Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Christian Evangelism isn't a Political Party

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I wouldn't go so far as to say that Jesus's teachings were the opposite of wanting government welfare, just rather that they weren't directly related to it. The existence of public welfare programs does not let us off the hook from directly helping those in need, though.

    For better or for worse, our society is structured differently from the Ancient Near East where pulling the rug out completely would have a detrimental effect on many people, and I do think this matters.
    Last edited by KingsGambit; 03-18-2017, 11:20 PM. Reason: typo - changing "money" to "many"
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      As far as Jesus speaking more on money than any other theme, that doesn't sound accurate to me.
      That is about the only thing in his post that was accurate.
      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        The thing is, the truly needy don't care where the money comes from.
        You are quite right. The main point in opposition to Star is not should we provide support. My opposition is to his warped Bible interpretation.
        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
          It has plenty against abortion, because abortion is just a subset of murder. It's only considered separate by liberals today, and modern ideologies really have no bearing on what people thought 2000 years ago. The modern pro choice position would be completely alien even to people who ritually sacrificed children.
          That's simply wrong. An unborn fetus in Jewish law was not considered a person until it has been born. The fetus was regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it began to emerge from the womb during its birth. There is no indication that Jesus, as a Jew, thought differently to the traditional view. Abortion, along with fanatical opposition to homosexuality (which Jesus also didn't mention) has sadly become a litmus test of Evangelicalism. This, whilst simultaneously exhibiting indifference to the suffering of those in need such as refugees and the poor.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            That's simply wrong. An unborn fetus in Jewish law was not considered a person until it has been born.
            Oh brother. Not this again.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
              It has plenty against abortion, because abortion is just a subset of murder. It's only considered separate by liberals today
              Nope. Totally wrong. Pretty much every historical society allowed abortion and/or infanticide. And pretty much every historical society also had laws against murder. Take the Romans for instance. You know that "Roman Law" was pretty famous and their law-code nails down everything. Did they allow murder? Of course not. Did they allow abortion and infanticide? Of course.

              Anthropologist Laila Williamson in Infanticide and the Value of Life, pg 61:
              "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."


              You guys are the ones doing something novel by pretending to yourselves that the one is a subset of the other.
              Last edited by Starlight; 03-19-2017, 02:00 AM.
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                Nope. Totally wrong. Pretty much every historical society allowed abortion and/or infanticide. And pretty much every historical society also had laws against murder. Take the Romans for instance. You know that "Roman Law" was pretty famous and their law-code nails down everything. Did they allow murder? Of course not. Did they allow abortion and infanticide? Of course.

                Anthropologist Laila Williamson in Infanticide and the Value of Life, pg 61:
                "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."


                You guys are the ones doing something novel by pretending to yourselves that the one is a subset of the other.
                Not to mention the Middle Ages, the so-called Age of Faith, whereby exposure of infants "was practised on a gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference" according to historian William Leonard Langer. At the end of the 12th century, notes Richard Trexler, "Roman women threw their newborns into the Tiber river in daylight". Cited Wiki. Not that one is advocating infanticide, but let's not be hypocritical in denying its widespread practise in all societies including Christian ones.
                Last edited by Tassman; 03-19-2017, 02:48 AM.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  Not to mention the Middle Ages, the so-called Age of Faith, whereby exposure of infants "was practised on a gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference" according to historian William Leonard Langer.
                  You got both of the quotes from the Wikipedia article on infanticide. Wikipedia claims this first quote is from a paper of Langer's called "Infanticide: a historical survey", written in 1974, but it isn't. The quote actually goes back to an 1869 work titled "History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne", by William Edward Hartpole Lecky. The full quote indicates that it's not a reference to the Middle Ages at all, but to the Roman empire, and it puts an entirely different spin on the subject.

                  Source: History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne vol. 2, by William Edward Hartpole Lecky, 1869

                  The power of life and death, which in Rome was originally conceded to the father over his children, would appear to involve an unlimited permission of infanticide; but a very old law, popularly ascribed to Romulus, in this respect restricted the parental rights, enjoining the father to bring up [27] all his male children, and at least his eldest female child, forbidding him to destroy any well-formed child till it had completed its third year, when the affections of the parent might be supposed to be developed, but permitting the exposition of deformed or maimed children with the consent of their five nearest relations.1 The Roman policy was always to encourage, while the Greek policy was rather to restrain, population, and infanticide never appears to have been common in Rome till the corrupt and sensual days of the Empire. The legislators then absolutely condemned it, and it was indirectly discouraged by laws which accorded special privileges to the fathers of many children, exempted poor parents from most of the burden of taxation, and in some degree provided for the security of exposed infants. Public opinion probably differed little from that of our own day as to the fact, though it differed from it much as to the degree, of its criminality. It was, as will be remembered, one of the charges most frequently brought against the Christians, and it was one that never failed to arouse popular indignation. Pagan and Christian authorities are, however, united in speaking of infanticide as a crying vice of the Empire, and Tertullian observed that no laws were more easily or more constantly evaded than those which condemned it.2 A broad distinction was popularly drawn between infanticide and exposition. The latter, though probably condemned, was certainly not punished by law;3 it was practised on a [28] gigantic scale and with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with the most frigid indifference, and, at least in the case of destitute parents, considered a very venial offence.1 Often, no doubt, the exposed children perished, but more frequently the very extent of the practice saved the lives of the victims. They were brought systematically to a column near the Vela-bruum, and there taken by speculators, who educated them a slaves, or very frequently as prostitutes.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  You can find the whole volume online here.

                  It should also be noted that all infanticide including exposure was made a capital offense under the Christian emperor Valentinian I in 374.

                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  At the end of the 12th century, notes Richard Trexler, "Roman women threw their newborns into the Tiber river in daylight". Cited Wiki.
                  I can't find a full copy of this paper online, just the abstract, but the paper was published in 1973, and was called "Infanticide in Florence: new sources and first results." Here's the abstract:

                  Source: Infanticide in Florence: new sources and first results by Trexler RC, Journal of Psychohistory. 1973 Summer; 1(1):98-116.

                  Research has shown that high rates of infanticide, of both legitimate and illegitimate children, were not limited to Asian history. Quantifiable evidence is presented that infanticide was prevalent in 14th- and 15th-century Florence. The male-dominated Western Christian society assumed that infanticide was a crime only women would perpetrate. However, widespread abandonment and infanticide in the society in the late Middle Ages by all classes of society resulted in the formation of foundling homes. Wet-nursing was only possible in the instance of the death of the nurse's own child. Disproportionately high death rates among females indicated the society's overvaluation of male children. Parents were less likely to abandon or murder male children and hospitals were less likely to abuse male children in their care. By the late 15th and 16th centuries, infanticide was becoming a judiciable crime. The church, however, tended to absolve parents of this sin and both ecclesiastical and legal authorities concentrated on old women (witches) and unmarried girls in their condemnation. In fact, legal foundations for absolution of infanticide were few. The incidence of this crime, both by parents and by nurses, is seen to have been high.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Much more recent work on the subject (Poor Women and Children in the European Past by John Henderson, Richard Wall, 1994) suggests that what Trexler assumed to be infanticide was much more likely to be attributed to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, a condition not discovered till some years after Trexler's paper was published.

                  And you wonder why folks around here continue to not trust Wikipedia...

                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  Not that one is advocating infanticide
                  Uh, yes. Yes they have. Your buddy Starlight has stated plenty of times that he's fine with it.
                  Last edited by Adrift; 03-19-2017, 04:19 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    You got both of the quotes from the Wikipedia article on infanticide. Wikipedia claims this first quote is from a paper of Langer's called "Infanticide: a historical survey", written in 1974, but it isn't. The quote actually goes back to an 1869 work titled "History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne", by William Edward Hartpole Lecky. The full quote indicates that it's not a reference to the Middle Ages at all, but to the Roman empire, and it puts an entirely different spin on the subject.

                    Source: History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne vol. 2, by William Edward Hartpole Lecky, 1869

                    The power of life and death, which in Rome was originally conceded to the father over his children, would appear to involve an unlimited permission of infanticide; but a very old law, popularly ascribed to Romulus, in this respect restricted the parental rights, enjoining the father to bring up [27] all his male children, and at least his eldest female child, forbidding him to destroy any well-formed child till it had completed its third year, when the affections of the parent might be supposed to be developed, but permitting the exposition of deformed or maimed children with the consent of their five nearest relations.1 The Roman policy was always to encourage, while the Greek policy was rather to restrain, population, and infanticide never appears to have been common in Rome till the corrupt and sensual days of the Empire. The legislators then absolutely condemned it, and it was indirectly discouraged by laws which accorded special privileges to the fathers of many children, exempted poor parents from most of the burden of taxation, and in some degree provided for the security of exposed infants. Public opinion probably differed little from that of our own day as to the fact, though it differed from it much as to the degree, of its criminality. It was, as will be remembered, one of the charges most frequently brought against the Christians, and it was one that never failed to arouse popular indignation. Pagan and Christian authorities are, however, united in speaking of infanticide as a crying vice of the Empire, and Tertullian observed that no laws were more easily or more constantly evaded than those which condemned it.2 A broad distinction was popularly drawn between infanticide and exposition. The latter, though probably condemned, was certainly not punished by law;3 it was practised on a [28] gigantic scale and with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with the most frigid indifference, and, at least in the case of destitute parents, considered a very venial offence.1 Often, no doubt, the exposed children perished, but more frequently the very extent of the practice saved the lives of the victims. They were brought systematically to a column near the Vela-bruum, and there taken by speculators, who educated them a slaves, or very frequently as prostitutes.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    You can find the whole volume online here.

                    It should also be noted that all infanticide including exposure was made a capital offense under the Christian emperor Valentinian I in 374.



                    I can't find a full copy of this paper online, just the abstract, but the paper was published in 1973, and was called "Infanticide in Florence: new sources and first results." Here's the abstract:

                    Source: Infanticide in Florence: new sources and first results by Trexler RC, Journal of Psychohistory. 1973 Summer; 1(1):98-116.

                    Research has shown that high rates of infanticide, of both legitimate and illegitimate children, were not limited to Asian history. Quantifiable evidence is presented that infanticide was prevalent in 14th- and 15th-century Florence. The male-dominated Western Christian society assumed that infanticide was a crime only women would perpetrate. However, widespread abandonment and infanticide in the society in the late Middle Ages by all classes of society resulted in the formation of foundling homes. Wet-nursing was only possible in the instance of the death of the nurse's own child. Disproportionately high death rates among females indicated the society's overvaluation of male children. Parents were less likely to abandon or murder male children and hospitals were less likely to abuse male children in their care. By the late 15th and 16th centuries, infanticide was becoming a judiciable crime. The church, however, tended to absolve parents of this sin and both ecclesiastical and legal authorities concentrated on old women (witches) and unmarried girls in their condemnation. In fact, legal foundations for absolution of infanticide were few. The incidence of this crime, both by parents and by nurses, is seen to have been high.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Much more recent work on the subject (Poor Women and Children in the European Past by John Henderson, Richard Wall, 1994) suggests that what Trexler assumed to be infanticide was much more likely to be attributed to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, a condition not discovered till some years after Trexler's paper was published.

                    And you wonder why folks around here continue to not trust Wikipedia...
                    As always you critique any source of information that doesn’t reinforce your position. You did the same re Fact Checks on Trump’s pathological lies vis-à-vis Obama’s and Clinton’s relative honesty in previous discussions. Rather than accept the verdict of reputable Fact Checkers you simple question their reliability, not Trump’s palpable dishonesty. This is ‘denial’ worthy of the deranged buffoon himself.

                    The most cursory search provides considerable evidence of exposure and abandonment in the Christian West. E,g. “Studies of Western Europe from the Middle Ages to the 19th century reveal a substantial history of infanticide and of abandonment to foundling homes, charitable institutions that arose to take in these children. Infanticide, infant abandonment, and exposure also occurred in colonial America”

                    http://www.press.uchicago.edu/books/...pages_1-10.pdf

                    There are many others.

                    Uh, yes. Yes they have. Your buddy Starlight has stated plenty of times that he's fine with it.
                    My good buddy Starlight accepts it as a valid option under certain circumstances. That's NOT the same as being "fine with infanticide". As far as I'm concerned, if brain function is the criterion used to determine the death of a person; it should also be the criterion for its beginning.
                    Last edited by Tassman; 03-19-2017, 05:24 AM.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      You know that "Roman Law" was pretty famous and their law-code nails down everything.
                      Actually, it left a lot of freedom to the male-led households and was more interested in keeping the public peace. It's true that the man of the household had absolute authority to dictate who ate, and to a large extent regulate his own affairs.

                      You might as well have said

                      "Did Roman law allow rape? Of course!"

                      The man of the household could molest anyone under him with impunity. So yes, he could also strange his youngest son, proclaim him dead, that would have been it. But he couldn't publically execute his son.

                      I don't see why you find this a significant difference, honestly, nor why you think the Roman culture, which I'd assume you'd find toxically patriarchal would by anything worth imitating. Though I have a feeling you want to imitate a romantic version of Rome, which is perfectly understandable. I find there's a lot of heroism about the image of the eternal city of Rome that is noble to dream about. However when I read from the old moralists who lived in those times, I can't but trust their words that it was wretched.


