Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Society After Religion

1235

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 174 ✭✭caoty


    The world must have been full of moral individuals when religions were in the driving seat.
    jank wrote: »
    OK, so there is a constant theme on this board that religion rightly or wrongly is precieved as the great inhibitor to human progression. There may or may not be a case to argue in that favour however, it is not as straight forward as that.

    Modern western culture and indeed modern eastern culture (think China) is being more and more driven in a secular fashion where some are even suggesting that organised and the controlling religion we have know throughout history is dead.

    However, what comes next? How will society organise itself? Will it lead to an explosion of discovery, peace and universal human enlightenment or would a world without religion descend into an age without morals, chaos and general malaise where humans still fumbling around in the dark.

    Discuss!


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    jank wrote: »
    I don't buy that although it is a theory. Cast your eyes back 2000 years when Christianity was born. The Romans were not exactly a nice bunch of people when it came to rights and morals, although they were good engineers and knew how to have a good time if gladiator fighting and feeding people to lions was your thing. That is why Christianity back then was such a liberal, ground breaking movement. The Romans thought they were nut jobs of course.
    "What? love your neighbour? forgiveness? turn the other check, fecking weirdos!" That world was dog eat dog, literally!

    Putting aside all the nasty **** Christianity did too, most of the time society becomes more liberal and usually those in power at the time are conservative (they want to keep power). So while christianity had some better social ideas on paper than the romans it is still a horrible code of ethics today. I would suggest that Christianity's teachings were liberal for their time and was created by liberal thinkers at the time which fits what I'm suggesting. Unfortunately god's are notorious for not changing their rules so eventually the liberal good natured people outgrow the views they created their god with and they have to twist "his" words to fit their current thinking.

    The slave issue is interesting because many Christians proclaim that to be a true christian then you should oppose slavery, this all happened in the 19th centuary. Lincoln was one of these people for example. So too were founding members of the anti-slavery society in Britian, Thomas Clarkson and William Wilberforce, both very pious men, one was a deacon.
    Of course slavery existed before the bible so...?

    Exactly. Slavery existed before the bible. Christianity came along and was fine with slavery, it definitely didn't speak out against it because it's inventors weren't against slavery. Then time passes, human morality improves and some people start to feel slavery is wrong. Those people like you mention above took bits and pieces from christianity to claim it taught the same thing they believed. While others who supported slavery saw that Christianity supported it. More time passes and no one (normal) supports slavery so no one sees Christianity as supporting slavery. SO Christianity's morals changed over time not through a change of text but through the internal morals of it's "followers" (for want of a better word) which it continues to match through apologetics and twisting of texts. Which means if I have to guess what effect Christianity will have on human morals 150 years from now I'd bet morals will change regardless and people will explain away the passages of the bible that no longer suits them.
    There is little evidence to suggest otherwise.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Lincoln, like a good christian, opposed slavery, that didn't stop him having slaves though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I bet he'd feel really guilty about making then work for him.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    jank wrote: »

    Anyway, by your very own definition of why communism is incompatible with totalitarianism ,then religion and Christianity should be wonderful and great as it means "Love your neighbor" and basically "don't be a douche bag". You apply the same reasoning to communism, so why not religion? People who go around killing people in the name of religion are not really religious so..., using your definition above. You cant have it both ways.

    Nope... sorry not wonderful, and here's why... by our agreed upon definition of totalitarianism I would agree with you that it is a pretty big fucking evil. Christianity is totalitarian, Jank. 'Do what we say or we'll shoot you' sounds very very much like 'Do what I say or I'll burn you' to little old me - Christianity/Totalitarianism 101.

    I think we kind of agree on a rough definition of totalitarianism, right? 'No limits to authority', 'strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life', 'the ruler is an absolute dictator'... any of these things incompatible with God/Christianity/Totalitarianism? Any of them severable from each other, from totalitarianism or Christianity?

    No? We seem to have found some common ground so. Totalitarianism is evil and Christianity is not wonderful for the exact same reasons according to your own reasoning. (Or is your problem with totalitarianism {and therefore Christianity I would presume if you are consistent} something other than the absolute dictator(s) seeking to control and influence and regulate every aspect of everyone's lives ... ehh... dealy?)

    You can't have it both ways man. :p
    Either a situation where a self appointed authority with no limits to it's desired influence, that strives to regulate and direct every aspect of public and private life, where the ruler is absolute is (p)'the most despicable evil' or it is 'wonderful and great'.;)


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Which has got what to do with what? Besides humans are coded for cancer (breast cancer can be genetic, if a woman gets it, her female siblings are encouraged to get tested) but we can still create cures and treatments to fight it. Just because we have the genetic code for something, or the emotional tendency to do something, doesn't mean we can't treat it or work around it. We don't have to do what we are "coded" to do.

    What is the genetic code for irrationality?


    So? We have seatbelts to make driving safer, but sometimes they fail and sometimes people just don't use them.Should we abandon seatbelts then?

    Did I ever say we should question religion and its impact, ban secularization? No i didn't. Not wearing a seat belt and being in a car accident is one way to die, being hit by a bus is another way. Religion might be a product of irrationality, but so are many many many other things.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    The title of their books and the effort in their work certainly points to them seeing religion as quite an important obstacle to human improvement, but I don't see how you can jump from that to labeling them as "atheists who see religion as the all encompassing disease of mankind".

    Look at the Hitchens book, "How religion poisones everything", is written on the front!
    Now if it were written as "How religion poisons most things, your point may stand.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Putting aside all the nasty **** Christianity did too, most of the time society becomes more liberal and usually those in power at the time are conservative (they want to keep power). So while christianity had some better social ideas on paper than the romans it is still a horrible code of ethics today. I would suggest that Christianity's teachings were liberal for their time and was created by liberal thinkers at the time which fits what I'm suggesting. Unfortunately god's are notorious for not changing their rules so eventually the liberal good natured people outgrow the views they created their god with and they have to twist "his" words to fit their current thinking.

    Most of the time society becomes more liberal, but not always. Just look at the history of the world for the previous 100 years. I agree though religion should evolve. The very basic tenants of Christianity is very simple, and liberal. Most here I presume would agree with most of the 10 commandments for example.

    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Exactly. Slavery existed before the bible. Christianity came along and was fine with slavery, it definitely didn't speak out against it because it's inventors weren't against slavery. Then time passes, human morality improves and some people start to feel slavery is wrong. Those people like you mention above took bits and pieces from christianity to claim it taught the same thing they believed. While others who supported slavery saw that Christianity supported it. More time passes and no one (normal) supports slavery so no one sees Christianity as supporting slavery. SO Christianity's morals changed over time not through a change of text but through the internal morals of it's "followers" (for want of a better word) which it continues to match through apologetics and twisting of texts. Which means if I have to guess what effect Christianity will have on human morals 150 years from now I'd bet morals will change regardless and people will explain away the passages of the bible that no longer suits them.
    There is little evidence to suggest otherwise.

    That is a huge set of assumptions made there in relation to why slavery became outlawed. The very facts of history shows that the men who actually made it happen were Christians and quite pious ones as well. There is evidence to prove that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2 EmptyBottle


    If in the scenario there was no religion in the world...

    The world would still be the same horrible place it can be.
    Instead of killing another because they share different beliefs it would be over something else (land, resources or what not)

    The real problem is mankind. Not religion.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    strobe wrote: »
    Nope... sorry not wonderful, and here's why... by our agreed upon definition of totalitarianism I would agree with you that it is a pretty big fucking evil. Christianity is totalitarian, Jank. 'Do what we say or we'll shoot you' sounds very very much like 'Do what I say or I'll burn you' to little old me - Christianity/Totalitarianism 101.

    I and you live a Christian nation (Ireland + Australia). Are you being persecuted because of your beliefs? You are free to believe and think what you like. No, historian or political theorist would say what you say that or even take it seriously. Totalitarianism is a political system. Christianity is a religion. You might call it a theocracy? If you dont know the difference then I cant help you.
    strobe wrote: »
    I think we kind of agree on a rough definition of totalitarianism, right? 'No limits to authority', 'strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life', 'the ruler is an absolute dictator'... any of these things incompatible with God/Christianity/Totalitarianism? Any of them severable from each other, from totalitarianism or Christianity?

    God a dictator? Hmmm well that must be proof that he exists so, if he kills people that step out of line.
    strobe wrote: »
    No? We seem to have found some common ground so. Totalitarianism is evil and Christianity is not wonderful for the exact same reasons according to your own reasoning. (Or is your problem with totalitarianism {and therefore Christianity I would presume if you are consistent} something other than the absolute dictator(s) seeking to control and influence and regulate every aspect of everyone's lives ... ehh... dealy?)


    You can't have it both ways man. :p
    Either a situation where a self appointed authority with no limits to it's desired influence, that strives to regulate and direct every aspect of public and private life, where the ruler is absolute is (p)'the most despicable evil' or it is 'wonderful and great'.;)

    You may have a point if I said religion is wonderful and great. Never said Christianity was wonderful either, I am not a christian.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    jank wrote: »
    Most of the time society becomes more liberal, but not always. Just look at the history of the world for the previous 100 years. I agree though religion should evolve. The very basic tenants of Christianity is very simple, and liberal. Most here I presume would agree with most of the 10 commandments for example.

    The 10 commandments? The top 4 of which are dedicated to telling people they must worship the jealous christian/jewish god? Or he will punish your grand kids and great grand kids? One of which tells people "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

    Again, maybe liberal for it's time but we can do much better today but an all knowing god doesn't have the advantage that man has. We can point to our past ideas and go "whoa, what were we thinking back then?!".
    That is a huge set of assumptions made there in relation to why slavery became outlawed. The very facts of history shows that the men who actually made it happen were Christians and quite pious ones as well. There is evidence to prove that.

    Your missing my point. I didn't say they weren't Christian. I said both sides of the argument have been Christian at one time or the other. The fact they were Christian proves what I'm trying to say. People project their morals onto their religion they don't take them from them.
    Again a fresh example, what has the dear old christian lady down the road who treats everyone kindly and who a bad word could not be said of and a member of the westboro baptist church got in common? They will both tell you their morals come from the bible. Now if they actually do get their morals from the bible how is it they can have totally different morals? Unless they have internal morals but either want reassurance that those morals are right or the comfort blanket religion supplies so, they cherry pick at the bible to "prove" it matches their belief and shows they're right/they're heaven bound.

    Fictional old lady did it, fictional Westboro member did it, the people who wanted to free the slaves did it, the people that didn't did it and you my friend did it. You picked the ten commandments because they contain "Thou shalt not steal" "honour your parents" "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not commit adultery"
    You didn't pick Deut 22:28 (a mere 12 chapters away from the 10 commandments*)
    "28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

    29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."

    because you know that's not moral. It's disgusting and you won't see a single christian point to it when they claim we need the good book to be moral. And I'm grateful everyday that people don't actually take their morality from christianity but rather cherry pick from it to support their own.

    That's why I feel morality will change with or without religion. However, I'd still prefer a world without religion because debates on morality could no longer hit the impasse "god wants" that we hit today especially when it's a cop out given my thoughts above. You would need to have a more grown up discussion (even internally) which I can only see as a good thing.

    * The is a different set of commandments that are actually called the 10 commandments, something the famous list aren't. Here's the passage (just for fun)


    Exodus 34
    10And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.

    11Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.

    12Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:

    13But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

    14For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

    15Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;

    16And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

    17Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

    18The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.

    19All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.

    20But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

    21Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

    22And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

    23Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.

    24For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.

    25Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

    26The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

    27And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

    28And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    If in the scenario there was no religion in the world...

    The world would still be the same horrible place it can be.
    Instead of killing another because they share different beliefs it would be over something else (land, resources or what not)

    The real problem is mankind. Not religion.

    For the most part yes. One point though, religion is a great tool to get a follower to do you bidding. "Crash that plane into a skyscraper and paradise will be yours" ring a bell?
    Again no one claims that a society without religion is a society without problems.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2 EmptyBottle


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    For the most part yes. One point though, religion is a great tool to get a follower to do you bidding. "Crash that plane into a skyscraper and paradise will be yours" ring a bell?
    Again no one claims that a society without religion is a society without problems.


    I know what you mean. The use of religion to manipulate, brainwash, turn against etc. But thats no different from telling your nation that its ok to invade another country because "we want to liberate them from an evil dictatorship", while truth is said country has oil.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jank wrote: »
    That is a huge set of assumptions made there in relation to why slavery became outlawed. The very facts of history shows that the men who actually made it happen were Christians and quite pious ones as well.
    Christianity took 1800 years to figure out that owning people was a bad idea? And managed this feat just a few short years after Rights of Man?

    Uh, yeah :)
    jank wrote: »
    Most here I presume would agree with most of the 10 commandments for example.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    robindch wrote: »
    Christianity took 1800 years to figure out that owning people was a bad idea? And managed this feat just a few short years after Rights of Man?

    As I said slaves existed before Christianity and existed outside of Christianity for example in the Roman world, Muslim world, Asian region, Incas etc. Slavery was not a product of Christianity or religion, it was a product of humans. If there was no such thing as religion we still would have had slaves. What we do know is that the western movement to abolish slavery started with Christians who took inspiration from their faith. That is a fact.
    Are people suggesting that slavery was a product of religion?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jank wrote: »
    What we do know is that the western movement to abolish slavery started with Christians who took inspiration from their faith.
    Wilberforce was certainly religious, but his ideas about the rights of man came from, well, the Rights of Man and not the bible and christians which said exactly the opposite:
    Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ
    I'd love to come back in 200 years time when the christians of the time will be claiming that they were the people who liberated gays from homophobic oppression :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    robindch wrote: »
    I'd love to come back in 200 years time when the christians of the time will be claiming that they were the people who liberated gays from homophobic oppression :rolleyes:

    There must have been rumours about JC back in the day, over 30 and not married and never even had a girlfriend... hmmm...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Jesus

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    robindch wrote: »
    Wilberforce was certainly religious, but his ideas about the rights of man came from, well, the Rights of Man and not the bible and christians which said exactly the opposite:I'd love to come back in 200 years time when the christians of the time will be claiming that they were the people who liberated gays from homophobic oppression :rolleyes:

    Do you have poof that of this?

    Sigh: Homophobia is world wide human phenomena and again not a christian phenomena. Why do you insit on blaming most or all the worlds ill on religion or Christianity.

    Round and round we go.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    jank wrote: »
    As I said slaves existed before Christianity and existed outside of Christianity for example in the Roman world, Muslim world, Asian region, Incas etc. Slavery was not a product of Christianity or religion, it was a product of humans. If there was no such thing as religion we still would have had slaves. What we do know is that the western movement to abolish slavery started with Christians who took inspiration from their faith. That is a fact.
    Are people suggesting that slavery was a product of religion?

    Not in this discussion no. You asked about what we thought of morality in a religion free society. I have been trying to show why I don't think there'll be a big difference.
    jank wrote: »
    Do you have poof that of this?

    The evidence is there. The bible was around for 1500 odd years without it teaching people that slavery was wrong. So it's much more likely someone who was against slavery through external influence would try and twist their faith to match as opposed to them reading the same book as everyone else and getting a different message.
    Sigh: Homophobia is world wide human phenomena and again not a christian phenomena. Why do you insit on blaming most or all the worlds ill on religion or Christianity.

