Friday, July 5, 2013

... on Christian Ethics (you know Crusades and holding Slaves and such)

This video I have already commented on

Back on this post:

... on Divine, Angelic, Lower Causalities and on Natural Law Never Causing Anything

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Your words, with my highlight:

"So if he thinks he is ordained by god and you don't, you have a different IDEA of god."

(Possibly of him, he knows himself better than I know him)

My earlier words, with highlight:

"Catholic and Orthodox tradition has one unique definition of God."

A definition of God - relevant to praying bf you eat - and an idea of how much he puts up with in the case of heterodox statements or statements some suspect of being so though really not, are two different things.
That is such pointless word chewing. The point was, you use god to escape all the nasty and evil shit you do and claim it moral. He is a walking stick, and a one we have no reason to believe in. Or if we do, I'd sure like to know some.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
A person too impatient to take a distinction is one I have little patience to argue with.

If you ever get converted you may get so by someone sharing your small love of distinctions or bear with my hairsplitting.
Even meaningless, pointless distinction which's only reason to exist is to confuse the person you are arguing with? Yeah, I can imagine you beign little impatient without that.

If I ever get converted it won't be by a complete brain dead cunt like you, but rather someone who has something to offer that is actually worth a fuck.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Kiitos for the sarcasm.

Do you think that the letter Å is ugly too?

[Note: not A, but A with a ring on it, Å, it is a Swedish letter]
Well, that kinda depends. It's not really a part of my language or anything, so I don't find much use for it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I kind of thought you might be "äktfinsk".

Resenting Swedish Crusaders (I am Swedish by the way) without taking into account that:

- Finnish Pagans had been pretty bad neighbours with Finnish Christians under the Swedish Crown (and remember, Sw[edish] Conqu[est of Finland] began under Adils, well before we were Christians)

- Finns enjoyed a pretty free Christian Republic under pretty loose Swedish protection under Dominican leadership in the Fourteenth Century (Trettonhundratalet).

Is that what's bugging you?
No, I'm just the an average finn.

But I am not my people, I can't change the history and I wouldn't even if I could. So no, I don't really care about that.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, sorry, then it was not the Crusades you meant when you talked about "all the nasty and evil shit you do".

What were you referring to?
What the fuck has that got to do with anything? I don't care if you come from a long line of Moon-nazis, you should see the cruzades were a horrible mistake and an excercise in human cruelty.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
So it was the crusades (among other things) after all?

I see the Finnish Pagan criminality to Christian (and newly Christianised) neighbours which provoked the Crusades of St Erik and of Birger Jarl as horrible mistakes and exercises in human cruelty. And greed. And some other things too.
Yeah. The difference how ever is that the crusades are condoned by the bible. I never said all non-christians have always been benevolent and good, but if you have a ideology that basically tells you to oppress others, it doesn't help.

Besides, crusades didn't really have a huge effect here. I was talking more in a larger scale.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"if you have a ideology that basically tells you to oppress others"

Not the Christian one generally, barely that of the worst crusaders. Certainly that of Pagans who think "better oppress than be oppressed".

Larger scale like what?
Oh, the bible isn't a general christian book then?

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

And before you just yell "Out of context" or something suchlike, I'd like you to share the context that makes those pretty and nice.

As in the world.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1 Peter 2:18 - mistranslated. Good translation: "not only to the good and gentle but also to the badtempered". (Dyscolis in Latin).

Exodus 22:18 - in NT death penalty has been reserved for cases when by sorcery the warlock or sorceress has achieved someone's death. More usual penalties, at least in Spain: Pilgrimage to Santiago as Penance (after abjuring any contracts with the devil).

1 Timothy 2:12 - Yes, I am against female priests or bishops. That is why I left Swedish Lutheran Church > RCC
So it's okay to be a slave to a badtempered master but not to a cruel one? Okay, that obviously makes it slavery much better.

Why then include the sorcery in there at all? Unless it's a double standard where if you are a woman or "in league with the devil" the punishment is more harsh. There is a reason why we don't have laws like "all murderers must die, except leprechauns".

