W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
i assume you mean me.
no i donât happen to be
but can i ask why?, its ok to ask, but im just curious how that idea came up.
- Status
no i donât happen to be
but can i ask why?, its ok to ask, but im just curious how that idea came up.
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Cats,
Best,
Leela
If the Catechism gets to define those words rather than God, then you think the Catechism is a slavemaster?
Best,
Leela
L
Leela
Guest
Relativism
Relativism
If you label what I am saying relativism, does that mean that you donât need to argue the issue at hand? Iâm not a relativist but that is another issue anyway. I was responding to your claim that I am trying to dictate what ârationalâ means. Are you saying that you now agree that I am not a would-be dictator but am instead a relativist?
CatsAndDogs;4383812:
Why?
I donât want to dictate anything. I would like to persuade.
My belief system includes a belief that beliefs cannot be dictated. You can coerce someone to CLAIM to believe something, but for someone to actualy believe something they would have to believe that it is actually true.
I have confidence that we have a better and better idea of what is good as we continue living and having conversations about what is good. We didnât come to the conclusion that slavery is wrong, for exmaple, by reading the Bible more carefully, but by having such conversations.
As I suspected, you are the one who wants to be a dictator rather than me just as it is you who argues from materialist permises rather than me.I most certainly WOULD dictate that correct religion be accepted as a universally good thing. I make no bones about that. Does this make me a dictator? Yes, but a dictator, one of whose dictates is that Iâm prohibited from imposing my dictates on anyone other than by trying to persuade them my (the Churchâs actually) dictates are good, with no authority to be coercive.
Best,
Leela
L
Leela
Guest
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
I donât argue issues. I tell truths. I also correct errors, or rather tell those in error what their errors are and suggest the truths that need to replace those errors.
Once again, Iâm not in the âpersuasionâ biz. The Church IS actually in the persuasion biz, but as Iâve said Iâm just a letter carrier.
All dictators ARE relativists, other than one case of course, which is the dictator who is both absolutely right and absolutely moral, and all relativists are would-be dictators.
In fact, weâre all would-be dictators! The only differentiation between us in this respect is the content of what we would dictate to others.
The absolutely right and absolutely moral dictator is forbidden from using violence to enforce his dictates.
All other dictators use coercive force, aka violence, to enforce their dictates. Though, would-be âunempoweredâ dictators tend NOT to use actual violence as they donât want to get the big stick upside the head for their insolence.
:shamrock2:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Why what?
It would be âsomewhatâ wise for all people to follow a single religion (belief system) for efficiency considerations. Homogeneous societies tend to ârun more smoothlyâ.
It would be more wise for all people to follow the RIGHT religion because in addition to the benefits of following the SAME religion, social behavior would be based on actual truth which would eliminate quite a bit of the âfrictionâ due to people acting on untruths that they THINK are truths.
Seems rather obvious, doesnât it?
Now, it is wiser to âfight aboutâ which religion is right, with the stipulation that SOMEONE is in possession of the right religion in the first place (which is not absolutely necessary but a very good idea), because that is the process by which ânormal peopleâ find out about the flaws and virtues of the religions âin conflictâ and (usually over enormous amounts of time) âtweakâ their societies in ways that bring them closer to accepting the true religion.
:shamrock2:
F
fhansen
Guest
One should never coerce another person into believing in the reality and love of a God who promises to shape us into beings whoâve been perfected in love ourselves-turned away from evil of any kind-along with the promise of unimaginable eternal happiness and the gift of the very faith necessary to believe in those promisesâŚbut then again, how could it *not *be a good thing for the world to have that kind of hope-that kind of faith-in that kind of God?Last night, I had dinner with my girlfriends.
S. is a Muslim, just home visiting her folks. She returns to Saudi today.
A. is a Jew. I tell her that she should buy me a beer because she killed my God. She buys me beer and tells me that when the REAL Messiah comes, sheâll be the one getting ME to buy her beer.