                      "For they are not of our number, but of theirs who besiege the roads in arms, practise piracy by sea; or if it has not been in their power openly to assail, secretly mix poisons; who kill their wives that they may gain their dowries, or their husbands that they may marry adulterers: who either strangle the sons born from themselves, of it they are too pious, expose them;" - Lactantius

                      "we have been taught that it is wicked to expose even newly-born children, first, because we see that almost all those who are exposed (not only girls but boys) are raised in prostitution." - Justin Martyr

                      Beyond that, I'm not convinced of the evidence presented. So far you've simply cited a few experts. However, if you dive down into the evidence that they themselves base their opinion on, it's mostly by guestimating sex ratios, and counting the number of infant skeletons. That's the only evidence we have that give any sort of idea as to how widespread something was. Nobody disagrees that it was there. But was it every third mother who strangled her own child, or was rarer, every tenth or perhaps only a few percent?

                      Robert Engels [1980] states as much in his article "The Problem of Female Infanticide in The Greco-Roman World"

                      "After careful analysis of the literary evidence, earlier studies concerning the exposure of children (and any resultant infanticide) have established that the practice was of neglible importance in Greek and Roman Society. Recent attempts to draw conclusions from skeletal remains and other archeological evidence that suggest male-female sex ratio imbalances and possible high rates of female infantice are not convincing. This analysis will attempt to show that, in fact, a high rate of female infanticide in antiquity was demographically impossible, and a rate of more than a few percent of live female births per year was highly improbably for more than a short period."

                      Anthropologist Laila Williamson in Infanticide and the Value of Life, pg 61:
                      "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."
                      The same is true of cannibalism and institutional rape, torture as punishment, women as property and men having multiple wifes, more rights and privileges than the fairer sex. Again, if we've moved past that I consider it an improvement.
                      Last edited by Leonhard; 03-19-2017, 06:32 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Leonhard, I wasn't idealizing Roman society, merely giving as an example that Christians would be familiar of, of the vast majority of cultures in human history where murder was banned but infanticide wasn't. The point was to critique D.E.'s claim that abortion/infanticide is implicitly banned by a ban on murder.
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          Leonhard, I wasn't idealizing Roman society, merely giving as an example that Christians would be familiar of, of the vast majority of cultures in human history where murder was banned but infanticide wasn't. The point was to critique D.E.'s claim that abortion/infanticide is implicitly banned by a ban on murder.
                          I barely find DE worth responding to*, so I decide to respond to whether history is a good guide it being normal and good, which I think with regards to ancient history is tricky. At best you can say that it's been practiced. Also saying 'Of course!' in regards to Ancient Roman Law is not straight forward as it was growing and changing. Which period are you talking about? Christianity would later reform Roman Law, extant parts of which they adopted for themselves as the foundation of their secular courts.

                          *I actually use GreaseMonkey to inject JavaScript that removes posts by users on tweb, and posts that answer a quote from them.

                          Code:
                          var blacklist = ['Username', 'Another username', 'I don't want to see this guy either']
                          
                          // Loop through all the posts visible
                          document.querySelectorAll('li.postbitim').forEach(function(el, i) {
                              // Remove posts from blacklisted user
                              if (blacklist.includes(el.querySelector('a.username span').textContent)) {
                                  if (el.classList.contains('postbitignored')) {
                                      el.style.display = 'none';
                                  }
                                  else {
                                      el.style.display = 'none';
                                      el.nextElementSibling.style.display = 'none';
                                  }
                              }
                              
                              // Remove posts quoting blacklisted user
                              var quote_name = el.querySelector('div.bbcode_postedby strong');
                              if (quote_name) {
                                  if (blacklist.includes(quote_name.textContent)) {
                                      el.style.display = 'none';
                                      el.nextElementSibling.style.display = 'none';
                                  }
                              }
                          });
                          Last edited by Leonhard; 03-19-2017, 07:35 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            That's simply wrong. An unborn fetus in Jewish law was not considered a person until it has been born.
                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              Nope. Totally wrong. Pretty much every historical society allowed abortion and/or infanticide. And pretty much every historical society also had laws against murder. Take the Romans for instance. You know that "Roman Law" was pretty famous and their law-code nails down everything. Did they allow murder? Of course not.
                              Actually they did in some cases, but not others.

                              Did they allow abortion and infanticide? Of course.
                              Yes, and they allowed many other kinds of murder.
                              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I should note that in the US killing an unborn child is considered murder by the law. The law simply makes an exception to this rule for the mother, not unlike the many kinds of exceptions done by the Romans. The legal thought behind abortion is the exact opposite of "abortion isn't murder" philosophy being pushed by many liberals.
                                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X