Wilderness Writer
Wolf Sokka
Zutarian Propaganda Writer
~Weaver of Words~
Posts: 2,802
|
Post by Wilderness Writer on Nov 22, 2006 21:08:18 GMT -5
Force, I would first like to invite you to loose some of your hostility. You are not under attack here. This is a friendly debate, and you do not need to be angry at any of us simply because we do not hold the same ideas that you do.
Yes. I will admit that people do sometimes use the Bible in a negative way. This is not because the Bible itself is flawed. It is because humanity is. A deranged human will try and warp it to fit their ideas of hate and violence or greed or whatever other agenda they may have. But this does not only happen with the Bible. Like Gambitia wisely said, Eminem's rap is quite violent. Video games are violent. Movies are violent. Other religious teaching are violent. Other ancient writings are violent. People twisting the Bible is not the sole reason for violence in our world, and it is certainly not the biggest.
You mention that Christians are 'intolerant' of gays. The problem with this argument lies in the common twisting of the word 'tolerance'. Christians are not intolerant of homosexuals. Intolerance is to harm in one way or another, through physical or verbal abuse.
Christians call homosexuality a sin. That is not intollerance. That is a way of belief. We are not hurting them or infringing on their rights, we're just following our beliefs. We're not killing them. We're not calling for them to be imprisoned. We're not calling for them to be branded or cast out or harmed. That would be a horrible way to treat another human being. We don't feel that we're better or smarter or somehow superior to them. We just acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin. How does that infringe on their basic American rights?
Stem Cell research? Most Christians believe in the sanctity of life. We believe that a baby is a baby, and that to kill it for research is a very unethical thing to do. Much great research has been done on umbillical and adult stem cells (neither of which Christians are against), with surprisingly little actual results from embryonic stem cells. The media will rarely release this type of information, however, because it goes against their agenda.
Force, it sounds as if you have been truly personally hurt by a Christian. I lament this, because it must have given you a very poor view of us. The truth is, a true Christian will follow the Bible, which commands us to love. The Bible even has this statement in it: "God is love." The violence that we live in is not because of God, but because of fallen human nature. Because we are a people of hate and despair and violence. God commands us to love one another, to forgive just as He forgives.
The Bible has a great positive impact on humanity, as well, Force. From it our forefathers derived many of the laws still in effect today. It encourages and uplifts people and teaches us to give cheerfully, to love unconditionally (please, please do me this one favor and read 1 Corinthians 13) and to turn the other cheek.
I would like to show you that Christianity is not what the media has made it out to be. We are not a race of evil, blood-thirsty monsters. We are a group of people commanded to love and to live by the Bible's standards of purity. You may have met some Christians who have not met that Biblical standard, and for that I am deeply sorry. I wish I could erase that damage, but I can only hold out a hand of friendship, and if you would rather not accept that, then perhaps you will consider my plea to simply consider that we are not all as bad as you might think.
Gambitia, you asked two questions. "Would anyone know if a paraphrased Bible is any good?" A paraphrased Bible is just that: Paraphrased. It provides a lot of room for the interpreter to insert his own ideas and leanings. I wouldn't adivse it. Instead, the New America Standard Bible (NASB) or the New International Version (NIV) are both versions that have been interpreted with a very strict word-for-word interpretaion, while still using a more modern vocabulary that's easier to read than the King James.
"What's the difference between the Old Testament God and the New Testament?" Nothing. The Bible says that God is the same yeterday, today, and tomorrow. God doesn't change. In the Old Testament, God gave laws by which people would live by. There were punishments associated with breaking those laws, which is perhaps why we feel that the old testament sometimes sounds a little harsh. However, even today we have consequences for breaking laws. It doesn't mean that America is harsh, it's just protecting its people from greater harm, which was what God was doing.
In the New Testament, Jesus shows us God's forgiveness. Now, through belief in Jesus, we recieve forgiveness from sin and a friendship with God. The emphasis of God's grace, love, and mercy in the New Testament is a beautiful contrast to the righteous judgement of God in the Old Testament.
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Nov 22, 2006 21:16:01 GMT -5
WW, sadly, the point I draw from what you just said is that the majority of Christians are not true Christians.
... Yeah, that's slighly revelatory.
Oh, and intolerance isn't violence, it's voicing one's opinion against, and downwards in the "horrible actions" category.
