6 ms·

The article specifies that the tribe in question had more women than men. I don't understand why the Jesuits made monogamy a requirement for baptism. The idea

by xamuel 7y ago

The article specifies that the tribe in question had more women than men. I don't understand why the Jesuits made monogamy a requirement for baptism. The idea of having any sort of "litmus test" at all for baptism is a blatant contradiction, it's as if they never read their own Bible, or they would know the example of the apostle Philip, who, in Acts 8:26-38, encounters an Ethiopian court official travelling back to Ethiopia, briefly joins him in his chariot, tells him about Jesus, and then: 'As they traveled along the road and came to some water, the eunuch said, "Look, here is water! What is there to prevent me from being baptized?" And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.' The Jesuits seem to have things completely backwards. A man cannot turn away from sinning just by his own sheer willpower. We are all corrupted since Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden, and it is utterly hopeless to try to be "good people" without the intervention of the Holy Spirit. >Christianity was always a "slave religion" Quite appropriately so since we are all slaves to sin, not to mention all sorts of other insidious dystopian 21st century slavemasters. If you're some kind of Marvel Superhero with absolute unchecked personal sovereignty then I guess you should go worship Zeus or something, but I know for absolute certain I'm not such a superhero.

newvoiceoldphne 7y ago
Polygamy leaves a very angry pool of low status males. Not very good for those in power
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ryanackley 7y ago
  This isn't accurate at all according to the article. In this particular place and time, women outnumbered men. I'm assuming it's because men took on some dangerous role that women didn't (war, hunting, etc.) “Since I have been preaching…that a man should have only one wife I have not been well received by the women; for, since they are more numerous than the men, if a man can only marry one of them, the others will have to suffer. Therefore this doctrine is not according to their liking.”
  - sersi 7y ago
    What would be interesting would be to see if this was typical of many societies that practiced polygamy. I could imagine that men taking more dangerous risky occupations and having higher mortality might have been a constant during much of human history.
  - cdirkx 7y ago
    > assuming it's because men took on some dangerous role that women didn't (war, hunting, etc.) One possible hypothesis is that polygamy itself is the cause of this: the higher competition for wives drives the men to extremer forms of acquiring status (war, hunting, etc).
    - ryanackley 7y ago
      I'm skeptical, the indigenous chief who is the subject of the article makes it very clear he wished he only had one wife but he can't get rid of the other two. One of the premises of the article is that polygamy was probably not a form of sex slavery but rather a social necessity.
- lurquer 7y ago
  Bingo. Wise societies forbid polygamy as it results in the top 10% of males having women, and the lower 90% being -- to use a modern 4chan-ish word -- INCELS. Of course, one doesn't need to condone polygamy to see this phenomena occur... liberalized divorce laws will suffice. you just spread the polygamy out over time. That is, when there is nothing shame in dating/marrying a divorced guy, you'll end up with a smaller and smaller percentage of men getting women, and a larger and larger group of men living in their parents basement hoping that some woman -- any woman -- will swipe them on tinder. This cohort of young men will prove to be very detrimental to society.
nashashmi 7y ago
> Christianity was always a "slave religion" The first adopters of most religions are those who have the least to lose. > We are all corrupted since Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden, That's a more contemporary interpretation. Literal interpretation is the fruit gave them knowledge. They realize of their shame. And humans make mistakes. > I don't understand why the Jesuits made monogomy a requirement for baptism. All people who try to implement certain rules and procedures get hung up on variety of details even if it doesn't make a difference.
- naringas 7y ago
  I like this interpretation: > when they bit the apple they realized the cost of everything they've been consuming up that point. It was the bill for living in the garden.
  - aetherspawn 7y ago
    Their eyes were not opened in the sense that they received knowledge (Adam had already been trusted with maintaining the Earth, presiding over and naming all of the animals on Earth - a task that can not be performed by a monkey. Moreover Adam was already capable of intelligent dialogue and reasoning about concepts such as loneliness, as well as some poetic production “this is at last bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”), but rather that they had been lied to by the serpent who was actually Satan (the original lie: “your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad”). This would have been a convincing lie, as it could have easily been reasoned that serpents do not talk and hence perhaps the serpent ate the fruit and now talks from first hand experience. Of course this were not the case because we know that the serpent were used as a puppet by other references. Eating the fruit didn’t give them any knowledge of good and bad - they already knew that disobeying God was bad. Otherwise punishing them would have been unjust. Interpret the lie this way: anyone deciding for themselves what is good or bad actually then “knows what is good or bad” (challenging objective morality). Moreso Eve was tempted by the prospect to “be like God”, having no doubt observed the activity of the spirit creatures in the garden. Some believe that the resulting feeling of nakedness and desire to “hide from the face of God” was then wanting to avoid fronting up to God because they feared the consequences and felt highly insecure, in much the same way that a toddler (or a puppy) instinctively hides or tries to cover themselves due to guilt if they do wrong. After all, to literally feel naked would be unusual because they are completely alone (in a physical sense) in the garden, so there is nobody to spy upon them. Now, think about this: if Adam was not deceived (in 1 Tim 2:14 it says Adam was not deceived) but Eve was deceived and had now sinned (Gen 3:13), and Eve offered the fruit to Adam not immediately but some time afterwards, did he not have a choice between pleasing God or pleasing his beautiful wife? And as for any typical love story he chose to grow old and die with his wife rather than allow Eve to be subjected to death alone. This is my favourite love story by the way.