So you are also a sexist cunt? Nice. Also, what you think is immaterial. This is supposed to be *the ultimate truth*.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"So it's okay to be a slave to a badtempered master but not to a cruel one? Okay, that obviously makes it slavery much better."

It does, once Christianity is applied and slave owners found out as cruel are obliged to liberate the slaves that were victims of their cruelty. In Spanish colonial law, a slave refugee from his master was normally an offender, but not if the master had either seduced to sin or been physically cruel (like maiming or raping or killing a relative).

"Why then include the sorcery in there at all? Unless it's a double standard where if you are a woman or 'in league with the devil' the punishment is more harsh"

Sorcery is a crime because of being in league with the devil in order to get such powers, and not at all because of sex of offender.

Exodus 22:18 Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.

Wizards - male noun, useable for either sex. In Swedish "hexmästare" is derived of "hexa" but "trollkarl" and "trollkona" are equally derived.

[from troll - ogre, often credited with magic powers]

It is about the ultimate truth, but questions of mere discipline are not part of what is truly unchangeable. However, according to Tradition, the Sacrament of Ordination (of Bishops, Priests, Deacons) cannot ever apply to a woman and that was mainly what St Paul was talking about.

There have been prophetesses and abesses "teaching" men in another sense as in giving advice and lessons. St Bridget of Vadstena for one.
Yeah. But according to anybody with half a brain cell the whole concept of slavery is dead wrong. So there goes your bible with it's great morals and other bullshit.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"But according to anybody with half a brain cell the whole concept of slavery is dead wrong."

In what cultures?

Western, yes. Why? Because of Christianity.
What? Fuck you! The bible *especially condones slavery and even gives you guide lines on how to go about it*. Are you telling me, the bible is wrong? Well why then have a religion that is based on it?

The slavery ended because of the progress of human kind. Somebody got into their heads the idea that maybe enslaving other people isn't very nice. And sure, the church had to adapt to that, because the only other option was to lose and disappear. It comes from evolving morality, not christianity.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Progress of human mind" and "evolving morality" are two false gods, sometimes credited with miracles of the true God (like abolishing slavery) and sometimes honoured for false and damnable miracles (like bringing back abortion).

"The bible ... gives you guide lines on how to go about it"

- and those guidelines, already under OT even for Canaanean slaves, but especially under NT (see Epistle to Philemon) insist much more than any Pagan, much more than Finnish or Swedish Pagan ancestors of ours (who sometimes sacrificed salves to the gods, at least ours did), that slaves are human people with human dignity, our fellow Christians. That is how slavery was abolished.
Your ass is a false god. Are you saying our minds haven't progressed? Maybe you spend your days as a hunter gatherer banging two rocks together to create music. But some of us have kinda evolved beyond that, socially at least.

And what the fuck do you have against abortion?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Are you saying our minds haven't progressed?"


"Maybe you spend your days as a hunter gatherer banging two rocks together to create music."

That is a technical level, not a level of the mind. According to us it was not even the original technological level, but a setback, after Tower of Babel.

Abortion is murder. As most people knew in Sweden or Finland till a very recent setback of MORAL levels.
Fuck you. Not only do you know what murder is or what moral is, you also have no understanding of even what a mind is. Or evolution is. I have tried to play nice and have an argument, but it's a bit difficult when one's opponent puts his fingers up his ears and yells "LA-LA-LA-LA" when ever you try to say to him something.

Do a bit of research on evolution sciences, anthropology, psychology or fucking anything. Right now you are the kid quoting Harry Potter on a math exam.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If Harry Potter includes a valid observation on mathematics, why not quote him any math exam where that is relevant?

However, quote any of my posts and describe how that is "la-la" rather than answering your argument.

Then read the one I am answering right now. V e r y carefully. If it included any answer to my previous argument, it slipped my no doubt very childish mind's attention.

[I had however missed the following comment, which I only now answered:]
Slavery was slavery. Slavery is slavery. Especially the biblical slaves, as the book gives you strict rules what to do with disobediant ones and how to trick them to be your property forever.