Tolerance is intolerance with a muzzle on it. You still don't like them, but you shut up.
Acceptance is what needs to happen. Not approval, necessarily, but acceptance.
|
|
Wilderness Writer
Wolf Sokka
Zutarian Propaganda Writer
~Weaver of Words~
Posts: 2,802
|
Post by Wilderness Writer on Nov 22, 2006 21:44:10 GMT -5
eeeh, actually, I'm going to agree with you, Oln. It pains me greatly to admit it, but many people who call themselves Christians have a very poor view of what Christianity actually is. Many people who call themselves Christians don't actually read the Bible, believe in Jesus, or believe in heaven and hell. They have an apathetic view of Christianity, and think that just going to church or doing good things gets them a 'ticket to heaven'.
Then there's the other side of the spectrum: Christians who believe that shoving their beliefs down other people's throats by violent or verbally abusive ways is the way to go. This isn't a correct outreach method.
That's not to say that Christians shouldn't reach out and wittness to others. We are commanded to do so, but we are also told to be respectful and gentle. If someone doesn't want to convert, then we don't 'make' them.
I can have an opinion about something and still be tolerant, as long as I am not actively involved in the harm of said thing. Popular Opinion and the Law of Political Correct-ness does not deny me my American right of free speech. Even tolerance does not deny me that right. Tolerance is defined as: "The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others"
I can call homsexuality a sin and still be tolerating it. My friend gossips. It is a sin as homosexuality is a sin. I do not hate her for it, nor harm her or infringe on her American rights by telling her it's a sin. I sometimes struggle with jealousy. It is a sin. My friend does not hate me for it, nor harm or infringe on my American rights by telling me that it is a sin and I should not do it.
The homosexual agenda of today not only demands that I do not follow my beliefs regarding thier lifestyle, but that I also applaud and support it. This, I feel, is wrong. I am not demanding that they 'tolerate' Christianity by denying their lifestyle, applauding and supporting Christianity. I accept that there are homosexuals. This acceptance does not translate into supporting their agenda of having their marriage recognized by the church, or supporting their effort of being recognized as a minority, or any of the other things their agenda is pushing. And that, popular opinion dictates, is intollerance.
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Nov 23, 2006 1:06:07 GMT -5
Christians are always being bashed for not being tolerant of other people. We're always being told we need to be more accepting. But the problem is that no one is accepting of us. Christians are the whipping boys of the media and of liberal society. We're never to say anything against another way of beliefs, and yet people disrespect Christianity with a flippant sort of casual disgust that reminds me of Nazi Germany. Let's not forget that pretty much every member of Congress and the President calls themself Christian. Let's not forget this society that oppresses you is made up of 80% Christians. Actually, it's now 72% Christians and declining fast, thanks to atheist crap like Sam Harris "Letter to a Christian Nation" and the like. However, I get what you're saying.
|
|
gambitia
Fiery Ozai
millions have trembled before my pink armor!
Posts: 5,894
|
Post by gambitia on Nov 23, 2006 1:10:43 GMT -5
I'm not blaming the Bible only for the acts of terror inspired by it (which are numerous), I blame it for the tens of thousands of people in this country who are openly intolerant to homosexuals because it told them to be. I blame it for the fact that research in stem cells is being brought to a dead halt while so many of our citizens suffer and die from ailments that stem cells could heal because the Bible supposedly is against it. I blame it for this kinda stuff right here which is all too common over there in the Bible belt (link). Just because they're not torturing people on the rack for heresy anymore doesn't mean that society isn't being negatively affected by the Bible. I think all of that is really more the fault of the b*tsh*t insane pastors, the media, and the general polarization of the nation between conservative and liberal and religious and non-religious. On a certain level, the Bible is art. And art is subjective. It's open to interpretation. People being people, they take what they want from the Bible and ignore the parts that don't fit into what they want to do. The only fault God made there was, perhaps, not making his book painfully explicit in what you should and should not do. God isn't responsible for all the bad stuff people today are doing in his name (Unless, of course, you believe that God has pre-ordained everything and controls every aspect of every person's life. If you believe that, then yes God is responsible). Those people are responsible for what they are doing. The Bible isn't solely bad. It's inspired people to do a lot of bad things, but it's also inspired people to do a lot of good things. ((I don't think I made my point well...)) @ww: Ty for the info!
