Tradition betrayed

[Florestan]

I'm not sure...

Yes you are:

I'm sure Jesus wouldn't like it.

Please do help me: Would Jesus like Karl (or Jeffrey, or anybody) calling me stupid, immature, or otherwise mentally handicapped when I question his opinions, beliefs, religion?

Please show proof that Karl of Jeffrey or anybody called you stupid, immature or mentally handicapped.

You are getting a little too technical and demanding... Do you have proof of God's existence, so we can end the damn religion discussion right now? 

Also, I read somewhere about a couple of Popes buying and owning slaves, so...

Please name those Popes.

[Florestan]

You are getting a little too technical and demanding...

That's my bad habit as an engineer... 

[DieNacht]

Please name those Popes.

Inconito is simply right, here are some examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery

[Florestan]

Inconito is simply right, here are some examples:

Okay, so please summarize in your own (i.e, DieNacht's) words the Wikipedia article above: is Christianity pro or contra slavery?

[DavidRoss]

Hey, I was only objecting to what you said earlier. You are only now giving a better explanation of what you meant... I'm afraid you are mainly resenting the sneering, but you guys are not innocent of that either. Besides, sneering (Actually I would say "a little teasing" instead of "sneering", but that's just me) is OK as long as it doesn't get personal, I think...

As for your restated point: You still have religious people/institutions (i.e. Religion) at both sides of the abolition issue, and there lies lays one of my objections (the other being the 1800 years delay that you somehow explained saying slavery wasn't that bad before... I still have doubts but let's leave it there). Kudos to those who started the abolition movement, but you can't give Religion credit for it if you had Religion opposing the movement as well... It's like praying for a group of ill people's health, some get well, some die, and then you go ahead and give praying credit for those who got well... What about the others? Let's not deny those who started abolition acted on their religious beliefs, but then what about the others? This is what you need to explain instead of calling me ignorant and stupid.

Your condemnation of religion based on the hypocrisy (knowing or not) of some who practiced one form of religion or another is not a condemnation of religion at all, but rather a condemnation of persons whose actions fall short of perfect compliance with the teachings of their religion.  The Quakers, Methodists, Presbyterians, and even Anglicans were instrumental in overthrowing the institution of slavery.  Rather than making your case, your denial of such clear historical facts only undercuts your claim and demonstrates instead the intellectual dishonesty of your cause.

But you needn't take my or Jeffrey's or anyone else's word for it.  All you need do is apply yourself to the study of human history and the role of religions, religious institutions, and people motivated by their religious idealism in shaping that history, and you will quickly see for yourself how mistaken your prejudices are--that is, if you can bring yourself to open your mind sufficiently to examine such matters honestly and objectively without all that ideological baggage undermining your investigation.

[Iconito]

Yes you are:

No. I'm sure, not sure 

Please show proof that Karl of Jeffrey or anybody called you stupid, immature or mentally handicapped.

Now you are moving the goal posts! Would Jesus like it or not? Answer, and I'll give you the proof you ask.

Please name those Popes.

God gave you Google for a reason 

I just saw your answer to DieNacht:

Okay, so please summarize in your own (i.e, DieNacht's) words the Wikipedia article above: is Christianity pro or contra slavery?

You are really pushing it! Give us something, instead of just asking and asking and keep moving the goal posts! Something, anything... I know! Give us proof God doesn't want us to have sex before marriage! 

[DieNacht]

I am entitled to point to some facts; you questioned whether catholic authorities including the pope and papal official decisions and papers had
sanctioned slavery, and you questioned whether popes had had slaves. The article proves decisively with several examples and references, that both things were taking place.

But I find the discussion too heated and political here and won´t be participating, likewise Abolition hasn´t been a subject I studied much. 


(EDIT: typing errors edited later)

[Florestan]

No. I'm sure, not sure 

Strawman.

Would Jesus like it or not? Answer, and I'll give you the proof you ask.

I am not Jesus.

God gave you Google for a reason 

If Google were wisdom then you'd be King Solomon... Are you king Solomon?

You are really pushing it! Give us something, instead of just asking and asking and keep moving the goal posts! Something, anything... I know! Give us proof God doesn't want us to have sex before marriage! 

Strawman.

[Florestan]

you questioned whether catholic authorities including the pope and papal official decisions and papers had
sanctioned slavery, and you questioned whether popes had had slaves. The article proves decisively with several examples and references, that both things were taking place.

Then it shouldn't be difficult to name some popes that owned slaves. All I asked was that you name some of them. Why is it so difficult?

[kishnevi]

Hey, I was only objecting to what you said earlier. You are only now giving a better explanation of what you meant... I'm afraid you are mainly resenting the sneering, but you guys are not innocent of that either. Besides, sneering (Actually I would say "a little teasing" instead of "sneering", but that's just me) is OK as long as it doesn't get personal, I think...

In my view, it did.  But I will assume from the above statement that you did not mean to get personal.

As for your restated point: You still have religious people/institutions (i.e. Religion) at both sides of the abolition issue, and there lies lays one of my objections (the other being the 1800 years delay that you somehow explained saying slavery wasn't that bad before... I still have doubts but let's leave it there). Kudos to those who started the abolition movement, but you can't give Religion credit for it if you had Religion opposing the movement as well... It's like praying for a group of ill people's health, some get well, some die, and then you go ahead and give praying credit for those who got well... What about the others? Let's not deny those who started abolition acted on their religious beliefs, but then what about the others? This is what you need to explain instead of calling me ignorant and stupid.

In your very first sentence in that paragraph if a good example of why I think it proper to say you are indulging in willful ignorance or misunderstanding of the issues involved.  You see, the rest of us understand that there is no such thing as "Religion" that can be praised or blamed;  there are only human individuals acting out their religious beliefs, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad. 
As for your example: well, suppose I have a serious disease and go to several doctors in turn;  some of them can't figure out the problem, or make the problem worse in their attempts to heal me.  Does "Medicine" get the blame for that?  And then I finally find a doctor or doctor who know(s) how to cure me, and do so.  Does "Medicine" get the credit for that?  And if so, does the failed attempts of those other doctors mean "Medicine" shouldn't get credit it would otherwise get?

[DieNacht]

Guess you are kidding, Florestan, but for the record:

However when the Age of Discovery greatly increased the number of slaves owned by Christians, the response of the church, under strong political pressures, was confused and ineffective in preventing the establishment of slave societies in the colonies of Catholic countries. Papal bulls such as Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex and their derivatives, sanctioned slavery and were used to justify enslavement of natives and the appropriation of their lands during this era.[6]

In 1866 The Holy Office of Pope Pius IX affirmed that, subject to conditions, it was not against divine law for a slave to be sold, bought or exchanged.[11]

Nevertheless, early Christianity rarely criticised the actual institution of slavery. Though the Pentateuch gave protection to fugitive slaves,[37] the Roman church often condemned with anathema slaves who fled from their masters, and refused them Eucharistic communio[38]

In 340 the Synod of Gangra in Armenia, condemned certain Manicheans for a list of twenty practices including forbidding marriage, not eating meat, urging that slaves should liberate themselves, abandoning their families, ascetism and reviling married priests.[39] The later Council of Chalcedon, declared that the canons of the Synod of Gangra were ecumenical (in other words, they were viewed as conclusively representative of the wider church).

Pope Gregory I
Pope Gregory I in his Pastoral Care (c. 600), which remained a popular text for centuries, wrote "Slaves should be told ...[not] to despise their masters and recognise they are only slaves". In his Commentary on the Book of Job he wrote that "All men are equal by nature but .... a hidden dispensation by providence has arranged a hierarchy of merit and rulership, in that differences between classes of men have arisen as a result of sin and are ordained by divine justice".[46]

Aquinas defended slavery as instituted by God in punishment for sin, and justified as being part of the 'right of nations' and natural law.

In 655 the Ninth Council of Toledo, in an attempt to persuade priests to remain celibate, ruled that all children of clerics were to be automatically enslaved. This ruling was later incorporated into the canon law of the church, but seems rarely to have been enforced. In 1089, Pope Urban II ruled at the Synod of Melfi that the wives of priests were to be enslaved.
.... disabilities of all kinds were enacted and as far as possible enforced against the wives and children of ecclesiastics. Their offspring were declared to be of servile condition .... The earliest decree in which the children were declared to be slaves, the property of the Church, and never to be enfranchised, seems to have been a canon of the Synod of Pavia in 1018.

Slavery incorporated into Canon Law

In the early thirteenth century, official support for slavery and the slave trade was incorporated into Canon Law (Corpus Iuris Canonici), by Pope Gregory IX,.[63][64] Canon law provided for four just titles for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother who is a slave.

Slavery was imposed as an ecclesiastical penalty by General Councils and local Church councils and Popes, 1179-1535...

Pope Gregory XI, excommunicated the Florentines and ordered them to be enslaved if captured[66

In 1452 Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas to King Alfonso V of Portugal which included the following words: "we grant to you...full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ...to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery". In 1454 Pope Nicholas explicitly confirmed the rights granted to King Alfonso V in Dum Diversas

In 1456, Pope Calixtus III confirmed these grants to the Kings of Portugal and they were renewed by Pope Sixtus IV in 1481; and finally in 1514 Pope Leo repeated verbatim all these documents and approved, renewed and confirmed them.[80]

The navy of the Papal States was no different from that of Venice, France, Genoa and other naval powers. Galley-slaves were recruited by criminal sentencing, usually for a term of years many never survived, as well as capture in war, mostly of Muslims, and sometimes the African slave-trade. Some of the Popes were personally involved in the purchase and use of galley-slaves.[86]

In 1535 Pope Paul III removed the ability of slaves in Rome to claim freedom by reaching the Capitol Hill, although this was restored some years later. He "declared the lawfulness of slave trading and slave holding, including the holding of Christian slaves in Rome".[88]

Archbishop of Baltimore, John Carroll, had two black servants - one free and one a slave. In 1820, the Jesuits had nearly 400 slaves on their Maryland plantations. The Society of Jesus owned a large number of slaves who worked on the community's farms. Realizing that their properties were more profitable if rented out to tenant farmers rather that worked by slaves, the Jesuits began selling off their slaves in 1837.

.

Cardinal Avery Dulles makes the following observations about the Catholic Church and the institution of slavery
1.For many centuries the Church was part of a slave-holding society.
2.The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys.
3.Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law.
4.St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin were all Augustinian on this point. Although the subjection of one person to another (servitus) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas taught, it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin.
5.No Father or Doctor of the Church was an unqualified abolitionist.
6.No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such.
7.But they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.[19]

... and goodnight.

EDIT: forgot to list a bit more stuff from the article:

In 1488, Pope Innocent VIII accepted the gift of 100 slaves from Ferdinand II of Aragon, and distributed those slaves to his cardinals and the Roman nobility.[83]

In 1639 Pope Urban VIII forbade the slavery of the Indians of Brazil, Paraguay, and the West Indies, yet he purchased non-Indian slaves for himself from the Knights of Malta,[89

[bwv 1080]

Then it shouldn't be difficult to name some popes that owned slaves. All I asked was that you name some of them. Why is it so difficult?

Gregory the Great, for one

a good overview is here

For many centuries the Church was part of a slave-holding society. The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys. Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law. St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin were all Augustinian on this point. Although the subjection of one person to another (servitus) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas taught, it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin.

The leaven of the gospel gradually alleviated the evils of slavery, at least in medieval Europe. Serfdom did not involve the humiliation and brutality people today ordinarily associate with slavery. Moral theologians recognized that slaves, unlike mere chattels, had certain rights even against their masters, who no longer had over them the power of life and death, as had been the case in pagan antiquity.

For St. Thomas, slaves (servi) had the right to food, sleep, marriage, and the rearing of their children. Provision had also to be made for them to fulfill their religious duties, and they were to be treated with benevolence. With the conquest of the New World and the enslavement of whole populations of Indians and Africans, theologians such as Bartolomé de Las Casas and Cajetan began to object to the injustices of subjecting conquered peoples and of engaging in the lucrative slave trade. Some prominent Catholics of the early nineteenth century, including J.M. Sailer, Daniel O'Connell, and the Comte de Montalembert, together with many Protestants, pressed for the total abolition of slavery.

Throughout this period the popes were far from silent. As soon as the enslavement of native populations by European colonists started, they began to protest, although Noonan gives only a few isolated examples. Eugene IV in 1435 condemned the enslavement of the peoples of the newly colonized Canary Islands and, under pain of excommunication, ordered all such slaves to be immediately set free. Pius II and Sixtus IV emphatically repeated these prohibitions. In a bull addressed to all the faithful of the Christian world Paul III in 1537 condemned the enslavement of Indians in North and South America. Gregory XIV in 1591 ordered the freeing of all the Filipino slaves held by Spaniards. Urban VIII in 1639 issued a bull applying the principles of Paul III to Portuguese colonies in South America and requiring the liberation of all Indian slaves.

In 1781 Benedict XIV renewed the call of previous popes to free the Indian slaves of South America. Thus it was no break with previous teaching when Gregory XVI in 1839 issued a general condemnation of the enslavement of Indians and Blacks. In particular, he condemned the importation of Negro slaves from Africa. Leo XIII followed along the path set by Gregory XVI.

Although the popes condemned the enslavement of innocent populations and the iniquitous slave trade, they did not teach that all slaves everywhere should immediately be emancipated. At the time of the Civil War, very few Catholics in the United States felt that papal teaching required them to become abolitionists.

Bishop John England stood with the tradition in holding that there could be just titles to slavery. Bishop Francis P. Kenrick held that slavery did not necessarily violate the natural law. Archbishop John Hughes contended that slavery was an evil but not an absolute evil. Orestes Brownson, while denying that slavery was malum in se, came around to favor emancipation as a matter of policy.

In 1863 John Henry Newman penned some fascinating reflections on slavery. A fellow Catholic, William T. Allies, asked him to comment on a lecture he was planning to give, asserting that slavery was intrinsically evil. Newman replied that, although he would like to see slavery eliminated, he could not go so far as to condemn it as intrinsically evil. For if it were, St. Paul would have had to order Philemon, "liberate all your slaves at once." Newman, as I see it, stood with the whole Catholic tradition. In 1866 the Holy Office, in response to an inquiry from Africa, ruled that although slavery (servitus) was undesirable, it was not per se opposed to natural or divine law. This ruling pertained to the kind of servitude that was customary in certain parts of Africa at the time.

No Father or Doctor of the Church, so far as I can judge, was an unqualified abolitionist. No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such. But they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/development-or-reversal-37

[Iconito]

In my view, it did.  But I will assume from the above statement that you did not mean to get personal.

In your very first sentence in that paragraph if a good example of why I think it proper to say you are indulging in willful ignorance or misunderstanding of the issues involved.  You see, the rest of us understand that there is no such thing as "Religion" that can be praised or blamed;  there are only human individuals acting out their religious beliefs, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad. 

As for your example: well, suppose I have a serious disease and go to several doctors in turn;  some of them can't figure out the problem, or make the problem worse in their attempts to heal me.  Does "Medicine" get the blame for that?  And then I finally find a doctor or doctor who know(s) how to cure me, and do so.  Does "Medicine" get the credit for that?  And if so, does the failed attempts of those other doctors mean "Medicine" shouldn't get credit it would otherwise get?

Now we are talking! Thank you, Jeffrey.

First of all, I certainly didn't mean to personally insult you or anybody, so apologies if it came out that way (I do have a kind of sarcastic, jerk-ish sense of humor... Too much Dr. House, maybe BTW, if you point me to what I said you found personally offensive I'll do my best to explain/apologize/take it back as needed)

To business: Your Medicine/Doctors analogy is good. Those doctors that can't figure out the problem or make it worse: Are they good doctors? i.e. are they doing what Medicine dictates they should do? Is your disease well known? Are there effective treatments for it? Of course Medicine is known to still have a lot of unsolved problems... Let's move to a legal analogy: Jack and Jill commit the same exact crime. They face two different judges. Jack gets a $500 fine, Jill gets the electric chair. Are the judges applying the Law correctly? Is the Law clear enough? Are you still reading? If the Law is so open to interpretation that you can get either a small fine or the Death penalty for the same crime then it's a lousy Law indeed. Otherwise a lousy judge should be easy to identify and dismiss.

Now: The phrase "there is no such thing as "Religion" [...] there are only human individuals acting out their religious beliefs" sounds like "There is no clear Law" (or the twisted version: "The Law is perfect, but we are all lousy judges"), so anything goes, and that's why you had religious abolitionists and religious... er... pro-slavery-dudes? (Damn English!) The obvious conclusion of this line of reasoning is... nasty... But I guess this isn't over, so I'm going to bed now

[kishnevi]

. Let's move to a legal analogy: Jack and Jill commit the same exact crime. They face two different judges. Jack gets a $500 fine, Jill gets the electric chair. Are the judges applying the Law correctly? Is the Law clear enough? Are you still reading? If the Law is so open to interpretation that you can get either a small fine or the Death penalty for the same crime then it's a lousy Law indeed. Otherwise a lousy judge should be easy to identify and dismiss.

