Exactly, we didnt see a mass movement away from slavery until after the enlightenment, which was a secular movement. Without the enlightenment we would have slavery today.
The absence of a mention sounds like an odd reason for rejection. Hell, America was never mentioned in any of the Big 3 religions, yet here we are !!
What was the punishment for the sin of redundancy?
The Catholic church used to ban all sorts of books. I believe the index has been abolished, but in any case, things like heliocentric solar system are permitted to be read. They also insisted on meatless Fridays but that has been abolished.
Orthodox Jews seem to take every clause of the Pentateuch seriously. Except for the capital punishment. This reminds me of something I am curious about. Is there any biblical warrant for going from the prohibition against cooking a kid in its mother’s milk to the general prohibition of eating meat and milk in the same meal? Or is it just interpretation gone wild?
I’m sure a ‘real Jew’ will come along soon with all the fancy official terminology but, basically there are the hard rules from the Torah that you actually can’t break, and then there are additional rules created after the Torah that give a sort of ‘neutral zone’ buffer extending certain rules so that it’s easier to avoid breaking the actual rule. Sort of like if the Torah says “don’t use green crayons” they might say “don’t use yellow or blue crayons either, just to be safe”.
In the same way, by avoiding milk and meat in the same meal, you are making it less likely that you will break the actual rule.
A big part of it is the fact that the rule is mentioned three times, and there are other prohibitions about blood.
A long time ago it used to be required by most religions to worship your ruler as a god, but that is not the case in most of the world today.
Number43 writes:
> A long time ago it used to be required by most religions to worship your ruler as
> a god, but that is not the case in most of the world today.
Where? What religions? What rulers? In other words, cite? This is one more example of what a lot of posters are doing in this thread - coming up with a few cases of something that some religion somewhere sometime did (which often they only have a vague memory of reading about long ago) and citing it as if it were universal at some point. The history of religion is so long and so varied that it’s possible to come up with an example of about anything happening at some point. What does this all prove - that the history of religion is filled with confusion and contradiction? Of course, it is, but then the history of human thought in general is filled with confusion and contraction.
Living in Amish country I can think of one.
Stoning. Twice.
The Roman Emperors and the Egyptian Pharaohs were considered Gods. I know that at least in the case of the Romans, this wasn;t taken all that seriously in many cases.
Heck, we dont even need to go that far in the past. I recently was reading about someone who grew up in communist Romania and how her mother and others literally prayed to Ceauşescu, as if he were a saint or a god. The connection between political power and religion/worship has old roots. Older than the secular traditions of the enlightenment.
Not to mention things like the divine right of kings, son of heaven mandate, etc.
North Korea’s rulers have had a similar personality cult/quasi-religion built around them.
sex with yourself
sex outside marriage
sex with someones wife
sex for fun (catholics anyway)
Not for several decades.
Yes and no. It’s loosened up some, but see “2) For single persons” in this document, about halfway down, which includes this passage:
.*…the Church teaches that genital sexual union ‘is only legitimate if a definitive community of life [i.e., marriage] has been established between the man and the woman’ "(Human Sexuality, 53). According to the Church and societal mores it is neither appropriate to procreate children without the security of a stable two-parent home nor is it truly, wholly unitive to make love prior to or apart from the full commitment of marriage.
Thus, participation in nonmarital sex is not an acceptable way to live chastely as a single person… *
Not to mention Hiritheto (sp?) the Emporor of Japan during WWII
I dispute the claim that the personality cults of Romania and South Korea should be considered religions.
Sure, but what I said is that the RC Church has for some decades now accepted sex for the sake of sex, fun and love between married couples.
Thus “*sex for fun (catholics anyway) *” is outdated- married couples can have sex just for fun in todays world.
I did not question “sex outside marriage sex with someones wife” both of which are general no-nos in most religions.
Wendell Wagner- I concur.
Touch dancing - ballroom and swing and such - was anathema to fundies back when is was a mass phenomenon. Now that it’s a relatively conservative subculture, no problem.