Post Reply
Page 8 of 12  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Does catholicism - or even christianity as a whole - consider women as second class?
3 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2012 - 12:48PM #71
LittleLes
Posts: 9,994

jlb asked "Just curious, why is slavery objectively wrong that keeping slaves would be immoral? "


RESPONSE:


Good grief! Is it possible that jlb just doesn't understand basic morality?


Gaudium et Spes,27
"Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator."


Still, Pope Nicholas V  by virtue of his "Apostolic Authority" allowed the "perpetual" enslavement of unbelievers and all their future offspring as well as the taking of all their property.


"We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery. [Dum Diversas]


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2012 - 1:07PM #72
happygardener
Posts: 734

jlb says:


"And this is just wrong information, HG.  I agree that not all theological questions can be tested logically, but it’s simply wrong to say that none of them can be subjected to the rigors of logic.


The first book of the Bible is Genesis.  Adam is mentioned in Genesis; therefore, Adam is mentioned in the first book of the Bible.


Christ was born in Bethlehem in Judea.  There are two cities named Bethlehem.  Mary was not in Bethlehem of Zebulun when she gave birth are some examples."


 


Neither of your examples represent theological issues. They are observations that any one studying the Bible might make (a poet, English lit major etc) and rely only on the Bible as literature, no theological issue is implied.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 9:30AM #73
jlb32168
Posts: 13,420

Apr 16, 2012 -- 9:19AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

The premise is not false though. The catholic church deliberately kept the activity of pedophile preists hidden, and rather than act to remove the priest from the church, instead moved them to other parishes where they could continue their activity.


And that’s where your premise is false.  First of all, not all bishops did this.  Some of them delivered pedophiles over to the authorities; ergo, it isn’t church teaching to shelter pedophile priests.  Secondly, the Church isn’t limited to the clergy but the whole people and the people certainly didn’t teach that sheltering pedophiles was okay.


Apr 16, 2012 -- 9:19AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you how slavery is immoral. If you don't get it yet, you never will.


In other words, you’re going to dodge the question.  Please explain why slavery is absolutely immoral.


There are Christians who are buying enslaved Christians in Sudan in order to liberate them from their Muslim owners.  Is this immoral?


Apr 16, 2012 -- 9:19AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

It's because you are drawing a false dillema to support the act of enslavement.


Why is the dilemma false?  What dilemma is there in the first place??


You’re dodging the question yet again; therefore, I’ll ask the question again.  Had the slaves been liberated in the ancient Roman Empire, thousands of freedmen suddenly freed and turned out into the streets because their former owners could afford to pay them wages, would have been forced to resort to crime, prostitution, and other unsavory practices just to live because there were no social services in place to suddenly help them.


Would you have liberated them and how would you justify your action/inaction?


Apr 16, 2012 -- 9:19AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

The problem with slavery is it removes the ability of the slave to choose what his station in life should be.


So, the ability to choose one’s station in life is an inalienable.  Why do we deny this right to children until at the arbitrary set age of 18?


Why do we require college degrees for jobs when some people simply cannot afford to go to college and never will be able – in spite of the fact that they have the common sense to do the job and do it well?


Apr 16, 2012 -- 9:19AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

In the ancient roman empire, the romans still had work they needed done, so to imply that suddenly there would be no employment for the thousands of slaves is ridiculous.


The work done for free would now have to be paid work.  If you think that all of these owners would suddenly be able to rehire for wages their former slaves, then you’re being naïve or disingenuous. 


Apr 16, 2012 -- 9:19AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

I'm not suggesting introducing a 'new teaching', I'm asking for justification for the 'old teaching'. So far you have provided none.


I disagree.  Perhaps you don’t agree with the justification, but that’s different from not providing one.


Apr 16, 2012 -- 9:19AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

And I have suggested none of these things. Why are you attributing them to me?


I’m not attributing them to you.  I’m attributing them to the liberal theology that always comes hand in hand with those who support priestesses.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 9:32AM #74
jlb32168
Posts: 13,420

Apr 15, 2012 -- 11:48PM, happygardener wrote:

So what, I'm not the Easter Bunny either.


That's a rather unoriginal way to avoid the fact that you premise equates “Christ is the head of the Church” with “Christ is the Church”, which is false.


Apr 16, 2012 -- 1:07PM, happygardener wrote:

Neither of your examples represent theological issues.


Okay.


[P1] “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” [P2] I am a part of “all”.[C] I have fallen short of the glory of God.


What is a theological issue as contrasted against a non-theological issue?

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 10:08AM #75
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

Apr 17, 2012 -- 9:32AM, jlb32168 wrote:


Apr 15, 2012 -- 11:48PM, happygardener wrote:

So what, I'm not the Easter Bunny either.


That's a rather unoriginal way to avoid the fact that you premise equates “Christ is the head of the Church” with “Christ is the Church”, which is false.




I ask this for the umpteenth time; If Jesus were to return to earth, what church would he attend?


I don't expect any answers this time either; no one is stupid enough to say the RCC.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 10:10AM #76
jlb32168
Posts: 13,420

Start a thread on it, Marcion.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 10:36AM #77
Sparky_Spotty
Posts: 803


And that’s where your premise is false.  First of all, not all bishops did this.  Some of them delivered pedophiles over to the authorities; ergo, it isn’t church teaching to shelter pedophile priests.  



So,
a) some delivered the priests to the authorities, therefore that is the church teaching,

b)some hid them or covered it up, but that is NOT the church teaching?

Your argument is useless because it can be applied equally to anything the church does.



Secondly, the Church isn’t limited to the clergy but the whole people and the people certainly didn’t teach that sheltering pedophiles was okay.



So the people have a greater morals than the church institution, no suprise there.



In other words, you’re going to dodge the question.  Please explain why slavery is absolutely immoral.



Wow, really?  So, me purchasing someone, and forcing them to do work for me, and only keeping them supplied with the bare necessities of life, so they are healthy enough to keep working for me, and beating or mutilating them if they try to escape, that's ok?


There are Christians who are buying enslaved Christians in Sudan in order to liberate them from their Muslim owners.  Is this immoral?



Another straw man.
Were the Christians purchasing them to keep them as their own slaves? No? Then why are you bringing it up?



Why is the dilemma false?  What dilemma is there in the first place??
You’re dodging the question yet again; therefore, I’ll ask the question again.  Had the slaves been liberated in the ancient Roman Empire, thousands of freedmen suddenly freed and turned out into the streets because their former owners could afford to pay them wages, would have been forced to resort to crime, prostitution, and other unsavory practices just to live because there were no social services in place to suddenly help them.

Would you have liberated them and how would you justify your action/inaction?



And you ignored my answer. Try reading it again.
The work still needed to be done. The Romans wanted it done. Payment could still have been made in terms of food and shelter as opposed to currency.
The point is, they had no moral justification to keep them in their position AGAINST THEIR WILL. That's they key feature of slavery which makes it so immoral. Keeping them there against their will.  Do you understand now?



So, the ability to choose one’s station in life is an inalienable.  Why do we deny this right to children until at the arbitrary set age of 18?



Ridiculous comparasin. They are children.
Are you suggesting slaves were inferior to their owners, sort of like a parent child relationship?  Really?



Why do we require college degrees for jobs when some people simply cannot afford to go to college and never will be able – in spite of the fact that they have the common sense to do the job and do it well?



Really? So I can take a white kid with a high school education, and expect him to design the superstructure of a 40 story building?
Ridiculous.



The work done for free would now have to be paid work.  If you think that all of these owners would suddenly be able to rehire for wages their former slaves, then you’re being naïve or disingenuous.



That's exactly the justification that was used to keep black people as slaves in America.  Congratulations.

I explained how the same stations could remain, BUT with the worker having the choice to leave that station if he desired. What part of "slavery" do you not get?


I’m not attributing them to you.  I’m attributing them to the liberal theology that always comes hand in hand with those who support priestesses.



So, person A believes in X and Y.  You disagree with X, so Y is wrong.
Got it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 11:15AM #78
jlb32168
Posts: 13,420

Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:36AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

Your argument is useless because it can be applied equally to anything the church does.


And that’s where you’re wrong.  You will never find a document or otherwise official Church teaching that says, “It is Church teaching that bishops and priests are instructed to shelter pedophile priests”. 


Your own example argued that since some in the Church did X, it is Church teaching.  Some bishops and priests have advocated for priestesses.  Some bishops have actually ordained priestesses and were censured for it, and yet, you have argued that Church teaching makes women into 2nd class citizens.  That says that you clearly know how to define Church teaching and how it’s not based upon the criterion “If people w/in the Church do it, then it qualifies as ‘Church teaching’”.


Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:36AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

So the people have a greater morals than the church institution, no suprise there.


Start a thread on it if you like.  It’s not germane to your current point which depended upon a limited definition for the concept “The Church” – that it involved the hierarchy alone.  Clearly that isn’t a correct definition.

Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:36AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

Wow, really? So, me purchasing someone, and forcing them to do work for me, and only keeping them supplied with the bare necessities of life, so they are healthy enough to keep working for me, and beating or mutilating them if they try to escape, that's ok?


Those additional criteria are condemned by the Gospels.  Please explain why owning another person, but treating them kindly and in a humane manner, is immoral.


No, I’m not advocating a return to slavery.

Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:36AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

Were the Christians purchasing them to keep them as their own slaves? No? Then why are you bringing it up?


You said that slavery was objectively, absolutely evil.  Now you seem to be suggesting that engaging in the slave trade might sometimes work for good.

Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:36AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

And you ignored my answer. Try reading it again.


I considered your answer and think it’s wildly inaccurate and founded upon no warrant of history.  There were plenty unenslaved poor who had no jobs.  It seems reasonable to suggest that many of them would gladly have accepted remuneration in goods for their labor.  In the absence of other social services, many of them resorted to begging or crime.  If they were unable to find work, even if remuneration were given in goods, then how can you seriously suggest that this would have been an option available for the additional tens of millions of new freedmen that would have been added to the imperial population?


WOULD YOU HAVE FREED THESE TENS OF MILLIONS OF SLAVES WITHOUT ANY SOCIAL SERVICES NET TO CATCH THEM, TRUSTING ONLY IN YOUR OPINION THAT ALL OF THEM COULD BE REMUNERATED WITH GOODS?  Why can’t you simply answer the question??


Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:36AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

Ridiculous comparasin. They are children.


Do you make no distinctions between a five year old and a 15, 16, or 17 year old?  We deny these teenagers the choice to to choose their station in life all of the time.  Why is it acceptable for us to do so and suddenly bestow them this right at 18?


Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:36AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

Really? So I can take a white kid with a high school education, and expect him to design the superstructure of a 40 story building?


Please answer the question.

Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:36AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

That's exactly the justification that was used to keep black people as slaves in America.


Except that know that we had the resources and social net in place to help freedmen.  We’ve no evidence that the Roman Empire could do this. 

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 11:55AM #79
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

There is no question the catholic laity are more moral than the clergy. The clergy have a long history of hypocricy, abuse and  corruption to uphold.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 12:43PM #80
Rgurley4
Posts: 8,857

WOMEN in God's spiritual "eye"...


Genesis 1:27 (NASB)...Moses?
God created man in His own (spiritual) image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created THEM.


Matthew 19:4 (NASB)...Jesus: confirms the TRI-UNE God's creation
And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,


Mark 10:6 (NASB)...Jesus: the ONE FLESH rule
5 But Jesus said to them, (Pharisees)
“Because of your hardness of heart He (GOD) wrote you this (Hebrew) commandment. ( on "easy" divorce)
But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
FOR THIS REASON (marriage?!)
A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER
AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH;
so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
What therefore God has joined together (believers spiritually), let no man separate.”


Galatians 3:28 (NASB)....Paul: Spiritual Equality in the eyes of the TRI-UNE God
There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither slave nor free man,
there is neither male nor female;
for you are all ONE (in spirit and soul) in Christ Jesus.(body of Christ = saved believers)


The "CHURCH" ("The Living Church?") is the collective "Body" of BELIEVERS who are permanently indwelt by God the Holy Spirit at the time of their Salvation. The "Head" and the "Corner Stone" is God the Son, the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ, The Messiah, The God-Man. Its "building blocks" are the "Grace through Faith" good news which guides the estranged to become a saved BODY + SOUL + SPIRIT.


Ephesians 4: 2-6; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 22:16


Psalm 118:22
The stone (Jesus) which the builders (Israel) rejected has become the chief corner stone.(of the Church)


Isaiah 28:16
Therefore thus says the Lord GOD,
" Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, a costly cornerstone
for the foundation, firmly placed.
He who believes in it will not be disturbed.


Matthew 21...
42  Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures,
         'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
         THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone;
         THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD,
         AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES'?



 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 12  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook