|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 24, 2013 08:11 PM |
|
|
@ Elodin
I’m going to make this short – it doesn’t look like you know much about the inquistion, and I have no interest in making this a lecture.
The inqisition’s main purpose was “combat” against heresy (to understand that it’s important to consider that the RC Church claimed authority in all questions of belief and dogma; you couldn’t just go ahead and claim something about the Bible or God or Jesus thaat would contradict the official position – after all, what would happen to the purity and TRUTH of the word, if everyone was allowed to interpret it anyway they wanted?).
The main instrument for doing this was the excommunication of a person. It was seen as the equivalent of delivering the person in question to Satan. Their Biblical foundation for that were
1 Cor 5:5
1 Tim 1:20
The idea of "isolating" a heretic came from
Tit 3:10
The idea of burning a hopeless heretic came from
Joh 15:6
while the idea that i might be correct to use force came from
Luk 14:23
Keep in mind that I've no interest to discuss the bible and its possible interpretations here - I'm not the inquisition, and if you have a problem with it try discussing it with Augustinus of Hippo or Thomas of Aquinas.
Why IS the inquisition even part of this?
Because they did EXACTLY the same thing than you do: they took a phrase from the Bible and interpreted in a way that fitted with their mindset. YOU quote
Quote:
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil works. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
You INTERPRET this in the way that fits your mindset. That "the state" doesn't BEAR (not wield) the sword "in vain", you interpret so that it MUST use it, handing out a death penalty for certain crimes, although it can be interpreted in a lot of ways, none of them forcing the authorities to actually use the (quite metaphorical) sword to KILL the (not specified) "evildoers".
I daresay, if you would concentrate more on the "love" that your Lord is oh so full of, instead of being so keen on seeing god's wrath delivered, you'd find a wealth of Bible quotes that would support the idea that killing might be something the human jurisdiction should leave to god, since HIS is the vengeance.
Now, back to my question: I asked, how a Christian could be in favor of the death penalty, if killing a perp would mean prematurely ending his time on this world thereby robbing him the chance to repent.
The question wasn't whether "the state" should be able to execute a perp, but whether "Christians" as in PERSONS could be in favor of the deatk penalty.
And you just washed the question off - pointing to the state - and you have one guess what this reminds me of.
You say I should stop claiming you wouldn't care about the souls of the sinners. What you actually said was, that "the state" wouldn't care about the souls of the perps - but "the state" is no anonymous institution, it's people - and you approve of "the state" executing perps, you said that often enough. If you DID care for the souls of those perps - how could you be in favor of killing them, knowing they would go straight to hell, if they didn't repent honestly before that?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 24, 2013 09:02 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 21:04, 24 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
1Ti 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
1Ti 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Sorry, nothing there about torturing or killing a heretic. Excommunication/disfellowship is not torturing or killing the heretic.
Quote:
The idea of burning a hopeless heretic came from
Joh 15:6
Quote:
John 15 (NIV)
The Vine and the Branches
15 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.
9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other.
Nope, nothing there telling Christians to burn a heretic. In fact it says God is the burner of branches who claim to be Christians but who produce no fruit (don't follow Christ's teachings.)
Nope, nothing there that could be interpreted as "Burn the heretic."
Quote:
while the idea that i might be correct to use force came from
Luk 14:23
Quote:
7 When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8 “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9 If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. 11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
12 Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”
15 When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, “Blessed is the one who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.”
16 Jesus replied: “A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. 17 At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’
18 “But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, ‘I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.’
19 “Another said, ‘I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.’
20 “Still another said, ‘I just got married, so I can’t come.’
21 “The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.’
22 “‘Sir,’ the servant said, ‘what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.’
23 “Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full. 24 I tell you, not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.’”
Background of the parable: Jesus was at a Pharisee leader's house during a banquet. He saw people jockeying for the positions of honor. Jesus said, look dudes, not seek to honor yourselves. Instead when you throw a banquet invite those you don't think are worthy to come. Forget your earthly reward (being honored by others) and you'll be rewarded in the age to come.
One of the guys there said, "Blessed is the one who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God."
Now for the parable. A parable always has one main point. That parable is saying the religious elite have missed the boat. They rejected the invitation to come to the banquet that has already been laid out. But those who the religious elite think are unworthy are responding to the invitation of Christ (who already has his [spiritual] kingdom in place.) The fishermen, tax collectors, and "common peons."
