Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
|
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
|
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
The only possible outcome in this case may be that the bible isn't an appropriate tool to rely on as a final source since it has been used to no avail in endless "pros and contras" not only between atheists and christians but also between "christian-hardcore-believers" themselves, depending on their view on slavery. |
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
|
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
|
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Manifold in the letters of Paul.
And not only there ... I thought this would be obvious? And that the question is not whether it is there but how deal with it? ahhhh ... I don't like those fundamentalist discussions regarding the texts of the bible. They simply were not meant and were not made to be understood this way ... |
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
|
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
"Slavery" as understood in the Bible was more like servanthood. Slaves had rights, they were not to be kidnapped, they were not to be beaten or killed and they were to be given their freedom after 7 years. They could also be redeemed if a member of their family had sufficient money to pay off their debt or they earned enough to buy their freedom.This in no way resembles the slavery practised throughout European colonialism or modern day human trafficking rings. Passages from the Bible must be interpreted within their context, not just pulled out of the page. |
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
I'm not interested in biblical/christian apologetics, only in what the people did for centuries based on what an imaginary being is said to have told some primitive middle-east goat herders about how to behave. |
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
|
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
|
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Again:
Manifold in the letters of Paul. Roman understanding of slavery. |
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
Take the letter to Philemon regarding his bondservant Onesimus: "I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart...For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord." Philemon 1:12-15&16 Or again in Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Paul did not discriminate against race or class. His teachings did not condone the mistreatment or abuse of "slaves". Paul did not teach inequality. To say Paul's understanding of slavery was Roman is misleading. The New Testament is not a political manifesto. Paul was not trying to overthrow the existing Roman authorities. But that does not mean he condoned Roman slavery or modern slavery. |
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Perhaps it's time for those who want to argue about the Christian Bible's presentation of slavery to start a new thread on that subject - in the Open forum, maybe, as this seems to have nothing to do with aikido or even spirituality more generally.
|
Re: Religion....No Competition.
As far as I'm concerned I'm not interested in keeping up this discussion.
|
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Aw, Shucks!
This thread was warming up to be a nice, new holy war.... ;) Marc Abrams |
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
That leaves out what happens to the gentiles, though, who can be enslaved for life and passed onto future generations, and Exodus does permit slaves to be beaten, with certain restrictions. Best, Chris |
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
Oh, you mean I shouldn't be happy to read that debt slavery is morally acceptable? {irony off} |
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
|
Re: Religion....No Competition.
What starts out as something...
I'll throw my thoughts into this: 1. Religion is often the common referral to organized faith. In some faiths, religion is claimed as doctrine direct from the idol(s). In most cases, there is a non-divine interpretation which impreaches the authenticity of the doctrine. For example, the Bible was not written by God but rather a collection of stories re-written many times by a collection of authors. As a segment of the faith, some believers transcend the argument of authenticity. Further, to argue out of context, perspective or consideration extractions of text from a document whose authenticity is impeachable is to present an argument which is unresolveable as a burden of proof. 2. As a matter of comment, I think there is some sensitivy right now to the issue of invalidation by association within the Christian Church. The argument appearing something like, "Once, in this passage, the Bible spoken favorably of slavery. Therefore the Bible condones slavery. Therefore the Bible is Bad. Therefore believers in the Bible are bad." The sensitivity is furthered heighted by the rather directed scrutiny at Christianity, without equal scrutiny in the other 7 major religions. 3. As related in the original post, this thread looks at the level of validation given to the argument of religion. As many of the initial comments indicated, I chose to ignore the thread because I believe that particular claim was not worthy of response. As the post matured, I think it maybe changed to be a more reasonable discussion... Personally, I am on the record as having no consistent understanding of "competition" as used by Graham. He [and everyone else] knows this. Religion is a administrative aspect of spirituality. I think most religions seek to disseminate, cultivate, and administrate their particular faith with the tools they believe accomplish those tasks. The level of success with which they accomplish these tasks is related to the perpetuation of their religion. The rise and fall of Shinto as the national Japanese religion would be some representation of the intial success and eventual dis-establishment of a religion. I think to contend religion is a pure representation of faith is invalid. I think to content culture as a pure representation of faith is invalid. I think to content faith as a pure representation of divinity is invalid. A friend of mine once remarked if future generations would perceive our athletic professions as we perceive gladitorial games of our past cultures. Similarly, I wonder what future generations will call our financially indebted individuals who are bound by their debt to house loans, school loans, credits cards, rich uncles.... I think we used to call them indentured servants... God wills it!! |
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
With all due respect, you're not on a sound historical footing here. Some slaves were prisoners of war, some became slaves as a result of criminal judgment, some became slaves because they were sold into slavery by parents. None of these categories can be considered remotely "voluntary." If you want to have a fairly thorough understanding of the historical roots of slavery -- even those instances which you justify as "voluntary...to prevent desitution and poverty or a way of repaying a debt" in the Near East, you would do well to read David Graeber's recent masterpiece: Debt: The First Five Thousand Years. Best, Fred Little |
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
there is an excellent debate to be seen and heard between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq2GmUa4s7Y The motion is that "Religion is a force for good in the world" This particular clip doesn't seem to have the final result attached, I have seen it elsewhere and Hitchens managed to sway the audience heavily to oppose the motion. Blair is a consumate orator and a worthy spokesman for the religious argument, as much as I personally dislike the man for his actions whilst in office, you can't take away from him his forceful arguments. However, He is no match for Hitchens' humanity, reason, intelligence and brilliantly stated case. It is worth watching just for his opening 7 minutes, which brilliantly sums up why there is no chance of peace in the middle east, any time soon. As far as I can see, the major religions are pretty much all competitive and exclusive and will remain so. I was under the impression that Buddhism is not a religion as there is no god to have faith in to start with. And reading the debate on the thread here, competition is alive and well as usual. :) regards, Mark |
Re: Religion....No Competition.
I would not lump Buddhism together for any substantive discussion. The different sects and cultures who practice it are diverse, and not without their own problems.
Tibetan Buddhism is absolutely a religion, with a boat load of gods, demons, dogma, superstition, and fundamentalism. They are currently participating in a holy war against the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Other varieties of pure land Buddhism also have piles of dogma and although they seem to be less violent than the Abrahamic cults, there could be societal, geographic, and situational mitigating factors. There are a few holy wars going on with Islam in southeast asia, but Islam seems to be soliciting holy war with pretty much everyone right now. Zen is, in theory, without dogma and formless enough to be disqualified as a religion, but in practice often shows up as an exploitative hierarchy supporting a variety of abusive situations. Since this is indistinguishable from other "in practice" religions, I would hesitate to give it a pass. |
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
:) |
Re: Religion....No Competition.
Quote:
Funny how I can for example have discussions with Bob for example on anything be it deep or trivial but we never destroy or make wrong each others views. We don't even contradict. Yet we gain. So without competition real gains can be made....and thus harmony.:) I'll let you into a little secret when it comes to folk asking or even telling me Buddhists don't believe in God. I tell them the true name of God is found by adding another 'o'. Peace.G. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:33 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.