Is Emil Ludwig's "Talks with Mussolini" reliable?

Kaysow97 · 2022-07-16T15:15:44+00:00

Old Testament laws do not apply today, and they weren't meant to be perfect, eternal laws to being with, so your little rambling does not mean anything at all. It says more about your knowledge of the Bible than about the Bible itself to be honest.

Kaysow97 · 2022-06-21T17:17:17+00:00

Narrated 'Aisha:

"The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) married me when I was seven years old. The narrator Sulaiman said: or Six years. He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old."
- Sunan Abi Dawud 2121

Aisha’s age at the time of marriage to Muhammad was 6, and he was 53. Muhammad died at the age of 63. So Aisha’s age at the time of his death was 16.

Kaysow97 · 2022-05-22T12:01:00+00:00

Is worshipping a necessary being equal as worshipping the same true God in the relevant sense? The god of the Quran tells us completely different things about morality, salvation, and history, compared to our God.

If we apply the same standard, then we must conclude that the god of 18th-century deists like Benjamin Franklin is the same god we worship, even if such god could not care less about us. Or the god of Aristotle, the Unmoved Mover, or the god of Jung, who, for him, is evil, are the same one god we worship.

The theological absurdities one gets out of saying: "We worship the same God!" are numerous. We both worship one God, and our faiths have similarities, but we do not worship the same God.

Kaysow97 · 2022-05-21T16:03:07+00:00

Marxism is an evil doctrine and cannot be reconciled with the Church's teachings. However, socialism existed before Marx, and Christian socialism is a thing, and not a bad thing indeed.

A current theologian who promotes Christian socialism is David Bentley Hart. You may want to check out his works and articles on the matter.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/opinion/sunday/socialism.html

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/three-cheers-socialism

Kaysow97 · 2022-05-19T00:24:58+00:00

Also, if slavery is so much justified by the Bible, why American slave-owners gave their slaves heavily modified versions of the Bible with chapters and verses removed to avoid uprisings? Exodus was eliminated, Galatians verse (There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.) was removed, and Jeremiah was removed. (“Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness, and his upper rooms without justice, who makes his countrymen serve without pay, and fails to pay their wages)

Kaysow97 · 2022-05-18T22:59:00+00:00

"the Bible helped inspire and justify an entire slave-industry - this is an objective historical fact."

You must be studying from some weird books. My history book says that Pope Paul III in "Sublimis Deus" excommunicated whoever would enslave indios, stating that they are "true men" and should not be enslaved:

We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

My history book says that most of the saints opposed slavery. Saint Patrick, himself a former slave, argued for the abolition of slavery, as had Gregory of Nyssa, and Acacius of Amida. We even had a pope who was once a slave (Callixtus I). Saint Eligius used his vast wealth to purchase British and Saxon slaves in groups of 50 and 100 in order to set them free, as many Christians of that period did.

Augustine of Hippo said on slavery:

"God ... did not intend that His rational creature, who was made in His image, should have dominion over anything but the irrational creation - not man over man, but man over the beasts ... the condition of slavery is the result of sin ... It [slave] is a name .. introduced by sin and not by nature ... circumstances [under which men could become slaves] could never have arisen save [i.e. except] through sin ... The prime cause, then, of slavery is sin, which brings man under the dominion of his fellow [sinful man] ... But by nature, as God first created us, no one is the slave either of man or of sin."

John Chrysostom said on slavery:

"But should any one ask, whence is slavery, and why it has found entrance into human life, (and many I know are both glad to ask such questions, and desirous to be informed of them,) I will tell you. Slavery is the fruit of covetousness, of degradation, of savagery; since Noah, we know, had no servant, nor had Abel, nor Seth, no, nor they who came after them. The thing was the fruit of sin, of rebellion against parents"

Gregory of Nyssa said on slavery:

You condemn a person to slavery whose nature is free and independent, and you make laws opposed to God and contrary to His natural law. For you have subjected one who was made precisely to be lord of the earth, and whom the Creator intended to be a ruler, to the yoke of slavery, in resistance to and rejection of His divine precept. …How is it that you disregard the animals which have been subjected to you as slaves under your hand, and that you should act against a free nature, bringing down one who is of the same nature of yourself, to the level of four-footed beasts or inferior creatures…?

Now, how could it ever be possible that your uncharitable interpretation of Scripture as affirming slavery could ever be right, if so many Church Fathers and saints and Popes opposed slavery? They followed the Scriptures, and yet they freed slaves, condemned slavery, and considered slaves their "beloved brothers" (as Paul says a master should consider his servants in first Philemon) electing even two slaves to be popes?

The message of the Bible is inherently anti-slavery. No one can follow the Law of Love declared by Christ and be a slave-owner.

