Original Sin?

Quote: Nareed

I forgot: In the Exodus myth, God causes terrible suffering to at least the people in the capital of Egypt, probably in all of Egypt, then heartlessly kills the first born sons of a lot of Egyptians.

Which sins were being eradicated?

The sin of slavery was being eradicated. How often did God through Moses warn the Pharaoh and the people, sending plagues was a warning too. It is a sad story and there is no heartlessness about it. The final plague is the final straw and it seems to finally convict the Pharaoh of the evil he has done, in the killing of all the Israelite young boys, and the evil he continues to do, the enslavement of a whole race of people.

Quote:

But the principle of making innocent, helpless people suffer and die is well-established.

This is the result of sin. It is well established that when one person does evil it leads to suffering and often the death of many.

Quote:

Then there's the whole Sodom and Gomorrah debacle. It's too simplistic to be taken seriously.

Here is a case where the Scriptures make clear that there was not a single good man left in those cities.

Quote:

Then Lot's wife gets punished for daring to disobey God.

It's a story of looking back and longing for sin, it will entrap you again. Once we are set free look forward to the future of freedom and hope.

Quote: FrGamble

The sin of slavery was being eradicated.

I laughed so hard at this, I almost spilled coffee all over my desk.

The "sin" of slavery? really? when later on the Bible talks about how to treat slaves and how one should go about selling one's children into slavery? Sin? really? Don't make me laugh.

Quote:

How often did God through Moses warn the Pharaoh and the people,

1) the same god who told Moses he'd harden pharaoh's heart?
2) In Egypt the pharaoh was the incarnation of Horus, the Falcon God, Son of Osiris and Ist, on Earth. The people did what their god said. I'm not claiming this made it right, but it relives some responsibility from the people.
3) The large majority of the people in Egypt at the time had no influence on their king's policies. Why punish them along with the king? In human warfare, one perforce attacks cities and wounds and kills innocent people. An omnipotent, omniscient and allegedly merciful deity should find a way to spare the innocent.

Quote:

It is a sad story and there is no heartlessness about it. The final plague is the final straw and it seems to finally convict the Pharaoh of the evil he has done, in the killing of all the Israelite young boys, and the evil he continues to do, the enslavement of a whole race of people.

So it's justified for God to indiscriminately repeat pharaoh's sins why? Maybe he had to split himself in three parts and endure a horrible death out of guilt, to redeem his many sins.

Quote:

Here is a case where the Scriptures make clear that there was not a single good man left in those cities.

I don't say this often, because I save it for when I'm very serious: Bullshit.

You will never find a large group of people where they're all one piece. There are always exceptions, and really rather numerous exceptions. Cities at the time numbered in the thousands. Do you seriously expect me to believe out of thousands, only one family was not "guilty"? how about young children? How about newborns?

God, the original serial mass murderer.

Quote: Nareed

The "sin" of slavery? really? when later on the Bible talks about how to treat slaves and how one should go about selling one's children into slavery? Sin? really? Don't make me laugh.

Can you find an instance when the type of slavery practiced by the Egyptians is mentioned in the Bible? This means an enslavement based on the race of someone and for no other reasons. There are plenty of instances in the ancient world when people's enemies were forced into slavery, when people endured slavery to pay off a loan, but as far as I know there is nothing in the Bible concerning enslaving someone because of the color of their skin or because of their religion or anything at all like that. In fact in the many places that the Bible speaks against slavery it often reminds the Israelite people of their history of slavery as a prohibition of that particular evil, even though any form of slavery is awful. Even though I encounter this common misinterpretation of the Bible and history all the time, I've yet to find it funny.

Quote: FrGamble

Can you find an instance when the type of slavery practiced by the Egyptians is mentioned in the Bible? This means an enslavement based on the race of someone and for no other reasons. There are plenty of instances in the ancient world when people's enemies were forced into slavery, when people endured slavery to pay off a loan, but as far as I know there is nothing in the Bible concerning enslaving someone because of the color of their skin or because of their religion or anything at all like that.

So it's ok to enslave people, so long as you don't have an animus about their race, creed or color?

That's not funny.

