not any religion greed is but to say some religions thousands of years ago did not facilitate in their teachings slavery is not the case.

These are old religions during an old time things have gotten better and while the “back then it was different” is often used remember some, a few very old religions were very much against slavery.

One last thought, if one in a God based religion were to say “back then it was different, that is why they did it then and now we don’t” can they really say their God is always right, unchanging etc?

What is wrong in a “perfect mind” as to an act that brings harm is always wrong.

That is just what I believe.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
"You are asking us to show you where Christianity claims to have a superior moral code?!? The whole bit about how Jesus is the one and only way to Heaven just didn't faze you a bit, eh?"

That is *your* interpretation of if. In fact, "Christianity" does not say specifically what you are claiming it does.


;)


With respect T'ai Chi if I may ask and do so with respect what then is your interpretation of:
"I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pahansiri



With respect T'ai Chi if I may ask and do so with respect what then is your interpretation of:
"I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

Unless Jesus said "we have a superior moral code", then you are interpreting the Bible how you want to.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Unless Jesus said "we have a superior moral code", then you are interpreting the Bible how you want to.

Now you're actually making a relevant point against the argument at hand, namely that one of its premises is incorrect, the premise that "Christianity claims to have a superior moral code" is incorrect.

However, it's not a very good point.

On what planet, exactly, do you live?

Have you never heard a Christian argue that without belief in God, there is nothing to stop an atheist thieving, raping and murdering?

Have you never heard the Christian right's pronouncements on Islam ("a very wicked religion" or somesuch, wasn't it?)

Have you never heard the Christian claim that "sin" (ie wrongdoing) is to be defined as disobedience to God's will?

Have you never heard Christians claim that the Ten Commandments are the basis of all morality and even of the Law?

In spite of the relative sanity of many individual Christians, Christianity as a whole has consistently claimed - in a million ways - that their morality is derived from God, and that it is therefore inherently superior to secular ethics.

Jesus didn't say "we have a superior moral code". It's his followers who say that, based on the notion that the moral code came from the mouth of Jesus who was God.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
Jesus didn't say "we have a superior moral code". It's his followers who say that, based on the notion that the moral code came from the mouth of Jesus who was God.
With all due respect, he most certainly did. It's not just an interpretation by his followers.

Now I agree that he did not utter the phrase, "superior moral code." But that's because the man didn't speak English.

When Jesus said, "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME," (which of course he never actually said, since that phrase is in English, and he did not speak English), he made it clear that it was his way or the highway to hell. Now I agree that isn't quite the same sentiment as "our moral code is superior to yours." It's more of the sentiment of "our moral code is the only moral code, and everything else is gibberish and lies." But the second statement stands as a logical subset of the first, so I think it's fair to conclude that Jesus did say his moral code was superior.

If the meaning of a text cannot be translated into other words, then the idea of meaning itself becomes meaningless.

Edit: not to detract in any way from your point to Tai Chi. I particularly liked the "what planet" line. :)

[The Mad Linguist]

True Yahzi, I basically meant "he didn't say those specific words". You're dead right, it's certainly implicit in some of the things he's reported to have said.

[LeFevre]

So Christians (well, some anyway) don't think that they have a superior moral code. I cannot infer this from things they say or claim, they must state it flat out, word for word.

I am glad that is cleared up.

[ceo_esq]

I gather that the sola fide crowd (which is a lot of Christians) don't interpret Jesus' statement about "no man cometh unto the Father except by me" as being any sort of reference to a moral code, for the simple reason that they don't think anyone "cometh unto the Father" through following any such code. In fact, although one could interpret it in several ways, Jesus arguably seems to be saying in that passage that his new religion is not really about moral codes, it's about him personally.

[ceo_esq]

We've discussed many aspects of the relationship between religion and slavery in a thread entitled "The evolution of religious and secular morality (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9763)".

Clearly, early Christians and early Christian institutions condoned slavery, and even in the 19th century some Christians resorted to Scriptural authority to resist abolition.

On the other hand, let's consider the overall picture:

- Christian theology began to develop antislavery doctrines soon after the fall of Rome, and these played a great role in the eventual disappearance (or close to it) of slavery in most of Christian Europe
- When the European secular powers later instituted slavery in the New World, they did so over vigorous objections from the Church.
- Abolition of European participation in the slave trade and the eventual abolition of slavery itself in the United States (and in other places in the New World) were initiated and largely accomplished by religious activists.

Christian moral philosophy was pretty much in the vanguard on the abolition issue, a point that was established in the other thread. While some denominations may have resisted U.S. abolition on religious grounds, so far as I can see the historical record suggests overwhelmingly that the net historical influence of the Christian "moral code" has been to accelerate the eradication of slavery.

[The Mad Linguist]

ceo_esq, I wasn't trying to redo that argument. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the matter myself. I was just trying to explain the argument to T'ai Chi before he jumped in with both feet.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist

However, despite the actions of some individuals within Christianity, Christianity as a whole did not oppose it. The Bible was actually used to support the practice.


Not only that, but the bible contains within a set of rules on how to treat your slaves.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Unless Jesus said "we have a superior moral code", then you are interpreting the Bible how you want to.

Greetings T'ai Chi.

My friend I believe one need not look any further then this very passage to disprove your position here.

"I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

1- it clearly says Christ is THE way to TRUTH and LIFE, this clearly meaning the ONLY way.
2- To support the belief that he is “the only way” we find in the words NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME."
3- The highest goal by Christians is to be with God, only the most “ superior moral code" and belief would get one there.

It seems you may be playing word games as to "we have a superior moral code" meaning you are saying he never said they do but only but believing in Christ can you get to heaven.

This is believed by many Christians and is a extremely sad belief in that it clearly cast a light on their God that “he” is consumed with his ego, his self desires and indulgence.

This would make “him” an unfit father for all who look at him as the father of all people. To love a child that may do much wrong but worship him, massage his ego and then to harm a child that was loving to all other beings and did its best. That would be truly sad.

But, there are many holes in that belief lets look to the Judeo-Christianity, moral base, the 10 commandants.

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

The first 4 are all ego based, placing the fathers needs before that of the children’s wellbeing.

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.


A note here as to the religion slavery, in the 10 we find a condoning of slavery.

Now here in the Judeo-Christianity, moral base we find the first 4 of the 10 all to please God, now if the only way to God is through Christ
"I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

Then it seems clear that it is the belief of the Book that the highest moral code is the one from the highest/superior source, God.


Do you believe there is a superior being to your God or a source for a moral code that could be given by one more superior or equal to God?



Who do you consider to be part of the real Christianity? Many I would say most believe they do have the highest some do not I would assume so are they ones who do not as you do “real” Christians and the rest not?

As Yahzi, and The Mad Linguist point out “he” did not say or you can not find in the OT or NT the phrase "we have a superior moral code" so this is a word game.

Remember many Christian friends often say “ the Bible says love the sinner hate the sin” Well I have often offered a reward for that passage, after much searching and of course not finding it many will say well that is what he means or it is implied”

Here we have just the reverse belief.

[elliotfc]

The point isn't that the two are intrinsically linked. The point is that the fact that religion didn't see that slavery was wrong doesn't do much for religion's claims of moral authority.

Eventually it did. Religious ideas take time to develop. Slavery certainly existed before, say, the Jewish/Christian religions.

Humanism didn't start until centuries of the Jewish/Christian religions, and I think it can be said that without Judaism/Christianity there would be no humanistic movement.

What does that have to do with slavery? Probably nothing.

-Elliot

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Eventually it did. Religious ideas take time to develop. Slavery certainly existed before, say, the Jewish/Christian religions.

Humanism didn't start until centuries of the Jewish/Christian religions, and I think it can be said that without Judaism/Christianity there would be no humanistic movement.

What does that have to do with slavery? Probably nothing.

-Elliot

Greetings elliotfc .

I mean no disrespect but that is illogical, one need only look to Buddhism or Jainism etc to disprove that and I am sure many old beliefs and time where there no religion at all.

As to Buddhism the tipitaka (Skt. tripitaka): The Buddhist Canon is huge, 11 times larger then the OT and NT, there you will find:

1- Not one act of, call for , justification for taking the life of another.
2- Not one act of, call for , justification for taking what is not given.
3- Not one act of, call for , justification for lying. etc
4- The Buddha disbanded the cast system saying all beings were equal and slavery or the owning of another being was wrong.

You make 2 statements

1 Eventually it did. Religious ideas take time to develop. Slavery certainly existed before, say, the Jewish/Christian religions.

This statement would be mainly true.


2- Humanism didn't start until centuries of the Jewish/Christian religions, and I think it can be said that without Judaism/Christianity there would be no humanistic movement.

This statement would contradict the first and your point.

Humanism is Buddhism, and Jainism etc but this started when the “first humans” or as beings evolved to the human state, when they found it was harmful to hurt another or take from them etc. When tribes lived mainly in peace, where their still battles etc, yes just like today.

Also as it has been pointed out the bibles are full of condoning slavery, beating slaves, killing slaves you can not say this Jewish/Christian religions are the base of the humanistic movement and say the humanistic movement is against and sees that slavery is wrong.

This would be to wish to bake a vanilla cake using only chocolate ingredients.

[elliotfc]

Humanism is Buddhism, and Jainism etc but this started when the “first humans” or as beings evolved to the human state, when they found it was harmful to hurt another or take from them etc. When tribes lived mainly in peace, where their still battles etc, yes just like today.

Apologies, I should have been more specific. I was thinking about western humanism.

Also as it has been pointed out the bibles are full of condoning slavery, beating slaves, killing slaves you can not say this Jewish/Christian religions are the base of the humanistic movement and say the humanistic movement is against and sees that slavery is wrong.

Yes you are right. I am a Christian, but my Christian ideas have evolved past the ideas of Jews/Christians who lived hundreds and thousand of years ago.

Western humanism did not arise until hundreds/thousands of years after the OT/NT.

The Western humanitic movement was in many ways, if not all ways, a response to the predominant Western religions. Heck, Voltaire was educated by Jesuits.

-Elliot

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I gather that the sola fide crowd (which is a lot of Christians) don't interpret Jesus' statement about "no man cometh unto the Father except by me" as being any sort of reference to a moral code, for the simple reason that they don't think anyone "cometh unto the Father" through following any such code. In fact, although one could interpret it in several ways, Jesus arguably seems to be saying in that passage that his new religion is not really about moral codes, it's about him personally. ( bold face mine)




If your last phrase were the case, the teachings of Jesus would be meaningless.

Since Jesus is the Truth and the Life and since he is the only way to reach God, it's His truth that you have to accept in order to achieve that.

Jesus taught his Truth during his journey on Earth, and those teachings were nothing but a moral code.

Now as to the question of the superiority I think that Jesus doesn't even get into that discussion. His truth is not just superior it is the ONLY one.

Just a note. I do not know what translation Panhasiri (I hope I spelled it right this time) who provided the quote uses, but I checked the Greek text and an AND that is quite important is missing.

" I am the way and the Truth and the Life"

John 14:6
legei autw o ihsouV egw eimi h odoV kai h alhqeia kai h zwh oudeiV ercetai proV ton patera ei mh di emou

BTW ceo-esq which edition of Bible do you use?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist


The claim is not "religion is slavery". The claim is not "religion caused slavery". The claim is "in the 19th Century religion did not work strongly for the abolition of slavery, which cast doubts on the claim of religion to be a moral authority".


The moral authority of 19th century religion, that is. Since we've decided that a discussion about slavery and religion is confined to the 19th century, then we must also agree that the "lack of moral authority" does not extend into this century.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings again elliotfc.

First please know I mean no disrespect to you or your beliefs and thank you for the response.. For what points that I made that you said I was “right” or agreed and mentioned you may have made a mistake in speaking to broadly I give you such great respect and applaud.

Many can not say they have made a mistake or perhaps that were mistaken or another is right, and you here have been very honest and that is to be applaud.

What I know for certain is there is certainly much I do not know and I am often wrong, it took me a long time stop personalizing being wrong or not knowing something.

Anyway, please allow me to comment on some parts of your post just as to my thoughts.


Yes you are right. I am a Christian, but my Christian ideas have evolved past the ideas of Jews/Christians who lived hundreds and thousand of years ago.

I respect that.


Western humanism did not arise until hundreds/thousands of years after the OT/NT.

There are some qualifications her, as in ‘western” etc, ( of course there is no west, no north or south top or bottom but that is another topic). Being that people migrate from all parts of the world one can not really say that say “Western humanism” is solely part of this or that or based in this or that.

In part you are right, as would I as a Buddhist saying my belief is found in “Western humanism” so would the secular humanist saying religion need play no part in humanism.


He may be perhaps most right and as to what would be pure humanism, the desire not to bring harm to any being. This is a base of Buddhism and say jainism etc placing what is know as priority.


For us Buddhism is and is not religion it does not really matter.

For me and what Buddhism believes is the topic of the God idea is irrelevant.

If I do what is good and right and does not cause suffering to myself or others for any other reason then it does not cause suffering to myself or others then it is not moral.

To do what is good and right and does not cause suffering to myself or others for any other to please a God is not moral, if done from fear of a God or punishment is not moral, to do so for a reward is not moral.

The Western humanitic movement was in many ways, if not all ways, a response to the predominant Western religions. Heck, Voltaire was educated by Jesuits.

I respect your belief but do not really agree, but do see how there is some truth to the position.

As to Voltaire, I too was raised and schooled as a Christian but for me even as a small child believed what I do now it was only years later I found what I happened to believe was greatly so “Buddhism” .

Please do also remember this great quote by Voltaire.


The more I read, the more I meditate; and the more I acquire, the more
certain I am that I know nothing.". ... Voltaire

Again thank you for being so honest and may you be well and happy.

[elliotfc]

When I read Wilberforce and Frederick Douglas they constantly refer to Jesus and God.

How can this undisputable reality be apologized with the fact that religion and slavery/abolition are two different things?

All I can say for certain is the abolitionist propagandists of the 19th century constantly (maybe ad nauseum?) referred to Jesus and God. Draw whatever conclusions from that as you will.

-Elliot

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Cleopatra.

I almost always just the KJV when discussion the Bible so as to stay consistent.

It is my belief that if this book were to be perfect and written or the word of a perfect being there would be only one translation.

There are many languages and translations but a perfect all knowing being would have known this and any possible events in the future that would have arose and caused confusion..

When placing warning labels on something of danger I as just a person of limited intellect would look at all knowable problems that may arise as to people who may read it and seek to cover all bases.

I have many Christian friends who will on word go to the Greek text to fit their personal needs yet return to the Hebrew for others when the Greek text does not fit their personal needs.


Just what I believe.

[elliotfc]

Hi Pahansiri, I salute your even-handed and pleasantly direct tone.

I've been studying Hindu mythology this summer. I don't know much about the Buddha/Buddhism (desire is an illusion, is that at the core of Buddhism?), and I was told by someone a couple months back that Buddhism is just a form of Hinduism, similar to how Christianity is a form of Judaism. Would you care to comment on this paragraph? I must admit, again, that I know basically nothing about Buddhism besides the most basic introductory statements about the religion.

Back to the topic at hand.

There are some qualifications her, as in ‘western” etc, ( of course there is no west, no north or south top or bottom but that is another topic). Being that people migrate from all parts of the world one can not really say that say “Western humanism” is solely part of this or that or based in this or that.

Yes you are right. I am just following what is, from the...errr...educational systematic perspective. Even the most culturally diverse minds that I know use the parlance of Western, Eastern etc. I live in America, and I am guilty of assuming that everyone uses American lingo.


In part you are right, as would I as a Buddhist saying my belief is found in “Western humanism” so would the secular humanist saying religion need play no part in humanism.


He may be perhaps most right and as to what would be pure humanism, the desire not to bring harm to any being. This is a base of Buddhism and say jainism etc placing what is know as priority.

For us Buddhism is and is not religion it does not really matter.

Interesting. Do you practice Buddhist rituals? And do you have what you consider "Buddhist" beliefs (meaning the beliefs are recognizably distinct from, say, Hindu or Jewish beliefs?)

Religion is inherently communal, I've been studying anthropology and I can't escape that conclusion. The problem with the word "religion" today is that in many ways it has been transformed into a negative word that people want to distance themselves from. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with religion. Nor inherently good for that matter. Rituals and beliefs within a community, that's how I define religion.

To do what is good and right and does not cause suffering to myself or others for any other to please a God is not moral, if done from fear of a God or punishment is not moral, to do so for a reward is not moral.

Agreed. The punishment/reward concepts are, I would say, immature. HOWEVER I do not fault others for having those concepts if it helps them on their own personal spiritual journey. If there are objective truths it would BE a self-imposed punishment to not achieve them and it would BE a self-imposed reward to achieve them. From that vantage point punishment/reward is helpful. Fixating on God as punisher/rewarder is not something I can accept, but I don't get too bothered by others who believe that as long as they are honest and sincere searchers for truth.

As to Voltaire, I too was raised and schooled as a Christian but for me even as a small child believed what I do now it was only years later I found what I happened to believe was greatly so “Buddhism”.

Yes, I don't think that "western" ideas and "eastern" ideas are inherently disconnected. Hindus remark that things in Christian theology sound familiar, and vice versa.

The point I tried to make (I'll try again) was simply that I could not conceive that the humanistic movement (beginning in the Renaissance and continuing to evolve) would have had anything interesting to say if not for what the religion of the time (Christianity) was saying and not saying. Perhaps we can imagine a Europe free from the shackles of Christianity (heh heh) and we can next imagine that this Europe could develop a religion similar to Hinduism, or even a form of humanism absent religion. This can be imagined of course, but I am only looking back at European history. The idea that humans had inherent worth was suggested by certain parts of Christian theology (and dare I say the Bible as well).

-Elliot

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
The moral authority of 19th century religion, that is. Since we've decided that a discussion about slavery and religion is confined to the 19th century, then we must also agree that the "lack of moral authority" does not extend into this century.

No, that's not true. Let me say this again: the argument is that that Christians do not have a necessarily superior moral code. Full stop. At any time. Ever. This argument is supported by finding examples of things which we recognise today as being immoral which were practiced or not opposed by Christianity. Slavery is such an example.

The "lack of moral authority" does extend into this century. I would not be surprised at all if some of our practices today which are not opposed by Christianity are recognised as immoral by future generations. Obviously, that's something we can't know now (although I suspect that Christian (esp. Catholic) attitudes to homosexuality and contraception are likely candidates).

The point is this: the moral authority of us mere humans evolves and develops over time. This is understandable. But Christianity claims to have a hotline to God, the ultimate source of a divine, unchanging morality. If this is true they should be held to a higher standard than the rest of humanity (e.g. knowing that slavery is wrong before society at large works it out).

They have consistently failed to live up to this higher standard. This suggests that their moral code is not "straight from the horse's mouth", as they claim. It strongly suggests they are working it out as they go along, just like the rest of us.

Of course liberal Christians would agree that they are working it out as they are going along. The point of the argument is that this undermines a large number of claims commonly made about the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, the superior moral nature of Christians, etc.

Anyone who is a Christian who doesn't argue that Christians live by an objectively better moral code than others - fine! we agree! the argument from slavery doesn't apply to you!

[elliotfc]

It is my belief that if this book were to be perfect and written or the word of a perfect being there would be only one translation.

Could any human possibly be able to read or understand anything that a perfect being could write or say?

The Bible is a human book. The human character of the Bible is present on every single page. The Gospels are called the Gospel according to Mark, or Matthew, or Luke, or John. The Bible is the story of God as told by humans, so how could it be "perfect"

If God wanted to write a human book, surely he would have to use a human for the job, because only a human could write a human book, and a human could only read and understand a human book written by another human.

But man CANNOT produce a divine book either through his will alone. That is why we say the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. It is not God's word only, or man's word only. It is God and man brought together. Sort of like the guy called Jesus.

Can God express thoughts which are beyond the capacity of man to understand? No. That is why Jesus taught in analogies. And that is why the Bible is a human book, yet divinely inspired. All analogies break down eventually, and the Bible can be broken down in many places as well. Yet God and man can be united, and we see that in the Bible and in the person of Jesus.

As always, I only speak for myself, yet I suspect that many Christians would agree with what I said above.

-Elliot

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by elliotfc
How can this undisputable reality be apologized with the fact that religion and slavery/abolition are two different things?

And again, no one is saying they are the same thing. That's not the point.

Let me be very clear:

Religion is not the same thing as slavery

Religion does not cause slavery.

The argument is that if religion were really the hot shakes it claims to be, it would have done a lot more to stop slavery than it actually did do.

That's all.

All I can say for certain is the abolitionist propagandists of the 19th century constantly (maybe ad nauseum?) referred to Jesus and God. Draw whatever conclusions from that as you will.

So did a lot of slave-owners. That's the point. If Jesus and God can be invoked on either side, with equal validity, then what d*mn good are they? If the Christian moral code doesn't tell you reliably whether slavery is good or bad, then what good is it as a moral code?

[elliotfc]

No, that's not true. Let me say this again: the argument is that that Christians do not have a necessarily superior moral code.

I agree with you ML. I am not a Christian because of the Christian moral code. I don't think the Christian moral code is inferior, superior, posterior, anterior, interior, whatever. Of course there is a Christian moral code, but I am a Christian for other reasons than how it speaks morally (and it certainly does speak morally).

This argument is supported by finding examples of things which we recognise today as being immoral which were practiced or not opposed by Christianity. Slavery is such an example.

It took way to long for Christians to realize that slavery did not fit with the fundmental Christian message. Yet eventually they did realize this. This happened in the 19th century. I am not aware of non-Christian humanists in the 19th century demanding the slavery be abolished. Lincoln was unfortunately non-committal on the slavery morality question.

The "lack of moral authority" does extend into this century. I would not be surprised at all if some of our practices today which are not opposed by Christianity are recognised as immoral by future generations.

