Design

[tonyrey]

Pope Nicholas II 1452 Dum Diversas.

That gives us 1,400 years of Christian support for slavery. Get back to me in 2800 CE or so and we can see how things are going.

Papal bulls are not always infallible:

If the brutality of New World slavery so painfully contradicted Catholic doctrine why didn’t the church do more to stop it? First, it was staffed by flawed men who sometimes defied rules that they found inconvenient. Pope Innocent VIII (who also fathered a number of illegitimate children) happily accepted a gift of a hundred slaves in 1488. Second, while the medieval church did enjoy a profound spiritual power, its temporal power was never as great as its modern critics assume. In 1527 Rome was sacked by Charles V of Spain and **the pope was often the prisoner of coloniser kings. **The fragility of church authority was confirmed by the Protestant Reformation.

Therefore, acknowledging the limits of its power, the church tended to accept slavery as a sad reality of the human condition (like war or feudalism) and to focus on ameliorating its worst effects. Hence the church appointed an official Protector of the Indians in the 1610s and it helped write labour codes designed to define the rights of slaves and the responsibilities of their owners. In 17th-century Paraguay the Jesuits established an enormous republic (known as the Jesuit Reduction) wherein indigenous people were free to practise their own culture (so long as they converted to Catholicism). They were educated and trained in cottage industries, attaining a degree of wealth and independence unique within the Spanish Americas. Threatened by slave traders, they were permitted by the Spanish crown to form militias to defend the settlements. **When the Jesuits were expelled from the Americas in 1767 the slave trade returned with a vengeance.
**
The picture that emerges is of an inefficient, confused attempt by the Catholic church to bring moral order to a sphere of human relations that was almost beyond redemption. To talk of a cynical historical conspiracy against human liberty is absurd. Given how ubiquitously cruel medieval man could be, we might dare to suggest that the church was actually the native’s only real friend.

historytoday.com/tim-stanley/atheists-slaves-simplicity

 

[tonyrey]

“an eternal multiverse” is an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Please produce specific evidence that there are “local universes”.

Christians don’t claim that an eternal God is a scientifically substantiated hypothesis

As to local universes we have evidence for at least one. We know that it is “local” because it only covers a part (not all) of space-time.

It doesn’t follow that there is more than one. Where is the evidence that there are others?

 

[tonyrey]

I clearly specified that true Christians observe the precept “love your neighbour as yourself”. That fact refutes your assertion that the expression “true Christian” is meaningless.

It still refutes your assertion that the expression “true Christian” is meaningless. Is
true Buddhist meaningless? Or do you have no basic precepts?

You also need to substantiate your allegation that the pro-slavery faction has the greater weight of Christian history on its side. Which saints and popes have endorsed slavery? Please cite just one instance of Christian teaching that slavery is permissible.

As to history, look at the dates that slavery was abolished and look at the dates Christianity was established. In 1452 Pope Nicholas II issues Dum Diversas which allowed the taking of non-Christians as slaves, so we have the period up to 1452 as definitely pro-slavery.

NB:

historytoday.com/tim-stanley/atheists-slaves-simplicity

 

[tonyrey]

No first universe exists? We just keep claiming there was one before the one before? Universes making universes? Why?

Occam’s Razor is ignored at one’s peril! There is the risk of metascientific indigestion.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Occam’s Razor is ignored at one’s peril! There is the risk of metascientific indigestion.

Multiverse is a desperate attempt by atheist scientists to do away with God.

Ironically, there is nothing scientific about multiverse. It is entirely speculative.

Atheist scientists are willing to defy the scientific method to draw conclusions they find philosophically comforting.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Just as many Christians do not follow Christ. There is sex-trafficking in Christian countries as well as in Christian countries…

rossum

You might want to document this?

For example, is North America experiencing sex traffic the way Thailand is?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

All “true Buddhists” observe the Buddhist precepts, so that gets you nowhere.

As to history, look at the dates that slavery was abolished and look at the dates Christianity was established. In 1452 Pope Nicholas II issues Dum Diversas which allowed the taking of non-Christians as slaves, so we have the period up to 1452 as definitely pro-slavery.

rossum

Dum Diversas was a bull that certainly did not have universal application and was not intended to justify slavery everywhere on the principle that slavery is a moral institution.

Rather, it was a bull issued to encourage the Portuguese in their war with the Turks, an emergency method of stopping the advanced of Islam into Europe.

You can read all the bulls and encyclicals you like and you will never find one that justifies slavery as a universal institution. Keep in mind too that slavery was more often than not an alternative to complete annihilation of the conquered. Some might argue that annihilation is preferable to slavery, but you cannot really expect a pope to recommend complete annihilation of the enemies of Christ. At least enslavement gave life and the hope of ultimate freedom for the vanquished.

 

[robsully]

Multiverse is a desperate attempt by atheist scientists to do away with God.

Ironically, there is nothing scientific about multiverse. It is entirely speculative.

Atheist scientists are willing to defy the scientific method to draw conclusions they find philosophically comforting.

Could you please provide documentation or sources to support claim #1 and claim #3.
Thank you

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Could you please provide documentation or sources to support claim #1 and claim #3.
Thank you

Could you please provide documentation or sources to support the notion that claim #1 and claim #3 are not true?

Obviously, a survey has not been conducted either way, so one is allowed to speculate as one pleases, and to reject whatever speculations you don’t like.

