06-13-2008, 12:31 PM | #701 | |||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ilha Formosa
Posts: 2,068
|
[QUOTE=Lief Erikson;620678]
Quote:
-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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
__________________
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us, but pigs treat us as equals."- Winston Churchill |
|||||
06-13-2008, 01:07 PM | #702 | ||||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
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.
Quote:
Quote:
Here's how it progressed: Quote:
Here I'll get to what you said below: Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
||||||||
06-13-2008, 01:47 PM | #703 | |
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
Quote:
The ends justify the means? Oh wait thats another belief system...
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." |
|
06-13-2008, 02:24 PM | #704 | ||||||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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 .
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 06-13-2008 at 02:46 PM. |
||||||||||
06-13-2008, 05:50 PM | #705 | |
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
Quote:
__________________
We are not things. Last edited by Earniel : 06-13-2008 at 06:31 PM. Reason: Edited 'cause well... because... |
|
06-13-2008, 06:43 PM | #706 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
|
06-13-2008, 08:12 PM | #707 | |
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." |
|
06-14-2008, 08:25 PM | #708 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
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).
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 06-14-2008 at 08:29 PM. Reason: No good reason. Pointlessly, worthlessly, uncalculatedly and retardedly I edited this retarded, uncalculated post. |
06-14-2008, 09:11 PM | #709 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 06-14-2008 at 09:21 PM. |
|
06-14-2008, 10:47 PM | #710 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,535
|
Lief, do you understand why other people may not be willing to take your personal revelation for granted?
__________________
That would be the swirling vortex to another world. Cool. I want one. TMNT No, I'm not emo. I just have a really poor sense of direction. (Thanks to katya for this quote) This is the best news story EVER! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26087293/ “Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”...John McCain "I shall go back. And I shall find that therapist. And I shall whack her upside her head with my blanket full of rocks." ...Louisa May |
06-15-2008, 12:47 AM | #711 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
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.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
06-15-2008, 02:34 AM | #712 | ||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
||||||
06-15-2008, 08:21 AM | #713 | ||
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Quote:
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 Quote:
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.
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." |
||
06-15-2008, 02:39 PM | #714 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 06-16-2008 at 12:27 PM. |
|
06-15-2008, 02:52 PM | #715 | |
Elf Lady
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In the lands where mountains are but a fairytale
Posts: 8,588
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Love always, deeply and true ★ Friends are those rare people who ask how we are and then wait to hear the answer. ★ Friendship is sharing openly, laughing often, trusting always, caring deeply.
...The Earth laughs in flowers ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Hamatreya"... |
|
06-15-2008, 03:59 PM | #716 | |
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
We are not things. |
|
06-15-2008, 05:51 PM | #717 | |||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
|||||
06-15-2008, 08:46 PM | #718 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,535
|
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.
__________________
That would be the swirling vortex to another world. Cool. I want one. TMNT No, I'm not emo. I just have a really poor sense of direction. (Thanks to katya for this quote) This is the best news story EVER! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26087293/ “Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”...John McCain "I shall go back. And I shall find that therapist. And I shall whack her upside her head with my blanket full of rocks." ...Louisa May |
06-15-2008, 09:17 PM | #719 | |||||||||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
|||||||||||||
06-16-2008, 03:12 AM | #720 | ||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
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? Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Plus, knowing him personally completely transforms one's life. It creates joy and love such as one never knew before. Quote:
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. Quote:
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.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
||||||
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Science | ayarella | General Messages | 804 | 04-13-2012 09:05 PM |
muslims PART 2 | Spock | General Messages | 805 | 02-03-2011 03:16 AM |
Theological Opinions | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 992 | 02-10-2006 04:15 PM |
REAL debate thread for RELIGION | Ruinel | General Messages | 1439 | 04-01-2005 02:47 PM |
Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread | Rían | General Messages | 2289 | 01-08-2004 02:31 AM |