E
Eleve
Guest
Those posts weren’t made in this thread, so I got a little confused looking for them. But I see the line of conversation now. Thanks.
- Status
P
PatThompson
Guest
That YouTube video is interesting, but I’m not really sure who’s ‘side’ it is on… I agree that the God Delusion is rather harsh in places and would have benefited from a good edit, as someone else here said.
But it has certainly made me think. In particular, I think Dawkins ( if he really exists
) does a good job at drawing attention to the problems with Theism.
I certainly want to read more Dawkins, but it sounds like his science oriented books are better than this one.
But it has certainly made me think. In particular, I think Dawkins ( if he really exists
) does a good job at drawing attention to the problems with Theism.I certainly want to read more Dawkins, but it sounds like his science oriented books are better than this one.
J
josie_L
Guest
I haven’t read the book (and don’t intend to as time is preciousThat YouTube video is interesting, but I’m not really sure who’s ‘side’ it is on… I agree that the God Delusion is rather harsh in places and would have benefited from a good edit, as someone else here said.
But it has certainly made me think. In particular, I think Dawkins ( if he really exists
I certainly want to read more Dawkins, but it sounds like his science oriented books are better than this one.
) but from what I understand (having read a counterargument of his book) he exaggerates the viability of his own arguments by building straw men, and then deconstructing them with ease so as to give himself leverage over the theists. He is much too biased, arrogant and intolerant (from what I’ve read) to approach such a subject as God with an open and humble attitude.P.S. The book I refer to is “Answering The New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God”.
D
DavidHume
Guest
How long? I don’t remember exactly. It was over a period of several months – at the beginning I had belief and at the end I had none. I was rather motivated at the time, but too many things just did not make sense.
A
aileron
Guest
I am looking for consistency and evidence. I find all claims of personal Gods inconsistent. I am aware of the arguments attempting to show consistency, but they are seriously flawed. I find most forms of deistic or pantheistic God consistent but simply lacking in evidence.
I’m going to take a guess that you live in North America. When we in North America think of witch trials we think of Salem. We think of a practice the Puritans imported from Protestant England. However, the Protestants didn’t invent the practice. It was addressed in Papal Bulls and being practiced by Catholics more than a century before the Reformation. Although in German speaking areas there was more witch hysteria in the Protestant areas than in the Catholic areas, there were areas of intense persecution where the Catholics dominated the action such as Southern France and Spain.
Evidently, the people committing them didn’t think so. For many centuries they found plenty of justification in the Bible and in the institution of the Church.
By all appearances, neither does the RCC or any religion have a transcendental moral authority. Although they claim a timeless morality because of this transcendentalism, in practice their moral outlook has shifted along with the Western world at large.
Yes, the 1st Crusade was more about rescuing the holy land from the most prosperous, technologically and scientifically advanced culture of the era. Along the route, they also got around to murdering Jews en masse.
At that time in history, if I had a choice between living in a Christin or Muslim society I would choose the Muslim. Things are reversed today, but at the time Muslim society led the world in science, mathematics, and commerce. They were the most open and free major society of the times. It is no coincidence that the Renaissance began around the time the Crusades ended. Many Renaissance scholars of Europe learned Arabic to learn the work of Islamic scholars and their translations of works from antiquity or non-Islamic areas. One of the penultimate Renaissance works, the Copernican model of the solar system was plagiarized from an Islamic astronomer’s work right down to the letters used to identify planets in the diagram. Islamic scholars devised algebra, and Europeans would not improve on that until devising the calculus some 800 years later.
Both Christian and Islamic nations were out to conquer lands by force at that time. Often both first asked everyone in an area to convert to their religion by peaceful means. If the stubborn people didn’t see things your way, what choice did you have but to attack them? Either religion would have converted the whole world if they could have. Both found imperatives in their sacred books that demanded war to spread their religion. Funny thing is that scholars today reading the same books can’t find those imperatives.
At the time, religion was the rallying cry to get people to kill and die for causes that provided them no gain or loss however the war resulted. The people who start wars almost never tell the people who fight wars the real reason for them.
Is that what we’re fighting for?