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Nov 23, 2006 1:12:44 GMT -5
I’m atheist so naturally I do not believe one word of the Bible. Why? Simply put, it’s an ancient text written how many thousands of years ago by men living in the desert who thought the earth was flat and that colds were caused by demons. The Bible is full of hypocrisy, lessons in bigotry, and scientifically disproved things. Anyone with a mind who is completely sure that the Bible is absolutely perfect and right about everything is delusional. Not to say all who believe in the Bible are delusional, as long as the at least have some form of skepticism of it. Sadly many Christians, especially the fundamentalists, act as if the Bible is an infallible source of truth, goodness, and morality. It’s not. The Bible, especially the Old Testament (and yes, I have read the Bible), is a book designed to both recruit and lead religion. When people say "it's a book to live your life by", I can not help but worry for the thousands of people who do just that. It is true the Bible is laced with various good morals like love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, that sort of thing, but it is also filled with some of the most despicable things ever. Allow me to read you my most favorite Bible scripture: If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," unknown to you or your ancestors before you, god of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. If you hear that in one of the towns which Yahweh your God has given you for a home, there are men, scoundrels from your own stock, who have led their fellow-citizens astray, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," hitherto unknown to you, it is your duty to look into the matter, examine it, and inquire most careful. If it is proved and confirmed that such a hateful thing has taken place among you, you must put the inhabitants of the town to the sword; you must lay it under the curse of destruction-the town and everything it. You must pile up all its loot in the public square and burn the town and all its loot, offering it all to Yahweh your God. It is to be a ruin for all time and never rebuilt... - Deuteronomy 13:7-16It was exactly those kinds of thoughts that fueled the Inquisition that put thousands of innocent people to death because of what they deemed heresy to God. It’s almost beyond belief that the Christian God commands his followers to kill any and all who choose to follow other gods (or else none at all). If your sister says to you, "Hey, I'm thinking about becoming Buddhist, will you come with me to the monastery tonight?” you are required by your god to mercilessly kill your own sister. God, or else just his writers, were so afraid of their religion and beliefs being opposed by anyone, they deemed it necessary to kill any and all who would think differently and thusly be a threat to their religious dominance. To quote Richard Dawkins, “The God of the Old Testament has to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist; an ethnic cleanser urging his people on to acts of genocide.” Here’s another of my favorite passages: The person who does not show respect for the judge or the priest who is there serving Yahweh your God must be put to death. You must get rid of that evil from Israel. Then everyone will hear about this and will be afraid, and they will not show disrespect anymore. - Deuteronomy 17:12-13Respect the Priest or we will kill and make an example out of you. The Bible tells you to kill anyone who would disrespect the church and in doing so scare the rest of the community into obedience. Oh, and God bless! The book of Deuteronomy is a glowing example of why the Bible is such a dangerous book to live by. Some will say the New Testament is better, and this is true. The New Testament was written for the Jews who did not believe Jesus was the son of God, and Jesus after all did preach a lot about peace. Anyone who would call into question the goodness of Jesus Christ need only refer to his sermon on the mound. There is a group of atheists called “Atheists for Jesus” which is basically a group of atheists that read the New Testament for the moral lessons of Jesus, while choosing to not believe in the supernatural aspects of the book. However, to believe that the New Testament is morally perfect is untrue and, indeed, nor does it make up for the atrocities of its predecessor. Jesus said unto them [the Jews], If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded fourth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. - John 8:41-45Jesus quite literally calls the Jews the spawn of Satan for not believing him. Regardless if he was being literal or metaphorical, in that time, calling these people the devil’s children was quite the smack down. The Jews were skeptical of whether or not Jesus was indeed the son of God, after all they only really had his word to go by and a couple “miracles” that he supposedly pulled off but I wont even get into how all that could have been manufactured. The point is the Jews choose to not believe his word, so thusly they were called the spawn of Satan. Then, of course, we all know what happened next. And since then the Jews have been continually oppressed. The Munich Olympics, the holocaust, all because of the Bible’s word. With things like this in it, why do we in the 21st century continue to lead our lives by such a malevolent book? These passages, and many like them, reside in churches, book stores, libraries, and schools all over the planet. Yet churches seem to simply choose to over look these glaring passages against the very moral codes set down in the book. Moses, the man who carried the tablet that said “Thou shalt not kill”, in the Book of Numbers, has a village burnt to the ground, the men and older woman of said village slaughtered, and the younger woman raped. These kinds of acts would later go on to be repeated by people like Hitler and Saddam Hussein. And all that is