Religion and theology thread

[Abhorsen]

I'm not understanding? Do you think a libertarian government should have universal jurisdiction?

In a perfect fantasy world, there is no government and everyone is kind. In a slightly less fantastical but still impossible perfect world, there's a one world government that's somehow permanently perfectly libertarian. In real life, I'd settle for one place on earth where libertarians ruled.

Basically, I want a Murcialago, but I'll never get it. I'll actually have a chance of having a tesla one day.

The Bible is not the sum total of Christianity tradition is a thing that has been a part of the faith since the early church. You are right that catholics add things, but so do protestants. Heck some protestants have gone farther.

As for accusations of idolotry this is eye roll worthy. There is a right way to read the Bible and reading at it, you can see that the Ancient Hewbrews had icons(Cherubs on the Ark) they did not agree with Muslims or Jews or Protestants on not having images.

I will grant you the communion though.

Tradition isn't bad, but it also not infallible. And the Catholic's running with infallibility had problems, including adding a ton of extra tradition with little to no support, arbitrary changing tradition (either keeping the Latin Mass for nearly 2k years was bad, or the dumping of the latin mass was bad, pick one). In general, the further they left the early church in time, the further and further they fell astray.

As for idolotry, it's fine to have images of important people like saints. It's quite another to pray to them in particular.

But it's a false unity as it's the same type of unity Muslims have. Sure they put up a united front, but once the common enemy is gone they turn on themselves.
As for denominations they aren't always taken by the group sometimes it's imposed by others. For instance most non denominatinals are actually Baptist in their theology.
The point of denomination is that to be in communion to be brothers in christ we have to believe in the same Christ. After all we are not brothers with Muslims even if they believe in one god, and think Jesus is messiah. We have VERY BIG differances.

See, I disagree here with your analogy, and that we don't believe in the same Christ.

The Islamic teaching of christ is both ahistorical (they add a bunch of fake bible verses) and removes him being the son of god. In contrast, all denominations mentioned hit Nicene Christianity, so they worship the same Christ. There's like 2 exceptions, JW's and Mormons, which is why some (including me) don't count them as christian.

On top of that, the way to be in communion with other churches is to simply have an open communion. If a catholic visits a Baptist or Presbyterian church, they can take communion. The same with most non-denominational churches.

If you do this, I don't see the church as having split.

That depends what do you consider faith and what do you consider works? I'd say conversion, repentance, and baptism are works. Those are needed to be saved.

Conversion is faith. Repentance is faith. You could argue baptism is a work, but eh... But what shouldn't affect salvation is whether or not you pray at a Franciscian Church for an indulgence because of the 800th year aniversary. This is invented out of whole cloth.

 

[ATP]

One thought about fall of western civilization.It was created by chrystianity,so it fall when it abadonned god.
Enlingtened was beginning of suicide of our civilization.

 

[Typhonis]

Does the Bible support slavery? No, no it doesn't.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Does the Bible support slavery?

Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 6:5-9 - New International Version

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the...

www.biblegateway.com

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

 

[LordsFire]

Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 6:5-9 - New International Version

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the...

www.biblegateway.com

Ah yes, the traditional cherry-picking atheist.

Can you think of any other verses that have relevant things to say about the practice?

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Ah yes, the traditional cherry-picking atheist.

Can you think of any other verses that have relevant things to say about the practice?

I don't know, what's the passage where Sarah offers Abram her slave? I'm not Christian enough to know it by heart. What about the ones where god and his Prophets order the enslavement of captive women like in Numbers 31?

Or if it's the New Testament, Colossians 3:22–24, 1 Timothy 6:1–2, and Titus 2:9–10.

---

Your turn.

 

[LordsFire]

I don't know, what's the passage where Sarah offers Abram her slave? I'm not Christian enough to know it by heart. What about the ones where god and his Prophets order the enslavement of captive women like in Numbers 31?

Or if it's the New Testament, Colossians 3:22–24, 1 Timothy 6:1–2, and Titus 2:9–10.

---

Your turn.

I was thinking of something a lot simpler. The very next verse:

"And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."

Funny how you didn't include that.

 

[King Arts]

I was thinking of something a lot simpler. The very next verse:

"And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."

Funny how you didn't include that.