Now: The phrase "there is no such thing as "Religion" [...] there are only human individuals acting out their religious beliefs" sounds like "There is no clear Law" (or the twisted version: "The Law is perfect, but we are all lousy judges"), so anything goes, and that's why you had religious abolitionists and religious... er... pro-slavery-dudes? (Damn English!) The obvious conclusion of this line of reasoning is... nasty... But I guess this isn't over, so I'm going to bed now

Bad move there.  I'm a lawyer

Serious answer: there is no such thing as "the Law" , except in an abstract general way.  There are individual laws, and lawyers and judges and police and the rest who apply and misapply them.  They do things, some of them bad, some of them good.  But "the Law" never does anything.  It's just a convenient figure of speech, a Platonic Ideal.

Same with "Religion". There's no one monolithic thing, but masses of individual people doing things motivated by their spiritual ideals.  And some of those things may be bad, and some good;  but some very good things would not have come about if people had not started to act on their religious feelings, Abolition being one of them.

[petrarch]

Same with "Religion". There's no one monolithic thing, but masses of individual people doing things motivated by their spiritual ideals.  And some of those things may be bad, and some good;  but some very good things would not have come about if people had not started to act on their religious feelings

Let's call it "Ethics" and "Principles" instead. What added value is there in "Religion" if one has good (whatever that means) ethics and principles?

[DavidRoss]

Let's call it "Ethics" and "Principles" instead. What added value is there in "Religion" if one has good (whatever that means) ethics and principles?

Religion is the source of most of the ethics and principles that have ennobled humankind over the past several centuries.  As a species, we still lag far behind the teachings of great religious leaders who lived long ago, but we are still inspired by them and moving--however slowly and haltingly--toward the vision they offered us.

[jowcol]

Let's call it "Ethics" and "Principles" instead. What added value is there in "Religion" if one has good (whatever that means) ethics and principles?

One of my favorite Thai Monks wrote an essay called "No Religion"--- his point wasn't so much atheism or the elevation of human goodness, since we take such delight in butchering each other.  His thesis was terms like Religion were worthless compared to putting ideas into action.

[petrarch]

Religion is the source of most of the ethics and principles that have ennobled humankind over the past several centuries.  As a species, we still lag far behind the teachings of great religious leaders who lived long ago, but we are still inspired by them and moving--however slowly and haltingly--toward the vision they offered us.

I am aware of that; let me rephrase: What value is there still in Religion if what it can give us as guidance and discussed at length previously in this topic is better framed as ethics and principles? In other words, you don't need Religion to convince any reasonable person to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

[kishnevi]

I am aware of that; let me rephrase: What value is there still in Religion if what it can give us as guidance and discussed at length previously in this topic is better framed as ethics and principles? In other words, you don't need Religion to convince any reasonable person to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

What you get with "Religion" is a structure that helps ensure you actually practice what is preached.

If the morality you practice is seen by you as a rational product of your own mind (however much input from the thinking of others you may have in getting to it), then you can easily become the victim of rationalization and evasion.  There's nothing outside of you to keep you acting morally, and humans being humans, most end up taking advantage of that to act , according to their general standards, immorally--they persuade themselves of some reason that allows this particular action to be considered not immoral.  [Insert here the atheist equivalent of the proverb "the road to H-- is paved with good intentions".]  In a religious context, there is something outside the individual to point out when he or she is misbehaving.  I'm not referring to the idea of God keeping track of all your little sins, etc. although undoubtedly that idea is what keeps at least some people with little faith on the straight and narrow.  What I'm referring to is the religious community in which one lives--whether it's by going to confession with a priest,  allowing oneself to be criticized by fellow congregants, or just listening seriously to the weekly sermon and trying to put what you learned into daily practice--can help keep you true to your ideals.  (Of course, humans being humans, that's not going to happen all the time--people may withold criticism for less than admirable reasons, for instance.)   That's why almost every spiritual tradition insists on the importance of a teacher/guru:  someone who will not only teach you the finer points of spiritual practice, but also keep examining you to make sure you keep practicing what you've been taught.

There's also the fact that most religious traditions have had to grapple with most of the problems we deal with daily life (and often some of the problems we don't always see, and hope we never see for ourselves) in the past, and can provide some firm guidance on what to do.  Atheistic morality has by and large not done that detailed thinking out yet.  But I since that's mostly because "religion" had a headstart of a few millenia, we can presume that eventually non-religious morality will catch up.  But it hasn't, yet.

[Karl Henning]

In other words, you don't need Religion to convince any reasonable person to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

That's tendentious and actually borderline insulting, of course.

Look at it this way:  if some of your neighbors find value in Religion, who are you to compel them to desist?  Don't others deserve the freedom you would claim for yourself?

And if you do not have the character or moral fortitude to tolerate them in this, too bad for you.  Perhaps Religion would teach you better.