I predict that eventually abortion will be decided by future generations as immoral. Only some Christians believe that abortion is immoral, similar to how only some Christians believed that slavery was immoral in the 19th century.

Obviously, that's something we can't know now (although I suspect that Christian (esp. Catholic) attitudes to homosexuality and contraception are likely candidates).

Catholics ordain homosexuals to the priesthood, and the percentages of Catholics who use contraception coincide with the population at large (I speak only of the American population). Your prediction that these two items of Catholic teaching are likely candidates to *change* (am I reading you right?) is interesting. You might be right. It won't happen in our lifetimes.

The point is this: the moral authority of us mere humans evolves and develops over time. This is understandable.

Yes.

But Christianity claims to have a hotline to God, the ultimate source of a divine, unchanging morality.

All humans have a "hotline to God", it's called the soul. The Church is the dispenser of sacramental grace and doctrine (immaculate conception, etc.). Other Christian faiths believe that it is the Bible and nothing else. It is irresponsible to paint all Christain faith in one foul swoop, do you have any idea how many Christian denominations there are?

If this is true they should be held to a higher standard than the rest of humanity (e.g. knowing that slavery is wrong before society at large works it out).

I agree. I insist that Christianity be hold the highest standard possible.

Again, the abolitionists in the 19th century were Christians, so they were either ahead of the game or just the most vocal and influential. Theists like Thomas Jefferson weren't abolitionists. Yes many Christians were still pro-slavery. The important thing is that the anti-slavery Christians stirred the pot.

They have consistently failed to live up to this higher standard.

Yes we have. But the standard remains, and I will not relinquish the standard. Even if I fall short I will continue to try to achieve the standard. And I am confident that the world let Christians know when they fall short of the standard, for that you have my gratitude.

In my classes I try to "ace" everything. I don't, or rarely do ( ;) ) but I feel it a worthy standard to have.

This suggests that their moral code is not "straight from the horse's mouth", as they claim.

Or it suggests that no human being is perfect and able to achieve continually the standards that they set.

It strongly suggests they are working it out as they go along, just like the rest of us.

I totally agree. We are all in this together, I am not better than anybody else, we are all at war with God, whether we believe in God or not.

The point of the argument is that this undermines a large number of claims commonly made about the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, the superior moral nature of Christians, etc.

I can't control what other people say. If you want me to agree with you that some Christians misunderstand things, you have my agreement. Yet my sympathy is with my fellow Christians, even if they have some ideas wrong. Because if they are sincere and love Jesus who am I to sever with people who share my spiritual yearnings?

Anyone who is a Christian who doesn't argue that Christians live by an objectively better moral code than others - fine! we agree! the argument from slavery doesn't apply to you!

Why didn't humanists inspire the 19th century abolitionist movement?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

If the Christian moral code doesn't tell you reliably whether slavery is good or bad, then what good is it as a moral code?

A Christian is to see every human being as created in the image of God, is to treat every human being as created in the image of God, and is to attempt to emulate Jesus and the morality that Jesus taught.

Slavery is not compatible with Christianity. I am sorry that some Christians owned slaves, and thought that that was compatible with Christianity. I can't do anything about those people. I believe that if you treat everyone as created in the image of God you won't be anywhere near owning anyone as a slave.

If a scientist (a person who has a phD? a person employed to practice science?) conducts experiments where he fakes stuff or makes stuff up, do you blame the scientist or do you blame science?

I say blame the Christians, and not Christianity. If you can't see the difference, consider that many people blame guys like Pete Rose or Gaylord Perry but they don't blame baseball.

-Elliot

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by elliotfc
It took way to long for Christians to realize that slavery did not fit with the fundmental Christian message. Yet eventually they did realize this. This happened in the 19th century.The message may have taken a long time to be heeded, but the institutions primarily responsible for articulating the Christian message (in their day) were pointing out the incompatibility between Christianity and slavery in no uncertain terms well prior to the 19th century.

Pope Paul III, in his 1537 decree Sublimus Deus (http://college.hmco.com/history/west/mosaic/chapter9/source233.html) addressing the practice of enslavement of natives in the New World, wrote:We define and declare … that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.Even the Holy Inquisition weighed in on the matter in a ruling issued on March 20, 1686:It is asked:

Whether it is permitted to capture by force and deceit Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one?
Answer: no.
Whether it is permitted to buy, sell or make contracts in their respect Blacks or other natives who have harmed no one and been made captives by force or deceit?
Answer: no.
Whether the possessors of Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one and been captured by force or deceit, are not held to set them free?
Answer: yes.
Whether the captors, buyers and possessors of Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one and who have been captured by force or deceit are not held to make compensation to them?
Answer: yes.

(Source: Joel S. Panzer, The Popes and Slavery (1996))

[Pahansiri]

Greetings elliotfc




Hi Pahansiri, I salute your even-handed and pleasantly direct tone.

Thank you for your kind words.


I've been studying Hindu mythology this summer. I don't know much about the Buddha/Buddhism (desire is an illusion, is that at the core of Buddhism?),

Desire, cravings cause sufferings.

The first teaching by the Buddha was the 4 noble truths.

The 1st Noble Truth: There are many dissatisfactions in our life.
The first impression people get from a statement like that is that is it is very pessimistic! It is important to note that the Buddha is not saying that there is only dissatisfaction in life. He is just describing what, precisely, is problematic.

The 2nd Noble Truth: There is a cause to these dissatisfactions.
The 2nd Noble Truth tells us about the causes of these dissatisfactions. Craving and Aversion (Greed and Hatred). It is the dissatisfaction with the present that we want to reach out for something else out of Ignorance. We are thus never truly at peace.

The 3rd Noble Truth: There is a way out of these dissatisfactions.
There is a way out of suffering- this is the reason why Buddhism exists! In Buddhism, we call this state, the complete end of suffering, Nirvana. It is the goal of all Buddhists. The next Noble Truth tell us how to reach this state,

The 4th Noble Truth: The Noble 8 Foldpath.
The 4th Noble Truth provides us with a path and teaches us what practical steps to take in order to attain Nirvana ( the end of suffering)


Buddhism teaches and points out that all things are illusions, nothing is and of itself, “self”, nothing.

As Einstein said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."


and I was told by someone a couple months back that Buddhism is just a form of Hinduism, similar to how Christianity is a form of Judaism. Would you care to comment on this paragraph?


At the time of the Buddha / Siddhartha Gotama no religion called Hinduism existed, Brahminism did and evolved later into Hinduism.

But no Buddhism is not just a form of Hinduism. There are things similar in both as there are similar truths or things believed to be truths in all things.

The Buddha as I has said rejected the idea of a God or Gods, found it irrelevant and illogical, but would not say to someone who held the God idea or belief dear that he was wrong and lost. He was asked how best to serve God by a man who believed in God and the Buddha told him to best sever God love all he created. Clearly the Buddha did not believe in this God but his love and respect for this man was used to teach him a lesson in the way he could best understand.

There are many things rejected by the Buddha that is the belief of the Brahmans and now Hindus such as the cast system etc just to name a few.

Yes you are right. I am just following what is, from the...errr...educational systematic perspective. Even the most culturally diverse minds that I know use the parlance of Western, Eastern etc. I live in America, and I am guilty of assuming that everyone uses American lingo.

Yes I know what you mean, where ever we are we come to believe that is the center of the universe, that is of course illusion.

Interesting. Do you practice Buddhist rituals? And do you have what you consider "Buddhist" beliefs (meaning the beliefs are recognizably distinct from, say, Hindu or Jewish beliefs?)

Sometimes as it is like a tool and I enjoy them. I was a elite athlete in several sports I did say perhaps hundreds of pushups and sit-ups etc, none of these pushups or sit-ups were the sport event.

The Buddha is very clear about ceremonies etc.
According to the Buddha, one should not cling to such practices for his spiritual development or mental purity or emotional satisfaction through religion.

Even to the teachings of Buddhism the Buddha Dharma the Buddha says not to carry it around like a raft on your shoulders, when it has been used to cross the river ( reach the goal) abandon it.


The rituals in Buddhism are really more to do with the many cultures.



Religion is inherently communal, I've been studying anthropology and I can't escape that conclusion. The problem with the word "religion" today is that in many ways it has been transformed into a negative word that people want to distance themselves from.

True for many.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with religion. Nor inherently good for that matter. Rituals and beliefs within a community, that's how I define religion.


True to a point but a belief on a whole can not fully be based on how parts are in some cultures and in others.

For us as Buddhist there is one Buddha Dharma and all Buddhist regardless of sect will practice together.


Agreed. The punishment/reward concepts are, I would say, immature. HOWEVER I do not fault others for having those concepts if it helps them on their own personal spiritual journey.


I agree in part and people may need things where they happen to be in their life, causes and conditions.

This is why Buddhist have never sought to convert and see no need to we seek not to judge other beliefs and see no need to, this is to say Buddhism does not, some Buddhist may. I still due to ego get caught up in it.

BUT, we due to belief of rebirth believe one will attain full awakening in “time” there is no need to “save” anyone because no one has that power.

"By oneself, indeed, is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself, indeed, is one purified. Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one purifies another." (Dhammapada 165)

All we can do is plant the seeds of loving kindness, respect and compassion through our actions, these seeds like all seeds will take root, grow and flower when the causes and conditions are correct.

Nothing to fear, fear is an illusion a self limiting and self enslaving illusion..

If there are objective truths it would BE a self-imposed punishment to not achieve them and it would BE a self-imposed reward to achieve them. From that vantage point punishment/reward is helpful.

Perhaps helpful but not truth and moral. The reward must be the fact that it is good and right and causes no suffering to self or others. This means if there is more to come after death or not should not matter in how one acts, for that reason one who believes in nothing after this life yet does right and or gives up his life for another is a MOST moral being.

Fixating on God as punisher/rewarder is not something I can accept, but I don't get too bothered by others who believe that as long as they are honest and sincere searchers for truth.

Well said and to add that they respect others travels and seek not to stand in their way.

Gandhi said very well.


'The atheist who loves and seeks truth above all else is closer to God than those who love ideas they have of God and the definitions of God found in scripture, above truth no matter what truth reveals for truth is God' [Gandhi,]

[Pahansiri]

Hello elliotfc


I had written: It is my belief that if this book were to be perfect and written or the word of a perfect being there would be only one translation.

You responded; Could any human possibly be able to read or understand anything that a perfect being could write or say?

Yes, he could say hello, goodbye, the flower is red, it is dark etc out etc, do not steal or as Buddhist say do not take what is not given. Do not say what is not the truth etc.

A perfect being would have the ability to know how to say something that a human could understand, that is part of being perfect, the burden would be on him if it could not be done it would be his flaw not the lesser being.

A father does not tell a child not to hit the don then shoot the dog. He does not say, do not kill your brother then kill his other child.


The Bible is a human book. The human character of the Bible is present on every single page. The Gospels are called the Gospel according to Mark, or Matthew, or Luke, or John. The Bible is the story of God as told by humans, so how could it be "perfect"

I agree as to it is a book by humans as all such books are, I respect your belief it is about “God” and your belief in God I do not share that belief so the above question is not relevant to me.

There are people who and I would say the majority % of Christians, Jews etc that would not agree with you. I have to respect their belief also.


If God wanted to write a human book, surely he would have to use a human for the job, because only a human could write a human book, and a human could only read and understand a human book written by another human.

Some points here.

1- because only a human could write a human book Could not an all powerful perfect being do anything? You can not believe “he” could create humans but not write a human book.

2- Again I will say A perfect being would have the ability to know how to say something that a human could understand, that is part of being perfect, the burden would be on him if it could not be done it would be his flaw not the lesser being.


But man CANNOT produce a divine book either through his will alone. That is why we say the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. It is not God's word only, or man's word only. It is God and man brought together. Sort of like the guy called Jesus.

All I will say here is I respect your beliefs.


Can God express thoughts which are beyond the capacity of man to understand?

Then you believe God is not all powerful, if he wished humans to be, X or Y then it is his fault if they are not X or Y.

Again a baker can not become angry at a cake because it did not come out of the oven a vanilla cake when the baker used chocolate to make it.


I will add a “perfect all knowing mind” is incapable of thought.

Thought means consideration, contemplation, deliberation, reflection to ponder. A mind that knows all has nothing to ponder.


No. That is why Jesus taught in analogies. And that is why the Bible is a human book, yet divinely inspired. All analogies break down eventually, and the Bible can be broken down in many places as well. Yet God and man can be united, and we see that in the Bible and in the person of Jesus.

Again to this I will just say I respect your beliefs.


May you be well and happy my friend.

[The Mad Linguist]

elliot,

I won't go into detail since essentially, we agree on this one.

If I read you correctly, you do not claim that Christianity gives you a better moral code than the next guy. (Especially since you say we all, not just Christians, have a hotline to God).

Fine - we agree.

The argument in question is directed at those who DO claim that.

I would point out that there is a significant difference, however, between some Christians failing to live up to the moral code of Christianity and therefore, endorsing slavery, and the moral code itself endorsing slavery. The former is to be expected, the latter, on the hotline-to-God theory, isn't.

I don't know whether or not humanism was involved in the attack on slavery in the C19. It's irrelevant to this argument, anyway, since humanism is a human moral code and is thus quite admittedly working it out as it goes along. I'm not a humanist, by the way.

The slavery argument is directed at those who claim that Christianity is doing something other than working morality out as it goes along, like the rest of us do.

[The Mad Linguist]

I'm going to quote the entirety of the following post from Yahzi in another thread, since I think it's relevant:

Yahzi said:
=============================================
Does this sound familiar?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav2.htm

1865: The 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ended slavery.
1866: The Holy Office of the Vatican issued a statement in support of slavery. The document stated that "Slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law...The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave." Some commentators suggest that the statement was triggered by the passage of the 13th Amendment in the U.S. Others claim that the document referred only to a "particular situation in Africa to have slaves under certain conditions," and not necessarily to the situation in the U.S.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hmm... the US government declares the oppression of a particular class of people to be wrong... the Vatican responds with statements supporting the continued oppression... can anybody think of a recent example of this?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
I'm going to quote the entirety of the following post from Yahzi in another thread, since I think it's relevant:

Yahzi said:
=============================================
Does this sound familiar?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav2.htm

1865: The 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ended slavery.
1866: The Holy Office of the Vatican issued a statement in support of slavery. The document stated that "Slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law...The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave." Some commentators suggest that the statement was triggered by the passage of the 13th Amendment in the U.S. Others claim that the document referred only to a "particular situation in Africa to have slaves under certain conditions," and not necessarily to the situation in the U.S.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hmm... the US government declares the oppression of a particular class of people to be wrong... the Vatican responds with statements supporting the continued oppression... can anybody think of a recent example of this? As I see it, there are two reasonable ways of approaching this.

The first is to view the 1866 instruction as an anomaly in light of the unbroken line of Catholic authority unambiguously condemning slavery going back at least as far as Thomas Aquinas and continuing through pronouncements in 1435, 1493, 1497, 1537, 1591, 1639, 1686, 1741, 1839, 1888 and 1890.

The second is to consider that the 1866 instruction dealt with the very narrow context of penal servitude, contractual (indentured) servitude and servitude of prisoners captured in just wars (the instruction uses the term servitus, somewhat misleadingly rendered as "slavery" in English), which are obviously distinguishable from the phenomenon of slavery in the United States (as you rightly describe it, the oppression of a particular class of people). In this regard I note that the Thirteenth Amendment expressly did not abolish penal servitude.

Either way, it is a great deal more difficult than you seem to realize to base any sort of plausible general argument that the Church supported slavery upon the 1866 instruction.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

Either way, it is a great deal more difficult than you seem to realize to base any sort of plausible general argument that the Church supported slavery upon the 1866 instruction.

:rolleyes:

[elliotfc]

Yes, he could say hello, goodbye, the flower is red, it is dark etc out etc, do not steal or as Buddhist say do not take what is not given. Do not say what is not the truth etc.

Hi Pahansiri.

You said the above in response to my statement that God could not write a human book.

I made that statement because I see no evidence that God has ever written a human book. If it could be proven to me that God has ever written a human book, then I would retract the statement. I do no wish to assign "omni" definitions to God. God is what God is. If he doesn't write perfect human books, he doesn't write perfect human books.

God has given every human a conscience/soul, and he became incarnate man and gave his life to reconcile humanity to himself. I ask for nothing more from God, I am satisfied that he has created me and thankful that he experienced human suffering to effect my salvation.

A perfect being would have the ability to know how to say something that a human could understand, that is part of being perfect, the burden would be on him if it could not be done it would be his flaw not the lesser being.

Why should a perfect being know how to write human books? Imperfect beings write human books. I define God by what I believe he has done, and what I reason his nature to me. My reason does not tell me that God is a writer of human books. God is the author of creative life, of creative creatures. If a person who makes space shuttles does not make paper airplanes that does not bother me in the least. Whether God has the ability to write human books or not does not matter to me I suppose. All I know is that God has yet to write human books, and that God as Jesus did not write human books. That leads me to believe that he is not interested in writing human books. However I believe that he is extremely interested in inspiring humans to write human books. Their flaws are not flaws if you think of them as intensely human books, as well as being divinely inspired. All books that I've ever read are intensely human. I've never read a purely divine book, so I reason that such books do not exist. It does no good to blame God, or discredit God, because divine books do not exist. He created me and I am content with that.

-quote]A father does not tell a child not to hit the don then shoot the dog. He does not say, do not kill your brother then kill his other child.[/quote]

Some fathers do though. Perhaps you should say a *good* father does not do those things. Of course I have already said that I do not believe the Bible to be the purely divine perfect book, as others believe. However I do feel aligned with these "others" since I believe it better to see complete divinity in the Bible than to see zero divinity in the Bible.

There are people who and I would say the majority % of Christians, Jews etc that would not agree with you. I have to respect their belief also.

As far as I can tell, the majority of Christians/Jews are not literalist fundamentalists who believe the Bible is the purely divine voice of God. I base this on knowledge of people, and the reading of many books. This is a testable thesis Pahansiri. Tomorrow, encounter 10 Christians/Jews, and ask them if they feel the Bible is the purely divine voice of God, as opposed to a divinely inspired book written by humans. The next day ask 10 more. And then 10 more. After 10 days, I'd be very interested to hear a percentage of response. I will go ahead and conduct this experiment myself, and report back in a couple of weeks.

1- Could not an all powerful perfect being do anything? You can not believe “he” could create humans but not write a human book.

God, I suppose, could tell the funniest knock-knock joke of all time. Has he? When I say God cannot write a human book, I mean to say that he has shown no evidence that he has done so, and when he had the chance as Jesus he passed up the chance. Jesus didn't invent electricity either. I don't worry about what Jesus/God does not do. God doesn't write human books. As for God being perfect, he is by definition perfect, and God as the definition of perfect supercedes any other definition of perfect that would separate God from perfection. "All powerful" needs to be rethought. If God does not want to do something, or does not do something, that does not limit his power. That would be a consequence of his perfection. If God does not rape 1000 earth women every day, does that mean God is not all powerful? My religion forbids me from putting the Lord to the test.

2- Again I will say A perfect being would have the ability to know how to say something that a human could understand, that is part of being perfect, the burden would be on him if it could not be done it would be his flaw not the lesser being.

Now we agree. Jesus said many things that I can understand. Jesus, as far as I know, did not write any books.

Then you believe God is not all powerful, if he wished humans to be, X or Y then it is his fault if they are not X or Y.

He wishes the best for all of us. He did not create mindless automatons with the incapacity to choose contrary to his will. Rather, God felt it important to create creative creatures with the ability to choose evil, and the ability to choose love. Who am I to blame God for that decision? I am a creative being who is glad to be a creative being. I don't want to be a robot. I am not a robot. If you want to assign "fault" to God, that is OK, as long as you also fault the creative beings that we are for choosing evil. Spreading around fault is OK as long as you accept your share. And God did submit to human evil as Jesus, so he did not merely ignore the human problem of evil and suffering and fault.

If someone (man woman whoever) wishes that you, Pahansiri, loves them, and then you love them, how would you feel? If any person on the street makes the wish that you love them, and then you automatically love them, your choice has been taken from you. Your will has been taken over. That is not how God operates, and I would not have him operate that way.

Again a baker can not become angry at a cake because it did not come out of the oven a vanilla cake when the baker used chocolate to make it.

That is why he gave the gift of salvation to humanity. After we die and our sinful souls meet God he will cleanse them for us if we are willing. If we, as a vanilla cake as you put it, are content and adamant in remaining a vanilla cake, he will let us be a vanilla cake. You see permanence in temporary human existence. I think that the temporary human existence must be justified/rectified. So you cake analogy needs to be extended. The cake must be cognizant of itself and the standards of creation, and the cake must be able to choose itself, or the standards.

I will add a “perfect all knowing mind” is incapable of thought.

Thought means consideration, contemplation, deliberation, reflection to ponder. A mind that knows all has nothing to ponder.

How can you know how a perfect all knowing mind would think? Or that it would not think?

Jesus was capable of thought. Therefore God is capable of thought. God's thoughts are translated into creative action. That is my conceptualization of how God thinks. It is on a completely different level from our thinking. Humans ponder because we are confused, are prone to confusion. So I would agree that God does not ponder, or consider, contemplate, deliberate, etc. How he thinks is different from how we think.

It is a pleasure conversing with you. I disagree with your theological sentiments about God. Since you do not believe in God (correct?) I am curious why you are so forthright about your opinions about God. Is it possible to have opinions about what you believe does not exist? If so, then that means that your opinions of God do not exist. And I would agree completely. Pahansiri, your notion of God does not in fact exist. We can, at the very least, agree on that. The God you articulate does not exist.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

The slavery argument is directed at those who claim that Christianity is doing something other than working morality out as it goes along, like the rest of us do.

Fair enough ML.