jancsika 7y ago
> 21st century slavemasters Speaking of the 21st Century... Can you name any Christian denomination in the 21st Century who publicly and proudly connect the fish and loaves parable with the ethics of file sharing? I'm most interested in an interpretation that takes the literalist stance that Jesus started with a bounded amount and copied it for zero marginal cost. (And we know copying happened because more crusts came back than went out.)
- andrewflnr 7y ago
  The loaves and fishes miracle started with the materials being freely given, which is not really the case in scenarios where file sharing is ethically dicey. Really not a solid comparison, I would say.
  - jancsika 7y ago
    Sci-hub is about the most solid comparison I can think of (given a few moments to consider the comparison). But it's not quite right because the articles being shared are from research done for the public good which were typically already paid for by the public good. In the parable nobody paid ahead of time for the future possibility of the miracle feeding everyone. But that's a difference in the opposite direction from your "ethically dicey" comment. Jesus' miracle was way more radical than doing an end-run around an anachronistic business model to redistribute research the public already paid to get.
    - andrewflnr 7y ago
      Interesting point. I lean towards agreeing that sci-hub is ethical civil disobedience on that basis. That's not a point about file sharing overall, though, nor (I think) do you need the loaves and fishes to justify it.
- xamuel 7y ago
  Not exactly what you're asking, and not meant as an endorsement, but I've heard the following theory, which at least seems plausible. The theory goes that when the multitude followed Jesus into the wilderness, each individual brought his own bread, but kept it secret, not wanting to share it. Jesus knew that each man had his own bread but that no-one wanted to share it. So according to this theory, it was actually sarcasm when Jesus said: "I have compassion for this crowd, because they have already been with Me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may faint along the way." (Matthew 15:32) Knowing the people had secret bread, Jesus took His disciples' paltry seven loaves of bread, blessed and broke them, and instructed the disciples to distribute them. Each person was so ashamed then (according to the theory) that he ate his own bread, rather than take the portion of the disciples' bread that came around. Some were even so ashamed of their greed, that they added some of their own bread to the disciples', so that: "They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. A total of four thousand men were fed, in addition to women and children." (15:37-38)
andrepd 7y ago
>A man cannot turn away from sinning just by his own sheer willpower. We are all corrupted since Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden, and it is utterly hopeless to try to be "good people" without the intervention of the Holy Spirit. >Quite appropriately so since we are all slaves to sin This to me is terrifying and revolting to read. How can anybody believe this sort of nonsense, and worse: harmful nonsense at that. We are all slaves to some mythological original sin, we cannot improve ourselves, we are doomed, we need a magical force from above to descend and save us all... Completely contrary to my personal ethics, completely contrary to the mindset necessary for progress (nobody is going to save us; there is nobody else, only us; we need to roll up our sleeves and improve our shitty world, because if we don't do it then nobody will, etc). But then again, that's only my opinion. The difference being I upvoted you for sharing your point of view, while the other guy seems to have been flagged to silence...
- jessaustin 7y ago
  The only doctrine I believe anymore is that of original sin. I've spent too much time among humans to imagine there are any who aren't broken.
  - vageli 7y ago
    > The only doctrine I believe anymore is that of original sin. I've spent too much time among humans to imagine there are any who aren't broken. But your belief is that we are born broken, and not that it is the world that breaks us?
    - bobthechef 7y ago
      And how is the world that it could break us? The world is made of broken men. We are born broken, that is, with a propensity toward sin.
      - Klinky 7y ago
        That's just far too simplistic. Child abuse, mental illness, PTSD from traumatic experiences, traumatic brain injury, can all lead to impulsive erratic behaviors. Sin is also vague, and biblical sin is often completely disconnected from the actual cause of why someone is making poor choices.
ajsdj 7y ago
> it is utterly hopeless to try to be "good people" without the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Especially if the people inventing such nonsense get prime real estate locations and a carefree life.
goto11 7y ago
> it's as if they never read their own Bible Well Jesus never baptized anybody and never said anything about baptism. Edit: Sorry, I was wrong about the last part!
- xamuel 7y ago
  You are mistaken because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. Christ spoke many times about baptism, even in the very final climax of the Gospel of Matthew. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)
  - goto11 7y ago
    > You are mistaken because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. Correct on both counts, I admit!
- lurquer 7y ago
  Read the Bible before commenting on it. Otherwise, you'll sound foolish. In regard to Jesus and baptism, start with Mark 16:16.

by xamuel 7y ago

newvoiceoldphne 7y ago

Polygamy leaves a very angry pool of low status males. Not very good for those in power

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ryanackley 7y ago
This isn't accurate at all according to the article. In this particular place and time, women outnumbered men. I'm assuming it's because men took on some dangerous role that women didn't (war, hunting, etc.) “Since I have been preaching…that a man should have only one wife I have not been well received by the women; for, since they are more numerous than the men, if a man can only marry one of them, the others will have to suffer. Therefore this doctrine is not according to their liking.”
- sersi 7y ago
  What would be interesting would be to see if this was typical of many societies that practiced polygamy. I could imagine that men taking more dangerous risky occupations and having higher mortality might have been a constant during much of human history.
- cdirkx 7y ago
  > assuming it's because men took on some dangerous role that women didn't (war, hunting, etc.) One possible hypothesis is that polygamy itself is the cause of this: the higher competition for wives drives the men to extremer forms of acquiring status (war, hunting, etc).
  - ryanackley 7y ago
    I'm skeptical, the indigenous chief who is the subject of the article makes it very clear he wished he only had one wife but he can't get rid of the other two. One of the premises of the article is that polygamy was probably not a form of sex slavery but rather a social necessity.
lurquer 7y ago
Bingo. Wise societies forbid polygamy as it results in the top 10% of males having women, and the lower 90% being -- to use a modern 4chan-ish word -- INCELS. Of course, one doesn't need to condone polygamy to see this phenomena occur... liberalized divorce laws will suffice. you just spread the polygamy out over time. That is, when there is nothing shame in dating/marrying a divorced guy, you'll end up with a smaller and smaller percentage of men getting women, and a larger and larger group of men living in their parents basement hoping that some woman -- any woman -- will swipe them on tinder. This cohort of young men will prove to be very detrimental to society.

nashashmi 7y ago

> Christianity was always a "slave religion" The first adopters of most religions are those who have the least to lose. > We are all corrupted since Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden, That's a more contemporary interpretation. Literal interpretation is the fruit gave them knowledge. They realize of their shame. And humans make mistakes. > I don't understand why the Jesuits made monogomy a requirement for baptism. All people who try to implement certain rules and procedures get hung up on variety of details even if it doesn't make a difference.

naringas 7y ago
I like this interpretation: > when they bit the apple they realized the cost of everything they've been consuming up that point. It was the bill for living in the garden.
- aetherspawn 7y ago
  Their eyes were not opened in the sense that they received knowledge (Adam had already been trusted with maintaining the Earth, presiding over and naming all of the animals on Earth - a task that can not be performed by a monkey. Moreover Adam was already capable of intelligent dialogue and reasoning about concepts such as loneliness, as well as some poetic production “this is at last bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”), but rather that they had been lied to by the serpent who was actually Satan (the original lie: “your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad”). This would have been a convincing lie, as it could have easily been reasoned that serpents do not talk and hence perhaps the serpent ate the fruit and now talks from first hand experience. Of course this were not the case because we know that the serpent were used as a puppet by other references. Eating the fruit didn’t give them any knowledge of good and bad - they already knew that disobeying God was bad. Otherwise punishing them would have been unjust. Interpret the lie this way: anyone deciding for themselves what is good or bad actually then “knows what is good or bad” (challenging objective morality). Moreso Eve was tempted by the prospect to “be like God”, having no doubt observed the activity of the spirit creatures in the garden. Some believe that the resulting feeling of nakedness and desire to “hide from the face of God” was then wanting to avoid fronting up to God because they feared the consequences and felt highly insecure, in much the same way that a toddler (or a puppy) instinctively hides or tries to cover themselves due to guilt if they do wrong. After all, to literally feel naked would be unusual because they are completely alone (in a physical sense) in the garden, so there is nobody to spy upon them. Now, think about this: if Adam was not deceived (in 1 Tim 2:14 it says Adam was not deceived) but Eve was deceived and had now sinned (Gen 3:13), and Eve offered the fruit to Adam not immediately but some time afterwards, did he not have a choice between pleasing God or pleasing his beautiful wife? And as for any typical love story he chose to grow old and die with his wife rather than allow Eve to be subjected to death alone. This is my favourite love story by the way.

