What more do you want from Techie sir?

Would you even believe if I told you?…or just accuse me of searching the net for the titles, even the summary is there.
You now say ‘I’ could have avoided this when it was YOU who started the shite by asking and answering then going on to STATE with AUTHORITY, that you dont know about me or my reading habits.
I have had enough of ReLIEgion, Church etc
I could care less who else are cults or what the RC or the Pope stands for, as far as I am concerned the are all one of the same…..been there done that, saw the movie, bought a tshirt.
My life is simple, live good with others, try to help those I can, while making enough to be comfortable. If an the end I am losing out on the milk and honey, so be it. If I will burn in hell…so be it.
What if I am right?

@lemuel: “There are many lies in the world, but there is always Truth.

Could you please define for us all exactly what you mean by the capitalized word Truth?

(Please forgive me for this Tech.)

Halsall:
There is only one truth. There are positions that we as human beings take and we tout them as our truth. But that does not make it Truth. For instance, there is a God or there is not a God. both conditions can not exist together. Only one can be the Truth. It is only from that position that we can go forward searching and finding. Truth is never relative; there are no shades of grey, blue or black in its composition.

To halsall:
That is why I did not give a stated definition from a dictionary or a source. For that first question was of a philosophical nature. This second question would fit more into the dictionary style of response. Something I cannot do for TRUTH is not a mere definition; it is more of a way of life and thinking. To simplify, when you turn on the light in a dark room, the darkness flees in the face of the light. This is the same with TRUTH; untruth (human conjecture) flees in the face of TRUTH.

To Hasall:
You making me sound like some practitioner of the eastern mystic arts or religion. I am not. During the course of your day much of your truth is defined by the media sources. The front page may accuse some person of a misdeed, but does that make it true. They will have facts or their facts, but these may be based on misinformation. Regardless of what you think of that person your position does not alter the truth. You would just be another misinformed person.

@lemuel… You seem to know a lot about truth.

So why then could you not (or chose not to) give me your definition of the word “Truth”?

@Lemuel
“untruth (human conjecture) flees in the face of TRUTH.” (also human conjecture in the case of the religious)

Attention! It is a disappointment to see so many eloquent dissenters with superb classroom skills, poised to unseat Aldred’s claim and then addressed everything except what he alleged. It is supposed that their professors did not teach them how to rebut. Your bible states that no man can enter the dwelling of a stong man and spoil his goods except you first bind him. How do you plan on overthrowing Aldred’s argument without addressing what he actually said? Shame on you scholars, before you fire your gun find the target.

BACK TO THE PREDOMINANT ISSUE OF SLAVERY & HOW THE BIBLE WAS MISUSED AS A PRETEXT FOR MANY BLACK FOLKS TO ARGUE OF ITS RESIGNATION TO THE DUSTBIN IS FRANKLY LUDICROUS & AN EXERCISE IN MORBID, ASININE STUPIDITY…

If that is the case, then why is there no FOCUS* on the KORAN*, the BHAGAVAD GITA*, the TIPITAKA* and/or any of the other so-called “holy” books in existence that have in one way or another – either sanctioned or was silent on the issue of “SLAVERY”??? And, where one civilization or another have been enslaved and have used their religious and philosophical tenets as justification for the suppression of other peoples under its control due to domination…

E.G. – the Qur’an states just as in Torah by Moses advises that slaves be treated well: “[F]eed them what you eat yourself and clothe them with what you wear…They are God’s people like unto you and be kind unto them.” Muhammad also freed several of his slaves, adopted one as his son, and married another. In addition, the Qur’an teaches that it is wrong to “compel your slave girls to prostitution” (24.33), and that one can gain forgiveness for killing a fellow believer by freeing a slave (4.92)…

Rodney Stark – professor of Sociology and Comparative Religion at the University of Washington in his book: “For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts, and the End of Slavery…” cite some interesting findings on this issue of slavery…(MORE ON HIS FINDINGS LATER)…

Yet, for most of us who do not take the time to see the trees from the forest get into a “MUDDLE” over semantics and due to narrow-mindedness and tunnel-vision (and in most cases, NO VISION* at all) paint pictures of absurdities, LIES* and half-baked theories which carry no foundational validity in FACT*, HISTORY* or even the said SCIENCE* many are quite to adopt as a last ditch bastion of self-aggrandizement…

EXCERPTS FROM STARK’S BOOK…

Some Catholic writers claim that it was not until 1890 that the Roman Catholic Church repudiated slavery. A British priest has charged that this did not occur until 1965.

Nonsense!

As early as the seventh century, Saint Bathilde (wife of King Clovis II) became famous for her campaign to stop slave-trading and free all slaves; in 851 Saint Anskar began his efforts to halt the Viking slave trade. That the Church willingly baptized slaves was claimed as proof that they had souls, and soon both kings and bishops—including William the Conqueror (1027-1087) and Saints Wulfstan (1009-1095) and Anselm (1033-1109)—forbade the enslavement of Christians.

Since, except for small settlements of Jews, and the Vikings in the north, everyone was at least nominally a Christian, that effectively abolished slavery in medieval Europe, except at the southern and eastern interfaces with Islam where both sides enslaved one another’s prisoners.

But even this was sometimes condemned: in the tenth century, bishops in Venice did public penance for past involvement in the Moorish slave trade and sought to prevent all Venetians from involvement in slavery. Then, in the thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas deduced that slavery was a sin, and a series of popes upheld his position, beginning in 1435 and culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537.

It is significant that in Aquinas’s day, slavery was a thing of the past or of distant lands. Consequently, he gave very little attention to the subject per se, paying more attention to serfdom, which he held to be repugnant.

However, in his overall analysis of morality in human relationships, Aquinas placed slavery in opposition to natural law, deducing that all “rational creatures” are entitled to justice. Hence he found no natural basis for the enslavement of one person rather than another, “thus removing any possible justification for slavery based on race or religion.” Right reason, not coercion, is the moral basis of authority, for “one man is not by nature ordained to another as an end.”

Here Aquinas distinguished two forms of “subjection” or authority, just and unjust. The former exists when leaders work for the advantage and benefit of their subjects. The unjust form of subjection “is that of slavery, in which the ruler manages the subject for his own [the ruler’s] advantage.” Based on the immense authority vested in Aquinas by the Church, the official view came to be that slavery is sinful.

It is true that some popes did not observe the moral obligation to oppose slavery—indeed, in 1488 Pope Innocent VIII accepted a gift of a hundred Moorish slaves from King Ferdinand of Aragon, giving some of them to his favorite cardinals. Of course, Innocent was anything but that when it came to a whole list of immoral actions.

However, laxity must not be confused with doctrine. Thus while Innocent fathered many children, he did not retract the official doctrine that the clergy should be celibate. In similar fashion, his acceptance of a gift of slaves should not be confused with official Church teachings. These were enunciated often and explicitly as they became pertinent.

During the 1430s, the Spanish colonized the Canary Islands and began to enslave the native population. This was not serfdom but true slavery of the sort that Christians and Moors had long practiced upon one another’s captives in Spain. When word of these actions reached Pope Eugene IV (1431 to 1447), he issued a bull, Sicut dudum.

The pope did not mince words. Under threat of excommunication he gave everyone involved fifteen days from receipt of his bull “to restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands…These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.

Pope Pius II (1458 to 1464) and Pope Sixtus IV (1471 to 1484) followed with additional bulls condemning enslavement of the Canary Islanders, which, obviously, had continued. What this episode displays is the weakness of papal authority at this time, not the indifference of the Church to the sin of slavery.

CONT’D

But nothing happened. Soon, in addition to the brutal exploitation of the Indians, Spanish and Portuguese slave ships began to sail between Africa and the New World. And just as overseas Catholic missionaries had aroused Rome to condemn the enslavement of Indians, similar appeals were filed concerning imported black slaves.

On April 22, 1639, Pope Urban VIII (1623 to 1644), at the request of the Jesuits of Paraguay, issued a bull Commissum nobis reaffirming the ruling by “our predecessor Paul III” that those who reduced others to slavery were subject to excommunication. Eventually, the Congregation of the Holy Office (the Roman Inquisition) even took up the matter. On March 20, 1686, it ruled in the form of questions and answers:

It is asked:

Whether it is permitted to capture by force and deceit Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one?

Answer: NO!!!

Whether it is permitted to buy, sell or make contracts in their respect Blacks or other natives who have harmed no one and been made captives by force of deceit?

Answer: NO!!!

Whether the possessors of Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one and been captured by force or deceit, are not held to set them free?

Answer: YES!!!

Whether the captors, buyers and possessors of Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one and who have been captured by force or deceit are not held to make compensation to them?

Answer: YES!!!

Nothing ambiguous here.

The problem wasn’t that the Church failed to condemn slavery; it was that few heard and most of them did not listen.

In this era, popes had little or no influence over the Spanish and the Portuguese since at that time the Spanish ruled most of Italy; in 1527, under the leadership of Charles V, they had even sacked Rome.

If the pope had little influence in Spain or Portugal, he had next to none in their New World colonies, except indirectly through the work of the religious orders.

In fact, it was illegal even to publish papal decrees “in the Spanish colonial possessions without royal consent,” and the king also appointed all of the bishops.

Nevertheless, Urban VIII’s bull was read in public by the Jesuits in Rio de Janeiro, with the result that rioters attacked the local Jesuit college and injured a number of priests.

In Santos a mob trampled the Jesuit vicar-general when he tried to publish the bull, and the Jesuits were expelled from Sao Paulo when word spread of their involvement in obtaining the bull. Even so, knowledge of the antislavery bulls and the later ruling of the Inquisition against slavery was generally limited to the clergy, especially the religious orders, and thereby had limited public impact.

Of course, the Spanish and the Portuguese were not the only slavers in the New World. And even had they been published far and wide, papal bulls had no moral force among the British and the Dutch. Thus it must be noted that the introduction of slavery into the New World did not prompt any leading Dutch or English Protestants to denounce it.

However, even though the papal bulls against slavery were hushed up in the New World, the antislavery views of the Church did have a significantly moderating effect in the Catholic Americas by means of the Code Noir and Código Negro Español .

In both cases, the Church took the lead in their formulation and enforcement, thereby demonstrating its fundamental opposition to slavery by trying to ensure “the rights of the slave and his material welfare,” and by imposing “obligations on the slave owners, limiting their control over the slave.” As Eugene Genovese put it:

“Catholicism made a profound difference in the lives of the slaves. [It] imparted to Brazilian and Spanish American slave societies an ethos…of genuine spiritual power.”

The republic flourished, but rather than becoming the basis for equality and peace, its existence offended many colonial officials and planters, and provided a tempting plum for expropriation.

Nevertheless, the Jesuits managed to forestall and outmaneuver these opposed interests for several generations. But then things began to go sour. The first step in the downfall of the republic came in 1750 when the Portuguese and Spanish signed a new treaty, redividing South America along natural boundaries.

As a result, seven of the Reductions fell within Portuguese jurisdiction. Ordered to turn these settlements over to civil authorities, the Jesuits resisted and appealed to the Portuguese and Spanish Crowns to have the Reductions spared.

But their opponents were too strong and too unscrupulous, planting rumors and false evidence of Jesuit conspiracies against both Crowns. So in 1754 the Spanish sent troops against the seven Reductions from the west, while the Portuguese advanced from the east. Both forces of European troops were defeated by the Indians, who were quite well trained in military tactics and had muskets and cannons.

Although the Jesuits had not participated in the battles, they were blamed as traitors and in response were expelled from Portugal and all Portuguese territories in 1758. Soon additional plots against the Jesuits succeeded in Spain as all members of the order were arrested early in 1667 and deported to the Papal States.

In July, colonial authorities were ready to move against the Jesuits in Latin America, and the roundup began in Buenos Aires and Cordoba. But it wasn’t until the next year that Spanish troops moved against the final twenty-three Reductions and seized the remaining Jesuits, whereupon even very sick and elderly fathers were tied to mules and transported over mountains in bad weather, many to their deaths.

Thus were the Jesuits expelled from the Western Hemisphere. Soon their republic lay in ruins-defeated and looted by civil authorities. Disheartened by their mistreatment and the loss of the Black Robed Fathers, the surviving Guaraní drifted away, many into the cities.

Of course, among the few historians to deal with the Jesuit republic are some who harp against colonialism and Catholicism, condemn the “fanatical” Jesuits for imposing religion and civilization on the “gentle” Indians, and denounce Jesuit efforts to sustain a republic as cruel paternalism and “ruthless exploitation.

But even if one were to accept the most extreme version of these claims, one is still faced with sincere and effective efforts by the Jesuits to protect the Indians against the planters and colonial authorities who wished to reduce them to servitude or to eradicate them entirely.

To have constructed an advanced Indian civilization in this historical context was quite an extraordinary feat. Moreover, the antagonistic historians at least tell about this significant historical event, while most other historians have simply ignored it.

I was able to find only two books on the subject in English written during the past thirty years, one of them translated from Portuguese and both now out of print. So far as I could discover, the only acknowledgment of the subject in the Encyclopedia Britannica was this single sentence under “Paraguay, History of”:

“During most of the colonial era, Paraguay was known chiefly for the huge Jesuit mission group of 30 reducciones.” We are not even told what “reducciones” are. As for the major works on New World slavery, all of which have bitter (and often anti-Catholic) things to say about the enslavement and abuse of Indians in Latin America: complete silence.

As with the Jewish rules about slavery, Muhammad’s admonition and example probably often mitigated the conditions of slaves in Islam as contrasted with Greece and Rome. But the fundamental morality of the institution of slavery was not in doubt. While Christian theologians were able to work their way around the biblical acceptance of slavery, they probably could not have done so had Jesus kept slaves. That Muhammad had owned slaves presented Muslim theologians with a fact that no intellectual maneuvering could overcome, even had they desired to do so…. (cf. For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery [Hardcover] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691114366/christianitytoda

@Terence M. Blackett
Let us move for summary judgment on authentication of the Christian bible. What evidence exist to prove un unknown and unseen God had initiate sacred arrangement with our human race? If we have no such mandate, on what ground are we planting seeds of faith which supposedly is to connect us with the supernatural. Are you an apologist for the spurious statements made in Genesis about the casting down of a Devil to Earth, symbolic forbidden fruit and sinful curse upon all people? It’s clear that the human sphere of life needs a panacea, to bring in cosmological love, equality, self-respect, security of all and equity. Oh, don’t say that it’s imposibile to achieve because, if we didn’t pray to an invisible, unknown God with churches everywhere, at least folks would be more coherent and knowledgable seeing the world right side up. Aldred seems to have the solution don’t you think?

This discusssion is too high for me.

I will say though that I believe in GOD the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. I believe in Heaven & Hell. I believe in Salvation for those saved by Jesus’ sacrficial death on Calvary’s cross. Obviously contrary to what is popularly taught, thought and/or believed today, there is only ONE way to Heaven. I believe ALL religions are false and GOD does indeed ‘beat up on them.’

I believe that every person who has ever lived (estimated to be over 100 Billion) will be judged by GOD Himself. As I understand it, there will be two judgments; the first one is called the Great White Throne Judgment for those who rejected the free offer of Salvation; the other one is called the Mercy Seat of Christ where the work of Christians after receiving Salvation, will be evaluated and rewarded according to Christ’s standards.

I believe in the Holy Bible. I believe GOD inspired the thoughts of those recruited to pen it (‘GOD-breathed’). In other words, Scripture emanates from the very lips of the Most High GOD. ‘Holy men of old’ was the medium which GOD chose to have His ‘manual for living’ put on paper.I believe that if a person hasn’t had his/her spiritual eyes opened by GOD Himself, Scripture will be ‘foolishness to him/her.’

I believe we’re all creatures of GOD, but not all children of His. I’m very contented with the fact that I’m of African ancestry and a born Bajan. (I’m fond of sharing with my students that if GOD was making me and asked what color He should use, my answer would be the same as I am).I believe the fact that GOD placed my parents in Barbados where I was conceived/birthed wasn’t a coincidence or happenstance. I believe it was by divine fiat. I believe that GOD is orderly and does EVERYTHING accordingly.

I believe that GOD is sovereign over His creation, therefore does as He pleases whether we agree or not, whether we understand or not, whether we like it our not. I believe that GOD is perfect in all His ways, therefore CANNOT do wrong.

I believe that this world as we know it will come to an end when GOD gives the signal to His beloved Son, Jesus Christ to return to earth to gather those who are His. I believe in eternality of the human soul. I believe that every person who has ever been born, will spend eternity in one of two places: Heaven or Hell.

I gone doh, people. GOD’s love to all. Walk Holy.

“I will say though that I believe in GOD the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. I believe in Heaven & Hell. I believe in Salvation for those saved by Jesus’ sacrficial death on Calvary’s cross. Obviously contrary to what is popularly taught, thought and/or believed today, there is only ONE way to Heaven. I believe ALL religions are false and GOD does indeed ‘beat up on them.’”

Randy do you really understand what you have just written? If you “believe all religions are false and God does indeed beat up on them” Which reliegion are you following? You have also stated that you “believe that GOD is perfect in all His ways, therefore CANNOT do wrong.” Which planet are you from? Can you show how many good deeds have GOD done for mankind? And the bad ones who did those?

@ King Terence M. Blabkett

Firing alot of blank shots from a gun is only an exercise, not designed at hitting a real target. More costic impressions is sensed in your expressions here than having a flavor of judicious facts. I can learn a thing or two from you of course, but I’m a head of you at least on one point. I accept and believe that knowledge must guide what we do, you think misapplied biblical Faith and Belief have the guiding light into kingdom of God. I suggest a course which teaches “word process”.

This video shows how the europeans stole or plagerised the spirtual concepts that form the basis of the three western religion ( Christianity ,Judiasm and Islam) from the temples of ancient Egypt and then Emperors Constantine ,Justinian , Theodius and others chiseled out or destroyed the evidence .
Terrence Blackett this video is dedicated to you.

sorry Judaism

pklerky, I found this one rather interesting and very pertinent:
http://youtu.be/e1CWBKRWIg0

The council that created Jesus

@ applepi & CO;

(THAT INCLUDES ALL THE DISCIPLES OF [“Yosef ben-Jochanan”] WHO ARE POSTING VIDEOS & INFO* TO PROP UP THEIR BELEAGUERED EDIFICE – NOT WITH HISTORICAL EVIDENCE BORNE OUT IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL FACTS* BUT WITH THE SPECIOUS CLAIMS OF ONE [ybj] WHO WE ALL KNOW IS A CONSPIRACY THEORIST OF THE WORST KIND – FOMENTING LIES USING HIEROGLYPHICAL & LEXICOGRAPHICAL MISINTERPRETATIONS AS A PRETEXT TO JUSTIFY THE DEMONIACAL ONSLAUGHT AND SALACIOUS INFAMY USED IN THE HOPE TO PERPETRATE VILLAINY UPON THE BIBLE – THE WORD OF GOD!!!

Good try GUYS*!!!

But some of us do actually have a BRAIN* and take time to read all FOUR CORNERS* of the debate unlike most who are brainwashed along IDEOLOGICAL* lines because it panders to their shallow sensibilities…

When folks are looking for “HOOKS” to hang their “DOUBTS” on – there is a vast array of every kind in STOCK* and needless to say, there’s nothing NEW* here – just the same ‘ole, same ‘ole trash that has been thrown about since the 1970’s…

FOR ALL THE EGYPTOLOGISTS WHO ARE STILL TRYING TO CLAIM A DIRECTLY SOVEREIGN “genealogical” ALLIANCE BETWEEN SEMETIC PEOPLE & NUBIAN PEOPLE AS TO WHO WERE THE TRUE RULERS OF EGYPT*- PLEASE BRING YOUR PALEOANTHROPOLOGICAL EVIDENCE!!!

Meantime, here’s a few articles for you cogitate on…

Yosef ben-Jochanan (hereafter YBJ) is a conspiracy theorist. He is in this specific coterie of writers who insist that true history has been altered by a racist establishment that is hiding such facts as:

“The ancient Egyptians were black. This is the thesis of another of YBJ’s books, Black Man of the Nile. In actuality, the ancient Egyptians were somewhat tan- or olive-skinned, as their tomb paintings clearly illustrate, where it is clear that they distinguish themselves from their Ethiopian counterparts…”

READ MORE: http://www.tektonics.org/af/drben01.html

Is Genesis merely a rip-off of other ANE lit?

Most of the skeptics (and atheists) believe that Old Testament writers borrowed from the “Epic of Gilgamesh” and other pagan sources found “at least one thousand years before the Old Testament”… They often tell me: “Why do you believe a book that contains Sumerian/pagan stories” … They say: “especially Genesis 2:5-23 has amazing similarities with religion of Sumerians :There was a Sumerian “paradise” called DILMUN and a Goddess who made 8 vegetables in a garden, one of the Gods was sick (He has a problem with his RIB) The Goddess cured his RIB and that’s why she was called ‘woman of life’(NINTI) so The RIB story in Torah borrowed from this source even the story of eating apple is of pagan origin and according to Sumerian legends the first human created from dust JUST LIKE TORAH SAYS”….

READ MORE: http://christianthinktank.com/gilgymess.html

@TMB
“THAT INCLUDES ALL THE DISCIPLES OF [“Yosef ben-Jochanan”] WHO ARE POSTING VIDEOS & INFO* TO PROP UP THEIR BELEAGUERED EDIFICE…”

Well! Well! Well! Edifice? That is a laugh. What do you know about Yosef ben-Jochanan? Did you go to Egypt and examine the evidence for yourself? Did you spend a lifetime learning the relevant languages? Have you had a look at the original scrolls and records? Did you travel all over the world in search of evidence and knowledge? All this Dr. Ben did. Really, you think that trying to stick to your doubt should drive you to disrespect this man? This is something you would not want for yourself. Such is the folly of modern day Christians and your new age religion.

By the way, Dr. Ben does not have disciples when last I checked. As a matter of fact, he is well retired and what you may see of Dr. Ben now that you have internet, is more than 20 years old (I would dare say, some of the findings is as much as forty years old).

Dr. Ben is in his 80s, what you see is when he was in his prime. I have therefore lived with this information before I reached 20 years old. This is not a come-lately situation for me. I have had time to study it and while you would prefer to be indoctrinated CIA style, I would prefer to hear from someone I can identify with, who has seen the works and don’t have an imperialist agenda.