No, nothing there about torturing or killing heretics either.
I'll respond to the rest of your post in another post as this one is already getting long and I just take care of a few things.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 25, 2013 04:40 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:15, 25 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
Why IS the inquisition even part of this?
Because they did EXACTLY the same thing than you do: they took a phrase from the Bible and interpreted in a way that fitted with their mindset. YOU quote
As always you can't resist making false claims about me rather than sticking to the points. Probably because you have no points that stand up in your continual assaults on Christianity.
I've studied the Bible for 40 years. I don't look to find a verse to back up my beliefs. I embrace the truth found in the Bible instead.
Quote:
You INTERPRET this in the way that fits your mindset.
False. I interpret it based on:
1) The context of the passage
2) The overall teaching of the Bible
3) the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
YOU don't seem to use any of those things as you lack an overall familiarity with the teachings of the Bible, don't seem to be familiar with the context of the passage, and you don't believe in the Holy Spirit.
I was once a liberal, as a young teen. Then I believed the irrational positions of the democrat party and did not believe in capital punishment. As I grew in life experience and in knowledge of the Word of God my viewpoints changed.
I don't make life fit my mindset. I make my mindset fit life.
Quote:
I daresay, if you would concentrate more on the "love" that your Lord is oh so full of, instead of being so keen on seeing god's wrath delivered, you'd find a wealth of Bible quotes that would support the idea that killing might be something the human jurisdiction should leave to god, since HIS is the vengeance.
I believe in love. I believe in charity. I believe in justice. I believe in mercy. I believe in responsibility. I believe in accountability. I believe the government has the responsibility to protect the innocent and punish the human predators. The New Testament teaches all these things, not just one of them.
Quote:
Now, back to my question: I asked, how a Christian could be in favor of the death penalty, if killing a perp would mean prematurely ending his time on this world thereby robbing him the chance to repent.
I'm not sure how many times you want me to answer that question.
1) God said murderers are to die. I'm fine with what God said, he is a pretty smart guy.
2) Executing the murderer is not "prematurely ending his time" because God decreed he is to die at the hands of men.
3) He had a chance not to commit the murder. He chose to commit the murder.
4) He has plenty of time to repent before he is executed. Executions in the US take a looooooong time to carry out.
Check out the graph that shows length of time on death row over the years. It keeps growing and growing and growing.
Clicky
5) Execution of the murderer ensures he will never again murder, in prison or out of prison.
6) Justice is served by capital punishment of murderers.
Quote:
You say I should stop claiming you wouldn't care about the souls of the sinners. What you actually said was, that "the state" wouldn't care about the souls of the perps - but "the state" is no anonymous institution, it's people - and you approve of "the state" executing perps, you said that often enough. If you DID care for the souls of those perps - how could you be in favor of killing them, knowing they would go straight to hell, if they didn't repent honestly before that?
I HAVE ASKED YOU THREE TIMES TO STOP saying I don't care about the souls of people and challenged you to present a quote of me saying that I in fact don't care. You have done neither. What am I supposed to think of you when you continue to repeat such false claims about me?
Even in Texas the time from sentencing to execution is over 10 years. That is more than enough time to repent.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 25, 2013 09:31 AM |
|
|
Of course you couldn't resist the temptation to start arguing with ME, of all persons, of how the inquisition, and the theologians of that time were wrong to interpret the bible the way they did when - and I repeat that - Quote:
Because they did EXACTLY the same thing than you do: they took one or more phrase from the Bible and interpreted in a way that fitted with their mindset. YOU quote
And there, strangely enough, while you go out of your way citing the bible parts the inquisition pointed to in order to justify their work, but you do NOT repeat your own, nor do you answer to my different interpretation of that part.
Now, it's ridiculous that I seem to actually be defending the inquisition, but the problem is that you are not arguing true to reality.
The existing Christian Church has ALWAYS "excommunicated" people or groups of people, of whom the bishops believed they had moved too far away from the Christian - that is, the Roman Catholic - doctrine, although up until the First Council of Nicaea, when the Christian Religion suddenly became the religion of the Roman State, "excommunication" had been more or less just something like the end of an official membership, but Emperor Constantin linked the Church with the executive power of the State, and it was HIM who started to EXILE members that were excommunicated. HIS motives were of course always based on whether he saw a threat for the unity of the religion and thereby the Roman Empire.
And it was Emperor Theodosius who "invented" to threaten "heretics" with the death penalty. The first known execution of a heretic took place in 385.
As an American you should know how important the idea of unity may seem. If there are contradictory ideas, then there will be either a secession (split) - or a war for unity (and naturally oppression against the secessionists).
Quote:
As always you can't resist making false claims about me rather than sticking to the points. Probably because you have no points that stand up in your continual assaults on Christianity.
I've studied the Bible for 40 years. I don't look to find a verse to back up my beliefs. I embrace the truth found in the Bible instead.
I didn't say that. I said that the interpretation of Bible verses depends on the mindset of people - then, with the inquisition, now with you and the Romans quote.
Why CAN I say that? Because you shall know them by their deeds. EVERY interpretation of a Bible verse that is used to enact UNNECESSARY FORCE AND VIOLENCE would have to be considered conspicuously, and while it has ALWAYS been pointed out that Christians are the Jesus guys that point to the New Testament when they like to ascertain their peaceful and loving attitude, they did NEVER fail to point to God's word from the OT when their mind was set on firmer action against whomever.
It's that kind of "doublespeak" that seems to be gluing history together, whether it were the Catholic missionaries that preached to love each other or else ... Or the protestants who eventually started to preach that God would reward the believers not only in the afterlife, but in the here and now as well, and that the economic wellbeing of a person would be a visible sign of the favor someone was in with God.
Quote:
Quote:
You INTERPRET this in the way that fits your mindset.
False. I interpret it based on:
1) The context of the passage
2) The overall teaching of the Bible
3) the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
...
I was once a liberal, as a young teen. Then I believed the irrational positions of the democrat party and did not believe in capital punishment. As I grew in life experience and in knowledge of the Word of God my viewpoints changed.
I don't make life fit my mindset. I make my mindset fit life.
It may well be that you make your mindset fit LIFE, but it would seem to me that you do the same with the Bible. Following the Bible, your mindset would have to be - and is, like you often said - to love everyone, because that makes it impossible to act unjust, violent or aggravating against anyone. ANYONE, mind you.
Which is exactly why I asked the question. Because how can a person living like that not only accept the death penalty, maybe as something a majority of people wants in certain areas, but as a sorry residue of barbaric times and circumstances that should be worked against, but hail as the will of God and the ultimate pinnacle of justice - when nowhere in the NEW Testament you would find Jesus OR anyone of his disciples saying something like "you must execute a murderer".
Quote:
Quote:
I daresay, if you would concentrate more on the "love" that your Lord is oh so full of, instead of being so keen on seeing god's wrath delivered, you'd find a wealth of Bible quotes that would support the idea that killing might be something the human jurisdiction should leave to god, since HIS is the vengeance.
I believe in love. I believe in charity. I believe in justice. I believe in mercy. I believe in responsibility. I believe in accountability. I believe the government has the responsibility to protect the innocent and punish the human predators. The New Testament teaches all these things, not just one of them.
Oh yes. And you also believe in collective blood vengeance, because that's what the death penalty is.
Quote:
1) God said murderers are to die. I'm fine with what God said, he is a pretty smart guy.
GOD - not Jesus - also said homosexuals are to die. Adultresses as well. I don't think it's that smart to equal gays with murderers. And let's not forget: New Testament only.
Quote:
2) Executing the murderer is not "prematurely ending his time" because God decreed he is to die at the hands of men.
That's a non-point - New Testament only.
Quote:
3) He had a chance not to commit the murder. He chose to commit the murder.
That's a no-point again. Society has the same chance when it comes to executing him. We are not forced to execute people, as is obvious, seeing that lots of countries have abolished death penalty.
Quote:
4) He has plenty of time to repent before he is executed. Executions in the US take a looooooong time to carry out.
Since when is it your responsibility to set a time frame in which a person must have repented or else?
Quote:
5) Execution of the murderer ensures he will never again murder, in prison or out of prison.
That's true. Of course, hacking off a guy's genitals (and if you come up with "he may use an object") and hands as a good measure ensures that he will never again rape, in prison or out of prison. Come to think of it, a lobotomy will do the same thing. Or, hey, what about an artificially induced paraplegia? It's difficult for a guy in a wheelchair to commit violent crimes, isn't it?
Quote:
6) Justice is served by capital punishment of murderers.
