Mankind "groping in the darkness"

philologos

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

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

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

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

philologos

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

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

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.

philologos

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

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

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.

44leto

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

philologos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Promac

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Promac

LOL - oh look! I'm still here!

philologos

Prosac: Indeed, and that's as far as I can tell, unfortunate. It's tragic to Christians to see that unbelievers reject God, and indeed Christians share the Gospel with others primarily because they do not want to see unbelievers condemned but to live, love and know God and to receive eternal life which is the promise of God to those who believe through the saving death of His Son Jesus.

In the interim, I care little if people claim that I am ignorant, uneducated, or whatever else. I'm told that people will regard the Gospel as foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the very power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18).

Promac

I'm actually far less philanthropic than most religious people. I'd be very happy if you all dropped off the earth and died, asphyxiating in space. I'd love to see your kind actually 'saved' - i.e. not here on our beautiful planet any more. It's amazing how happy the rest of us can be without having to go to mystic sky-bob's house every sunday.

philologos

Promac wrote: »

I'm actually far less philanthropic than most religious people. I'd be very happy if you all dropped off the earth and died, asphyxiating in space. I'd love to see your kind actually 'saved' - i.e. not here on our beautiful planet any more. It's amazing how happy the rest of us can be without having to go to mystic sky-bob's house every sunday.

Even if that is true, and even if you are happy and all the rest of it with the things that are between here and the grave, ultimately what should be more significant than happiness is truth. Truth is the most important thing in this world. That isn't to say that I'm not content with my existence for the most part, but it is to say that no matter how much we can run from this thing called truth it will catch up with us.

The question is what is truth. Is it what we want it to be? Is it that there is no such thing as God and that this is all a fable? Perhaps. Is it that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that He came into this world to rescue us from sin? If so that has significant consequences both for you and for I.

joseph brand

philologos wrote: »

In the interim, I care little if people claim that I am ignorant, uneducated, or whatever else. I'm told that people will regard the Gospel as foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the very power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18).

Religious hubris and selfishness. MY god. MY faith. Save ME.

Scientific humility is more honourable than blind selfish faith. And there's evidence.


Priests must feel so powerful, when they stand in front of their 'flock', and tell them how they are all born sinners and need to be 'saved'. The absolute neck!

If mankind is 'groping in the darkness', it is darkness perpetuated and spread by religion. Science is enlightening, and is basically 'lighting' the darkness. Religion needs ignorance whereas science needs knowledge.

Choose life. Choose science. Choose knowledge.

Promac

Totally agree - if there actually is such a thing as god and jesus then I'm well and truly fu<ked!

Guess what though - there isn't! And the only people who claim to have any evidence to the contrary are the romans! The same people who nailed said jew to a tree 2 thousand years ago and have been making money hand over fist since the 4th century. They still have a bank full of cash in a city full of gold full of people who pledge their entire lives to going out into the world and getting people to make "offerings" to mystic sky-bob so that they can go and live in sky-bob's house when they're dead...

GOD STRIKE ME DOWN IF I'M WRONG.

lividduck

Promac wrote: »

Totally agree - if there actually is such a thing as god and jesus then I'm well and truly fu<ked!

Guess what though - there isn't! And the only people who claim to have any evidence to the contrary are the romans! The same people who nailed said jew to a tree 2 thousand years ago and have been making money hand over fist since the 4th century. They still have a bank full of cash in a city full of gold full of people who pledge their entire lives to going out into the world and getting people to make "offerings" to mystic sky-bob so that they can go and live in sky-bob's house when they're dead...

GOD STRIKE ME DOWN IF I'M WRONG.

R.I.P. Promac:D:D:D

Wibbs

44leto wrote: »

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

And both influential church figures and popes backed that view up.

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.

No it also came from the centre of power and did so more than once. They were well ahead of the protestant faiths in this(mainly cos they didnt exist yet). It comes down to definitions too. When we think of slavery we tend to think of Africans in cotton fields or Egyptians building pyramids(untrue). That sort of thing. However slavery covered many groupings. EG many of the highly educated doctors in Rome were Greek slaves. A far cry from toiling in fields and a better existence than being say a centurion free man. Augustine considered slavery to be part of the natural order and this opinion spread on the back of his fame. That said others like our own St Patrick were openly and clearly against it shooting off excommunications around all over the place against the practice. Even a couple of popes were former slaves, so the label was no barrier to social and ecclesiastical advancement. It's a grey area mind you. From pretty early on the church was strongly against "unjust" slavery, IE of fellow Christians. Of non Christians it was a lot less squeamish about the practice. It had moral issues with it, but chose to largely ignore them so long as it wasn't in their back yard of (Christian)Europe.

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.

Not quite. While one can well argue around the serfdom angle "classical" slavery the buying and selling of people, of fellow Christians had died out in Europe by the late middle ages, well before the reformation. This was largely down to church morality. The black death and a changing economic environment were other pressures(which largely knocked serfdom on the head too). The various Protestant churches didn't lick the idea from a stone.

philologos

joseph brand wrote: »

Religious hubris and selfishness. MY god. MY faith. Save ME.

Not at all. I hope that as many people on the face of this earth as possible are rescued by the saving death of Jesus.

joseph brand wrote: »

Scientific humility is more honourable than blind selfish faith. And there's evidence.

How is it selfish to wish that everyone on this earth could be saved by faith through Jesus?

joseph brand wrote: »

Priests must feel so powerful, when they stand in front of their 'flock', and tell them how they are all born sinners and need to be 'saved'. The absolute neck!

I don't believe people are born sinners actually. The Biblical text doesn't mention the term "original sin" once. However, all sin through rebellion against God at some point in their lives.

It's significant also that priests, or even the Pope don't have any more access to God than any other person does. It is all through Jesus.

Now, that said I'm not a Roman Catholic, so perhaps that is why I think that.

joseph brand wrote: »

If mankind is 'groping in the darkness', it is darkness perpetuated and spread by religion. Science is enlightening, and is basically 'lighting' the darkness. Religion needs ignorance whereas science needs knowledge.

Choose life. Choose science. Choose knowledge.

Nonsense. As if it is Christianity vs science. Yet another strawman in the mix.

The sooner this kind of atheist nonsense is gone, the better it will be. That's my position, I'm sure you think the opposite.

Promac

OH LOOK - HE DIDN'T!