B
Blade_and_Blood
Guest
sigh
A
aileron
Guest
What we do to the poor nations today in the name of the almighty dollar is unjust, but less so than in the past. I will give credit to many priests and bishops of the RCC for standing up for the rights of the people in many of these nations today. However, your claim that the Church “throughout time… has acted as the conscience of the world” etc, is way too grandiose. As with most things in life, it’s more nuanced.
This most certainly is *not * a valid way to define moral relativism. If that’s what you think non-religious people think, you’re way off the mark.
So when the Church had that power before the Reformation, they used it to sanction slavery. They used it to evict Jews from their land, to force them to wear identifying badges, and live in a walled part of Rome locked at night. When the Church had that institutional power, they used it to censor and burn Jewish books. They used that power to call for crusades, witch hunts, torture – all officially sanctioned or ordered by the Pope. The Pope, of course, cannot act alone. He needs many others in the RCC, clerical and lay, to agree with and execute his ideas. That is what they did before they lost that power.
It’s somewhat of a notional concept to say the world would be a better place if the Church were no longer ignored. I could say that people are suffering in the world because they’re not listening to me. I keep telling people in power not to start wars, to treat all people fairly, etc., but they just don’t. The larger issue is not what people agree should be done and just don’t do, but on issues where people disagree about the morality. On many of these issues today, I think the RCC position will prove as it has time and time again to be on the wrong side of history. If history is any guide, someday they will amend their position and give the pretense of never having had another (Mark Twain waxed poetic about this Christian tendency). If the RCC position were correct, my two lovely daughters would not be in this world. I would like them to look these lovely little girls in the eyes and tell them about the horrible mistake their parents made in conceiving them.
Then why did popes officially sanction chattel slavery with Papal Bulls? Are we to pretend that they didn’t write them and publish them? Are we to pretend that the Popes acted alone, without the support of other clerical leaders of the Church? There were some priests and bishops who spoke out against it, but institutionally at one time the Church was all for it.
J
jam070406
Guest
Someone posted this in another thread but I thought you might find it interesting, as it pertains somewhat to things you wrote here.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_and_Truce_of_God
A
aileron
Guest
This reminds me of the James T. Kirk line in the song Star Trekin.
“Ah! We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill;
we come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, men.”
I have read about the protection the Church gave to peasants from knights and their efforts to minimize feudal warlord infighting. At the same time back then, they had very broad, sweeping standards for what constituted a just war.
I greatly prefer the Church’s current position on just war, which is much more limited and narrow in scope. My position is roughly in line with the essay written by two time Medal of Honor winning Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler.
lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
J
josie_L
Guest
SLAVERY AND THE FIRST CHRISTIANS
But did the early Church endorse slavery? Certainly, the early Christians more or less tolerated the slavery of their day, as seen from the New Testament itself and the fact that after Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, slavery was not immediately outlawed. Even so, this doesn’t mean Christianity was compatible with Roman slavery or that the early Church did not contribute to its demise. In that regard, there are a number of important points to be kept in mind.
First, while Paul told slaves to obey their masters, he made no general defense of slavery as such, anymore than he made a general defense of the pagan government of Rome, which Christians were also instructed to obey despite its injustices (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). He seems simply to have regarded slavery as an intractable part of the social order, an order which he may well have thought would pass away shortly (1 Cor 7:29-31).
Second, Paul told masters to treat their slaves justly and kindly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), implying that slaves are not mere property for masters to do with as they please.
Third, Paul implied that the brotherhood shared by Christians is ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery. In the case of the runaway slave Onesimus, Paul wrote to Philemon, the slave’s master, instructing him to receive Onesimus back “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother” (Philem. 6). With respect to salvation in Christ, Paul insisted that “there is neither slave nor free . . . you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28).
Fourth, the Christian principles of charity (“love your neighbor as yourself”) and the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would them to do unto you”) espoused by the New Testament writers are ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery, even if, because of its deeply established role as a social institution, this point was not clearly understood by all at the time.
Fifth, while the Christian Empire didn’t immediately outlaw slavery, some Church fathers (such as Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom) strongly denounced it. But then, the state has often failed to enact a just social order in accordance with Church teachings.
Sixth, some early Christians liberated their slaves, while some churches redeemed slaves using the congregation’s common means. Other Christians even sacrificially sold themselves into slavery to emancipate others.
Seventh, even where slavery was not altogether repudiated, the slaves and freemen had equal access to the sacraments, and many clerics were from slave backgrounds, including two popes (Pius I and Callistus). This implies a fundamental equality incompatible with slavery.
Eighth, the Church ameliorated the harsher.aspects of slavery in the Empire, even trying to protect slaves by law, until slavery all but disappeared in the West. It was, of course, to re-emerge during the Renaissance, as Europeans encountered Muslim slave traders and the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
But did the early Church endorse slavery? Certainly, the early Christians more or less tolerated the slavery of their day, as seen from the New Testament itself and the fact that after Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, slavery was not immediately outlawed. Even so, this doesn’t mean Christianity was compatible with Roman slavery or that the early Church did not contribute to its demise. In that regard, there are a number of important points to be kept in mind.
First, while Paul told slaves to obey their masters, he made no general defense of slavery as such, anymore than he made a general defense of the pagan government of Rome, which Christians were also instructed to obey despite its injustices (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). He seems simply to have regarded slavery as an intractable part of the social order, an order which he may well have thought would pass away shortly (1 Cor 7:29-31).
Second, Paul told masters to treat their slaves justly and kindly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), implying that slaves are not mere property for masters to do with as they please.
Third, Paul implied that the brotherhood shared by Christians is ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery. In the case of the runaway slave Onesimus, Paul wrote to Philemon, the slave’s master, instructing him to receive Onesimus back “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother” (Philem. 6). With respect to salvation in Christ, Paul insisted that “there is neither slave nor free . . . you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28).
Fourth, the Christian principles of charity (“love your neighbor as yourself”) and the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would them to do unto you”) espoused by the New Testament writers are ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery, even if, because of its deeply established role as a social institution, this point was not clearly understood by all at the time.
Fifth, while the Christian Empire didn’t immediately outlaw slavery, some Church fathers (such as Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom) strongly denounced it. But then, the state has often failed to enact a just social order in accordance with Church teachings.
Sixth, some early Christians liberated their slaves, while some churches redeemed slaves using the congregation’s common means. Other Christians even sacrificially sold themselves into slavery to emancipate others.
Seventh, even where slavery was not altogether repudiated, the slaves and freemen had equal access to the sacraments, and many clerics were from slave backgrounds, including two popes (Pius I and Callistus). This implies a fundamental equality incompatible with slavery.
Eighth, the Church ameliorated the harsher.aspects of slavery in the Empire, even trying to protect slaves by law, until slavery all but disappeared in the West. It was, of course, to re-emerge during the Renaissance, as Europeans encountered Muslim slave traders and the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
J
josie_L
Guest
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SLAVERY
What about the charge that the Catholic Church did not condemn slavery until the 1890s and actually approved of it before then? In fact, the popes vigorously condemned African and Indian thralldom three and four centuries earlier-a fact amply documented by Fr. Joel Panzer in his book, The Popes and Slavery. The argument that follows is largely based on his study.
Sixty years before Columbus “discovered” the New World, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of peoples in the newly colonized Canary Islands. His bull Sicut Dudum (1435) rebuked European enslavers and commanded that “all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of [the] Canary Islands . . . who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”
A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull Sublimis Deus (1537). Therein he described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery “null and void.” Accompanying the bull was another document, Pastorale Officium, which attached a latae sententiae excommunication remittable only by the pope himself for those who attempted to enslave the Indians or steal their goods.
When Europeans began enslaving Africans as a cheap source of labor, the Holy Office of the Inquisition was asked about the morality of enslaving innocent blacks (Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office, 230, March 20, 1686). The practice was rejected, as was trading such slaves. Slaveholders, the Holy Office declared, were obliged to emancipate and even compensate blacks unjustly enslaved.
Papal condemnation of slavery persisted throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Pope Gregory XVI’s 1839 bull, In Supremo, for instance, reiterated papal opposition to enslaving “Indians, blacks, or other such people” and forbade “any ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse.” In 1888 and again in 1890, Pope Leo XIII forcefully condemned slavery and sought its elimination where it persisted in parts of South America and Africa.