why I am an atheist. Force: I appreciate your attempt to gain truth from this life and seek it earnestly. That is something that many people can not claim to do. It's late, so I can only give a cursory reply. When John refers to "the Jews" he is refering to the Jewish leadership. Josephus uses this exact same term in the exact same way. I'm sure that you know this, but Josephus was a Jewish historian. He wrote the book "Against Apion", which is widely considered to be one of the most powerful defences of Judaism written in the ancient world. He would definitely not be considered an anti-semite. John, too, is not anti-semitic in his usage of the term, as he is using it in the exact same fashion as Josephus did (which shows that the usage of the word in this way was widely used in the first century) Furthermore, about Deutoronomy, you must realize that civilization was always on the brink of anarchy in those times. There were no forensics, there was no way to track underground movements against the leadership, there was no police that could feasibly halt crime, etc. In that sort of desperate world where people could starve to death from having a single cow stolen, where your home could be burned down and nobody would ever find out who did it, where someone could walk into your home and kill you in your sleep without having a shred of help from forensics to find out who did it, where the Israelites were being invaded on all sides by forces stronger than they were and were dependant upon God's promises, they had to enforce the death penalty or risk the collapse of their entire society. That would be completely unnecessary in the US today, but they were in a completely different land in a completely different time under completely different circumstances. (furthermore, the Book of Deutoronomy is a suzerainty covenant treaty and doesn't even claim to apply to you. For information on this, see here: www.tektonics.org/jedp/deut.html#treat ) Also, the Inquisition, while it was bad, was not the most horrible thing in the world. Two-thousand people were killed total. (that number is from actual scholars of the Inquisition; "The Inquisition" is a good book that contains a number of essays from multiple scholars about the Inquisition). The Inquisition was also made in response to the Cathar heresy which, due to certain aspects of its belief, caused the fear that there was going to be a collapse of the secular government. To compare the Inquisition with say, the Holocaust, is really a strained comparison. Nice talking to you. Tertius
|
|
historyman12
Fugitive Iroh
IS IT JULY 14TH YET?
Posts: 4,822
|
Post by historyman12 on Nov 23, 2006 10:18:14 GMT -5
Tertius, Wildernesswriter, those were great posts. *applauds*. You guys took the words out of my mouth, I felt they were both karma-worthy, I flipped a coin as to which one to exalt first and it was... Tertius. *exalts* WW you get one next hour *waits to exalt*.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Nov 23, 2006 14:46:47 GMT -5
Actually, it's now 72% Christians and declining fast, thanks to atheist crap like Sam Harris "Letter to a Christian Nation" and the like. However, I get what you're saying. That was a really good book ^_^
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Nov 23, 2006 15:40:43 GMT -5
Actually, it's now 72% Christians and declining fast, thanks to atheist crap like Sam Harris "Letter to a Christian Nation" and the like. However, I get what you're saying. That was a really good book ^_^ You should probably read JP Holding's thorough critique of it (which is still in progress), entitled "Letter to a Maladjusted Misotheist", which can be found here.
|
|
historyman12
Fugitive Iroh
IS IT JULY 14TH YET?
Posts: 4,822
|
Post by historyman12 on Nov 23, 2006 20:11:44 GMT -5
And while we're on the whole "Jesus dieing for our sins" thing, God sent his "son" to the cross to die for out sins, correct? If God and God alone has the ability to absolve us of all our sins, then why doesn't he just do it? Why does he go through all the trouble of reincarnating himself as Jesus then going to the cross and through all that suffering just to forgive our sins if he could just do it? Who's he trying to impress? And if God loves us so much, then why does he feel the need to throw us into a lake of fire and suffering for all eternity if we sin? As punishment? What purpose does that serve? If we’re being punished forever then it isn’t as if he’s trying to teach us a lesson, cause how could we ever take that lesson and better ourselves with it if we’re going to be punished forever?The only possible answer is that God wants us to suffer for our sin for his own appeasement and no one else’s. Yeah, that sounds like a truly loving God; someone you really wanna work for. Well, Force, about the Jesus dying for our sins thing, (and dying is splelled with a 'y' not an 'ie' BtW) the ieda is sin came through a man, so shall redemption. And if God can absolve us of our sins with no trouble, like you said, then it can't be "all that trouble" to incarnate (not reincarnate) himself and die. With the whole 'Hell' thing, the 'only possible answer' is NOT for his appeasment. The answer is, even though he loves us, he still treats everyone with justice. So, if we turn our backs on Him, the One who created us, the One who gave us all in our lives and gave us many chances to repent which would get us out of Hell. Then you must be punished, and that is how God chose to do it. He created Hell for Satan and will throw those who have been led by him to live with him, in Hell. P.S. I agree with WW please try and lose some hostility, Force, thak you
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Nov 23, 2006 21:27:05 GMT -5
That was a really good book ^_^ You should probably read JP Holding's thorough critique of it (which is still in progress), entitled "Letter to a Maladjusted Misotheist", which can be found here. Quite and insulting title, and very fallible arguements.
