 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
Saint Marcus, Just a few points. Much of the OT constitute Gods messages to the Jews, not to mankind as a whole - although, as you say, the ten commandments and the golden rule are still "law." The Jewish people were never enjoined to spread the word of God to the world. In contrast, Jesus did ask his apostles to spread his words to the world.
Thus, Christians are enjoined to spread Jesus' teachings of peace, love of one's neighbor and of the poor, respect for civil authority, forgivenes of those who offend you even though they may do so "seven times seventy." Jesus never asked his followers to take command of the civil authority or to slay the unbelievers if they do not submit and begin to pay tithes.
The mixing of Church and State began in the 700's when the pope annointed Pepin king, Pepin donated Rome to the pope and then the pope crowned Pepin's son Charlemagne as Western Emperor. This was not ordained by Jesus, but was born from a necessary military alliance between Rome and the Franks because of growing Lombard successes in the face of declining power of the Eastern Empire.
This mixing of church and state led to the corruption of both in the West. It was an accident of history.
But it was not ordained by Jesus Christ.
Last edited by Ned on 28-11-2002 at 00:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:23
|
|
Christianity is more than what Jesus said. You have to look at the entire Bible, including the parts before the coming of Jesus and the parts after the departure of Jesus. Both you and Drake seem to only focus on the four gospels, while the Word of God (as most traditional Christians see it) is the ENTIRE Bible. Not just the words of Jesus himself, but also the words God made the prophets and apostles write down. That's also the official teaching of the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, and nearly all protestant Churches. All agree that the entire Bible is the word of God. They just disagree on it's intrepetations. 
And in the OT, we do see mixing of church and state in numerous instances. The only reason we don't see it in the NT, is because of the vast Roman Empire that ruled much of the known world in those days.
quote:
The Jewish people were never enjoined to spread the word of God to the world. In contrast, Jesus did ask his apostles to spread his words to the world. |
Do note that prior to Paul, Jesus word was spread among Jews, and would have continued to be spread among Jews if Paul hadn't won the argument.
quote:
Much of the OT constitute Gods messages to the Jews, not to mankind as a whole - although, as you say, the ten commandments and the golden rule are still "law." |
More than that even. Not just the 10 Commandements and the Golden Rule, but also the teachings of the Prophets.
And you didn't answer my NT quotes on the submission of women, and the acceptence of slavery. We often blaim the Quron for being unfriendly towards women, but the same is said in the Bible, both in the OT and NT.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Marcus
And in the OT, we do see mixing of church and state in numerous instances. The only reason we don't see it in the NT, is because of the vast Roman Empire that ruled much of the known world in those days.
|
And yet in Revelations (as clear as Revelations can be) it is clear that the empires of man are disjointed from the church. This prophesy clearly shows the empires of man are seperate from the church and only after the 2nd coming of Christ are the Church and State made whole. This being the last book, hence the last Word on the subject in the Bible, it shows that the world will develop with a seperation of Church and State until such time as the proper sequence of events occur and Christ returns.
As such the Church(s) was/were charged with maintaining the true faith and spirit of Jesus's teachings, but not to convert people by means of force. Conversion was to be enabled by the presence of the Holy Spirit. Failure to follow the true teachings of Jesus would result in the great whore (a perversion of the Church or bride of God).
As for the subject regarding women and women's roles in Church, much has been made of this by you and others. Speaking as a Heretic my own personal beliefs lead me to believe that Paul was speaking in his own voice and not that of God. That heresy of course opens the strawman aruement then that the Bible is not 100% accurate.
Last edited by Ogie Oglethorpe on 28-11-2002 at 01:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
THe mixing of Church and state begun when Emperor Constantine converted, and then spread his new faith though state power by forcing the end of Pagan practices. After all, what other reason is there for the Bishop of Rome, as opposed to the primates of the East, to be the most important primate of the Church?
I think what many people ignore is that the actual way a faith is practiced has only something to do with scripture (I agree with S. Marcus on the OT, NT debate going on). Whenever a universal faith spreads, the daily practices of people change only slightly. All Catholics have the same scriptures and are under the same organization, but a Catholic service in Lima is not the same as In Cracow.
The same is true for Islam. Consider the status of women and Islam. Take how women are treated by Saudi Arabia, Iran, and under the Taliban:
Under the Taliban, women had to be fully covered, could not be eductaed or do much at all utside the home. Punishment is ussually severe, many times deadly.
In Saudi Arabia, women can be educated, must cover their hair but are denied various activities, like, as we all know, driving, and women hold few jobs.
In Iran, women have to cover their hair, and interchanges between the sexes are heavily supervised: other than that, women are equal citizens to men: the only jobs closed to them are the clergy, but of course this is also true in judaism and catholism, Orthodox Christianity.
So, which is the true way under Islam? Can someone tell me which of these three systems is blasphemous and which one isn't, according to the Quran? Or take Stonning, as in Nigeria. Is it even mentioned at all as a punishment in the Quran? Last i heard, nowhere in the Quran is stonning a form of punishment. They have floggings, but stonnings to death? NO. The OT does, but not the Quran. So where the hell did these groups in nigeria get the idea that thast is an approprite punishment? I don't know, but it hardly comes from the word of the prophet, which is why the word of the prophet is not the only things to discuss when discussing violence in the Muslim world, and when I take into account groups like the Suffi mystics, it hardly seems a worthwhile place to look at all.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
 |
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Saint Marcus, the Christian faith was largely responsible for the virtual end of slavery in the Empire. It certainly was responsible for its end in the modern world. |
Not really. Nowhere in the bible slavery is condemned, one of Paul's letters (forgot which, sorry) even gives a guideline that a Christian slaveholder is obligued to treat his slaves not too badly and like human beings but that's about it. Christian slaves themselves shall not complain but carry that burden. Yet, although talking about slavery, it is not labeled as injustice in general. Nowhere we can see any major Christian church to take the lead of the abolishonist movement - the Vatican was very late in forbidding slavery, but I understand that for "hallelujahs" like you thet Catholics are nothing but pagans. Yet, there's no word of Luther against slavery, on the contrary
quote:
Jesus' teaching of love of neighbor and of the poor form the basis of human rights and of welfare. |
In these cases Muhammad teaches the same, especially when it comes to the poor which has an even more central part in the demands of the Quran.
quote:
You may try to condemn Jesus as being the same as Mohammed, but you will not succeed. |
Not Jesus and Muhammad - Jesus was never a political personality. They were different people. Yet it's not that black-white thing as you want to have it. And Christianity isn't equal to Jesus and Islam isn't equal to Muhammad. But I think the two things should be treated differently - although the "which God is more vicious?" quiz-link from page 1 in this thread is very funny.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
Saint Marcus, Your revisionist history of the Catholic Church and Christianity simply has to stop. Christianity has long led the opposition to slavery.
Here is a link to an article that describes the long struggle of the Church against slavery, even from its earliest days in the Empire. Below is a selected quote from that article.
Slavery and Christianity
"In 1871 a writer had the temerity to assert that the Papacy had not its mind to condemn slavery" (Ernest Havet, "Le christianisme et ses origines", I, p. xxi). He forgot that, in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime" (magnum scelus); that, in 1537, Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians; that Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741; that Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839; that, in the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders. Everyone knows of the beautiful letter which Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed to the Brazilian bishops, exhorting them to banish from their country the remnants of slavery -- a letter to which the bishops responded with their most energetic efforts, and some generous slave-owners by freeing their slaves in a body, as in the first ages of the Church. "
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
|
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Christianity has long led the opposition to slavery. |
Read your Bible Ned, before making comments on Christianity. Your lack of understanding of the Sacred Scripture astounds me.
Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Exodus 21:20-21
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Leviticus 25:44
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
Titus 2:9
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them
1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
etc, etc, etc
Last edited by Saint Marcus on 28-11-2002 at 03:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
Saint Marcus, once upon a time I spent a few years in the seminary studying to be a priest. I know a little about the Catholic faith and the Bible.
I think we are not communicating because you assume that the initial acceptance of the civil order of the Empire means that for all time the Church remained neutral on slavery. However, it's role in ending slavery evovled.
In the beginning, slaves were baptized. They were treated as equals in the church. The church married them where before slaves could not be married. Sex with a slave girl was not adultery or any crime - but after a slave woman was married by the church, sex with a married slave became adultery just as much as sex with any other married woman.
The church gradually forced the improvement in the status of slaves until there was very little difference between a slave and a citizen. This is a main reason why slavery was dying during the closing days of the Empire in the West.
During the Middle Ages, during the era of Church dominance, there was no slavery in Europe. But as the above quote shows, as soon as slavery reared its ugly head in the New World, the pope condemned it as an abomination.
It is useless to quote the OT and NT to determine the Church's role in all this. This is almost like saying the Crusades never happened because in the Bible, the Holy Land was still occuppied by the Roman Empire.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because it is true that Christianity had nothing to do with ending slavery while having a lot to do with saying it was ok.
Facts are facts. |
That's garbage!!! In the British empire it was the evangelists who led the movement to end slavery. Once Britain ended slavery she sent her navy to the west coast of Africa to destroy the forts. Here's a little known fact- even before the Civil War, as portrayed in the movie "Amistad", the US navy also lent some ships to this effort. Evangelists were also key players in the abolition movement in the US. Throughout the nineteenth century Christian evangelists were the prime motivators of the movements opposing slavery throughout western civilization. That trend continued on into the twentieth century. It was western pressure that led to the abolition of slavery in Saudi Arabia in 1950. Today slavery is virtually extinct thanks to those christian missionaries of the 19th century. Where is slavery still practiced today? Only in those Islamic nations where western (Christian) influence is at its least.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
Imran, What you are suggesting is that Christianity had nothing to do with the abolition of slavery. However, Christianity was the cornerstone of its abolition.
Here is a link to the Declaration of the Anti-slavery convention of 1833. A short quote illustrates that the source of their fevor was the portion of the Declaration of Independence I had previously quoted. This is portion is the heart and soul of the Christian nature of abolitionism:
"More than fifty-seven years have elapsed, since a band of patriots convened in this place, to devise measures for the deliverance of this country from a foreign yoke. The corner-stone upon which they founded the Temple of Freedom was broadly this--'that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.' At the sound of their trumpet-call, three millions of people rose up as from the sleep of death, and rushed to the strife of blood; deeming it more glorious to die instantly as freemen, than desirable to live one hour as slaves. They were few in number--poor in resources; but the honest conviction that Truth, Justice and Right were on their side, made them invincible.
* * *
The right to enjoy liberty is inalienable. To invade it is to usurp the prerogative of Jehovah. Every man has a right to his own body--to the products of his own labor--to the protection of law--and to the common advantages of society. It is piracy to buy or steal a native African, and subject him to servitude. Surely, the sin is as great to enslave an American as an African."
http://jefferson.village.virginia.e.../abeswlgct.html
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-11-2002 20:04
I find it hard to believe you take your statement seriously when slavery is promoted in the Bible by it saying that slaves should respect their masters.
|