Despite this evidence, critics still insist the Magisterium did too little too late regarding slavery. Why? One reason is the critics’ failure to distinguish between just and unjust forms of servitude. The Magisterium condemned unjust enslavement early on, but it also recognized what is known as “just title slavery.” That included forced servitude of prisoners of war and criminals, and voluntary servitude of indentured servants, forms of servitude mentioned at the outset of this article. But chattel slavery as practiced in the United States and elsewhere differed in kind, not merely degree, from just title slavery. For it made a claim on the slave as property and enslaved people who were not criminals or prisoners of war. By focusing on just title servitude, critics unfairly neglect the vigorous papal denunciations of chattel slavery.
The matter is further muddled by certain nineteenth century American clergy-including some bishops and theologians-who tried to defend the American slave system. They contended that the long-standing papal condemnations of slavery didn’t apply to the United States. The slave trade, some argued, had been condemned by Pope Gregory XVI, but not slavery itself.
Historians critical of the papacy on this matter often make that same argument. But papal teaching condemned both the slave trade and chattel slavery itself (leaving aside “just title” servitude, which wasn’t at issue). It was certain members of the American hierarchy of the time who “explained away” that teaching. “Thus,” according to Fr. Panzer, “we can look to the practice of non-compliance with the teachings of the papal Magisterium as a key reason why slavery was not directly opposed by the Church in the United States.”
Another reason may have been the precarious position of the Catholic Church in America before the twentieth century. Catholics used to be a small and much-despised minority. They were subject to repeated attacks by Protestant “Nativists.” In many ways, the American hierarchy of the day was trying to protect the Catholics immigrating to the U.S. and did not regard itself as in a position to be the leader in a major social crusade.
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp
What about the charge that the Catholic Church did not condemn slavery until the 1890s and actually approved of it before then? In fact, the popes vigorously condemned African and Indian thralldom three and four centuries earlier-a fact amply documented by Fr. Joel Panzer in his book, The Popes and Slavery. The argument that follows is largely based on his study.
Sixty years before Columbus “discovered” the New World, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of peoples in the newly colonized Canary Islands. His bull Sicut Dudum (1435) rebuked European enslavers and commanded that “all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of [the] Canary Islands . . . who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”
A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull Sublimis Deus (1537). Therein he described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery “null and void.” Accompanying the bull was another document, Pastorale Officium, which attached a latae sententiae excommunication remittable only by the pope himself for those who attempted to enslave the Indians or steal their goods.
When Europeans began enslaving Africans as a cheap source of labor, the Holy Office of the Inquisition was asked about the morality of enslaving innocent blacks (Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office, 230, March 20, 1686). The practice was rejected, as was trading such slaves. Slaveholders, the Holy Office declared, were obliged to emancipate and even compensate blacks unjustly enslaved.
Papal condemnation of slavery persisted throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Pope Gregory XVI’s 1839 bull, In Supremo, for instance, reiterated papal opposition to enslaving “Indians, blacks, or other such people” and forbade “any ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse.” In 1888 and again in 1890, Pope Leo XIII forcefully condemned slavery and sought its elimination where it persisted in parts of South America and Africa.
Despite this evidence, critics still insist the Magisterium did too little too late regarding slavery. Why? One reason is the critics’ failure to distinguish between just and unjust forms of servitude. The Magisterium condemned unjust enslavement early on, but it also recognized what is known as “just title slavery.” That included forced servitude of prisoners of war and criminals, and voluntary servitude of indentured servants, forms of servitude mentioned at the outset of this article. But chattel slavery as practiced in the United States and elsewhere differed in kind, not merely degree, from just title slavery. For it made a claim on the slave as property and enslaved people who were not criminals or prisoners of war. By focusing on just title servitude, critics unfairly neglect the vigorous papal denunciations of chattel slavery.
The matter is further muddled by certain nineteenth century American clergy-including some bishops and theologians-who tried to defend the American slave system. They contended that the long-standing papal condemnations of slavery didn’t apply to the United States. The slave trade, some argued, had been condemned by Pope Gregory XVI, but not slavery itself.
Historians critical of the papacy on this matter often make that same argument. But papal teaching condemned both the slave trade and chattel slavery itself (leaving aside “just title” servitude, which wasn’t at issue). It was certain members of the American hierarchy of the time who “explained away” that teaching. “Thus,” according to Fr. Panzer, “we can look to the practice of non-compliance with the teachings of the papal Magisterium as a key reason why slavery was not directly opposed by the Church in the United States.”
Another reason may have been the precarious position of the Catholic Church in America before the twentieth century. Catholics used to be a small and much-despised minority. They were subject to repeated attacks by Protestant “Nativists.” In many ways, the American hierarchy of the day was trying to protect the Catholics immigrating to the U.S. and did not regard itself as in a position to be the leader in a major social crusade.
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp
J
josie_L
Guest
An excerpt taken from: “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Thomas E. Woods Jr. Ph. D
"At this point, the king, faced with dramatic testimony regarding Spanish behaviour in the New World, called together a group of theologians and jurists to develop laws that would govern Spanish officials in their interaction with the natives. In this way were born the Laws of Burgos (1512) and the Valladolid (1513), and similar arguments influenced the so-called New Laws of 1542. Much of this legislation on behalf of the natives proved disappointing in its application and enforcement, particularly since so much distance separated the Spanish Crown from the scene of activity in the New World. But this early criticism helped to set the stage for the more systematic and lasting work of some of the great sixteenth century theological jurists.
Among the most illustrious of these thinkers was Father Francisco Vitoria. In the course of his own critique of Spanish policy, Vitoria laid the groundwork for modern international law theory, and for that reason is sometimes called “the father of international law,” a man who propose[d] for the first time international law in modern terms." With his fellow theological jurists, Vitoria “defended the doctrine that all men are equally free; on the basis of natural liberty, they proclaimed their right to life, to culture, and to property.” In support of his assertions Vitoria drew from both Scripture and reason. In so doing he “furnished the world of his day with its first masterpiece on the law of nations in peace as well as in war.” It was a Catholic priest, therefore, who brought forth the first grand treatise on the law of nations- no small accomplishment."
It was not atheism or any other “ism” that gave equality before the law, but the equality under natural law as was put forth by Spanish theologians of 16th century:
In sum, Spanish theologians of the sixteenth century held the behavior of their own civilization up to critical scrutiny and found it wanting. They proposed that in matters of natural the other peoples of the world were their equals, and that the commonwealths of pagan peoples were entitled to the same treatment that the nations of Christian Europe accorded to one another. That Catholic priests gave Western civilization the philosophical tools with which to approach non-Western peoples in a spirit of equality is quite an extraordinary thing.
Now compare this to Nicolo Machiavelli (an atheist) who presaged the arrival of the modern state with his short book “The Prince”.
"For Machiavelli, **the state was indeed a morally autonomous institution, whose behavior on behalf of its own preservation could be judged against no external standard, whether the decrees of a pope or any code of moral principle. ** No wonder the Church condemned Machiavelli’s political philosophy so severely: it was precisely this view that the great Catholic theologians of Spain so emphatically denied. The state, according to them, could indeed be judged according to principles external to itself, and could not act on the basis of mere expedience or narrow advantage if moral principles were trampled in the process."
In other words, the atheist Nazi and Communist state held themselves to be a “morally autonomous institution, whose behaviour on behalf of its own preservation could be judged against no external standard, whether the decrees of a pope or any code of moral principle.”
"At this point, the king, faced with dramatic testimony regarding Spanish behaviour in the New World, called together a group of theologians and jurists to develop laws that would govern Spanish officials in their interaction with the natives. In this way were born the Laws of Burgos (1512) and the Valladolid (1513), and similar arguments influenced the so-called New Laws of 1542. Much of this legislation on behalf of the natives proved disappointing in its application and enforcement, particularly since so much distance separated the Spanish Crown from the scene of activity in the New World. But this early criticism helped to set the stage for the more systematic and lasting work of some of the great sixteenth century theological jurists.
Among the most illustrious of these thinkers was Father Francisco Vitoria. In the course of his own critique of Spanish policy, Vitoria laid the groundwork for modern international law theory, and for that reason is sometimes called “the father of international law,” a man who propose[d] for the first time international law in modern terms." With his fellow theological jurists, Vitoria “defended the doctrine that all men are equally free; on the basis of natural liberty, they proclaimed their right to life, to culture, and to property.” In support of his assertions Vitoria drew from both Scripture and reason. In so doing he “furnished the world of his day with its first masterpiece on the law of nations in peace as well as in war.” It was a Catholic priest, therefore, who brought forth the first grand treatise on the law of nations- no small accomplishment."
It was not atheism or any other “ism” that gave equality before the law, but the equality under natural law as was put forth by Spanish theologians of 16th century:
In sum, Spanish theologians of the sixteenth century held the behavior of their own civilization up to critical scrutiny and found it wanting. They proposed that in matters of natural the other peoples of the world were their equals, and that the commonwealths of pagan peoples were entitled to the same treatment that the nations of Christian Europe accorded to one another. That Catholic priests gave Western civilization the philosophical tools with which to approach non-Western peoples in a spirit of equality is quite an extraordinary thing.
Now compare this to Nicolo Machiavelli (an atheist) who presaged the arrival of the modern state with his short book “The Prince”.
"For Machiavelli, **the state was indeed a morally autonomous institution, whose behavior on behalf of its own preservation could be judged against no external standard, whether the decrees of a pope or any code of moral principle. ** No wonder the Church condemned Machiavelli’s political philosophy so severely: it was precisely this view that the great Catholic theologians of Spain so emphatically denied. The state, according to them, could indeed be judged according to principles external to itself, and could not act on the basis of mere expedience or narrow advantage if moral principles were trampled in the process."
In other words, the atheist Nazi and Communist state held themselves to be a “morally autonomous institution, whose behaviour on behalf of its own preservation could be judged against no external standard, whether the decrees of a pope or any code of moral principle.”
K
kalt
Guest
I’ve read Dawkins, and nothing I’ve read made me lose faith–or even doubt my faith. I think that those who point to Dawkins as their reason for leaving a faith are just using his books as an excuse. They already gave up on faith. Dawkins is just an expert they can point to, to say, See! I was right all along.
J
josie_L
Guest
What is the definition of Moral relativism?
In moral relativism there are no absolute, concrete rights and wrongs. Rather, intrinsic ethical judgements exist as abstracta, differing for each perception of an ethical outlook.
In moral relativism there are no absolute, concrete rights and wrongs. Rather, intrinsic ethical judgements exist as abstracta, differing for each perception of an ethical outlook.
A
aileron
Guest
That is a lot of material, but i have to ask what it has to do with anything? I don’t believe, nor am I trying to make the point that the human instruments of the Church have been consistently a net negative force for humanity. My point all along has been that it has changed with the times, all the while claiming otherwise.
In other words, they have been inconstant. Counterbalancing what we consider today the bad with what we consider today the good only serves to reinforce my point. If a clear, discernible universal code of morality existed from a transcendental source, why has the Church and all of Christianity changed its preaching of morality over time?
They used to preach and sanctify repression of Jews. Now they preach that it is a serious sin. They used to preach and sanctify wars of conquest and enslavement of indigenous peoples. Now they work tirelessly to protect their rights, at least until the higher ups tell them to stop.
The problem with claiming that the Church can claim a universal, constant moral authority is that in practice they have shown just the opposite.
Allow me to cut and paste too, from Mark Twain.
In other words, they have been inconstant. Counterbalancing what we consider today the bad with what we consider today the good only serves to reinforce my point. If a clear, discernible universal code of morality existed from a transcendental source, why has the Church and all of Christianity changed its preaching of morality over time?
They used to preach and sanctify repression of Jews. Now they preach that it is a serious sin. They used to preach and sanctify wars of conquest and enslavement of indigenous peoples. Now they work tirelessly to protect their rights, at least until the higher ups tell them to stop.
The problem with claiming that the Church can claim a universal, constant moral authority is that in practice they have shown just the opposite.
Allow me to cut and paste too, from Mark Twain.
A
aileron
Guest
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Even its founder called it a failure.
There are many ways to define moral relativism, but in short they are all relative to something and usually multiple things – normally culture, place, time, relevant history, present state of knowledge or ignorance on a matter, etc.
J
josie_L
Guest
It’s just a definition, hence my reason for using wikipedia, would you prefer I used another dictionary to define moral relativism to your satisfaction.
