History Main / ArtisticLicenseTraditionalChristianity

3rd Sep '17 3:59:56 PM wrpen99
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler considered himself a Catholic, although his precise religious beliefs remain unclear.

to:

* UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler considered called himself a Catholic, although Catholic during his precise religious beliefs remain unclear.
speeches, as well as in ''Literature/MeinKampf'', but actions both public and private suggest that he was strongly atheist, or even anti-religion entirely.
13th Aug '17 9:24:04 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The notion that the Middle Ages, particularly the 'Dark Ages' (now referred to as the 'Early Middle-Ages') were a time of darkness where religious leaders suppressed scientific advancement has in fact been widely discredited and is now considered untrue by most historians. Many inventions were actually promoted by the Church, which also worked to preserve Pagan writings and built scientific experiments ''into the very fabric of the Vatican''. And don't forget that many priests were also scientists, or rather, ''most scientists were also priests''. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science Here is a list that just shows the notable ones]], including Henri Lemaître, a Belgian priest, astrophysicist, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre and the guy who originally proposed Big Bang theory]]''. One of the most important theories in modern physics. There's also the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences Pontifical Academy of Sciences]] or the [[http://vaticanobservatory.org/ Vatican Observatory]], ''one of the oldest scientific institutions in the world''. The irony here is that the people who regularly claim that Christianity stifles research and the acquisition of knowledge are failing to do any research themselves. There is also the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_J._Ayala Francisco Ayala]] issue. What with him being a former priest and famous evolutionary biologist, or [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel Gregor Mendel]] You know that guy with peas who pretty much figured out genetics and was a Monk.

to:

* The notion that the Middle Ages, particularly the 'Dark Ages' (now referred to as the 'Early Middle-Ages') were a time of darkness where religious leaders suppressed scientific advancement has in fact been widely discredited and is now considered untrue by most historians. Many inventions were actually promoted by the Church, which also worked to preserve Pagan writings and built scientific experiments ''into the very fabric of the Vatican''. And don't forget that many priests were also scientists, or rather, ''most scientists were also priests''. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science Here is a list that just shows the notable ones]], including Henri Lemaître, a Belgian priest, astrophysicist, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre and the guy who originally proposed Big Bang theory]]''. One of the most important theories in modern physics. There's also the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences Pontifical Academy of Sciences]] or the [[http://vaticanobservatory.org/ Vatican Observatory]], ''one of the oldest scientific institutions in the world''. The irony here is that the people who regularly claim that Christianity stifles research and the acquisition of knowledge are failing to do any research themselves. There is also the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_J._Ayala Francisco Ayala]] issue. What with him being a former priest and famous evolutionary biologist, or [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel Gregor Mendel]] Mendel]]. You know know, that guy with peas who pretty much figured out genetics and was also a Monk.monk.



** It should also be noted that Christian opposition to evolution is only in part because it goes against a literal interpretation of Genesis.[[note]]Several Christian commentators, including St. Augustine, held to non-literal views of the creation account long before the true age of Earth and the universe were known.[[/note]] More importantly, they object to a naturalistic explanation because they think it would undermine the role of God in creation in general (i.e. life arising by chance) and the relationship between man and God in particular (i.e. consciousness arising by chance), and apparently think that something can't possibly come from God unless it popped out of nowhere fully-formed, and that God is somehow incapable of setting a gradual process in motion and occasionally poking it in the right direction. It's not like ''the beauty of nature and the the mechanisms by which it ticks is one of the reasons God created in the first place'' or anything.

to:

** It should also be noted that Christian opposition to evolution is only in part because it goes against a literal interpretation of Genesis.[[note]]Several Christian commentators, including St. Augustine, held to non-literal views of the creation account long before the true age of Earth and the universe were known.[[/note]] More importantly, they object to a naturalistic explanation because they think it would undermine the role of God in creation in general (i.e. life arising by chance) and the relationship between man and God in particular (i.e. consciousness arising by chance), and apparently think that something can't possibly come from God unless it popped out of nowhere fully-formed, and that God is somehow incapable of setting a gradual process in motion and occasionally poking it in the right direction. It's not like ''the beauty of nature and the the mechanisms by which it ticks is couldn't be one of the reasons God created in the first place'' or anything.anything.
** Creationism has always largely been a Protestant phenomenon. Not even all Protestants of course, but those of a particular fundamentalist variety. Modern creationism (with the idea of flood geology, an actual six-day creation, etc.) began in the 19th century as a reaction against modern scientific theories which showed literal interpretations of Genesis were untenable. Rather than accept this and reject such an interpretation (as Catholics plus many liberal Protestants do) they doubled down. Protestants of this variety tend to claim that Catholics are actually not Christians at all, it must be noted, and hold very negative views toward Protestants who don't take this stance as well.



** In point of fact, the term "Big Bang" was [[AppropriatedAppellation originally supposed to be disparaging]], and the person who coined it, Fred Hoyle, backed a "Steady State" theory that held that the Universe has always been more or less the same. Why? Because he was an agnostic, and thought that the Universe having a definable origin in time was ''too much like Biblical creation''.
*** However, when the Pope wanted to refer to the Big Bang as the moment of creation, Fr. Lemaitre explicitly advised him against it. Lemaitre was enough of both a scientist and a theologian to realize that mixing science and religion was not a good idea.
** Basically, the Catholic church officially is completely fine with scientific theories detailing the history and development of the universe... up to a point. One of the major points of Catholic doctrine is the concept of ''Creatio Ex Nihilo'', or "Creation out of Nothing" and the "Prime Mover". This is the idea that there was nothing before the point the universe started and that God set the act of creation into motion. The "Big Bang" theory actually made the reconciliation of science with theology ''easier'', as it gives us a date of Creation (previous theories seemed to indicate that the Universe had existed literally forever), and indeed some scientists rejected it at first because it was ''too'' Biblical (!). Everything that happens ''after'' that point is fair game for scientists.
*** Actually, the Big Bang and any possible preceding states are fair game. When we talk about Creation Ex Nihilo, we mean the Nihilo. Creation from absolutely nothing, substantial physical laws are not nothing, nor are space and time. The concept of Mu might be a good analogy, it's something that cannot even be described, because to do so would be to give a form of being to it.

to:

** In point of fact, the term "Big Bang" was [[AppropriatedAppellation originally supposed to be disparaging]], and the person who coined it, Fred Hoyle, backed a "Steady State" theory that held that the Universe has always been more or less the same. Why? Because he was an agnostic, and thought that the Universe universe having a definable origin in time was ''too much like Biblical creation''.
*** However, when the Pope wanted to refer to the Big Bang as the moment of creation, Fr. Lemaitre explicitly advised him against it. Lemaitre was enough of both a scientist and a theologian to realize that mixing science and religion was not a good idea.
idea. He acknowledged that it didn't necessarily prove God, as a materialist interpretation was also possible.
** Basically, the Catholic church officially is completely fine with scientific theories detailing the history and development of the universe... up to a point. One of the major points of Catholic doctrine is the concept of ''Creatio Ex Nihilo'', or "Creation out of Nothing" and the "Prime Mover". This is the idea that there was nothing before the point the universe started and that God set the act of creation into motion. The "Big Bang" theory actually made the reconciliation of science with theology ''easier'', as it gives us a date of Creation (previous theories seemed to indicate that the Universe universe had existed literally forever), and indeed some scientists rejected it at first because it was ''too'' Biblical (!). Everything that happens ''after'' that point is fair game for scientists.
*** Actually, the Big Bang and any possible preceding states are fair game. When we talk about Creation Ex Nihilo, we mean the Nihilo. Creation from absolutely nothing, substantial nothing-substantial physical laws are not nothing, nor are space and time. The concept of Mu might be a good analogy, it's something that cannot even be described, because to do so would be to give a form of being to it.



** Galileo was very difficult as a personality. He has been suspected to have suffered from a mild form of Autism. It is safe to say that he was in serious, often very personal dispute, with the contemporary scientific figures. This being the Renaissance and most institutions of learning in Europe (and many leading scientific figures involved in disputes with Galileo) associated with the Catholic Church, the Church became involved in these disputes.

to:

** Galileo was very difficult as a personality. He has been suspected to have suffered from a mild form of Autism. It is safe to say that he was in serious, often very personal dispute, disputes, with the contemporary leading scientific figures.figures of the time. This being the Renaissance and most institutions of learning in Europe (and many leading scientific figures involved in disputes with Galileo) associated with the Catholic Church, the Church became involved in these disputes.



** Also worthy of note, though it may seem obvious to many : the Galileo Affair has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether the Earth was flat or round. A surprisingly high number of people (including many Catholics) somehow believe that Galileo revolutionary claim was that "the Earth was round, in contrast to the dominant opinion at the time that the Earth was flat", a statement which is amazingly wrong. The fact that the Earth is round and not flat is known since Antiquity (being easily proven through basic geometry) and had never been forgotten (see for instance Dante's ''Literature/TheDivineComedy'': Hell is a cone going through the spherical Earth, down to the center of the spherical Earth (which, once crossed, means that gravity is reversed), Dante and Virgil emerging on the Southern Hemisphere).

to:

** Also worthy of note, though it may seem obvious to many : the Galileo Affair has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether the Earth was flat or round. A surprisingly high number of people (including many Catholics) somehow believe that Galileo Galileo's revolutionary claim was that "the Earth was round, in contrast to the dominant opinion at the time that the Earth was flat", a statement which is amazingly wrong. The fact that the Earth is round and not flat is was known since Antiquity (being easily proven through basic geometry) and had never been forgotten (see for instance Dante's ''Literature/TheDivineComedy'': Hell is a cone going through the spherical Earth, down to the center of the spherical Earth (which, once crossed, means that gravity is reversed), Dante and Virgil emerging on the Southern Hemisphere).



* "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."--Werner Heisenberg. Yes, ''that'' Heisenberg.

to:

** One exception to this is the Omphalos theory published by Philip Gosse in a book of the same name c. 1857, which theorized that God created things such as trees with preexisting rings, plus navels on Adam and Eve (Omphalos means "navel" in Greek). This was not accepted for exactly the reasons stated above. It also exists now in the form of a parody religion called "Last Thursdayism" stating that God created everything last Thursday, with memories of supposed prior times included.
* "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."--Werner Heisenberg. Yes, ''that'' Heisenberg. Francis Bacon, pioneer of the scientific method, said something very similar in the 1600s.
1st Aug '17 12:00:05 PM Madrugada
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Matthew 7 "Judge not that ye be not judged...", is really misunderstood as a message of tolerance. The following verses point toward the scripture being a message against '''hypocrisy''' ''in'' judgement (rather than judgement itself). Romans 2:1-3 has a similar teaching about judging hypocritically.
** Unless of course you have also read that all men are sinners and fall short of the glory of god and that they should concentrate on the mote in their own eye first, making it clear that those who judge are the very hypocrites being warned.
* When it comes to homosexuality, Catholic Church does not consider it a sin. Homosexual orientation is treated as a disorder[[note]]but within Christianity as a whole even ''this'' is debated. There are plenty of Christians who don't consider gay marriage any more spiritually unhealthy than straight marriage, and can back it up with interpretation.[[/note]] and as such, is something beyond the control of an individual and thus cannot be the source of sinful actions. Even homosexual intercourse is frowned upon only because it happens not in a married couple and cannot not performed with fecundity in mind (see above). For the Protestants otherwise, homosexual intercourse is frowned upon and is considered as a sin due to their scripture-only principle, and the fact ''Literature/BookOfRomans'' mentioned that same-sex intercourse is against the nature of marriage and reproduction as proposed by God. So, for all purposes, homosexual contacts are treated as any other form of adultery.
** And even then, it's a different set of connotations with disorder. While modern usage, especially in English, has connotations of mental illness, the Latin connotations, which are also in many translations, are just of misdirection. If one purpose of sex is procreation, a desire for non-procreative sex is inherently misdirected.

to:

* Matthew 7 "Judge not that ye be not judged...", is really misunderstood as a message of unquestioning tolerance. The following verses point toward the scripture being a message against '''hypocrisy''' ''in'' hypocrisy in judgement (rather than judgement itself).itself)and a warning that the standards you judge others by will be the standards you yourself will be judged by. Romans 2:1-3 has a similar teaching about judging hypocritically.
** Unless of course you have also read that all men are sinners and fall short of the glory of god and that they should concentrate on the mote in their own eye first, making it clear that those who judge are the very hypocrites being warned.
* When it comes to homosexuality, the Catholic Church does not consider it a sin. Homosexual orientation ''orientation'' is treated as a disorder[[note]]but within Christianity as a whole even ''this'' is debated. There are plenty of Christians who don't consider gay marriage any more spiritually unhealthy than straight marriage, and can back it up with interpretation.[[/note]] disorder and as such, is something beyond the control of an individual and thus cannot be the source of sinful actions. Even homosexual intercourse is frowned upon only because it happens not in a married couple and cannot not performed with fecundity in mind (see above). not, itself, sinful. Homosexual ''acts'' are sins. For the Protestants otherwise, Protestants, homosexual intercourse is frowned upon and is considered as a sin due to their scripture-only principle, and the fact ''Literature/BookOfRomans'' mentioned that same-sex intercourse is against the nature of marriage and reproduction as proposed by God. So, for all purposes, homosexual contacts are treated as any other form of adultery.
** And even then, it's a different set of connotations with disorder. While modern usage, especially in English, has connotations of mental illness, the Latin connotations, which are also in many translations, are just of misdirection. If one purpose of sex is procreation, a desire for non-procreative sex is inherently misdirected.
adultery.
1st Aug '17 11:52:28 AM Madrugada
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Catholicism is often claimed to be quasi-polytheistic by non-Catholics (veneration of saints and the Mother Mary). Catholics don't actually worship the saints, including Mary, any more than they worship icons such as the crucifix. They usually get annoyed when people accuse them of this. In actual fact, when Catholics pray to the saints they ask them to 'intercede' with God on their behalf, the same way as one would ask a friend to pray for them.

to:

* Catholicism is often claimed to be quasi-polytheistic by non-Catholics (veneration of saints and the Mother Mary). Catholics don't actually worship the saints, including Mary, any more than they worship icons such as the crucifix. They usually get annoyed when people accuse them of this. In actual fact, when Catholics pray to the saints they ask them to 'intercede' with God on their behalf, basically asking the same way as one would ask a friend saint or Mary to pray speak up for them.them to God.



* A common misconception is that the Roman Catholic practice of Canonization makes someone a saint. A saint, in Catholic teaching, is any human who has made it to Heaven. God makes them saints. Canonization is just when the Church has sufficient evidence that the individual is in Heaven to declare that we ''know'' for a fact that they are sainted. This proof usually comes from miracles performed for someone who specifically prayed for that person's intercession. There is always a lengthy investigation of each "miracle" to rule out scientific explanation and falsehoods[[note]]The amount of investigation has been reduced in recent years, for example the role of 'Devil's Advocate' has been abolished[[/note]].

to:

* A common misconception is that the Roman Catholic practice of Canonization makes someone a saint. A saint, in Catholic teaching, is any human who has made it to Heaven. God makes them saints. Canonization is just when the Church has sufficient evidence that the individual is in Heaven to declare that we ''know'' for a fact that they are sainted. This proof usually comes from miracles performed for someone who specifically prayed for that person's intercession. There is always generally a lengthy investigation of each "miracle" to rule out scientific explanation and falsehoods[[note]]The amount of investigation has been reduced in recent years, for example the role of 'Devil's Advocate' has been abolished[[/note]].falsehoods.



* Similarly, many non-Catholics are familiar with the concept of "papal infallibility," the [[SelfDemonstratingArticle dogma]] that UsefulNotes/ThePope is 100% correct when he talks about faith and morals. What most ''don't'' realize is that the Pope's words are only considered infallible when he is speaking ''ex cathedra'' (literally, "from the throne")[[note]]The Pope, being a bishop, has a throne called a ''cathedra'' which is used as a symbol of his authority.[[/note]] meaning it only applies when he is explicitly invoking the infallibility or is otherwise considered to have the intention of doing so; in addition, he must not contradict Scripture nor another Pope who spoke ''Ex Cathedra'', and it ''only'' applies to matters of theology, all of which adds up to some pretty strict and explicit criteria. To date, this has happened at least twice, while some put the definite count at seven times. Probably. It boils down to this: if the occasion meets these standards, ''God will not let the Pope speak wrongly.'' While the doctrine is understood today as giving the Pope a lot of power, at the time it was perceived as a way of LIMITING the Pope's power; if a past Pope makes an infallible statement, a later Pope cannot "change" this teaching if he doesn't like it.

to:

* Similarly, many non-Catholics are vaguely familiar with the concept of "papal infallibility," the [[SelfDemonstratingArticle dogma]] dogma that UsefulNotes/ThePope is 100% correct when he talks about faith and morals. What most ''don't'' realize is that the Pope's words are only considered infallible when he is speaking ''ex cathedra'' (literally, "from the throne")[[note]]The Pope, being a bishop, has a throne called a ''cathedra'' which is used as a symbol of his authority.[[/note]] meaning it only applies when he is explicitly invoking the infallibility or is otherwise considered to have the intention of doing so; in addition, he must not contradict Scripture Scripture, existing Church dogma, nor another Pope who spoke ''Ex Cathedra'', and it ''only'' applies to matters of theology, all of which adds up to some pretty strict and explicit criteria. To date, this has happened at least twice, while some put the definite count at seven times. Probably. It boils down to this: if the occasion meets these standards, ''God will not let the Pope speak wrongly.'' While the doctrine is understood today as giving the Pope a lot of power, at the time it was perceived as a way of LIMITING the Pope's power; if a past Pope makes an infallible statement, a later Pope cannot "change" this teaching if he doesn't like it.
7th Jun '17 9:20:15 AM DracoKanji
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* People who claim that Christianity is based on earlier religions are, unless they mean Judaism, very ''sorely'' mistaken. There is no actual historic proof that this is the case. Indeed, there is nothing in what we know of the original Pagan beliefs that we can even draw a respectable parallel with. This, however, has not prevented bunkum, such as Christianity supposedly being based on the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems#Mithraism_and_Christian_Theology Mithraic Mystery Cult]], appearing from the mouths of respected and intelligent people, such as the ones who run the ''[[Series/{{QI}} QI panel game]]''. Quite apart from the fact that we know almost nothing about the Mithraic Mystery Cult, ''everything we do know'' contradicts all of the claims made. This is merely the very tip, ''[[UpToEleven of the very tip]]'', of the colossal iceberg of earlier beliefs that people regularly claim Christianity is based on. One of the more amusing being the supposed 'virgin birth' of Horus. Long story short: Isis gathered the various parts of Osiris and rebuilt him, she then brought him back from the dead for a single day so that she could, er, ''conceive'' with him. Yes, creepy undead whatnots are still whatnots.

to:

* People who claim that Christianity is based on earlier religions are, unless they mean Judaism, very ''sorely'' mistaken. There is no actual historic proof that this is the case. Indeed, there is nothing in what we know of the original Pagan beliefs that we can even draw a respectable parallel with. This, however, has not prevented bunkum, such as Christianity supposedly being based on the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems#Mithraism_and_Christian_Theology Mithraic Mystery Cult]], appearing from the mouths of respected and intelligent people, such as the ones who run the ''[[Series/{{QI}} QI panel game]]''. Quite apart from the fact that we know almost nothing about the Mithraic Mystery Cult, ''everything we do know'' contradicts all of the claims made. This is merely the very tip, ''[[UpToEleven of the very tip]]'', of the colossal iceberg of earlier beliefs that people regularly claim Christianity is based on. One of the more amusing being the supposed 'virgin birth' of Horus. Long story short: Isis gathered the various parts of Osiris and rebuilt him, she then brought him back from the dead for a single day so that she could, er, ''conceive'' with him. Yes, creepy undead whatnots are still whatnots. The ancient Egyptians also didn't have a single, dedicated word in their language that easily translates to "virgin", as it wasn't considered a terribly important thing.
20th May '17 3:35:30 PM deadguy
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[folder:Charity Work and Philanthropy]]

* The Catholic Church gets a bad and rather undeserved rap for being ''uncharitable''. The argument usually goes that since the Church has a lot of really nice buildings they must be sucking up money that could be used to feed Romanian Orphans. Of course this is very politically naïve; countries aren't poor for no reason, mostly it is because governments have been sacking places in Africa, Asia, and South America for ''centuries''. Western powers will actually step in to replace democratically-elected leaders with puppets who are subservient to them in order to make the sacking easier. Want an example? How about Brazil, Guyana, Guatemala, Iran, India, and half of Africa? And here's the thing: throwing aid money at a region can actually destabilize it because, as it turns out, dictators tend to take that free money and turn it into guns or supplies - and that's if the food doesn't get left to rot on the docks. What has this got to do with the Catholic Church? Well, it turns out they ARE helping people, and they are doing a damn sight more than the people who accuse it of being greedy. [[http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/catholic-church-and-healthcare-in.html Have a look at this]].
--> "The Catholic Church is very visible in healthcare services in Africa. She, of all religious groups and private agencies working in the healthcare industry in Africa, has the largest number of private hospitals and clinics providing Medicare and, in some cases, free medical treatment for HIV/AIDS, pregnant women, and people suffering from malaria. This happens even in those African countries where the Catholic Church is not a majority. In Ghana for instance, Catholics make up about 30 percent of the population but control more hospitals than any other private agency in the country. In Africa, the Church works in 16,178 health centers, including 1,074 hospitals, 5,373 out-patient clinics, 186 leper colonies, 753 homes for the elderly and physically and mentally less able brothers and sisters, 979 orphanages, 1,997 kindergartens, 1,590 marriage counselings centers, 2,947 social re-education centers and 1,279 other various centers. There are 12,496 nursery schools with 1,266,444 registered children; 33,263 primary schools with 14,061,000 pupils, and 9,838 high schools with 3,738,238 students. Some 54,362 students are enrolled in higher institutes, of which 11,011 are pursuing ecclesiastical studies. There are in Africa, fifty-three national chapters of Caritas, thirty-four national commissions of justice and peace and twelve institutes and centers promoting the Social Doctrine of the Church." -- ''Aid and Development in Africa'', Stan Chu Ilo, (Pickwick).
** Note: These naive/idiotic arguments should be distinguished from the principled debate over the Church's stance on condoms in HIV-ridden sub-Saharan Africa. On the one hand, you have genuinely concerned Catholics who think the Church is doing everyone--including itself--a disservice by remaining staunchly opposed to condom use, which might be affecting HIV infection rates for the worse, the effect of non-use on family size (which is negatively correlated with prosperity) aside. On the other hand, you have concerned Catholics who think the other concerned Catholics are abandoning deeply-held Church doctrine without any justification in Scripture or Tradition and essentially advocating an acquiescence to modern (im)morality. Both sides here have points that must be taken seriously if one is a serious Catholic, but there is a tendency among outsiders and less-serious Catholics to conflate this debate with the more foolish points. Additional note here: we take pains to point out that the countries in which AIDS is most widespread are not typically Catholic-majority (not for any fundamental reason, simply that the hardest-hit countries are in Southern Africa, which was historically under British rule),[[note]]These countries were among the ''more'' developed in sub-Saharan Africa, with well-connected trade links between them, built by the British and improved upon by the later post-colonial governments. That's why the disease could spread: where there's a halfway decent road network, there will be truckers, and where there are truckers, there will be lot lizards, and where there are truckers and lot lizards, [=STDs=] will spread. It also didn't help that despite the embargo/boycott, South Africa was quite well tied into the world economy, and lots of trade came in by air and by sea, as well--and the air and sea networks linked with road and rail to provide a perfect route for the disease into the interior; it ''especially'' didn't help that Zambia, the northernmost part of the region, shares a border with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where HIV first began to spread. Between the modern (ish) trade networks that allowed the epidemic to spread and the lack of public health facilities (either because of corrupt government or war or--in the case of South Africa--indifferent government), you can see how Southern Africa got it so bad.[[/note]] and of course, people who actively ignore the Church's doctrines against fornication/adultery are unlikely to heed its doctrine ''vis-a-vis'' condoms, either. That said, the Church is a powerful moral voice that influences both public opinion (affecting how willing merchants are to sell condoms and how willing people are to try to buy them)[[note]]Even in a place where they're completely mainstream, it's hard--''you'' try buying a pack of condoms ''and only a pack of condoms'' at the nearest store. You can't, can you? Bought a tube of toothpaste and some shampoo didn't you? Now imagine that every single moral authority in your society, ''especially'' the Church which ran your school, is telling you it's bad to use condoms. See what we mean?[[/note]] and public policy (affecting whether governments look favorably or unfavorably on programs to get condoms to people more cheaply and efficiently).
[[/folder]]
20th May '17 3:15:24 PM deadguy
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* On the subject of slavery, another thing people forget is that it was a very common practice ''throughout'' the ancient world; it was the way prisoners of war and peoples of defeated nations were treated. That's why it's not condemned in the Bible. [[SocietyMarchesOn Only later]] (when people were enslaved and mistreated on the basis of race) did the practice become seen as "Why doesn't the Bible condemn this?" In fact, as noted above, it does...[[FairForItsDay just not the kind that the ancients were familiar with]].
** A case ''could'' be made that slavery is largely incompatible with New Testament doctrine. Despite the fact that it was condoned, it would have conflicted with the "reversal of roles" theme that made Christianity popular among women and lower classes at the time.
** The problem is that these verses refer only to ''Israelite'' slaves, and even their share isn’t all that great, as socioeconomic conditions would generally leave them no option but to return to their owner and undergo a very humiliating ceremony on the way, becoming an ''‘eved nirtza‘'', or ‘pierced slave’. They, along with non-Israelite slaves, or ‘Canaanite slaves’ (''‘Eved Kna‘ani''), are much worse off, as the text allows their Israelite owners to treat them like scum, and they ''were'' chattel that could be sold or inherited freely.
*** "Pierced" slaves mentioned above were also bound for life. The rules that protected Jewish slaves also only applied to men. Fathers were allowed to sell their daughters as wives.
** Paul points out in Philippians that owning a 'brother' in Christ is rather against the spirit of following Jesus. And as shown across the New Testament, a brother (or sister) in Christ could be of ''any'' race. [[UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire At the time,]] this was a [[FairForItsDay massive leap]] in thinking about [[ValuesDissonance slavery.]]
** Still, it could be argued that even if slavery were a common thing at the time, it still doesn't justify God's lack of condemnation of it in The Bible. If we're looking at the book from a mythological perspective, it makes sense, but from a holy or "the right thing" view, it's not a very valid argument.
*** Of course that can also be argued. Just because God doesn't directly condemn something doesn't necessarily means he is in favor of it. He didn't seem be very keen on it when it's the Israelites that are the ones enslaved.
*** This suggests that the silence is telling, given the concern for the Jewish slaves.
11th May '17 11:32:46 PM Ikkin
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Interestingly enough, placing Christianity in the context of comparative religion shows that it might very well have chosen to resolve the double bind by [[TakeAThirdOption Taking A Third Option.]] Rather than plagiarize from any specific myth or ritual, it appropriates the tropes of as many of them as possible into a DeconReconSwitch that lays bare the dynamic from which they arose, fatally depreciating that dynamic before offering a better solution. It's neither "stolen" nor "unnatural" -- instead, it's simultaneously familiar and unique (...and maybe more than a millennium ahead of its time). Sound outlandish? Consider this: the cyclical sacrifice and/or symbolic consumption of reincarnating gods/spirits in the form of kings, kings' sons, mock kings (who were sometimes criminals), priests, outsiders, enemies, human beings in general, animals, food products (generally grain or grape products), or some combination of the above as a means by which to avert disaster can be seen in the rituals of a broad cross-section of primitive and ancient societies worldwide, and shadows of such traditions remained within folk traditions into the 20th century. Other relevant rituals and myths include sacrifices for sin, sacrifices on trees, and mythic deaths upon which civilizations are founded. (Sir James Frazer's [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough The Golden Bough]] collects many such traditions in exhaustive detail.) Jesus' various appellations allow him to embody ''all'' of these traditions simultaneously. And, as argued by [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rene_Girard Rene Girard]], Jesus' submission in those roles to a brutal and undeserved judicial (i.e. non-cultic) execution exposes the true nature of all such traditions as reenactments of the same glorified murder through which human societies have universally discharged the violence that would otherwise tear them apart, simultaneously robbing that dynamic of its power and forcing humanity to choose between accepting his challenge to avoid defining ourselves over against others and complete societal annihilation. If Girard is right, denying resemblances doesn't just imply that all other religions are completely false -- it strips Christianity itself of its true brilliance.
1st May '17 12:05:08 PM tentakkelbj0rn
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler was a Catholic…or not. The entire issue is very unclear, but that doesn't stop people on both sides invoking [[GodwinsLaw the Hitler Card]] in intense flame wars. Though Hitler claimed to be Christian and to be doing the Lord's work, some research doesn't show Hitler to be entirely Catholic. The Other Wiki has [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler a page on his religious beliefs.]] Basically Hitler certainly wasn't atheist but his actual religious beliefs remain unclear. He didn't like some elements of Christianity, and supported ideas of other religions.
** But in any regard, Hitler enforced a version of the Bible on Germany that had the entire Old Testament torn out of it (since it was Jewish), so his ''claim'' to be a Christian is no more valid than if he had clipped the Bill of rights out of the US constitution and then ''claimed'' to be a "true American patriot". And even if he ''had'' been a Christian, Hitler also wore pants. Does that make wearing pants evil?
** [[InItForLife Semel Catholicus, Semper Catholicus]] - unless excommunicated, of course.
*** And on that note, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, still in effect throughout the remainder of Hitler's life, imposed the penalty of latae sententiae (i.e. automatic) excommunication on any Catholic who joins a secret society (e.g. the Thule Society, which Hitler was claimed to be a member of).
*** Also, there is a claim that Hitler and Goebbels incurred latae sententiae excommunication (under the current canon law) by taking part in a Protestant wedding. They then sued to get out of paying their church tax (collected by the state), and were refused on the principal that a man is not allowed to profit from his own wrongdoing.
** Also there was a significant amount of Catholic opposition to the Nazis. Though there were Catholics who supported Hitler, there were many Catholics who openly condemned Nazism on various issues. Many Catholics opposed the killing of disabled people, (called Aktion T4) by the Nazis and the Bishop of Munster even preached against it. Hitler finally cancelled Aktion T4 due to this opposition. Though the killing of the disabled continued in a less systematic manner, it hardly seems that the Catholic Church was fully behind Hitler. Also the Nazis engaged in a lot of persecution of German Catholics and there are many Catholics who were killed by Nazis and are considered martyrs.
** It should be noted that Hitler privately espoused anti-Christian sentiments, reportedly telling Ludendorf that, once he finished killing all the Jews, he would do the same to the Christians.
*** It should also be noted that those quotes should be taken with a grain of salt. It must be remembered that, at least when referring to Hitler's Table Talks, there is reason to believe that many of the anti-christian quotes were either added in by translators or taken out of context. It is agreed upon that Hitler made anti-clerical statements in private, but anti-CHRISTIAN... that's a bit more up for debate.

to:

* UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler was considered himself a Catholic…or not. The entire issue is very unclear, but that doesn't stop people on both sides invoking [[GodwinsLaw the Hitler Card]] in intense flame wars. Though Hitler claimed to be Christian and to be doing the Lord's work, some research doesn't show Hitler to be entirely Catholic. The Other Wiki has [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler a page on Catholic, although his religious beliefs.]] Basically Hitler certainly wasn't atheist but his actual precise religious beliefs remain unclear. He didn't like some elements of Christianity, and supported ideas of other religions.
** But in any regard, Hitler enforced a version of the Bible on Germany that had the entire Old Testament torn out of it (since it was Jewish), so his ''claim'' to be a Christian is no more valid than if he had clipped the Bill of rights out of the US constitution and then ''claimed'' to be a "true American patriot". And even if he ''had'' been a Christian, Hitler also wore pants. Does that make wearing pants evil?
** [[InItForLife Semel Catholicus, Semper Catholicus]] - unless excommunicated, of course.
*** And on that note, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, still in effect throughout the remainder of Hitler's life, imposed the penalty of latae sententiae (i.e. automatic) excommunication on any Catholic who joins a secret society (e.g. the Thule Society, which Hitler was claimed to be a member of).
*** Also, there is a claim that Hitler and Goebbels incurred latae sententiae excommunication (under the current canon law) by taking part in a Protestant wedding. They then sued to get out of paying their church tax (collected by the state), and were refused on the principal that a man is not allowed to profit from his own wrongdoing.
** Also there was a significant amount of Catholic opposition to the Nazis. Though there were Catholics who supported Hitler, there were many Catholics who openly condemned Nazism on various issues. Many Catholics opposed the killing of disabled people, (called Aktion T4) by the Nazis and the Bishop of Munster even preached against it. Hitler finally cancelled Aktion T4 due to this opposition. Though the killing of the disabled continued in a less systematic manner, it hardly seems that the Catholic Church was fully behind Hitler. Also the Nazis engaged in a lot of persecution of German Catholics and there are many Catholics who were killed by Nazis and are considered martyrs.
** It should be noted that Hitler privately espoused anti-Christian sentiments, reportedly telling Ludendorf that, once he finished killing all the Jews, he would do the same to the Christians.
*** It should also be noted that those quotes should be taken with a grain of salt. It must be remembered that, at least when referring to Hitler's Table Talks, there is reason to believe that many of the anti-christian quotes were either added in by translators or taken out of context. It is agreed upon that Hitler made anti-clerical statements in private, but anti-CHRISTIAN... that's a bit more up for debate.
unclear.
1st May '17 11:58:07 AM tentakkelbj0rn
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Question: Why were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? If you answered ''only'' rampant homosexuality, you answered wrongly. [[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekial%2016:49&version=NIV See Ezekiel 16:49 for more details.]] The short answer is that they were destroyed for a number of crimes, most importantly [[RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil rape]] and failure to observe SacredHospitality (which in that hostile world was critical for a newcomer's very survival). And as for any innocent women and children in those cities, considering that the cities had ''that many'' gang rapists, don't you think death was an act of mercy? Oh, and Lot wasn't actually offering his daughters for sex. It was actually a calculated insult to the mob. As everyone knows, rapists do what they do to prove that they are the more powerful person "I'm the boss, and you're my b*tch.", and lot's daughters were unmarried girls, and remember, in that culture people were married off at the age of ''thirteen'', so these girls couldn't have been older than twelve. All in all, this would've been equivalent to the mob demanding to fight Chuck Norris, only for Lot to tell them "Nah, you don't wanna do that, here, fight these two prepubescent girls instead, they're more your speed."

to:

* Question: Why were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? If you answered ''only'' rampant homosexuality, you answered wrongly. [[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekial%2016:49&version=NIV See Ezekiel 16:49 for more details.]] The short answer is that they were destroyed for a number of crimes, most importantly [[RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil rape]] and failure to observe SacredHospitality (which in that hostile world was critical for a newcomer's very survival). And as for any innocent women and children in those cities, considering that the cities had ''that many'' gang rapists, don't you think death was an act of mercy? Oh, and Lot wasn't actually offering his daughters for sex. It was actually a calculated insult to the mob. As everyone knows, rapists do what they do to prove that they are the more powerful person "I'm the boss, and you're my b*tch.", and lot's daughters were unmarried girls, and remember, in that culture people were married off at the age of ''thirteen'', so these girls couldn't have been older than twelve. All in all, this would've been equivalent to the mob demanding to fight Chuck Norris, only for Lot to tell them "Nah, you don't wanna do that, here, fight these two prepubescent girls instead, they're more your speed."
This list shows the last 10 events of 444. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.ArtisticLicenseTraditionalChristianity