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Nov 24, 2006 0:50:45 GMT -5
You should probably read JP Holding's thorough critique of it (which is still in progress), entitled "Letter to a Maladjusted Misotheist", which can be found here. Quite and insulting title, and very fallible arguements. Whatever you say, Grandi. I know JP Holding personally. He only insults people who he doesn't take seriously. I know many atheists who JP has debated on numerous occasions but never insulted once because they were actually informed. Sam Harris is a man who did extremely poor research to try and refute Christianity and probably doesn't care an ounce about the truth. Hence the title. As for fallible arguments, please. Sam Harris uses such pathetic arguments in his book that calling JP Holding's arguments "quite fallible" would make Sam Harris' arguments of laughable quality. Here's one piece of JP Holding's critique of Sam Harris. After reading this, do you HONESTLY think the same about Sam Harris' arguments about slavery in the New Testament as you did before? ---------------------------------------------------- The Biblical emphasis on new creation in Christ (via identification with His death) would argue for removal of many ethnic, social, or cultural 'barriers' between people. This is quite clear in Paul. The unity in Christ obliterated social/ethic/gender barriers: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3.28) Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. (Col 3.11) These were contrary to much of his Pharisaical upbringing (esp. as regards Gentile and women!), but even the slave class was despised within first-century Judaism [ Cohen, Everyman's Talmud, Dutton:949, p.203]: "Nevertheless, the slave class was despised and credited with certain faults. Slaves were generally supposed to be lazy. 'Ten measures of sleep descended into the world; slaves took nine of them and the rest of mankind one' (Kid. 49b); 'A slave is not worth the food of his stomach' (B.K. 97a). They were untrustworthy: 'There is not faithfulness in slaves' (B.M. 86b). Their moral standard was low: 'The more maidservants the more lewdness, the more menservants the more robbery' (Aboth II.8); and 'A slave prefers a dissolute life with female slaves (to a regular marriage)' (Git. 13a)." Do you see that, Mr. Harris? Paul's words to slaves amount to Gandhi telling his subjects not to rebel, in accordance with what was believed at them, but to behave. So do you now wish to reject Gandhi as a source of moral inspiration? o The biblical element of covenant loyalty would argue that both master and slave would be held accountable to their sides of the relationship--to their responsibilities to one another. This was clear from some of the above passages, in which masters were supposed to provide what is 'right and fair' to the slave, and the slave was supposed to follow the owner's instructions faithfully and without deceit. o The biblical motif of Christ as Lord over all elements of created existent would argue that all relationships would be transformed somehow by His Lordship. This is definitely the case, because Paul centers each aspect of the slave-owner relationship around their individual accountability to the Lord: Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. 9 And, masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Eph 6.5ff) Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men; 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. 25 For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality. 4.1 Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, (NIV: Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair) knowing that you too have a Master in heaven. (Col 3.22ff) As you can see, Mr. Harris, the Christian response to slavery was one that would subtly undermine the institution, as a King would. An instant "Malcolm X" type reaction, which seems to be what you think ought to be in the NT, would have resulted in something actually bad: o Given the complex situation, we would NOT expect blanket commands to 'free the slaves', if for no other reason than that infanticide-rescued infant slaves and aged/infirm/sick slaves would become critically destitute. [We might expect a general encouragement away from a slave system, though.] We do find statements that 'move' the church away from general slave-system orientation: 1. Paul explicitly denounces slave-trading, which would have restricted the supply of slaves to Christian households [1 Tim 1.9-10] 2. Paul tells free people to NOT become slaves [1 Cor 7.23] 3. Paul tells slaves to become free, if they can [1 Cor 7.21] 4. Paul encourages Philemon to 'free' Onesimus in that epistle [verse 21] But the historical situation was too complex to issue