Theology III

[GrayMouser]

[QUOTE=Lief Erikson;620678]

But there were other devastating methods used to develop this economy that I haven't mentioned yet.

4) The expansion of inequalities and ruthless exploitation of the common worker. In the Medieval Ages, there was a social contract between lords and their workers that provided their workers with a generally pretty good life. In fact, throughout most of the Medieval Ages, the average worker was about as tall as Westerners of the 21st century are. That is an indication of good economic conditions, a healthy diet, etc. They began to get shorter in the Late Medieval Ages because the Little Ice Age devastated a lot of harvests, but economic conditions for the average worker became the worst they'd ever been during the Enlightenment. The skeletons of average workers from that time period are shorter than they'd ever been before in post-Christian Western history, because workers were so brutally treated in factories, were starved and given squalor to live in. Owners had no compassion for them in the capitalist free market. This is a useful article showing the transition from economic conditions in the Medieval Ages to economic conditions of the Enlightenment: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm

According to the author, skeletal height also is sensitive to inequalities in populations, and inequalities between the rich and poor actually became far greater in the modern era than they'd been in the Medieval Ages, because of the inhumanity and lack of social, moral responsibility felt by big businesses. To achieve our great economies of today, the common worker for centuries was ground into the filth under an iron foot. It was a very, very savage time in the Enlightenment to be a worker, more so than at any other time in Western history. And inequalities between the rich and poor are actually still much greater in our modern societies than they were in the Medieval Ages- it's just that now in the West, because the brutal practices of the past produced so much more money to go around, both the rich and the poor are monetarily better off than they were in the past.

Intersting study, but a couple of points.

-The study was limited to the far northern fringes of Europe- essentially Scandinavia and Britain- I'd be interested to see figures for the more populated urbanised areas of France, Germany and Italy.

-The author acknowledges the effects of climate and population growth.
For most of the Middle Ages, northern Europe was under-populated. The expansion into that areas was roughly equivalent to the much later settlement of North America and the Antipodes.

Forests were cleared, the heavy bottom lands were first opened by the mouldboard plow, marshes were drained (often by monasteries) horses replaced oxen (horse-collars) , crop rotation and legumes were introduced, as well as wind- and water-mills: all labour-saving devices. (How can you tell I wrote a term paper about this in college? )

Then, inevitably, the weatherman and Dr. Malthus began to catch up.

And, note, the author actually acknowledges that these gains were recovered in the eighteenth century. Certainly, the conditions of Victorian Britain were horrendous- but they were much less so when other countries began to industrialise, including Germany and America.

5) The destruction of the environment. This could have the longest lasting and most cataclysmic impact of all, on humanity. The Bible calls us to be good stewards of creation. However, to develop our modern economy, humans in the Enlightenment destroyed many of the world's ecosystems and most of its natural environment.
http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/jo...cal_Crisis.htm
According to this source, “the fact that the present ecological crisis began developing since the Industrial Revolution is indisputable now.”

There was always cutting down of trees to build buildings or crafts before the modern era, but the Industrial Revolution stepped up the process in a vast way through its factory system. They essentially perpetrated an environmental holocaust in their production of our modern benefits, destroying hundreds of species, ruining the air, forests and seas. We have continued in their footsteps in our age, and this kind of environmental rape is necessary to produce a modern economy of the kind we've got.

Yep, we've been mining our environment instead of stewarding it.

The environmental catastrophe our economic development required could literally end up wiping out the human race, in a few hundred years.

So don't be proud of this economic development. The shrugging off of Christian moral safeguards on society was nightmarish in its consequences for hundreds of millions of people in the past, for many people fighting wars in formerly colonized nations of the present, and it could easily be for all humanity in the future.

OTOH, the average person in medieval times lived a life far below that of most people on Earth today, in any term you wish to posit.

Most of these strides of intellectual thought were strides into evil and away from what was pure. Things like sexual license that were taught by many of these thinkers have caused the proliferation of STDS that have proved an economic burden for nations and death for millions. AIDS alone is expected to kill 1.8 million Ethiopians this year.

Well, according to the Bible and other ancient documents, sexual license has always been with us.

Maybe if Catholic Bishops stopped lying to their parishioners about the size of the AIDS virus and the effectiveness of condoms , some of those millions wouls survive? But hey, what's a few millions of people dying in misery if it stops them from committing the sin of using contraception?

Some of these thinkers advanced Social Darwinism, which spawned Imperialism. Others supported Racism or Eugenics. The new political philosophies were perverted as well. Atheistic Communism has become responsible for repeated genocides, as have democracies (the destruction of Native Americans, and now abortion). There were no Christian genocides in the Medieval Ages, and there were no major rebellions in the Early and Middle Medieval Ages- only a few local rebellions against lords. The modern era is born on rebellion and replete with genocides.

Well, if you don't count the Cathars and others. As I've said before, there's a reason every bump in the ground in Europe has a castle on top. But hey, if you want to return to a world of bubonic plague, serfs bound to the land and subject to execution for changing their jobs, burning Jews and heretics, by all means advocate for it. Our Enlightenment principles mean we won't burn you at the stake for doing so, though we know if you ever got into a position of power you would be more than happy to launch an auto-da-fe on us.

[Lief Erikson]

I'll respond to your post pretty soon, Sis. Just want to respond to GrayMouser first because his historical points tickled my curiosity a lot.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Leif, you have some interesting points here , but you need to be more exact in your terminology and your timelines.

You have some interesting points in your post too .

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

"The Enlightenment" with a capital "E" refers to a specific thing: an intellectual movement in the 18th Century, with roots going back to Descartes, Leibniz, and Newton and the Royal Society in the 17th Century.

In Britain major influences were Bishop Berkeley, Locke, Hume, and Adam Smith; in France the Encyclopediasts, Diderot, d'Halbach, Condorcet, and above all, Voltaire; in America , Ben Franklin, Sam Adams, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

Its members were Deists or (a few) atheists who believed in reason, equality, science, and liberty- even slave-owners like Jefferson acknowledged slavery to be morally wrong.

Slavery (and anti-semitic laws) were abolished by the French Revolutio,; they were re-introduced by that nice Italian Catholic boy Napoleon Bonoparte, who didn't have any truck with that crazy French radicalism.

The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade existed between the 16th and 19th centuries.
Here's how it progressed:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Only slightly more than 3 percent of the slaves exported were traded between 1450 and 1600, 16% in the 17th century. More than half of them were exported in the 18th century, the remaining 28.5% in the 19th century.[15]

The slavery of the modern era was the product of modern nations seeking to develop a modern economy, usually in spite of papal statements on the subject.

Here I'll get to what you said below:

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Romanus Pontifex, a Papal Bull issued in 1455 by Pope Nicholas VI.

Since this was 28 years before Martin Luther was even born, I think it's stretching things to blame this on the Protestants

This is actually a mixed story. Vatican II, under the immense pressure of outside forces, has also done some bad things for the Church, removing traditional positions in favor of some new, more open ones. So it can happen that you get a pope who defies the traditional church position.

However, Pope Nicholas' statements were far from the Vatican's "normal" position on the issue. We can go earlier than Pope Nicholas to see the papacy's position on the use of racial slavery.

A few years before Pope Nicholas said this, in 1435, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of the peoples of the newly colonized Canary Islands in his bull Sicut Dudum. There, he said, "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."

In 1537, in the bull Sublimis Deus, Pope Paul III declared applied the same principle as Pope Eugene IV, saying that the newly discovered inhabitants of the West and South Indies were to be freed. He said enslavers were allies of the devil and said any attempts to justify slavery were "null and void." He also excommunicated latae sententiae anyone who sought to enslave Indians or steal their property. Pope Paul also explicitly condemned the form of slavery "unheard of till now," a reference to racist slavery that was just developing. He also condemned the enslavement not only of the Indians but of "all other peoples."

When many Europeans began to enslave Africans, in its document "Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office," 230, March 20, 1686, the Inquisition was asked about the morality of enslaving blacks, and they replied that this behavior was to be rejected and slavemasters were required to emancipate and compensate blacks who were enslaved.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the papacy continued to condemn slavery. Popes Gregory XIV (Cum Sicuti, 1591), Urban VIII (Commissum Nobis, 1639) and Benedict XIV (Immensa Pastorum, 1741) all did this. Pope Gregory's 1839 bull "In Supremo" condemned the enslavement of, "Indians, blacks or other such people," and in 1888 and 1890, Pope Leo XIII sought the elimination of slavery throughout South America and Africa, vigorously condemning it.

Most popes strongly condemned slavery. That was the normal Vatican position. A very small number of popes differed in support of the imperialist tendencies nations were developing in the modern era. Some of these popes endured more pressure from industrializing nations than others.

I do think that the papal record on this issue indicates that blame falls far more on industrializing nations than it does on the Catholic Church. Usually, enslavement and imperialism occurred in spite of the position of the popes and traditional Christianity. It was a result of feeling an intense desire to create a modern economy.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

The Industrial Revolution started in the late 18th Century in Britain, some three hundred years after "Inter caetra", the famous Papal Bull issued by Alexander VI dividing the world between the Spanish and Portuguese.

Nonetheless, inter caetra was part of the formation of the modern economy. The early development of the modern economy definitely preceed the Industrial Revolution. Inter caetra was also not the normal position of the Vatican, as I pointed out above. It was a deviation from the normal Vatican position that gets highlighted far more than do the Vatican's repeated and numerous condemnations of slavery. I suspect that this has a lot to do with secular society trying to blame Christianity for the faults that its founders were primarily responsible for.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

True enough about the first point. Imperialism and colonialism did of course exist in Medieval Europe- ask the Lithuanians- but it's true that Medieval Europe wasn't a great imperial civilisation, simply because they were unable to be so. For most of medieval history Europe was a weak, primitive backwater on the defensive againt Islam- who were they going to be imperialist against?

I expect that this was part of it. Also St. Augustine's "Just War Doctrine" was part of Catholic theology at the time and forbade these kinds of ventures. The fact that the papacy could rally nations effectively at times for Crusades also implies that there was some military potency in the West. But I suspect that your point is part of the truth.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Again, Christendom didn't have slavery or imperialism because they were too weak to enslave others. It is true that opposition to slavery is a strong strain in Christian thought through the Middle Ages, but equally true that there were many Christians willing to defend it-

Here you have to be careful, because slavery was only supported in those times when it was temporary enslavement of debtors, until their service paid their debts, and the enslavement of prisoners of war (they sought to destroy our country, so isn't it just that their punishment be that they be forced to build it up?) and the enslavement of children born into slavery (else masters would have incentive to break up enslaved families and put kids born out onto the street to die, rather than spending resources to take care of them throughout their youth). These kinds of slavery were supported, and they are much more justified than racist slavery, which originated to justify economic maneuvers after the Medieval Ages were ending or ended.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

and as soon as Christendom grew strong enough to launch its expansion, slavery was part and parcel of the whole deal. The leading states in the imperialist rush were Spain and Portugal, and I've never heard of Reconquista Spain being described as a bastion of Enlightenment thought.

These powers were seeking the modern economy, though, which was part of the modern movement. They were using immoral practices to get that economy. The search for swift material gain is part of the modern era's drive. It always has been. It is a big emphasis of our cultures and nations.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

But hey, what's a few millions of people dying in misery if it stops them from committing the sin of using contraception?

The ends justify the means? Oh wait thats another belief system...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Intersting study, but a couple of points.

-The study was limited to the far northern fringes of Europe- essentially Scandinavia and Britain- I'd be interested to see figures for the more populated urbanised areas of France, Germany and Italy.

Me too. It's very interesting as far as it goes, though.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

-The author acknowledges the effects of climate and population growth.
For most of the Middle Ages, northern Europe was under-populated. The expansion into that areas was roughly equivalent to the much later settlement of North America and the Antipodes.

True, and much of the expansion of the population is the result of modern economic advances.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Forests were cleared, the heavy bottom lands were first opened by the mouldboard plow, marshes were drained (often by monasteries) horses replaced oxen (horse-collars) , crop rotation and legumes were introduced, as well as wind- and water-mills: all labour-saving devices. (How can you tell I wrote a term paper about this in college? )

Then, inevitably, the weatherman and Dr. Malthus began to catch up.

I know there were technological advances back then. That doesn't make the Industrial Revolution and the exploitation of workers, native tribes and slaves to develop modern economies inevitable, though. It was from those modern economies that most of our current technologies spring. Dr. Malthus and the weatherman weren't inevitable. A certain set of immoral and unnecessary practices created them.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

And, note, the author actually acknowledges that these gains were recovered in the eighteenth century. Certainly, the conditions of Victorian Britain were horrendous- but they were much less so when other countries began to industrialise, including Germany and America.

Sure . Doesn't refute my point at all, and I don't disagree.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Yep, we've been mining our environment instead of stewarding it.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

OTOH, the average person in medieval times lived a life far below that of most people on Earth today, in any term you wish to posit.

That's not true. The study I cited shows that they were as well fed as we are. They had far more stable family and social environments. Close-knit village communities were the norm of that time period, and separation between married couples was extremely rare. Since separation was opposed throughout society, couples had more incentive to get over or around their differences rather than break up, which was better for their children's upbringing. The laws of this time period were often more brutal than ours (with the obvious major exceptions being the slavery and abortionist laws of our later time periods), but they were more likely to be based on just, Christian principles, rather than the changing views of humanity about morality. Society was centered around unity- unity in the family around the male head, unity in the kingdom or economy around the local lord or the king, unity in the Church around the pope and most importantly, Christ. Unity was central to that time period whereas division is central to ours. The systems of economy also reflected this- their feudal economy was based on unity around the lord, who provides for his people's needs (a type of our relationship with Christ), whereas ours is based upon a capitalist system of division and striving to get ahead ourselves by bringing down other businesses. Our politics also today are based on division, as are our ideologies and the entire system of modern society. It's about fragmentation and discord, and it applauds these things as good, rather than seeking unity and peace between men.

People's lives were certainly different in that time period- that doesn't mean they were worse.

They didn't have as much economic power or technology as we do, but I've already pointed out the utterly blood drenched pillars the existence of our economy stands on, so its existence is unjustified. We are profiting from the slaughters of millions. And there's little that can be done about it now that it's over.

We have medical technologies that people back then didn't have and we can live longer. These are also the results of technological and economic improvements that cost the blood of hundreds of millions, though, and it could be billions who pay down the line when our environmental catastrophes have more fully developed.

We have advantages now that we enjoy, but they should not have come to exist, because they came through hideously depraved means.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Well, according to the Bible and other ancient documents, sexual license has always been with us.

True, but the vast expansion of STDs largely came at the end of the Medieval Ages. Syphilis, for instance, is first mentioned in the 15th century. It and Gonorrhea were the only STDs known in the US prior to the 1960s.

AIDS is a 20th century disease. Most STDs emerged in the 20th century. Conservative Muslim countries like Oman, on the other hand, which have laws against sexual immorality, experience almost zero AIDS. STDs there are a very minor problem. That is likely what most of the Medieval Ages was like.

Sexual license has always been around, but when it's condemned and illegal, as well as culturally unacceptable, its negative ramifications are much more limited.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Maybe if Catholic Bishops stopped lying to their parishioners about the size of the AIDS virus and the effectiveness of condoms , some of those millions wouls survive? But hey, what's a few millions of people dying in misery if it stops them from committing the sin of using contraception?

I don't care to talk about contraception right now. Maybe another time.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Well, if you don't count the Cathars and others.

Care to elaborate on the "and others"? I'd really like to know. I don't know of any genocides in this time period.

Here's a source that explains how technological inequalities between combatants of the modern era helped to create an environment where genocide was more feasible:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article...story_genocide

That's one possible explanation. The far greater presence of imperialism and colonialism in the modern era are doubtless also part of it.

I've heard the Cathar destruction called Europe's first genocide. I'm not sure how much it qualifies. The Cathars frequently had opportunities to repent and thus escape further attack. They were also all criminals, deliberately violating the laws of the land, both religious and secular, on multiple counts. So I'm not sure how much this qualifies. Maybe it does, maybe not, I'm not sure.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

As I've said before, there's a reason every bump in the ground in Europe has a castle on top. But hey, if you want to return to a world of bubonic plague, serfs bound to the land and subject to execution for changing their jobs, burning Jews and heretics, by all means advocate for it.

These are just a bunch of flashy stereotypes. The Black Death emerged near the end of the Medieval Ages. Not very many heretics were killed, compared to those found guilty of other crimes (the Spanish Inquisition only executed 2-3% of those accused). Other punishments, like fines or banishment, were much more common. Many times, heretics were allowed to just be heretics, provided they didn't spread their false beliefs to others.

Serfs, the vast majority of the time, didn't want to leave their lands. Their land was their livelihood, their means of survival, and most of those that abandoned their land and fled to cities or other places ended up becoming thieves and murderers. Serfs weren't being oppressed by being "bound to the land."

It's a common practice to throw common negative stereotypes at the "Dark Ages," to try to glorify how far we've come, but most of our "advances" are actually moral retreats. The economic and technological developments in our civilization came at the cost of enormously immoral acts, and many of the "rights" we've gained are illegitimate and immoral themselves.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Our Enlightenment principles mean we won't burn you at the stake for doing so, though we know if you ever got into a position of power you would be more than happy to launch an auto-da-fe on us.

My preference is for banishment, which was one of the far more normal penalties in the Medieval Ages. People today tend to take the maximum penalty back then, a penalty that not all that many people ever endured, and then judge the entire time period as one big barbecue. It's stupid.

Medieval principles wouldn't have burned me at the stake for saying what I'm saying either. They would have stopped the slave trade, the imperialist oppression of native civilizations, the abortion epidemic, proliferation of sexual immorality (which itself has killed millions in our era), and other such vast butcheries and depredations of our era if the Vatican's bulls had the same political power they had in the past.

Yes, a handful of popes have slipped from some of these traditional positions, often under the pressure of secular governments. But we have a thousand years of history in which they worked very well as barriers for these kinds of depredations . Combined with technological and economic barriers, if you will .

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I've heard the Cathar destruction called Europe's first genocide. I'm not sure how much it qualifies. The Cathars frequently had opportunities to repent and thus escape further attack. They were also all criminals, deliberately violating the laws of the land, both religious and secular, on multiple counts. So I'm not sure how much this qualifies. Maybe it does, maybe not, I'm not sure.

So basically, convert or die. Hm. I'm sorry to say, Lief, but sometimes your posts seriously creep me out. But how do you compute this with your previous statement that suggested martyrs dying for their faith and conviction gave their testimony (and therefor also their belief) credibility?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

So basically, convert or die. Hm. I'm sorry to say, Lief, but sometimes your posts seriously creep me out.

I'll respond to this later . . . but I did somewhat respond to it in the last three paragraphs of my last post. My own preference is banishment. Historically, that was also a lot more normal a penalty than execution. But the horrors people's rejection of Christian truth have led to since the end of the Medieval Ages . . . oh my gosh. I can really see why they were so intense about keeping their standards completely pure rather than accepting the presence of destructive ideologies.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

But how do you compute this with your previous statement that suggested martyrs dying for their faith and conviction gave their testimony (and therefor also their belief) credibility?

It shows their sincerity. If they're dying for an abstract belief, their martyrdom shows that they sincerely believed in that belief, but the belief can be wrong. If you're dying for your own eyewitness testimony, though, rather than for an abstract belief, your sincerity is suddenly extremely important in proving that you're right.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

People's lives were certainly different in that time period- that doesn't mean they were worse.

Lief, the type of life the average person, i.e. the average peasant, lived in the Middle Ages, was no walk on roses. Days upon days of backbreaking work out in the fields. The sheer workload an immense mental and physical challenge, and thus the average lifespan was a whole lot shorter than it is today. We're talking the lifespan of the average peasant in 3rd world countries, like in Kenya, where you are considered an old man after the age of 50. Do you want to work as a coffee farmer in Kenya? Let's see, Kenya is a largely Catholic nation, where the majority of the workforce consists of peasants and very poor citydwellers.
The average peasant life is a life of being dirtpoor, where famine is a real concern, medical know-how and the availability of doctors is scarce, and while the average peasant hardly has time to commit all these "sins", they hardly have time for anything else! It's a poor life. And being poor is hard. And the luxury which you now enjoy, of philosophical musings and life reflection is a hard-bought and time-spending activity which few peasants may indulge in.

You've turned it on the head. It is not as if the peasants of the Middle Ages lived in absolute knowledge of all the ways they could have a better time, but thought it sinful, it's that they were too dirtpoor, lacking both time and energy, to change the situation.
Who had the luxury you now take as a given? The clergy of the Catholic Church...

And concerning genocides in the Middle Ages.. pretty naive, and here's some suggestions:

- What weapon would you use to wipe out great populations? Send a spear into every single one? It's not like peasants lived in densely filled areas.. they were spread out everywhere! Small communities. Time consuming business.

- Wiping out an entire population is pretty poor planning when the rulers and the clergy were absolutely dependent on the produce of the land. It's not like the lands of Europe were filled to the brim. Large-scale genocides have usually happened when an area is extremely densely populated and there is a real concern over the availability of land. Examples, two of the most horrific: Rwandan genocide, Armenian genocide by the Ottomans.

- Why employ genocides when the annual famines took care of swathes of peasants anyways?

[Lief Erikson]

You know, I think part of the problem in my getting around to respond to your posts, Sis, Eärniel and Coffeehouse is that when I first read them, I thought about them and responded to every point in my head. I was too busy preparing for finals to write down what I'd mentally constructed, though. So now it feels like it'll be a bit boring to write out what I feel as though I've already written. Like rewriting posts I've never written . Not that any of that makes any sense.

Anyway, humbug this insignificant, irrelevant, perfectly flimsy post. I'll get to your posts soon . I'm just rambling aimlessly, pointlessly, worthlessly, uncalculatedly and retardedly (ignore the unreal characteristics of those last two words).

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I'm sorry to say, Lief, but sometimes your posts seriously creep me out.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I certainly understand why you feel that way. I grew up believing in religious freedom too, and only stopped in the last few years. It's something we grow up with so completely that it's like something we breathe, and it's impossible to think outside of that box. The time period and location we grow up may well have more to do with forming our beliefs than any other factors. They invent who we are, how we think, what we believe, what views are acceptable options and which are to be condemned, but these two factors, time period and geography are wholly irrational. They are immensely powerful irrational forces controlling human minds. If you had grown up in Saudi Arabia, your view would be radically different. If you had grown up in Communist China, your view would have been also very different on many points. If you had grown up anywhere a hundred years ago, your viewpoint would have been radically different. The same if you grew up a hundred years in the future, I'd be willing to wager a lot. I am convinced that it is a completely worthless idea to allow these wholly irrational powers to dominate our thinking. Why should our present-day Western philosophies be necessarily better than any others? People will be advocating pedophelia's legalization within your lifetime and mine, in droves. They will advocate the legalization of gladiatorial conflicts, I personally believe. Not forced gladiatorial conflicts, but they'll be paying contestants millions of dollars to perform on real time TV, and it'll be supported in the name of freedom of choice about what we do with our own bodies. It will become legal to cannibalize dead humans and marriage itself may well cease to exist.

There will be far bigger changes coming. Even if I'm completely wrong about those handful of grisly changes I think are coming up, and they are nowhere near so grisly as the legalization of abortion which has already happened, gigantic changes in ethics have occurred and undoubtedly will continue to occur. There have been massive changes in the last two or three hundred years and there will be massive changes coming up right around the corner. You and I, in our later years, will be stunned at the changes that have taken case. Ethics are changing. They bring with them cataclysmic shifts in behavior. Gruesome things have been permitted in our lands and all it takes is time to create these shifts in human thought. Time and geography, irrational powers.

The human mind cannot come up with anything stable on its own. It cannot discern between right and wrong- that is why cultures and societies all over the globe disagree about what the terms mean or even whether or not they have any real meaning. There has to be something absolute to hold onto. Time and geography are not absolutes. They change ceaselessly.

The only way humanity can find its way to real morality is if God comes to humanity and shows them what it is. We just can't come up with it all on our own. We have all kinds of different ideas, and they lead to unbelievably perverse behaviors. The slaughter of hundreds of millions of Indians, Africans and other peoples through imperialism, less than a hundred years ago, was one such case where we invented morality for ourselves. Abortion, which kills hundreds of millions of unborn babies, is our modern thing. Communism had its genocides, fascism had its own, and democracies have their own. Nuclear weapons are poised to wipe out countries if something goes wrong. World Wars have racked the globe. This is humanity's doing.

To escape all of this, one has to have absolutes. And since absolutes cannot come out of human thought, they must come into human thought from outside, from God. Otherwise our morally unstable predicament is hopeless. So I have tried to listen to God, not geography and not historical placement, and to look at his ways as he reveals them in Holy Scripture, the teachings of the Church, Sacred Tradition, Church history and the beliefs and practices of his saints, and I listen to his voice speaking personally to me. I also use reason, but subservient to God's voice speaking to me, not ruling over his voice, for otherwise it would be my reason ruling me again and I would rest firmly on the unstable morality of the world rather than the great and eternal morality of God.

There has to be a way of knowing what's true independent of us or all human morality comes exclusively from us and is therefore aimless, wandering in lostness and hopelessness, as Jean-Paul Sartre believed it was.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Lief, do you understand why other people may not be willing to take your personal revelation for granted?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Lief, do you understand why other people may not be willing to take your personal revelation for granted?

Obviously. And I wouldn't expect them to. I think that they should heed Sacred Tradition, the Sacred Scripture, the teaching of the Church, and their own personal hearing of the Holy Spirit. And there are plenty of good reasons to do that.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

And what is the evidence that these people existed and died for their beliefs?

The death of James is recorded in Acts 12:2. The death of Peter is referred to in John, predictively, by Jesus. Those are extremely early records, first century.

Ancient Church tradition records the deaths of the other disciples also. I'm not sure how much corroborative evidence from outside the Church records exists about these martyrdoms. I don't have information about this right now.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Which implies, to me, that people die for foolish reasons, as well as wise ones.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

quote:
Among these that all liars will go to hell .


Doesn't say that.

Originally Posted by Revelation 21:8

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

See also Ephesians 4:25, Colossians 3:9, 1 John 2:21, Revelation 22:15.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Quote:
Sure, one can argue that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and ascended into heaven and performed all kinds of miraculous signs but wasn't the Savior. Their willingness to die rather than retract any of their testimony proves their sincerity. They could, of course, arguably have been sincerely wrong about the truth of the ideologies Jesus supported, but the miracles they claimed they saw were eyewitness testimonies.


I disagree. You have no eyewitness testimony...it was 2000 years ago. More or less. In history, even if you believed the Bible you're reading was penned personally by St. John, it woulld still be far beyond a secondary source, do you see?

We do know that the scriptures were fervently held to by the successors of the apostles, and by their successors. Many of these men died for their faith, and they tried to implement in their lives an ethical code demanding immense integrity. We can know for certain that they claimed the accounts of the Gospels were the eyewitness testimonies of the apostles, handed down to them. It may not be firsthand, but the men certainly expose their credibility through their behavior. Also, we can be sure from their traditions that the disciples taught the resurrection of Jesus and claimed to be eyewitnesses of it. Again, we have the blood of martyrs to testify to the sincerity of the Early Church Fathers. It is possible that Matthew and John were written by apostles, as well, and Mark by Mark, a close friend of Peter. That too has a basis in Church tradition, though I know that there is a scholarly debate going on over it.

Even if we didn't know who wrote the Gospels, though, we'd know from the fact that the immediate successors of the apostles taught that these were the apostles' accounts (and often died for their faith in the resurrection of Christ) that these were their stories.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Quote:
Of course there's a certain amount of faith involved. Nothing can be proven. Things can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, though, and that little bit of unreasonable doubt that's left is what you sometimes need faith to cover.


See, I think this point of view is COMPLETELY contrary to the Bible. Faith is not a rope to close the gap between the bridge you built with Reason, and the Promise of Heaven. It's the whole darn foundation.

That is a view that runs contrary to the numerous passages in which God uses miracles to prove who his prophet is, or to support Jesus' claims about himself. Also, the fulfillment of prophecy was seen as an evidence showing that a person was to be believed. The scripture clearly shows a set of miracles and eyewitness evidence supporting its claims. Jesus said himself that one of the witnesses to his identity was his Father in heaven, and urged people to at least believe on the evidence of his miracles. When asked what evidence he would give to prove his claims about himself, the scripture records Jesus as saying that he would tear down the temple and rebuild it in three days, and the writer then interprets this as his crucifixion and resurrection.

There are many, many scriptures that relate various kinds of evidences God uses to bring people to faith. Blind faith is never advocated. In fact, the faith of God's disciples in Acts is anything but blind- it is chock full of supernatural intervention. Paul once commented in the Epistles that the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm sorry you feel that way. I certainly understand why you feel that way. I grew up believing in religious freedom too, and only stopped in the last few years. It's something we grow up with so completely that it's like something we breathe, and it's impossible to think outside of that box. The time period and location we grow up may well have more to do with forming our beliefs than any other factors. They invent who we are, how we think, what we believe, what views are acceptable options and which are to be condemned, but these two factors, time period and geography are wholly irrational. They are immensely powerful irrational forces controlling human minds. If you had grown up in Saudi Arabia, your view would be radically different. If you had grown up in Communist China, your view would have been also very different on many points. If you had grown up anywhere a hundred years ago, your viewpoint would have been radically different. The same if you grew up a hundred years in the future, I'd be willing to wager a lot. I am convinced that it is a completely worthless idea to allow these wholly irrational powers to dominate our thinking. Why should our present-day Western philosophies be necessarily better than any others? People will be advocating pedophelia's legalization within your lifetime and mine, in droves. They will advocate the legalization of gladiatorial conflicts, I personally believe. Not forced gladiatorial conflicts, but they'll be paying contestants millions of dollars to perform on real time TV, and it'll be supported in the name of freedom of choice about what we do with our own bodies. It will become legal to cannibalize dead humans and marriage itself may well cease to exist.

There will be far bigger changes coming. Even if I'm completely wrong about those handful of grisly changes I think are coming up, and they are nowhere near so grisly as the legalization of abortion which has already happened, gigantic changes in ethics have occurred and undoubtedly will continue to occur. There have been massive changes in the last two or three hundred years and there will be massive changes coming up right around the corner. You and I, in our later years, will be stunned at the changes that have taken case. Ethics are changing. They bring with them cataclysmic shifts in behavior. Gruesome things have been permitted in our lands and all it takes is time to create these shifts in human thought. Time and geography, irrational powers.

The human mind cannot come up with anything stable on its own. It cannot discern between right and wrong- that is why cultures and societies all over the globe disagree about what the terms mean or even whether or not they have any real meaning. There has to be something absolute to hold onto. Time and geography are not absolutes. They change ceaselessly.

The only way humanity can find its way to real morality is if God comes to humanity and shows them what it is. We just can't come up with it all on our own. We have all kinds of different ideas, and they lead to unbelievably perverse behaviors. The slaughter of hundreds of millions of Indians, Africans and other peoples through imperialism, less than a hundred years ago, was one such case where we invented morality for ourselves. Abortion, which kills hundreds of millions of unborn babies, is our modern thing. Communism had its genocides, fascism had its own, and democracies have their own. Nuclear weapons are poised to wipe out countries if something goes wrong. World Wars have racked the globe. This is humanity's doing.

To escape all of this, one has to have absolutes. And since absolutes cannot come out of human thought, they must come into human thought from outside, from God. Otherwise our morally unstable predicament is hopeless. So I have tried to listen to God, not geography and not historical placement, and to look at his ways as he reveals them in Holy Scripture, the teachings of the Church, Sacred Tradition, Church history and the beliefs and practices of his saints, and I listen to his voice speaking personally to me. I also use reason, but subservient to God's voice speaking to me, not ruling over his voice, for otherwise it would be my reason ruling me again and I would rest firmly on the unstable morality of the world rather than the great and eternal morality of God.

There has to be a way of knowing what's true independent of us or all human morality comes exclusively from us and is therefore aimless, wandering in lostness and hopelessness, as Jean-Paul Sartre believed it was.

I've always listened with a heavy pinch of salt to doomsday talk. It's such an easy path to take, and it displays an ignorance of history.

Of all the conclusions human kind can take from its relatively short history, it is that things, in general, have gotten better as time progresses.

