Theology III

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Or making us grateful that summer services are shorter.

*raspberry*

I don't know how anyone can read the Gospels and conclude this. I just don't.

Jesus was %100 about "daily bread", loaves and fishes, wine at weddings, and love your neighbor. Follow these rules and your life, here on earth gets better.

If you look at Jesus (putting a temporary hold on Revelation. Paul's misogyny, etc.) you get a recipe for right now.

But wasnt he just illustrating truths? He even said that those who follow Him will be persecuted by man and Satan. He never said anything about riches flwing to you, or becoming famous. Not without God's will behind it, with a purpose.
BTW, you seemed to have helped my point about the Bible not being outdated.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

God can, and will, work through anyone. Who knows, maybe you're strengthening someone's faith by them readin through all these passages.



In my faith, everyone has the "ear of God". No one person hears it, but when someone does we should listen, with a spirit of discernment.



I believe Tessar covered this. Christians arent necessarily promised a better life on Earth, in any way. Just a better life after this one.

Good points, IMO .

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Well you see, Christianity is a very small religion in China, and most Chinese to do not believe in God. So it does not need saying really. The point is that good things happen all the time without any interference by any higher being (a claim of invisible and secret messages of divine truth is not something I am ready to believe in. Highly suspect)

A society where the word of a God, that can neither be seen or heard by all peoples of the world, is the highest word, is not a healthy society. Where all sorts of actions and misdeeds can be carried out under the pretense of having the ear of God. Luckily, the reason of economics steers people out of poverty in China, and not converts or attendance in church or blind faith in a man in Rome.

If being close to a God brings humanity happiness, why is heavily Christian southern Sudan so desolately poor? So desolately unfortunate?

*smiles* I don't know. I can't prove God exists. I can't explain why I believe, well I can, but I don't think you'd be interested seen as it will provide you with no answers. I can't explain all the bad things in the world. Not even with the concept that some people feel is almighty: Freedom of choice.
But at the same time you can't prove He doesn't exist. Or prove that all the good things in the world do not somehow have a higher hand in it.

I don't want to get involved in this discussion because I feel I have nothing sensible to add. I just wanted to show the reason why I think you and Lief will never be able to convince each other. Or the two of us for that matter.

[Coffeehouse]

Luckily I have a reflecting mind that cherishes reason.

Of all the progress these lasts hundreds of years that has brought so much of humanity from poverty and into a living where time for reflection and time for enjoyment is a substantial time. None of this progress has been due to any divine messages of truth or revelations of enlightenment in the Bible or in any other religious script. The Bible had its chance, it had the many centuries leading up to the Enlightenment.

The Torah, the Koran, they've all been around, had their chance. The progress experienced in the ages since the Dutch Benedict Spinoza in the mid-1600s up to today, with all the thinkers of the Enlightenment, the 19th century father of evolution, Darwin, the strides made in the 20th and 21st century, all this progress has happened despite the authoritarianism of the Church, the rigidity of the Bible.

The progress of science happened despite a cultural and traditional ironhold by religious belief and thought and way of life, not because of it.

Why, and we come back to the Problem of Evil that Sis mentioned, did God's great book of teachings fail for so long to help so many empoverished peoples? Why was an empowerment of everyday people, my forefathers and your forefathers, only a reality after the rigidity of religious thought was put aside with all its choking of reason and inequality of women?
Why was this only a reality when the belief in reason, the healthy sharing of knowledge and the unrelenting drive towards a better future not because of divine teachings, but because it was right?

I would embrace the existance of a higher being, because it would mean I could have an afterlife (a very encouraging thought!), but reason was given to me, like any other human being, and I intend to follow it and decide that the reality of the world is the reality that we can see, touch, smell, measure and experience alone and together, not a reality dictated by an outdated book..

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Luckily I have a reflecting mind that cherishes reason.

Good to hear.

Of all the progress these lasts hundreds of years that has brought so much of humanity from poverty and into a living where time for reflection and time for enjoyment is a substantial time. None of this progress has been due to any divine messages of truth or revelations of enlightenment in the Bible or in any other religious script. The Bible had its chance, it had the many centuries leading up to the Enlightenment.

I was unaare that the Bible was a deity all it's own, with messages on economy. I thought this had been covered.

The Torah, the Koran, they've all been around, had their chance. The progress experienced in the ages since the Dutch Benedict Spinoza in the mid-1600s up to today, with all the thinkers of the Enlightenment, the 19th century father of evolution, Darwin, the strides made in the 20th and 21st century, all this progress has happened despite the authoritarianism of the Church, the rigidity of the Bible.

I believe that it's been made very clear, that the Bible is not rigid. The rest refers to Catholicism, so I do not feel right in responding.

The progress of science happened despite a cultural and traditional ironhold by religious belief and thought and way of life, not because of it.

I'm gonna need to go along with you there, for the most part.

Why, and we come back to the Problem of Evil that Sis mentioned, did God's great book of teachings fail for so long to help so many empoverished peoples? Why was an empowerment of everyday people, my forefathers and your forefathers, only a reality after the rigidity of religious thought was put aside with all its choking of reason and inequality of women?
Why was this only a reality when the belief in reason, the healthy sharing of knowledge and the unrelenting drive towards a better future not because of divine teachings, but because it was right?

Firstly, the impoverished speech is done with. Tessar covered it, I reiterated a little, and I'm sure Lief will pounce on it.

I believe God had a hand in the rest. I do not have any ties with, and little respect for, the Pope and the ungodly power he weilds. It seems like the papacy was more a power-grab than anything.

