Printable View
You speak as if the Bible exists in some kind of vacuum. God (heh), how naive. Tell that "boy, Christianity sure is a bad choice for social control!" fairy tale to the millions of people who live and lived under the thumb of the church, the local priest or pastor, or simply the enmity and gossiping of their fellow Christians.
Franco's powerbase was the church.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Stalin's powerbase was "Communism", The Taliban's is "Islam"; what's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Give me a belief system and I'll show you an example of it being abused.
I would say that these people are showing a misunderstanding of what Calvin means when he talks about depravity, sin etc. Remember my earlier post where I said that righteousness = perfection, whereas sin = anything less than perfection. I think the problem is other people tend to use the definitions where righteousness = something generally good, and sin = something generally bad. Of course, Calvin did not argue that every human was pure evil through and through. The problem is that wherever there is anything that might have been good, the 'bad bits' (which he does say go through every aspect of a person) corrupt these. And as soon as they are in some way corrupt, they are sinful, going by the more absolute definitions of righteousness/sin. And so, every aspect of a person is sinful, and hence total depravity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I think this is one fundemantal issue in this thread causing the dispute over Gandhi. To HoreTore or Wizard, Gandhi was righteous because his deeds, and perhaps even his character, were on the whole good. But going by the stricter standard I would use, he is not perfect, hence he is sinful.
Such absolutes may seem harsh, but Christianity wouldn't make much sense without them. What if God was just generally a nice guy, and not perfect? Or if he just has a lot of power, without being omnipotent?
Regardless of whether it is God or ourselves that prompts regeneration, the same argument could be used that having been given a heart of flesh over one of stone, we become better than the rest of humanity. In this life at least though, it should be remembered that we do still walk in sin, and depend on the external influence of Jesus to be both made acceptable before God, and to continue to grow in the faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Indeed, I recall a few occasions where he does praise the merits of even 'the heathen'. But at the same time, IIRC he does tend to attribute these as being gifts of God, and very much a different matter from the wider issue of depravity/righteousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Your argument was Christianity was badly suited to it, which as illustrated by HoreTore is not true. Here, you more or less admit that and put Christianity on par with other belief systems. Good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
No, I put all humans on the same level. Christianity is much less suited to authoritarian social control; that doesn't mean it can't be twisted in that direction. People like you are always gleeful in pointing up cases of Christians falling short of their high ideals. You are so much more gleeful, I think, because the gulf between the ideal and relaity are that much greater.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
That indicates Christian ideals are less suitable for subjugating people.
The problem is not the belief system, but the practical application.
So this is just another instance of me not thinking Christians are better than other people.
I'm not very gleeful when what can in essence be a good influence on someone's life is turned to evil, I'll have you know. I just took exception to you claiming that Christianity is a "bad choice" for social control or oppression, using the argument that Jesus's message is peaceful and anti-authoritarian. Sure that may be true if all you're looking at is the text, but the examples in history of Christians willfully ignoring all of that and using the same book to oppress people with are simply too numerous to even begin to count. In this it is no different from any other ideology or belief system, and no less suitable.
Nonsense, the more theological hoops you have to jump through the more vulnerable the possition is. Further, there are at least as many examples of Christianity being used to figh oppression. The best example being Slavery, where blacks had to be re-classified as sub-human in order for it to acceptable to enslave them in Christian states. The Moors just enslaved whoever they wanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
What do (theo-)logical acrobatics have to do with anything at the business end of a gun barrel? And again, the same can be said of any ideology, with the possible exception of Nazism.
EDIT: As for slavery, hoho. Bad choice: it wasn't very long before it was sanctioned and theologically defended by churches all over.
You stated that christianity was a "poor choice" for social control. Franco proves that wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Along with a ton of other murdering dictators, most of them royals.... And djeezez, the catholic Church has maintained strong social control ever since it was founded.
Well, Christianity as an organised religion (as opposed to the faith and true church of all believers, which I see seperately) has had good and bad political associations. In Europe, it was often used to uphold far-right regimes. Yet in the USA, Protestant principles were at the root of the revolution its whole concept of political rights etc.
It's certainly better than communism, which has a 100% success rate for supporting oppressive regimes so far.
You tell that to Rosa Luxemburg.
Slavery is not a bad example. It had to be "sanctioned" with reference to Blacks because it was considered offensive to God in general. That is why Blacks were defined as sub-hman, so that they could be possessed along with any other beast. On the other hand, slavery was absoultely fine by anyone else's God at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Ultimately, however, Blacks were domonstrated not to be significantly different and the theological acrobatics fell mid-backflip; with orthodox, not heretical, Christians often being the ones to prove the point.