I assume you agree with claim #2 since you do not ask for documentation of the claim.

Since the claim of multiverse is speculative, what would be your reason for assuming it to be true in the absence of evidence that it is true?

 

[robsully]

Could you please provide documentation or sources to support the notion that claim #1 and claim #3 are not true?

Obviously, a survey has not been conducted either way, so one is allowed to speculate as one pleases, and to reject whatever speculations you don’t like.

I assume you agree with claim #2 since you do not ask for documentation of the claim.

Since the claim of multiverse is speculative, what would be your reason for assuming it to be true in the absence of evidence that it is true?

To begin, I have not made any claims therefore no need to provide documentation. And I cannot see trying to prove a negative supports your claims in the slightest.

I would suggest in the future if you are going to request documentation from other Posters then be willing to reciprocate.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I would suggest in the future if you are going to request documentation from other Posters then be willing to reciprocate.

The same to you, of course.

Your manner of speaking makes it clear you are offended by my not providing documentation that it is impossible to provide. You might want to think more clearly about your own expectations and demands.

 

[robsully]

Multiverse is a desperate attempt by atheist scientists to do away with God.

Ironically, there is nothing scientific about multiverse. It is entirely speculative.

Atheist scientists are willing to defy the scientific method to draw conclusions they find philosophically comforting.

Making these comments without due documentation seems to be unChristian.
My documentation…Ten Commandments… False witness???

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Making these comments without due documentation seems to be unChristian.
My documentation…Ten Commandments… False witness???

On what authority do you maintain that my witness is false?

And how Christian of you is it to say so?

I stated an opinion. Anyone is free to accept or reject it. That’s a given.

Moreover, you haven’t answered my question.

What reason would anyone give for positing a multiverse with absolutely no proof that a multiverse exists. Would it not be to find a way to skirt the possibility that God started it all?

 

[robsully]

Multiverse is a desperate attempt by atheist scientists to do away with God.

Ironically, there is nothing scientific about multiverse. It is entirely speculative.

Atheist scientists are willing to defy the scientific method to draw conclusions they find philosophically comforting.

Can you provide documentation that these claims that you made about “Atheist Scientists” are true?

Since this is your claim the burden of proof is yours.

I would find the reason one would post about “multiverse” without proof is the same reason one would post about the existence of God(s) without the same burden of proof.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Can you provide documentation that these claims that you made about “Atheist Scientists” are true?

Since this is your claim the burden of proof is yours.

I would find the reason one would post about “multiverse” without proof is the same reason one would post about the existence of God(s) without the same burden of proof.

You clearly have not read my previous post. So long. :sad_bye:

 

[Bradski]

What reason would anyone give for positing a multiverse with absolutely no proof that a multiverse exists. Would it not be to find a way to skirt the possibility that God started it all?

‘There are multiple univeses, therefore God can’t be the Creator’.

Do you know anyone who has actually made that argument? It’s as risible a claim as would be claiming that because evolution is a fact, then there is no God.

One might ask why you are so keen on rejecting any possibility (note that term) of a multiverse. It certainly doesn’t seem to be on any scientific basis as you have never offered any rebutal of the hypothesis.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

One might ask why you are so keen on rejecting any possibility (note that term) of a multiverse. It certainly doesn’t seem to be on any scientific basis as you have never offered any rebutal of the hypothesis.

One might ask why you are so keen on rejecting any possibility (note that term) of a **God. **It certainly doesn’t seem to be on any scientific basis as you have never offered any rebuttal of the hypothesis.

 

[Bradski]

One might ask why you are so keen on rejecting any possibility (note that term) of a **God. **It certainly doesn’t seem to be on any scientific basis as you have never offered any rebuttal of the hypothesis.

I don’t reject the possibility. You have been told that on a number of ocassions before. Now back to the question:

Why do you think that a multiverse necessarily rejects the concept of God? I have never seen anyone on this forum, nor indeed anywhere else, suggest that. It only seems to be Christians like yourself who make unfounded claims that it’s a desperate attempt by ‘atheist scientists’ to discount the divine.

If you can actually find anyone who suggests that, we can explain to him or her how fatuous the argument would be.

Seems to me that if God exists as is generally understood, then making multiple universes would not be a problem. And we already can’t access 0.000000000000000000001%* of what He’s made already, so having an infinite amount unavailable doesn’t really change much.

• actually a much smaller amount but you really aren’t interested in the actual number of zeros.

 

[tonyrey]

Pope Nicholas II 1452 Dum Diversas.

That gives us 1,400 years of Christian support for slavery. Get back to me in 2800 CE or so and we can see how things are going.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Dum Diversas was a bull that certainly did not have universal application and was not intended to justify slavery everywhere on the principle that slavery is a moral institution.

Rather, it was a bull issued to encourage the Portuguese in their war with the Turks, an emergency method of stopping the advanced of Islam into Europe.

You can read all the bulls and encyclicals you like and you will never find one that justifies slavery as a universal institution. Keep in mind too that slavery was more often than not an alternative to complete annihilation of the conquered. Some might argue that annihilation is preferable to slavery, but you cannot really expect a pope to recommend complete annihilation of the enemies of Christ. At least enslavement gave life and the hope of ultimate freedom for the vanquished.

Irrefutable and unrefuted!