K. is Hindu. Her wedding was the most visually stunning event I have ever seen in my whole life.
And L., poor sweet LâŚshe is an atheist. She sends me Kwanzaa cards at Christmas. Sheâs very, um, confused.
We all get along splendidly. Weâve been friends since high school, through marriages, divorces, kids, moving, jobs, death of friends and family, near death experiences ourselvesâŚ
We all get along famously.
Whatâs everyone elseâs problem?
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
To dictate is not necessarily to impose by FORCE. That IS the common understanding of the word, no doubt, but Iâm not using it that way. What I mean in itâs use is to have information which should be accepted (by some authority) and to try to have that information accepted.
Much like one âdictatesâ a letter to a secretary.
To me âdictatorâ is not a dirty word, because âbenevolent dictatorsâ are a possibility. Thatâs why I use the word âslavemasterâ as the âE V I Lâ character.
Anyway, as there is in fact only one âdictatorâ worth taking âdictationâ from, being God via His representatives, as all other so-called dictators are in fact âslavemastersâ, I donât worry about this âproblemâ very much.
Iâm very happy that you would choose to represent truth to others in a persuasive manner, as opposed to trying to impose it by force.
Thatâs very Catholic of you!
The question is: What is it that youâre trying to persuade people to assent to? Donât fall into the (very secular) trap of mistaking âmethodâ for âmessageâ. To try to be persuasive (the method), as opposed to coercive, is a good thing, but that good is actually an evil if the message being persuaded is an evil.
We are not good because weâre persuasive. Weâre good because weâre good (by persuading that truth is truth).
Insomuch as you are trying to persuade people of actual truths, you are âdoing Godâs workâ.
But if your source of what âtruthâ is isnât particularly âreliableâ, shall we say, why would you trying to persuade others that possible/probable untruths are truths be a good thing?
But, if youâre not using violence to gain assent of your âagendaâ, at least that points toward your having SOME âtapâ into the true source of Godâs truths.
Discovering WHERE one gets oneâs idea of what âgoodâ means, as well as âevilâ of course, tends to keep one on the path toward actually doing good in the world, instead of sowing some goods and some evils.
:shamrock2:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Right. Since I know what you mean by âdictateâ, which is to force, I agree with you and commend you for that position.
And you are absolutely correct that you can force obedience but not conversion of heart.
But my point was that unless YOU believe that your belief system is a good one, you wouldnât suggest that other people see the goodness in it and that itâs worth your time to try to persuade people to adopt it.
Is it good to NOT to try to give good things to people? No. Thatâs uncharitable.
People of good will, who have something good to offer to people, try to persuade people to accept the good thing that they have to offer.
That describes you quite well, I would think!
The question is: How do even YOU know what is good about what you think is good that you have to offer to people?
:shamrock2:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Amen!
Slavery was allowed because some people were more interested in some economic advantage than what they knew was an evil.
Eventually, the people who were more committed to eliminating that evil from their society (than the above) became motivated to do what âtemporal powersâ (governments / âcoercion-using authoritiesâ) do, which is to enforce morality.
Thus was slavery ended. It was not a âpersuasive processâ. It was a âcoercive processâ. But where did the moral authority come from that proclaimed slavery an evil in the first place?
The knowledge that slavery is evil, the (in your words) âconclusion that slavery is wrongâ, did not originate with those who eventually eliminated slavery (in the US, for example).
It was ALWAYS evil. It is proclaimed an evil by God, and always has been. It has been âallowedâ by God for his ârather moronicâ people, just as various evils are now allowed (such as abortion) because they werenât âready yetâ to believe what God has always said about it.
It wasnât âreading the bible more carefullyâ that ended slavery. It wasnât a âsudden discovery of new infoâ in the bible that ended slavery.
It was actually shutting out the noise of the world so that the Word of God could be heard that ended slavery.
It was rejecting the relativism, and pragmatism, of âwhat worksâ that gave us âeconomic advantageâ and accepting the absolute God given FACT that SLAVERY IS EVIL is what ended slavery.
:shamrock2:
L
Leela
Guest
Sure I do. It comes from the human beings in the Catholic Church hierarchy that published it.You donât quite know where the Catechism comes from, do you?
:shamrock2:
Best,
Leela
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
amazing that you can âknowâ where the catechism came from, but you cant âknowâ where the universe came from.
double stadards:thumbsup:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Well, once again, because you see the word âdictatorâ as absolutely evil, I see your point.
Fortunately, thatâs not what I mean by âdictatorâ.
Were I a âtemporal powerâ I would dictate laws that enforce morality according to the Church.
That is what laws are.
I would do that by persuading the populace that those laws are the best ones to choose. I would not force them to accept them, anymore than God forces us to accept Him.
That, in fact, is what we Catholics (who are actually Catholics) do when we vote in our respective countries. That is democracy.
As Catholics, though, we are as I expressed above:
ââŚDoes this make me a dictator? Yes, but a dictator, one of whose dictates is that Iâm prohibited from imposing my dictates on anyone other than by trying to persuade them my (the Churchâs actually) dictates are good, with no authority to be coercive.â
Wishy-washy relativistic boom-and-bust morality which changes with the times and creates the cycle of suffering that we see in the secular world is not what I would prefer, and since I have a better solution, which apparently you donât, I feel more confident and competent to propose a solution to âsocietal sufferingâ than I think you have.
Itâs fine that youâd disagree with me on that, but letâs see you use your powers of persuasion in these fori and in the world to get people on your side, and see what the results of that persuasion actually produce.
What your âbelief systemâ (religion) has produced is what we see in the suffering of humanity at the present, while the positive things of humanity are humanityâs inheritance from itâs Church.
:shamrock2:
J
joseph_virgen
Guest
you are half way to becoming a christian yourself. you question the state of the world and cry out for peace and equality.
do what other good christians have done in the past. read everything in regards to the different religious beliefs. iâde say read about one thousand books.
in the end, and it will take a while, you will see the Light. and if you donât see the Light , no doubt you will come out a better human being.
in any way, you are in a no lose situation, for the Nazarene sees what is in your heart and the motivations by which certain deeds were done.
good luck with that.
do what other good christians have done in the past. read everything in regards to the different religious beliefs. iâde say read about one thousand books.
in the end, and it will take a while, you will see the Light. and if you donât see the Light , no doubt you will come out a better human being.
in any way, you are in a no lose situation, for the Nazarene sees what is in your heart and the motivations by which certain deeds were done.
good luck with that.
L
Leela
Guest
What are you talking about?
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Cats,
When did God ever say that slavery is wrong?
God actually gives permission to enslave:
âHowever, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.â (Leviticus 25:44-46)
Yet God does say that a man beating his slave should to death should be punishedâŚ
âWhen a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.â (Exodus 21:20-21)
So he can beat his slave as long as he doesnât kill his slave?
Best,
Leela
T
Tiago_Paolini
Guest
I am going back to the first post of the thread:
One of the problems with certain atheists when they talk about religion is implying that religion is to be blamed about the evil acts people commit. But does it actually come from religion? There are people without any religious belief who do bad, and it is not only a few ones⌠If it were true that religion is the root of all evil, them the Soviet Union would be the greatest paradise ever, which clearly was not the case (by the way, its government was officially atheist).
Violence is not an exclusivity of religious people, there were several violent acts committed by atheists. Communist governments, like Stalin, Lenin, Mao and co., have killed tens of millions of people only in XX century, which is way more that any religious group did in the last two millennia (check the Black Book of Communism if you do not believe me). Curiously enough, atheists who criticize the âreligiousâ violence just overlook this fact.
Of course I am not saying that an atheist is necessarily evil (and most of them are not), nor that atheism would be source of evil, I am saying that do not having a religion is not something that will bring peace. Violence is something that comes from several social factors and many other reasons, and a person who is willing to get what they want by any means will just use any excuse to kill, and it may or may not to be a âreligiousâ excuse, as also it can be a political one etcâŚ
It is unfair to say that all the religions are bad just because the evil committed by people who call themselves members of a certain religion. Most of the religious people can live in peace, and should not be responsibled for the acts of the few âbad applesâ.
So the question should not be âCan we ever have peace when one group of people believes in the Koran and another believes in the Bible?â, it should be âCan we ever have peace among all the human beings?â since the violence is a thing that comes from mankind and not from religion. I do not know the answer, but it was not my goal to reply it, I posted to say that religion is not a source of evil.
I would like to finish my post with something about the âpeace when one group of people believes in the Koran and another believes in the Bibleâ. It is a very recent news that I happened to find: Final statement of Catholic-Muslin forum â Called to Be Instruments of Love and Harmony.
Regards,
Tiago
Sorry if I am raising points that were raised before, because I did not read all the 8 pages of posting, but these are importants points to the question.
One of the problems with certain atheists when they talk about religion is implying that religion is to be blamed about the evil acts people commit. But does it actually come from religion? There are people without any religious belief who do bad, and it is not only a few ones⌠If it were true that religion is the root of all evil, them the Soviet Union would be the greatest paradise ever, which clearly was not the case (by the way, its government was officially atheist).
Violence is not an exclusivity of religious people, there were several violent acts committed by atheists. Communist governments, like Stalin, Lenin, Mao and co., have killed tens of millions of people only in XX century, which is way more that any religious group did in the last two millennia (check the Black Book of Communism if you do not believe me). Curiously enough, atheists who criticize the âreligiousâ violence just overlook this fact.
Of course I am not saying that an atheist is necessarily evil (and most of them are not), nor that atheism would be source of evil, I am saying that do not having a religion is not something that will bring peace. Violence is something that comes from several social factors and many other reasons, and a person who is willing to get what they want by any means will just use any excuse to kill, and it may or may not to be a âreligiousâ excuse, as also it can be a political one etcâŚ
It is unfair to say that all the religions are bad just because the evil committed by people who call themselves members of a certain religion. Most of the religious people can live in peace, and should not be responsibled for the acts of the few âbad applesâ.
So the question should not be âCan we ever have peace when one group of people believes in the Koran and another believes in the Bible?â, it should be âCan we ever have peace among all the human beings?â since the violence is a thing that comes from mankind and not from religion. I do not know the answer, but it was not my goal to reply it, I posted to say that religion is not a source of evil.
I would like to finish my post with something about the âpeace when one group of people believes in the Koran and another believes in the Bibleâ. It is a very recent news that I happened to find: Final statement of Catholic-Muslin forum â Called to Be Instruments of Love and Harmony.
Regards,
Tiago
T
Tiago_Paolini
Guest
I can place a better question: âWhen did God say that slavery was right?â
One of the biggest mistakes (or possibly the biggest mistake) that someone can commit while analyzing an historical period is attempting to analyze it with the same standards and values we have today, because people of the past had absolutely no access to them.
It is needed to understand a certain period with its standards and values. In the time that the Bible is referring the âslaveâs rightsâ was an unheard thing, and by giving the cited laws God made the slaved people to start gaining rights. Of course it was not everything they needed, but some problems cannot (or should not) be solved overnight.
The slave work was the only type of work of that time, and just ending with it would ruin the whole society (including the slaves). God also will not âmagicallyâ change the mentality of that society overnight because He does not interfere with peopleâs free will. So a better solution was to gradually make the rest of the society give the slaves rights until their work could no longer be called âslaveryâ. Therefore, the biblical words you mentioned by no means are a lack of Godâs love, and also note that any harm done to the slaves came from God.
Regards,
Tiago
- Status