such a blanket 'free them all' statement: o Many slaves were still in infancy or childhood, rescued from infant exposure/abandonment. o Many slaves were acquired in infancy or childhood, with life-care being provided by owner. o Many slaves were aged or sick, without means to live in 'freedom'. o The social relief systems of the Empire would have been inadequate to care for these needy people. [Later, the emperor Julian will lament about this--that it is only the Christian community that provides welfare services to the needy of the world.] o There were known legal limits to manumission (and probably others), some before an owner's death and some at death. o There was a growing body of legislation and intellectual support for amelioration of the slave's conditions, and the trendlines were very favorable to the slave: "The cruel views of Cato, who advised to work the slaves, like beasts of burden, to death rather than allow them to become old and unprofitable, gave way to the milder and humane views of Seneca, Pliny, and Plutarch, who very nearly approach the apostolic teaching." [Schaff] Do you notice that, Mr. Harris? The NT views on slavery are actually above those of the pagan moralists of the same day. "At the opposite end of the spectrum were slaves who worked as agricultural laborers. To be sure, the age of "plantation slavery" and Spartacus' revolt belonged to the distant past, and it is not true that Roman society was based on slavery." [HPL:55) Even abuse of slaves was frowned upon (and legislated against) and deplored, as when Pliny the Elder speaks of the cruelty of Vedius Pollio in the manner of execution of condemned slave criminals, or when Seneca describes the beating of a slave by a master for a simple sneeze. These were NOT accepted practices of the time, and it is simply false to assert that owners had complete authority over their slaves. o Had Paul somehow been able to get the Empire to free the 'slaves', the economic and social chaos would have been unimaginable. The sheer size of the slave population was immense. ("At the end of the first century BC the servile population of the Roman heartland lay, according the modern estimates, in the order of two to three millions, representing 33-40 per cent of the total population." [SASAR:29f]) From a practical standpoint alone, it would have been impossible to have issued some unilateral emancipation command to the Christian community. ----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Nov 24, 2006 1:02:56 GMT -5
Force didn't bash. He said his point quite bluntly, but he didn't bash. Therefore, don't accuse him of such. This is the Critical Thinking board--if you can't handle someone who dislikes and opposes your religion, I suggest you leave. Yep. I really like force. He thinks and comes up with specific arguments. He's a cool guy. I think he's wrong ( ), but I have a genuine respect for him. He's not bashing; he's thinking and trying to analyze things honestly. He has a thumbs up from me.
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Nov 24, 2006 1:08:59 GMT -5
Also Force, Hitler didn't try to kill all the Jews because of the Bible. Hitler was insane, a total madman, who, by the way, was not to keen on Christianity either. If you knew anything in depth about history you would understand that while Hitler's and in turn Germany's oppression of the Jews during the time of the Holocaust was indeed racial, it stemmed from a very long standing religious oppression of them in Germany. Hitler originally hated the Jews from religious grounds but later developed racial hatred of them as well. The Holocaust was a social movement on the surface but religious grounds gave it weight and backing. And, yes, Hitler was a Christian. I have no idea where you’re getting that from, but it only serves to show your naivety. Actually, force, Hitler was not a Christian. The book Hitler's Table Talk, which was published in 1947 and is actual reporting of documents obtained from Nazi Germany about the private conversations of Hitler, well, has Hitler saying that he pretended to be a Christian for political advantage and has Hitler calling Christianity the "scourge of Europe" and an abomination. He was not a Christian. He was a power-hungry politician who lied. Not exactly above his character, if you ask me. As for Hitler's hatred of the Jews originally being religious, there's not a lot of evidence for that. He became an anti-semite after he left his Christian home and was a failing attempt at being in artist in Austria.
|
|
|
Post by lmwags on Nov 24, 2006 2:02:05 GMT -5
I'm not even going to try putting my view of the Bible into my own words because it changes every day. Instead, I'll entertain(or offend) you with this: www.holybibble.net/
|
|