If I may editorialize...

Any Christian who does not believe that Christian morality does not evolve needs to consider several points:

1) Jesus did not write any books, or, any extant books.
2) The ideas of Jesus were therefore filtered through others, either others who talked with Jesus (ie Peter) or others who talked with people who talked with Jesus (ie evangelists)
3) The concept of Trinity is not articulated in the N.T. I would argue that it can be *gleaned* from the N.T. but that is besides the point. What this means is that theology did evolve past the N.T., at the very least in the articulation of the concept of Trinity.
4) Many Christians are members of churches that were defined over 1500 years after the death of Christ. That these denominations were not defined in the first century AD proves that Christian theology evolves.

Yet I am sympathetic to even the most dogmatically annoying Christians. Actually I am sympathetic to everybody. But I've known some absolutely outstanding literalists, so I think there is something to what they are saying. They surely don't have everything wrong.

-Elliot

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


That's a great link, but we are talking about modern religion, not religion in the 19th century and even further back.

The National Geographic article is current information.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Is that what you'd like, a new dark ages, mr. parsimony hater?

[elliotfc]

http://downloads.members.tripod.com/medicolegal/catholicsvslavery.htm

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
As I see it, there are two reasonable ways of approaching this.
There might well be, but you have presented neither of them.

I am sorry the Vatican archives do not say what you want them to say, but they don't. Your "unambigious condemnation" of slavery is everyone else's "complete acceptance of."

And then you go on to demonstrate that, by concluding that people captured in just wars and criminals can be enslaved. The obvious point that you have simply declined to notice is that their children were also slaves. Go on, tell me how that's just.

Oh and look: lets argue about what the words mean, too.

You have done an amazing job of arguing that the Catholic pronouncement does not mean what it says.

Might I once again draw attention to this spirited defense of the Catholic image, carried out with aplomb and disregard for history. Is this the action of a neutral observer?

If you think ceo_esq actually has a point, read the link I provided. He's counting on you not to.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by elliotfc
http://downloads.members.tripod.com/medicolegal/catholicsvslavery.htm
I salute you, elliot! You have indeed found a group of theologians who think just like you. And with their amazing word taffee, they have simply reinterpreted the facts of history and the text of the Bible until it fits their case.

You can join ceo_esq in defending the Pope when he says, "Slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law." Never mind that it is against American law. Never mind that Americans are not allowed to incarcerate people and force them to work. Never mind that apparently even the American legal system is apparently a higher standard than God's law. All that matters is that a single word might be interpretable as something slightly different, and thus we can all rest easy.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by elliotfc
After we die and our sinful souls meet God he will cleanse them for us if we are willing.
Remember when we talked about making things up? There is no justification for this view of after-death salvation in Christian theology. It does not exist anywhere in any document that is even remotely Christian. In fact, the exact, explicit, unquestionable opposite is asserted in the strongest possible terms.

Every Christian source ever known to man makes it clear that you choose in this life, not the next one. Absolutely every preacher of the Christian faith on this planet will tell you that waiting to embrace god until after you are dead is too late. This is a fundamental, inarguable tenet of the Christian faith. Even ceo_esq can't find a way around this one.

But you just toss it off, like a bit of used-up tinfoil.

You don't really have even a tiny clue, do you?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Is that what you'd like, a new dark ages, mr. parsimony hater?

Um.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Yahzi
I am sorry the Vatican archives do not say what you want them to say, but they don't. Your "unambigious condemnation" of slavery is everyone else's "complete acceptance of."Yahzi, kindly refrain from misstating what I've written. When I said "unambiguous condemnation" I quite obviously excluded the 1866 statement from the scope of that remark (check my list of dates). This is why I said it could reasonably be viewed as an anomaly. I already quoted earlier in this thread from the 1537 and 1686 statements, and I refer the reader back to them. Here's an excerpt from the 1839 statement (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/G16SUP.HTM):We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour. … We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices above-mentioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth[.]Now, do you really think that the statements made in 1537, 1686 and 1839 constitute "complete acceptance of" slavery according to everyone else’s standards but my own?
Originally posted by Yahzi
And then you go on to demonstrate that, by concluding that people captured in just wars and criminals can be enslaved. The obvious point that you have simply declined to notice is that their children were also slaves.I offered no personal comment on whether prisoners and criminals can morally be forced into servitude. I merely noted that this is a different phenomenon than the type of enslavement which the Thirteenth Amendment was primarily intended to rectify. You said "the US government declares the oppression of a particular class of people to be wrong... the Vatican responds with statements supporting the continued oppression", which could easily mislead one into thinking, as you apparently do, that the Thirteenth Amendment and the 1866 statement were targeting the same social institution. If you will give my post an uncharacteristically careful reading, you'll see that I have not defended the 1866 statement or, indeed, offered any value judgments in respect thereof. I simply clarified an arguably relevant distinction that your post tended to obscure.

By the way, which slaves were you referring to when you said that "their children were also slaves"?
Originally posted by Yahzi
Oh and look: lets argue about what the words mean, too.Yahzi, I live and move in a world where the meaning and usage of words have important consequences. We've established in other discussions that you do not. I suggest we agree to disagree on this.
Originally posted by Yahzi
If you think ceo_esq actually has a point, read the link I provided. He's counting on you not to. If people don’t read the link, they won't see the sole footnoted source (http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0013.html) mentioned in connection with the 1866 statement, which is rather illuminating. I therefore count on everyone to read your link. I also count on them to read my posts with a greater degree of objectivity and comprehension than you have heretofore demonstrated.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings elliotfc.

I made that statement because I see no evidence that God has ever written a human book. If it could be proven to me that God has ever written a human book, then I would retract the statement. I do no wish to assign "omni" definitions to God. God is what God is. If he doesn't write perfect human books, he doesn't write perfect human books.

My friend these are statements of belief by you and I respect that and will not respond to most points as it is what you believe and to really respond a debate as to proof of God and your statement of belief if it was made as a statement of fact would need to come before this post. I.e proof of God, etc.

I do debate, not as much as I use to as it is hard to find debate that does not involve emotions greatly so on this topic.

If you like to do so I have several rules for all debate and would do so only by e-mail as my debates or my responses are long and detailed. It becomes hard here and rude to others as it will take up pages.

Rules:
1. All debate must be respectful and kind.
2. All debate must be free from emotion and logical and factual. If one makes a statement of belief it must be said to be a statement of belief and be respected. If it is a statement of fact then facts, proof and detailed logical conclusion must follow. It is never expectable to answer “ because” , “ because my hold book says so” etc.
3. Every single point and question must be address and answered. Too many simply ship over what they can not answer. If I can not answer I will say I do not know and seek to answer best I can.
My e-mail address is mbertran@nycap.rr.com

Quick answers to your above statement. You say I see no evidence that God has ever written a human book

I of course agree but add see no proof of a God/creator. The main point here is not if “he” wrote the book, sat down and wrote it etc you believe and I respect that, that he inspired it. It represents “him” his wish and what he would be, perfection yet you believe he allows so many contradictions, violence etc.

“He” is portrayed as violent, angry, ego filled, hateful, a killer of “his children”, a God that has sex with prostitutes, 2 sister 9 Ezekiel 23:1-4) etc.

A being of such great power and perfection as I pointed out would know how such a book that must reflect him and his “rules” wishes etc should and would turn out.

Place yourself where you believe this God is. I because of what I do am interviewed often in print and occasionally TV and in an upcoming HBO film.

There was an article just this week in a paper
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=161644&category=REGIONOTHER&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=8/18/2003

There are quotes that did not come out exactly as I said them. I am not a perfect being, all knowing or all seeing so I could not know she would make a few small mistakes but if I wished, I could get them retracted and corrected.

If I felt someone would be harmed by what I said or how someone printed what I said I would take steps to change it.

You say
God is what God is. If he doesn't write perfect human books, he doesn't write perfect human books.

Again first let me say I respect your belief as to God is, but you say that God did not write a perfect book because he did not create perfect beings yet knowing they were not perfect and knows before hand what they will do and what they will believe he still punishes them for what he knows will happen.

That is not loving nor unconditional love, unconditional love is just that love without conditions.


A perfect being would make darn sure his “ rule book” would be perfect and not be used to cause harm to others.

Humans do their best to write books or rules that cover every knowable problem that may arise. I have already pointed this out, you may have not seen it or may have addressed it later in your post.

God has given every human a conscience/soul, and he became incarnate man and gave his life to reconcile humanity to himself. I ask for nothing more from God, I am satisfied that he has created me and thankful that he experienced human suffering to effect my salvation.

Again here I will only say I respect what you choose to believe.


Why should a perfect being know how to write human books?

WOW my friend, you are a very intelligent person and this question surprises me that you would ask it.

1- I have already answered it in my other post and above.
2- Your own statement contains the answer with in it. I.e.
Why should a perfect being know how to write human books?
Because “he’ is perfect, all knowing. How can not a perfect being, a all knowing being NOT know how to do anything?

You believe he knows all, he knows your thoughts, how to make you and the complexity of life how your brain works yet he does not how to write a book for humans? That is illogical.

When a TV manufacturer makes a TV he knows how it works.


Imperfect beings write human books.

Yes and “perfect ones”.

I define God by what I believe he has done, and what I reason his nature to me.

Again here I will only say I respect what you choose to believe.


My reason does not tell me that God is a writer of human books.


Why? This is not just a book about birds, it is the rules by which “he” is telling you must live to please him and reach the goal of heaven. When I teach my children I am kind and loving and very clear so as they are not confused. If I wish them not to do something I tell them clearly. I can not “punish” a child for something I did not explain to him.

This is not just a “book” this is the base of your religion. My great friend you are an example of what the problem would be, you have your beliefs as to it and almost every Christian has their beliefs and they will interconnect on some points and not at all on others.

I have many Christian friends and family who say “ well I don’t believe Jesus said that but I do believe he said this” How can you pick and choose?

I posted above several post before this to another where Jesus clearly condones slavery and the beating of slaves.

Many will say “ well he did not really say that” how can you know?


God is the author of creative life, of creative creatures.

Again here I will only say I respect what you choose to believe.


If a person who makes space shuttles does not make paper airplanes that does not bother me in the least.

Not sure how that is relevant. I will tell you when someone makes space shuttles he DOES write detailed instructions how it works and how to operate it, lives depend on it. He would instruct that children NOT operate it or anyone who did NOT fully understand his rules and instructions.

If he did not write a detailed operation and instruction manual he would be liable and sued for the harm it caused as he should be. He, could not sue someone he gave it to and was harmed by it when he did not really tell them how it worked.



Whether God has the ability to write human books or not does not matter to me I suppose.

Why?

All I know is that God has yet to write human books, and that God as Jesus did not write human books.

No, you believe it you do not know it. I also do not believe there are such beings or being yet of course I can NOT say I “know it”.

That leads me to believe that he is not interested in writing human books.

Then how can this being, be upset when people do not do as he wishes? He can not.


However I believe that he is extremely interested in inspiring humans to write human books. Their flaws are not flaws if you think of them as intensely human books, as well as being divinely inspired.

Yes they are flaws when seen as the only way to God.

i.e. "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

Remember Leviticus are said to be God’s LAWS. Also the 10 commandments are said to be just that commandments not suggestions.


All books that I've ever read are intensely human.


Of course we do not disagree here but most Christians will disagree with you, most by far.

I've never read a purely divine book, so I reason that such books do not exist. It does no good to blame God, or discredit God, because divine books do not exist. He created me and I am content with that.

Of course it would have to be blamed on this God, this book has been used to harm millions he would have known this and yet did not stop it would be his fault. In this human realm such a thing would be followed by a law suit and jail time for a human who wrote a book that told followers to stone people to death for example.

I wrote: A father does not tell a child not to hit the don then shoot the dog. He does not say, do not kill your brother then kill his other child.

You responded

Some fathers do though. Perhaps you should say a *good* father does not do those things. Of course I have already said that I do not believe the Bible to be the purely divine perfect book, as others believe. However I do feel aligned with these "others" since I believe it better to see complete divinity in the Bible than to see zero divinity in the Bible.

First you are very right as to Perhaps you should say a *good* father
I always use the father analogy when discussing God with a person who believes in that and “always say a good father” well almost always as I misspoke a bit this time.

But that does not change the point of my statement, a God, a perfect being would be a perfect father.

You can not simply say Christianity or God is true and the Bible proves it then say well there a lot of mistake in the Bible and that’s mans fault don’t blame God.

Seems to me strange to just pick and choose what fits ones desires. But I have explained several times why above and do not wish to be redundant.


As far as I can tell, the majority of Christians/Jews are not literalist fundamentalists who believe the Bible is the purely divine voice of God.

Actually as far as the US the fastest change within the Christian community is movement towards evangelical conservative Christianity.


I would not agree that the “majority of Christians/Jews” do not believe the Bible is the word of God.


I base this on knowledge of people, and the reading of many books.

Well I respect that but I have also read many books, talked to, debated many people have many friends who are Christian etc, been to many discussion boards, have a few years on you..lol

For me I would not agree with you, I believe nothing just because someone says it.

This is a testable thesis Pahansiri. Tomorrow, encounter 10 Christians/Jews, and ask them if they feel the Bible is the purely divine voice of God, as opposed to a divinely inspired book written by humans.
The next day ask 10 more. And then 10 more. After 10 days, I'd be very interested to hear a percentage of response. I will go ahead and conduct this experiment myself, and report back in a couple of weeks.

Such have been done some examples can be found on line easy and here in this site. Examples being. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/15/nyt.kristof/index.html

Please do read the article, a quick snippet being Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent).

It is easy to find such surveys.

God, I suppose, could tell the funniest knock-knock joke of all time.

But yet you believe he could not make sure a book with his laws and rules was not clear for all?


Has he? When I say God cannot write a human book, I mean to say that he has shown no evidence that he has done so, and when he had the chance as Jesus he passed up the chance.

Again here I will say I respect what you believe.


Jesus didn't invent electricity either.

Again here I will say I respect what you believe. Please remember I do not believe Jesus existed but do believe there was a person who never said he was God or the son of a God but was a good being and Paul used him as a model for his desires to build a religion. Remember Paul’s first writings said this Christ was a spirit and not a human.



I don't worry about what Jesus/God does not do.

I respect that as your belief, many, most Christians would not agree with you. But their belief is no more valid then yours nor to be respected less.


God doesn't write human books.

You believe.

As for God being perfect, he is by definition perfect, and God as the definition of perfect supercedes any other definition of perfect that would separate God from perfection.


These are word games, the facts is your word game only points out more that such a being would be free from any flaw such as geo, anger, vengeance etc. It would never kill or harm nor demand it’s own way.

Consider this using Bible passages.

If
“1 John 4:8] ...God is love.

And

“[1 Cor 13:5] Love...keeps no record of wrongs.”

And

“..Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;...it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;...it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right...Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things...LOVE NEVER FAILS; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues,they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away...[1Cor 13:4-8]


and

“[1John 4:18.8] There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love.

Then
1) it is clear”he” keeps no record of wrongs and does not judge.
2) “he” is not a “jealous” God.
3) “he” has no ego and can not demand to or wish to be worshiped or placed before any other
4) “he” does NOT “insist on his own way”
5) Does not want to be feared in any way.
And
6) does not punish.

Yet the Bible is filled with God killing and asking others to kill for him, condoning rape, murder, stealing. God flooding and killing almost all life because his children did not do what he knew they would not before hand.

Sending bears to kill children, etc etc etc.


"All powerful" needs to be rethought.

You are preaching to the wrong man…lol


If God does not want to do something, or does not do something, that does not limit his power.

How? If he makes something he knows will be flawed he can not then demand it be not flawed. Back to my cake analogy again, you keep avoiding that.

That would be a consequence of his perfection.

How?




If God does not rape 1000 earth women every day, does that mean God is not all powerful?


I mean no disrespect but that is one of the silliest statements I have ever heard.



My religion forbids me from putting the Lord to the test.

Have you ever question why? Fear is the reason for that. I will always allow my children to question me.

There is a great quote that goes Philosophy is questions that may never be answered, religion ( some) is answers that may never be questioned

I find that so sad, fear seeks to blind and bind.

As Buddhist we have this from the Buddha as a base of our belief.


Kalama Sutta

Do not believe in anything (simply)
because you have heard it.

Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations.

Do not believe in anything because it is
spoken and rumoured by many.

Do not believe in anything (simply) because
it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority
of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis
when you find that anything agrees with reason
and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all
then accept it and live up to it.

Buddha
(Anguttara Nikaya Vol. 1, 188-193 P.T.S. Ed.)

Now we agree. Jesus said many things that I can understand. Jesus, as far as I know, did not write any books.

All I will say is

"I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

Seems he would be more clear, as a father when you have children will you not seek to be? And you are not perfect.

He wishes the best for all of us.

I respect that you believe what you do, but wonder how you know what God thinks or wishes if you do not believe his only rule book is not by him.

He did not create mindless automatons with the incapacity to choose contrary to his will.

But how can we know his will if the book of his will is not his will???


Rather, God felt it important to create creative creatures with the ability to choose evil, and the ability to choose love.

I respect you believe this and I am sure you are making these statements as statements of belief and not fact.

If he made you with the ability to choose things he would not you to choose but knew well before hand you would choose what he did not want you to choose, how can he punish you when he knew before you were born whet you would do or get harmed etc and he did nothing to change it?

If you as a father knew your child would be rapped next Wed at 3:00 by a man you let in the house. You had full control over this house, this man and your daughter. Would you on Wed leave your child alone in the house and let this man in before you left?

Please answer all my questions and points as I have for you.

Who am I to blame God for that decision?

Why not?

I am a creative being who is glad to be a creative being. I don't want to be a robot. I am not a robot.

What if you were a non creative being born in a country with little food, seeing your family starve to death, you were born with one arm and no legs.

You were rapped every day and beaten. Would you think as you do now? Do you believe you are “special” and these other beings that suffer so much are less special?
Not a good fair and loving father this God be.

If you want to assign "fault" to God, that is OK, as long as you also fault the creative beings that we are for choosing evil.

I do not “assign "fault" to God” as I do not believe in God, I believe in causes and conditions. I speak as to you believing in God.

Does a child choose evil if his father knows before hand the child will do something he does not wish them to but does nothing to stop it?
That is not a good father.

Spreading around fault is OK as long as you accept your share.

I do not spread around fault for my actions, I am Buddhist, I believe in the law of Karma, action/cause and effect I am the only one who has control over my actions.

165. By oneself the evil is done, by oneself one suffers; by oneself evil is left undone, by oneself one is purified. Purity and impurity belong to oneself, no one can purify another. Buddha


And God did submit to human evil as Jesus,

No the Bible says he created it, ( I can provide passages) but did he not?

The bible says he lies, murders, has sex with whores etc etc etc.

so he did not merely ignore the human problem of evil and suffering and fault.

He created it, as to your belief.

If someone (man woman whoever) wishes that you, Pahansiri, loves them, and then you love them, how would you feel?

The question is worded poorly so I am not sure I get your point.

How would I feel if someone wanted me to love him or her? What do you mean by love them? I seek to love all beings. Do you mean a relationship? No one can make me love him or her in that way and I can not make anyone love me in that way NOR would I DEMAND IT.

Your God demands humans love him and believe in him or they will suffer. That is not unconditional love.

If any person on the street makes the wish that you love them, and then you automatically love them, your choice has been taken from you.

Your point is illogical and irrelevant. No one can make anyone do, think or believe, feel etc anything. But you believe your God demands you love him or suffer, that is not free will or choice.

It is also illogical and not love to force one out of fear to love you as that is fear not love, also illogical is to want someone to love you when you know ahead of time they can not and will not, then you get mad at them??? Illogical and wrong.


Your will has been taken over. That is not how God operates, and I would not have him operate that way.

???? really?
"I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

Do you not believe as most Christians do “if you do not believe in God and except Christ dying on the cross for your sins” you will be sent to hell?

Is that choice, free will? That is like you asking out a girl by gun point.

She either says yes or gets shot.Free will? Choice? No Fear and intimation.


That is why he gave the gift of salvation to humanity. After we die and our sinful souls meet God he will cleanse them for us if we are willing.

Thank you, you have just proven my point above. “believe in me, love me, worship me or else”.

That is not free will, not unconditional love. It is fear and intimidation.

If we, as a vanilla cake as you put it, are content and adamant in remaining a vanilla cake, he will let us be a vanilla cake. You see permanence in temporary human existence.

1-You have missed entirely the point of the cake analogy. The cake has no choice if it was made with vanilla ingredients, it can not be chocolate when the baker has used only vanilla ingredients. The baker can become angry all he wishes at the cake for not being chocolate when he is the one that used the vanilla ingredients. He knew before hand what the cake would be it is illogical for him to become angry when it was what he made it to be.

2- You see permanence in temporary human existence.
I know you said you knew little about Buddhism but you will learn that a very base of Buddhism is the truth of impermanence. I see all things for what they are, impermanent. I am not sure where in my post you cam to believe that I thought other wise.


I think that the temporary human existence must be justified/rectified.


I am not sure about “justified or rectified” but it is fact all that is compound ( all things) are subject to death and decay.


So you cake analogy needs to be extended. The cake must be cognizant of itself and the standards of creation, and the cake must be able to choose itself, or the standards.

My sweet friend you are not comprehending my statements.

I will try one more time.

If a baker ( God) sets out to make ( creates) a chocolate cake ( say me as a Christian ) but uses all vanilla ingredients ( knowing before hand, before “he” created me that I would be Buddhist and not believe in him) he can not become angry or caught off guard when the cake ( me) was not chocolate ( Christian).


Lets try this one.

If a baker ( God) sets out to make ( create) a chocolate cake ( a Christian who believed in him and did not ‘sin”) but uses all vanilla ingredients (say a child molester who would and he knew would harm many children. The reason he would is he had it done to him as a child and God knew it and did nothing to protect him ) he can not become angry or caught off guard when the cake ( the molester) was not chocolate (a Christian who believed in him and did not ‘sin”).