I would embrace the existance of a higher being, because it would mean I could have an afterlife (a very encouraging thought!), but reason was given to me, like any other human being, and I intend to follow it and decide that the reality of the world is the reality that we can see, touch, smell, measure and experience alone and together, not a reality dictated by an outdated book..

Does this mean I am not human, because I didnt follow your "reason"? Poor choice of words, perhaps. What you call "reason" I call secular, and a lure. But the Bible is far from outdated, especially seein
g the many people who still use its teachings and parables to illustrate truths today.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Well you see, Christianity is a very small religion in China, and most Chinese to do not believe in God. So it does not need saying really.

In fact, it is interesting that China's present economic boom is corresponding to a flourishing underground spread of Christianity in the country. I read about this in Christian magazines. It's common knowledge if one keeps up to date on church activity.

China's big economic downturn in the 19th century occurred after its leaders had been offered Christian teaching for a few hundred years already, and had consistently rejected it. Then the Europeans clobbered the country (Enlightenment imperialism), and they became viciously anti-Christian. During that anti-Christian period, some of their worst atrocities occurred and many of their biggest wars, the nightmares of the 20th century.

Now, Christianity is making big strides in the country, though it still has to operate largely underground because of the risk of persecution. The economic expansion of China is occurring simultaneously.

All this is pretty interesting from a spiritual perspective, for historically, the rejection of God's Word correlates China's disasters and the acceptance of it correlates with its greater prosperity and success.

Prior to the coming of Christianity to China, I think God was very merciful to them in spite of the wickedness of many accepted customs and practices, because of their ignorance.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

The point is that good things happen all the time without any interference by any higher being (a claim of invisible and secret messages of divine truth is not something I am ready to believe in. Highly suspect)

As Mari pointed out and I said earlier, that is entirely guesswork.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

A society where the word of a God, that can neither be seen or heard by all peoples of the world, is the highest word, is not a healthy society.

I think you may have ignored a good deal of what I said in previous posts to you. I've repeatedly said that there are all kinds of ways God speaks to people, not just the Bible.

And that God's Word, if it is God's Word, is the highest word is only logical and good.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Where all sorts of actions and misdeeds can be carried out under the pretense of having the ear of God. Luckily, the reason of economics steers people out of poverty in China, and not converts or attendance in church or blind faith in a man in Rome.

That is entirely guesswork on your part. You have no idea what kind of a role God might have played. This point has been made repeatedly.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

If being close to a God brings humanity happiness, why is heavily Christian southern Sudan so desolately poor? So desolately unfortunate?

There could be all kinds of reasons. That's the same kind of question you've asked repeatedly, and I've given answers to. If we don't know something about God's ways, that doesn't mean that they don't make sense. In fact, it wouldn't make sense if we did understand everything about God's ways, because then we'd be as intelligent as God, and he wouldn't really be God because he'd have no more knowledge than we do.

Also, I'll add that the abundance of people's wealth doesn't determine their happiness at all. I've met impoverished Christian families in Mexico whose lives are overflowing with joy, and some of the people that I've met who are most in pain are overflowing with the most love. Happiness comes from the love of God and the experience of his love for us. Economic factors are definitely secondary. In fact, economic hardship can sometimes bring people more strongly toward God, which can increase the joy of many rather than decreasing it.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Luckily I have a reflecting mind that cherishes reason.

Of all the progress these lasts hundreds of years that has brought so much of humanity from poverty and into a living where time for reflection and time for enjoyment is a substantial time. None of this progress has been due to any divine messages of truth or revelations of enlightenment in the Bible or in any other religious script. The Bible had its chance, it had the many centuries leading up to the Enlightenment.

In fact, we should not have the economic prosperity we have now. The Enlightenment's economic "contributions" came at an incalculable moral cost. No one should do evil to produce good. No one should produce materialistic gains through moral evil, and our modern economies required some terribly evil actions to come about. You shouldn't praise mankind for shrugging off the moral principles of the Church in order to achieve this economy. It did shrug off the Church's principles to build the economy, and here is how it did it:

1) Slavery. In order to build a successful modern economy, the development of Mercantilism and the TransAtlantic Slave Trade were necessary. Slavery had existed sporadically throughout the Medieval Ages, in the form of the enslavement of prisoners of war (they were trying to destroy our nation, so why shouldn't they be made to build it up as penalty?) or the temporary enslavement of workers who couldn't pay their debts, until they could settle. Most workers had a contract with their lords during the Medieval Ages, which involved each gaining some profit. The common serfs or vassals could expect a steady supply of food and protection, as well as homes and land, from their lord. They, in turn, spent half of their time working on their own property and half working on their lord's fields, they paid his taxes and did odd-jobs for him. There was mutual benefit in the contract.

This kind of labor system broke down a lot with the Black Death, because fewer workers existed in the pool, so they were able to demand higher wages. Because normal laborers toward the end of the Medieval Ages demanded more income, people in charge felt the need to move to cheaper sources of income.

To develop a modern economy, the nations of the Enlightenment felt the need for slavery as never before. Previously, slavery had only been seen as justified in cases where the person was born into slavery (if they don't pay the debt they owe their master for providing for them throughout their youth, masters have no incentive to look after them and the children would have to be separated from parents, living in dependency on the Church or charities, or dying in the streets), prisoners of war and temporary enslavement of debtors. The Enlightenment changed all that. They needed to justify mass-enslavement and mass-exploitation to fuel their economies, so they advanced and justified racism enormously at that time, a view that contradicted the views of the Church, as it had had ministers and congregations in Africa since the very first centuries of Christianity's existence, and they hadn't had a racist mentality.

The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, justified by racism as well as some reinterpretation of Christianity (This was post-Protestant Reformation now, remember, so Tradition doesn't matter), played a crucial role in the development of our economies into the form they are now. Millions of African and Native American slaves paid the brutal price for the greed the development of our system was originally based on.

2) Colonialism. This and point 3, as well as point 1, are all closely linked. To develop a modern economy, the industrial giants needed raw resources. The Industrial Revolution had swiftly stripped Europe bare. So they created colonies that often brutalized and enslaved native populations, justifying their conduct on racist principles, in order to produce the modern resources the West needed to fuel its modern economy.

3) Imperialism. To secure strategic economic points, the European nations began swiftly competing with one another to get as much as they could of the rest of the world.

These three, Imperialism, Colonialism and Slavery built the new economy of Europe on an ocean of blood of millions of innocent people. Imperialism and colonialism did not exist in Medieval Europe. There were battles between different nations over territory, especially in the Late Medieval Ages, but there was nothing like the imperialism of the new era. Post-imperialism nations today are still fighting wars with one another in many parts of the globe, and even genocides have resulted from European powers clamping together tribes or nations that had no historical commonalities between them. Colonialism did not exist in the Medieval Ages. Slavery was a much rarer practice and was more rational and more just. Christian masters also felt more responsibility for their slaves in that time, because of protective laws established by the Emperor in the East and promoted by the Church in the West. The Enlightenment built a new economy through savagery. It was indeed an escape from Christian morality in many senses.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

The Torah, the Koran, they've all been around, had their chance. The progress experienced in the ages since the Dutch Benedict Spinoza in the mid-1600s up to today, with all the thinkers of the Enlightenment, the 19th century father of evolution, Darwin, the strides made in the 20th and 21st century, all this progress has happened despite the authoritarianism of the Church, the rigidity of the Bible.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

The progress of science happened despite a cultural and traditional ironhold by religious belief and thought and way of life, not because of it.

In the past, the Church was actually at the forefront of scientific research. It only opposed Galileo because he insisted on teaching his new theory as fact rather than hypothesis, when a good deal of his evidence was faulty (scientists of the time were able to disprove his erroneous claims that the sun caused Earth's tidal motions) and most scientists disagreed with him. Also, the Catholic Church did not condemn Darwin's teachings.

Originally Posted by catholic.net

The Catholic Church has never had a problem with "evolution" (as opposed to philosophical Darwinism, which sees man solely as the product of materialist forces). Unlike Luther and Calvin and modem fundamentalists, the Church has never taught that the first chapter of Genesis is meant to teach science. F.J. Sheed writes in his classic Theology and Sanity that the creation account in Genesis,

... tells us of the fact but not of the process: there was an assembling of elements of the material universe, but was it instantaneous, or spread over a considerable space of time? Was it complete in one act, or by stages? Were those elements, for instance, formed into an animal body which as one generation followed another gradually evolved-not, of course, by the ordinary laws of matter but under the special guidance of God-to a point where it was capable of union with a spiritual soul, which God then created and infused into it? The statement in Genesis does not seem actually to exclude this, but it certainly does not say it. Nor has the Church formally said that it is not so....

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Why was an empowerment of everyday people, my forefathers and your forefathers, only a reality after the rigidity of religious thought was put aside with all its choking of reason and inequality of women?

Answering this would open a whole 'nother can of worms, a very big one, and I'd rather not right now. There's a LOT of bad in this too, for women, for "everyday people," and nations in general. I don't think that the overall development was a good one. Maybe I'll do this issue later.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Why was this only a reality when the belief in reason, the healthy sharing of knowledge and the unrelenting drive towards a better future not because of divine teachings, but because it was right?

It deviated humanity from divine teachings to humanity's own destruction, as I've already pointed out.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I would embrace the existance of a higher being, because it would mean I could have an afterlife (a very encouraging thought!), but reason was given to me, like any other human being, and I intend to follow it and decide that the reality of the world is the reality that we can see, touch, smell, measure and experience alone and together, not a reality dictated by an outdated book..

Well, we can experience God too, and not only through reading the Bible. So if you believe in the world we experience, you should believe in the supernatural. The vast majority of humans throughout history, even including in our own day, believe in a God or gods and the accounts of supernatural experience (and the evidence to support them) are too numerous to list. If you are going to reason in a consistent fashion, you should accept this because of the vast expansiveness of its presence in human experience.

[Coffeehouse]

Lief, you discuss many things.
The senses. Near Death Experiences. Morality. China. Slavery, Colonialism and Imperialism. The downturns of economic development.

While it shows an okay display of knowledge of the general timeline of world history, the analysis is contradictory and incomplete. And sometimes, it seems completely made up as you go along.

We'll just have to agree that we disagree completely in our worldview.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I have a couple criticisms of this view. The first is that you don't actually believe in the world as your senses tell you, for your immediate bodily senses could tell you nothing about electrons or quarks.

Also, you actually disbelieve the senses on many occasions. All kinds of people have had visions or seen miracles. I've talked with people who have seen ouija boards levitate into the air all on their own, or have seen people with disabilities have limbs grow longer or shorter in answer to prayers, etc. etc. Miracles and visions are a part of the experience of humanity throughout time, and they are part of the experience of the senses.

Your claim that these fairy beings never do anything constructive is also based purely on conjecture, as you don't have any idea to what extent they have influenced "natural" events.

The existance of electrons and quarks is obviously not known on the basis of smelling them or touching them. The reason we do know there are electrons is because it has been observed through scientific method. By reading science I can learn of this method and how the said scientists document their theory that electrons do exist. I therefore know of these electrons through reading.
Eyes - Evidence - Evaluation - Experience - Enlightenment.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Have you ever heard of Near Death Experiences? Many people have been pronounced clinically dead, and no electrical activity shows up on their MIG, but they are resusitated (how do you spell that?) using modern medical technology. They have frequently recounted having had amazingly vivid spiritual experiences after death, and they describe paranormal phenomenon too that can't be explained. For instance, many of them have been able to describe clearly what their doctors were doing and where different people were, and even what people said, while the patients were clinically dead. The spiritual experiences people have after death tend to fall into two categories: Experiences very much like heaven, and experiences very much like hell. They see angels and brilliant light, or they see darkness and hear screams and sometimes see demons tormenting people.

This part was referenced to by BeardofPants.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Not really, of course, for there couldn't logically be any "dark" according to your view. You couldn't possibly experience anything prior to your conception, so you couldn't possibly experience anything after death either, according to your view. So there'd be no dark.

I rephrase my words, (although I suspect you know exactly what I meant), to say that there is no after, after we die.


From the passage above to the passage below there was nothing but talk of God and the ways of God. Things I can't respond to without simply calling it made-up. Which would be rude of me But I don't find it at all convincing.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Because you're one very small human with very limited knowledge, like the rest of humanity, and like the rest of humanity, you are very prone to making errors in judgment. That book offers you what you need most from life: Unity with God.

I disagree very, very much with this line of thought and the concluding remark.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The answer to this is simple. Jesus said, "Seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened to you." Seek God and tell him you'll devote your life to him if he reveals himself to you, and seek God persistently, and he will reveal himself to you in a way that makes sense to your reason and fills your heart with a fountain of new love and joy.

That's how I feel when you insist that you have an answer to every one of your questions about God's behavior in the world before you convert. If everything was easy to understand and every question had an obvious answer, God would be no more complex than we are.

Lief, this is all you and no concrete evidence from the world outside. What exacty are you basing this on? The Bible? Tell me why I should believe this over the existance of Santa Claus? I could as well be listening to a person ranting on about a Blue Bunny that lived in Egypt 3,000 years ago and that came down to Earth to Redeem all of Mankind. All based on the Teachings of some Leaves made of Stone, lying on the bottom of the Mediterranean.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I know . . . and license to pervert oneself and harm others like nothing else. For if no one is going to last anyway and no one has any intrinsic value beyond that of another animal, why not just speed up the process for someone if he's bothering me? This perspective can create hideously self-centered behavior in some people. There is no certainty that there will be a Final Judgment, so there is license for destructive acts.

Is this your view of people that do not share your faith?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In fact, it is interesting that China's present economic boom is corresponding to a flourishing underground spread of Christianity in the country. I read about this in Christian magazines. It's common knowledge if one keeps up to date on church activity.

China's big economic downturn in the 19th century occurred after its leaders had been offered Christian teaching for a few hundred years already, and had consistently rejected it. Then the Europeans clobbered the country (Enlightenment imperialism), and they became viciously anti-Christian. During that anti-Christian period, some of their worst atrocities occurred and many of their biggest wars, the nightmares of the 20th century.

Now, Christianity is making big strides in the country, though it still has to operate largely underground because of the risk of persecution. The economic expansion of China is occurring simultaneously.

All this is pretty interesting from a spiritual perspective, for historically, the rejection of God's Word correlates China's disasters and the acceptance of it correlates with its greater prosperity and success.

Prior to the coming of Christianity to China, I think God was very merciful to them in spite of the wickedness of many accepted customs and practices, because of their ignorance.

Lief, the current economic boom in China is not caused by an upsurge in religious activity. It is the, relative, increased freedom of movement and freedom of thought in China that has caused an upsurge in all types of societal activity, including Christianity. And Islam.

The reason that China experienced a colossal turn of events for the worse in the 19th century was because the nations of Europe violently imposed trade agreements and, from the mid-19th century and into the 20th century, along with Japan, broke down the intricate relationship China had with all its neighbours. The era of the Sinocentric Tributary System was replaced by an era of Treaties and Western economics an statehood.
China is the oldest country in the world. It is the most successful civilization over the last 4,000 years, and it is not Christian. It is also the least imperialist nation in the entire world history of great powers. It was through trade relations and non-interference, not violence, that China became the economic powerhouse of Asia. And it is happening again, today, only interrupted by a 150 year period where the nations of Europe, the USA, and Japan, colonialized, fought, took, and exploited, including Great Britains colonial rule of Hong Kong until 1997. The era of exploitation in the 19th century is seared into the conscience of the Chinese, as is the invasion by the Japanese. This started with Christian Europeans coming not only as trademen, but as missionaries, without respect for the Chinese culture, for the Chinese way of living.
Yes, there are Christians in China today, several million in fact out of a population of 1.3 billion. There is an equal amount of Muslims. They are experiencing an upsurge, but freedom of religion exists in China, and I have visited a church in the Sichuan province in China, run by a few Norwegians.

But this Lief:
"Prior to the coming of Christianity to China, I think God was very merciful to them in spite of the wickedness of many accepted customs and practices, because of their ignorance."
This is very rude. I hope you don't mean this.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That is entirely guesswork on your part.

Everything you've told me about God is guesswork. So when I respon to this elaborate exercise of guessing, I have no choice but to guess back.
Wouldn't life be easier if the issue of God was just put aside? If until we really saw the guy sitting up there, we really shouldn't concern ourselves about it? Isn't that more healthy? Isn't it more healthy to concentrate on our worldly problems and employ worldy solutions, for the betterment of mankind (we keep doing it with our human rights charters, with our internationalization)?

I don't believe in God because to me it is pure guesswork. Thus, it is not up to me to prove that there is a God or no God, because I find it completely irrelevant. Until I am presented with evidence that there is a God, there is as much possibility in my view that there is a holy Coca Cola bottle in our neighbouring galaxy, as there is the possibility of a God. It's irrelevant, because no one has ever shown me anything remotely holy. And I used to believe in God. Why? Because I did not know better (no pun intended).

You present a very, very long explanation of the Enlightenment. I find it an impossible to answer that adequately as we speak, with an even longer answer. The analysis you present of the Enlightenment I believe to be very faulty and incomplete, and since I argue this I will have to back it up, very thoroughly, because there is so much to say about this! I could answer you now, but since I think your're so dead wrong on so many things I'd rather have the evidence ready. So forgive me for that. Maybe (I'm completely serious) I'll work on an answer over the summer, if not I may not answer your history part before in August But that's the beauty of Entmoot.

But I have a very short answer for you until that time. Since you show a great disliking for the Enlightenment (which isn't even entirely consistent with the Vatican Church's position today), I would gladly ship you back to early 1300, when life was easier and the authority of the Church was near total. Au revoir!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I feel the very same way Varna. Some nights I can stand alone or with friends outside of our cabin in the summer, and look up at the sky, an absolute beauty of stars on a black tapestry. And it gets very big, very philosophical. I can almost feel the shiver down my spine as I watch in awe. And there's a sadness to it, right before I walk inside again. If only there was someone to thank for it. Something that we all could relate to, something bigger than us.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Lief, you discuss many things.
The senses. Near Death Experiences. Morality. China. Slavery, Colonialism and Imperialism. The downturns of economic development.

While it shows an okay display of knowledge of the general timeline of world history, the analysis is contradictory and incomplete. And sometimes, it seems completely made up as you go along.

I can cite every fact I mentioned. I've got A's in two Honors courses on the history of Western Civilization and another on a History of China course. Also a lot of reading done out of personal interest. *Fidgets with his cuffs, modestly.*

Of course the analysis is incomplete, though. It was just a post, not intended to be a book.

I'm glad you're going to be preparing a longer answer for the summer, though.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

We'll just have to agree that we disagree completely in our worldview.

Unfortunately . Do you mind if I pray (privately) that God will reveal himself to you, though, anyway?

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

The existance of electrons and quarks is obviously not known on the basis of smelling them or touching them. The reason we do know there are electrons is because it has been observed through scientific method. By reading science I can learn of this method and how the said scientists document their theory that electrons do exist. I therefore know of these electrons through reading.

You're trusting the book publishers, who you know nothing about, you're trusting the scientists and the sources documenting their work. I could keep breaking it down further- you're trusting the engineers who developed the technology they used for their work, and the methods used to verify that technology, you're trusting the technology tree that technology comes from, that it doesn't have fundamental errors buried in it. No matter what you do, you're relying on faith backed by evidence.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Eyes - Evidence - Evaluation - Experience - Enlightenment.

I like the 5 E's . Nice. Rather Biblical too, in fact. The scripture says, "the eyes are the light of the body."

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

This part was referenced to by BeardofPants.

Yeah, she suggested that I read the material of a person who thinks he has an explanation for all spiritual experiences. It was nice of her to offer me some good reading, which may or may not be solid in some of its conclusions (having not read it, I can't say). I know it isn't solid in all its conclusions already, because there are a number of visions or paranormal occurrences have been experienced by multiple people simultaneously, and it obviously can't explain answered prayers or outstanding miracles with a psychological analysis. But it may have some good points about sensing experiences. I don't know.

In any case, without having his work presented and argued, that reference in no way disproves anything I said.

I've actually looked into some of the scientific attempts to explain NDE's, and these efforts so far look to me very hypothetical.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I rephrase my words, (although I suspect you know exactly what I meant), to say that there is no after, after we die.

Yeah, sorry for being a silly nit-pick. I come from a household where we're always all over one another's grammar, so I sometimes get crazy.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

From the passage above to the passage below there was nothing but talk of God and the ways of God. Things I can't respond to without simply calling it made-up. Which would be rude of me But I don't find it at all convincing.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to prove Christianity's doctrines with those statements. I was only trying to explain what its perspective is based upon its doctrines, to show its internal logic.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
Because you're one very small human with very limited knowledge, like the rest of humanity, and like the rest of humanity, you are very prone to making errors in judgment. That book offers you what you need most from life: Unity with God.


I disagree very, very much with this line of thought and the concluding remark.

Well, I can accept your not believing my last sentence- I haven't tried to establish Christianity's truth with evidence at this point, so that's logical enough. But the rest of what I said is pretty obviously true. Looking at the vast variety of cultures in the world and the countless disagreements between humans about all sorts of things, it's clear that a lot of people have to be wrong about a lot of things. There's no getting around that.

Even your belief about Christianity could be taken as proof of this (from your perspective) all by itself. 2 billion people in the world who disagree with you about Christianity being wrong have their worldviews framed by an erroneous set of beliefs, from your point of view. So we have to be very limited and susceptible to error.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
The answer to this is simple. Jesus said, "Seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened to you." Seek God and tell him you'll devote your life to him if he reveals himself to you, and seek God persistently, and he will reveal himself to you in a way that makes sense to your reason and fills your heart with a fountain of new love and joy.

That's how I feel when you insist that you have an answer to every one of your questions about God's behavior in the world before you convert. If everything was easy to understand and every question had an obvious answer, God would be no more complex than we are.