jancsika 7y ago

> 21st century slavemasters Speaking of the 21st Century... Can you name any Christian denomination in the 21st Century who publicly and proudly connect the fish and loaves parable with the ethics of file sharing? I'm most interested in an interpretation that takes the literalist stance that Jesus started with a bounded amount and copied it for zero marginal cost. (And we know copying happened because more crusts came back than went out.)

andrewflnr 7y ago
The loaves and fishes miracle started with the materials being freely given, which is not really the case in scenarios where file sharing is ethically dicey. Really not a solid comparison, I would say.
- jancsika 7y ago
  Sci-hub is about the most solid comparison I can think of (given a few moments to consider the comparison). But it's not quite right because the articles being shared are from research done for the public good which were typically already paid for by the public good. In the parable nobody paid ahead of time for the future possibility of the miracle feeding everyone. But that's a difference in the opposite direction from your "ethically dicey" comment. Jesus' miracle was way more radical than doing an end-run around an anachronistic business model to redistribute research the public already paid to get.
  - andrewflnr 7y ago
    Interesting point. I lean towards agreeing that sci-hub is ethical civil disobedience on that basis. That's not a point about file sharing overall, though, nor (I think) do you need the loaves and fishes to justify it.
xamuel 7y ago
Not exactly what you're asking, and not meant as an endorsement, but I've heard the following theory, which at least seems plausible. The theory goes that when the multitude followed Jesus into the wilderness, each individual brought his own bread, but kept it secret, not wanting to share it. Jesus knew that each man had his own bread but that no-one wanted to share it. So according to this theory, it was actually sarcasm when Jesus said: "I have compassion for this crowd, because they have already been with Me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may faint along the way." (Matthew 15:32) Knowing the people had secret bread, Jesus took His disciples' paltry seven loaves of bread, blessed and broke them, and instructed the disciples to distribute them. Each person was so ashamed then (according to the theory) that he ate his own bread, rather than take the portion of the disciples' bread that came around. Some were even so ashamed of their greed, that they added some of their own bread to the disciples', so that: "They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. A total of four thousand men were fed, in addition to women and children." (15:37-38)

andrepd 7y ago

>A man cannot turn away from sinning just by his own sheer willpower. We are all corrupted since Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden, and it is utterly hopeless to try to be "good people" without the intervention of the Holy Spirit. >Quite appropriately so since we are all slaves to sin This to me is terrifying and revolting to read. How can anybody believe this sort of nonsense, and worse: harmful nonsense at that. We are all slaves to some mythological original sin, we cannot improve ourselves, we are doomed, we need a magical force from above to descend and save us all... Completely contrary to my personal ethics, completely contrary to the mindset necessary for progress (nobody is going to save us; there is nobody else, only us; we need to roll up our sleeves and improve our shitty world, because if we don't do it then nobody will, etc). But then again, that's only my opinion. The difference being I upvoted you for sharing your point of view, while the other guy seems to have been flagged to silence...

jessaustin 7y ago
The only doctrine I believe anymore is that of original sin. I've spent too much time among humans to imagine there are any who aren't broken.
- vageli 7y ago
  > The only doctrine I believe anymore is that of original sin. I've spent too much time among humans to imagine there are any who aren't broken. But your belief is that we are born broken, and not that it is the world that breaks us?
  - bobthechef 7y ago
    And how is the world that it could break us? The world is made of broken men. We are born broken, that is, with a propensity toward sin.
    - Klinky 7y ago
      That's just far too simplistic. Child abuse, mental illness, PTSD from traumatic experiences, traumatic brain injury, can all lead to impulsive erratic behaviors. Sin is also vague, and biblical sin is often completely disconnected from the actual cause of why someone is making poor choices.

ajsdj 7y ago

> it is utterly hopeless to try to be "good people" without the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Especially if the people inventing such nonsense get prime real estate locations and a carefree life.

goto11 7y ago

> it's as if they never read their own Bible Well Jesus never baptized anybody and never said anything about baptism. Edit: Sorry, I was wrong about the last part!

xamuel 7y ago
You are mistaken because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. Christ spoke many times about baptism, even in the very final climax of the Gospel of Matthew. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)
- goto11 7y ago
  > You are mistaken because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. Correct on both counts, I admit!
lurquer 7y ago
Read the Bible before commenting on it. Otherwise, you'll sound foolish. In regard to Jesus and baptism, start with Mark 16:16.