Religion
Related: About this forumPope Francis uses new year mass to condemn slavery and human trafficking
Source: Reuters
Reuters
The Guardian, Thursday 1 January 2015 13.42 GMT
Pope Francis has urged people of all religions and cultures to unite to fight modern slavery and human trafficking, saying in his first mass of 2015 that everyone has a God-given right to be free.
The service at St Peters Basilica marks the Roman Catholic churchs World Day of Peace. This years theme is No Longer Slaves, but Brothers and Sisters.
All of us are called (by God) to be free, all are called to be sons and daughters, and each, according to his or her own responsibilities, is called to combat modern forms of enslavement. From every people, culture and religion, let us join our forces, he said.
Last month Francis appealed to consumers to shun low-cost goods that may be the product of forced labour or other forms of exploitation.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/01/pope-francis-new-year-mass-slavery-human-trafficking
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I like that there were peace marches into Vatican City. Would like to know more about that.
I wonder if the chant was "Knees down, don't poke".
cbayer
(146,218 posts)from laughing
They may need to update their weapons, as well.
TexasProgresive
(12,148 posts)And not all wear that uniform.
Sword
Command baton
Partisan
Halberd
Flamberge
Cuirass with spaulders
Modern arms
Vetterli rifle (Retired from service)
Mauser 98k (Retired from service)
Dreyse M1907 (Retired from service)
Suomi KP/-31 (Retired from service)
SIG MKMS (Retired from service)
Karabiner K31 (Maintained in inventory)
SIG P220 (P75)
Glock 19
Steyr TMP
Heckler & Koch MP5A3
Heckler & Koch MP7A1
SIG SG 550
SIG SG 552
Less-than-lethal weapons
Pepper spray
Tear gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Guard#Modern_arms
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I am sure that they are a very competent and well trained security force.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Medieval attire.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)If he means what he says, then he has to revise the Bible. He at least has to address these quotes from the Bible. He has to say the Bible has flaws. He has to say the Bible is not the "word of God" but the word of men.
Leviticus 25:44-46
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.
Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,
Colossians 4:1
Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.
Titus 2 -10
Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.
Exodus 21:1-36
Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,
Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)He doesn't have to change anything. The bible is full of contradictions and the parts about slavery have to be read in the cultural and historical context in which they were written.
Taking a stand against slavery and human trafficking is a very good and very christian thing to do.
I'm am sure that if he had the time, he would be glad to sit down and address your concerns with you. Where did you get the idea that he was a literalist?
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)Any time someone quotes the Bible without qualification , they are a literalist. That includes the Pope. He can't ignore these quotes from the Bible. If he wants to dismiss them because of the cultural and historical context in which they were written, then why doesn't he address the homophobia of the Bible for the same reasons. It is dishonest to give him a free pass on one issue while allowing him to continue other equally vile sentiments the Holy Book has.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You just quoted the bible. Are you a literalist? I suspect you may be.
You are right that he can not ignore those quotes and I am sure that he is very familiar with them. In terms of addressing homophobia, I would very much like to see him do that as well.
I am not dishonest. I am able to see individuals with all their complexities and their grey areas. I don't generally paint an individual with a single brush because I disagree with some of what they say or do.
What is dishonest is to condemn someone as all bad or all good based only on some parts of them in order to promote your personal and biased agenda.
I'm giving him more than a free pass for this, I'm giving him a big kudos. I don't allow him to do anything, but I will voice my opposition when he takes positions with which I disagree.
What, do you think he is god or something?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)But you have a very odd definition of literalist.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/05/05/pope-insists-bibles-truth-is-found-in-its-totality/
While Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it is true, one cannot take individual biblical quotes or passages and say each one is literally true, Pope Benedict XVI said.
It is possible to perceive the Sacred Scriptures as the word of God only by looking at the Bible as a whole, a totality in which the individual elements enlighten each other and open the way to understanding, the Pope wrote in a message to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
It is not possible to apply the criterion of inspiration or of absolute truth in a mechanical way, extrapolating a single phrase or expression, the Pope wrote in the message released today at the Vatican.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Is taking a stand against equality a very good and christian thing to do too?
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1500200.htm
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)You can't run me out of here like you did in that other group when I made the same assertions.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I have no super powers in here.
But your i could think of no other words for your post.
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)Or will you cop out like the sailor and say, "never mind."
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)distinguish allegory from history.
It's a problem for all literalists.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)That is a major difference between Catholics and many protestants.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I understand that the catholic church does not teach literalism.
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)This isn't a case of taking them literally, it is a case of outright reprehensible belief that has no business in a Holy book.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am a gay man but I don't believe in the verses that say my being gay is a sin.
There many things in the bible I don't sgree with but there is more that I do,
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)The Bible has outdated ideas in its pages. Why won't the Pope or any other preacher say that? If they have, can you supply a link?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Christian clergy have made clear that slavery is wrong.
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)The majority of clergy continues to pull qoutes from the Bible to condemn homosexuality. And they use those quotes literally. Must make you feel just a little squeemish.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)I read that thread about what theists would like atheists to understand. I can see where theists hold some of the same progressive ideals as non-believers. I still see hypocrisy, right here in this thread. When I point out vile verses in the bible that I think should be condemned by progressives, I get a cop out from the sailor and a "Oh Lord help me!" from you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)That is what got me.
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)And take out all those nasty bits.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)It's been done before. Certain Gospels have been deleted in the past.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I would not be fore it nor would a clear majority of Christians.
You would never get agreement on it.
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)The ugliness stays. The cancer is never cured.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)Sure. That is what is so superior about science. It grows as new knowledge appears. It does not stay rooted in historical times. It does not perpetuate old thinking and try to dismiss bad science as just one of those things. But like you say, religion will never keep up. It took the church over 400 years to apologize to Galileo.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We don't live in the dark ages.
Religious people don't all stand still.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)why non-believers like me have no respect for those that share your position.
The ugliness stays. The cancer is never cured.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)In addition, when any of you "non literalists" decide to ignore, re-interpret, or otherwise revise "the scriptures" you are doing just that: modifying them to suit your purposes.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am interpeting it. I am using my own mind to decide what I think is true and relevant for today's world.
I maybe a literalist on the gospels but not the entire bible.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Cite your source.
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)The lost books of the bible.
OK, they were never in the Bible officially. Still, don't you think it's time for a revision?
I think it's time for literalists to learn to read historical documents in both social and literary context. Exodus is the only foundation epic based on the freeing of a slave population. In Luke, Jesus, quoting Isaiah, declares that he has come to free captives and the oppressed. That includes slaves.
How'd you miss those passages?
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)Someone should. I used to hold some beliefs that I am not proud of. I attribute it to my youth and upbringing. I don't hold those views any more. It's time for the Bible to grow up. I thing it is a form of apologia to wave it off citing historicity or literalism. Acknowledge what is said and actually come out and say it was wrong. Slavery was never right, I don't care when it happened. As long as these quotes are in the Bible, some shit disturber can condemn homosexuality and wave the Bible as his shield. Just like the Pope does.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Jesus did, however, heal a Roman Centurion's "beloved youth,"so he seems to have been just fine with LGBT people.
David and Jonathan don't seem to have been "just good friends," either.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)as you never provide any sources for any of your assertions, no thanks.
Is it your contention that there have been no modifications to any parts of the OT and NT over the last 2500 years?
okasha
(11,573 posts)I found the footnote in the Wiki article on Rhyme that you misinterpreted to make your erroneous clairm that Aristophanes wrote The Wasps in rhymed verse. No wonder you refused to cite your source! How embarrassing that would have been!
Did I say "that there have been no modifications to any parts of the.OT and NT over the last 2500 yeas?". No, Warren, I didn't say that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You want me to condemn those verses. No problem. I totally and absolutely condemn them.
The hypocrisy, cartoon man, is in condemning a literal interpretation of the bible while holding one yourself.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The majority of clergy do not pull out quotes to condemn homosexuality.
And the numbers the support GLBT marriage rights is growing pretty exponentially.
Does misrepresenting the position of "the majority of clergy" by making up information make you a little squeamish?
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)He continues to condemn homosexuality. He probably expects all the other priests in the RC to back him up.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The pope does not yet endorse GLBT marriage equality, but he is not supported by all the other priests in the RCC.
Give him time, he might come around just like all those other denominations have.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Pope Francis made headlines this weekend when he told reporters that if a priest is gay and seeks the Lord, who am I to judge?
On Tuesday, the Morning Joe panel weighed in on the shift and what it means for the future of the Church.
I think this statement goes not only to gay priests in the Catholic Church, but a much larger world view that the pope is willing to express, host Joe Scarborough said. The statement who am I to judge? is an unassailable statement, because it comes straight out of Matthew.
The New York Times Jeremy Peters agreed, remarking that the popes wording hinted to a more accepting and open view than the pope conveyed.
I found it so striking, Peters added. He used the word gay, the English word gay. He was speaking in Italian and thats a word that even some of our own Supreme Court justices wont use because they get too squeamish about it and they use the word a lot of gay people consider to be pejorative which is homosexual.
SNIP
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)the Church and recognized for their gifts.
It was Church conservatives who've tried to backtrack on what the Pope has said. There is an ongoing battle between the Pope and these conservatives on a number of fronts.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Something that specifically quotes him as condemning homosexuality would be most helpful, because you have made this statement repeatedly but provide not a shred of evidence to support it.
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)I was disappointed in this statement but further discussion did provide some clarification. He did not take the position of condemning homosexuality, as you repeatedly state, but did walk back some of his earlier more positive statements.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Here's a clue. Do a google search for "the bible is not literal" and you will find innumerable links to religious scholars and leaders that reject literalism.
And while you are at it, you can do the same search with the word pope or catholic in there so that you can educate yourself on the RCC's position regarding literalism.
You are the literalist, along with about 30% of the US population. Everyone else believes it has to be read critically and interpreted in light of the time it was written.
It is not surprising that you would find some reason to not support what the pope is doing and saying about slavery and human trafficking, but it's pretty tragic.
I'm not going to do your homework for you, but since you asked for a link specifically about the pope, here you go. It's Benedict in 2011:
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/7757.21583.131.0/europe/vatican/pope-dont-take-bible-literally?preview
Did you even read that article? I found nothing in it that would dismiss those earlier quotes I posted. The pope still contends that homosexuality is wrong. Where does he get that idea?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)old testament passages on slavery. He probably just assumed that anyone who could think critically would understand that he was endorsing a position which completely contradicted those passages.
I am sure if you text the pope, he will revise his statement to make it clear to you that he doesn't support those passages.
I reject the pope's position on GLBT marriage equality and hope that it will change over time, but I am not so rigid that I will condemn everything he does because I don't like some of it.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)literally true.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/05/05/pope-insists-bibles-truth-is-found-in-its-totality/
While Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it is true, one cannot take individual biblical quotes or passages and say each one is literally true, Pope Benedict XVI said.
It is possible to perceive the Sacred Scriptures as the word of God only by looking at the Bible as a whole, a totality in which the individual elements enlighten each other and open the way to understanding, the Pope wrote in a message to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
It is not possible to apply the criterion of inspiration or of absolute truth in a mechanical way, extrapolating a single phrase or expression, the Pope wrote in the message released today at the Vatican.
pinto
(106,886 posts)All of us are called (by God) to be free, all are called to be sons and daughters, and each, according to his or her own responsibilities, is called to combat modern forms of enslavement. From every people, culture and religion, let us join our forces, he said.
A quote from the Pope, for what it's worth.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You probably wish I would, but I won't, cartoon man.
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)There were two parts to that quote, one addressed you, and the other addressed HR.
You did indeed cop out, and HR did indeed say something similar to "never mind".
cbayer
(146,218 posts)This is what you said:
I know that I am "the sailor", so the "cop out" and "never mind" are both attributed to me. Tell me how I "copped out"? I answered you directly.
I have no idea who HR is.
Now, excuse me. I have to go water board some of my slaves. I specifically asked for 2 olives, and they gave me only 1.
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)I won't follow that with a remark like "how you think I am stupid"
Answer: HRMJustin
Anytime someone tries to deflect something by saying, Oh, it was just part of the historical times, that is a Copout with a capital "C".
cbayer
(146,218 posts)bible is a Copout, then you are a literalist.
As to HR (I've never seen him referred to that way), your comment was directed at me, not him. You just can't alter the truth of that.
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)First, the reply was to HR, not you.
Or will you cop out like the sailor and say, "never mind."
Or will you cop out like the sailor: this part refers to you.
and say, "never mind.": will you, HR, say, "never mind."
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Sorry, my bad.
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Or was it just a "cop out" because you couldn't counter what we were saying to you?
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)I can point to vile quotes from the Bible. Point out some vile quotes by me. I admit to being mean sometimes, but I never endorsed slavery or homophobia. Nor did I ever apologize for such vile positions by saying they were OK in the past. They were always vile, and the Bible, and the religions based on it must own them.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You do not endorse slavery or homophobia. Bravo, neither do I. I would actually venture a guess that no one here does.
You are a literalist. You take the position that if one embraces anything from the bible, then they must embrace it all. 30% of people in the US agree with you. The other 70% have a more nuanced view based on critical thinking.
Is there anything in the bible you think is very positive and that you can really agree with?
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)Yes, but it doesn't need a deity to be there in the first place. You know, things like love thy neighbor.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are quite a few things in the bible that I like, that have spoken to me, that have seen me through rough times.
There are also quite a few things that I find pretty horrifying and really repulse me.
I don't relate any of it to a deity, because I have no specific beliefs about a deity.
There are other books that I have a similar relationship with. I can't think of a single book that I am 100% on board with. For that to happen, I guess I would have to write it myself.
There are literalists out there, but I think it's important to recognize that the vast majority of people do not read the bible literally, including the pope. There are many who would love to revise it, but I think that is highly unlikely to happen. So, in light of that, I am glad that people read it and use it with discretion as to what to embrace and what to reject.
Bryce Butler
(338 posts)On Thu Jan 1, 2015, 04:15 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
I'm calling BS on the Pope
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=174565
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Check the date. This is 2015.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jan 1, 2015, 04:29 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The bible is not opposed to slavery, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be. It does mean that we need to cite something other than bible in our objections though. I think that is the point of this post.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yes it is 2015 - what's the point of the alert? It's pinto's opinion. You don't like it, tell pinto.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Cartoonist is debating the post. Sharing biblical evidence to support his claim.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why was this post alerted on?
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Good cause!
jen1980
(77 posts)Very, very angry!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)they support slavery and human trafficking.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)and Pope Francis has said we shouldn't purchase those products.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I didn't read it that way.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)"Last month Francis appealed to consumers to shun low-cost goods that may be the product of forced labour or other forms of exploitation."
That's pretty clear -- and won't be welcomed by corporations that rely on forced labor, or their supporters.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's a back door approach to forced and unfair labor, not a direct endorsement of slavery or human trafficking.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)otherwise, who cares what he thinks about anything?
Seriously, unless they are a member of his church, why would anyone care what he thinks?