I'm ashamed for the whole human race for the fact I have to even tell somebody why slavery is wrong.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Trick them? The ones who could be "tricked" into being slaves forever where the ones that married inside the slave personnel of one master.

No modern companies do similar things to keep employees?

Now, that rule was however in Old Testament. And it is the New Testament that has conquered the world and abolished slavery by making it impossible to treat slaves as things that happened to be able to talk.
As evil as McDonald's or whatever is, it's employees are not it's property. So once again, fail.

And the Old Testament vs. New Testament -thing is just hooey. The New Testament especially reinforces the old testament. Even Jesus says in it, that he is come to uphold the traditions and rules of the old testament. So that doesn't really hold up.

And even if that was true, why not take the good bits and uphold those, and trash all the evil shit? Much more simple than this tap dance of yours.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"As evil as McDonald's or whatever is, it's employees are not it's property. So once again, fail."

What if McDonald's and similar give an employee the right to say goodbye, but at same time make sure next employment leaves him similarily without a family or a future other than serving things like McDonald's and similar?

Jesus said he came to uphold the law. He also gave a date for when it ceased to literally apply: His Crucifixion. When Heaven and Earth passed away.

"And even if that was true, why not take the good bits and uphold those, and trash all the evil shit?"

Supposing you know in sufficient good detail without the Bible what is good and evil. If you support abortion, you clearly do not.

"Much more simple than this tap dance of yours."

Said every revolutionary ... Hitler and Lenin included.

Seriously, NT adds to requirements above OT, including in fair treatment of slaves. That is how it disappeared: with NT rules one could as well hire for cash[.]
And if you don't support abortion, neither do you even with your bible.

First of all, Hitler was an devout catholic, so he doesn't really aply here, he hold the whole bible as the truth. Lenin, on the other hand, threw it all away to rise himself to basically into godhood. So that doesn't really make sense. I wouldn't concider either of those as some great pillars of moral rightness.

Yeah, but it still supports slavery, something you'd think all knowing and all loving god would be against.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, abortion is and remains murder.

"Hitler was an devout catholic, so he doesn't really apply here, he hold the whole bible as the truth."

Catholic? He was baptised and made a first communion, possibly, but in adult life he did not practise. Devout? Not a chance, unless he repented of his ways between 45 and whenever he died.

Held all of the Bible as truth? No, he was a Darwinist.

Sorry, not my fault your education includes more than one big huge lie.

Bible still supports slavery?

In a sense, in a very limited sense.

Hebrew masters could not do to their slaves what Canaanean master had thought they could do to theirs or Babylonian masters to theirs.

Christian masters were enjoined (see letter to Philemon as well as that chapter in either [I or II] Ephesians were masters and slaves are treated after husbands and wives and fathers and children), to regard their own slaves as their brothers and God as the common master of both. That only ended slavery.
Yes, we have progressed as a species. And now it's time to take the next step and abandon the hooey of the past.

Well, this comes from Jesus: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) Can you imagine more heinous stance?

You probably yell mistranslation and bad interpretation and all that shit. It doesn't matter if Jesus says "Eat eachother and fuck children", you would still stand up to him.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Look four verses further:

Ephesians 6:9 (Douay-Rheims) "And you, masters, do the same things to them, forbearing threatenings, knowing that the Lord both of them and you is in heaven; and there is no respect of persons with him."

I can imagine more heinous stances yes.

Like telling slaves to do another Spartacus (if you've seen the Hollywood movie you know where that led to) or like telling masters to use the advice of Cato Censorius. (Borrowed from Carthaginians, same as crucifixion).

Jesus never said eat each other and fuck children, but people saying it's time to take the next step and abandon hooey from the past did say "fuck property, fuck the church, we want to kill someone who was less unfortunate than us" (Lenin/Trotski, basically) or "fuck the church, fuck the Jews, fuck the Gipsies" (very base, but not inaccurate translation of Mein Kampf & Portschy's errors & Mythus des 20:ten Jahrunderts taken together).
Yes. So what? They did that because of their own dogmas, something most atheists today disregard altogether. What's your point? Them beign assholes doesn't make your oppressive, horrible religion any more true or proper.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well the thing is, their "dogmas" (as you chose to put it) very much center on "Yes, we have progressed as a species. And now it's time to take the next step and abandon the hooey of the past." (As you also chose to put it.

And slave owners freeing their slaves en masse, from old Romans to Robert E Lee did it out of respect for their Christian dogma, that a slave is as much of a man as a freeman.
No, really, they weren't. Stalin and his ilk were fast to make themselves basically into gods, while Adolf very much embraced the hooeys of the past; such as occultism, racism, patriotism and xenophobia. Both of them also saw no problems with making their political parties the focal point of their new, totalitarian states.

So? If christianity would not been around they would have done it inspired by something else. Like Spartacus tried to do, before christianity was even invented.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Stalin and his ilk were fast to make themselves basically into gods,"

I e rejecting Christianity.

"Adolf very much embraced the hooeys of the past; such as occultism, racism, patriotism and xenophobia."

All of them modern rather than traditionally Christian, excepting patriotism which his enemies embraced too.

"Both of them also saw no problems with making their political parties the focal point of their new, totalitarian states."

Key words: new, totalitarian. Get it?
You can't honestly be this stupid.

We were talking about dogmas. They had their dogmas. You have yours. I don't. Get the fucking difference, or do I need to paint a picture, or something?

It doesn't matter what kind of fucking divine rule book you have, bible or party book, it's all the same especially when they are filled with horrible injustice, cruelty and bloated sense of self-importance. Bullshit is still bullshit. You get it, you cunt? Please, at least stop pretending to be this dumb.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
They got their dogmas, the ones they or their recent predecessors invented.

I have not got my dogmas but those of the Church, given by Jesus to His Apostles two thousand years ago.

Apart from the fact that you refuse to call your dogmas dogmas, which of above comes closests to your own position?
Yes! You follow the commands of some assholes in funny hats based on an ancient book that can be interpreted to mean pretty much anything. And you see no problem with this?

And I don't have an dogma, I'm sorry, I know it would be much easier for you if anybody was as brainwashed as you. But I don't, I'm an atheist, sorry. So neither one of those comes any closer to my position. Now you got to ask yourself the question, which one yours comes closer to: another evil dogma or no dogma at all?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, now you clarified your usage of "dogma" a bit.

Having a dogma is being brainwashed.

Being an atheist is not being brainwashed.

Ergo, being an atheist means not having a dogma.

What about the dogmata of Lenin, then? Was he brainwashed or an atheist?

As you clarified dogma, so should I clarify Catholicism and Bible.

No, Bible cannot be adequately interpreted to mean pretty much anything. It can be inadequately interpreted by those who reject the right interpretation. And that one is connected to a series of men starting with twelve disciples and leading up to present guys "in funny hats", most of whom are not assholes, but there was one (called Judas) among original twelve, so we can always count on some of them being there.
Ah, the beloved "no true scotsman" fallacy. How come then there are thousands of different denominations of christians, who can't agree on anything? You tell me all the others are wrong, yours is the only right interpretation. Well, how do you know that? Who says? And most of all, who cares?

Why follow a book you have no reason to believe has an ounce of truth in it? Why study real, demonstratable science to see how stuff actually works, and think things trough with empathy and common sense?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Now, ever heard of 1517? OK, the brothers Petri in Sweden and Agricola in Finland came a little later.

How many "sects" or denimonations were there before 1517?

Some of them, like Albigensians, died out. Others, like Valdensians, joined the 1517 crew.

There were four who did neither: Catholics, Orthodox (what you sometimes call oikeaoppinen in Finnish, though we Catholics claim that too), what is often called Monophysites, what is mostly called Nestorians. Disagreed on very few things.
The year 1517 has nothing the fuck to do with anything, as usually. Actually, none of that does. What are you even talking about? The fact that your faith is maluable and new people can just come up and dream new interpretations only strenghtens my point, not diminishes it! Why don't you address the actual point instead of dreaming some crap from acient history that has nothing to do with anything?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Why don't you address the actual point instead of dreaming some crap from acient history that has nothing to do with anything?"

Why don't you do some fact checking to see if my points are dreamt up and have something to do with something?

"The year 1517 has nothing the fuck to do with anything, as usually."

1517 - theses of Luther (who later became Protestant)

1517 - Protestantism of Zwingli and Oecolampadius

1517 - rising of Münzer

1517 - preaching of liberal theologians and arians uncle and nephew Sozzini

Check out what sects majority of present day sects lead back to? Right, Luther or Zwingli ... plus baptists owe at least one trait to Münzer ... plus Atheists agree with the Sozzinis even more than they did themselves.
*I don't have a dogma*. What the early christians and catholics or pagans or the flying reindeer of the moon did doesn't make your dogma any better. Please try to comprehend this. It isn't so difficult. Your book is full of errors, horrible guide lines to life, horrible, evil characters that it tells you to worship and most of all it's so badly written that anybody can interpret it to support their actions, as long as they are malevolent. Wheather it's a bad interpretation makes no difference.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, you don't have a dogma, you are an atheist, then Lenin had no dogma either.

What exactly do you mean by dogma anyway?

Someone else's opinion you don't share? A dogma.

Your own opinion? An opinion.

Dogma happens to be Greek for "opinion" just as "doxa" is Greek for praise.

Orthodox translates as oikeaoppinen in Finnish. Because -dox comes from dogma meaning opinion.

Since you are not oikeaoppinen I wish you were at least oikeamielinen. With your opinion on what dogma means - you are not.

When you say that our book is full of errors, you are agreeing with uncle and nephew Sozzini.

Only they thought it was at least basically good, so you are agreeing with their heresy more than they did.

You are showing exactly what I said, that Atheism is a Protestant sect.

If Atheism meant exactly just "not believing in God or gods", it would not so often be coupled with ultra-Socinian hatred of Holy Writ.
That is insanity. I am not agreeing with anybody but myself and common sense. If you one day aquire either of those things, your own free will or common sense, write back to me then.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Believing a dogma is not loosing one's own free will, and if you choose to call what is common between Socinianism and yourself "common sense" it does not mean people who are not agreeing with you and Sozzini Refomers also need to call it "common sense" or that we are unable to call it a non-Catholic dogma. Sorry if that hurts you, but that is the case.
Yes, it kinda is. If your bible forbits wearing two different fabrics at the same time, you have two options: a) pretend it doesn't (the normal religious response) or b) do what the book says (which is impossible due to all the contradictions). Please show where the free will lies in all this.

And the rest is wrong too. I may believe grass grows. I'm right. But I might believe that for various different reasons. Believing it because of evidence and science is the reasonal one (=common sense).
Hans-Georg Lundahl
We believe grass grows. We are right.

Believing it because of evidence is one reasonable reason.

Believing it because of science is in this case a good reason too, since in this case (science of the ordinary, of the present and perpetual) science is a set of doctrines that are very closely related to evidence.

"Science" of the remote past or distant is not science in same way.

Any injunction gives us free choice to obey or not and leaves our free will intact.

When the Old Testament forbade Hebrews to wear wool and flax in same garment, or to grow wheat and rye on same field, it symbolically means for the New Testament that we must avoid mixing the pure Christian doctrine with Pagan falsehoods, and it is thus simply put another way to forbid heresy (including Lutheranism), and in that manner it obliges, just as Jews in Jesus' time (He Himself too) were obliged to wear clothes either pure linen or pure wool.
And that makes a difference how? Are you still afreid of the "pagan falsehoods"?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I certainly am.

Pagan falsehoods like allowing abortion and contraception. Pagan falsehoods like allowing mercy killing of innocent people. Pagan falsehoods like denying the One God in Three Persons and the Two natures of Christ, Son of the Father and Son of Mary.

You see how many mix certain amounts of Christian truth with falsehoods such as these, nowadays, don't you?

I am very much against that, and if I should catch myself on the verge of a heresy it makes me afraid like a snake.
continued on:
... on Abortion

No comments: