Catholic Defense of Liberty: Recommended Reading.

[Dejavu]

This is especially for TomK and other Christians that believe in liberty.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61RCWY41WKL._AA240_.jpgLink (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260387/lewrockwell/)


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41V%2BJAYnZ6L._AA240_.jpgLink (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0739110365/lewrockwell/)


Two excellent books. I just got done reading the latter and 5 star all the way.:D

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Difficult to think of two books more antithetical to every instinct I have. :lol:

Fucking hell... That stuff brings out my closet authoritarian, I tell thee.

-Alex

[BobKKKindle$]

Christians that believe in Liberty? This support for "liberty" does clearly not extend to a woman's freedom to determine what happens to her own body without the interference of the state, nor the freedom to enjoy free sexual relations with those of the same sex - a very limited form of "liberty" then.

As for building "western civilization" the church has, throughout History, had a negative impact on the development of scientific knowledge, by persecuting anyone who promoted theories (for example, the heliocentric model of the solar system) which conflicted with the silly fairy stories of the church. The Church has therefore had a reactionary role, and so cannot be described as having "built" anything.

Anyway, what does the term "western civilization" actually mean? The actions of the west suggest that they are far from "civilized" - the massacre and exploitation of the inhabitants of the global south, the execution of women suspected of being witches, the holocaust - are these events that you are proud of?

You silly fools, when will you stop believing in these fairy stories? Your pathetic religion has been demolished by the beautiful rationality of Science.


Fucking hell... That stuff brings out my closet authoritarian, I tell thee.Yes, I agree, upon reading this post, I fantasized about tying Christians up and forcing them to watch me rip up the bible and defecate on religious symbols. Then they should be forced to have homosexual intercourse.

[RedAnarchist]

The Catholic Church built any kind of civilisation?:lol:

[Bud Struggle]

The Catholic Church built any kind of civilisation?:lol:

The above post is the kind of crappy stuff that alienates people of this world from one another. You hate the Catholic Church, fine. I can hate Communism because of the millions butchered by them ("oo! oo! they weren't REAL Communist!" or "oo! oo! it never really happened!") Hey, I can make "excuses" too. And where does that lead us?

It's time we all realize that the orgnizations we belong to have sometimes serious problems...fair enough. The problem is really how to creat a better world with what is out there, with what we have. I hear plenty of "kill all the upper class" or "kill all the" Israelis" around here.

I'm a Catholic factory owner REALLY trying to understand how to make the world a better place. And I'm looking at you guys to help. I'll never be a Commie, but you may have some good ideas that I can use.

It's about time you Commies open your minds a bit, too. Seem the
Bourgeoisie are ahead of you on this one, too.

[Bud Struggle]

Thanks, Dejavu!!!!:cool:

[Colonello Buendia]

I'm also catholic, or used to be. I think that though the religious institutions are corrupt we shouldn't mock them, catholicism did after all bring about western Europe in a way. I hate to say it but TomK could be right

[pusher robot]

Yes, I agree, upon reading this post, I fantasized about tying Christians up and forcing them to watch me rip up the bible and defecate on religious symbols. Then they should be forced to have homosexual intercourse.

That's not something to be proud of, my friend. You may want to keep those feelings to yourself.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, I agree, upon reading this post, I fantasized about tying Christians up and forcing them to watch me rip up the bible and defecate on religious symbols. Then they should be forced to have homosexual intercourse.

Yup PR:

Imagine if me a Catholic said that about a Communist. Or me a Catholic said that it should be manditory that every kid must learn Catholicism till he's 21, or me a business owner said said that workers are expendable. You'd consider me a monster.

Now turn that around and just guess how pretty you look to me. :D

I'm looking for a better world--not stuck to ideology: Communist, Christian or otherwise.

You guys really need to stop hateing and think of something useful to do.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Just because the Catholic Church may have had a hand in the development of western civilisation, does not make the Church immune to criticism, does not excuse the Church for it's loathsome actions and certainly doesn't justify it's existance.

Words can't describe how I feel about this institution. Individuals are another case entirely, but the whole, rotten edifice should come down.

[Bud Struggle]

Just because the Catholic Church may have had a hand in the development of western civilisation, does not make the Church immune to criticism, does not excuse the Church for it's loathsome actions and certainly doesn't justify it's existance.

Words can't describe how I feel about this institution. Individuals are another case entirely, but the whole, rotten edifice should come down.

"Just because the Communism may have had a hand in the development of western civilisation, does not make Communism immune to criticism, does not excuse Communism for it's loathsome actions and certainly doesn't justify it's existance.

Words can't describe how I feel about this institution. Individuals are another case entirely, but the whole, rotten edifice should come down."

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. :D

[BobKKKindle$]

My end comment aside, are any of the Catholics going to respond to the points I made? How can anyone claim that the Catholic Church is supportive of individual freedom, when the Church rejects the idea that women should be able to determine what happens to their bodies - this would seem to be a basic form of freedom, because it is concerned with the use of ones own body, and so is connected with self-ownership, which, according to libertarians, is the foundation of all other rights, including the right to own private property.

How, also, can you justify the Church's regressive influence on the advance of Scientific Knowledge?

[Bud Struggle]

My end comment aside, are any of the Catholics going to respond to the points I made? How can anyone claim that the Catholic Church is supportive of individual freedom, when the Church rejects the idea that women should be able to determine what happens to their bodies - this would seem to be a basic form of freedom, because it is concerned with the use of ones own body, and so is connected with self-ownership, which, according to libertarians, is the foundation of all other rights, including the right to own private property.

How, also, can you justify the Church's regressive influence on the advance of Scientific Knowledge?



OK. The Church has a different idea of individual freedom than you do--it comes down to a different value judgment on what human life is. If you believe that human life starts at conception, then everything follows quite nicely that the human life of the baby MUST be protected above the freedom of the mother in the same way my "freedom" to drive the wrong way down a one way street is less important than the lives of the people I might endanger.

I actually find the "Communist" view point inconsistant, for example: shouldn't I as a factory owner be able do whatever I like with and in the property I own in the same way that a woman can do whatever she likes with the body she owns. The people that work for me in my factory should have no rights and can be hired or fired at will just as the person in the womb has no rights and can be expelled at will? Communists make a point of "ownership" of one's body as "property". Shouldn't that "ownership" also extend to factories and such. To me it seems just and extension of the same principle.

Further, the is a reason that Western society developed and grew at a faster rate than other societies. There is a distinct reasoning process that came along from the Greeks that is used in Western society--and that is the dialectic invented by Socrates. It was lost with the fall of the Roman Empire, but then later found by the Arabs: Averroes (Incoherence of Incoherence), Avicenna and others that took Aristotle and wrote commentaries on him. The Catholic Church through Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham and others brought Aristotle and the dialectic and rational thinking into the comonweal of European thinking--precipitating the Renaissance.

True the Catholic Church made some errors in judgement concerning some thoughts about science (the earth being the center of the Universe was Aristotle's mistake, too.) On the other hand you only have to look to the Soviet Union and Communist China of only a few decades ago supporting the phoney genetics and agrnomy of Trofim Lysenko--how many real scientists were put do death because of the nonsense? How may people starved because of crop failures of the Great Leap Forward because of that nonsense? All a lot worse than Galileo's house arrest, to be sure.


Anyway, what does the term "western civilization" actually mean? The actions of the west suggest that they are far from "civilized" - the massacre and exploitation of the inhabitants of the global south, the execution of women suspected of being witches, the holocaust - are these events that you are proud of?

Now here you make a "Catholic" point. The fallenness of man. Man is essentially flawed and in his nature evil and there can no real improvement in the human condition. The 20th Century certainly proves that technology's main contribution to man is more and better ways to destroy one another. The idea of true human progress is an illusion of the worst kind. Even Communism (a real worthwhile idea in theory) rose and fell into slaughter and ruin. We are indeed doomed.

Only God can save us. :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Just because the Communism may have had a hand in the development of western civilisation, does not make Communism immune to criticism, does not excuse Communism for it's loathsome actions and certainly doesn't justify it's existance.

Words can't describe how I feel about this institution. Individuals are another case entirely, but the whole, rotten edifice should come down."

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. :D

Care to actually make a point instead of brainlessly parroting me and thinking it's some kind of rebuttal?

For instance, when you say "Communism" what precisely do you mean by that? Once you've established what you mean by "Communism", please elaborate on how it contributed to the development of western civilisation.

We can go on from there, but if you decide to do so, I will start it another thread. It seems to be a common diversionary tactic of yours to compare anything revolutionary leftists criticise with "Communism".

[Bud Struggle]

Care to actually make a point instead of brainlessly parroting me and thinking it's some kind of rebuttal?

For instance, when you say "Communism" what precisely do you mean by that? Once you've established what you mean by "Communism", please elaborate on how it contributed to the development of western civilisation.

We can go on from there, but if you decide to do so, I will start it another thread. It seems to be a common diversionary tactic of yours to compare anything revolutionary leftists criticise with "Communism".

There was a very good point in my post, but it was a bit too subtle maybe for you.

FWIW: I take Communism to mean how it is generally represented in the world at large: the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, Cuba. That's the only I can take it. A billion or so people took it that way for the better part of the last century and that I feel is the fairest aproach to take.

I realize (believe) you represent Spanish anarchists of 1936, no doubt a worthy group--but hardly in the mainstream of Communist thought. As a matter of fact, from what I read in Homage to Catalonia--they seemed to have been destroyed by the Communists. Quite a confusing tale, to say the least.

When people on this board attack Catholicism I must defend the entire gamut of my beliefs--I don't say, "I can't take any responsibility for Galileo, I'm a post Vatican II Catholic!" Unfortunately, I must take the blame as well as the credit for the Catholic Church in toto. I'm expecting you Communists (or at least you Commie Club Members) to do the same for your beliefs. Is that fair?

Anyway, if you have any sugestions about the route I should take to further discussion--please advise.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The above post is the kind of crappy stuff that alienates people of this world from one another. You hate the Catholic Church, fine. I can hate Communism because of the millions butchered by them ("oo! oo! they weren't REAL Communist!" or "oo! oo! it never really happened!") Hey, I can make "excuses" too. And where does that lead us?

It's time we all realize that the orgnizations we belong to have sometimes serious problems...fair enough. The problem is really how to creat a better world with what is out there, with what we have. I hear plenty of "kill all the upper class" or "kill all the" Israelis" around here.

I'm a Catholic factory owner REALLY trying to understand how to make the world a better place. And I'm looking at you guys to help. I'll never be a Commie, but you may have some good ideas that I can use.

It's about time you Commies open your minds a bit, too. Seem the
Bourgeoisie are ahead of you on this one, too.

If you're hearing plenty of "kill all the upper class" around here, you're only paying attention to what you want. I'm not amused by your childish ranting. Opinions are won by arguments, and you have none. You continuously postulate about a forum of close-minded, obtuse teenagers. Hello. The medium of use is the internet. You can find yourself just as many brazen examples of childish and unreasonable musing on conservative, liberal, and right-libertarian forums.

The millions supposedly butchered by communism are a product of wet dreams. Provide some evidence for once and you can start comparing the acts of the Catholic Church with any communist organization of your choosing.

As for Catholicism, you can believe in whatever God you want. Polls on Rev-Left consistently show that around 85-90% of us would not interfere in religion (we're not spared of a different minority in America who want to create some Christian theocracy). But your building up a straw man from anti-communist hysteria is another matter.

Onto something reasonably weighted...


OK. The Church has a different idea of individual freedom than you do--it comes down to a different value judgment on what human life is. If you believe that human life starts at conception, then everything follows quite nicely that the human life of the baby MUST be protected above the freedom of the mother in the same way my "freedom" to drive the wrong way down a one way street is less important than the lives of the people I might endanger.
Conception is a process, not a moment. I also have to question why you think human life is unilaterally superior to the life of a different species with more cognitive abilities than said fetus, other than for biblical reasons.

A Hydatidiform mole is human, alive, and created from procreation. So is a fetus in fetu. Are you telling me a woman (or man, in the latter case) doesn't have the right to kill these organisms?


I actually find the "Communist" view point inconsistant, for example: shouldn't I as a factory owner be able do whatever I like with and in the property I own in the same way that a woman can do whatever she likes with the body she owns.People don't own their bodies. They are their bodies. Ownership implies that a woman stuck in abject poverty has the right to sell herself into slavery just to feed her children. The person she is selling her life to would then own her. Is this what you call human rights? I say this woman can, at any time, leave and negate such concept.

Furthermore, you don't have the right to be the owner of a factory - it's not a matter of deciding what you can do.


Communists make a point of "ownership" of one's body as "property".I find it hard to imagine most communists accept the capitalist notion of personal ownership. Bob was merely questioning the right-libertarian position.


How may people starved because of crop failures of the Great Leap Forward because of that nonsense? All a lot worse than Galileo's house arrest, to be sure.The crop failures were not entirely due to the Great Leap Forward. China was known as the land of the famine for a reason. The percentage of dead from '58-'60 was less than previous famines, even after the Soviet leadership withdrew its aid within a single month. Under Mao's leadership, the Chinese population also increased by near-40%. But the Western media is very selective about what they want to include.


how many real scientists were put do death because of the nonsense? You tell me. As far as I'm aware, both Mao and Stalin were products of agrarian societies where living conditions and styles were much different than they were in 1930 Britain. People are mostly a product of their environment. Much of the opposition to the Chinese and Russian communists were worse. The Chinese nationalists in particular liked to sell their own country(wo)men into slavery - after raping them, of course. In Russia, the gulag system reduced prisoner deaths beneath 1%. Under czarist Russia, like much of Europe up until the 19th century, imprisonment was only used for minor crimes - retribution came through losing body parts and oftentimes capital punishment. The fact such an extensive prison network existed was progressive in itself.


Now here you make a "Catholic" point. The fallenness of man. Man is essentially flawed and in his nature evil and there can no real improvement in the human condition. The 20th Century certainly proves that technology's main contribution to man is more and better ways to destroy one another. The idea of true human progress is an illusion of the worst kind. Even Communism (a real worthwhile idea in theory) rose and fell into slaughter and ruin. We are indeed doomed.Another wet dream that will only come into fruition once virtual reality, full automation, and Mosaic lifespans are achieved. Secular leftists don't view humans as inherently evil. If you give people power through the form of money or political might, they tend to abuse it. The fact some don't shines a light on the Christian perspective. Furthermore, believing history isn't progressive dampens all historical fact. Compare the rape, murder, and theft rates of contemporary times to those 200, 300, and 500 years ago. Material abundance certainly does result in better conditioning.

I like the position of a famous socialist Christian perspective: the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice - MLK

[Bud Struggle]

If you're hearing plenty of "kill all the upper class" around here, you're only paying attention to what you want. I'm not amused by your childish ranting. Opinions are won by arguments, and you have none. You continuously postulate about a forum of close-minded, obtuse teenagers. Hello. The medium of use is the internet. You can find yourself just as many brazen examples of childish and unreasonable musing on conservative, liberal, and right-libertarian forums.You think I'm the one ranting? :laugh:


The millions supposedly butchered by communism are a product of wet dreams. Provide some evidence for once and you can start comparing the acts of the Catholic Church with any communist organization of your choosing.

So, you deny all the deaths caused by Communism. Fine. If I were on Stormfront I suppose there would be some guy named Oden's Blood or Hitler's Scion happily denying the Holocaust. You are all the same kind of people--just posting on different websites.

OK, can we be done with the insults? I can give as well as take. You got in yours, I got in mine. (I'll give you one more shot if it would make you happy. :D)


As for Catholicism, you can believe in whatever God you want. Polls on Rev-Left consistently show that around 85-90% of us would not interfere in religion (we're not spared of a different minority in America who want to create some Christian theocracy). But your building up a straw man from anti-communist hysteria is another matter. I am not interested in any Christian theocracy in the least--but I am interested in voting my concience, and as long as I have a vote...


Onto something reasonably weighted...
Conception is a process, not a moment. I also have to question why you think human life is unilaterally superior to the life of a different species with more cognitive abilities than said fetus, other than for biblical reasons.

The idea that conception is a process, of course is your OPINION. And to an extent I agree there is a process involved. But, so is growing old a "process" but dying is a moment. I see the beginning of life at conception as a single act as I see dying as a single act--the restof life is process.

As far as life of different species goes--I really think that human life is different from everything else on earth becuse of it's self awareness and it's cognative abilities. I may feel diferently the day monkies build a zoo and put peope in them, but until then I see humans as a unique life force. And yes--special. A human life is worth more than a mouse. FWIW: I am against ANY killing of a human being by another human being. Accidents happen, but the death peanalty is as anathama to me as abortion.


A Hydatidiform mole is human, alive, and created from procreation. So is a fetus in fetu. Are you telling me a woman (or man, in the latter case) doesn't have the right to kill these organisms?

A hydatidiform mole is not a human being, true it was formed in conception but it never can be anything other than a mole. On the other hand a two day old fetus has all potentiality to be a seventy year old man. Again: if it is human (even a deformed human) it shouldn't be killed.


People don't own their bodies. They are their bodies. Ownership implies that a woman stuck in abject poverty has the right to sell herself into slavery just to feed her children. The person she is selling her life to would then own her. Is this what you call human rights? I say this woman can, at any time, leave and negate such concept.

Again, I don't see it your way. I draw a distinction between the mind and body. The slave you mention above body would be the property of the slave owner, but her mind would always be her own. She could give her mind to the slave owner, but that would be her choice. If people could OWN another person in body and mind there would never be the human striving for freedom. Slaves would always stay slaves. The mind is different from the body. I agree that a woman can leave and negate her slavery because her body is always the property of her mind.


Furthermore, you don't have the right to be the owner of a factory - it's not a matter of deciding what you can do.

Yes, as an American I have the right to own anything that's legal to own--one of those things is a factory. I have the right under the laws of the United States to BE a factory owner. So do you (if you are an American--which I assume you are.) You just don't choose to exercise your option.


I find it hard to imagine most communists accept the capitalist notion of personal ownership. Bob was merely questioning the right-libertarian position.

Could be.


The crop failures were not entirely due to the Great Leap Forward. China was known as the land of the famine for a reason. The percentage of dead from '58-'60 was less than previous famines, even after the Soviet leadership withdrew its aid within a single month. Under Mao's leadership, the Chinese population also increased by near-40%. But the Western media is very selective about what they want to include.

You are not getting what I was saying. My point wasn't about the Great Leap Forward. My point was that the Communist governments of both the Soviet Union and China used agrarian land management and genetic research that was fallicious because it fit in with their political beliefs. They overlooked Darwinism because its competition was too closely linked to Capitalist competition and problematic. They chose Lysenkoism because of it's Lamarckism example that fit in closer with the POLITICAL beliefs of the Communists. It was exactly the same kind of thing the Catholic Church did when it jailed Galileo for his science--both the Church and Communism bent science to fit political contexts. Both wrong (though the Church did it in the 15th century and the Communist did it a couple of years ago.:rolleyes:)


You tell me. As far as I'm aware, both Mao and Stalin were products of agrarian societies where living conditions and styles were much different than they were in 1930 Britain. People are mostly a product of their environment. Much of the opposition to the Chinese and Russian communists were worse. The Chinese nationalists in particular liked to sell their own country(wo)men into slavery - after raping them, of course.
In Russia, the gulag system reduced prisoner deaths beneath 1%. Under czarist Russia, like much of Europe up until the 19th century, imprisonment was only used for minor crimes - retribution came through losing body parts and oftentimes capital punishment. The fact such an extensive prison network existed was progressive in itself.

I'm not sure what your point is here, but I'm no more a fan of the Tsar or of the Emperor than you are. I'm not for bring them back, if that is what you are implying. On the other hand, I was in the Soviet Union right after if fell--I was there when the army tried to storm the Russian Parlement building, I saw the black burn marks on the side of the building. We (my wife and I) were staying with people there, in those days we always stayed with locals wherever we traveled and from what I saw from the people we met was that they could care less about the Soviet Union falling, the thing they were happy about, really happy, was that they could talk freely without the KGB watching over them. They lived in fear under Communism. (Unfortunately, they are probably back to "fear" under Putin.)


Another wet dream that will only come into fruition once virtual reality, full automation, and Mosaic lifespans are achieved. Secular leftists don't view humans as inherently evil. If you give people power through the form of money or political might, they tend to abuse it. The fact some don't shines a light on the Christian perspective. Furthermore, believing history isn't progressive dampens all historical fact. Compare the rape, murder, and theft rates of contemporary times to those 200, 300, and 500 years ago. Material abundance certainly does result in better conditioning.

Well here we disagree again. FAR more people were murdered in the 20th Century than in any previous century. At the battle the Somme a million and a quarter people were killed--at the battle Sedan 40 years before 50,000 were killed. Guns are better. War is better. Look, the Germany that brought in Hitler was a well educated, well intentioned, classic European culture and in the course of a few short years they unleashed the greatest terror EVER on civilization. The good guys won, but you seem to think that was a forgone conclusion. If things played out differently the Axis powers could have taken over--and then where would "human progress" be?

Yea, there were rapes and murders in the past, but there weren't DEATH CAMPS where millions were slaughtered bacause of some fiction of ancestry. We've been lucky.


I like the position of a famous socialist Christian perspective: the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice - MLK
And on that we CAN agree. It was a pleasure chatting with you, Gene.

[RedAnarchist]

The above post is the kind of crappy stuff that alienates people of this world from one another. You hate the Catholic Church, fine. I can hate Communism because of the millions butchered by them ("oo! oo! they weren't REAL Communist!" or "oo! oo! it never really happened!") Hey, I can make "excuses" too. And where does that lead us?

It's time we all realize that the orgnizations we belong to have sometimes serious problems...fair enough. The problem is really how to creat a better world with what is out there, with what we have. I hear plenty of "kill all the upper class" or "kill all the" Israelis" around here.

I'm a Catholic factory owner REALLY trying to understand how to make the world a better place. And I'm looking at you guys to help. I'll never be a Commie, but you may have some good ideas that I can use.

It's about time you Commies open your minds a bit, too. Seem the
Bourgeoisie are ahead of you on this one, too.

First of all, hating Catholicism does not mean hating Catholics, which would be pretty stupid personally as my dads family are Catholic.

Secondly, Anceint Greece, Ancient China and medieval Middle East have all influenced "Western" civilisations far more than the Catholic Church has.

[Bud Struggle]

First of all, hating Catholicism does not mean hating Catholics, which would be pretty stupid personally as my dads family are Catholic.

That's true. Hating Communism isn't the same as hating Communists.


Secondly, Anceint Greece, Ancient China and medieval Middle East have all influenced "Western" civilisations far more than the Catholic Church has.

Greece--yea. China--nothing, The Middle East--nothing original.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The fallenness of man. Man is essentially flawed and in his nature evil and there can no real improvement in the human condition.

Even by proper Biblical standards (I'll quote Genesis 8 here), this is so false. :laugh:

"I will no longer curse the earth because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth."

[Note that it doesn't say "the nature of man's heart" (which would contradict the Mesopotamian rehash found in Chapter 1) or "from his birth." Oh, and the "curse the earth" part parallels the "cursed be the ground for your sake" part in Chapter 3. Nowhere is it said "cursed are you."]

[Bud Struggle]

Even by proper Biblical standards (I'll quote Genesis 8 here), this is so false. :laugh:

"I will no longer curse the earth because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth."

[Note that it doesn't say "the nature of man's heart" (which would contradict the Mesopotamian rehash found in Chapter 1) or "from his birth." Oh, and the "curse the earth" part parallels the "cursed be the ground for your sake" part in Chapter 3. Nowhere is it said "cursed are you."]

Maybe you miss the point about "fallenness", maybe because of the "Jacob" thing--but Christian theology is ABOUT the falliness of man. Man sinned, and died and was risen again through Jesus Christ.

Anyway,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Joseph_Stalin_with_daughter_Svetlana%2C_1935.jpg/768px-Joseph_Stalin_with_daughter_Svetlana%2C_1935.jpg

says you are a decent guy--so happy to meet your aquaintance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Except that I'm not Jewish (even if I can appreciate their rigorous defense of Biblical context). :glare:

[Bud Struggle]

^^^ Except that I'm not Jewish (even if I can appreciate their rigorous defense of Biblical context). :glare:
DAMN!

I thought the "Jacob" was a give away. :(

There is a wonder and seductivness of sin that encapsulates human activity.

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."--Galatians 5:19-21

We are all sinners.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I used to have a PROPER bourgeois Jewish in-law, whom I learned a great contextual deal from (and which turned me away from Xianity and also organized religion in general). Does that count? :p

I won't bother to go into a Biblical-versus-New-Testament quote-fest, but you seem to be justifying the horribly misconstrued "original sin" stance. Either that, or you have a very limited understanding of the original words (plural) used to describe the s-word.

[Bud Struggle]

^^^ I used to have a Jewish in-law, whom I learned a great contextual deal from (and which turned me away from Xianity and also organized religion in general). Does that count?

I won't bother to go into a Biblical-versus-New-Testament quote-fest, but you seem to be justifying the horribly misconstrued "original sin" stance. Either that, or you have a very limited understanding of the original words (plural) used to describe the s-word.


OK, I am kind of touchy about the subject because of the Commie "venue". I don't want to disrespect our RevLeft hospitality by getting into a Bible verse slugfest either.

But, I will say that the common belief of Christians is that man's natural state is that of "FALLEN" and that our redemption come from Christ.

Otherwise--why bother with a Savior that DIED FOR OUR SINS?