France used France to control people. Anyway, it was the Catholic King that restored democracy. So, obviously monarchies and religion are a good thing, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Oh, just thought I'd pick up on this; I'm neither stupid nor naive. Had you bothered to read my posts on Biblicalism in the past you would know I have a (probably better than you) nuanced understanding of the context of the construction of the Bible. For starters; most of the constituant books, and all of the NT, were written by authors under subjugation to non-Christian powers.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Bah! I die on the inside with these arguments where people shout "religion causes wars and oppression", and Christians return with "religion gives us morality and stops bad things like slavery".
Altough I've often heard slavery is only an OT thing and that it is no longer acceptable in Christianity, I don't know how they came to this conclusion. Jesus never actually condemns the institution of slavery, in fact IIRC he tells slaves to be obedient to their masters, and masters to treat their slaves well. Of course, slavery in ancient Palestine was very different to the Atlantic slave trade, and I don't see how an Atlantic slave trader could be comfortable with how their slaves were treated if he was a Christian. But there doesn't seem any ground for condemning it outright.
Again, I don't think this is a bad thing, since normally it's seen as a good thing if a religion isn't political and instead sticks to the spiritual side, which exactly what Jesus does here.
well, Christianity should be a wholly positive thing, shouldn't it. Lets not excuse Christians their failings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Just to be clear: I am not saying religion only brings death and destruction and all that :daisy:. I'm merely saying that it can be used just as easily for those purposes as any ideology can.
What does that have to do with anything I said? I'm commenting on how many Christians ignored their own teachings and then you say something about who wrote them and under what regime? If they were written on the moon, it wouldn't have anything to do with what I'm saying. It's about following them or not, and abusing them. Not writing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Many Christians, the most learned at the forefront, apparently had no problems whatsoever with the idea, LOL. They didn't have any trouble blissfully ignoring half of what Jesus had said, and happily jumped a few rings to give their conscience a bit of a break. Which underwrites my point: when push comes to shove, Christianity is no less suitable than any other ideology to justify wrongs with.Quote:
Originally Posted by PVC
Oh, and I'm sure the Christian master's slave'll appreciate the fact that his master had to do some mental gymnastics to justify his owning a slave. That'll make him feel much better, I'm sure.
Hebrew's used to have slaves in the Old Testament, look at Abraham, for incidence. Also, the Christian Roman Empire also instituted Serfdom and had no qualms with slavery either.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
In short: Slavery isn't against the bible.
it is really a oppressive piece of work, in many respects.
The Catholic King also established the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera, and the only reason why the Spanish King didn't take power after that was because he was a complete idiot and had no hope of retaining power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The Spanish King Juan Carlos I is famous for not only restoring, but maintaining, democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Get a grip.
Wiki is quite comprehensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Carlos_of_Spain. Just because you hate your King doesn't mean the Spaniads hate theirs.
Not really, it's not oppressive or progressive, simply because it doesn't deal with wordly things such as political rights etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
As I said earlier, Jesus didn't cry out against slavery, he simply tried to comfort the victims of it.
Irrelevant. One semi-good king does not excuse the idiots before, Alfonso XIII who like I said before, instituted the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera and was unable to take power himself because he was an incompetent inbred.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
And it should be noted that the Carlist Requetés were Franco's 3rd best troops, after the Condor Legion and Yaque's Moroccans, and certainly a key factor in his victory and subsequent dictatorship.
"Semi-good"? Spain is a Constitutional democracy because of King Juan, not because of Liberals or Socialists, but because of the King!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
And his grandfather instituted a dictatorship. What was your point again?
I'm sure the Spanish people had no role in this ~:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Of course not. You see, The Wizard, those of lower birth, the commoners, are irrelevant in the world, their only role is to obey their betters and God.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Show me a bad King; I'll show you a good one. Show me a monster; I'll show you a hero.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Yes, and again, your point was?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The good ones can get elected in a democracy anyway, but the bad ones won't. And even if they do get elected somehow, they won't rule for more than a few years, compared to the decades a bad king can rule.
This is why sensible people prefer a republic. That, and of course the idea that we are all equal at birth, that it is our merits, abilities and achievements that should decide our place in life, not who our mother was pounded by.
Well, they are pretty much determined by whoever your mother got pounded by. You can get political equality, but nature doesn't care about our egalitarian views.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
In any case, monarchy had its role in the development of society, and was probably the best form of government once upon a time. Although, I agree it has few merits nowadays.
That's very deterministic of you....Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Anyway, while nature does not care about our egalitarian views, it doesn't care about our titles either. If an Einstein is born in a democracy he can become the leader even if his parents are working class, in a monarchy, the village idiot will become the leader if his father is the king.