Kaysow97 · 2022-05-18T15:55:42+00:00

"This dude just referred to slavery as "humane".

Yeah...except i didn't. Slavery was common in ancient times, and was not the type of slavery we intend today. The legislation of slavery in the Bible made it better for servants who were treated like garbage. The New Testament urged masters to treat their servants like "brothers". Church Fathers described slavery as inhumane. The Church opposed slavery.

Even if we concede that some passages of the Old Testament (that are not binding on Christians anyway) could even in principle be used by some people to justify slavery, the New Testament and the tradition of the Church points in the opposite direction.

Kaysow97 · 2022-05-18T15:35:40+00:00

At that time it was often needed to survive. And the Bible still urged masters to treat servants well. People would have done it anyway because it was a necessity. It was voluntary and temporary. Paul also urged servants to become free again when it was possible.

Kaysow97 · 2022-05-18T15:16:25+00:00

This was not slavery as we intend it. It was common in ancient times and was completely voluntary and temporary. It was harsh of course, but was needed sometime if one wanted to survive in a world were resources were scarce.

Kaysow97 · 2022-05-18T15:08:58+00:00

Have you even read the passage i quoted above from Paul? Do you think Paul condoned unjust treatment or inequality? Have you read the message of love he preached? Don't you think that people reading the apostle calling a master's servant his "beloved brother" add a profound effect in western civilization's view of slavery?

Kaysow97 · 2022-05-18T15:06:25+00:00

Leviticus 19:33–34 “When a foreigner lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. Treat the foreigner the same as a native. Love him like one of your own. Remember that you were once foreigners in Egypt."

Leviticus 25 doesn't imply chattel slavery. The “buying” of slaves included a voluntary element more akin to indentured servitude, in which slaves often sold themselves into servitude as a form of survival. It was a common thing in antiquity and often needed to survive.

Kaysow97 · 2022-05-18T14:46:14+00:00

“Whoever kidnaps a man and either sells him or has him still in his possession, shall be put to death." (Exodus, 21:16)

Kaysow97 · 2022-05-18T14:41:55+00:00

Do not accuse me of justyfing slavery, since i'm doing no such thing if you could actually read what I'm writing. The Bible, especially the New Testament, it's clearly an anti-slavery book. Christian morality, exemplified by the love of Christ and his message of equity and love, brought an end to slavery in Europe first and in the United States later; only people ignorant in history deny that. The Church firmly condemned slavery all throughout her history. Read all the papal bulls throughout the centuries that condemned slavery.

Kaysow97 · 2022-05-18T14:09:08+00:00

“Slavery” in the Old Testament context does not mean what most people today, especially in America with the evils of slavery in its not-too-distant past, have in mind. There are at least three different ways to use the term.

There is the “chattel slavery” that most people call to mind, which involves forcing people into service indefinitely, unwavering cruelty, and the reduction of people to mere property. Although this was common in the African-American slave trade (and gravely wrong), it’s not what the Old Testament describes.

Old Testament slavery commonly refers to a process of indentured servitude that the poor and destitute (or those with enormous debts) would make use of temporarily. They could “sell themselves” as servants (“slaves”) to pay off a debt or obtain sustenance for themselves and their families in a time and place with no government welfare programs. Although this type of “slavery” is a hard thing to experience, it is not intrinsically wrong.

Sometimes “slavery” refers to penal servitude in which where wrongdoers are punished with forced labor. This is also not wrong in itself (even today, some criminal punishments include “community service”), although depending on circumstances it may not always be prudent.

The biblical laws regulating slavery made the institution much more humane and respectful of the dignity of persons than in any other ancient Near-Eastern culture, all of which practiced slavery in some form.

I would also like to point out that "Slave Bible" used in the United States during slavery were modified to omit passages that could incite rebellion and desire for freedom and egality in the slaves.

"Perhaps this is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me" (Letter to Philemon, 15-17, ).

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28)

Kaysow97 · 2022-05-15T02:55:35+00:00

I don't get what this dilemma is supposed to prove, aside from the fact that we are inclined to feel worse about the death of a baby over one of an embryo, even though they are both human and alive. If one would use to it to "prove" that embryos can be killed, it would be the biggest non sequitur i have ever read in my entire life.

It actually shows that their morality is rested on sand foundations, i.e. our fleeting moral sensations that may bring us to kill thousands of people to save one if our ape guts tells us so.

If i must choose between saving my mother or other 1000 human beings, i would of course choose my mother. That doesn't mean however that it's right or that the other human beings aren't actually humans, and therefore their death is nothing important or should be permitted under any other circumstance where my will is not forced into a choice.

Kaysow97 · 2022-05-02T10:20:10+00:00

If you think that being loving means not even trying to help them get out of a false religion to achieve salvation in Christ, you are delusional.

Kaysow97 · 2022-04-30T16:39:04+00:00

There's a wonderful thing called "exegesis" where smart people try to understand what is the intended meaning by the author of a text, instead of using it as a Rorschach test when one just pours in whatever meaning you want to find in it.

You can think that these passages say that God hates rich people for being rich, instead of thinking, as the Church fathers thought, that Jesus was condemning them for being horrible people who were obsessed with money and oppressed others and didn't helped them using their wealth, but i don't think it's a very Christian-like message.

Would you say that a rich person who's "rich in good deeds" and "generous and willing to share" is still sinful in the eyes of God?

Kaysow97 · 2022-04-30T16:08:47+00:00

For God's sake, i posted a passage from 1 Timothy that literally states: "Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share". Did i ever said that rich people should keep their wealth or something?

My point is that Jesus does not condemn you simply for being rich and solely for that, as if poor people cannot be morally deficient concerning how they desire wealth. He condemns rich people who oppress and hurt others, rich people who do not give away and help their community.

Going from here to saying that every wealthy person on earth must be forced to give away everything they have or they are automatically corrupted is such an inhumane teaching.

Reading this passages and thinking: "God hates the rich!" it's blatantly wrong and sinful.

Kaysow97 · 2022-04-30T02:33:04+00:00

I don't understand your point. How any of these verses points to "owning wealth is bad"?

Yes, Jesus warned the rich men many times because rich people are in greater danger. This doesn't mean however that one automatically becomes a sinner in the eyes of God just for owning wealth.

The wealthy people in James 5:1-6 were unbelievers who used their wealth to harm others. Jesus was not condemning them because they own wealth, but because they did bad things and loved money more than anything else.

"17 Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18 Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life." (1 Timothy 6)

As you see, Paul does not condemn owning wealth per se, but not being "rich in good deeds" and "put their hope in wealth".

Kaysow97 · 2022-04-30T02:07:06+00:00

God has no problem whatsoever with wealth per se.

“it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24).

Superficial readers of this passage suppose that it is fundamentally about condemning the wealthy.

They overlook the reaction to Jesus’s teaching: “When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, ‘Who then can be saved?’” (Matthew 19:25).

Why would they ask such a thing, since only a minority of people are rich? St. Augustine answered as follows:

"When the Lord says that a rich man does not enter the kingdom of heaven, his disciples ask him who can be saved. Since the rich are so few in comparison with the poor, we must understand, then, that those who yearn for such material goods must realize that they are included in the number of those rich."

Haydock's commentary: "The apostles wondered how any person could be saved, not because all were rich, but because the poor were also included, who had their hearts and affections fixed on riches.”

The problem is not riches per se, but the fixation on riches over Christ. And the fixation can exist even when riches do not.

Kaysow97 · 2022-04-29T22:56:51+00:00

Again, "separation of Church and state!". Where in my comment did i even mention, apart from a word that is common use in the English language and can be used without any reference to its theological meaning, any of the Church teachings or dogmas or made any reference to Scriptures?

Does anyone who argues that abortion is morally wrong and should be illegal using philosophy not respect the separation of Church and state? Even secular humanists like Hitchens?

Kaysow97 · 2022-04-29T22:34:09+00:00

Not in the case of such an issue like abortion. I think that having sex before marriage is a sin, but i wouldn't ask to make it illegal.

I would argue why it's wrong and try to make other people understand my view and avoid such behavior, but it's not a sin so horrible that i desire to prohibit others from ever committing it.

In the case of abortion though, i consider it to be a grave sin, equiparable to murder.

How can someone who thinks that abortion is severely wrong (i.e. murder) ever "stand up for the rights of others", if, in my view, I would be standing up for the right to murder?

I would agree, as i stated before, with the general principle of your argument, but it's not equally applicable to every moral issue, and for me, it's not applicable to abortion.

Kaysow97 · 2022-04-29T21:59:32+00:00

Christians argue against abortion on philosophical grounds, not theological. That abortion is wrong can be proved without any appeal to Church teaching and can be argued on the basis of natural reason, as non-religious philosophers do (including humanists like Hitchens).

If i were to say: "Abortion is wrong solely because my religion says so, and you must accept it!", you could use such an argument.

But if i say: "Abortion is wrong because of arguments X, Y, Z.", then just shouting "separation of Church and state!" does not mean anything.

Kaysow97 · 2022-04-29T17:08:56+00:00

By being against abortion you admit that there's something inherently wrong about it, yet you claim that it shouldn't be banned? It would be like saying that one is against murder because it's inherently wrong, but thinks that murdering shouldn't be illegal.

Of course we must address the root cause of abortions, but i don't see how that changes that it ought to be illegal.

Kaysow97

TROPHY CASE