by minimus 306 Replies latest jw friends
apostatethunder, my suggestion is you read a little about the history of the slave trade, especially in central america and the carribean.
google is your friend and the bible is NOT a history book
nor is it a science book. unfortunately the papal powers that be didn't realize that until well after condeming galileo as a heretic
Rbih, I know about the slave trade which of course I find despicable. But blaming the Church for it is also despicable.
About Galileo, is he really the reason you don’t like the Catholic Church? I am pretty sure he moved on with more ease than some people 5 centuries later.
is it really now? so the catholic church earlier condemns slavery, only to turn around and find biblical ways to justify stacking africans in the bowels of slave ships once the new world was "discovered" so as to help increase profits.
i don't care one way or the other for the catholic church. i deal with catholics everyday. many of whom i like
what i don't like is what you, isidore and orthodox1 said. i absolutely HATE the tone that was in the other thread, and i'm simply disgusted by your comments about pagans. not only was it offensive, but i'm very much reminded how hypocritical religious people can be. very much like the jehovah's witnesses.
"we're the one true organization! look at how LOVING we are!"
all the while either destroying pagans, forcing religious beliefs on others, waging wars, and destroying lives with cover ups, scandals and false teachings
Not all will hear Christ's voice
True. But then, not all of us are lunatics.
Rbih, I have not done any of the things you are accusing me of, neither have any of the many Catholic people I know.
If you get offended by people that believe in their religion that is your problem, don’t blame it on them.
Also, inform yourself before making conclusions, specially based on what you see in a movie. Take care.
Catholics - just a big cult led by moron in an Ivory Tower!
did i say YOU enslaved people? no
but YOU are the one who was putting out that, and i QUOTE FROM YOU:
The thing is Jesus didn’t found any Church, but he did say to Peter that he would build his congregation on him. It seems the Catholic Church (which also means Universal), is the only one that can honestly claim that was built on that rock mass, that is Peter.
sure sounds like: "we're the only ones with the truth!" to me and if that WASN'T your meaning, you had some very poorly choiced words
Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, be merciful, love your neighbor and your enemy, confess your sins to one-another, eat my flesh and drink my blood, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, "this is your mother" referring to Mary who says "all generations shall call me blessed", participate in the communion of saints, institution of the office of Peter as the head of the Church on earth....
YEP, SOUNDS LIKE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO ME!
that wold be from orthodox1...sounds very much like what you wrote.
then there's this...
People that claim to be Christians but don’t follow him, specially those in a position of teaching or shepherding others, are the wolves in sheep clothes he warned about.
and this:
Maybe paganism was superior to the Bible. When Christopher Columbus arrived in America the Indians were practicing brutal human sacrifices. Maybe they should have been left alone.
Pagan morals are also much more fun than the Christian ones, just don’t expect the same level of spiritual development or even trustworthiness from a temple prostitute, than from a Christian. If you extrapolate this to the type of society they produce, you can see clearly which one is superior to the other.
both from YOU.
so all of a sudden you want to say no one should be offended by others believing whatever they want? get real. as i've already stated in my very first response to orthodox1, i don't care what anyone believes. if you want to believe in unicorns and magic pixie dust, so be it. live and let live i say. that's part of the reason why i left the cult that claims to be the one true cult.
where i take issue is the underhanded and sneaky way orthodox1 came on here to proselytize.
where i take issue with you are the numerous false truths and the incredibly offensive statements about pagans. i mean really, do you NOT see how hypocritical and offensive that was?
facepalm. absolute face palm. you dare to say that pagans produce inferior societies, that pagans don't have the same level of spiritual development, equate them to temple prostitutes and say that they have deficient morals, but then want to trn around and say, "oh please stop persecuting me!!!"
my conclusions are based on factual evidence. the events on la amistad are very well docmented and that was NOT the only slave ship. the horrors of the slave trade are out there in REAL history books, not the one that has zero factual evidence to spport anything it states. nless you have some sort of evidence that at some point there really was a guy who walked on water and healed the sick and raised the dead.
really, there's no difference between the tales of jesus and many other pagan stories. i would argue that jesus is just a jewish ripoff of ancient egyptian mythology. or...them egyptian pagans whose societies were so far beneath the christian ones. it's rather fnny...so if christianity is not muuch more than a ripoff of jewish mythology and jewish mythology isn't much more than a ripoff of egyptian mythology which is decidedly pagan...then doesn't that mean that pagan societies aren't any better or worse than christian societies?
the majority of the population in South America are of Indian descent, it seems the main objective was never to annihilate them or rob them their land.
Well, one of three is not good for a mind as great as Apostatethunder, He who Sees Easily What I Cannot Possibly Comprehend.
You know, " inform yourself before making conclusions"
The majority of the population in South America are of Indian descent.
Ha-ha. Let's see what the CIA Factbook says about that:
Brazil (205 million people):
white 53.7%, mulatto (mixed white and black) 38.5%, black 6.2%, other (includes Japanese, Arab, Amerindian) 0.9%, unspecified 0.7% (2000 census) = 203 million non-Indians.
Argentina (42 million):
white (mostly Spanish and Italian) 97%, mestizo (mixed white and Amerindian ancestry), Amerindian, or other non-white groups 3%
40 million non-Indians
Uruguay (3 million):
white 88%, mestizo 8%, black 4%, Amerindian (practically nonexistent)
2.64 million non Indians.
Colombia: 45 million
mestizo 58%, white 20%, mulatto 14%, black 4%, mixed black-Amerindian 3%, Amerindian 1%
41 million non-Indians.
With these four countries alone, we already have 290 million non-Indian South Americans.
Because I don't feel like adding up the figures from the CIA Factbook (and because I know I don't have to), I will be using the population figure from the Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_America: 387 and a half million South Americans.
Do you want to revise your statement that "the majority of the population in South America are of Indian descent"? No?
it seems the main objective was never to annihilate them
Good hunch. The objective (not just "the main") was to make them work for the Spanish (or the Portuguese) for free. Will you please illuminate me with more light from your Great Mind?
or rob them their land.
This must be the shadow of the pure shine you just gave out. Who are you kidding?
The Conquistadores were so cruel because they, simple farmers in Spain or Portugal, were authorized by their King to take as much land as possible. The idea being that those conquistadores were still subjects of the King. The more land they grabbed, the larger the kingdom would be.
By the way, Indians were freed by the King. Formally, they were not slaves. The reason was that the King had a tug-of-war with the whites he had sent to the American continent, which he saw as mere stupid farmers. They had so much land, you see, that they could come up with the idea of creating kingdoms of their own (hence Latin American independence). So the King (and the Church) came to the rescue: the Indians were declared to have souls (by the Grace of God), but, at the same time, to be inferior, to be perpetual children who needed the guidance of the whites (and Catechism). That was why they were "entrusted" to white landlords, who, in turn were "authorized" to employ them for gain. Oh, but the Indians were the dear property of the King, their lovely father. If the Spanish conquistador didn't behave, he would not get any indians to work for him. Someone else would teach them the Good News. And what good is a farm as large as a country if there is no one to farm it?
My little mind has the facts, and Apostatethunder's doesn't?
By the way, according to the CIA Factbook:
Fertility rates in
Argentina: 2.29 (96th in the world)
Bolivia: 2.93 (65th)
Brazil: 2.16 (106th)
Chile: 1.87 (145th)
Colombia: 2.12 (111th)
Ecuador: 2.38 (91st)
Paraguay: 2.06 (120th)
Peru: 2.29 (95th)
Uruguay: 1.87 (144th)
Venezuela: 2.4 (89th)
What about India, where Roman Catholics are not the majority religious group?
2.58 (80th)
Saudi Arabia: 2.26 (100th)
South Africa (7.1% Catholics): 2.28 (97th)
Puerto Rico (85% Roman Catholics): 1.63
Norway (Roman Catholic, 1%): 1.77
Can anyone please explain how come Catholic Puerto Rico has a lower fertility rate than nominally Protestant Norway? Maybe the Pope, with his insistence in people not using contraceptives? Are Puerto Ricans specially disregarding the Pope?
Rbih, face palm? How about a Christmas tree with a dragon tail and three eyes? I am moving on now. Take care.
Dgp, you are saying that the Church is to blame for colonialism? And more so, XVI century colonialism? And based on that the current Vatican has to go?
About the birth rates, the countries with higher birth rates in the world are not the Catholic ones. Your point being?
