what turns you off from Christianity?

Saint Frankenstein · May 28, 2016

Another thing that turns me off from Christianity, at least the more common interpretations of it, is that it tends to provide legitimacy for human abuse of the environment and of other lifeforms, even their devaluation. Humans are put on this grand pedestal in the Biblical narrative, which presents us as God's crowning achievement and the apex of creation. We're viewed as set apart from the rest of creation and above it. This has provided a rationalization for centuries of environmental degradation and the brutal abuse of non-human animals. This sort of thinking was demonstrated by the Catholic, Descartes, who promoted the belief that only humans are sentient ensouled beings and all other creatures are basically a sort of automata that have no consciousness. Matter was viewed as lifeless "dumb" stuff and the universe viewed as a sort of mechanism (which is being disproved by physics, especially quantum physics, which seems to be lending more validity to more animistic or pantheistic worldviews). So the screams of agony of a dog being vivisected would be explained away as reflexes of a sort and not the dog expressing actual suffering and anguish. It took Voltaire, who is famous for his attacks on the Catholic establishment, to bring sense to the debate:

"What a pitiful, what a sorry thing to have said that animals are machines bereft of understanding and feeling, which perform their operations always in the same way, which learn nothing, perfect nothing, etc. !

What! that bird which makes its nest in a semi-circle when it is attaching it to a wall, which builds it in a quarter circle when it is in an angle, and in a circle upon a tree; that bird acts always in the same way? That hunting-dog which you have disciplined for three months, does it not know more at the end of this time than it knew before your lessons? Does the canary to which you teach a tune repeat it at once? do you not spend a considerable time in teaching it? have you not seen that it has made a mistake and that it corrects itself?

Is it because I speak to you, that you judge that I have feeling, memory, ideas? Well, I do not speak to you; you see me going home looking disconsolate, seeking a paper anxiously, opening the desk where I remember having shut it, finding it, reading it joyfully. You judge that I have experienced the feeling of distress and that of pleasure, that I have memory and understanding.

Bring the same judgment to bear on this dog which has lost its master, which has sought him on every road with sorrowful cries, which enters the house agitated, uneasy, which goes down the stairs, up the stairs, from room to room, which at last finds in his study the master it loves, and which shows him its joy by its cries of delight, by its leaps, by its caresses.

Barbarians seize this dog, which in friendship surpasses man so prodigiously; they nail it on a table, and they dissect it alive in order to show the mesenteric veins. You discover in it all the same organs of feeling that are in yourself. Answer me, machinist, has nature arranged all the means of feeling in this animal, so that it may not feel? has it nerves in order to be impassible? Do not suppose this impertinent contradiction in nature."
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volanima.html

Yes, the mainstream Christian denominations are now promoting a more compassionate, holistic ecological view but this seems to be somewhat of a response to changing secular mores. It will take a long time for humans to get over their dogmatically-induced delusions of superiority. Hopefully, there will still be a planet and other lifeforms to care about when we finally do.

To be fair, it's not only Christianity that has this issue. There's similar problems with Hinduism, for example, and their hierarchical views of species which place humans at the top and also how certain branches of Hinduism place a negative value on the physical world (i.e. "it's an illusion we're trapped in and need to escape from!").

Shad · May 28, 2016

Vouthon said:
I never omitted anything, I provided the source for people to go and read it for themselves, which I'm glad you did.

I don't have space to include everything due to forum limitations (which is why I linked to the source) - so, obviously, I'm going to select the parts relevant to my argument. And they are substantial, as you no doubt saw.

The problem is that the letter had positives and negatives which form contradiction

What is not abundantly clear about this statement:

Chapter XLI.

Concerning those who refuse to receive the good of Christianity and sacrifice and bend their knees to idols, we can write nothing else to you than that you move them towards the right faith by warnings, exhortations, and reason rather than by force, proving that what they know in vain, is wrong: [cf. Jer. 1:16] namely that, although they are people with capable intellects, they nevertheless adore works of their own hands and senseless elements, or rather they bow their necks and sacrifice to demons. For as the apostle teaches: We know that an idol is nothing, but whatever the nations sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons.[I Cor. 8:4; 10:20]...Yet, violence should by no means be inflicted upon them to make them believe. For everything which is not voluntary, cannot be good; for it is written: Willingly shall I sacrifice to you,[Ps. 53:8] and again: Make all the commands of my mouth your will,[Ps. 118:108] and again, And by my own will I shall confess to Him.[Ps. 27:7] Indeed, God commands that willing service be performed only by the willing. But if you ask about what should be judged concerning perfidious persons of this sort, listen to the apostle Paul who, when he wrote to the Corinthians, says: Why indeed is it my business to judge concerning those who are outside? Do you not judge concerning those who are inside? God will judge those who are outside. Remove the evil from yourselves.[I Cor. 5:12-13] It is as if he said: Concerning those who are outside our religion, I shall judge nothing, but I shall save them for the judgment of God, Who is going to judge all flesh. [/quote]

Only that this is later contradicted by allowing oppression of those same people along with scripture to validate it.

I think that's pretty clear. You can't force anyone to believe in Christianity, it has to be voluntary. Don't presume to judge people who don't want to join your religion in this life, just leave them to the judgement of God in the afterlife. Do you agree that's fairly clear?

Its not so clear when the Pope allows oppression

If he believes everything that isn't voluntary is morally wrong, I have a hard time following your interpretation of his statement above. The Pope is emphatic that conversion must be voluntary, not coerced. He explicitly says that if a person's decision isn't voluntary, then that's bad and not acceptable.

I am talking about those that have left the faith for whatever reason.

The Pope never claimed this - Boris did:

Now then, you have told us about how you received the Christian religion by divine clemency and made your entire people be baptized,

The Pope is only going along with the story Boris told him. And Boris told him that he made the people be "baptized". The Pope then tells him that this would have to have been done willingly on the part of the people themselves to be a valid baptism. He cautions that Boris cannot coerce anyone against their will.

As I said the statement is in error. A predominate "pagan" group/nation becoming 100% Christian while later in the letter many of these people rebelled should of set of a warning alarm in one's mind.

And he tells Boris that, regardless of this, the lives of the people who rebelled should have been spared - even those actually guilty of treason.

No it says parents not everyone.

Clearly since we only have Boris to go on, we're getting a biased and perhaps contradictory account but I dont understand how you can fault the Pope for that. He can only answer the questions Boris asks him using the information Boris gives him.

I can fault the Pope for accepting the story based only on a single letter by the victor with no followup inquiry regarding if Boris' laws were a valid basis for rebellion or not. There is no evaluation of Boris' laws only his judgement after the event.

Shad · May 28, 2016

truelight Mike said:
Honestly, what is it that turns you away from embracing Christianity?

Mainly the constant reinterpretation of scripture to match the whims of the powerful or standards of the time which have divided in to many groups.

Do you feel differently about Jesus than you do Christianity?

Yes. However I use a post-modern Christian interpretation which rejects a lot of doctrine and dogma of mainstream Christianity. Jesus becomes a theologian and philosopher rather than any sort of divine being or linked with the divine. God's acts in the OT are not God's actual acts but stories created in order to describe God. God is not killing anyone the story about Noah. God is not destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. By rejecting the doctrine and dogma which made these stories true, or God's acts within it true, many of the moral issues surrounding God are resolved without appealing to "might makes right" or God's morals becoming arbitrary.

*Keep in mind I am not a Christian but the above are the methods I prefer to use as it rejects a lot of what I call "baggage".

Vouthon · May 28, 2016

Shad said:
The problem is that the letter had positives and negatives which form contradiction

I am certainly open to the idea that not everything in the letter is "positive" from a contemporary perspective (this is 866, after all, not 1966), nonetheless I cannot quite submit to the idea that the Pope could so flagrantly contradict himself in the same letter. He was pretty emphatic on numerous occasions that belief must be voluntary. Why state it so often?

Only that this is later contradicted by allowing oppression of those same people along with scripture to validate it.

I am wondering, though, if the translation might be the issue. The pope made it clear that he does not believe in violent coercion in matters of religious belief. But he also knew that Khan Boris was a mercurial warlord desirous to keep his "status" and not appear weak in the eyes of his subjects. He converted to Christianity and staked his entire reputation on this - which essentially amounted to a revolution for his culture. Some of his boyars then committed treason against him. So the Pope has to balance his clear statements about "freedom from coercion" in matters of religious belief with Boris' sensibilities and determination to defend his own integrity as the Khan.

Elsewhere in the letter, he states that it would be legitimate for Boris if he decided remove these people from his service and friendship:

But if they do not listen to you, you should neither take food nor have any communion at all with them, but rather remove them from your service and friendship (familiaritas) as if they were foreign and polluted, in order that, once pierced by such confusion, they may be converted with God's inspiration to Him Who is the true and not the false God, creator and not created, unmade but maker of all

This appears to be the "oppression" he permits. Again, he "hopes" this will lead them to change their mind but he asks Boris to tolerate them.

The Pope seems to be doing everything in his power to soften Boris' instinct in this matter - which is to simply kill and eradicate perceived threats to his rule - while respecting his authority and ego concerning the rebellion.

I am talking about those that have left the faith for whatever reason.

The original treasonous rebels had all "left the faith" - to the extent that they tried to overthrow a Christian King and reinstate paganism. The Pope pleaded for their lives - ALL of them:

Chapter XVIIII.

What rightly should be done about those who have risen up to kill the king, the venerable laws which we sent to you in writing shall adequately teach you. This matter nevertheless remains within the judgment of the king, who should forgive the sinner not merely once, but seven times seventy times,[cf. Mt. 18:22] in accordance with what the Lord commanded of Peter in the holy Gospel.[cf. Lk. 7:47] For the person whom one forgives more, loves more, and, as the Gospel teaches: The king would have forgiven his servant a debt of ten thousand talents, i.e. many monstrous sins, if the servant himself had wished to forgive his fellow servant a debt of one hundred denarii, i.e. minor sins.[cf. Mt. 18: 24-33]

The men who lifted arms, the parents, the children...Every one of them. The pope said they should have been allowed to live.

So he is not in favour of slaughtering 'apostates'. 'Oppression' whatever it might be does not include that.

As I said the statement is in error. A predominate "pagan" group/nation becoming 100% Christian while later in the letter many of these people rebelled should of set of a warning alarm in one's mind.

I don't dispute this but would such knowledge have been available to Pope Nicholas? He lived in the 9th century, almost a millennium before the Enlightenment. I see no reason why the Pope could not have believed that God could have worked a miracle. He indicates that Boris told him a divine act had taken place (i.e. "divine clemency").

This is ludicrous to our ears, but would it have be so to the Pope? I don't think so. People actually believed in miracles back then.

No it says parents not everyone.

Wrong:

http://www.pravoslavieto.com/history/09/866_responce_pope_Nicholas_I.htm

Now you desire to know whether you have contracted any sin on account of those who were deprived of their lives. Clearly what you did not escape without sin nor could have happened without your fault, was that a child who was not privy to their parents' plot nor is proven to have born arms against you, was slaughtered along with the guilty, although innocent...You also should have acted with greater mildness concerning the parents who were captured, that is, [you should have] spared their lives for the love of the God Who delivered them into your hands...But you also could have saved those who died while fighting, but you did not permit them to live nor did you wish to save them, and in this you clearly did not act on good advice

The pope said that ALL the 'apostate' rebels should have been spared - the men who took up arms, the parents (that is their wives) who were taken as captives and the children. He wanted them all to live. He was enraged that Boris had acted so cruelly.

I can fault the Pope for accepting the story based only on a single letter by the victor with no followup inquiry regarding if Boris' laws were a valid basis for rebellion or not. There is no evaluation of Boris' laws only his judgement after the event.

Actually, the Pope criticizes the harshness of Boris' laws in many places:

Chapter XXV.

You claim that it is part of the custom of your country that guards always stand on the alert between your country and the boundaries of others; and if a slave or freeman [manages to] flee somehow through this watch, the guards are killed without hesitation because of this. Now then, you are asking us, what we think about this practice. One should look through the laws concerning this matter. Nevertheless, far be it from your minds that you, who have acknowledged so pious a God and Lord, now judge so harshly, especially since it is more fitting that, just as hitherto you put people to death with ease, so from now on you should lead those whom you can not to death but to life. For the blessed apostle Paul, who was initially an abusive persecutor and breathed threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord,[cf. Acts 9:1] later sought mercy and, converted by a divine revelation, not only did not impose the death penalty on anyone but also wished to be anathema for the brethren [cf. Rom. 9:3] and was prepared to spend and be spent most willingly for the souls of the faithful.[cf. II Cor. 12:15] In the same way, after you have been called by the election of God and illuminated by his light, you should no longer desire deaths but should without hesitation recall everyone to the life of the body as well as the soul, when any opportunity is found. [cf. Rom. 7:6] And just as Christ led you back from the eternal death in which you were gripped, to eternal life, so you yourself should attempt to save not only the innocent, but also the guilty from the end of death.

