Mankind "groping in the darkness"

44leto · 09-04-2012 10:28AM

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Indentured servitude or serfdom was slavery, and in this modern world it still is.

The rest I more or less agree with except the fight may have come from individuals but never at the centre of power as to where it would really count. The church could have ended slavery a lot earlier. Once the Anglican church got behind the cause and with-in a democracy (of sorts) it happened.

EDIT but democracy was the key.

09-04-2012 10:28AM

god approved of "the only guy in the city holy enough to save" sending out his daughters to the mob though
as for jepthah, god "kept his side of it" according to some sermons, there's nothing to suggest he didn't approve of it
moses was the holy guy as well

Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

i don't really want to get into it - it's all biblical, which is what you said
for any more shining moral example beyond that you'd have to start picking and choosing
oh!
"be nice or bears will eat you"
that's a great one

44leto · 09-04-2012 10:32AM

philologos wrote: »

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.

Was any of these passages opposed to it. I sincerely doubt it and if so I bet the message was not very clear.

philologos · 09-04-2012 10:33AM

The thing is, it's not about picking and choosing at all. It's simply put understanding the place of passages like that in the whole Scripture. I'm not one for ignoring anything, I'm one for engaging with the actual text and making clear sense of it. I think that the Old Testament is as much Scripture as the New Testament. Christians read the Old Testament in the light of Jesus. I'm more than happy to explore these topics with anyone that is willing.

By the by, Genesis presents those who follow God as people who occasionally mess up and fall into sin. One needs merely to look to Abraham as an example of that. The Bible does not present people who follow Him as perfect, but rather people who need His forgiveness and seek to live for Him in daily life. Likewise, it's true that I and others fall into sin, the question is do we try to get up again and live for God even when we find it difficult.

That's one of the reasons I actually find Scripture to be convincing, it deals with real people.

09-04-2012 10:35AM

I'm sure we can all relate to moses when deciding whether to commit genocide and rape virgins in our everyday lives

anyway, i'm stopping here

annascott · 09-04-2012 10:35AM

When I read the title, I thought that this was a thread on the nocturnal activities on Hampstead Heath.....

philologos · 09-04-2012 10:36AM

44leto wrote: »

Was any of these passages opposed to it. I sincerely doubt it and if so I bet the message was not very clear.

Before you even posted in respect to the Bible, you should have known this first. It's evidence of confirmation bias. You're coming into this discussion with an assumption despite the fact you don't know what the New Testament says on this topic. The approach should be that you read the text, you think about it and then come to conclusions about it rather than having the conclusions in your mind first before you even read it.

You clearly want something to be true before you've even looked at the passages. I would suggest that you really think about your perspective on what Christianity is and how familiar you are with it before you decide to criticise it.

Run_to_da_hills · 09-04-2012 10:45AM

What is the best way to tell a lie?

Answer: Hide it between two truths,

This is exactly how the Church of Rome operates. The Bible is the ONLY source of truth contrary to the blasphemous Roman "Tradition" which adds to and takes away from the word of God.

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." -Mark 7:7

When Catholics eat the bread and drink the wine they think they are eating Jesus' flesh/guts/toe-nails/eyeballs/etc. They believe they are drinking Jesus' blood. They "receive" their Jesus by EATING him!. :eek:

Wild Bill · 09-04-2012 10:47AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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

So long as you don't eat 'em before they are born that's probably OK with Papa.

joseph brand · 09-04-2012 10:49AM

philologos wrote: »

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

Thanks Phil for mentioning/ promoting these sites. I never seen them before.

44leto · 09-04-2012 10:53AM

philologos wrote: »

Before you even posted in respect to the Bible, you should have known this first. It's evidence of confirmation bias. You're coming into this discussion with an assumption despite the fact you don't know what the New Testament says on this topic. The approach should be that you read the text, you think about it and then come to conclusions about it rather than having the conclusions in your mind first before you even read it.

You clearly want something to be true before you've even looked at the passages. I would suggest that you really think about your perspective on what Christianity is and how familiar you are with it before you decide to criticise it.

I could let another more learned fellow on the bible tell me me so then check with google. I know history and around which political entity the bible tried to please and that would be the slave economy of the Romans.

Wild Bill · 09-04-2012 10:57AM

Wild Bill wrote: »

So long as you don't eat 'em before they are born that's probably OK with Papa.

Now that I think of it that's what a starving group did in McCarthy's "The Road".

They waited.

44leto · 09-04-2012 10:57AM

philologos wrote: »

The thing is, it's not about picking and choosing at all. It's simply put understanding the place of passages like that in the whole Scripture. I'm not one for ignoring anything, I'm one for engaging with the actual text and making clear sense of it. I think that the Old Testament is as much Scripture as the New Testament. Christians read the Old Testament in the light of Jesus. I'm more than happy to explore these topics with anyone that is willing.

By the by, Genesis presents those who follow God as people who occasionally mess up and fall into sin. One needs merely to look to Abraham as an example of that. The Bible does not present people who follow Him as perfect, but rather people who need His forgiveness and seek to live for Him in daily life. Likewise, it's true that I and others fall into sin, the question is do we try to get up again and live for God even when we find it difficult.

That's one of the reasons I actually find Scripture to be convincing, it deals with real people.

But isn't sin and what sin is where it gets all muddy. We all could live by the 10 commandments, but that would make for an awful world. Its not so much the commandments, its what they omit. Honour your parents, but parents don't have to honour their children, is just one gaping example. Off course their are more, law libraries prove my point.

Life is more complicated then any text as is sin.

philologos · 09-04-2012 11:27AM

44leto wrote: »

But isn't sin and what sin is where it gets all muddy. We all could live by the 10 commandments, but that would make for an awful world. Its not so much the commandments, its what they omit. Honour your parents, but parents don't have to honour their children, is just one gaping example. Off course their are more, law libraries prove my point.

Life is more complicated then any text as is sin.

There are plenty of commandments concerning how parents should deal with their children in the Bible.

One example:

Ephesians 6:4 wrote:

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

44leto · 09-04-2012 11:46AM

philologos wrote: »

There are plenty of commandments concerning how parents should deal with their children in the Bible.

One example:

LOL
I was actually just giving an example of the 10 commandments and pointing out one gaping omission to demonstrate that these "moral rules" had to be a human affair based on the time they were written and not the word of an all seeing omnipotent god.

Originally Posted by Ephesians 6:4
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

But I like that quote so much, i wonder would some of that instruction be the 10 commandments.

The bible does not really support the Christian argument, it is so alien to the modern world, it can't. If you think about it, morally I could "not instruct the ways of the lord" using the bible, because it is a very bloody affair, it is not suitable for children there is no way in this modern world it would get a "U certificate".

Doesn't that say something of modern progress, that a so called holy book could easily be deemed to violent for children.

EDIT I could start a thread about that. Should the Christian Bible be given an X certificate.

true · 09-04-2012 11:50AM

dsmythy wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17649521

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......

When he himself wore the swastika on his sleeve - when Catholic Hitler and Mussolini were in power and millions were being exterminated in death camps in his own country and adjoining countries his country invaded , and when he was in the Nazi youth was he unable to " distinguish good from evil "?
When his church carried out the Inquisitions for centuries and tortured, intimidated and killed hundreds of thousands of non-believers , was it unable to distinguish good from evil?
The Vatican and church around the world is incredibly wealthy - when it uses some of that wealth for good ( instead of encouraging poor women to have large families in the third world - then that old man may be listened to. If he had fought against Nazism I would have more respect for him.

lividduck · 09-04-2012 11:55AM

true wrote: »

When he himself wore the swastika on his sleeve - when Catholic Hitler and Mussolini were in power and millions were being exterminated in death camps in his own country and adjoining countries his country invaded , and when he was in the Nazi youth was he unable to " distinguish good from evil "?
When his church carried out the Inquisitions for centuries and tortured, intimidated and killed hundreds of thousands of non-believers , was it unable to distinguish good from evil?
The Vatican and church around the world is incredibly wealthy - when it uses some of that wealth for good ( instead of encouraging poor women to have large families in the third world - then it may be listened to.

Bit of a problem with Nazi thing, now let me explain that i also associated him with Nazism, but as was pointed out correctly he would have had no choice but to join the Hitler youth in Nazi Germany, all youth were obliged to.
That said he still has a lot to answer for, but not Nazism.

philologos · 09-04-2012 12:01PM

44leto wrote: »

LOL
I was actually just giving an example of the 10 commandments and pointing out one gaping omission to demonstrate that these "moral rules" had to be a human affair based on the time they were written and not the word of an all seeing omnipotent god.

There isn't a gaping omission by the by. The whole Biblical text contains guidance for mankind. Although, I would argue that by and large the 10 Commandments extend into a whole lot of how we can lead our lives.

I think it is a little bit silly to say that just because one passage of the Bible does not deal with X, Y and Z that it is rubbish. The whole Bible is guidance for mankind, not just the 10 commandments.

By the by, I'm just wondering can you respond to my posts with the same respect that I'm replying to yours. It would really make this a whole lot easier.

44leto wrote: »

But I like that quote so much, i wonder would some of that instruction be the 10 commandments.

The 10 Commandments aren't the only moral instruction in the Bible.

44leto wrote: »

The bible does not really support the Christian argument, it is so alien to the modern world, it can't. If you think about it, morally I could "not instruct the ways of the lord" using the bible, because it is a very bloody affair, it is not suitable for children there is no way in this modern world it would get a "U certificate".

I'm still wondering as to how familiar you are with the Bible to begin with. You've shown so far that you don't know a whole lot about what you are criticising.

44leto wrote: »

Doesn't that say something of modern progress, that a so called holy book could easily be deemed to violent for children.

That's again a very silly argument to begin with. The Biblical text describes God's relationship with mankind. It isn't written exclusively for anyone. It is God's revelation to all mankind. In fact I would argue that one could expect an adult to have a better grasp of the Biblical text than a child.

Promac · 09-04-2012 12:07PM

The bible's a load of ****in ****e.

I can't believe it's being defended by someone who calls themself "philo logos".

Promac · 09-04-2012 12:14PM

"Leave alive nothing that breathes. Show them no mercy." [Deut. 7:2]

"... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" [Ezechial 9:4-6]

Where's your reason in that?

44leto · 09-04-2012 12:15PM

philologos wrote: »

There isn't a gaping omission by the by. The whole Biblical text contains guidance for mankind. Although, I would argue that by and large the 10 Commandments extend into a whole lot of how we can lead our lives.

I think it is a little bit silly to say that just because one passage of the Bible does not deal with X, Y and Z that it is rubbish. The whole Bible is guidance for mankind, not just the 10 commandments.

Not a very good guidance, and I do remember having to learn the 10 commandments and they are not a way to live a moral life, I understand that as an experienced adult and not a child as to when they were preached to me. I don't understand how you don't, you would have to be living under an intellectual rock.

By the by, I'm just wondering can you respond to my posts with the same respect that I'm replying to yours. It would really make this a whole lot easier.

I really thought I had being, I am not as good a writer or as eloquent as you but I meant no insult or disrespect.

The 10 Commandments aren't the only moral instruction in the Bible.

Again I use them as an example, I could have used passages that clearly are not moral, but i always thought those were silly arguments as I think the bible is about the gist of moral instructional interpretation and not an exact text, it is an instructional story AND NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERAL

I'm still wondering as to how familiar you are with the Bible to begin with. You've shown so far that you don't know a whole lot about what you are criticising.

I am familiar enough with it, you can't escape it in this world from my child religion to Hollywood and beyond, I am not a biblical scholar and I have no interest in becoming one. I am also not a political scientist but I also have views on politics.

That's again a very silly argument to begin with. The Biblical text describes God's relationship with mankind. It isn't written exclusively for anyone. It is God's revelation to all mankind. In fact I would argue that one could expect an adult to have a better grasp of the Biblical text than a child.

Now Now show some respect

philologos · 09-04-2012 12:40PM

I don't see how the 10 Commandments aren't good. What a lot of people don't understand is that the 10 Commandments were never intended to be the be all and end all of God's guidance to mankind. In fact they are only the tip of the iceberg.

I don't see how they are all that bad in what they are intended to do. That is encourage man to honour God and live in a right relationship with their neighbours.

