(June 21, 2015 at 1:40 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 1:33 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Mike-

This is not an answer to your question, but since you have joined the discussion (and because I think you are one of the few here who might actually read and appreciate this), I provide the following link to the section of the Catechism which deals with moral law:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm#1950

YES. This is what I wanted to post but didn't know if it would be against the rules.

(June 21, 2015 at 1:59 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: It is.

How is providing a link to the Catechism against the rules?

Is it against the rules for CL because of the 30/30 Rule? Or is it allowed by the 30/30 Exception?

Is it against the rules for ME now that my 30 days are up?

Seriously, I'm just trying to understand how these rules are being applied...especially in light of the fact that the 30/30 Exception appears provide some basis for even a newbie to link.

Modhat on: It is against the rules to post a link in lieu of discussion. Period. End of Sentence. No exceptions.
[/Modhat]

(June 21, 2015 at 2:00 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: So basically you just showed me a flowchart for how God's law (which was somehow imperfect) was amended when Jesus came. If that doesn't speak to shifting moral law, then I don't know what does.

Flowchart? Who are you talking to? And what are you talking about?

(June 21, 2015 at 2:12 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 2:00 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: So basically you just showed me a flowchart for how God's law (which was somehow imperfect) was amended when Jesus came. If that doesn't speak to shifting moral law, then I don't know what does.

Flowchart? Who are you talking to? And what are you talking about?

Didn't mean a literal flowchart, Randy.

You.

(June 21, 2015 at 2:09 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 1:40 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: YES. This is what I wanted to post but didn't know if it would be against the rules.

(June 21, 2015 at 1:59 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: It is.

How is providing a link to the Catechism against the rules?

Is it against the rules for CL because of the 30/30 Rule? Or is it allowed by the 30/30 Exception?

Is it against the rules for ME now that my 30 days are up?

Seriously, I'm just trying to understand how these rules are being applied...especially in light of the fact that the 30/30 Exception appears provide some basis for even a newbie to link.

I think what you have to do is explain it a little bit in your own words, and then post the link as a source.

I think that's what I've been able to gather in the past few events.

(June 21, 2015 at 2:13 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 2:12 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Flowchart? Who are you talking to? And what are you talking about?

Didn't mean a literal flowchart, Randy.

You.

Okay. I'm used to people replying to me to get my attention. Sorry.

Here is the link for what Jesus said about slavery. It does not look good for Jesus, in my opinion. It's towards the bottom of the page.

He refers to slavery, and is clearly happy with it as the status quo. He says not one word about it being wrong or ending the practice.

If the actual bible is wrong about Jesus, then really, what does Christianity have left? Rumours?

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

Quote:
You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Bottom line: if Jesus came along and replaced the Old Testament laws, as modern Christians usually argue contrary to what Jesus himself said, then that represented an old, vindictive morality being replaced (to continue with the Bush references) with a kinder, gentler set of rules.

If Jesus did not replace those rules in the OT, the Christians need to explain why we nowadays consider slavery evil where before it was considered acceptable.

You cannot have it both ways, because no matter what you wish to say, morality has shifted.

Well, according to C_L, Catholicism has thought slavery was immoral for the last 2,000 years. They have had perfect morality all along. The speedbumps along the way were just imperfect men making bad decisions. Nevermind that these men were the ones writing all the laws and catechisms that are copypasta'd all over this site. I think we now officially qualify as a catechism hosting site now.

Randy, if we petition the Church to pay our server fees for doing God's work in hosting the stupid amounts of catechism you've plastered all over this site, do you think his holiness would deign to break off a piece? I think one of his shoes would pay the server fees for a year or two...

(June 21, 2015 at 2:51 am)robvalue Wrote: Here is the link for what Jesus said about slavery. It does not look good for Jesus, in my opinion. It's towards the bottom of the page.

He refers to slavery, and is clearly happy with it as the status quo. He says not one word about it being wrong or ending the practice.

If the actual bible is wrong about Jesus, then really, what does Christianity have left? Rumours?

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

Thank you for providing the link, Rob. There are 2 verses from Jesus on that page.

So let's look at both verses, except in their entire context rather than just the dishonest snippet that page provides in order to push their agenda. Here's the first:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free."

First let's keep in mind that Jesus is addressing the slaves here and telling them how they should act given the circumstances they are in. This does not mean He condones slavery. Jesus also tells us to turn the other cheek when we get slapped, and give someone our shirt if they steal our coat.

Does this mean Jesus condones slapping and stealing? No.

Also note the last sentence, where Jesus makes it perfectly clear that he regards slaves and free men as equals.

The second verse is Jesus telling a parable, and He isn't even talking about slaves, He is talking about servants. But I will address it anyway. Here is the entire parable:

"Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

Jesus is telling a parable about a head servant who behaved badly when his master was gone and left him in charge. He behaved badly by beating the other servants, eating all their food, getting drunk, and not doing his duty. His master then comes home, at which time the servant suffers the consequences of his bad behavior.

This is a parable Jesus told to His disciples to explain how we will suffer the consequences if we behave badly by mistreating other people and not doing our duty here on earth. The servant represents us, and the master represents God in this parable. This has nothing to do with slavery (since the word isn't even mentioned) or with condoning the beating of other people. That site could not have been more prejudice and dishonest if it tried. Reaching for anything it could to try to make Jesus out to be a supporter of slavery.

Before I wrap it up here, I also want to once again point out that the most important thing to remember are a couple of Jesus' greatest commandments: Love your neighbor as yourself, and love your enemy. Does it really make sense that a person who tells us to love everyone like ourselves, including our worst enemies, would condone treating people like property?

---

(June 21, 2015 at 3:22 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Well, according to C_L, Catholicism has thought slavery was immoral for the last 2,000 years. They have had perfect morality all along. The speedbumps along the way were just imperfect men making bad decisions. Nevermind that these men were the ones writing all the laws and catechisms that are copypasta'd all over this site. I think we now officially qualify as a catechism hosting site now.

Randy, if we petition the Church to pay our server fees for doing God's work in hosting the stupid amounts of catechism you've plastered all over this site, do you think his holiness would deign to break off a piece? I think one of his shoes would pay the server fees for a year or two...

I just want to remind everyone here that I did not come to preach. Every single comment I have made on this thread in regards to my faith, I did so because I was asked or addressed. When I first created this thread, I actually resisted all the questions, asking yall to just answer the OP and not mind me. That didn't work out too well since I then started getting accused of being too afraid to talk about it. :-)
So this is why you see the catechism all over this thread. I apologize. Just trying to provide you with the answers you are looking for and clear up any misconceptions between us.

I respect our differences, and I appreciate you all taking the time to have this discussion with me.