For all the wars and conflicts and bloodshedding in the 20th century, more people have reached out of poverty, enjoyed a marked upturn in economy and life situation, and an empowerment of the individual without precedent in all of human history. Whilst in the 16th century, and in the 12th century, and in the 5th century, peoples all over the planet were in general poor and without a saying to what life they would want to lead, the 21st century has brought about an unprecedent wealth for great swathes of mankind.

And with it, comes the ability to help out of poverty those that still linger in it, be they Burmese, Sudanese, Bolivian or Chechnyan. In the future, the rule of law will hopefully prevail. The rule of law, inspired not by God-given morality, but by a common understand among people, achieved through reason, lies as a foundation for the progress of mankind. So far, much is yet to be done. There are still dictators in the world, but they are dwindling, there are still theocracies in the world, and they are dwindling, and there are confused communist nations in the world, and they too are dwindling. This week the Cuban authorities decided that people should now receive bonuses! With no caps, to workers who perform above-average. A small step, but a seismic shift in understanding of what constitutes progress. It's a beginning for the island nation.

The world faces problems, but the world is also joining tighter together, understanding between peoples coming easier than before with a swelling of communication and transportation. Announced this week too, the historical arch-enemies, Taiwan and China, have now decided to begin with charter flights across the Strait! 10 years ago that would have been unimaginable

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The slaughter of hundreds of millions of Indians, Africans and other peoples through imperialism, less than a hundred years ago, was one such case where we invented morality for ourselves.

This is an example of grossly inflated numbers and figures. And let's remember that the barbaric behaviour of imperial nations did not stand in accordance with the f.ex. the contemporary constitution of the United States. So I'll turn it on the head, and say rather, this is a case where the laws, justice and morality most people of the world would agree upon, was replaced by contempt for life. An example where the rights put forth by the founding fathers in the USA were ignored.

Where bloodshed and injustice occurs in the world, it is not the lack of laws, of a set of sound principles for all mankind, but the inability to enforce these laws. Where there is enforcement, and transparency, there is stability and the possibility of welfare for all.

We have the absolutes you seek, and they have been reasoned to by mankind, created by mankind, agreed upon by mankind (as represented in the United Nations). The hardest part is enforcing them so that the law serves as a protector, and a bringer of freedoms for all. That is the challenge for mankind. And the beautiful part about it is that anyone may see the reason and equality in these laws, irrespective of gender, age, faith, etc.
These are the fruits of the Enlightenment, which have been trampled upon time and time again, but to me it seems progress is happening, although I will probably not be satisfied with that progress by the time I die, but it will always be neccessary to reinvent the vigour and knowledge of these rights so there will hopefully never be a time where we can say this work is done, we've nothing more to achieve.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Lief, the type of life the average person, i.e. the average peasant, lived in the Middle Ages, was no walk on roses. Days upon days of backbreaking work out in the fields. The sheer workload an immense mental and physical challenge, and thus the average lifespan was a whole lot shorter than it is today. We're talking the lifespan of the average peasant in 3rd world countries, like in Kenya, where you are considered an old man after the age of 50. Do you want to work as a coffee farmer in Kenya? Let's see, Kenya is a largely Catholic nation, where the majority of the workforce consists of peasants and very poor citydwellers.
The average peasant life is a life of being dirtpoor, where famine is a real concern, medical know-how and the availability of doctors is scarce, and while the average peasant hardly has time to commit all these "sins", they hardly have time for anything else! It's a poor life. And being poor is hard. And the luxury which you now enjoy, of philosophical musings and life reflection is a hard-bought and time-spending activity which few peasants may indulge in.

You've turned it on the head. It is not as if the peasants of the Middle Ages lived in absolute knowledge of all the ways they could have a better time, but thought it sinful, it's that they were too dirtpoor, lacking both time and energy, to change the situation.
Who had the luxury you now take as a given? The clergy of the Catholic Church...

Who, in turn, gave an enormous amount to the poor. It's true they had to struggle against corruption and self-indulgence. Sometimes they failed, other times they were extremely generous. But they always had a practice of giving to the poor, and that never went away.

Also, you're ignoring a few other points. You are definitely right that being poor is hard. However, it didn't eliminate time for moral or immoral activity. Think about the monks- they're a very good example. Many of the monastic orders, when just starting off, gave up all their possessions to the poor and through their own labor produced enough for their own survival. They continued to give to the poor constantly even while making all their own food. The monks made themselves just about as poor as it gets when they gave up all their possessions and made all their own food rather than relying on charity. They also had time to be among the most educated, learned and spiritually devout people of their time. So being a hard worker doesn't eliminate time for spiritual life. In fact, it encourages it. As you pointed out in an earlier post, often it is those who are suffering or very poor who have the most regular church attendance.

Also, I think it's rather naive of you to think that people didn't know about sexual immorality, gambling, theft, murder, witchcraft, or any of the other sins at that time, because they didn't have time to think of them. The priests of that era were very vigorous in denouncing moral vices, so even if they hadn't thought of them on their own, they would have heard about them. They knew about sin and fought it head on through laws implemented by the states by the will of God (not the "will of the people"), and sometimes mistakes were made, and sometimes injustice was done. Sometimes the laws were too harsh, also, depending on what time and place we're talking about. The laws were generally based upon moral principles because of the perspective of the Church, though.

I disagree strongly with a couple points you made above. One is that you said, "it's a poor life." To me, this shows a profound ignorance of what it can be like to be poor. I went to Mexico and was in touch with impoverished flood victims there, building a house for one of them as part of a charity. They were overflowing with love all the time. And their kids were every bit as happy playing with sticks as our kids are playing with computer games.

Today, one of the priests talked to us during the homily at church about his mother, who inspired him to join the priesthood. She lived in Vietnam and was dirt poor, but even when her own family didn't have enough to eat, she always gave to any poor person who passed by the house. Her love was overflowing unceasingly, so her children and friends took care of her because they were so profoundly impacted by her love.

What creates joy or misery is less one's circumstances and more one's attitude toward the circumstances. People who are loving tend to be the happiest, whether they're poor or rich, and poverty or wealth doesn't make the difference in determining the basic source of joy: One's own internal spiritual condition and one's attitude toward life.

Circumstances, hard or pleasant, can impact one's attitude toward life, so they do indeed have a secondary impact on happiness. They are not the primary impacting forces, though. One's own internal spiritual life is what determines one's happiness. Are you thankful for whatever good you have (however much or little that may be) or whining about what you don't have? If you're complaining all the time about what you lack, you'll be unhappy, whereas if you're grateful all the time for what you have, you'll be happy.

That brings me to another important point. People then who look poor to us now might not have looked poor to themselves then. So they wouldn't have seen themselves as poor and therefore wouldn't have been anywhere near so unhappy with their lot as you might think. Satisfaction and happiness depend a lot on what you expect out of life. If, by the standards of your time, you're doing pretty well, you might be happy. If you're doing pretty well by your own standards but then see super-rich people all over another country, you might realize you're missing out and then feel angry about it. Expectations make a big difference.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Who, in turn, gave an enormous amount to the poor. It's true they had to struggle against corruption and self-indulgence. Sometimes they failed, other times they were extremely generous. But they always had a practice of giving to the poor, and that never went away.

Also, you're ignoring a few other points. You are definitely right that being poor is hard. However, it didn't eliminate time for moral or immoral activity. Think about the monks- they're a very good example. Many of the monastic orders, when just starting off, gave up all their possessions to the poor and through their own labor produced enough for their own survival. They continued to give to the poor constantly even while making all their own food. The monks made themselves just about as poor as it gets when they gave up all their possessions and made all their own food rather than relying on charity. They also had time to be among the most educated, learned and spiritually devout people of their time. So being a hard worker doesn't eliminate time for spiritual life. In fact, it encourages it. As you pointed out in an earlier post, often it is those who are suffering or very poor who have the most regular church attendance.

There were a lot of very rich monasteries that hoarded up money and valuables. People could buy contracts stating that a sin was absolved. They bought those things from the Church. Furthermore a lot of people in the monasteries where second or third sons or daughters of a nobleman who often paid a lot of money to the monastery for admittance of their children.
Kingdoms also paid a lot of money to the Church for political support and other things.
What you described is only true for a few monasteries maybe. But definitely not for all. And not all monks and nuns became monks and nuns out of conviction. It also wasn't true that everyone could become a monk just like that. Not even when they felt a calling. They would need to pay an entrance fee or were required to be able to read and write or know Latin already. Anything to keep the commoners out.