    Round and round we go.

    Actually homophobia was a worldwide problem but huge chunks of society are progressing towards treating gays equally. However one of the main opponents of this progression is large parts of most religions.
    I bet a poll in this forum or the humanism one would strongly support gay marriage where as I doubt the Christian or Islam forum would return similar because unlike a lot of us that had to think hard about any childish attitude we held toward homosexuals, the religious can just use the cop out "My god is against it".
    Now on topic, I'll bet like being pro slaver, a time will come where even large groups of religious will abhor the idea of discriminating against gays and they will set out to twist their religion to match their views.
    Actually homophobia might be a better example than slavery as we're living through it.
    And again, I am not suggesting religion caused homophobia but it is empowering it in current morality thinking


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    jank wrote: »
    What is the genetic code for irrationality?

    How would I know? What has that gotten to do with the point I made? Didn't you bring up irrationality as being "coded" into people?
    jank wrote: »
    Did I ever say we should question religion and its impact, ban secularization? No i didn't. Not wearing a seat belt and being in a car accident is one way to die, being hit by a bus is another way. Religion might be a product of irrationality, but so are many many many other things.

    And so we deal with them, while also dealing with religion. Thats been my point from the start, we have to deal with the irrationality of religion, not just religion itself, as that irrationality exists elsewhere. But we shouldn't ignore religion, as its a pretty big source.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    jank wrote: »
    Look at the Hitchens book, "How religion poisones everything", is written on the front!
    Now if it were written as "How religion poisons most things, your point may stand.

    Still doesn't lead to your conclusion. There is a difference between thinking that religion is one of the fundamental sources of irrationality on the planet that invariably damages whatever its attached to, and believing that all you need do is remove religion and all of the earths woes are cured.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    jank wrote: »
    Do you have poof that of this?

    Sigh: Homophobia is world wide human phenomena and again not a christian phenomena. Why do you insit on blaming most or all the worlds ill on religion or Christianity.

    That wasn't Robin's point.

    Just like slavery once was, anti-homosexual views are common place in Christianity, and is seen as entirely consistent with Christianity. God does not like homosexual relationships, does not like homosexual marriage etc. Just like God used to be perfectly happy with slavery.

    Now eventually anti-homosexual views will fade from acceptable society (largely due to forces far removed from Christianity), just like how slavery eventually faded from acceptable society.

    Robin has little doubt that when this happens Christians will some how try to claim this as inspired by Christianity, despite Christianity for hundreds of years previous fully supporting anti-homosexual views. Just like Christians do with slavery.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jank wrote: »
    Sigh: Homophobia is world wide human phenomena [...]
    Not amongst atheists or gays, it's not.
    jank wrote: »
    [...] not a christian phenomena.
    Ah, so Leviticus 20:13 was only joking when it says:
    Leviticus wrote:
    If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
    And the Ugandan "Murder Gays" law is just a bit of a laugh?
    jank wrote: »
    Why do you insit on blaming most or all the worlds ill on religion or Christianity.
    I don't. I only blame religion for the ills it causes, though I'd be quite some time if I were to list them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,237 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Obviously it's open to interpretation Robin!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    jank wrote: »
    As I said slaves existed before Christianity and existed outside of Christianity for example in the Roman world, Muslim world, Asian region, Incas etc. Slavery was not a product of Christianity or religion, it was a product of humans. If there was no such thing as religion we still would have had slaves. What we do know is that the western movement to abolish slavery started with Christians who took inspiration from their faith. That is a fact.
    Are people suggesting that slavery was a product of religion?

    One Pope Rodrigo Borgia i think- as far as I know supported slavery. The preceeding and the sucessor popes opposed it. Thats 20 years in 2000!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery
    theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery could not be justified under natural law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law. As a consequence the Roman Catholic Church, up until the modern era, came to accept certain types of slavery as a social consequence of the current human condition, connected by some with original sin, but teaching that slaves should be treated humanely and justly.

    In spite of a stronger condemnation of unjust types of slavery by Pope Gregory XVI in his bull In Supremo Apostolatus issued in 1839, some American bishops continued to support slave-holding interests until the abolition of slavery In 1866 The Holy Office of Pope Pius IX affirmed that, subject to conditions, it was not against divine law for a slave to be sold, bought or exchanged In 1995 Pope John Paul II repeated the condemnation of "infamies", including slavery, issued by the Second Vatican Council: "Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience..”


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Obviously it's open to interpretation Robin!
    Prolly needs to be read with one's heart or somesuch.

    Actually, rereading it, you gotta laugh at the way it's phrased -- "a man can't shag another man as he shags a women". Now, not possessing a woman's front bottom, one man can't be shagged by another anyway. Hence, with the penetrative alternative round the back, Leviticus appears to indicate that the abomination lies only with man-on-man anal sex, while permitting man-on-woman anal sex. And what about lesbians? Well, Leviticus never mentions them and by implication, must be ok with them (thank heavens).


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    It's irrelevant what religion says on anything. It doesn't matter whether it justifies slavery or not or weather god was vengeful or demanded daily hugging. You shouldn't be basing your morals on anything that's 1500+ years old.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    robindch wrote: »
    Prolly needs to be read with one's heart or somesuch.

    Actually, rereading it, you gotta laugh at the way it's phrased -- "a man can't shag another man as he shags a women". Now, not possessing a woman's front bottom, one man can't be shagged by another anyway. Hence, with the penetrative alternative round the back, Leviticus appears to indicate that the abomination lies only with man-on-man anal sex, while permitting man-on-woman anal sex. And what about lesbians? Well, Leviticus never mentions them and by implication, must be ok with them (thank heavens).

    50 quid says that's the excuse Christianity pulls when it eventually accepts homosexual relations.

    Oh and damn you Zombrex for elegantly phrasing what I've been trying to for days!


  • Moderators Posts: 51,691 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    ISAW wrote: »
    One Pope Rodrigo Borgia i think- as far as I know supported slavery. The preceeding and the sucessor popes opposed it. Thats 20 years in 2000!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery


    In spite of a stronger condemnation of unjust types of slavery by Pope Gregory XVI in his bull In Supremo Apostolatus issued in 1839, some American bishops continued to support slave-holding interests until the abolition of slavery In 1866 The Holy Office of Pope Pius IX affirmed that, subject to conditions, it was not against divine law for a slave to be sold, bought or exchanged In 1995 Pope John Paul II repeated the condemnation of "infamies", including slavery, issued by the Second Vatican Council: "Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience..”

    That link doesn't support the argument that the Catholic church was always opposed to slavery. In fact the opening paragraph, it says that the church had no firm stance on slavery until 1965 where it finally said that slavery is wrong without exception.
    The issue of slavery was one that historically did not see a consistent position by the Catholic Church, but was a subject of a long debate that began early in the history of the Church, and which gave increased support toward abolition in the 19th century. In 1965 the Second Vatican Council declared without qualification that slavery was an "infamy" that dishonored the Creator and was a poison in society.
    Between the 6th and 12th century there was a growing sentiment that slavery was not compatible with Christian conceptions of charity and justice; some argued against slavery whilst others, including the influential Thomas Aquinas, argued the case for slavery subject to certain restrictions. The church did succeed in almost entirely enforcing that a free Christian could not be enslaved, for example when a captive in war, but this was not consistently applied throughout history, as in the case of Pope Paul III who sanctioned the enslavement of baptised Christians in Rome

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    robindch wrote: »
    Not amongst atheists or gays, it's not.

    Give yourself a big pat on the back Robin, while you can smear indignation on the "others"


Advertisement