Decrying a type of slavery while establishing another, is very funny, in a tragic, outrageous sort of way.

Quote: Nareed

Decrying a type of slavery while establishing another, is very funny, in a tragic, outrageous sort of way.

Lumping all types of bondage into the category of slavery to try and make a point is at least ridiculous. Especially because we recognize even today types of indentured servitude and certainly we have seen prisoners on the side of the road working. The Bible is radically against the type of slavery we think of, especially as modern Americans, which is one born of prejudice and hate.

Quote: FrGamble

Especially because we recognize even today types of indentured servitude and certainly we have seen prisoners on the side of the road working.

I'm against indentured servitude.

Quote:

The Bible is radically against the type of slavery we think of, especially as modern Americans, which is one born of prejudice and hate.

Curious how this never prevented the major Christian nations of Europe from using slaves or engaging in the slave trade. Curious, too, how both sides in the abolition debate quoted the Bible to support their position. I've said it before: if arguments can be found for and against slavery in the Bible, then it's ambiguous about it at best.

This is no surprise, when one sees the Bible as a collection of books by various authors writing at different times. Which of course is just what the Bible is.

Quote: FrGamble

working. The Bible is radically against the type of slavery we think of,.

Really?

"Nearly all Christian leaders before the late 17th century regarded slavery as consistent with Christian theology."

That's the late 1600's.

"Dum Diversas is a papal bull issued on 18 June 1452 by Pope Nicholas V. It authorized Afonso V of Portugal to conquer Saracens and pagans and consign them to 'perpetual servitude'.

This was renewed by pope after pope.

"Perpetual servitude means that not only you, but all your offspring, your children's children, etc. are indentured to a master."

This is exactly what the blacks brought to
America were, they were in perpetual
servitude to their masters.

The Church has a long history of either
endorsing slavery, or not having much of
an opinion on it. If you go to the Catholic
sites, they are on a foaming at the mouth
jihad to spin and rewrite this part of their
history. That wascally holy spirit, you just
never know what it will endorse.

My prediction is the padre, like these priests,
will put on his taps and try his hardest to
dance around this subject, like he always
does.

Rather than tap dancing I prefer to walk in truth. You take one document and use it out of context to make false statements about the Church's stance. You are the one tap dancing. Before we go any further I wonder could you produce any other document from any other Pope showing support for slavery or endorsing it? Of course not.

From Pope Eugene IV in 1435 and consistently by just about ever Pope since; slavery as we know it today and the slave trade is condemned. Here is an example from Gregory XVI in 1839 from a Papal Bull In Supremo:

"There were to be found subsequently among the faithful some who, shamefully blinded by the desire of sordid gain, in lonely and distant countries did not hesitate to reduce to slavery (<in servitutem redigere>) Indians, Blacks and other unfortunate peoples, or else, by instituting or expanding the trade in those who had been made slaves by others, aided the crime of others. Certainly many Roman Pontiffs of glorious memory, Our Predecessors, did not fail, according to the duties of their office, to blame severely this way of acting as dangerous for the spiritual welfare of those who did such things and a shame to the Christian name."

Quote: FrGamble

Before we go any further I wonder could you produce any other document from any other Pope showing support for slavery or endorsing it?

How many later popes RENEWED the two papal bulls?
I know the answer, do you? The truth is, the Church was
wishy washy on slavery for 1500 years. Like all political
institutions, they changed with the times. You had to be
behind slavery, it was how things got done. There were
no machines to do the hard work, it was done on the backs
of slaves.

I don't fault the Church for it's views, they were modern for
the times they lived in. It's just that the Church and it's divine
leader, the 'holy spirit', was apparently no smarter or ahead
of the curve than anybody else. And still isn't. It's almost like
the HS is just a figment of the imagination.

Quote: FrGamble

Before we go any further I wonder could you produce any other document from any other Pope showing support for slavery or endorsing it?

Isn't one enough?

Quote:

From Pope Eugene IV in 1435 and consistently by just about ever Pope since; slavery as we know it today and the slave trade is condemned.

Per your reasoning, slavery should have been abolished in all Portuguese colonies, like Brazil. as Portugal was then, as now, a Catholic country. Did this happen?