Ok so it's ok to have slaves as long as I treat them justly and fairly? Still horrible to modern liberty minded people. Stop trying to freaking square a circle man. It looks pathetic, people need to accept God's laws not man's laws. It does not matter what the constitution, or people from now or the 1800's say. God's law is God's law. Stop trying to bend with the world and make it "appealing".

 

[LordsFire]

Ok so it's ok to have slaves as long as I treat them justly and fairly? Still horrible to modern liberty minded people. Stop trying to freaking square a circle man. It looks pathetic, people need to accept God's laws not man's laws. It does not matter what the constitution, or people from now or the 1800's say. God's law is God's law. Stop trying to bend with the world and make it "appealing".

And God's Law mandates freeing slaves.

Which is why the major anti-slavery movements of the 1800's which did just that were all at core Christian.

 

[Abhorsen]

Also, there's an entire book in the bible about pleading for freeing a slave. Just read Philemon.

 

[mrttao]

Ok so it's ok to have slaves as long as I treat them justly and fairly?

>> Explicitly says to free slaves
>> Explicitly says slaving is one of the worst sins you can commit
>> Explicitly says to NOT turn in an escaped slave
>> Explicitly says to not abuse slaves (actually bonded servants)
> This is pro slavery!

It really isn't.
if the ONLY thing it said was to treat slaves well and NOTHING ELSE then you could MAYBE make the argument it IMPLIES slavery is ok.

But it does not only say that, it explicitly says slavery is not ok, but also says abusing slaves is not ok too.

Also, there is a translation issue here. Because the one where it says to treat them well is referring to "bonded servants". which gets mistranslated as "slave", but isn't.
Bonded servant is someone who is paying off a debt by being temporarily a servant. Which is not the same as being property.

 

[King Arts]

And God's Law mandates freeing slaves.

Which is why the major anti-slavery movements of the 1800's which did just that were all at core Christian.

Many of them were heretical sinners like John Brown, and just did the Protestant thing of ignoring the parts of the Bible they disliked.
No the Bible does not mandate freeing slaves. In fact doing that is a sin(depending on how it's done) That's why it says "slaves obey you masters"

Also, there's an entire book in the bible about pleading for freeing a slave. Just read Philemon.

Epistle to Philemon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I mean thee is debate on the meaning.
At most you can say that Christians should be feed once they convert.

 

[mrttao]

No the Bible does not mandate freeing slaves. In fact doing that is a sin(depending on how it's done) That's why it says "slaves obey you masters"

Bonded servant, not slave.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Funny how you didn't include that.

Did I need to? I had already made my point. No need to include another bible verse that justifies slavery.

Say what you will about King Arts, at least he doesn't pretend Christianity doesn't condone slavery. That's honest. I can deal with people like that.

It's the ones that try to trick me that I'm wary of.

 

[King Arts]

>> Explicitly says to free slaves
>> Explicitly says slaving is one of the worst sins you can commit
>> Explicitly says to NOT turn in an escaped slave
>> Explicitly says to not abuse slaves (actually bonded servants)
> This is pro slavery!

It really isn't.
if the ONLY thing it said was to treat slaves well and NOTHING ELSE then you could MAYBE make the argument it IMPLIES slavery is ok.

But it does not only say that, it explicitly says slavery is not ok, but also says abusing slaves is not ok too.

Also, there is a translation issue here. Because the one where it says to treat them well is referring to "bonded servants". which gets mistranslated as "slave", but isn't.
Bonded servant is someone who is paying off a debt by being temporarily a servant. Which is not the same as being property.

But the passage that we were talking about literally had the slave sent back.
True it was with a letter asking for the slave to be freed(after he paid off any debt from anything he might have stolen during his escape) I do agree with you that freeing a slave you own is good and is recommended but Paul did not even order the Bishop to do it while he could have to me that shows that while it’s recommended you do so and encouraged it’s not mandatory.

Bonded servant, not slave.

For the Old Testament yes. Because those were the laws directly given by god to Israel. In the new testament it would be slave since they are under Roman law which allowed slavery.

Note language used is very important. The Bible condones slavery it DOES NOT advocate for it. That means a Christian in that time and place is allowed to own slaves without committing a sin provided they treat them certain way aka not cruelty.

If something is condoned in the Bible that means you are allowed to do it as long as it does not infringe on other Christian rules or the secular law. For food you CAN eat pork if you want as long as it’s legally allowed(only banned in Muslim nations) And the pork was not sacrificed to foreign gods.

If something is advocated that means you MUST do it fuck the law. For food you must eat bread and drink wine for communion. Christian ethics demand it.

If something is prohibited then you can’t do it even if it is legal I’m having trouble thinking of something off the top of my head.

 

[LordsFire]

Did I need to? I had already made my point. No need to include another bible verse that justifies slavery.

Say what you will about King Arts, at least he doesn't pretend Christianity doesn't condone slavery. That's honest. I can deal with people like that.

It's the ones that try to trick me that I'm wary of.

King Arts is an authoritarian heretic. You'd be more likely to get a realistic take on what the Bible teaches from a Mormon.

 

[Abhorsen]

Many of them were heretical sinners like John Brown, and just did the Protestant thing of ignoring the parts of the Bible they disliked.
No the Bible does not mandate freeing slaves. In fact doing that is a sin(depending on how it's done) That's why it says "slaves obey you masters"

The "slaves obey your masters" thing is from the Christian ideal of turning the other cheek and that by loving your enemy you heap burning coals on them:

Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."

It's a classic non-resistance passage. It doesn't even condone slavery, or say it isn't sinful.


But more than that, you are a Catholic. And thus the pope has said, repeatedly, that slavery is a sin. So are you Catholic or not?

I mean thee is debate on the meaning.
At most you can say that Christians should be feed once they convert.

You mean at least. And there's not that much debate here.

 

[King Arts]

King Arts is an authoritarian heretic. You'd be more likely to get a realistic take on what the Bible teaches from a Mormon.

Oh please you are the heretic who wants to jump onto non Christian things and tie your modern politics to Christianity.
You are the one who wants to be part of the world and lies or twists Christianity to fit into society. You aren’t that different from the gay affirmation churches the only difference is that they went further than you. A difference of degree instead of kind.

The "slaves obey your masters" thing is from the Christian ideal of turning the other cheek and that by loving your enemy you heap burning coals on them:

It's a classic non-resistance passage. It doesn't even condone slavery, or say it isn't sinful.


But more than that, you are a Catholic. And thus the pope has said, repeatedly, that slavery is a sin. So are you Catholic or not?


You mean at least. And there's not that much debate here.

I’m not Catholic I’ve never claimed to follow the pope.

Also if what you are saying is oh so clear. Then tell me why abolitionist Christians only came forward in the modern era. Where were these people the past 1800 years why don’t we see them over 500 years ago or 1000 years ago. Where were they in Byzantium or in the medieval kingdoms? Why did the papal states only make these statements when secular nations were abolishing it themselves?

 

[Abhorsen]

Also if what you are saying is oh so clear. Then tell me why abolitionist Christians only came forward in the modern era. Where were these people the past 1800 years why don’t we see them over 500 years ago or 1000 years ago. Where were they in Byzantium or in the medieval kingdoms? Why did the papal states only make these statements when secular nations were abolishing it themselves?

Only they didn't. There were abolitionist Christians in the 4th century. St Augustine was an abolitionist. Gregory of Nyssa wrote extensively on the subject of slavery, saying "how many obols for the image of God?" Baptism by immersion eventually became part of manumission in the Byzantian empire, while manumission in Church was a practice codifed by the Roman Empire in the fourth century.

The Papal States in fact condemned slavery in Spanish Colonies in America as well.

So yeah, your objections would be good ones, if they were true, but they aren't.

 

[King Arts]

Only they didn't. There were abolitionist Christians in the 4th century. St Augustine was an abolitionist. Gregory of Nyssa wrote extensively on the subject of slavery, saying "how many obols for the image of God?" Baptism by immersion eventually became part of manumission in the Byzantian empire, while manumission in Church was a practice codifed by the Roman Empire in the fourth century.

The Papal States in fact condemned slavery in Spanish Colonies in America as well.

So yeah, your objections would be good ones, if they were true, but they aren't.

Interesting can you post this? I am willing to concede. But even so like I said earlier it seems to ban enslaving of fellow Christians, but not the unbaptized.