Lief, this is all you and no concrete evidence from the world outside.

It's self-evident that if every answer to God's behavior was within our ability to understand here on Earth, we'd be at least as smart as God. I don't have to prove that statement I made.

As for my claim about the how effective seeking God can be, I can point to the millions and millions of converts to Christianity who claim to have sought God and found him in powerful personal experiences when they looked persistently.

I'm one. I sought God and found him, because he promises, "He who seeks finds." I endured six months of aching, painful searching before God revealed himself to me, but when he did, it was very clear to me that it was God.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

What exacty are you basing this on? The Bible? Tell me why I should believe this over the existance of Santa Claus?

Well, millions of children say they believe in Santa Claus because their parents say he's real, but all these parents will admit that he's fake to other adults.

On the other hand, 2 billion Christians believe in Christ, and hundreds of millions of these claim to have encountered him themselves. None of them will say they actually believe he's fake, because they know he isn't, and in many countries, they die for him, which proves their sincerity about their personal experiences with him.

Nowhere is this evidence more dramatic than in the case of Jesus' disciples. All of them except John died for their faith in Christ, which proves their sincerity about their beliefs. Now, religious people all over the world have died for their beliefs, and this too proves their sincerity, but it doesn't prove the truth of their beliefs. It does in the case of Christianity, though, because these ten knew for a fact, from their own experiences as eyewitnesses, whether what they were saying about their eyewitness stories was true or false. All ten claimed to have encountered the resurrected Jesus and declared to be true all the stories of the Gospels that they are written as witnesses of. Lots of people die for false beliefs, but no one dies for what they know to be lies.

All ten of the disciples died, in torture or grisly executions, for the truth of their own eyewitness accounts. Therefore we know beyond all credible doubt that they sincerely believed that they had seen and spoke with their resurrected Lord, that they sincerely believed they had seen him eat meals in their company after the resurrection, that they sincerely believed they were in his company when he rose into heaven.

In short, we have eleven eyewitnesses of these events who all were willing to accept torture and death rather than admit that they were making some of this stuff up. This proves their sincerity. And it makes it very, VERY hard to rationally escape the truth of Christian doctrine.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I could as well be listening to a person ranting on about a Blue Bunny that lived in Egypt 3,000 years ago and that came down to Earth to Redeem all of Mankind. All based on the Teachings of some Leaves made of Stone, lying on the bottom of the Mediterranean.

I'm finally beginning to get into some of the objective evidence supporting Christianity's truth. The blood of the disciples is my first evidence, not the existence of the Bible. I don't use the existence of the Bible or its claims about itself as my evidence- that kind of argument is circular.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Is this your view of people that do not share your faith?

It is my view that some people use this belief in God's absence as moral license, yes. I'm not saying all, but some.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Lief, the current economic boom in China is not caused by an upsurge in religious activity. It is the, relative, increased freedom of movement and freedom of thought in China that has caused an upsurge in all types of societal activity, including Christianity. And Islam.

Most of the spread of the Church I'm referring to is taking place in the underground churches, not the legal, state-controlled ones.

But this thing, we're both agreed, is a matter of perspective. You see prayer as disconnected from the economic surge, though you can't possibly know that you're right. I see prayer as very possibly connected with it, and I can't possibly know that I'm right. So there we are.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

The reason that China experienced a colossal turn of events for the worse in the 19th century was because the nations of Europe violently imposed trade agreements and, from the mid-19th century and into the 20th century, along with Japan, broke down the intricate relationship China had with all its neighbours. The era of the Sinocentric Tributary System was replaced by an era of Treaties and Western economics an statehood.
China is the oldest country in the world. It is the most successful civilization over the last 4,000 years, and it is not Christian. It is also the least imperialist nation in the entire world history of great powers. It was through trade relations and non-interference, not violence, that China became the economic powerhouse of Asia. And it is happening again, today, only interrupted by a 150 year period where the nations of Europe, the USA, and Japan, colonialized, fought, took, and exploited, including Great Britains colonial rule of Hong Kong until 1997. The era of exploitation in the 19th century is seared into the conscience of the Chinese, as is the invasion by the Japanese. This started with Christian Europeans coming not only as trademen, but as missionaries, without respect for the Chinese culture, for the Chinese way of living.

There was a good deal that needed to be changed. Female infanticide, abortion and footbinding (which crippled generations of women) for starters.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Yes, there are Christians in China today, several million in fact out of a population of 1.3 billion. There is an equal amount of Muslims. They are experiencing an upsurge, but freedom of religion exists in China, and I have visited a church in the Sichuan province in China, run by a few Norwegians.

That's an understatement of the size of the Christian population. There are actually 50-100 million Christians in China.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3993857.stm

I think your account of Chinese history has a good deal that's accurate, but you leave out all of the sordid elements of China's history. But in any case, I don't care to debate any of it, as none of it refutes anything I said. God works through the natural, as occurs repeatedly in the stories of Israel's history in the Bible, where God raises up nations to punish them for their sins (natural forces used by a spiritual being).

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

But this Lief:
"Prior to the coming of Christianity to China, I think God was very merciful to them in spite of the wickedness of many accepted customs and practices, because of their ignorance."


This is very rude. I hope you don't mean this.

Oh, of course I mean it, and you should agree with it! Footbinding, abortion and female infanticide were evil. The first crippled multiple generations of women and the other two involved mass slaughters. There were bad practices going on there. Christian doctrine opposed them.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Everything you've told me about God is guesswork. So when I respon to this elaborate exercise of guessing, I have no choice but to guess back.

It's your incorrect guess that everything I'm saying about God is guesswork. We experience a great deal of it firsthand, answered prayers, dramatic healings, visions or miracles . . . here's one that was seen by a million people, filmed and photographed. There are other photos of it and some footage at other places on the Internet. Even Muslim newspapers, which usually carefully pretend the Copts don't exist, had to talk about it because thousands of Muslims had seen these apparitions and were talking about them. Many blind and crippled people were healed in the presence of these spectacular visions. It's one of the most public miracles I know of, though there have been others too that I could get into.

The eyewitness story of a million people, plus photography and film footage, accompanied by all kinds of healings, is strong evidence.

So is the blood of the disciples, because they knew whether what they were dying for was true or false as they claimed to be eyewitnesses of it, and if they were lying about any part of their story, at least SOME of them would have cracked under torture and said so, and consequently been spared and his confession used to humiliate the Christian communities. People die for beliefs they don't know are lies, but they don't die for beliefs they know are lies, and the disciples claimed to be eyewitnesses of the Gospel accounts of the resurrected Jesus.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Wouldn't life be easier if the issue of God was just put aside? If until we really saw the guy sitting up there, we really shouldn't concern ourselves about it? Isn't that more healthy?

Not if God is in fact the source of all goodness. It would, in that case, be unhealthy and destructive to stray from him. And Jesus said that he was "the way, the truth and the life." So if he was right, we're busted if we don't follow him.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Isn't it more healthy to concentrate on our worldly problems and employ worldy solutions, for the betterment of mankind (we keep doing it with our human rights charters, with our internationalization)?

How do we know what is in the best interests of mankind? Communist rebels and democratic rebels and dictators all have waged wars because they thought they have the best worldly solutions anyone had for the betterment of mankind, and all of these have created genocides in their efforts. Everyone disagrees about what is in the best interests of mankind, and human knowledge can come up with all kinds of different answers to the question. The enormous variety of human civilizations that have existed throughout history, some allowing human sacrifice while others thinking that women wearing jeans rather than long dresses was evil. The vast variety of human thought is incredible, and equally large is the variety of contradictions that come up in it. So I don't think humanity is all that reliable a source for coming up with truth. It has to be revealed by God if it is to be reliable. Human philosophies, through the enormity of their contradictions, have proven their unreliability.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I don't believe in God because to me it is pure guesswork. Thus, it is not up to me to prove that there is a God or no God, because I find it completely irrelevant. Until I am presented with evidence that there is a God, there is as much possibility in my view that there is a holy Coca Cola bottle in our neighbouring galaxy, as there is the possibility of a God. It's irrelevant, because no one has ever shown me anything remotely holy. And I used to believe in God. Why? Because I did not know better (no pun intended).

Okay, well I've presented some evidence here in this post .

It's worth noting that even if there was only the tiniest fragment of evidence supporting Christianity, that would be more than a non-believer could ever possibly have, because there can never be any evidence supporting the hypothesis that God doesn't exist. So if any Christian who knows any of the evidence supporting Christian truth argues with an atheist (even if he only knows the tiniest bit- like that St. Margaret had a vision, and nothing more than that), they'll have more evidence and therefore a more rational position than an atheist can ever have.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

You present a very, very long explanation of the Enlightenment. I find it an impossible to answer that adequately as we speak, with an even longer answer. The analysis you present of the Enlightenment I believe to be very faulty and incomplete, and since I argue this I will have to back it up, very thoroughly, because there is so much to say about this! I could answer you now, but since I think your're so dead wrong on so many things I'd rather have the evidence ready. So forgive me for that. Maybe (I'm completely serious) I'll work on an answer over the summer, if not I may not answer your history part before in August But that's the beauty of Entmoot.

I thank you very, very much for thinking about taking that much effort. I would indeed really appreciate it, for it would much better support your case.

Before you start (if you start), I'll admit right now that my analysis is certainly incomplete. There are too many true facts to make a thorough presentation- you have to pick and choose. I was trying to write a post, not a history book.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

But I have a very short answer for you until that time. Since you show a great disliking for the Enlightenment (which isn't even entirely consistent with the Vatican Church's position today), I would gladly ship you back to early 1300, when life was easier and the authority of the Church was near total. Au revoir!

I'm not saying life was easier for a laborer in the Medieval Ages than it is for an average citizen in the US right now. We do have much more physically luxurious and comfortable conditions now than they did then, obviously. But we got that economy by using some extremely twisted methods. That was my point.

Anyway, I'll look forward to your short-term response to this post and your much later possible post in response to my historical argument about the roots of economic development in the Enlightenment.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In fact, we should not have the economic prosperity we have now. The Enlightenment's economic "contributions" came at an incalculable moral cost. No one should do evil to produce good. No one should produce materialistic gains through moral evil, and our modern economies required some terribly evil actions to come about. f the Church in order to achieve this economy. It did shrug off the Church's principles to build the economy, and here is how it did it:

1) Slavery. In order to build a successful modern economy, the development of Mercantilism and the TransAtlantic Slave Trade were necessary. Slavery had existed sporadically throughout the Medieval Ages, in the form of the enslavement of prisoners of war (they were trying to destroy our nation, so why shouldn't they be made to build it up as penalty?) or the temporary enslavement of workers who couldn't pay their debts, until they could settle. Most workers had a contract with their lords during the Medieval Ages, which involved each gaining some profit. The common serfs or vassals could expect a steady supply of food and protection, as well as homes and land, from their lord. They, in turn, spent half of their time working on their own property and half working on their lord's fields, they paid his taxes and did odd-jobs for him. There was mutual benefit in the contract.

This kind of labor system broke down a lot with the Black Death, because fewer workers existed in the pool, so they were able to demand higher wages. Because normal laborers toward the end of the Medieval Ages demanded more income, people in charge felt the need to move to cheaper sources of income.

To develop a modern economy, the nations of the Enlightenment felt the need for slavery as never before. Previously, slavery had only been seen as justified in cases where the person was born into slavery (if they don't pay the debt they owe their master for providing for them throughout their youth, masters have no incentive to look after them and the children would have to be separated from parents, living in dependency on the Church or charities, or dying in the streets), prisoners of war and temporary enslavement of debtors. The Enlightenment changed all that. They needed to justify mass-enslavement and mass-exploitation to fuel their economies, so they advanced and justified racism enormously at that time, a view that contradicted the views of the Church, as it had had ministers and congregations in Africa since the very first centuries of Christianity's existence, and they hadn't had a racist mentality.

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

"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, justified by racism as well as some reinterpretation of Christianity (This was post-Protestant Reformation now, remember, so Tradition doesn't matter), played a crucial role in the development of our economies into the form they are now. Millions of African and Native American slaves paid the brutal price for the greed the development of our system was originally based on.

...weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit -- by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors.

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

2) Colonialism. This and point 3, as well as point 1, are all closely linked. To develop a modern economy, the industrial giants needed raw resources. The Industrial Revolution had swiftly stripped Europe bare. So they created colonies that often brutalized and enslaved native populations, justifying their conduct on racist principles, in order to produce the modern resources the West needed to fuel its modern economy.

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.

3) Imperialism. To secure strategic economic points, the European nations began swiftly competing with one another to get as much as they could of the rest of the world.

These three, Imperialism, Colonialism and Slavery built the new economy of Europe on an ocean of blood of millions of innocent people. Imperialism and colonialism did not exist in Medieval Europe. There were battles between different nations over territory, especially in the Late Medieval Ages, but there was nothing like the imperialism of the new era.

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?

Post-imperialism nations today are still fighting wars with one another in many parts of the globe, and even genocides have resulted from European powers clamping together tribes or nations that had no historical commonalities between them. Colonialism did not exist in the Medieval Ages. Slavery was a much rarer practice and was more rational and more just. Christian masters also felt more responsibility for their slaves in that time, because of protective laws established by the Emperor in the East and promoted by the Church in the West. The Enlightenment built a new economy through savagery. It was indeed an escape from Christian morality in many senses.

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- 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 .

[Mari]

So Coffeehouse, if I understand it correctly your problem is with the institution we call the Church and the Bible?
I can see why. It is easy to point out all the things the church did wrong. Not just the catholic one, but also the protestant church, the synagogue, the mosque, etc.
Right after the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity, a lot of knowledge and good buildings were destroyed in the name of the Lord. A lot of things were done in the name of the Lord. And are still being done.
I once read a remark that said as much as: Christianity should have stayed an Idea. Institutionalizing anything makes a mess of it.
And of course it is true that with institutionalization a certain rigidity comes. Suddenly people start to think of a concept that is "correct religion" and what isn't. People who don't conform are feared, loathed, mistreated, etc.
However, the church however many its faults may be, also has its good sides. My church for example has an extensive fundraising network to help the people who don't have enough money to buy clothes for the kids etc. They are involved with the homeless. The church I went to in Japan helped people in prison (there was a prison choir under our father), they collected money for charity etc. There are still many charity organizations with roots in a church.

The point I'm trying to make (and now I'm getting to that awful "freedom of choice" argument) is that institutions are run by people. Often they really do want to help, but in a lot of cases that is a) not enough b) not practical c) too focused on one thing d) whatmore.
People who have faith aren't necessarily good people. People without it not necessarily good.

You know, I think I forgot the point I was trying to make... >_<
You see, there's a good reason I don't enter this sort of thing

[Lief Erikson]

Looks like it's been quite an interesting discussion while I was asleep! Just woke up and started reading.

I've got some school to do today- last two days of finals are today and tomorrow, but I'll try to get in a string of replies soon.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Mari

So Coffeehouse, if I understand it correctly your problem is with the institution we call the Church and the Bible?

I believe that if one first wants a bond with a higher being, if having a religious faith feels right, something that acts as a positive force in one's life.. then make it free of the restrictions and monopoly of churches and books. An authority that says it enjoys monopoly on the interpretation of the relationship between human beings and a higher being needs to seriously examine its credentials.

You do not need cathedrals, and cardinals.
Take the path up to a cliff nearby,
a place with a view, and watch the forests or the fields or the skies or the cities or the seas or the oceans. The place where you stand is your temple, your church, your place of worship.
Care to witness a miracle? Visit your favorite place(!) and stand there in silence and view the beauty. Without the holy processions of the church, the goldcoloured cloths or the sound of the organ.

Worship the message, not the creeds.

[BeardofPants]

On near death experience & spirituality, you may want to read Persinger (Your brain on God), or anything of that ilk.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

On near death experience & spirituality, you may want to read Persinger (Your brain on God), or anything of that ilk.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html

This link isn't about NDE's but about experiences of sensing spirits.

On the other hand:
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/vmary.htm

[BeardofPants]

"or anything of that ilk". Sheesh.

From my link:

Persinger goes one step further. His work practically constitutes a Grand Unified Theory of the Otherworldly: He believes cerebral fritzing is responsible for almost anything one might describe as paranormal - aliens, heavenly apparitions, past-life sensations, near-death experiences, awareness of the soul, you name it.