Mankind "groping in the darkness"

biko · 08-04-2012 03:07PM

dsmythy wrote: »

In his Easter address the Pope has said that mankind is "groping in the darkness, unable to distinguish good from evil".

Here's me thinking it was just his priests doing that......

http://instantrimshot.com/

44leto · 08-04-2012 03:20PM

Latchy wrote: »

Good post

Or the absurdity of war .For an institution who's mantra is all about world peace , when did you ever see a bunch of bishops or priests protesting outside the embassys of countrys who send thousends of soldiers to their deaths as well as the killing of thousends of civillians ? Preaching from the pulpit is the easy and soft way out .

They usually blessed the troops and sprinkled them with holy water, the Vatican was never a pacifist organisation.

But it could be argued that the Bishops and the priests were dealing with the individual souls of the soldiers and not the army or the armies cause. But there is the whole crusade debacle.

sunflower27 · 08-04-2012 03:25PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Feck off, Pope

:eek:

Something bad is going to happen to you for saying that!!!! :eek:

DrumSteve · 08-04-2012 04:15PM

sunflower27 wrote: »

:eek:

Something bad is going to happen to you for saying that!!!! :eek:

Unless URL is a kid, I'm not sure what the pope can do to him.

TeddyTedson · 08-04-2012 04:25PM

I'm pretty sure that that's not the pope the BBC have on their picture.

Nodin · 08-04-2012 04:36PM

Bambi wrote: »

pretty sure the catholics were vocally against slavery, torture etc

.....not really.

Wibbs · 08-04-2012 05:00PM

Nodin wrote: »

.....not really.

Indeed. The Roman church even made a fair bit of cash running the slave markets of Rome in the early days. Plus they had no great moral issue with virtual enslavement(and decidedly genocidal actions) in South America.

Wild Bill · 09-04-2012 03:18AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed. The Roman church even made a fair bit of cash running the slave markets of Rome in the early days. Plus they had no great moral issue with virtual enslavement(and decidedly genocidal actions) in South America.

Did they have any problems with slavery in North America - which persisted much longer in those Southern Protestant states?

I don't recall any condemnations. :cool:

Chuck Stone · 09-04-2012 03:31AM

Papa don't don't preach
You're in a bubble mate
Papa don't preach
your voice is starting to grate

and I've made up my mind, ooh-ooh
I'm gonna eat some babies, mm-mmm
gonna eat 'em with gravy
ooh-ooh, aah-ahh

Wibbs · 09-04-2012 08:33AM

Wild Bill wrote: »

Did they have any problems with slavery in North America - which persisted much longer in those Southern Protestant states?

I don't recall any condemnations. :cool:

Actually there were quite a few condemnations from various protestant ministers/churches. Check out the Abolitionists from the early 1800's. But I'd agree that the Protestant churches don't come out of the later connection with slavery too well. While the early Catholic church had plenty of skeletons in their closet by the middle ages Europe was unusual enough in that "classic" slavery of the kind Islam continued(damn near up to the present day) was no longer around and that was largely down to the church and high end church thinkers like Aquinas who came out against it forcefully as immoral.

philologos · 09-04-2012 08:49AM

It depends. You're right in that many Christians in general weren't vocal enough against slavery. However in the case of the British Empire it was a group of evangelical Christians who campaigned heavily leading to the abolishment of slavery. The Clapham Sect and William Wilberforce are both people I find hugely influential in terms of living for Jesus in this world. The man who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace, John Newton became a Christian after he was convicted of sin after a slave ship he was on crashed off the Donegal coast. Likewise I'm very sure that a number of key reformers and missionaries were for abolition as a result of their belief in the freedom that Jesus achieved for mankind on the cross. John Wesley the Methodist reformer was also strongly against slavery.

Even when slavery persisted in places such as Malawi, there were key missionaries who fought for justice there such as David Livingstone, who was so significant that there was a city named after his hometown. He fought for freedom for the people, and spent a huge amount of time getting to know African languages and immersing himself so widely in the culture. In a sense, he sacrificed his whole life in the hope that they would know God.

