I feel I ought to point out that what Peter is saying here is that Christians need to submit to worldly authorities, which in todays world means none of that sovereign citizen nonsense: you pay your taxes and follow the laws of your nation and show up to work and listen to what your boss says.
Alas we will all go to hell because the only arbiters capable of defining heresy are the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church and not a single position in this thread that doesn't belong to @Telamon has been in-line with them.
You know that this is not quite as simple.
No that was actually also a matter of policy in early Christian communities, who had the very real and very pragmatic problem of what to do with escaped slaves joining them, and their masters coming to get them back. Peter wasn't just speaking metaphorically - he was in fact saying a good Christian slave is one who doesn't escape.
That's true (cf Paul sending back to Philemon his runaway slave). The point is that the worldly authority of the slave's master is not overridden by the slave becoming a christian. I'm talking about applying that today.
Ah okay, so we're not actually discussing Christianity, we're discussing magical spherical Christianity in a featureless, frictionless void utterly separated from what it actually consists of, which is people. You can't discuss a religion in isolation from the people who practice it, no more than I can discuss American cultural attitudes without discussing the people who hold them.
Sure I do, but I'm so tired of seeing quotes from the Old Testament being mentioned as a "gotcha" that this is my instinctive reaction. These are quotes from literally eight centuries before the birth of Christ, trying to use them as indication of modern Church history, or even medieval or ancient history is cheap sophistry. I'm not interested in making excuses for the Catholic Church for obvious reasons, I'm interested in critique that's actually effective. So yeah, as you stated in the rest of your post, what the Chuch actually did was highly different from the Law as described.
Well, there are still millions of people trapped in what amount to legal slaves in some regions of the world today (debt bondage for instance). So this can very well still be applied by its original meaning.
I don't get why you're complaining about inconvenient scripture. That's what happens when your religious holy book is an amalgamation from books written centuries apart. Just because it annoys you doesn't invalidate the criticism, or mean the Old Testament holds no weight in Christianity. It certainly does in plenty of mainstream churches.Ah okay, so we're not actually discussing Christianity, we're discussing magical spherical Christianity in a featureless, frictionless void utterly separated from what it actually consists of, which is people. You can't discuss a religion in isolation from the people who practice it, no more than I can discuss American cultural attitudes without discussing the people who hold them.
Sure I do, but I'm so tired of seeing quotes from the Old Testament being mentioned as a "gotcha" that this is my instinctive reaction. These are quotes from literally eight centuries before the birth of Christ, trying to use them as indication of modern Church history, or even medieval or ancient history is cheap sophistry. I'm not interested in making excuses for the Catholic Church for obvious reasons, I'm interested in critique that's actually effective. So yeah, as you stated in the rest of your post, what the Chuch actually did was highly different from the Law as described.
Which is, heh, actually a point of criticism; the Church went against its theology by politicking it away.
The Catholic Catechism said:
Offtopicness, basically. The question of the thread is how violent Christianity is as a religion. And since Christianity, as a religion, has in fact done away with following OT law, quotes from OT law are basically meaningless in determining that question. That this decision was arbitrary and probably against Jesus' explicit word is true, but meaningless for the thread topic.
Offtopicness, basically. The question of the thread is how violent Christianity is as a religion. And since Christianity, as a religion, has in fact done away with following OT law, quotes from OT law are basically meaningless in determining that question. That this decision was arbitrary and probably against Jesus' explicit word is true, but meaningless for the thread topic.
Also, Manus is not a (mainstream) Christian himself
I've been on Discord for too long. I'm desperately looking for a tomato rating
dont forget having a body count in the millions. toyatas dont have that either.... that we know of.
Yes, but you know stoning people is pretty hard if you are only allowed to stone people after you found someone without sin to trow the first stone.
Indeed, quite literally so given most Western legal traditions owe a great deal to the scholastic traditions.
Yes, but...
Well, I don't exactly think adultery should be a crime, you know.
I'm down with it being a sin, though. It's a great way to hurt someone badly.
The Ten Commandments said:
Well, yes, but you didn't realize that your posts actually are about "whether the Bible is violent or not". Unless you can prove Christians committed violent acts due those verses you quoted, you're just cherry picking. That's what tends to happen when people pick random verses and don't actually correlate them with the religion in question.
Nah, I don't know about Manus, but I'm complaining about cherry picking
But it shouldn't be anyone else's business really. Okay, yes, friends and family will take sides and that's okay - you cannot really be supportive towards a friend unless you take their side, after all. But it shouldn't be of interest to wider society.
(though of course it can still play a part in divorce procedures)
You know, I grew up a catholic. I had k-12 catholic education. I have a largely catholic family. This idea you're pushing that Catholics are just so much more tolerant of homosexuals than other Christians flies in the face of my personal experience. For example, my Aunt finally decided to get married to her long time partner after same sex marriage was made legal in the US a few years ago. She was shunned by large portions of my family. Not a word of acknowledgment, not a gift, and some sent only words of condemnation instead. So tolerant. In addition, I've had a few of my theology teachers discuss gay conversion therapy as a way that could "aid" homosexuals during my catholic education. So yea, I'm having a hard time giving kudos to Catholics for being less vile towards LGBT people than many protestants sects. That seems a mighty low standard.
Fair enough, I didn't realize you were a Cathar (a faith I know little about).
The Bible is irrelevant to society, though. I grant you that the conservative Christian view on the matter is coherent and consistent, but that still doesn't make it good. Personally, I don't give a damn about the moral development or whatever of a person. Virtue ethics can go take a hike. I don't care about what "kind of person" someone is. The relevant question is if they have done something that is actually criminal with good reason or not. Beyond that, as long as I'm not trying to befriend them, why care?
The way society has steadily gotten freer and less restrictive, with people no longer being trapped in potentially abusive relationships, IS actually a pretty thing to think about.
We are in a thread discussing the Bible, and more specifically your statement that Jesus was being non-progressivist (?) by telling the adulterous woman to go and sin no more, and the subsequent opinion that it shouldn't be a crime or stigmatised because it affects nobody outside a person's direct family/ friends.
I think my view of marriage, at least in this respect, is more positive than yours. Your opinion seems to be that the marriage vows really shouldn't be made at all and that in fact all relationships should be open ones, and that any marriage where fidelity is expected is (at best) potentially abusive?