I don't think you are all that familiar with it. The point is if you aren't familiar with it, why do you criticise it. If you want to criticise it surely you should study it? If not, the criticism isn't going to be all that well informed. Simply put, 99% of the time when I post about Christianity, it is generally to correct misconceptions that people post about it here.

Claiming that an argument is silly, I don't feel is all that disrespectful. It is a bit silly to say that God's guidance is poor by claiming that the 10 Commandments don't cover anything. They are not intended to cover everything. It is a little bit silly to say stuff like you think it's not suitable for children. That has little to nothing to do with whether or not it is true. In fact, I would suspect that a book that deals with reality at its deepest level would deal with a number of topics for more mature audience. That's why the Bible is the word of God to all mankind.

Promac: Isolating verses isn't a good way to read a passage or study the Bible and can lead to much poor reading. In fact you've isolated parts of verses.

joseph brand · 09-04-2012 12:40PM

Promac wrote: »

"Leave alive nothing that breathes. Show them no mercy." [Deut. 7:2]

"... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" [Ezechial 9:4-6]

Where's your reason in that?

Religion and reason are like oil and water.

Promac · 09-04-2012 12:43PM

philologos wrote: »

Promac: Isolating verses isn't a good way to read a passage or study the Bible and can lead to much poor reading. In fact you've isolated parts of verses.

I agree. How about we analyse giant swathes of it - like genesis or Noah?

Paparazzo · 09-04-2012 12:44PM

bluewolf wrote: »

interesting that he admits he doesn't know the difference between good and evil

Hitler youth and child rape: good
Condoms: evil

joseph brand · 09-04-2012 12:45PM

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how the 10 Commandments aren't good.

Any sane person could very easily improve upon them.

George Carlin does it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzEs2nj7iZM

Promac · 09-04-2012 12:45PM

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how the 10 Commandments aren't good.

Thou shalt not kill.

God kills all throughout the bible.

He instructs people to kill all throughout the bible.

It doesn't take a genius to think of scenarios where killing someone would be better than not killing someone.

philologos · 09-04-2012 12:48PM

Promac wrote: »

"Leave alive nothing that breathes. Show them no mercy." [Deut. 7:2]

Deuteronomy 7 deals with the Hebrew conquest of Israel, which happened after the Exodus of Egypt. God told Abraham that they would be in Egypt for 400 years after which He would punish the nations for their sin against God.

Now that Jesus has come into the world and offered Himself as a ransom for sin (Mark 10:45), God is waiting so as to give all mankind the opportunity to come to know Him (2 Peter 3:9) before eventual judgement.

Promac wrote: »

"... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" [Ezechial 9:4-6]

This is at a time when Israel sinned against God, and God sent other nations in to conquest their territory. Like in the first situation it happened after a number of centuries so as to give the Hebrews a chance to turn away from their sin. This is also a theme that is picked up in Revelations for when Jesus will return to judge.

God as far as I can tell, gives life, and has the full right to take it away.

In the coming time, we like the inhabitants of Caanan or Israel we have grace, in order to accept God's authority and in order to accept the forgiveness that God has given us through Jesus. In the event that we are stubborn and reject the opportunity to come back to know our Creator, He will judge, and those who reject Him, will be condemned. Those who believe and trust in Him will receive eternal life.

philologos · 09-04-2012 12:50PM

Promac wrote: »

Thou shalt not kill.

God kills all throughout the bible.

He instructs people to kill all throughout the bible.

It doesn't take a genius to think of scenarios where killing someone would be better than not killing someone.

Exodus 20:13 wrote:

“You shall not murder."

Murder - unlawful killing. It is not unlawful for God to judge those who rebel against Him.

Promac · 09-04-2012 12:55PM

philologos wrote: »

Murder - unlawful killing. It is not unlawful for God to judge those who rebel against Him.

Are we still talking about the all-powerful mystic-bob in the sky? The guy who is completely powerful and completely peerless?

The guy who is so bothered by people "rebeling" against him that he kills them.

I fully rebel against god - in fact I think he's a complete twat. A schmuck. A dick. An impotent loser who couldn't smite me down if I asked him to. AND I DO.

Mankind "groping in the darkness"

Comments