Christians also campaigned heavily for prison reform in the 19th century in Britain. Indeed, Christianity is a huge vehicle for the restoration of individual prisoners to this present day. Christians of varying backgrounds visit prisoners to give them the option of coming to know Jesus as the Lord.

It seems to me on looking back through the history of this, it was Christianity that played a huge role in taking away colonial slavery in the world. Indeed, Christianity can take away any kind of slavery, including some of the forms of slavery that we have in the West such as sexual slavery (which goes further than mere trafficking), gambling additions, alcoholism, drug addictions and so on if we are clear and consistent about its goals.

We need to be clear about the history in its fullness.

On the topic: I actually think the Pope is right. If we are accepting relative morality, mankind hasn't a clue about right and wrong. If on the other hand, God is the one who informs us of right and wrong, we have a much better idea since it is objective over all, much as the law is objective over the State.

44leto · 09-04-2012 08:58AM

You can't separate the institute of slavery along religious lines, all were equally involved, my earlier point was for a supposed moral establishment as the churches claim to be, never opposed it till the abolitionist movement in the 17th century. Christianity and all the major religions were well established by that time and had been for over a millennium.

Although the earlier abolitionists organised themselves around the Anglican church, why then, why so late. The impetus to end that obvious evil was not primarily religiously driven. It was driven by an expansion of human empathy that came from the enlightenment and literature. It is hard to enslave someone who you suddenly see as a fellow human.

It was Abraham Lincoln who said to Beecher Stowe the author of Uncle Toms cabin, "so you are the little lady who started this war". Any moral crusade was never driven by any of the religious doctrines, religion was never about making a better world, but a stronger religion and a more fundamental doctrine. So how can they claim any historical moral high ground. They can't is the answer, but the study of the humanities can. A new humanist religion based around the old -ones.

Mr Benevolent · 09-04-2012 09:04AM

philologos wrote: »

God is the one who informs us of right and wrong, we have a much better idea since it is objective over all, much as the law is objective over the State.

Did all these concepts come from god by fax? None of the catholic church's teachings come from god, just the men who made them up and wrote them down. Unless god speaks directly to the pope, that is.

philologos · 09-04-2012 09:07AM

44leto wrote: »

You can't separate the institute of slavery along religious lines, all were equally involved, my earlier point was for a supposed moral establishment as the churches claim to be, never opposed it till the abolitionist movement in the 17th century. Christianity and all the major religions were well established by that time and had been for over a millennium.

Although the earlier abolitionists organised themselves around the Anglican church, why then, why so late. The impetus to end that obvious evil was not primarily religiously driven. It was driven by an expansion of human empathy that came from the enlightenment and literature. It is hard to enslave someone who you suddenly see as a fellow human.

It was Abraham Lincoln who said to Beecher Stowe the author of Uncle Toms cabin, "so you are the little lady who started this war". Any moral crusade was never driven by any of the religious doctrines, religion was never about making a better world, but a stronger religion and a more fundamental doctrine. So how can they claim any historical moral high ground. They can't is the answer, but the study of the humanities can. A new humanist religion based around the old -ones.

Where were all the so-called "freethinkers" / secular humanists out campaigning against slavery in the 18th century? Just curious. (Before you claim that there weren't any in the 18th century, there were a sizeable number in Britain).

The Christian Gospel simply put encourages freedom from slavery. Jesus clearly preaches against mankind being enslaved to sin. The early Christian apostles campaigned for reform in that area. Paul argued that masters should show the respect that is due to their slaves (Colossians 4, Ephesians 6). Paul was speaking into a Roman political context.

Also, what do you mean why so late? - Ultimately colonial slavery was a political move taken in society with little to no consideration of the Christian Gospel. Other people who were actually concerned with the Gospel actually saw the drive for abolition as a huge opportunity. Firstly because the conditions were dyer for those who were enslaved, and secondly because they believed that all were one under Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:28), and they believed that all men were called to follow Him (John 3:16-18). Before we talk about "so late", how about you start presenting some dates.

I'm afraid you're factually wrong from a historical perspective. The vast majority of campaigning against slavery from 18th century onwards was specifically Christian. I can list quite a number of other figures who were involved in the abolition movement right across the world who publically did so in the name of Jesus. There are quite a number in the case of the West Indies and Africa.

philologos · 09-04-2012 09:11AM

Confab wrote: »

Did all these concepts come from god by fax? None of the catholic church's teachings come from god, just the men who made them up and wrote them down. Unless god speaks directly to the pope, that is.

Firstly, I'm never going to be defending anything other that Biblical Christianity on boards.ie. I'm a non-Catholic so I'll allow Roman Catholics to defend that side of it.

Secondly, God informs our consciences. Simply put, if one subscribes to relative morality one must concede that right and wrong can be whatever the heck we want them to be, likewise in terms of States.

However, nobody does this. When one is wronged, one appeals to objective standards. One claims that the other should know better. Why should the other know better unless there is a common standard of behaviour between them? Simply put, we all have a conscience.

God according to Christianity has spoken through the Biblical text to mankind. God has shown us His clear love for mankind by bringing Jesus into the world to rescue us. We have no excuse to run away from it.

44leto · 09-04-2012 09:17AM

If on the other hand, God is the one who informs us of right and wrong, we have a much better idea since it is objective over all, much as the law is objective over the State.

If what you say is true, he never did or at least "his churches" never did. The churches adapted to the civil rule of law, but they never campaigned for the end of any obvious wrong such as torture, cruel and unusual punishments, prisoner rights, slavery, etc etc etc. Those reforms were driven by the humanists, not initialised by any of the churches.

And it continues today, the churches are still opposed to reforms in the rights revolution, example the position of women, homosexuals, etc etc.

44leto · 09-04-2012 09:19AM

philologos wrote: »

Where were all the so-called "freethinkers" / secular humanists out campaigning against slavery in the 18th century? Just curious. (Before you claim that there weren't any in the 18th century, there were a sizeable number in Britain).

The Christian Gospel simply put encourages freedom from slavery. Jesus clearly preaches against mankind being enslaved to sin. The early Christian apostles campaigned for reform in that area. Paul argued that masters should show the respect that is due to their slaves (Colossians 4, Ephesians 6). Paul was speaking into a Roman political context.

Also, what do you mean why so late? - Ultimately colonial slavery was a political move taken in society with little to no consideration of the Christian Gospel. Other people who were actually concerned with the Gospel actually saw the drive for abolition as a huge opportunity. Firstly because the conditions were dyer for those who were enslaved, and secondly because they believed that all were one under Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:28), and they believed that all men were called to follow Him (John 3:16-18). Before we talk about "so late", how about you start presenting some dates.

I'm afraid you're factually wrong from a historical perspective. The vast majority of campaigning against slavery from 18th century onwards was specifically Christian. I can list quite a number of other figures who were involved in the abolition movement right across the world who publically did so in the name of Jesus. There are quite a number in the case of the West Indies and Africa.

The 18th century, where were they all for the preceding 1500 years, not in the church anyway. The church supported slavery, till they couldn't anymore.

philologos · 09-04-2012 09:26AM

44leto wrote: »

The 18th century, where were they all for the preceding 1500 years, not in the church anyway. The church supported slavery, till they couldn't anymore.

Which church? To remind you, I'm a Christian simply put and nothing more.

As for why slavery persisted through those ages. Firstly, that slavery originated out of political motives, certainly in the British Empire. Most Biblical justifications that were used to support it were used out of expedience rather than actual consideration of the Christian message itself. I would argue that no matter how "Christian" Europe claimed to be from the Middle Ages through to that present day, ultimately slavery was instituted for pragmatic political motives rather than out of any deep consideration of the Gospel. In a sense, people tried to justify their own wrongdoing.

Personally, I'm not surprised when I see wrongdoing. It's the nature of mans heart to sin, to do what is clearly wrong and what is clearly opposed to God's standards. In the Western world, mankinds sin is enslaving people. Just in a different way than it did before. Indeed, we're all slaves unless we're set free by Jesus. We're either slaves to materialism, money, wealth, success, our egos, sexual sin, lying, corruption, hatred, slander, gambling, alcoholism, drug addictions and so on. Our society isn't any more enlightened than what has gone before it.

Ultimately, Christians stood up and campaigned heavily on Biblical principles against slavery across the world. One can't deny that history. What was imposed as a mere political venture, actually was challenged systematically by the Gospel throughout and even before the 18th century. Indeed, slavery was actually an impediment to the Gospel being proclaimed. Colonial slavery made Christian evangelism more difficult. Both the material welfare, and the spiritual welfare of these people mattered to these individuals, that's why they did what they did. Ultimately people like Wilberforce are heroes to me, simply put because they clearly show what Christianity looks like in action. I can only hope to be a little like what they were in my daily life.

To deny that Christianity was at the forefront of abolition is to deny historical fact.

philologos · 09-04-2012 09:35AM

44leto wrote: »

If what you say is true, he never did or at least "his churches" never did. The churches adapted to the civil rule of law, but they never campaigned for the end of any obvious wrong such as torture, cruel and unusual punishments, prisoner rights, slavery, etc etc etc. Those reforms were driven by the humanists, not initialised by any of the churches.

Again, that is simply false - Yes, Christians did do this. Christians very clearly campaigned against pretty much all of those things. I've shown you quite a number of people who did those things.

Show me these "humanists" (I don't believe that term is owned by atheists by the by), because I can tell you William Wilberforce and all the other people I have mentioned were Christians. Christians, simply put were the majority in respect to campaigning for these reforms.

44leto wrote: »

And it continues today, the churches are still opposed to reforms in the rights revolution, example the position of women, homosexuals, etc etc.

Elaborate?

44leto · 09-04-2012 09:40AM

philologos wrote: »

Which church? To remind you, I'm a Christian simply put and nothing more.

As for why slavery persisted through those ages. Firstly, that slavery originated out of political motives, certainly in the British Empire. Most Biblical justifications that were used to support it were used out of expedience rather than actual consideration of the Christian message itself. I would argue that no matter how "Christian" Europe claimed to be from the Middle Ages through to that present day, ultimately slavery was instituted for pragmatic political motives rather than out of any deep consideration of the Gospel. In a sense, people tried to justify their own wrongdoing.

Personally, I'm not surprised when I see wrongdoing. It's the nature of mans heart to sin, to do what is clearly wrong and what is clearly opposed to God's standards. In the Western world, mankinds sin is enslaving people. Just in a different way than it did before. Indeed, we're all slaves unless we're set free by Jesus. We're either slaves to materialism, money, wealth, success, our egos, sexual sin, lying, corruption, hatred, slander, gambling, alcoholism, drug addictions and so on. Our society isn't any more enlightened than what has gone before it.

Ultimately, Christians stood up and campaigned heavily on Biblical principles against slavery across the world. One can't deny that history. What was imposed as a mere political venture, actually was challenged systematically by the Gospel throughout and even before the 18th century. Indeed, slavery was actually an impediment to the Gospel being proclaimed. Colonial slavery made Christian evangelism more difficult. Both the material welfare, and the spiritual welfare of these people mattered to these individuals, that's why they did what they did. Ultimately people like Wilberforce are heroes to me, simply put because they clearly show what Christianity looks like in action. I can only hope to be a little like what they were in my daily life.

To deny that Christianity was at the forefront of abolition is to deny historical fact.

I do deny it and it is so obvious. so are you saying Christianity is only 300 years old. The greatest human reforms came with the rights revolution the churches opposed most of these AND STILL DO. The rights revolution began with secularism and it was primarily driven by the democratisation of the people.

It was only when humanity unshackled itself from the supposed moral authority of the gospels, actual and real life enhancing reforms began in the west and continue.

You only have to look at societies were the rights revolution has not happened to such a degree and ask what religious doctrine are they living by and the degree of their secularism. I give you the Islamic world. Which is what western Europe was before secularism and the enlightenment.

philologos · 09-04-2012 09:45AM

Then all I can say, is that I advise you to do some research on the history, because what you're claiming flies in the face of historical fact.

I'm not arguing that Christianity is 300 years old at all. I've noted that the Apostles urged Christians to reform their position on slavery. Particularly Paul in Ephesians and Colossians. This position has been there from the very beginning. I would concede to you that a number of churches simply put ignored what Jesus said. That's when the trouble starts.

In so far as people earnestly sought out the Gospel, and earnestly believed that it was for all people rather than for just Europeans as Jesus very clearly taught, then came the strive for abolition.

The truth of the matter is "freethinkers" and "secular humanists" didn't take away slavery. It was clearly Christianity. Those people who I have listed, and countless more, the people who put the hard work into actually campaigning for it. I respect that they did so by clear Christian convictions.

44leto · 09-04-2012 09:53AM

philologos wrote: »

Again, that is simply false - Yes, Christians did do this. Christians very clearly campaigned against pretty much all of those things. I've shown you quite a number of people who did those things.

Show me these "humanists" (I don't believe that term is owned by atheists by the by), because I can tell you William Wilberforce and all the other people I have mentioned were Christians. Christians, simply put were the majority in respect to campaigning for these reforms.

Elaborate?

First my argument is not an atheist one, its an opposition to Christians claiming any moral high ground when the actual history contradicts them.
My point is that these reforms never happened in the Christian dominated world till the rise of secularism and they continue. I could list the evils of Christianity before the 18th century and they are many.

But its pointless, if I want moral guidance I would not look to any Christian teachings. Its defunct and IMO evil. I would look towards the humanists, literature, philosophy, or simply feel their pain and want to act on their behalf, empathy of pity, a human trait which is not instilled by any religion, but in the past hindered by it.

As for how Christianity opposed the rights revolution COME ON. I will just stick to the ongoing battle in that and just say Gay rights.

philologos · 09-04-2012 10:02AM

Show me something that contradicts the historical fact that Christians were at the forefront of the campaign to abolition. I can't take your claims seriously without any backing.

By the by, I'm not sure the "evils of Christianity" you cite, are even of Christ. When I defend Christianity - I am defending Christianity as is Biblical, as is as Jesus described. If people who claim that they are Christians behave in a manner that is contrary to the Gospel, I can't claim that that is Christianity to be honest with you.

If we go through the list, and if I ask each time, would Jesus have advocated that? I bet you any money the answer would be a resounding and clear no.

My approach - is simply put, I defend God's word, I defend Jesus. I don't defend institutions or sin which is what we are talking about when we refer to "evil".

44leto wrote: »

But its pointless, if I want moral guidance I would not look to any Christian teachings. Its defunct and IMO evil. I would look towards the humanists, literature, philosophy, or simply feel their pain and want to act on their behalf, empathy of pity, a human trait which is not instilled by any religion, but in the past hindered by it.

And that's wholly tragic. I don't think you know a whole lot about what God has said to mankind.

I think you've misunderstood that distinction. Defending God, and His Word and those who really live and speak for Jesus versus defending mankind's sin even sin of churches. I do the former, not the latter.

corktina · 09-04-2012 10:07AM

i'm not going to post here as the Pope is not of any relevance to me..

09-04-2012 10:10AM

philologos wrote: »

By the by, I'm not sure the "evils of Christianity" you cite, are even of Christ. When I defend Christianity - I am defending Christianity as is Biblical, as is as Jesus described. If people who claim that they are Christians behave in a manner that is contrary to the Gospel, I can't claim that that is Christianity to be honest with you.

Rape and genocide and infanticide and incest for everyone it is, so. Hurray.

philologos · 09-04-2012 10:12AM

bluewolf wrote: »

Rape and genocide and infanticide and incest for everyone it is, so. Hurray.

I have a feeling, that I'm going to be opening up a can of strawmen, but if you're going to post something like that, it's best to cite the passages so that one could go through them. (Oh, and also hopefully these will be through your own reading, rather than just Googled, because I could do the exact same in response presumably).

Wibbs · 09-04-2012 10:17AM

44leto wrote: »

The 18th century, where were they all for the preceding 1500 years, not in the church anyway. The church supported slavery, till they couldn't anymore.

Not quite. The early Roman Church didn't seem to have a great issue with slavery. not surprising as Jesus never directly addressed the practice. The story of how the Pope came to send a religious mission to England shows this. He saw two anglo saxon children in a Roman slave market and was taken by their beauty and decided to send an official mission to convert them*. He made no moral comment on the market, or slavery, nor did he free them.

However go forward a couple of centuries to ay 1000 AD and many church thinkers and popes had come out very much against slavery. Officially too with various Papal pronouncements and threats of excommunication. Then people like Aquinas went after serfdom. By the early to mid middle ages slavery was pretty much absent from Europe. In contrast to much of the rest of the world. With the conquest of the new world it got problematic for the church. They were still coming out against slavery, but their power had waned even over catholic strongholds like Spain and Portugal, never mind Protestant Holland and England. Plus local clerics on the ground could get killed if they came out too publicly against it(quite a number did get killed. Jesuits in Mexico IIRC).

*a couple of hundred years too late mind you. Christianity was well enough established in England. The Irish church had been there for over a century.

09-04-2012 10:19AM

philologos wrote: »

I have a feeling, that I'm going to be opening up a can of strawmen, but if you're going to post something like that, it's best to cite the passages so that one could go through them. (Oh, and also hopefully these will be through your own reading, rather than just Googled, because I could do the exact same in response presumably).

I have read it, thanks
all the "how DARE you leave the women and children unharmed - go back and finish them off. except the virgins, you can keep those to 'marry' ", the "hey let's get our dad drunk and hop on him so we get pregnant", "hey god i'll kill my daughter if you let me win this battle? okay cool" etc etc
well no the last one was "i'll kill the first thing that comes out of my house when i get home", but he was hardly expecting his chair to greet him

I could get behind the whole "don't let your clothes be unkempt or your hair messy or god will be angry and smite you", though. bit of respect.
okay, that one is out of context, unfortunately

you could do the same in response if you like, we could start discussing some of the sutras. I don't care if you disagree with those, though.

44leto · 09-04-2012 10:21AM

philologos wrote: »

Show me something that contradicts the historical fact that Christians were at the forefront of the campaign to abolition. I can't take your claims seriously without any backing.

By the by, I'm not sure the "evils of Christianity" you cite, are even of Christ. When I defend Christianity - I am defending Christianity as is Biblical, as is as Jesus described. If people who claim that they are Christians behave in a manner that is contrary to the Gospel, I can't claim that that is Christianity to be honest with you.

If we go through the list, and if I ask each time, would Jesus have advocated that? I bet you any money the answer would be a resounding and clear no.

My approach - is simply put, I defend God's word, I defend Jesus. I don't defend institutions or sin which is what we are talking about when we refer to "evil".

I think you've misunderstood that distinction. Defending God, and His Word and those who really live and speak for Jesus versus defending mankind's sin even sin of churches. I do the former, not the latter.

The new testament never mentions slavery at least an opposition to it, the old testament encouraged it.

So if we go by the Christian teachings and the trinity wasn't Jesus god and the old and new testaments came from the same source.

OK a sneaky technical but one that clearly shows, no God was involved in that text, it was strictly a human affair.

What is evil about religion is the easy way it alienates. it is easy for me to kill or subjugate someone if I do not believe them to be wholly human. I could look at other religions as heathen, Kaffirs, Kikes Prods, ragheads, backward and on and on. Or I could believe they are people much the same as I am. I choose to believe that, there are no philistines in my guidance. Nobody need converting, just acceptance, I never did like the word tolerance. But all must exist in the framework of a democratised rule of law.

philologos · 09-04-2012 10:24AM

It wasn't intended to be smarmy at all. I'm just saying that because I find that a lot of people do go to The Skeptics Annotated Bible, or The Reason Project and just copy and paste a huge list as was done quite recently on the Christianity forum. It was in no way intended to be a personal insult towards you. It's just ensuring that it is a discussion rather than a copy and paste war.

Again, if we're going to do this, let's look at the passages. The latter I know is Genesis 19, and there is nothing that suggested that God approved that. In fact examples such as those are contained in the Scriptures to point to what not to do. The account is of the birth of the fathers of the nations of Ammon and Moab which were considered shameful at the time when the Israelites were returning to the promised land.

44leto: Actually the New Testament refers to slavery in at least six books - 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Peter, and Philemon. I'm fairly confident I could find more that address the topic. That's a sizeable portion of the New Testament.

Mankind "groping in the darkness"

Comments