The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation. It can be used positively to effect change in the law (e.g., promoting tolerance for other customs or lifestyles) or negatively as a means to attempt justification for wrongdoing or lawbreaking. The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which espouses a fundamental, Natural Law of constant values and rules, and which judges all persons equally, irrespective of individual circumstances or cultural differences.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Moral+Relativism
P.S. I find it highly ironic (and funny quite frankly) that even the term/definition of “moral relativism” is relative.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
What about love? Did anybody ever find out where it comes from?
(just kidding) My attempt at humor.
(just kidding) My attempt at humor.
J
josie_L
Guest
An excerpt taken from “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope” by RABBI David Dalin:
"The historical fact is that popes have often spoken out in defense of the Jews, have protected them during times of persecution and pogroms, and have protected their right to worship freely in their synagogues. Popes have traditionally defended Jews from wild anti-semitic allegations. Popes regularly condemned anti-semites who sought to incite violence against Jews. Popes employed Jewish physicians in the Vatican and counted Jews among their personal confidants and friends.
As the great Cambridge University Jewish scholar Israel Abrahams noted in his monumental work, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, first published in 1896, it "was a tradition with the popes of Rome to protect the Jews who were near at hand, " especially those living in Italy and Spain. Moreover, notes historian Thomas Hadden, “of all medieval institutions, the [Catholic] Church stood alone in Europe in its consistent condemnation of Jewish persecutions.” Throughout the Middle Ages, Rome and the papal states "were the only places in [Western] Europe where the Jews were at all times free from attacks or expulsions . . . .
By the time of his death in 1970, Roth had achieved international renown as the most prolific and widely read Jewish historian of his generation, and as the century’s preeminent Jewish scholar of Italian Jewish history and the history of papal-Jewish relations. Time and again, throughout his many writings and lectures, Roth pointed out that during eras of rampant anti-semitism, the popes in Rome were often the only world leader to raise their voices in defense and support of the Jews, “of all the dynasties of Europe,” noted Roth, "the papacy not only refused to persecute the Jews . . . but through the ages popes were protectors of the Jews . . . The truth is that the popes and the Catholic Church from the earliest days of the Church were never responsible for physical persecution of Jews and only Rome, among the capitals of the World, is free from having been a place of Jewish tragedy. For this we Jews must have gratitude."
"The historical fact is that popes have often spoken out in defense of the Jews, have protected them during times of persecution and pogroms, and have protected their right to worship freely in their synagogues. Popes have traditionally defended Jews from wild anti-semitic allegations. Popes regularly condemned anti-semites who sought to incite violence against Jews. Popes employed Jewish physicians in the Vatican and counted Jews among their personal confidants and friends.
As the great Cambridge University Jewish scholar Israel Abrahams noted in his monumental work, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, first published in 1896, it "was a tradition with the popes of Rome to protect the Jews who were near at hand, " especially those living in Italy and Spain. Moreover, notes historian Thomas Hadden, “of all medieval institutions, the [Catholic] Church stood alone in Europe in its consistent condemnation of Jewish persecutions.” Throughout the Middle Ages, Rome and the papal states "were the only places in [Western] Europe where the Jews were at all times free from attacks or expulsions . . . .
By the time of his death in 1970, Roth had achieved international renown as the most prolific and widely read Jewish historian of his generation, and as the century’s preeminent Jewish scholar of Italian Jewish history and the history of papal-Jewish relations. Time and again, throughout his many writings and lectures, Roth pointed out that during eras of rampant anti-semitism, the popes in Rome were often the only world leader to raise their voices in defense and support of the Jews, “of all the dynasties of Europe,” noted Roth, "the papacy not only refused to persecute the Jews . . . but through the ages popes were protectors of the Jews . . . The truth is that the popes and the Catholic Church from the earliest days of the Church were never responsible for physical persecution of Jews and only Rome, among the capitals of the World, is free from having been a place of Jewish tragedy. For this we Jews must have gratitude."
D
DavidHume
Guest
Thank you for telling me what actually happened to me, instead of what I remembered happening to me.I’ve read Dawkins, and nothing I’ve read made me lose faith–or even doubt my faith. I think that those who point to Dawkins as their reason for leaving a faith are just using his books as an excuse. They already gave up on faith. Dawkins is just an expert they can point to, to say, See! I was right all along.
- Status