"Justice" is an abstract term, that isn't defined clearly, since no one really knows what it actually is or whether it is even possible to achieve. Some things may SEEM just, while with others justice doesn't seem to be possible.
Do you really think that there can be justice for a serial killer by EXECUTING him? What kind of justice is that supposed to be? A guy kidnapping, raping, mutilating and lastly killing a number of persons or even children, say, a dozen? What is JUST about killing that guy with a lethal injection or on the EC? Shouldn't such a guy be ... dissected, mentally and physically, to LEARN something about his condition? Shouldn't he suffer? Shouldn't he be forced to serve the society he preyed upon in some way? Justice? That's quite a debatable thing, obviously.
Quote:
Quote:
You say I should stop claiming you wouldn't care about the souls of the sinners. What you actually said was, that "the state" wouldn't care about the souls of the perps - but "the state" is no anonymous institution, it's people - and you approve of "the state" executing perps, you said that often enough. If you DID care for the souls of those perps - how could you be in favor of killing them, knowing they would go straight to hell, if they didn't repent honestly before that?
I HAVE ASKED YOU THREE TIMES TO STOP saying I don't care about the souls of people and challenged you to present a quote of me saying that I in fact don't care. You have done neither. What am I supposed to think of you when you continue to repeat such false claims about me?
Apart from the bold print - NOTHING you write here would be believable evidence for the claim that you love everyone and care for the souls of perps. Go ahead, ask around: make a poll about what people believe about your capacity to love everyone and to care even for the souls of the perpetrators. Ask your fellow Christians. What do you think - how is it possible that people are so massively misjudging you? Malice? Spite? Lies of anti-theists? Wolves in sheep's clothing, trying to make the one true voice of Christianity shtumm?
Just come down from it: if you have been a liberal democrat in your teens, and are now an anti-liberal anti-(party-)democrat, the reason would be that you have been massively "disappointed" by them, disappointed being too weak a word, of course. That's a common phenomenon: a lot of people who start out as idealistic believers in an idea or group of persons supposedly following an idea, are prone to become disappointed by the realities of life, especially by the realities of the organizations and institutions associated with the idea.
That's true for religious converts as well, of course. To be a heretic, you must necessarily be disappointed with the religious powers that are. To be an anti-theist you must feel disappointed with God.
I've never understood why people supposedly believing in God, His grace, his love, eternal life, heaven and hell and all this, are not more RELAXED about things. Everything should be cool for them, shouldn't it? God made sure everything is as good as it can be, he will care for everyone like they deserve it, and there is this godly order all around us, making sure that everything will be fine right after we die.
So what's the problem? Everyone will be able to see for themselves, one day. I mean, if your little children would believe that Santa won't bring them any gifts at all this Christmas, after telling them you can't imagine Santa being so forgetful, and even if, you'd fill in, you wouldn't start a debate with them in case they were skeptical, right? You'd just say, ok, if you want to believe in negative things, but why worry? The day will come - then you'll see.
Now, closing this by coming back to the "poll" I suggested, with a last question: Do you think that your opinions and convictions do a good or an adequate job to convey the gist of Christianity to the "public" here on this board, and so you think that the impression you give people is a positive one, provided they accept you as a paramount example of a Christian?
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted June 25, 2013 01:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Or the protestants who eventually started to preach that God would reward the believers not only in the afterlife, but in the here and now as well, and that the economic wellbeing of a person would be a visible sign of the favor someone was in with God.
I think they make a very good point with this one!
Money could be used to do many good deeds,one have only to reject to be greedy.
A quote from wiki link about protestant culture:
Quote:
In particular, Calvin rejected luxury. Therefore craftsmen, industrialists, and other businessmen were able to reinvest the greater part of their profits in the most efficient machinery and the most modern production methods that were based on progress in the sciences and technology. As a result, productivity grew, which led to increased profits and enabled employers to pay higher wages. In this way, the economy, the sciences, and technology reinforced each other. The chance to participate in the economic success of technological inventions was a strong incentive to both inventors and investors.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 25, 2013 03:13 PM |
|
|
Yeah, well, it's certainly one of the afterwits of history, that the austere, strait-laced attitude of the protestants would parent capitalism and the development of a "consumer society" that is the opposite of that, but that's not what this is all about.
I can't see anything good in the preaching that people's economical situation in life would be a mirror of how godly their deeds were, because that combined wealth with morality and godly life and poorness with immorality and an ungodly life.
It also was a fine justification for the inhuman treatment of people in the beginning stages of capitalism: the poor were scum and deserved everything they got, while the rich were rewarded in life - and justly so, since they didn't squander their money on ungodly vices or gaudiness.
In the end, though, it all comes down to a very rigid sublimation process.
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted June 25, 2013 04:24 PM |
|
|
Matthew 13:12
Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 25, 2013 05:02 PM |
|
|
Who do you want to fool? Jesus doesn't speak about material wealth in Mat 13:12, but about the understanding of the mysteries of heaven.
In case you wanted to demonstrate how the Bible can be quoted, and quoted out of context, to support very debatable and even morally questionable statements, you certainly succeeded.
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted June 25, 2013 05:16 PM |
|
|
This very thread have the purpose for us to have debate and questions,so I take it as a compliment as you write I provide questionable and debatable statements.
About the verse-yes,you correctly stated that it is about inner understanding and not material wealth.
But I hope you understand,that material wealth does not necessarily mean money taken against the law or money taken from the poor,so the difference to be more wide.
Take for example intelectual people,who make a new song,a new product,a new service,which gives to many people more opportunities.
Examples-Internet,social networks,excursions from one point of the world to other point.
Every such idea is worth money and comes from the intelect of the man.So it makes his author rich at the same time it makes thousands or millions of people engage in the new pleasant experience.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 25, 2013 05:34 PM |
|
|
|
And that has what exactly to do with preaching that people's economical situation in life would be a mirror of how godly their deeds are, explaining material wealth in life as an in-life reward for godly behaviour and poorness accordingly as a punishment for ungodly behaviour?
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted June 25, 2013 06:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
material wealth in life as an in-life reward for godly behaviour and poorness accordingly as a punishment for ungodly behaviour?
I think sometimes material wealth can be exactly that-in-life reward for godly behaviour.Take for example a good musician or other kind of artist-he can make money from his art,which still affects people in positive way,so he receives money and people receive another point of view,when looking at his inspiring art.
As well,sometimes,poorness is the punishment for ungodly behaviour.
I would like to quote Dostoyevsky:IIRC he has a thought "Misery is a vice",but I can't find this quote at the moment,so I present another one about misery-
Quote:
“You sensed that you should be following a different path, a more ambitious one, you felt that you were destined for other things but you had no idea how to achieve them and in your misery you began to hate everything around you.”
How many times these two as rewards and punishments would be a very good question though.
I hope I don't go way offtopic with this.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 25, 2013 06:48 PM |
|
|
Dude, godly behaviour can just as well result in poorness, death, illness or any other kind of misfortune, while ungodly behaviour may make you wealthy, happy, famous and powerful.
Which is exactly the point and the opposite of what those people claimed to be true.
The good deed - the godly behaviour - is supposed to be reward enough.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 25, 2013 08:06 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:10, 25 Jun 2013.
|
@JJ
Since you continue to make false statement after false statement after false statement about me, apparently willfully, deliberately, and maliciously, I will now be ignoring you for a good length of time.
@master_learn
Yes, material wealth can be a sign of God's blessing, though of course not necessarily so. Very devout persons can be poor as well, who God has blessed in different ways.
One notable passage in that regard is God giving Job twice what he had originally had after he went through his trials.
Quote:
Job 42:10 And the LORD turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.
Of course the Bible also taks about the poor who are rich in faith.
Quote:
Jas 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
Psa 37:16 A little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked.
And sometimes we have to take stands that may cost us all of our material possessions.
Quote:
Heb 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
Heb 11:25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
Heb 11:26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
Heb 11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.
Heb 11:32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:
Heb 11:33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
Heb 11:34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
Heb 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
Heb 11:36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
Heb 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
Heb 11:38 (Of whom the world was not worthy they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
Heb 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
Heb 11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
However blessed we are in this life or ultimate reward is in the life to come.
Quote:
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Heb 11:14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
Heb 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Rev 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 02:41 AM |
|
|
I've cleaned the this page of off-topic posts. Let's please remember to stay on topic and focus on discussion of arguments rather than other posters' intelligence.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 05:34 AM |
|
|
It's questionable if Protestant ethic caused capitalism or was it the other way around, did capitalism in its early stages, caused a new ethic and shaped Protestants into their theology. Weber may have read what he observed backwards... This is again a very good example of historical conditions determining people's interpretation of the dogma. There are christian scholars who claim suffering and poverty in this world will be rewarded in the other, and this world is a place of examination ground of how much suffering we can take for the Lord, yet with capitalism, we now have people interpreting it as just the opposite and saying wealth and success in this world is a sign of God's grace.
Quote:
Yes, material wealth can be a sign of God's blessing, though of course not necessarily so. Very devout persons can be poor as well, who God has blessed in different ways.
This is of course, de facto, saying absolutely nothing.If there are both rich and poor people with God's blessing and again both rich and poor people who are considered evildoers, no causality whatsoever can be established and a rich man imagining himself as one of God's blessed servants is doing wishful thinking at its most.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 07:47 AM |
|
|
There was no capitalism when protestantism evolved. Capitalism is the result of an accelerated trade mercantilism, based on discovery and colonization of new territories, in combination with the evolvement of science which led to industrialization and lastly "capitalism". The driving force behind all this is protestantism: it took idleness away from the lifes of the people and drove them to work (more) and to have "godly" pastimes - like dabbling with "science", making experiments, and so on; it motivated people to leave their old homes in order to flee from the constant religious wars and hassles in Europe in the 16. and 17. century to "start anew", under their own rules.
Of course, once the ball was rolling things developed their own dynamics and ethics/Protestantism got "adjusted" along the way, but that would seem rather normal.
I've no problem with a discussion here - but I really don't see anything to discuss.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 08:02 AM |
|
|
|
Well, early stages of capitalism may be a misleading choice of words from me, I'll give you that. Mercantilism may be a better term, but even just before 15th century mercantilism, even during mid-Renaissance, the way people look at merchants and the act of trading starts to change, they are not yet respected like the aristocrats but they aren't considered as low class as they used to be either, since money that can buy social position begins to accumulate. So, I'd still say something, something of this earth involving richness, caused the Protestant ethics to evolve, before Protestant ethics did this or that.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 08:20 AM |
|
|
|
There have always been rich people who made their money with trade, with or without religion. And there has always been trade.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 08:31 AM |
|
|
Yes, but I'm not talking about richness in such a general sense. There are many scholars taking back European capitalism (in an evolutionary sense) to 14th century. The significance of this is, the change starts earlier than Protestantism itself, allowing us the make the comment above. Even if you look at the criticism section on Weber's book from wiki, you'll see similar stuff to what I say has been already pointed out:
H.M. Robertson, in his book Aspects of Economic Individualism, argued against the historical and religious claims of Weber. Robertson points out that capitalism began to flourish not in Britain, but in 14th century Italy, a decidedly different epoch. Since this is true, then the rise of capitalism cannot be attributed to Adam Smith, the Protestant Revolution, etc. In fact, Robertson goes further, and states that what happened in Britain was rather a retrogression from what was achieved in Italy centuries earlier.
or
In a paper published on 10 November 2009, Harvard economist Davide Cantoni tested Weber's Protestant hypothesis using population and economic growth in second-millennium Germany as the data set, with negative results. Cantoni writes:
Using population figures in a dataset comprising 276 cities in the years 1300–1900, I find no effects of Protestantism on economic growth. The finding is robust to the inclusion of a variety of controls, and does not appear to depend on data selection or small sample size. In addition, Protestantism has no effect when interacted with other likely determinants of economic development. I also analyze the endogeneity of religious choice; instrumental variables estimates of the effects of Protestantism are similar to the OLS results.
Notice, the studied time period is again 1300 to 1900.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 09:08 AM |
|
|
Protestantism starts in 12. century (the inquisition was founded in the 13. century).
What changed during the renaissance was the handling of finance. From the start, the Catholic Church had viewed "interest rates" and money lending with suspicion, although that practice seems to be as old as civilization or money itself. The reason for this is, that money was lent for consumption, not for "investment", which meant that interest rates would charge "doubly", therefore interest rates were strictly limited.
What the renaissance brought in general was a better "infrastructure", leading to more trade between towns and areas, which in turn offered "business opportunities". Seeing that people now could lend money not for consumptive, but "productive" reasons, CATHOLICISM lifted the restrictions on money lending and interest rates (as there was no restrictions on this in other than Christian countries throughout the times everywhere on this planet - which is why ITALY started flourishing.
So economy wouldn't have needed Protestantism at all to develop further, if that had been the key to "capitalism".
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