But I do agree with you Lief. Being poor doesn't necessarily equal being miserable. It's a mistake a lot of people make.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm sorry you feel that way. I certainly understand why you feel that way. I grew up believing in religious freedom too, and only stopped in the last few years. It's something we grow up with so completely that it's like something we breathe, and it's impossible to think outside of that box. The time period and location we grow up may well have more to do with forming our beliefs than any other factors. [...]

Do you? I'm not sure. Nevertheless the rest is rather besides the point, I think. Not to mention we've been over it before, even more than once, I think. Sure, we are shaped by our surroundings, but we can discuss 'what if' until we all turn blue, but I find discussing 'what is' more to the point. We have different beliefs and religions in the world. What they all are, what you and I think or belief is besides the point, the point is, how do we keep the whole thing from blowing up?

You seem to believe the Bible is real and true because it persists today and quite a few people died for believing in it (correct me if you think otherwise, but this is my impression based on your posts). But in your eyes it only works for the Bible, doesn't it? The Iliad too is old, older even, and survives today, and is known by many. But that doesn't mean everything in there also really happened, that doesn't mean golden apples were tossed about, that a gigantic Ares marched over the battle-field or had a tiff with his half-sister. Why the Bible and not the Iliad? Again, we can discuss the worthiness of every religion available until the end of the world, but that's not practical, isn't it? It doesn't milk the cows, repair the car, makes the children breakfast, or gets everyone to remotely get along.

It doesn't get things done.

Secularism, which includes freedom of religion, may not get everyone bursting into happy song either. But it does get things done. It can create working societies that don't depend on the impossible questions of Whose God is Boss and What That God Says is Right or Wrong. Sure, it's more of a bypass than a solution to the problem, but I'd take it over one religion's moral rule any day. There is not a conflict in this world right now (that I recall) that doesn't have a religious diversity at the bottom. Oh, religion has it's good sides, sure, but not when you're trying to impose it on others.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Mari

There were a lot of very rich monasteries that hoarded up money and valuables.

"Hoarded" is an interesting term. They were seen that way by barbarians who pillaged them, because they spent a good deal on art or gold chalices or other such things to glorify God.

Do you have paintings on your walls? Are any of your belongings (clothes, furniture, carpets or other) fashionably designed? You like to make your home look nice. How much more important is it to tastefully design and decorate the house of God? This part of their behavior isn't always properly perceived when it is considered "hoarding." Manuscripts were also worth a ton, so when they wrote Bibles or pursued education (and the Church was responsible for education at that time), this also could be looked on that way. These kinds of riches can be hoarding if done to excess, of course, and I agree with you that sometimes it was.

Often the system of how monasteries developed went like this: A few extremely devout people assemble and give all their belongings to the poor. Then they build a monastery with their own hands, feeding themselves by their own labors and maintaining an extremely devout worship of God throughout this time. Whatever they make for themselves, they share amongst themselves so that their property is communally owned, and they give most of it to the poor.

Because of the crucial social role they begin to fill, offering food to the poor, educating the masses, tending the sick and other such things, they would over a lot of time become centers of community life for surrounding towns and villages. Also, because of the education they nurtured, noblemen would send their sons there to be trained. Their role as a center of community life would end up drawing them slowly into the business world. At this point, they'd become wealthy and their buildings more ornate. People might donate them lands or offer them property in order to do good deeds in the eyes of God.

This doesn't mean that many of these monasteries became stingy, but they did accumulate wealth because of getting drawn into business as a result of their central role in community life.

Then, what usually happened next was that some of the monks in the order would see their religious order as having lost sight of its original purpose and principles, so they would obtain permission to start a new order, give up all of their belongings to the poor (those accumulated through the business of monastery life), go off and build their own monastery with their own hands while living extremely devout religious lives, and they'd share their extremely few possessions communally, follow the order of their abbot, and give up most of what they earned to the people surrounding them. Then the whole cycle would start again.

That seems to have been what usually happened. It would start poor and entirely giving, become a center of business because of its central community role, and then people would leave it and start a new order or monastery elsewhere, returning to the original principles of poverty, charity, etc.

The business monastery was the kind that would get more criticism because of possessing wealth, and this was sometimes deserved. They also did a lot of good and served as centers of education, business and charity for much of the land.

Originally Posted by Mari

People could buy contracts stating that a sin was absolved. They bought those things from the Church.

That was the issue of Indulgences. Indulgences didn't remove sin. They replaced penance for sins that were already forgiven. There were many kinds of indulgence, such as saying prayers, going on a pilgrimage or other. Giving charity was one of these replacements for penance too, and one of the key places people liked to give was the Church, because that seemed to be giving to God most directly. However, this system did become abused in places, particularly in Italy. I could get into specifics but it would take a while, and I'm feeling a little lazy at the moment.

The Indulgences system wasn't a bad one, and it only appeared at the very end of the Medieval Ages. It was abused by some, so the Council of Trent cut off the possibility of money being given to the Church for Indulgences in 1563.

Originally Posted by Mari

Furthermore a lot of people in the monasteries where second or third sons or daughters of a nobleman who often paid a lot of money to the monastery for admittance of their children.

That was much later on in the Medieval Ages, and usually only occurred in the rich business ones.

Originally Posted by Mari

Kingdoms also paid a lot of money to the Church for political support and other things.

Well sure. That's politics. Happens all the time. So long as the Church isn't being paid to shift or turn a blind eye on moral issues, I don't see a problem.

Originally Posted by Mari

What you described is only true for a few monasteries maybe. But definitely not for all. And not all monks and nuns became monks and nuns out of conviction. It also wasn't true that everyone could become a monk just like that. Not even when they felt a calling. They would need to pay an entrance fee or were required to be able to read and write or know Latin already. Anything to keep the commoners out.

Yeah, you're definitely just talking about the monasteries that got sucked into the business world in the Late Medieval Ages. This is not at all accurate if generalized to most monasteries, but if you're talking about the business monasteries of the Late Medieval Ages, I'd nod my head .

Originally Posted by Mari

But I do agree with you Lief. Being poor doesn't necessarily equal being miserable. It's a mistake a lot of people make.

Yeah. Also, poor by whose standards? The North American Indians would have been utterly impoverished by US standards of today, when colonists first arrived on these shores, but they would certainly not have thought of themselves as impoverished. People in the Medieval Ages are poor by modern standards but I see no reason to think they were poor by their own. In fact, the article I linked earlier said that the gap of wealth between rich and poor in the Medieval Ages was considerably smaller than it has become in the modern age.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Yeah, as usual, this is such a soup of poorly presented and misrepresented ideas pretending to be facts, I hardly know where to start.

So, in answer to my questions about "Source of information on early martyrdom" I get "Lief's current copy of his preferred Bible."

In answer to my statement about 'Liars going to Hell", I get "Section of Lief's current copy of his preferred Bible written by someone who probably never met Jesus, (and may never have set foot in that area of the world,) decades after he died."

You know, as far as 'Dying for their faith", the Jews still hold the title. Just for the record.
"Hear oh Israel, the Lord Our God, the Lord is One."

However, since I still have permission to heed "Sacred Tradition, the Sacred Scripture, the teaching of the Church, and (my) own personal hearing of the Holy Spirit," I'm covered. God will clean up any mess these debates leave.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I've always listened with a heavy pinch of salt to doomsday talk. It's such an easy path to take, and it displays an ignorance of history.

Actually, to talk otherwise displays an ignorance of the world's current environmental crisis .

But my view of morality shifting for the worse is based on the last several hundred years of moral "development." Each generation of that change would have looked at the changes of the next century as hideous, diabolical shifts. The original Reformers had no oar in the democratic movement and would have seen it as abominable. The original women's rights advocates, if they'd looked a century or two forward, would have seen the changes in women's rights as abominations. Even later generations of feminists, such as the 19th century ones, would have mostly seen the shifts of today as abominations. Each major moral "development" was seen as a big moral decline in its own time, and only came to be appreciated as a development when everyone was used to it. Each of these changes of history has been a liberalization, and each century's changes would have been too much for the previous one or two centuries to stomach. Modern "developments" such as homosexual marriage follow the same path- they are seen as abominable by this generation. Tomorrow's abominations are on the conveyer belt toward us. It just takes time for humanity to get used to its current new developments, before it gets used to the idea of these other "abominations" that are ahead.

Just look at the sweep of history. Each of the centuries since the Reformation began would have seen the moral developments of the next one or two centuries in a very negative light. It is unhistorical to assume that our generation would like the changes of the next one or two centuries. Considering how historical generations would have viewed our present time period, it seems safe to suppose that major moral shifts of the future would likewise appear negative to our present generation.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Of all the conclusions human kind can take from its relatively short history, it is that things, in general, have gotten better as time progresses.

That's the present vantage point of our generation, based on the assumption that the generations we've built our houses on were doing the right thing. But each generation would have detested the changes that occurred in the next one or two centuries, and the same is true in our generation. Even many non-Christians of the 19th century would have been dismayed by the changes today's society has made, because the culture they grew up on strongly opposed many of the things we take for granted.

It is logical, therefore, in view of the sweep of history, to suppose that the changes coming up in the next one or two hundred years would be perceived as negative changes by our generation, but will be seen as more moral developments by people of their time, who grow up assuming that these changes are valid.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

For all the wars and conflicts and bloodshedding in the 20th century, more people have reached out of poverty, enjoyed a marked upturn in economy and life situation,

I already described how this was created in my earlier post. The development of the modern economy could only occur through the brutalization of the work force of their time, the destruction of the environment, and colonialism, imperialism and slavery, which destroyed hundreds of millions of lives. And the environmental crisis they made could kill billions in the future. The amniotic fluid of this newborn economy is a quagmire of moral slime, and the long-term environmental consequences of its development appear to be completely ruinous. This is not a long-term improvement for mankind, and its birth was a horrifying one.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

and an empowerment of the individual without precedent in all of human history.

1# Again, was it worth it? 2# Most important of all, is it actually a good thing?

As regards 1, we know that the empowerment of the individual came at a monstrous cost in blood. There were civil wars all over Europe, Russia, China and other countries in order to achieve this. The religious freedom opened up by the Reformation came at a tremendous cost in human lives. The political changes of Communism, Fascism and Democracy came at enormous costs in human lives. The liberation of free sex, another part of the empowerment of the individual, came also at the cost of millions of lives through STDs. The development of these belief systems was unbelievably bloody and rebellious, and only made their achievements through force, not sense (a marked contrast to the rise of Christianity, which rose almost exclusively through evangelism).

Question 2 relates to the dynamics of a free society (free in the modern understanding of the word) as compared to the structure of a monarchy. I don't think that the development of our "liberation" is a good thing at all. It's actually all anarchic, at the core. The political system of today is based fundamentally on divisions, and the more divisions, the better. This is completely opposed to a system focused on unity around the leader.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Whilst in the 16th century, and in the 12th century, and in the 5th century, peoples all over the planet were in general poor and without a saying to what life they would want to lead, the 21st century has brought about an unprecedent wealth for great swathes of mankind.

I pretty much agree. But again, reflect on my earlier points about this economy.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

And with it, comes the ability to help out of poverty those that still linger in it, be they Burmese, Sudanese, Bolivian or Chechnyan. In the future, the rule of law will hopefully prevail. The rule of law, inspired not by God-given morality, but by a common understand among people, achieved through reason, lies as a foundation for the progress of mankind.

You know, that's why the law can't prevail. It's always changing. Its moral nature has been slowly dissolving for centuries, which is the reason every generation has seen the changes occurring in it as abominations. Because the law is constantly changing, it will not prevail in any single form. It can't. It will very likely, considering the sweep of history, become accepting of more and more evils. Things considered evil by everyone of this generation will be acceptable in the future, just as abortion and homosexual marriage, which were considered evil by almost everyone, are now commonly considered valid. That is the testament of history.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

The world faces problems, but the world is also joining tighter together,

By the development of more and more divisions . It's a twisted form of unity. And it's also, to a large extent, non-real. Certainly there's no strong evidence it'll stick. The Cold War and the World Wars of the last century are pretty good arguments that modernity's unification of the world is really turning the clashes between nations into clashes for the entire world. It haven't ended the clashes, though. Not anywhere near enough time has passed since the end of the Cold War to judge that it will end major wars either.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

understanding between peoples coming easier than before with a swelling of communication and transportation.

Yes, this relates to economy, which I talked about earlier.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Announced this week too, the historical arch-enemies, Taiwan and China, have now decided to begin with charter flights across the Strait! 10 years ago that would have been unimaginable

Yes, I was very excited to read about that too .

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

This is an example of grossly inflated numbers and figures. And let's remember that the barbaric behaviour of imperial nations did not stand in accordance with the f.ex. the contemporary constitution of the United States.

The modern interpretation of that constitution. Not the imperialism-era interpretation. Because the "will of the people" rules, these kinds of shifts in interpretation always have room to occur.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

So I'll turn it on the head, and say rather, this is a case where the laws, justice and morality most people of the world would agree upon, was replaced by contempt for life. An example where the rights put forth by the founding fathers in the USA were ignored.

Most of the people now would agree in condemning it. Most Westerners then agreed in supporting it, though it's true that anti-imperialism movements existed back then as well. That's the nature of having the "will of the people" lead.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Where bloodshed and injustice occurs in the world, it is not the lack of laws, of a set of sound principles for all mankind, but the inability to enforce these laws. Where there is enforcement, and transparency, there is stability and the possibility of welfare for all.

That is non-historical. The laws of the past were perfectly accepting of imperialism and slavery. They were completely legal. They just are illegal now. Back then, the laws were interpreted in a way that was accepting of these things. There is no stable, unchangeable, good interpretation.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

We have the absolutes you seek, and they have been reasoned to by mankind, created by mankind, agreed upon by mankind (as represented in the United Nations). The hardest part is enforcing them so that the law serves as a protector, and a bringer of freedoms for all. That is the challenge for mankind. And the beautiful part about it is that anyone may see the reason and equality in these laws, irrespective of gender, age, faith, etc.

Those are not absolutes. The interpretation of what is a human right incessantly changes with the will of the people. That is history. What constitutes freedom is also up to the will of the people. These things are all fluid, changeable, and historically they have changed. If history is any guide, it's a safe bet that they will change more, also, and that the changes of the next few centuries would appear hideous to us because the morality systems we've grown up with are so different.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Do you? I'm not sure.

Certainly I understand it. I grew up with it. My parents believe it and brought me up in it. Everyone I know believes it. I went through college believing it and sneering at the arguments of those hypocritical Medieval Ages tyrants. I only stopped believing it about two years ago. Sometime around then. Having grown up taught it by my parents, surrounded by people who believe it, believing it myself and never knowing anything different, I couldn't help but understand it. I also had a lot of intense arguments with my father as I stopped believing in religious freedom, and I already knew just about everything he said from my reasoning and upbringing before he said it. I know both the Christian and non-Christian arguments (and there are two different important categories there, as Christians will use reason as well as the Bible and other things, whereas non-Christians will often use reason alone) supporting freedom of religion.

But freedom of religion is destructive. It's supposed to protect people, but it ends up destroying them. Here's why, according to my worldview.

The Christian God is altogether real, and he has revealed the true moral laws through the Catholic Church. Because the moral laws have been clearly revealed by God to the world, it is the responsibility of the world to obey them. God is just, so he does not allow wrongdoers to escape judgment unless they repent. If we are just, neither will we.

If society invents its own moral laws, then wherever these laws deviate from Christian truth, they are bringing people up in lies, and often these lies are destructive. The word "sin" does not mean an arbitrary religious decree against something that's really just fine. It means that the behavior is destructive. That it hurts people, and is wrong because it does.

Now, granted that Catholicism is true, we know that idolatry leads to hell. If idolaters are ignorant of Christianity, God may forgive them because they know not what they do. Often, though, idolatry can lead people into hell.

Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens. They protect citizens from suicide bombers. They restrict hard drugs so that people won't hurt one another and themselves while under the influence. Now, if hell involves eternal torture and people who are spreading false religions are in effect spreading hellfire, governments certainly have a responsibility to resist this deadly force. So in purely spiritual terms, religious freedom is extremely dangerous and should be stopped.

Religious Freedom combined with government by the "will of the people" is also extremely lethal in purely physical terms. Imperialism and colonialism killed hundreds of millions of natives, racist slavery oppressed or killed millions, abortion has killed hundreds of millions, and sexual immorality with accompanying STDs have killed millions. I might add that the Communist, Fascist and Democratic revolutions killed millions of people too, across Europe, sometimes in genocides and often in ferocious civil wars. Stem cell research threatens to kill millions more people. All of these evils have run counter to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church and emerged in spite of its teaching. None of them emerged in the thousand years in which the Catholic Church had a great deal of political power and religious laws ruled the Western nations and many Eastern (through Orthodoxy). Therefore it is improbable that they would have occurred in our day, if the Catholic Church had retained its power. Especially seeing as it vehemently opposed every one of these previously mentioned horrors when it emerged.

If nations did not have religious freedom, but instead had a mandate to implement the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, between one and two billion people would not have been butchered as a result of deviating modern ideologies.

The spiritual holocaust that freedom of religion has produced is plainly real to me, given my belief in Catholic truth. Hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of souls have been damned to hell as a result of the dissemination of false doctrines.

The physical holocaust that freedom of religion has produced is plainly real no matter what your religion or belief system is. If the Catholic Church had retained its power and freedom of religion was banned, there is a great deal of reason to believe that these horrors would never have occurred, because they never existed in the Medieval Ages when the Church was at the height of its power, they only came to exist when Church power had fallen, and the Church opposed every one of them as it emerged.

Can't you see why those might be good reasons to oppose freedom of religion?

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Nevertheless the rest is rather besides the point, I think. Not to mention we've been over it before, even more than once, I think. Sure, we are shaped by our surroundings, but we can discuss 'what if' until we all turn blue, but I find discussing 'what is' more to the point.

That's fine, I'm happy to discuss what is.

Here's what I was trying to do. We all grow up with our time period and geography as the principle defining forces of our belief systems. Irrational forces. They are the basic premise of our foundations. By pointing that out and emphasizing it, I was hoping to make you more open to questioning your own beliefs and becoming able to understand mine. I know I'm butting heads with such basic beliefs of our time period that it's extremely hard to break through to people, so I'm trying to kick as hard as I can at the strongest forces I find myself fighting: Time and Geography. They are so irrational, yet they are my greatest enemies right now. I'll respond to whatever you have to say and would be glad to move the discussion on (as I did above) to direct evidence, explanation and argumentation. But I just wanted to point out what irrational forces guide our thoughts, thus hopefully opening a window through which clear air can pass between us.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

We have different beliefs and religions in the world. What they all are, what you and I think or belief is besides the point, the point is, how do we keep the whole thing from blowing up?

Huh. That is completely contrary to my perspective, because I think freedom of religion is already blowing tons of things up. Hundreds of millions or even billions of souls, as well as 1-2 billion human beings, have been killed in the holocaust this ideology has created already. And far more will die if it persists. So from my point of view, our moral responsibility is to stop a nuclear chain reaction that's already been going off for hundreds of years. The bombs have already been going off. I'm trying to stop them.

But I realize that by now, modern society may be so far gone that religious freedom is better than any alternative it can ever accept. It might have reached the point now where it would never willingly go back to its rightful role: submission to the moral law of the Church. So I may have to settle for the holocaust, because if anything other than religious freedom was established, my Church would probably be brutally attacked.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

You seem to believe the Bible is real and true because it persists today and quite a few people died for believing in it (correct me if you think otherwise, but this is my impression based on your posts). But in your eyes it only works for the Bible, doesn't it? The Iliad too is old, older even, and survives today, and is known by many. But that doesn't mean everything in there also really happened, that doesn't mean golden apples were tossed about, that a gigantic Ares marched over the battle-field or had a tiff with his half-sister. Why the Bible and not the Iliad?

Hmm. Very good question, with an absolutely gigantic answer. I'll try to be as concise as possible (which probably means I'll have to go in a whole lot more depth on each point in future posts).

Reasons why we can believe the Bible is true:

1# We know that ten of Jesus' disciples died for their belief in the deity of Jesus, his death and his resurrection, and that the Gospel accounts were their eyewitness testimony. Dying for your belief only proves you sincerely believe the belief to be true- it doesn't prove the belief to be true. However, they claimed to be eyewitnesses, so they weren't dying for an abstract belief. They knew whether their testimony was true or not, and they submitted to torture and death for the truth of their own eyewitness accounts. People don't die for what they know are lies.

2# This is the most important proof to me personally: That Jesus proves he is alive to his followers by revealing himself in a deeply personal and powerful way to every person who seeks him. Thus hundreds of millions of people worldwide have "personal relationships with Jesus," relationships that involve back and forth communication with the deity where we can hear him, interact with him, see him answer our prayers and truly, personally know him. Christianity is NOT a purely abstract belief, but an intimate, experiential personal relationship with Jesus for anyone who seeks him. The fact that I know and deeply love a living person who I talk with and listen to and commune with day after day proves to me the truth of Jesus' words better than anything else possibly could. This relationship also commonly demonstrates its power through visible (and extremely hard to explain away) supernatural miracles.

3# The prophecies of the Old Testament predict many particulars of the coming Messiah, including when he would appear, where he would be born and raised, the details of his ministry and death, his lineage, and countless other identifying details. They were all fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and the mathematical odds against such an occurrence happening randomly are astronomical.


I think that these three evidences are the greatest I know of. Number 2 is the most powerful to me personally, because it is so interactive and can affect anyone. There are so many impossible miracles that can be pointed to that it is very hard to tackle from a non-Christian standpoint, also. Mainly the intimate, day to day personal relationship with God is what makes it so powerful, though.

Numbers 1 and 3 are extremely strong evidences as well, though. And one doesn't have to be a Christian to see the strength of their logic, though obviously being a Christian certainly helps.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Again, we can discuss the worthiness of every religion available until the end of the world, but that's not practical, isn't it? It doesn't milk the cows, repair the car, makes the children breakfast, or gets everyone to remotely get along.

Actually, from my perspective, yes the religion does do all those things, for all these things come from the hand of God, and the Lord taketh and the Lord giveth. He's in charge of every part of our daily lives. So knowing him makes a great deal of sense.

Plus, knowing him personally completely transforms one's life. It creates joy and love such as one never knew before.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

It doesn't get things done.

Secularism, which includes freedom of religion, may not get everyone bursting into happy song either. But it does get things done. It can create working societies that don't depend on the impossible questions of Whose God is Boss and What That God Says is Right or Wrong.

Well, saying that these questions are impossible assumes that God didn't choose to make clear answers available to humanity. I think he did make clear answers available to humanity, so I challenge your assumption.

Also, I'd add that if these questions are impossible, we're completely busted, because we're never going to get morality "right," because there is no right answer to morality if humans define it for themselves and come to completely contradictory conclusions as they always do. Minus a divine revelation, humans are left in a hopeless moral quagmire.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Sure, it's more of a bypass than a solution to the problem, but I'd take it over one religion's moral rule any day. There is not a conflict in this world right now (that I recall) that doesn't have a religious diversity at the bottom. Oh, religion has it's good sides, sure, but not when you're trying to impose it on others.

Religion is at the bottom of every war because it is at the bottom of all morality, and all wars are moral dilemmas. Wars over land or political philosophies, or economics, are all moral issues. Even the moral viewpoints of atheists and agnostics spring from religious perspectives, because the absence of religion for them fashions their idea of morality. For instance, some might see nothing wrong with abortion, homosexual marriage or any of those kinds of things because they don't believe in the Christian God or any other God's set of morals, so that unbelief in religion creates their moral viewpoints.

This is simply a matter of logic. It's not that religions are bad because they are at the root of wars. Religions create moral frameworks by which the ethics of wars are judged. The absence of a religion in a person's life also can create a moral framework for an unbeliever, so in that case too, religion is at the center of the person's morality. All morality comes from religion and all wars are moral issues, so all wars are fought over differing moral perspectives, so all wars are fought over differing religious perspectives.