How can you know how a perfect all knowing mind would think? Or that it would not think?

That is a question I should ask you or you should ask yourself. You have sated many times what God thinks, or wants. How do you know this? One would believe if Christian and as most Christians do that the Bible would be the instrument that would give people this information yet you believe it is not. What do you use to form your beliefs and prove them?

I do not believe in this God so do not believe in this perfect creating mind.

I have pointed out a perfect all knowing mind would not be capable of thought as it is all knowing.

I can know it would have to be free of flaws, such as ego, hate, vengeance etc.

Jesus was capable of thought. Therefore God is capable of thought.

Again I will say I respect what you choose to believe. I will also not ask for facts as there can be none.

I have pointed out and you have not addressed it that a mind that is all knowing is not capable of pondering. There would be nothing left unknown. You can not have it both ways or seek to massage what is the definition of all knowing.


God's thoughts are translated into creative action.

I know you believe that. But do you really believe this being sat alone for countless trillions, trillions etc etc etc etc years and 6 thousand years ago said “ hey I have an idea I wonder how this would work?”

Not logical, not all knowing.



That is my conceptualization of how God thinks. It is on a completely different level from our thinking.


David Brooks wrote To seek to explain what is unknown using what is known is scientific and logical system. To seek to seek to prove what is known using what is unknown is theological lunacy.

This is to say “ well it is a sin to kill unless god does it because that is different and it’s Gods way and so it is Ok to kill then”

So perfection is not really perfection it is the opposite or human idea of perfection, but wait the opposite of human perfection is non-perfection..??

Again I ask you what you asked me How can you know how a perfect all knowing mind would think?


Humans ponder because we are confused, are prone to confusion.

Because we are not all knowing or perfect.

So I would agree that God does not ponder, or consider, contemplate, deliberate, etc. How he thinks is different from how we think.

I ask you again what you asked me.
How can you know how a perfect all knowing mind would think?


What facts do you have to support what you are saying?

It is a pleasure conversing with you.

Thank you my friend same here. You are clearly a smart and good being. I must say though if you wish to continue you must respond to all points and questions and not simply ignore parts. This form of debate I do is long but it is the most honest.


I disagree with your theological sentiments about God. Since you do not believe in God (correct?)


I respect that but you can not simply ignore facts or logical conclusion by someone because he does not believe as you do, that is illogical.

I am curious why you are so forthright about your opinions about God. Is it possible to have opinions about what you believe does not exist?

Of course. I do not believe in Santa Clause and have many opinions about “him” I can also using logical conclusion and facts point out why the myth is most likely not true.

As I had pointed out in my posts I was born into a Christian family, raised as such, schooled as such and studied the Bibles for many years. My name is Mark Bertrand, Pahansiri is a given Buddhist name. I am “ white” lol not Indian.

If so, then that means that your opinions of God do not exist.

That is completely illogical.

Does that mean then you believe that God dies not exist due to the fact you have opinions on atheism that can not exist because you are not an atheist?


And I would agree completely. Pahansiri, your notion of God does not in fact exist. We can, at the very least, agree on that. The God you articulate does not exist.


LOL. This is again strange. But I will agree with you, a loving, all powerful, all knowing creator God does not exist, The God of the Christian Bible does not exist.

I guess I am glad we have that cleared up.

May you be well and happy my new friend.

Have for yourself and all living things loving kindness, respect and compassion.

[jj]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Fair enough ML.

If I may editorialize...

Any Christian who does not believe that Christian morality does not evolve needs to consider several points:

1) Jesus did not write any books, or, any extant books.
2) The ideas of Jesus were therefore filtered through others, either others who talked with Jesus (ie Peter) or others who talked with people who talked with Jesus (ie evangelists)
3) The concept of Trinity is not articulated in the N.T. I would argue that it can be *gleaned* from the N.T. but that is besides the point. What this means is that theology did evolve past the N.T., at the very least in the articulation of the concept of Trinity.
4) Many Christians are members of churches that were defined over 1500 years after the death of Christ. That these denominations were not defined in the first century AD proves that Christian theology evolves.

Yet I am sympathetic to even the most dogmatically annoying Christians. Actually I am sympathetic to everybody. But I've known some absolutely outstanding literalists, so I think there is something to what they are saying. They surely don't have everything wrong.

-Elliot

How about Constantine's editing of nearly everything?

That is, I think, a significant point in the evolution of "God's Word", isn't it?

How about Paul's contributions, and his previous anti-female attitudes that don't seem to have entirely faded?

How much of "Christianity" is about 'Christ' and how much was just made up to suit somebody's ideas of social order?

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Um.
Speachless, are we? :roll:

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
If you will give my post an uncharacteristically careful reading, you'll see that I have not defended the 1866 statement or, indeed, offered any value judgments in respect thereof. I simply clarified an arguably relevant distinction that your post tended to obscure.
So in other words, all you really wanted to post is that the 1866 statement used a word that meant "person compelled to labor for the profit of others and lacking freedom or political rights" instead of "slavery."

The shallowness of your argument makes my case for me.

Yahzi, I live and move in a world where the meaning and usage of words have important consequences. We've established in other discussions that you do not.
We have not established this. When I caught you out with your word games about "humanism," you simply decided to not respond.

So I'll ask again: when you read my use of the unqualifed word "humanism," knowing that I am an atheist, writing on a board whose major audience is atheist, and recognizing that the only possible way my sentence could make sense was if I meant "secular" humanism, how exactly it was it that you were mystifed? How exactly did you decide I must mean an obscure Catholic doctrine, and therefor assume I was talking nonsense? Are you a) so parochial that secular humanism is new to you, or b) so focused on winning that you will look for any pretext of a mistake, even when you know perfectly well what I mean?

If I use a word that can be interpreted in one of two ways, and one of those ways is out of context, obscure, and completely invalidates my point, then I meant the other way.

This is the nature of philosophical discourse. What you did was the nature of legalistic discourse. Don't you agree? When you deliberatly misinterpret my terms even though you know what I mean, I think that shows that you live and move in a world where words are divorced from meaning.

I also count on them to read my posts with a greater degree of objectivity and comprehension than you have heretofore demonstrated.
You probably count on them to understand the words you use in their normal, everyday common use, and expect them to apply a little context from the rest of your post and indeed your entire reputation on this board. I have bad news for you: there are certain posters on this board that will not do that.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Yahzi
So in other words, all you really wanted to post is that the 1866 statement used a word that meant "person compelled to labor for the profit of others and lacking freedom or political rights" instead of "slavery."

The shallowness of your argument makes my case for me.Yahzi, you implied that the 1866 statement directly supported the perpetuation of slavery as we knew it in the New World - that is, the compulsion to labor for others and the removal of freedom and political rights of an entire class of persons, and the entry into that status by innocent people through forcible capture or misfortune of birth.

Without opining on the absolute morality of penal servitude, indentured servitude and the like (in jurisprudence, sometimes called "just-title servitude"), it is obvious that they are not the equivalent of what we generally mean when we say "slavery" (chattel slavery, usually race-based). A document tolerating the former situation under certain circumstances, however morally problematic it might be, should probably not be relied on as evidence of support of the latter situation. The reverse is also true: for example, the Thirteenth Amendment abolished chattel slavery and contractual servitude, but permits penal servitude. If you think the distinction between a "slave" and a "person compelled to labor for the profit of others and lacking freedom or political rights" is so shallow, then I take it you consider prison work to be a form of slavery approved by American law.

Put another way, it seems logically possible to agree with the 1866 statement and simultaneously see a moral imperative for abolition. Since you profess to be big on "context", let me suggest that there are two relevant contexts in which the 1866 statement can be placed, as my earlier post tried to point out. The first is the context of the particular institutions of servitude (not including racial enslavement) to which the 1866 statement was responding. The second context is the long line of Church statements (both pre- and post-1866) criticizing the practice of slavery on theological and ethical grounds. Isn't an interpretation of the 1866 statement that, insofar as reasonably possible, can be read in harmony with these contexts, likely to be a better interpretation? And if it is not reasonably possible to harmonize them, then the 1866 statement is, as I suggested it might be, anomalous.
Originally posted by Yahzi
So I'll ask again: when you read my use of the unqualifed word "humanism," knowing that I am an atheist, writing on a board whose major audience is atheist, and recognizing that the only possible way my sentence could make sense was if I meant "secular" humanism, how exactly it was it that you were mystifed? How exactly did you decide I must mean an obscure Catholic doctrine, and therefor assume I was talking nonsense? Are you a) so parochial that secular humanism is new to you, or b) so focused on winning that you will look for any pretext of a mistake, even when you know perfectly well what I mean?

If I use a word that can be interpreted in one of two ways, and one of those ways is out of context, obscure, and completely invalidates my point, then I meant the other way.And if you make an argument that appears ignorant of context, obscure and completely invalid, I suppose I should just assume that I've misunderstood your meaning. ;)

Seriously, though, I do see past your insults to an actual point that I can acknowledge. I'm sorry if you thought I was playing cute. However, I simply noted that there was a prima facie inconsistency in your statement about humanism being incompatible with Christianity and effectively gave you a chance to clarify whether (1) you really intended something more specific or (2) you actually did mean that there is something intrinsic to humanism generally that is ultimately at odds with religious belief (and before you scoff at this possible interpretation, let me say that I have heard people make such arguments before - I simply find the arguments confusing).

I was prepared for either response. But curiously, your subsequent replies suggested even more strongly than your initial posts that perhaps you did have general-encyclopedia-definition "humanism" in mind rather than "secular humanism". If one reads references to humanism in your replies as pertaining specifically to secular humanism, your replies actually become more rather than less confusing; some of your later statements about humanism are thereby transformed into truisms or incoherencies.

Should I really presume that you intended to say, for example, "I did not say that secular humanism was incompatible with theism" and "Catholic scholars can't figure out that secular humanism is inconsistent with the assertion that the purpose of human existence is to please some non-human entity"? I hope you agree that these statements of yours seem slightly more reasonable (and less - to borrow your phrase again - "out of context, obscure and completely invalid") if they are construed by reference to humanism generally rather than secular humanism. So which way should I have interpreted them?

I think the moral is, if you can't resort to fewer generalizations, at least try to be more consistent in the way you make them.

By the way, I hope that my initially linking to the encyclopedia definition of humanism made it sufficiently clear that I was interpreting the term in a general way, of which Christian humanism is only one (albeit the original) subset and secular humanism another, rather than interpreting it solely as a Christian philosophy. I agree that that would have been unjustified.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Yahzi, you implied that the 1866 statement directly supported the perpetuation of slavery as we knew it in the New World.
And the people who read it almost certainly agreed. It is only now, after the fact, when the timing of the American amendment and the Papal pronoucement can be dismissed as accidental, that anyone can make the argument otherwise.

however morally problematic it might be
But you see, in your long defense of the statement, you at no point acknowleged that it was morally problematic. Do you understand how acknowledging that the Pope was clearly endorsing a principal that we find objectionable (even though it wasn't slavery) would have weakend your case, and therefore, you were philosophically required to have brought it up?

then I take it you consider prison work to be a form of slavery approved by American law.
Yes, I do (when it is compelled, that is). Don't you?

Put another way, it seems logically possible to agree with the 1866 statement and simultaneously see a moral imperative for abolition.
Of course it is possible. But you have not shown that it was the case, or even that it was probable. When the Pope goes to such length to defend the compulsion of labor for another's profit, you have to wonder what his point was. In case you didn't notice, penal servitude was not under threat. There was no global movement to banish penal servitude. Only slavery. So why did the Pope issue this proclamation to defend an institution that was not under threat, at exactly the same time that a different institution was under threat? Me, I'll go with the parsimonious explanation that the Pope meant what he said.

The second context is the long line of Church statements (both pre- and post-1866) criticizing the practice of slavery on theological and ethical grounds.
Your peculiar interpretation of thie 1866 statement does not give me great faith that all these other statements actually say what you think they say. I would go look them up, but I don't want to argue over the translation of every word with you, and frankly I don't care that much.

Isn't an interpretation of the 1866 statement that, insofar as reasonably possible, can be read in harmony with these contexts, likely to be a better interpretation? And if it is not reasonably possible to harmonize them, then the 1866 statement is, as I suggested it might be, anomalous.
If only you showed that much concern for reading my statements in harmony. Do you detect the possiblity of bias on your part?

I'm sorry if you thought I was playing cute.
So you weren't? You actually could not guess that I mean "secular" humanism? The knowledge of that philosophy was so far removed from your ordinary consciousness that you failed to recognize it? So you are opting for option a) parochialism. Ok. Please note in the future that I am an atheist, the audience I am writing to is atheist, and therefore, whenever there are two possible meanings to word I use, I am using the one that atheists would use. Does that help?


However, I simply noted that there was a prima facie inconsistency in your statement about humanism being incompatible with Christianity and effectively gave you a chance to clarify whether (1) you really intended something more specific or (2) you actually did mean that there is something intrinsic to humanism generally that is ultimately at odds with religious belief (and before you scoff at this possible interpretation, let me say that I have heard people make such arguments before - I simply find the arguments confusing).

I was prepared for either response. But curiously, your subsequent replies suggested even more strongly than your initial posts that perhaps you did have general-encyclopedia-definition "humanism" in mind rather than "secular humanism". If one reads references to humanism in your replies as pertaining specifically to secular humanism, your replies actually become more rather than less confusing; some of your later statements about humanism are thereby transformed into truisms or incoherencies.

Should I really presume that you intended to say, for example, "I did not say that secular humanism was incompatible with theism" and "Catholic scholars can't figure out that secular humanism is inconsistent with the assertion that the purpose of human existence is to please some non-human entity"? I hope you agree that these statements of yours seem slightly more reasonable (and less - to borrow your phrase again - "out of context, obscure and completely invalid") if they are construed by reference to humanism generally rather than secular humanism.
Absolutely not. The confusion disappears when you realize that theism is not equivalent to Catholicism.

For a person that complains about precision in words, you don't seem to notice when I do choose my words carefully.

When I say that it is possible to be Theistic and humanist, what I mean is that you can concievabley construct a god that is not incompatible with humanism. When I say that it is not possible to be Catholic and humanist, I mean that the specific Christian God (as defined by Catholic doctrine) is incompatible with humanism.

rather than interpreting it solely as a Christian philosophy. I agree that that would have been unjustified.
Do you agree that being "mystified" by my use of the word, when it should have been obvious from context, is sufficient reason for one to suspect that you might be interpreting it solely as a Christian philosophy? Again, for one who complains about choosing words with care, your choice of "mystified" seems indefensible. You weren't mystified. You knew exactly what I meant. You just thought I was wrong. That's not the same thing at all.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Yahzi
And the people who read it almost certainly agreed. It is only now, after the fact, when the timing of the American amendment and the Papal pronoucement can be dismissed as accidental, that anyone can make the argument otherwise.Bear in mind that the 1866 statement was a ruling from the Holy Office addressing a specific dispute relating (as I recall from the Panzer book) to particular institutions of non-hereditary just-title servitude in parts of Africa, rather than the American form of slavery. I do not, in fact, dismiss the timing as entirely accidental; I find it extremely likely that the African inquiry to the Holy Office was prompted, for purposes of clarification, by the well-publicized passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in the United States (which, by all accounts, the Church supported). That this is probably true, however, in no way bolsters an interpretation of the 1866 statement as endorsing the morality of slavery as practiced in the United States.
Originally posted by Yahzi
But you see, in your long defense of the statement, you at no point acknowleged that it was morally problematic. Do you understand how acknowledging that the Pope was clearly endorsing a principal that we find objectionable (even though it wasn't slavery) would have weakend your case, and therefore, you were philosophically required to have brought it up?What do you understand my case to be, that you think it would be materially weakened by a personal acknowledgment that the 1866 statement (for the sake of accuracy, not a papal one) endorsed an objectionable principle?
Originally posted by Yahzi
Yes, I do [view penal labor as a form of slavery approved under modern American law] (when it is compelled, that is). Don't you?Don't jump all over me for saying this, but it probably depends on one's definition of slavery. Most people distinguish penal or indentured servitude from slavery. However, in certain contexts (perhaps including the 1866 statement) I suppose the term slavery could legitimately be applied to penal and indentured servitude. Such usage should not be taken to obscure, however, the moral distinctions to be drawn among the varying degrees of injustice manifested by different forms of slavery (e.g. the prison chain gang versus the plantation slave).
Originally posted by Yahzi
Of course it is possible. But you have not shown that it was the case, or even that it was probable. When the Pope goes to such length to defend the compulsion of labor for another's profit, you have to wonder what his point was. In case you didn't notice, penal servitude was not under threat. There was no global movement to banish penal servitude. Only slavery. So why did the Pope issue this proclamation to defend an institution that was not under threat, at exactly the same time that a different institution was under threat? Me, I'll go with the parsimonious explanation that the Pope meant what he said.As I suggested above, I do not consider the timing itself to have been accidental. There was indeed a global movement to banish chattel slavery, which movement was significantly backed by the Church. However, the support given by the Church to the abolition of chattel slavery in perhaps its largest remaining bastion (the United States) could reasonably have been expected to raise questions as to whether the Church meant for its condemnation of chattel slavery to extend to just-title servitude, simply because (as we have noted), while not equivalent institutions, they nonetheless present certain features in common. This explanation, all things considered, seems both plausible and parsimonious.

If you really think that the 1866 statement was a direct endorsement of chattel slavery, then how do you account for the part of the statement that says that the acceptability of slavery hinges, inter alia, upon "whether the slave ... has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty"? Before you answer that the Church probably considered entrapment and/or racial identity to be a sufficiently just basis on which to deprive a human being of his liberty, consider how much or how little corroboration for that notion is provided by other Church statements.
Originally posted by Yahzi
Your peculiar interpretation of thie 1866 statement does not give me great faith that all these other statements actually say what you think they say. I would go look them up, but I don't want to argue over the translation of every word with you, and frankly I don't care that much.Fair enough, Yahzi. How about if we limit our consideration to the most immediate context - say, the two Church statements addressing slavery closest in time to the 1866 statement, i.e. the next preceding and the next following statement? I hope you will agree that this should give us a clearer notion of the proper context in which to construe the 1866 statement.

Both documents, as it happens, are actually directly from the papal pen (unlike the 1866 statement). The first is the 1839 papal bull In Supremo Apostolatus (http://www.newadvent.org/docs/gr16is.htm). This document is of particular interest to our discussion, because it was an instruction letter addressed specifically (and in English) to the bishops of the United States on the issue of slavery. I have already quoted from it, but for ease of review I will repeat such quotation here:We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour. ...

We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices abovementioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this Apostolic Letter.The second document, i.e. the Church statement on slavery next following the 1866 statement, is the 1888 papal encyclical In Plurimis (On the Abolition of Slavery) (http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/l13abl.htm). It is addressed to the bishops of Brazil:In the presence of so much suffering, the condition of slavery, in which a considerable part of the great human family has been sunk in squalor and affliction now for many centuries, is deeply to be deplored; for the system is one which is wholly opposed to that which was originally ordained by God and by nature. The Supreme Author of all things so decreed that man should exercise a sort of royal dominion over beasts and cattle and fish and fowl, but never that men should exercise a like dominion over their fellow men. ...

Even those who were wisest in the pagan world, illustrious philosophers and learned juris-consults, outraging the common feeling of mankind, succeeded in persuading themselves and others that slavery was simply a necessary condition of nature. Nor did they hesitate to assert that the slave class was very inferior to the freemen both in intelligence and development of bodily perfection, and therefore that slaves, as things wanting in reason and sense, ought in all things to be the instruments of the will, however rash and unworthy, of their masters. Such inhuman and wicked doctrines are to be specially detested; for, when once they are accepted, there is no form of oppression so wicked but that it will defend itself beneath some color of legality and justice. History is full of examples showing what a seedbed of crime, what a pest and calamity, this system has been for states. ...

Would that all who hold high positions in authority and power, or who desire the rights of nations and of humanity to be held sacred, or who earnestly devote themselves to the interests of the Catholic religion, would all, everywhere acting on Our exhortations and wishes, strive together to repress, forbid, and put an end to that kind of traffic, than which nothing is more base and wicked.Both of these documents include, incidentally, historical overviews (at least from the authors' perspective) of the actions and attitudes of their authors' predecessors in regard to slavery.

In view of the foregoing, let me pose two questions:

1. Do you still suspect that these two documents which, chronologically speaking, bookended the 1866 statement, fail to say what I have suggested they say - i.e. that they cannot reasonably be construed other than as condemnations of the institution of slavery (in the commonly understood sense of the term)?

2. Do you still maintain, in the light of the relatively immediate historical context provided by these two documents, that it is unreasonable to venture an interpretation of the 1866 statement that excludes chattel slavery?
Originally posted by Yahzi
Absolutely not. The confusion disappears when you realize that theism is not equivalent to Catholicism.
...
When I say that it is possible to be Theistic and humanist, what I mean is that you can concievabley construct a god that is not incompatible with humanism. When I say that it is not possible to be Catholic and humanist, I mean that the specific Christian God (as defined by Catholic doctrine) is incompatible with humanism.Yahzi, how does the realization that theism is not equivalent to Catholicism improve statements like "I never said that secular humanism is incompatible with theism" or "Catholic philosophers can't recognize that secular humanism is incompatible with their beliefs"? Are you aware of a theism that is compatible with secular humanism? Is it plausible to assert that anyone fails to recognize that secular humanism is incompatible with Catholicism?
Originally posted by Yahzi
Do you agree that being "mystified" by my use of the word, when it should have been obvious from context, is sufficient reason for one to suspect that you might be interpreting it solely as a Christian philosophy? Again, for one who complains about choosing words with care, your choice of "mystified" seems indefensible. You weren't mystified. You knew exactly what I meant. You just thought I was wrong. That's not the same thing at all. Yahzi, I have reviewed the other thread and determined that the only person who used the term "mystified" was you. What I said, precisely, was "I am a little confused by your references to humanism" (emphasis added). I will chalk this off to an honest mistake on your part. But what does it say when you aren't even choosing my words with care?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
What do you understand my case to be, that you think it would be materially weakened by a personal acknowledgment that the 1866 statement (for the sake of accuracy, not a papal one) endorsed an objectionable principle?
Yes. Because the discussion was not about the Vatican's support of slavery per se: it was about the Vatican's support of social oppression. When you refuted (or I should say attempted to refute) the Vatican's endorsement of slavery without mentioning anything else, you gave the impression that the entire argument against the Vatican was moot. It was not. Even if we accept your arguments against the narrow definition of slavery, the larger context of the argument - that the Vatican has routinely supported state oppression - is still valid.

This is like a strawman argument. You shoot down the spector of slavery with a big gun, and hope nobody notices that the very real monster of servitude is laughing quietly in the shadows.

Yahzi, I have reviewed the other thread and determined that the only person who used the term "mystified" was you.
The tone of your passage suggested that adjective, and then I made the mistake of substituting my word. I agree that was my mistake. But I'm not the one claiming - or even demanding - precision. All I want is communication. And disproving a very narrow point, while you know perfectly well that its larger context is valid, without making it explicitly clear to your audience exactly what context your narrow point belongs in, is the opposite of philosophy. It is legalism. (I realize that legalistic rhetoric is technically a form of communication, but it's one I'm not interested in, which should be obvious from context)

Note: I'm not surrendering the argument. I still think the Vatican objected to slavery only after the rest of the planet did away with it. But that's not relevant to the issue at the moment. The issue at the moment is whether you can walk in, knock down the charge of slavery, and then proclaim the Church innocent while carefully stepping over the bodies of "servants."

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Yes. Because the discussion was not about the Vatican's support of slavery per se: it was about the Vatican's support of social oppression. When you refuted (or I should say attempted to refute) the Vatican's endorsement of slavery without mentioning anything else, you gave the impression that the entire argument against the Vatican was moot. It was not. Even if we accept your arguments against the narrow definition of slavery, the larger context of the argument - that the Vatican has routinely supported state oppression - is still valid.

This is like a strawman argument. You shoot down the spector of slavery with a big gun, and hope nobody notices that the very real monster of servitude is laughing quietly in the shadows.I'm not sure that we should downplay the significance of slavery either to this discussion or as a social institution. At any rate, my first post to address the slavery-Christianity relationship was essentially in response to T'ai Chi's initial thread-starting post (which is strictly about slavery) and my successive posts either flowed from that or addressed specific comments about slavery.

I realize that some posters have tried to re-cast the discussion in broader terms; for example, when the Mad Linguist wrote "Let me say this again: the argument is that that Christians do not have a necessarily superior moral code. ... This argument is supported by finding examples of things which we recognise today as being immoral which were practiced or not opposed by Christianity. Slavery is such an example."

So, I've just been engaged in pointing out the defects of that example - not because I necessarily think the Vatican has not supported social oppression, but because it's a weak example and weak examples shouldn't be suffered to stand. Slavery also happens to be the example that has chiefly been preoccupying the thread. That's why I can't agree with your comparison to a strawman - yes, I knocked the slavery example down, but I didn't erect it in the first place.

If we want to replace the slavery example with another example, such as just-title servitude, then that's a different matter. Frankly, it's not as good an example as the slavery example would be if it were valid, but I suppose we'll have to use what we have available.

Why should it be incumbent on me, though, to simultaneously lend support to the just-title servitude example? I'm not presenting a case-in-chief, I'm presenting a targeted rebuttal. Hopefully your argument will be the better for it, although at present I think it's in dire need of reinforcement. The examples that get shot down, get shot down. The examples that stand, stand. If, from the mere fact that the Vatican was a relatively progressive voice on slavery, anyone infers that the Vatican did not support other forms of social oppression, it's a faulty inference on his part. I agree with you. But what has that got to do with me?
Originally posted by Yahzi
And disproving a very narrow point, while you know perfectly well that its larger context is valid, without making it explicitly clear to your audience exactly what context your narrow point belongs in, is the opposite of philosophy. It is legalism. (I realize that legalistic rhetoric is technically a form of communication, but it's one I'm not interested in, which should be obvious from context)Having devoted a great deal of training to both disciplines, I'm not sure I fully concur with your definitions or your application thereof to my remarks. However, upon further reflection I believe you have something of a point regardless. Accordingly... I will take your criticism in the constructive spirit in which I hope it was intended, and I apologize to you and our readers for the "humanism" imbroglio.
Originally posted by Yahzi
Note: I'm not surrendering the argument. I still think the Vatican objected to slavery only after the rest of the planet did away with it. But that's not relevant to the issue at the moment. The issue at the moment is whether you can walk in, knock down the charge of slavery, and then proclaim the Church innocent while carefully stepping over the bodies of "servants." I haven't proclaimed the Church innocent of all wrongdoing; that's not my affair. I've proclaimed the Church not guilty of the particular charge I addressed. Maybe it's my "legalistic" background, but I approach the question of guilt by reference to particular enumerated charges and specific evidence adduced, and with a general (though obviously rebuttable) presumption of innocence.

Even though I realize the slavery issue is not dispositive of the question of the Vatican's overall moral blameworthiness, I really think one has to overlook or refute a lot of contrary and apparently exculpatory evidence in order to argue that "the Vatican objected to slavery only after the rest of the planet did away with it." I mean, you have the Church writing to the New World colonial powers in 1537 urging the abolition of slavery there. You have the Church writing to America in 1839 urging the abolition of slavery there. You have the Church writing to Brazil in 1888 urging the eradication of the remaining vestiges of slavery there. I don't know about other people, but that is not the sort of politically risky public relations exercise I bother to engage in repeatedly with respect to policies and social phenomena toward which I am favorably, or even tolerably, disposed.

In each case, of course, these anti-slavery statements were issued against the objections of the relevant civil powers. I've provided links to the texts of all these documents, so I hope we can discuss this body of evidence further. Meanwhile, if you have the time, I would again invite you to peruse the "Evolution of religious and secular morality" thread I linked in my second post. Among other things, it considers in some detail the other aspect of your assertion; namely: when, how and under what circumstances "the rest of the planet did away with" slavery.

EDITED TO ADD:

Something else occurs to me in this regard, Yahzi: if, after looking at some of these other Church pronouncements, you are still not persuaded that they reflect an abolitionist position on the Vatican's part, what exactly would you accept as affirmative evidence of such a position?

For example, you appear to concede that the Vatican eventually did take a stand against slavery, but on what do you base that? To what year do you trace the Vatican's current anti-slavery position? Which document convinces you?

[Eos of the Eons]

Okay, from what I can see, modern slavery comes in a few different forms. I know in India that children are taken when a family is given a 'loan' from a silk production/processing place. The kids have to work to pay back the loan. But deductions for food and such such keeps the kids there until nearly adulthood, and working the whole time with no education.

So child labor and forced labor are still common in many countries...
More examples
Here (http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/antislavery/modern.htm)

Then we have civil wars and such

Finally, there is Sudan. It is a country of 33 million people, Africa's largest country, located between Egypt and Ethiopia. It is profoundly divided between northern and southern areas of the country:

The government of Sudan has been widely accused of condoning slavery in that country. While there is convincing evidence that some slavery does occur there, the total picture is far more complex. There are a few different ways in which large numbers of Sudanese men, women and children lose their freedom:
-raids from civil war
-Kidnapping and held for ransom
-The Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA), which is fighting the Sudanese government, has raided villagers and forced men and children to work as laborers or porters for the rebel army. Some have been forcibly conscripted into the army.


The north is largely Arab; the south is largely black Africans.
The north is largely Muslim; the south has large Christian and Animist minorities. Over-all, the country is about 70% Muslim, 20 to 25% Animist and 5% Christian.
The northern population largely speaks Arabic; the southerners speak a variety of languages.
Many in the north advocate shari'a (Islamic law) for the entire country; southerners favor a secular federal government.



From what I can see is that religion may not be a cause of slavery, people from different religions and races are feuding and enslaving each other.

"In the 1960's, western Christian missionary groups began arming Stone Age southern Dinka tribesmen, encouraging them to rebel against Khartoum. Israel secretly armed and aided southern Christian rebels to destabilize Sudan, an ally of Egypt.

Since then, southern Sudan has been convulsed by civil and tribal war.


Christian Freedom International is a U.S. Christian group working in Sudan who bought the freedom of about a dozen slaves in 1998. They have decided to discontinue the practice because they now realize that it only helps to increase the slave traffic.

It seems interference from christian groups aren't helping things.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

I haven't proclaimed the Church innocent of all wrongdoing; that's not my affair. I've proclaimed the Church not guilty of the particular charge I addressed. Maybe it's my "legalistic" background, but I approach the question of guilt by reference to particular enumerated charges and specific evidence adduced, and with a general (though obviously rebuttable) presumption of innocence.
That's my entire point.

If you don't understand how that position is utterly incompatible with philosophical discourse, then your great deal of training was completely wasted.

In this specific instance, note: your general presumption of innocence was indefensible, given that you knew the church supported something similar to slavery. Your attitude is perhaps necessary for the courtroom, but it is an unquestionable hindrance in the search for truth.

Your unflagging willingness to defend the Catholic church pro bono speaks to me of a bias: but perhaps you just like arguing.

For example, you appear to concede that the Vatican eventually did take a stand against slavery, but on what do you base that? To what year do you trace the Vatican's current anti-slavery position? Which document convinces you?
I took the time-line at religioustolerance.org at face value. ReligousTolerance.org is a non-sectarian source of information that I have found to be quite reliable in the past, both in facts and in lack of spin. That is the document that convinces me.

You, on the other hand, have admitted that you will only display the evidence necessary to win the argument at hand. If that leaves me with the wrong impression of what occurred, you don't care. You don't think educating me is your responsiblity. Perhaps you can see why you do not qualify as a reliable source of information.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Yahzi

That's my entire point.

If you don't understand how that position is utterly incompatible with philosophical discourse, then your great deal of training was completely wasted.Spoken with the intellectual hubris (and grasp of philosophy) of - I'll go out on a limb here - an undergraduate in the field. Anyway, I'll ignore your insult and simply point out that you have either misunderstood or are intentionally mischaracterizing, or else you are applying some unexpected standard. Whatever the case, complaining that my discourse doesn't suit you is not actually any form of argument, so can we please return to the regularly scheduled program?
Originally posted by Yahzi
In this specific instance, note: your general presumption of innocence was indefensible, given that you knew the church supported something similar to slavery. Your attitude is perhaps necessary for the courtroom, but it is an unquestionable hindrance in the search for truth.
I really wonder for what chief purpose you think the courtroom and its procedures have evolved, except as aids in searching for the truth in disputed matters. After I researched the servitude connection, I pointed it out to everyone (although the same connection was somewhat apparent from the footnotes at religioustolerance.org). The result was that one likely falsehood has been challenged, and a more complete comprehension of our sources has emerged. You think that's a net setback for our collective understanding of the subject-matter?
Originally posted by Yahzi
I took the time-line at religioustolerance.org at face value. ReligousTolerance.org is a non-sectarian source of information that I have found to be quite reliable in the past, both in facts and in lack of spin. That is the document that convinces me.OK, I see. I agree that religioustolerance.org is generally devoid of conscious bias. However, the timeline doesn't cover a very long period or provide much analysis, and by increasing the depth and breadth of our inquiry as we are currently doing (and especially examining primary sources), I think we can achieve a better understanding than one based on the timeline alone. In fact, there's no reason why we can't achieve, with moderate effort, a better understanding than the authors of that timeline.
Originally posted by Yahzi
You, on the other hand, have admitted that you will only display the evidence necessary to win the argument at hand. If that leaves me with the wrong impression of what occurred, you don't care. You don't think educating me is your responsiblity. Perhaps you can see why you do not qualify as a reliable source of information. When I make a point, Yahzi, I generally contribute as much relevant evidence as I have (provided it is not duplicative of other evidence already contributed). I dismiss your suggestion that I have somehow misled you. Educating you and doing your thinking/arguing for you are two different matters. If you've been generally receptive to anything I've said in this discussion, you are now more educated than you were before (when you had an extremely incomplete notion of the history of the Church and slavery, and no notion whatsoever about the servitude issue). I won't hold my breath waiting for a "thank you", but please return to critiquing my reasoning and evidence instead of what you surmise to be my character and attitude.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Spoken with the intellectual hubris (and grasp of philosophy) of - I'll go out on a limb here - an undergraduate in the field.
This sentence implies that you are far above a mere undergraduate degree. Hmm. An overweening pride... what's the word I'm looking for here? Oh yea... hubris comes to mind.

You certainly react badly whenever you are shown to be in error.

However, the issue need not go further. If you are willing to state that you do not feel an intellectual duty to reveal information that weakens or disproves your case as soon as it becomes available to you, then I can just stop wasting my time. You are free to argue for the sake of argument: if you identify that as your goal, I'll trouble you no more.

I really wonder for what chief purpose you think the courtroom and its procedures have evolved, except as aids in searching for the truth in disputed matters.
The courtroom is a method of resolving disputes, the process of which is greatly helped by the truth. But to assert that the goal of the courtroom is truth is to suggest that whatever your education, you don't actually practice law.

Educating you and doing your thinking/arguing for you are two different matters.
No, they aren't. If I'm not making the best possible case for my position, and you can make a better one, you are duty bound to make it for me.

If you observe the behaviour of many of the leading lights of this board (such as Doctor X, Doctor Stupid, etc.) you will see that time and time again they do exactly this.

Again I draw your attention to the distinction between the search for truth and the mere resolution of a conflict.

no notion whatsoever about the servitude issue
To turn to the topic, at last:

Here is another site I found.

http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Slavery.htm

In general, it agrees that the Church held a general opposition to chattel slavery (meaning that the children of slaves were also to be slaves), despite certain lapses such as "in 1452 Pope Nicholas Vth issued a bull "Dum Diversas" which granted the King of Portugal permission to conquer and reduce to perpetual slavery all "Saracens and pagans and other infidels and enemies of Christ" in West Africa.

However, it agian makes clear that the Vatican had a uniform policy of accepting slavery (other than chattel slavery) as a practice consistent with God's divine law.

So far in my researchs I have not seen the 1866 document translated as "servitude" rather than slavery. This may be due to the distinction between chattel slavery and various other forms. The church's practice of declaring the children, and then the wives, of priests to be slaves, and also the practice of owning Muslim slaves (whose children would either be slaves or Christians) seems to argue that despite their words, they tolerated even chattel slavery reasonably well. Perhaps modern audiences simply don't draw a distinction between chattel slavery and serfdom. While I agree there are techinical differences, I don't think they matter very much to the issue at hand. The church supported forced labor for someone else's profit, and the diminution of rights associated with that status.

Indeed, from the 2nd Vatican council:
such as .... slavery .... where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons
(Gaudiem et Spes #27)

Here the Pope is not being nearly so scrupulous about what the word slavery means. He is clearly defining it in the broader sense than just chattel slavery. Perhaps you could reference this document in Latin and tell us if the word used here is the same word used in the 1866 document.

My point being that the Church's current condemnation of slavery does not concern itself with the niceties of distinction that you brought up. This implies that perhaps those distinctions aren't terribly important.

This site also claims that "In 1866 a request for an opinion on slavery was made to the Holy Office in reaction to the passing of the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution," and thus identifies the 1866 document as a direct response to the American action. I don't know how to verify this, but it certainly is incompatible with your suggestion that the two were unrelated.


From the Catholic Encyclopedia ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm ):

(after noting that slavery was replaced by serfdom during the middle ages, but the new war gave rebirth to slavery) Turkish prisoners and also, unfortunately, captives imported by conscienceless traders. Though these slaves were generally well-treated, and set at liberty if they asked for baptism, this revival of slavery, lasting until the seventeenth century, is a blot on Christian civilization. But the number of these slaves was always very small in comparison with that of the Christian captives reduced to slavery in Mussulman countries
Note the last sentence. That's the kind of spin-doctoring that doesn't belong in a reasoned argument. It wasn't so bad that Christians were taking slaves because the Muslims took more? :rolleyes:

[Cleopatra]

Yahzi said:

The courtroom is a method of resolving disputes, the process of which is greatly helped by the truth. But to assert that the goal of the courtroom is truth is to suggest that whatever your education, you don't actually practice law.

Welcome to the club ceo_esq!

This is the third time a member of this forum questions whether another member practices the profession that has stated that he does.

It seems that everybody here knows about the nature of Law better than those who have stated that they practice Law...

The first "victim" was Nikk, then it was me, now it's you ceo_esq.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
There wasn't one mention of religion in the slavery article.

I guess people who cry religion = slavery are perhaps deluded somewhat? Why should the content choices of the author of the article be at all relevant?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Welcome to the club ceo_esq!\
Funny, you didn't have any objections when he was confusing legalism with philosophy.

Never mind: I'm done with it. I don't have time to discuss things with people who defend their right to not reveal information when it harms their case. Ceo both defended his right to do that, and then claimed he didn't do it: now you are objecting to the common sense, understood by everyone on the planet idea that Truth and the Courtroom are not synomous.

All I can say is I'm glad I don't have lawyers as naive as you two defending my interests.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Yahzi

All I can say is I'm glad I don't have lawyers as naive as you two defending my interests.

I cannot talk on behalf of ceo_esq but I am amused when people think that they can offend me by saying that :)

Yahzi, a legal expert like you doesn't need a lawyer anyway. :)

[ceo_esq]

Yahzi, I only have time for a partial reply today. Since I'm following the order of your post, I unfortunately won’t get to the slavery issue this time around.
Originally posted by Yahzi
You certainly react badly whenever you are shown to be in error.I merely take a dim view of your persistently insulting stance, Yahzi. Don't mistake errors you have alleged (of which there are many) for errors you have shown (of which there are none).
Originally posted by Yahzi
However, the issue need not go further. If you are willing to state that you do not feel an intellectual duty to reveal information that weakens or disproves your case as soon as it becomes available to you, then I can just stop wasting my time. You are free to argue for the sake of argument: if you identify that as your goal, I'll trouble you no more.If you mean to suggest that in this discussion, I have failed to reveal factual information known to me and not already introduced that weakens or disproves my case, kindly point out where I have done so. And with respect to "my case", don't necessarily confuse it with the opposite of some case you think you are making. Stick to the assertions I actually make.

Moreover, your remark is a dressed-up argumentum ad hominem, Yahzi. If you really cared whether your own beliefs repose on a solid foundation, your assessment of my arguments would hardly depend on why you think I make them or whether you think I believe in them.
Originally posted by Yahzi
The courtroom is a method of resolving disputes, the process of which is greatly helped by the truth. But to assert that the goal of the courtroom is truth is to suggest that whatever your education, you don't actually practice law.Trials have evolved first and foremost as fact-finding exercises, although they also seek to serve other societal goals. They are intended to help bring to light the best version of the truth available under the circumstances, given such concerns as the uncertain reliability of evidence. The concept behind our adversarial system of justice is that the truth emerges from a dialectic process in which the presentation and consideration of thesis and antithesis is supposed to equip the observer to reach a conclusion. This idea did not arise uniquely within a legal context; classical philosophy has long favored adversarial argument, dialectics and debate as a method of arriving at the truth. It also has ties to the notion of "the marketplace of ideas".

Obviously the truth-seeking function of this process can be hindered if the participants lie or otherwise distort the truth, and in certain other circumstances. And of course, there are other truth-seeking mechanisms besides this method. The benefits of such a system, however, are apparent to most people familiar with it, and that is why the system has not been discarded.

At any rate, you are simply wrong if you think that this is not a process that has developed chiefly as an aid in truth-seeking. More importantly, I think most of the forum members understand that a similar principle animates many of the discussions here (though I speak only for myself).
Originally posted by Yahzi
No, they aren't. If I'm not making the best possible case for my position, and you can make a better one, you are duty bound to make it for me.I acknowledge an intellectual obligation not to misrepresent facts or knowingly conceal the existence of contrary evidence to my theses, and I am not aware of having breached such obligation. However, I can deduce no general duty along the lines of what you're now talking about. What you seem to be asking me to do is advance a more well-founded case than you did for the moral turpitude of the Catholic Church, and the criticisms you've hailed down on me amount to a convoluted way of objecting to the fact that I tried to poke holes in parts of your argument in the first place.

Arguments are supposed to emerge from challenges with at least some of the weaker parts pared away. Arguably, that's an improvement. I think that this is precisely what's happened here. So while one can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as the saying goes, nonetheless, I have indirectly made your argument better than it was.
Originally posted by Yahzi
Again I draw your attention to the distinction between the search for truth and the mere resolution of a conflict.Duly noted, Yahzi. But don't draw the distinction too sharply. The just resolution of a conflict depends on arriving at the truth first.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Moreover, your remark is a dressed-up argumentum ad hominem, Yahzi.
I have no interest in playing a game of challenge. You seem to simolutaneously assert that you aren't doing that and that it would be ok if you did.

I did not intend my remarks to discredit your logical argument. I intended them to discredit you. I am not refuting your argument: I am establishing whether it is worth my time to bother arguing with you at all.

You can sling all the hash you want: but your initial reaction speaks for itself. When I drew your attention to the difference between legalism and philosophical debate, you were, for once, honestly confused.

I have made the decision that my limited time is best spent more productively.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Yahzi, a legal expert like you doesn't need a lawyer anyway. :)
Any fool that has ever set foot in a courtroom knows that truth is not the objective, but merely a means to the end. You can assert that you have spent a great deal of time in courts, and not noticed that: I won't argue with your self-categorization.

[Cleopatra]

Dear Yahzi.

Your opinion regarding truth and courts has the same value as mine and as everybody else's opinion but it seems that this is exactly your problem.

When a lawyer doesn't share your opinion you conclude that this particular lawyer cannot really be a lawyer. In another thread you suggested that Michael Shermer must have been paying compliments to M.Gardner for pointing the later, a fideist, as the founder of modern skepticism and that just because you disagree with the idea that an non-atheist can be the founder of modern skepticism.

It seems that you have a problem dealing with different opinions that yours and in that you remind me of my dearest friend Doctor X- whom you pointed as a leading light of this forum.

Personally, I do not have a problem with this attitude because people who follow the threads can read and judge by themselves also, I do not practice law in the States so I am not losing you from a potential client, ceo_esq is the one who must be devastated about that, I would have lost my sleep if I were in his shoes.

I seriously hope that you won't quit the discussion because it's a real pleasure to read your posts -even those that you compose solely to insult those who commit the crime to disagree with you--and the most important is that you inspire ceo_esq to dig his Library and compose very educative posts. :)

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
BTW ceo-esq which edition of Bible do you use? Cleopatra, I completely overlooked until a moment ago that your post contained a question directed at me. I apologize.

If I am simply trying to evoke a common biblical citation, I'll frequently use the KJV. If the situation demands a more careful exegesis, I tend to reach (metaphorically speaking) for the NIV or New American. Finally, for French-language purposes, I refer to the Jerusalem version.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Perhaps modern audiences simply don't draw a distinction between chattel slavery and serfdom. While I agree there are techinical differences, I don't think they matter very much to the issue at hand.Sociologist Rodney Stark notes that a handful of scholars dispute the notion that slavery declined at all in early medieval Europe, claiming that nothing more occurred than a semantic shift from "slave" to "serf", and that the institution, though somewhat transformed, was essentially left intact. He observes, however:Here it is not history but historians who are playing word games. As Marc Bloch noted Slavery and Serfdom in the Middle Ages (1975)] the life of medieval serfs "had nothing in common with slavery." Serfs were not chattels; they had rights and a substantial degree of discretion. They married whom they wished, and their families were not subject to sale or dispersal. They paid rent and therefore controlled their own time and the pace of their work, "which was generally slow and … individualistic." If, as in some places, serfs owed their lords a certain number of days of labor each year, the obligation was limited and more closely resembled "hired" labor than it did slavery. As Bloch put it, "The slave had been an ox in the stable, always under his master's orders; the … serf was a worker who came on certain days and who left as soon as the job was finished." Consequently, although serfs were bound to a lord by extensive obligations, so, too, was their lord bound by obligations to a higher authority, and so on up the line, and all of these were sets of mutual obligations - that was the fundamental nature of feudalism.

While no one would argue that medieval peasants were free in the modern sense, they were not slaves, and that brutal institution had essentially disappeared from Europe.

[source (http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7501.html)]You may consider the "technical" differences between slavery and serfdom to be inconsequential, but (entirely without meaning to endorse the feudal system) I rather doubt that a slave, a serf, or even the average thinking person would share that view. That said, I have no problem in principle with using the term slavery in a metaphorical or analogical way. Someone can be a wage slave or a slave to his passions or prejudices, or the pope can liken sin to a kind of enslavement. We understand what these things mean. However, suggesting not merely analogy but actual moral equivalence between chattel slavery and other, even arguably related social ills, is inappropriate. I think it dilutes the term and tends to trivialize its real referent. But hey - if it'll help drag the Catholic Church's name through the mud, it's in fair territory, right?
Originally posted by Yahzi
This site also claims that "In 1866 a request for an opinion on slavery was made to the Holy Office in reaction to the passing of the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution," and thus identifies the 1866 document as a direct response to the American action. I don't know how to verify this, but it certainly is incompatible with your suggestion that the two were unrelated.No, it is completely compatible with my suggestion - which was that the query to the Holy Office was likely prompted by the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, because Rome’s support of American abolition could fairly be expected to have raised questions regarding the legitimacy of just-title servitude in other parts of the world (as you have pointed out, the two institutions present at least a few similar features). The sentence you quoted links the timing of the two, but does not establish that the subject-matter of the query was American-style slavery. And how likely is that anyway, since American slavery had been directly addressed by the pope in unmistakeable and diametrically opposed terms less than 30 years earlier?

Any thoughts yet on the significance of the "justly or unjustly deprived" language in the 1866 statement?

Unless some new information comes forward, I don't think our discussion of the significance of the 1866 statement is going to advance any further - it will simply remain a controversial datum. It is referenced many times, but not actually reproduced or analyzed in any detail on the Web, it seems (the closest so far is the footnoted link at religioustolerance.org, which seems to support my argument more than yours). If the Church wanted to affirm a slavery-tolerant stance, it does seem strange to announce it in a minor and (relative to a papal one) unauthoritative document such as a Holy Office ruling. But ultimately we don't know its precise subject matter or scope. We can't even be sure how many real-world instances of servitude (or slavery) actually satisfied the standard established by the 1866 statement - possibly few or none, since the rule it set forth was contingent on the actual justice of the circumstances. If and when we learn more about all of these things, we can better incorporate the 1866 statement into our overall view of this subject.
Originally posted by Yahzi
I did not intend my remarks to discredit your logical argument. I intended them to discredit you. I am not refuting your argument: I am establishing whether it is worth my time to bother arguing with you at all.I doubt whether anyone here cares to watch you do such things. Consider entertaining such reflections in private.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Yahzi

I salute you, elliot! You have indeed found a group of theologians who think just like you. And with their amazing word taffee, they have simply reinterpreted the facts of history and the text of the Bible until it fits their case.

You can join ceo_esq in defending the Pope when he says, "Slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law." Never mind that it is against American law. Never mind that Americans are not allowed to incarcerate people and force them to work. Never mind that apparently even the American legal system is apparently a higher standard than God's law. All that matters is that a single word might be interpretable as something slightly different, and thus we can all rest easy.

:)

You can promulgate the teaching of one Pope as you will.

If one Pope says something that is against the magesterium of the Church, I have no reason to accept what that one Pope says.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Remember when we talked about making things up? There is no justification for this view of after-death salvation in Christian theology. It does not exist anywhere in any document that is even remotely Christian. In fact, the exact, explicit, unquestionable opposite is asserted in the strongest possible terms.

???

Catholics have believed in purgatory for a long time. Purgatory is necessary. And I don't know of any Catholic Pope who ever said that a human can refuse purgatory and be saved. But surely you can come up with one Pope who speaks differently from the magesterium. ;)

I'm sorry you have a problem with my beliefs. Funny thing is I've talked to I don't know how many Catholics about my beliefs, and they do not respond as you do. From this, I can only posit that Catholics are much less dogmatic about Christianity than you are.

[/quote]Every Christian source ever known to man makes it clear that you choose in this life, not the next one.

You are ignoring ignorance. People who are clueless about what they are choosing, and what they are rejecting, aren't making choices. If you ask someone who has never seen a kiwi before if they'd like to eat a kiwi, what kind of choice is the person you're asking a question to making?

Also, the choices we make on Earth are indicative of the choices we would make elsewhere. In this case you are absolutely correct. If we embrace life on Earth, we'd embrace life elsewhere, and if we embrace death on Earth, we'd embrace death elsewhere. All of our knowledgeable choices on Earth are significant, and we must answer for them. And they will never just magically disappear. There is a rectification procedure (Catholic purgatory). Everything that happens in our lifetime matters. But can you understand that an attitude may carry over into the next one? If you hate the idea of God in your earthly life, you'll probably hate the idea of God in the next life. Or maybe more than probably. I don't know. All I know is that I have work to do on Earth. Anyone who believes in death-bed confessions or putting off God until after you are dead deserves a smack in the head. You can't possibly get that idea from the Bible, just the opposite in fact. Repentance, once that concept is understood, must not be put off. If you put it off, that is blasphemy. That is choosing other gods before the true God.

[quote]Absolutely every preacher of the Christian faith on this planet will tell you that waiting to embrace god until after you are dead is too late.

They might be right. I don't know. It depends on the individual. If you wait to embrace God, you are placing yourself at the center of the universe. And once you do that, I don't know why I should believe that a person will remove him/herself from the center of the universe. I try to be charitable when I think about people, so I reckon it's possible. Just like it's possible that the molecules in a statue of Mary can, in an instant, rearrange themselves into moving themselves into a different physical form. Theoretically that can physically happen given what we know about physics. How likely is that?

Also, people who have never heard of Jesus need to be considered. People raised in deplorable and evil perspectives need to be considered. So do babies. Absent the opportunity to embrace God, will you go to hell? Do you believe that "absolutely every preacher of the Christian faith" would damn these people to hell?

In my opinion, the worst possible attitude to have is to put off embracing God. Can't get anymore arrogant than that. You realize that God exists, that God is Love, but then you relegate accepting God to when it suits your own notions? That's really bad. And when you realize how bad that is, how will you react? Obstinacy does not magically disappear.

This is a fundamental, inarguable tenet of the Christian faith. Even ceo_esq can't find a way around this one.

Hey Yahzi. Print this post. Give it to several preachers/priests. Report back to me. I'll do the same. OK? You in? This may be easier for me because I see 6 different priests, minimum, on a weekly basis.

I don't know how you want your salvation. If you think you can live a life of rejecting God, die, meet God, flash a smile and it's all good, then no no no no no no no no no no. No. That's not what I was saying at all. Those who freely choose to reject God on Earth have a hell of a lot to go through. I can't imagine what that would be like. Probably like our popular conceptions of hell. Whether one soul or one billions souls go through that process I have no way of knowing. All I can do is advise people to embrace God immediately.

But you just toss it off, like a bit of used-up tinfoil

You don't really have even a tiny clue, do you?

Believe what you want Yahzi. You can't fit every Christian into a box. Deal with it. Thousands of branches of Christianity and you want us all to think the same. Whatever.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

If you like to do so I have several rules for all debate and would do so only by e-mail as my debates or my responses are long and detailed. It becomes hard here and rude to others as it will take up pages.

Rules:
1. All debate must be respectful and kind.
2. All debate must be free from emotion and logical and factual. If one makes a statement of belief it must be said to be a statement of belief and be respected. If it is a statement of fact then facts, proof and detailed logical conclusion must follow. It is never expectable to answer “ because” , “ because my hold book says so” etc.
3. Every single point and question must be address and answered. Too many simply ship over what they can not answer. If I can not answer I will say I do not know and seek to answer best I can.
My e-mail address is mbertran@nycap.rr.com

Interesting, I may take you up on that. Obviously, since we are talking philosophy and theology, these are "beliefs" as opposed to "facts".

I of course agree but add see no proof of a God/creator. The main point here is not if “he” wrote the book, sat down and wrote it etc you believe and I respect that, that he inspired it. It represents “him” his wish and what he would be, perfection yet you believe he allows so many contradictions, violence etc.

No, I don't see it that way. The Bible is a book of how humans understand God. As for what he would be, we'd have to wait for Jesus. The life of Jesus is (I think) obviously in contradiction to the purported workings of Yahweh in the Old Testament. I am not troubled by that fact because my expectations are not at the same level as your expectations. It isn't just expectations of God, but understanding of humans and where humans were on the journey of spiritual understanding.

God allows contradictions in the Bible because he allows free will. He allows violence in the Bible because he allows free will. You are right in that there are more fundmantal issues where we diverge. Perhaps we need to start at proof of God/creator, or the whole status of free will. We started much further down the line and are thus not communicating very well.

But I think I understand that you would have a God, who wants humanity to know him, to be keenly interested in the existence of a book that will conform to the highest possible standards. That is not an unreasonable response. As a Christian, and a Catholic, I do not believe that the Bible is the key to salvation. Rather, I believe that the person of Jesus is the key to salvation. That the Bible is the book that tells the story of Jesus gives the Bible worth. Absent the New Testament I would not care about the Old Testament. I am interested in the progression from O.T. to N.T., and I will not be so silly as to say such a progression is not problematic. In this case I believe it helpful to consider the cultural times and situations, as well as the fact that human understanding and lack thereof was the vehicle for the exercise.

“He” is portrayed as violent, angry, ego filled, hateful, a killer of “his children”, a God that has sex with prostitutes, 2 sister 9 Ezekiel 23:1-4) etc.

A being of such great power and perfection as I pointed out would know how such a book that must reflect him and his “rules” wishes etc should and would turn out.

Interesting.

On a personal level, I really don't care what people think about me. Of course in a conversation I may correct what other beliefs about me might be forwarded. However, let's say, theoretically, that a book out in circulation purports that I molest children. I'm not sure how much that would bother me. It would bother me on some level. But people can say what they will. People who know me and love me would know that I do not, in fact, molest children.

I think God takes every human being seriously. If someone writes something incorrect about them, even a person who has a "personal" relationship with him, it is important to understand what is behind that incorrect statement. And the marked contrast between Jesus and the O.T. speaks (pun intended) volumes. I am interested in how people think, even people who completely disagree with me. I would not have such thoughts stricken from the record. We can learn from everything that has ever been written. That God is not bothered by incorrect statements about him does not strike me as peculiar. Let me explain. Let's say someone is hitting me on the head with a shovel. Should I be bothered that someone else might be tickling me with a feather? God has been rejected by humanity. Yet you fixate on his apparent unconcern about being libel. Either God doesn't exist, or he doesn't think as you would have him think.

Place yourself where you believe this God is.

I believe that God operates on the planet Earth in a peculiar way. He has allowed open rebellion and evil to flourish on Earth. Yet he became a human being, and his Spirit engages every human being on a spiritual level.

If I felt someone would be harmed by what I said or how someone printed what I said I would take steps to change it.

God allows us to act as we will, and as we all have the ability to reason, we all must consider what has been written using discernment.

You are leaving out, in all of this, the *gift* (you may not like the use of that word, I'm sorry) of discernment. Discernment is more valuable than the written word.

I respect that you would have your ideas broadcast as you, in fact, would articulate them. I believe that God wants himself to be transmitted to humanity as humans would transmit God to others. That is why God became a human being. That is why the Spirit speaks to us not through words but through spirit, and many humans have spread this personal interaction to others through words. And since this is put into words it is not surprising that the translation would not reflect the absolute truth of God. All humans do the best they can, and I do not feel comfortable judging others for their mistakes in radically different environments. And I do not feel comfortable in having God conform to human standards of etiquette and sensibility.

Again first let me say I respect your belief as to God is, but you say that God did not write a perfect book because he did not create perfect beings yet knowing they were not perfect and knows before hand what they will do

I never said "knows before hand what they will do". You have inserted your theological impression into statements I have made. God knows us in every single moment of our continuous life. I believe he considers us as we are, not as we will be. Given the state of our existence, what we are encompasses what we were. But the future is up to our free will, and I do not believe that God takes that into account. These are my opinions of God, and I hope you understand that I would not use the phrase "knows before hand what they will do".

and what they will believe he still punishes them for what he knows will happen.

I think God allows us to punish ourselves. That is a form of punishment, I would call that divine punishment. Of course it is a radically different idea of punishment than earthly punishment.

That is not loving nor unconditional love, unconditional love is just that love without conditions.

Do you see the irony in what you have said? You have just said what is *not* unconditional love. Therefore, you have conceptual conditions in which unconditional love works.

In any case, I do not view divine punishment as you do.

A perfect being would make darn sure his “ rule book” would be perfect and not be used to cause harm to others.

It would be blasphemous for me to characterize the Bible as a "rule book". If I wanted a rule book I would look elsewhere, or make a compilation for myself after much research.

I don't believe in blaming books on the harm that is done to others. Unless of course someone bludgeons another to death with a book. The cause for harm lies within a person. Ideas can stimulate, and never compel.

For personal reasons I will break this reply into parts. Consider this part one. I will begin part two posthaste, but my time is rather limited today. I do apologize for not replying to this message earlier. It is a busy time of year for me. Not until late next week will I be able to supply prompt responses.

I am intrigued by the possibility of conversing with you by e-mail Pahansiri. I have a sense of the kind of person you are, and I'd like to believe you have a sense of the kind of person I am. Such a conversation will be beneficial to me, and if you can say the same about you then maybe we should move this to the personal correspondence level.

I was a bit put off by your specific rules? You have a sense for how I discuss, and if it does not suit your aesthetics then I am sorry for that. Correspondence is a personal thing and to subject it to concrete rules makes it unpalatable to me. I'll take you as you are, and not as I would take you. I hope it's clear that I am not some sort of loose cannon, and that I am respectful to what you say and how you say it. If that is not good enough, I am sorry for that.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

WOW my friend, you are a very intelligent person and this question surprises me that you would ask it.

1- I have already answered it in my other post and above.
2- Your own statement contains the answer with in it. I.e.

Because “he’ is perfect, all knowing. How can not a perfect being, a all knowing being NOT know how to do anything?

Hellow again Panhisiri, the above is in response to my musing "why should a perfect being know how to write human books?"

God may *conceptually* understand the process of how humans write books. Or more than that. Since God became a human being as Jesus, I am quite certain that he does, in fact, know how to write human books.

I admit that you have caught me in an error. Will you be so charitable as to allow me to disengage? :)

I should have stated "why should a perfect being write human books?" The knowledge to do so is there. God knows how to blow up planets I suppose, knows how to create car accidents, knows how to molest children. God knows *how* to do everything. So is the problem since he knows *how*, *why* doesn't he?

Let me start with an extreme and approach the issue. God knows how to drop chemical weapons onto a village. If he doesn't do so, is that problematic?

God knows how to write human books. If he doesn't do so, is that problematic?

Now, the response could be, scenario A is performing evil, while scenario B is performing good. I would look at it differently. God doesn't do very many things, not because he can't, but because it is not of his nature. Books are not for God, but for people. He created people, and books are for them, and they will write their own books. God creates creators, God creates processes, God creates laws. We are talking about a particular object (a book). Books are created by people. You would have God, in one instance, decide to take such an activity away from humanity and do it as he would. I don't know why God should have to act in that way.

So when I used the word *how*, I did not say what I meant to say. Please count that as a mistake on my part made through carelessness, I am typing as fast as I can because my time on this forum is limited, and if 1% of what I say is not what I mean do not judge the other 99% by that.

You believe he knows all, he knows your thoughts, how to make you and the complexity of life how your brain works yet he does not how to write a book for humans? That is illogical.

When a TV manufacturer makes a TV he knows how it works.

You have superbly demonstrated the silliness of believing that God does not know how to write a human book.

As for the TV analogy, here is a better analogy. A toaster makes toast. The man who makes a toaster does not make the toast directly, but he understands how toast is made. He may hever make a slice of toast in his entire life, yet he knows how toast is made.

As an aside Panhisiri, do you believe that a "perfect" book exists? If no, then we are in agreement.

Should God's existence be contingent upon the existence of a "perfect" book, or, if God exists, must there eventually exist a "perfect" book? I don't think any of these questions must follow, or must be true.

Does the Bible have to be a "perfect" book in order for the claims of Christians or Jews to have validity? This would depend upon your standards of validity. The obvious problems within the Bible, to me, speak to the obvious difficulties in bridging the gap between humanity and God. This would be bridged not through a book, but through the person of Jesus. That is the fundamental belief, the fundamental position, and the central idea of the faith that I possess.

Why? This is not just a book about birds, it is the rules by which “he” is telling you must live to please him and reach the goal of heaven. When I teach my children I am kind and loving and very clear so as they are not confused. If I wish them not to do something I tell them clearly. I can not “punish” a child for something I did not explain to him.[/quote[

I agree, you should not punish anyone for what has not been explained.

I don't understand the Bible as a rule book. If that is your understanding, I agree that the Bible is a faulty rule book. If others believe that the Bible is a rule book sui generis, I would press them for specifics. I wouldn't let them have that opinion without expounding on it, but I admit that I might (and have) grant them that position. It would take me quite a bit of space to expand on what I have just said, perhaps that could be an item of personal correspondence?

[quote]This is not just a “book” this is the base of your religion.

It is the most important book ever written. The base of my religion, however, is the person Jesus.

My great friend you are an example of what the problem would be, you have your beliefs as to it and almost every Christian has their beliefs and they will interconnect on some points and not at all on others.

Yes, you have identified something very important. All Chrisitians, at some point, have divergent notions of Christianity, the Bible, you name it. There are four gospels, and we can list different notions that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have. This indicates to me that every human being will understand God in a unique way (not necessarily a radically different way) because every human being is unique. I could never expect that anyone would believe and think as I do, but I feel it a worthy goal to grow closer to others in understanding. As an example I have a bit of a calculator for a mind. I do multiplication, in my head, in ways that other people do not. We are all unique.

I have many Christian friends and family who say “ well I don’t believe Jesus said that but I do believe he said this” How can you pick and choose?

Using reason and intuition and working within the construct of belief you have chosen for yourself. Now, as for myself, I don't know if I can identify a single "quotation" of Jesus (from the 4 gospels) that I would reject. I do pick and choose from the O.T. (of course), and it isn't a random, or whimsical, or helter-skelter approach. Since I take the Bible seriously, I do not, in fact, reject anything from the Bible, but I understand different things in the Bible in different ways.

I posted above several post before this to another where Jesus clearly condones slavery and the beating of slaves.

Many will say “ well he did not really say that” how can you know?

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/q1109/point4.html

I am content with the weblink above. Jesus did not come to demand that governments act in a certain way.

Not sure how that is relevant. I will tell you when someone makes space shuttles he DOES write detailed instructions how it works and how to operate it, lives depend on it. He would instruct that children NOT operate it or anyone who did NOT fully understand his rules and instructions.

Space shuttles are objects and come with written instructions.

People are more than objects, they are creative creatures, and the instructions are of a different type. The instructions for morality can be found in nature, found within each of us, found in various religions and philosophies and explanations. The focus is not on what the letter of the law says. If we have to consult a rule book in order to know how to act then we are very sorry creatures. God does not think of us as space shuttles, and the rules for morality are, dare I say, self-evident? Of course self-evident things are a matter of debate. Is that a contradiction? I suppose. Yet the fact that we are appealing to each other's reason is promising. It is as if each of us believe that if the correct words are applied, maybe we can approach a certain idea. Who knows where that will lead. If words would bring us salvation I think the world would be a much different place today. Yet with all the words, all the rules, all the edififying statements that have been recorded, things are arguably as bad today as ever. Therefore I don't see the efficacy of even the most perfect rule book, which I admit remains a theoretical concept.

If he did not write a detailed operation and instruction manual he would be liable and sued for the harm it caused as he should be. He, could not sue someone he gave it to and was harmed by it when he did not really tell them how it worked.

I believe you have an important issue, and *if* you ever come face to face with the Creator (please work within the *if* for a moment :) ), the answer will be superior to any answer I could give.

Jesus did not think as the scribes of his day, who continually approached him with the written law. A Christian must integrate that approach with the O.T. I have done so, other Christians make it work in different ways than I do.

Why?

This question you ask is in response to my not being entirely interested in God's ability to write human books.

God has the ability to do things I cannot do. I am not worried about his ability to do things that I can do. It doesn't interest me very much as far as my understanding of God goes.

What he does do is inspire humans to write books in a way that I could not possibly do. Perhaps someone will write a book about me one day. But will it be through my ability to connect with them, discourse with them, and reveal things to them on a spiritual level?

No, you believe it you do not know it. I also do not believe there are such beings or being yet of course I can NOT say I “know it”.

This is in response to my belief that God has never written a book, or Jesus has never written a book.

Yes. It is my belief. When I say *know* the implication is that there is no evidence to the contrary. From this moment on I will be careful with my use of the word *know*, or discard it altogether. I admire your stance that the word *know* should either never be used when it comes to conveying ideas we have and would promulgate, or, should rarely be used. And this may make another possible avenue of correspondence.

End of part two, if you are reading this Pahansiri thank you for your patience. I am doing the best I can, and always strive to do better.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Then how can this being, be upset when people do not do as he wishes? He can not.

Because it isn't *just* the Bible.

People can do, as you put it, "as he wishes", without ever picking up a Bible.

Yes they are flaws when seen as the only way to God.

i.e. "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

Yes. Jesus is not the Bible.

Remember Leviticus are said to be God’s LAWS. Also the 10 commandments are said to be just that commandments not suggestions.

I glean from Leviticus that God is interested in human conduct. I don't go for the specifics of Leviticus. If others do, that is there choice. Many righteous people have chosen the way of Leviticus and if that is their path and it leads them to God I am content with that. Of course I can't expect anyone to follow my path, and it's rather obvious that many people may think my path to be foolish or have no basis, yet I am content and am willing to discuss my path with others, and would not be disappointed if what I say could possibly help or make others think.

Of course we do not disagree here but most Christians will disagree with you, most by far.

Most of a certain *kind* of Christian. Most Christians don't go to a church on a weekly basis. Most Christians use birth control and fornicate. Most Christians do not read their Bibles. Certain types of Christians act extremely differently from most Christians, they have TV shows, they get much publicity from the media, they are extremely vocal, and in certain instances *falls from grace* are well-documented.

I reckon we disagree on the definition of "Christian". I believe that a Christian is one who believes that Jesus was God. That would be an interesting question for a Zogby poll.

Of course it would have to be blamed on this God, this book has been used to harm millions he would have known this and yet did not stop it would be his fault.

I understand that books influence people, but books don't do direct harm.

Of course why should we stop at the Bible? Why not the Koran, or Mein Kampf, or any of the mythologies that have ever existed? How many books in existence have been purported to be influenced by God? And how many of those books have influenced others to commit evil? Since evil existed before the Bible, I don't see evil as contingent on the Bible, or any book for that matter.

Whenever evil is committed you can find traces of ideas that inspired it. Apparently God is not in the business of stamping out evil ideas (or he doesn't exist, I know...). Evil ideas are a consequence of the ability of creative creatures to think. This is the state of the created universe, and since I value my ability to think and choose...

In this human realm such a thing would be followed by a law suit and jail time for a human who wrote a book that told followers to stone people to death for example.

If the people who wrote the Bible lived today, I'm sure they would have been sued by now. :)

But that does not change the point of my statement, a God, a perfect being would be a perfect father.

Yes...but you should not apply a human standard of perfection to divine perfection.

More later...

-Elliot

[Cleopatra]

Thanks ceo_esq I asked just out of curiosity,I use the KJV when interacting with Americans.

Since I know Greek I can always check the Septuangit version although there are some mistakes in the translation from the Hebrew text.

In discussion forums, when I want to check biblical referencies that other posters post, I find this site (http://unbound.biola.edu/) very helpful. One clik and you have all the versions together!

elliotfc

Could you please indicate whom are you quoting each time? Thank you.

[elliotfc]

elliotfc

Could you please indicate whom are you quoting each time? Thank you. [/B]

Hi Cleopatra, apologies for my lack of etiquette in using quotations.

The three posts from above are all quoting Pansihiri, exclusively. Within this thread I have also quoted Yahzi, mainly. But I think Yahzi's statements and Pansihri's statements are stylistically different, and can be identified as such.

-Elliot

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Hi Cleopatra, apologies for my lack of etiquette in using quotations.
-Elliot

I didn't take it as a lack of netiquette, I asked it for practical reasons only. It's easier to follow the discussion :)

[Yahzi]

Elliotfc
If one Pope says something that is against the magesterium of the Church, I have no reason to accept what that one Pope says.
What if he says it Ex Cathedra? How do you reconcile the right to dismiss what a Pope says with the notion that the Pope can speak infallibly?

Do you simply reject the concept of infallibility? If you do, doesn't that put you in the exact same boat as all those birth-control using Catholics? If you don't, then how can you even say such a thing (unless you just meant the Popes of the past, the falliable ones).

Catholics have believed in purgatory for a long time.
I realize that I'm not Catholic, but my understanding of Purgatory is that it does not involve a choice. You suggested that no one could refuse Purgatory and be saved: implying that people could refuse purgatory and be damned. So in other words, if the hell of Purgatory is too much to bear, you can opt out... and go to permanent Hell. Which is once again suggesting that you have some kind of choice after death. Which I once again assert there is absolutely no Biblical justification for whatsoever.

Yes, yes, I know that some Pope made it up once, and that's good enough for you. If everybody agrees to make up the same thing, that's somehow better than if just one person makes it up.

Thousands of branches of Christianity and you want us all to think the same.
How many Gods are there? Just one, right? Then how many different ways can you think about God? There is only one way that is correct: that is, corresponds to the greatest degree with the actual facts of God. All the rest are therefore wrong.

You might notice that there are many branches of physics, and yet they all think the same. In fact, all disciplines of scence in general can be said to think the same. Why do you suppose it is that biologists and physicists can completely and unquestionably accept each other's doctrines, but Episcopalians and slightly less liberal Episcopalians can't even agree on whether homosexuality is a) perfectly fine, or b) a ticket to hell?

Discernment is more valuable than the written word.
It's nice to see that admission, for once. But consider: what you really mean to say is that discernment is all that matters.

Once you establish that the Bible is inadequate as mere text, you have not merely shown the need for discernment, you have shown the worthlessness of the Bible. What this tells us is you reserve the right to make any part of the Bible say anything you want. That is the same as rejecting it in toto. And, as you note elsewhere, you can do the work of God without hearing it. Add these two together and what you get is: "discernment is all that is necessary."

Now I ask you: how do you distinguish between "Discernment" and "making things up?" One of them is reaching conclusions independently without regard to external facts but only paying attention to internal feelings, and the other one is exactly the same.

Discernment is just a fancy word for making things up. And despite your claim to use reason and logic, you admit that discernment comes first: it trumps mere evidence (such as the actual text of the Bible).

Do you see why I keep saying you are just making things up? I don't mean to single you out: your priests are making it up, too.

the rules for morality are, dare I say, self-evident?
I completely agree with you. I understand your position on morality and rule books, and I agree. However, there is one problem.

Moral acts can arguably be graded. Given the picture of morality you described above, you can imagine a person doing a mostly moral thing but not completely or perfectly moral. However, getting into Heaven is not graduated: it's binary, you are in or you aren't. Purgatory does not solve this problem, for several reasons: 1) it's insane to assert that an immoral act can be made up for (restituted) by punishment, 2) if you eventually get into Heaven, then Purgatory doesn't count. As Ingersoll said, "from the vantage point of eternity the mountains are as transient as the clouds."

So, given the binary nature of Heaven (in or out), it is not unreasonable for us to ask what the rules for making that decision are. This is like medicine: there is no simple rulebook for being a good doctor. At the same time, there is a rulebook that says what you have to do to get a medicine degree.

Many righteous people have chosen the way of Leviticus and if that is their path and it leads them to God I am content with that.
More post-modernist relativism (sigh). Do you suppose God is a post-modernist?

Allow me to suggest a trite concept: perhaps atheism is my path to God. Tell me how you can assert that my path is false, while not condeming any other path? What criteria do you apply to distinguish between true and false paths - given that you have just asserted that you cannot declare other paths false?

Since I take the Bible seriously, I do not, in fact, reject anything from the Bible, but I understand different things in the Bible in different ways.
I don't go for the specifics of Leviticus.
Is it even possible for me to convince you that "interpreting the book to mean what you want" is the same as "rejecting what the book says?"

[elliotfc]

Hey Yahzi

Originally posted by Yahzi

What if he says it Ex Cathedra? How do you reconcile the right to dismiss what a Pope says with the notion that the Pope can speak infallibly?

I'm not sure if you read papal decrees, encyclicals, etc. The Pope never announces ***Listen up, I am speaking ex cathedra*** It is either a tacitly obvious thing - ***centuries of Church teaching, the immutable postition, etc.*** - or, an appeal is made to specific statements in the past. If I dismiss what a single Pope says it is because Popes are sinners, like me. Are you aware that one of the oldest actual positions in the Church is the confessor to the Pope? If Pope's have always had confessors, obviously Pope's are sinners.

If the Pope, when he makes a statement, appeals to the magesterium, or whatever, you are on the road to an infallible position. See, because the Pope is not forwarding his own personal opinion.

Exceptions mostly center on Marian theology, like the Immaculate Conception, etc. That's a whole other thing separate from human practices like slavery.

Do you simply reject the concept of infallibility? If you do, doesn't that put you in the exact same boat as all those birth-control using Catholics? If you don't, then how can you even say such a thing (unless you just meant the Popes of the past, the falliable ones).

No, I just view it differently than you.

I don't think the Pope always speaks the 100% straight-from-God truth. I don't know a single Catholic who believes that every Pope in history spoke infallibly 100% of the time.

So that doesn't put me in the same exact boat as the birth controllers, since some Catholics never use birth control. There is not a single Catholic who has ever said that every Pope in history has always spoken infallibly in all words written and oral.

This is from newadvent.org

**********EXPLANATION OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 -- old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:


what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.
infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher ar allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.
It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.**********

I realize that I'm not Catholic, but my understanding of Purgatory is that it does not involve a choice.

Meaning God compels each soul to enter purgatory? Meaning the soul can not refuse purgatory?

You suggested that no one could refuse Purgatory and be saved: implying that people could refuse purgatory and be damned. So in other words, if the hell of Purgatory is too much to bear, you can opt out... and go to permanent Hell. Which is once again suggesting that you have some kind of choice after death. Which I once again assert there is absolutely no Biblical justification for whatsoever.

Opting out of purgatory...well, it depends if you think purgatory works as a prison sentence. I don't conceive purgatory as a time-bounded situation, where it lasts for chronological time, and all this time you have the option of making "choices".

Purgatory is a God process, that we can speculate by comparing to human processes. My notion is that it is, perhaps, best to think of it as an instantaneous thing. Meaning you can't real opt out of it once you are in it.

I think choices can be made after death. As for Biblical justification, I think you already know how I feel about that. Since you don't use the Bible as your sole source of justification, I'm not sure why you expect that I should. I could see if you were proseltyzing, but you're not doing so.

Once and for all, I will say that what I believe might be in the Bible, and might not be in the Bible. I think an atheist could say exactly the same thing.

Yes, yes, I know that some Pope made it up once, and that's good enough for you. If everybody agrees to make up the same thing, that's somehow better than if just one person makes it up.

For all I know one of my great-grandfather's raped a sheep. I can't do anything about that, other than condemn it.

I think slavery is despicable. Am I making that up?

The Catholic Church is against sin. Yet, every Pope has sinned. That's just how it is. The magesterium, and *infallibility*, transcends individuals.

How many Gods are there? Just one, right? Then how many different ways can you think about God? There is only one way that is correct: that is, corresponds to the greatest degree with the actual facts of God. All the rest are therefore wrong.

Well there is only one true God. There are countless false gods. Is a false god a god? Well, yeah. A false tooth is a tooth.

You can think of a Rubik's cube as a hunk of plastic. Or as a challenging and nifty brain teaser. Or as a colossal waste of time. How do you think of a Rubik's cube?

I believe that not every idea of God is equally correct. I believe that theology is an exercise in analogy, and since all analogies break down, it is a problematic yet vital exercise. Since I believe that God became a human being, I think the problems are made a bit easier.

You might notice that there are many branches of physics, and yet they all think the same.

Maybe. Try teaching superstrings alongside Newtonian mechanics. I think that all people think the same, in general. The ability to think outside of the box often advances a science.

In fact, all disciplines of scence in general can be said to think the same. Why do you suppose it is that biologists and physicists can completely and unquestionably accept each other's doctrines, but Episcopalians and slightly less liberal Episcopalians can't even agree on whether homosexuality is a) perfectly fine, or b) a ticket to hell?

Well since I had a physics phD at Boston College who believed in the existence of God, yet obviously you don't believe in the existence of God, I am suprised by your declaration of scientific unanimity.

As for the Episcopalians, obviously you have a humanisitc branch and a bible-based branch. I mourn their disconnect, but it is an understandable disconnect.

It's nice to see that admission, for once. But consider: what you really mean to say is that discernment is all that matters.

At the individual level, yes. Now, I do not discern the value of, say, mathematical proofs, but I accept that they matter. But as far as my most *precious* beliefs, I cannot and do not separate them from personal discernment.

Once you establish that the Bible is inadequate as mere text, you have not merely shown the need for discernment, you have shown the worthlessness of the Bible.

Depends on the approach and the attitude!

I do not approach the Bible wishing it to conform to my way of thinking. The Bible is a compendium of how many people in a distant time thought. I adjust my thinking to understand their thinking. In this way it is of great worth.

Inadequacy is, therefore, not an objective opinion. I accept that to you, and with your mindset, the Bible is worthless to you. It is of great worth to me, and I'm sorry I can't make you to see it differently, as I do.

What this tells us is you reserve the right to make any part of the Bible say anything you want. That is the same as rejecting it in toto.

No, the Bible says what it says. I try to understand the people who wrote it as best I can, their motivations, their culture and the world in which they lived. If I read someone's memoirs they speak for themselves, but should I share their biases et al.?

Since I read the Bible, how can I reject the Bible? I don't watch sitcoms. I reject sitcoms. Can't be bothered with them. I accept the Bible so much that I will understand the Bible as I would understand a person.

And, as you note elsewhere, you can do the work of God without hearing it. Add these two together and what you get is: "discernment is all that is necessary."

Yes. When it comes to morality, it is all about discernment.

Now I ask you: how do you distinguish between "Discernment" and "making things up?"

It's up to the person. Personally it is hardly an easy endeavor, and it would vary depending on the question at hand. Sorry to be vague. I could go into a specific example I suppose, but a different specific example would be, perhaps, different.

One of them is reaching conclusions independently without regard to external facts but only paying attention to internal feelings, and the other one is exactly the same.

Surely feelings are important. Does anything that you believe feel wrong? For instance, do you have strong internal feelings opposed to, say, quantum mechanics?

When it comes to the Bible, I use the external facts outside of the Bible to understand the Bible. Those include many things, particularly the culture of the time. My feelings have to make do with the fact that the people who wrote the Bible feel differently about things than I do. In this case I value their feelings as much as my own. When it comes to literature you can't get around or away from feelings.

Discernment is just a fancy word for making things up.

OK.

And despite your claim to use reason and logic, you admit that discernment comes first: it trumps mere evidence (such as the actual text of the Bible).

Well that's silly. I didn't make up the story of Job, somebody else did. My discernment of the book of Job is contingent upon somebody else making the book of Job.

The same with you. Your discernement of what I say is not made up out of thin air. I am a person known as elliotfc, or Elliot. I say things. Based on what I say, you discern. You didn't create me, or create what I say.

In that way I don't make things up. I didn't write the Bible.

Do you see why I keep saying you are just making things up? I don't mean to single you out: your priests are making it up, too.

Sure, I think I sort of get you, but you seem to be ignoring cause and effect stuff. And theology (an exercise in analogy) is a contrived thought-process. I admit that. Heaven is not a place, say, as the post office down the road from me.

Moral acts can arguably be graded. Given the picture of morality you described above, you can imagine a person doing a mostly moral thing but not completely or perfectly moral. However, getting into Heaven is not graduated: it's binary, you are in or you aren't.

Agreed. But we are not connected with God because we were able to act 100% morally on Earth. We are connected with God despite the fact that we did not act 100% morally on Earth.

Purgatory does not solve this problem, for several reasons: 1) it's insane to assert that an immoral act can be made up for (restituted) by punishment,

!!!

No, our immoral acts are not made up for by purgatory! They are restituted by the death of Jesus!

Purgatory is for our benefit, so we can realize how despicably we have acted. I have hurt many people in my life. I don't know how badly I have hurt them. Purgatory will let me know just how atrocious I have been in my life. Purgatory is a way to connect me not just with God, but with everyone, including those with whom I have interacted and hurt in my life.

That isn't restitution since the knowledge I gain in Purgatory is beneficial. Is college an exercise in restitution?

Now, the only true restitution is in the sacrifice of Jesus.

2) if you eventually get into Heaven, then Purgatory doesn't count. As Ingersoll said, "from the vantage point of eternity the mountains are as transient as the clouds."

Everything counts. If I fail a course, but retake it and pass it, I still failed the course. Anything that happens in the universe counts.

So, given the binary nature of Heaven (in or out), it is not unreasonable for us to ask what the rules for making that decision are. This is like medicine: there is no simple rulebook for being a good doctor. At the same time, there is a rulebook that says what you have to do to get a medicine degree.

The rule is Jesus died so that we could be reconciled. Not must be reconciled. Could be reconciled. If you want to accept the reconciliation, accept the rule that enables the reconciliation.

More post-modernist relativism (sigh). Do you suppose God is a post-modernist?

No, he transcends modernism (of course ;) ).

Allow me to suggest a trite concept: perhaps atheism is my path to God. Tell me how you can assert that my path is false, while not condeming any other path?

Your path is false. Your path will lead you to hell. Yet it is your path, and your path may eventually lead you to heaven. You'll have to stop walking the way you are, and turn you are? Will you do that? I don't know. Yet your path is your path.

If I'm walking to the bank, but I start walking the opposite direction, and then turn around, those backtracks and missteps are all part of my personal path.

What criteria do you apply to distinguish between true and false paths - given that you have just asserted that you cannot declare other paths false?

Good question.

All paths are paths. False, or true, is a matter of choice.

I can say that someone is heading the wrong way. But for all I know they may eventually go the right way. I can not make an eternal judgment on the snapshot of a person's voyage.

I can say that someone is headed the wrong way. Take Augustine, or Peter. At some points in their life they were going the wrong way, but their paths led to God. Big picture.

Is it even possible for me to convince you that "interpreting the book to mean what you want" is the same as "rejecting what the book says?"

The Bible is the story of how men understand God. I take it as that.

-Elliot

[Pahansiri]

Greetings elliotfc


I just got back from vacation to Cape Cod first time in 3 years NO rain, it is a great place.

I hope you are well and happy.

This will be brief as I have reviewed your responses and found them to not be in the form “I” like as you did not address as I do each point and answer each and every question etc.

I will be happy to address the points you did make and the questions you did ask in response to my post when you get the chance to again go ver over my post again and answer all points and questions as I have done for you. You may not wish to and I respect that, as I am sure school starts soon and you are in many debates here.

Again if you like we can do this by e-mail as it would take up far too much room here and may be rude to others.

You can go if you wish at your speed as your schedule allows for and take as long as you like to respond.

Again allow me to state I do not say my “rules” for debate are Best, or perfect or the way everyone should debate, I demand nothing.

This is the way “I” conduct myself and ask if one wishes to debate/exchange that it be done in the way I feel best and most respectful, honest and have ease with. If one does not wish to do this does this make them “wrong”?

NO, not at all, that is their choice as it is mine not to move forward it is all personal choice. I demand nothing.


I do wish to look at a few things you did say. My points need not be addressed or answered, as I am not sure I will check to see a response anyway.

You said:
I was a bit put off by your specific rules

I am sorry if you allowed yourself to become angry or put off by what I have asked, I have no control over your emotions, reactions, actions etc.

I believe my “rules” are fair, honest, kind, respectful, logical etc.

Allow me to again post what I had posted as to this.

Rules:
1. All debate must be respectful and kind.
2. All debate must be free from emotion and logical and factual. If one makes a statement of belief it must be said to be a statement of belief and be respected. If it is a statement of fact then facts, proof and detailed logical conclusion must follow. It is never expectable to answer “ because” , “ because my hold book says so” etc.
3. Every single point and question must be address and answered. Too many simply ship over what they can not answer. If I can not answer I will say I do not know and seek to answer best I can.
My e-mail address is mbertran@nycap.rr.com

Again for me I do not find where my post could cause anger to arise or to incite one to be “put off” but I can not read your mind and so can not know why but respect your opinion.


Allow me to respond to a few statements you did make. Again please know I respond with great respect for and to you and also again most likely will not check back to read a response and/or would not really respond to one anyway.


Yes...but you should not apply a human standard of perfection to divine perfection.

I find this an often said statement and a strange and illogical one.

If I read you right you then believe a;
1 Good human father who is not perfect but seeking to be so would not rape, kill, beat, starve etc his children.

BUT

God in his perfection would or may rape, kill, beat, starve etc his children and that would be OK because that would be “divine perfection”?

In “divine perfection” to never steal would then not be good and perfect behavior?

In “divine perfection” to never kill would then not be good and perfect behavior?
In “divine perfection” to never lie would then not be good and perfect behavior?
In “divine perfection” to never rape would then not be good and perfect behavior?

You sayYes...but you should not apply a human standard of perfection to divine perfection.

But all we have as truth that can be measured and known to be truth is human standard of perfection to believe a divine perfection would be less then this is illogical.


You sayDo you see the irony in what you have said? You have just said what is *not* unconditional love. Therefore, you have conceptual conditions in which unconditional love works. .

Not at all, no irony at all.

You did a fine attempt at a dance around answering or addressing my point.

I have no conditions on a word as I did not create the word, I do not believe in a God so have never said my god has unconditional love.

Please and this is rhetorical, answer to if only for yourself.

What is the definition of unconditional?


Perhaps it is your belief that human standard of unconditional love is love with NO conditions, perfect love yet believe “divine perfection unconditional love” has and can have many conditions.


To that I can just say, I respect you and what you choose to believe and wish you to be well and happy my new friend.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I'm not sure if you read papal decrees, encyclicals, etc. The Pope never announces ***Listen up, I am speaking ex cathedra*** It is either a tacitly obvious thing - ***centuries of Church teaching, the immutable postition, etc.*** - or, an appeal is made to specific statements in the past.Didn't Pius XII explicitly announce that he was promulgating the doctrine of the Assumption infallibly?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Didn't Pius XII explicitly announce that he was promulgating the doctrine of the Assumption infallibly?

Yes. I did say that exceptions included Mariology, but thanks for clarifying this.

-Elliot

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Yes. I did say that exceptions included Mariology, but thanks for clarifying this.

-Elliot So you did. That'll teach me not to speed-read posts.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
So you did. That'll teach me not to speed-read posts.

It's cool. So you are an open-minded Catholic, ceo_esq?

A few months ago I was at a Catholic discussion group, and one highly educated woman remarked that if there is no reason to believe in the supernatural or an alternative explanation (scientific) is available, then the supernatural should be rejected. I found this highly ironic since the gal believed in Jesus, but she didn't agree that it was ironic. I didn't try to crack her skull open or anything.

I am always amazed and always reminded at the variety that exists within Catholic thought. Even with my parents, who are ostensibally both devout Catholics. I've never met to Catholics who think alike. Yes, on the surface we may all appear to have the same beliefs, but when you press the issue...

-Elliot

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by elliotfc
It's cool. So you are an open-minded Catholic, ceo_esq?I'm not a religious person of any faith, actually, but then I don't have to be to dispute certain skewed versions of religious philosophy, doctrine and history one encounters in the R&P forum. Catholicism is just one of the usual suspects, I'm afraid.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by elliotfc
So you are an open-minded Catholic, ceo_esq?
Oh my. Apparently this isn't just a Yahzi problem. Who would have thunk it. I'm shocked. Suprised. Stunned, even.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I don't think the Pope always speaks the 100% straight-from-God truth. I don't know a single Catholic who believes that every Pope in history spoke infallibly 100% of the time.

There is not a single Catholic who has ever said that every Pope in history has always spoken infallibly in all words written and oral.
Did I say that? Did I even intiminate that? Didn't I specifically state when the Pope spoke Ex Cathedra? Please tell me how you got from my specific mention of the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra to "every Pope in history has always spoken infallibly in all words written and oral."

Do you know what a strawman argument is? Do you understand that changing my specific reference to "Ex Cathedera" into "all infallible all the time," and then disproving the later, has nothing at all to do with what I said? Do you understand that the entire cut-and-paste you made was disproof for an argument I never advanced?

In any case, the doctrine of infalliablity was not even named until 1870. So it hardly seems that Catholics before 1870 would have necessarily agreed with a doctrine that had not yet been promulgated.

I did learn one thing: the 1870 doctrine doesn't say the Pope is infallible now, it says he was always infallible - that is, when you select out the statements they want him to have been infallible on. So most of the infallible statements of Popes in history were made by Popes that didn't know they were infallible.

Ok. Riiiight.

My notion is that it is, perhaps, best to think of it as an instantaneous thing.

Remember when we talked about "making things up?"

I think choices can be made after death. As for Biblical justification, I think you already know how I feel about that. Since you don't use the Bible as your sole source of justification, I'm not sure why you expect that I should.
Then what source do you offer? Other than discernment? If your only source is discernment, then how is what you are doing different than making things up? Is God whispering in your ear, but no one elses?

Once and for all, I will say that what I believe might be in the Bible, and might not be in the Bible. I think an atheist could say exactly the same thing.
But an atheist would not then go on to assert that the Bible is somehow special!

You are simoultaneously asserting that the Bible is a) special, and b) not special. This is a logical flaw known by the technical name of "talking out your ass."

I believe that not every idea of God is equally correct.
And what, exactly, is your mechanism for determining which ideas of God are more correct? Ah, yes... discernment. God whispers in your ear. Nobody else's, or they'd have the correct idea too. Just yours.

Try teaching superstrings alongside Newtonian mechanics.
This is done all the time. It's called "teaching physics." Seriously, don't take my word for it. Get out your local college catalog, and see if the professors who teach Newtoniam mechanics work in the same department as the ones who teach superstring. In fact, I'll bet there is at least one college campus where the same professor teaches both classes. Call those professors up and ask them if they think there is a problem with this.

Well since I had a physics phD at Boston College who believed in the existence of God, yet obviously you don't believe in the existence of God, I am suprised by your declaration of scientific unanimity.
For a person that just defended the infallibilty of Popes - as long as you pick and choose the ones you like - you seem awfully rigid about the concept of unanimity.

But as far as my most *precious* beliefs, I cannot and do not separate them from personal discernment.
Do you understand what you are saying here? Do you understand that you are saying that your personal beliefs and feelings are more reliable than empirical evidence?

It's not just the Pope you think is infallible...

It is of great worth to me,
Didn't you just say it might not even contain what you believe in?

Since I read the Bible, how can I reject the Bible?
Because you ignore the words on the page, and substitute your own. Do you understand how what you do does not qualify as "reading" the Bible?

In that way I don't make things up. I didn't write the Bible.
No, but you feel free to re-write it whenever you like. Such as ignoring the specifics of Leviticus.

Purgatory will let me know just how atrocious I have been in my life.
But only for an instant... then you'll be all better again.

That isn't restitution since the knowledge I gain in Purgatory is beneficial.
Wasn't that my point? We agree that punishment serves no purpose other than educational. But wait - once we are in Heaven, everything is perfect - so what do we need education for? Once we've made the only choice that matters, why do any further choices matter?

Your path is false. Your path will lead you to hell.
I'm well aware of what you think of my path. That was not the question. The question was how do you know this? How do you know that my path leads to hell, but the path of those who reject Leviticus does not?

I can say that someone is headed the wrong way.
Based on what? How can you tell the wrong way from the right way? Because it doesn't lead to God? But you have already acknowledged that any path can lead to God.

More discernment? My, but God must be busy talking to you. Why doesn't he try talking to the people on the wrong path, instead? Wouldn't that be more productive?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Did I say that? Did I even intiminate that? Didn't I specifically state when the Pope spoke Ex Cathedra? Please tell me how you got from my specific mention of the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra to "every Pope in history has always spoken infallibly in all words written and oral."

OK, so you believe that a Pope speaks Ex Cathedra sometimes, and not other times. We are in agreement then. Sorry, I wasn't quite sure to be honest what you actually believed when it came to Popes.

Do you know what a strawman argument is? Do you understand that changing my specific reference to "Ex Cathedera" into "all infallible all the time," and then disproving the later, has nothing at all to do with what I said? Do you understand that the entire cut-and-paste you made was disproof for an argument I never advanced?

Reprimand accepted. Sorry about that.

Then what source do you offer? Other than discernment? If your only source is discernment, then how is what you are doing different than making things up? Is God whispering in your ear, but no one elses?

No, that's not quite it. As far as I know all of my beliefs are not original to me, so it isn't really me making things up. I am obviously not making much sense to you Yahzi, but other persons (non-skeptics I guess) find me more reasonable. I never said that God whispers in my ear.

But an atheist would not then go on to assert that the Bible is somehow special!

It's special enough for you to selectively quote though. There is a cult of sitcoms in this country, I just ignore them. I don't watch sitcoms, I don't quote sitcoms, I ignore people who talk about sitcoms. Things that I don't think are special I completely ignore, but you are different from me.

You are simoultaneously asserting that the Bible is a) special, and b) not special. This is a logical flaw known by the technical name of "talking out your ass."

:)

The Bible is special. I don't think that any part of the Bible is not special. I think that all people are special, but I don't believe everything in the same way that all people say.

And what, exactly, is your mechanism for determining which ideas of God are more correct? Ah, yes... discernment. God whispers in your ear. Nobody else's, or they'd have the correct idea too. Just yours.

I'm sorry that you equate discernment with God whispering in my ear. If you think my ideas are only my own...well, whatever. I know that not to be the case, and you have an opinion.

God whispering in my ear would be revelation, and not discernment, but you may find those words synonymous.

This is done all the time. It's called "teaching physics." Seriously, don't take my word for it. Get out your local college catalog, and see if the professors who teach Newtoniam mechanics work in the same department as the ones who teach superstring. In fact, I'll bet there is at least one college campus where the same professor teaches both classes. Call those professors up and ask them if they think there is a problem with this.

Yes, they would teach them in separate courses. I guess you could start with projectile motion, and the next week teach superstrings. And then go back to momentum and friction. It would depend on the teacher I guess. I've only taken Intro to Physics twice, once in high school and once in college. Neither of those professors deigned to explain superstrings in either of those courses. But you're right, I guess they could have. And of course I'd expect in more advanced, or theoretical, physics courses, you'd be exposed to the ideas (in detail, not just name-dropped).

For a person that just defended the infallibilty of Popes - as long as you pick and choose the ones you like - you seem awfully rigid about the concept of unanimity.

I think that flawed Popes can speak infallibly at times, but I think you can say the same about just about any person.

Do you understand what you are saying here? Do you understand that you are saying that your personal beliefs and feelings are more reliable than empirical evidence?

I was talking about me. To me, yes, personal feelings are often more reliable than empirical evidence. I've never tried to empirically measure or judge girls I've loved, or music I love.

I'm just offering my theological and philosophical perspectives.

If you want to construe that to mean I reject empirical evidence, or don't feel it important, that doesn't change the fact that I actually do respect empirical evidence, and do feel it is important. Our difference in empirical evidence relates to past events that cannot be duplicated today. If we're talking about automobiles and photosynthesis (and we aren't, but if...) my feelings wouldn't at all be involved.

Reliability. That word can't be separated from some concept of a standard, or standards. I suppose I'll never get you to even understand my standards, and you'll most likely respond in a sarcastic way to what I just said, but that's the kind of guy you are Yahzi.

Because you ignore the words on the page, and substitute your own. Do you understand how what you do does not qualify as "reading" the Bible?

No, I don't ignore any words on pages of the Bible. Why do you think that I do? Ignoring is a word that means something. If I read something, how could I have possibly ignored it? If I don't read something, I've ignored that something. If you equate reading with complete acceptance, that's not the way I operate when I read. I could drop the *discernment* word but then you'll invoke the phrase *God whipsering in my ear* or *making stuff up as you go along*. This is turning into a circular argument (ugh) leading nowhere.

You want to believe that I ignore parts of the Bible, so you do. I don't ignore the Bible, I read the Bible, I think about every word in the Bible. So I really don't know what your deal is. You want to believe that I ignore parts of the Bible, so you do. People believe what they want to believe.

Wait, you're the guy who doesn't believe anything, right?

No, but you feel free to re-write it whenever you like. Such as ignoring the specifics of Leviticus.

I've read Leviticus in its entirety once, and don't feel the need to read it in its entirety again. Frankly it's one of the less interesting books of the Bible. And then in the N.T. we are given a letter that handles whether or not a gentile needs to follow the Mosaic law. You would have every Christian follow the specifics of Leviticus? Why? What does my belief in the salvific act of Jesus necessarily have to do with Levitical law? You'd have every Christian believe as you would have them believe, that's what it comes down to. Which makes you as dogmatic as the most rabid fundamentalist.

But only for an instant... then you'll be all better again.

You'll be transformed. All better *again*? Again is the wrong word. You'll be better.

Wasn't that my point? We agree that punishment serves no purpose other than educational. But wait - once we are in Heaven, everything is perfect - so what do we need education for? Once we've made the only choice that matters, why do any further choices matter?

Only God is perfect, so everything in heaven can't be perfect since non-God entities would be included.

All chioces matter. I don't believe that the chioce in question is the only choice that matters. It may be the most important choice, but all choices matter. If all choices didn't matter, then there would be no reason for reconciliation.

I'm well aware of what you think of my path. That was not the question. The question was how do you know this? How do you know that my path leads to hell, but the path of those who reject Leviticus does not?

I don't know where your path will lead you in the end. I know what direction you are currently going, but you seem to be an honest and inquistive person after objective truth and if those are true sentiments and not just an assumed disguise, I don't know, I think you'll be alright in the end.

When Jesus encountered persons in the gospels he did not tell them to follow the letter of the Levitical law as the way to achieve salvation. I don't know why I, as a Christian, has to believe that every O.T. law must be followed.

Based on what? How can you tell the wrong way from the right way? Because it doesn't lead to God? But you have already acknowledged that any path can lead to God.

Sure. Like a maze. If you are in a certain section of a maze, even if you are going away from the *exit*, you may still eventually get to the exit. Every path is intensely individual, and I am not going to begrudge someone just because their path is different from mine.

As for telling if someone is headed the wrong way, obviously you don't believe that you are in need of reconciliation with God. So you have to be going the wrong way, but maybe eventually you'll end up where I hope to end up. I can't condemn you if the totality of your path is different from mine. At some point though your perspective will have to change. Or it won't. But that's in your future, and I'm not going to try to predict that.

More discernment? My, but God must be busy talking to you. Why doesn't he try talking to the people on the wrong path, instead? Wouldn't that be more productive?

Discernment and revelation mean the same thing to you.

And by the way, are you sure that God isn't talking to you? God talks to different people in different ways. If you're expecting a burning bush, or whatever skeptical proof you desire, remember, you should not put the Lord to the test. He'll talk to you as he will, not as you will have him do so.

-Elliot

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Yahzi

"all infallible all the time"
I think you just came up with a great advertising slogan for these guys (http://www.vaticanradio.org/inglese/enindex.html).

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Reprimand accepted.
Someone acknowledging that they made a logical mistake is so uncommon that it is necessary note when it happens.

The acknowledgement, I mean. People make logical mistakes around here all the time. :D

No, that's not quite it. As far as I know all of my beliefs are not original to me, so it isn't really me making things up.
I understand that, but: if a bunch of people make something up, isn't it still just making things up?

God whispering in my ear would be revelation, and not discernment, but you may find those words synonymous.
No, I don't. But I think it would be quite illuminating for you to tell us how they are different.

What is discernment, really? It is not merely the process of reason: the application of logic to the facts at hand. It is more than that. Yet you clearly agree it is less than a revelation. Given that revelation is a communication from god, how is discernment different? If discernment is not communication from god, and it's not just reason, then what is it?


I think that flawed Popes can speak infallibly at times, but I think you can say the same about just about any person.
That was my point. The fact that a few physicists believe in any particularl silly concept does not invalidate the general unanimity of science, just as one or two nutcase Popes does not invalidate the infallibilty of Popes.

Actually, the analogy isn't quite correct, since even one fallible Pope destroys the concept that Popes are infallible. But that's a different argument.

To me, yes, personal feelings are often more reliable than empirical evidence.
This is the entire root of the problem. This is the entire difference between your viewpoint and mine. This is the whole banana.

I realize I'm not that old, but in my expierence, personal feelings are often unreliable. As an engineer, a stock investor, a consumer of manufactured goods, I find that my personal feelings, while often useful as a kind of warning flag or attention marker, are not terribly reliable at determining the actual facts of the empirical world. I extrapolate this to metaphysics: because my personal feelings are so inadequate at determing simple, empirical facts (like why my car won't start), I find it unlikely that they would be any more reliable about metaphysics.

You do not. You accept that your personal feelings are inadequate to fix cars, judge court cases, or build bridges, but you assert that they are more reliable than empiricism and logic the further you get from the empirical world.

I grant you this: they are more important. Your personal feelings on whether you love a girl or not are more important than your personal feelings on whether a bridge will collapse or not. But you mistake importance with accuracy.

Consider: you might actually love someone you conflict with. We all have heard stories of opposites attracting, how love and hate are fine lines, etc. However, as long as you feel negatively towards them, you shouldn't marry them. So here we have a (hypothetical) case where your personal feelings are inaccurate but still more important.

The physical world, that is, the world outside of our personal emotions and our social relations, does not work that way. It doesn't matter how you feel about life after death - its either there or it isn't. When dealing with anything other than your personal feelings, accuracy is more important.

And even when dealing with your personal feelings - accuracy matters! You shouldn't marry the girl you keep fighting with, but you should examine your feelings and realize that you actually are attracted to her, so you can marry her!

Our difference in empirical evidence relates to past events that cannot be duplicated today. If we're talking about automobiles and photosynthesis (and we aren't, but if...) my feelings wouldn't at all be involved.
!!!

Here you are acknowledging the superiority of empirical investigation, provided the event is replicable. But all we have to do is render the event unreplicable, and suddenly all restraints are off?

How is this not an obvious special exemption? Consider: I have a glass that magically fills itself with beer. I can present tons of emotional testimony that confirms this. However, I dropped the glass yesterday and broke it, so it can never be tested. Does this case slip under your "non-replicable" radar?

You are simply making up an excuse to release your thinking from the rigid rules you already know and accept.

I suppose I'll never get you to even understand my standards,
I do understand your standards. Quite clearly. You are the one who is confused. You are the one who engages in activities that are indistiguishable from "making it up," acknowledge at every step that what you are doing is different than what you would do in any other field of investigation, and yet refuse to acknowledge that what you are doing is merely "making it up."

I'm serious. We both know what your standards are. We're just arguing about what to call them.

If I read something, how could I have possibly ignored it?
When Leviticus tells you not to wear mixed fabrics, and you respond with, "I don't go for the specifics," that counts as having a) read the words, b) understood them, and c) decided to ignore them.

I realize that a standard doctrine is that Paul released you from Mosaic law. But that's not quite what you said, is it?

What does my belief in the salvific act of Jesus necessarily have to do with Levitical law?
If you are going to assert that the Bible is the source of your religoin, then you must deal with the Bible. When it says things that are not part of your religion, you must explain how you separate the parts of the Bible that are authentic sources from the parts that aren't. Citing Paul as release from Mosaic law is an example of how to do this. Citing discernment is not. Do you see the difference?

You'd have every Christian believe as you would have them believe, that's what it comes down to.
Not at all. You are entitled to believe whatever nonsense you want. My only complaint is over the title "reasonable and prudent." If you are not reasonable and prudent, you do not get to call yourself reasonable and prudent. You can believe in space aliens for all I care, as long as you accept the title of "irrational."

All a Christian has to do to defend his beliefs, in toto, impregnably, beyond the reach of any possible argument, proof, or attack, is to declare them "irrational."

Once you concede that you are irrational, I will no longer contest your beliefs. I might, however, contest your right to sign legal documents, drive a car, or own a gun.

I don't know where your path will lead you in the end.
But that certainly doesn't stop you from condeming it.

Don't you get it? Once you define god as beyond knowledge, you have defined him to be beyond knowledge. All knowledge. We can't know that god is good, or bad, or has a plan, or dead, or a vegatable, because we can't know god.

But if you assert that we can know god, then you have to explain how we can.

I know what direction you are currently going, but you seem to be an honest and inquistive person after objective truth and if those are true sentiments and not just an assumed disguise
It might be humorous to speculate on why I might be only pretending to honesty, inquistiveness, and objective truth. Of all the possible deceits to engage in, this one seems perplexing.

When Jesus encountered persons in the gospels he did not tell them to follow the letter of the Levitical law as the way to achieve salvation.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

I realize you have some other interpretation of those words, but to me they seem pretty obvious.

And by the way, are you sure that God isn't talking to you?
Quite certain. God knows my phone number. I answer it every time, but it's always just telemarketers. Never god.

[Skeptical Greg]

Don't you get it? Once you define god as beyond knowledge, you have defined him to be beyond knowledge. All knowledge. We can't know that god is good, or bad, or has a plan, or dead, or a vegatable, because we can't know god.
But if you assert that we can know god, then you have to explain how we can.


This is good.. It goes in my ' neat stuff to keep ' folder..

Have you figured out most of this stuff for yourself, or do you have a reference or two we could draw upon?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Have you figured out most of this stuff for yourself, or do you have a reference or two we could draw upon?
George Smith's "Atheism: the case against God" covers everything. The only thing I figured out for myself was the baseball bat test.

I do recall the phrase "retreat into silence," but I forget who said it. It is the only logical option for the "god's ways are mysterious crowd," yet oddly they never seem to take it.