Chapter LXXXVI.

If a thief or a robber is apprehended and denies that he is involved, you say that in your country the judge would beat his head with lashes and prick his sides with iron goads until he came up with the truth. Neither divine nor human law allows this practice in any way, since a confession should be spontaneous, not compelled, and should not be elicited with violence but rather proferred voluntarily. But if it just so happens that you find nothing at all which casts the crime upon the one who has suffered, aren't you ashamed and don't you recognize how impiously you judge? Likewise, if the accused man, after suffering, says that he committed what he did not commit because he is unable to bear such [torture], upon whom, I ask you, will the magnitude of so great an impiety fall if not upon the person who compelled this man to confess these things falsely? Indeed, the person who utters from his mouth what he does not hold in his heart is known not to confess but to speak.[cf. Mt. 12:34] Therefore leave such practices behind and heartily curse the things which you have hitherto done foolishly.

Chapter XIIII.

You also indicated that a certain lying Greek claimed that he was a priest, although he was not, and baptized many in your country. Then, when by God's inspiration you recognized that he was not a priest, you condemned him to lose his nose and ears and to be killed with the harshest of beatings and then to be cast out of your country. Behold there was fulfilled in you — forgive us — what the Apostle proclaimed about some persons, namely that they had the zeal of God but not according to knowledge. To be sure, the fellow acted badly, if he lied, but you showed a zeal in this action which, while pious, was not well considered...

Chapter XVI.

You who thus condemned this person may wonder whether you should do penance for it... Now then, it is obvious that you have committed a sin against that man. First, because, as far as we are able to understand the matter, it was not yet clear that the man was not a priest, and it is written: Do not judge before the time.[I Cor. 4:5]... Third, [you have committed a sin against this man] because, although in this simulation he was truly culpable, in the conversion of so many men, he was worthy of much praise. Fourth, because, although he deserved punishment, the punishment nevertheless should not have exceeded the measure of vengeance; nor should [the punishment] have heaped upon one person so many and such cruel injuries, since, after his nose and ears had been cut off, expulsion from your country would have been a sufficient punishment for him, instead of the amputation of his members which he experienced at your judgment.

The pope thought that Bulgaria had unjust laws in place - indeed he considered them horrendous. He was no fan, as you can see.

What you must bear in mind is that this letter was the outcome of a diplomatic mission, which intended to establish foreign relations for the first time between the Bulgarian Empire - which before 866 had been a pagan kingdom at odds with its Christian neighbours - and the Holy See.

The pope had to take into consideration the sensibilities of the Bulgarians. He vigorously criticizes their legal system and intolerance but he has to be coy in doing so. He implies very clearly, in the above, that he does not think Boris' laws were acceptable and this seems to indicate scepticism on his part regarding the tale Boris is telling him about the rebellion.

But he has to speak diplomatically. He's dealing with a powerful, barbarian warlord who has only recently been baptized and knows next to nothing about Christianity.

Personally, I feel that the Pope walked the diplomatic 'tight rope' well. Khan Boris doesn't sound like a man you could have sat down to afternoon tea and cakes with.

And it should be noted that near the end of the letter, the Pope reiterates again:

Chapter CII.

We have taught above that violence should not be inflicted upon the pagan in order to make him become a Christian.

Don't you think he's trying to give Khan Boris a message? Why does he reiterate this yet again just before the end? Obviously he doesn't want Boris to miss/forget this point....Why?

McBell · May 28, 2016

what turns you off from Christianity?

Christians

Acim · May 29, 2016

truelight Mike said:
Honestly, what is it that turns you away from embracing Christianity?

Like all things, depends on what one means by Christianity.

If it is the orthodox version, then I would say....

- putting the letter(s) of the Law before Spirit
- treating Jesus as Father
- treating Paul as Father
- any notion that the Bible is last time God / Holy Spirit has spoken to humans
- marrying Christian God with Lord God in Genesis 2 and thereafter
- treating Judas as lesser disciple
- acting as if Word, altars and Heaven are outside of Self, over yonder, rather than in the most obvious place (within)
- acting as if Jesus did things we/I could never do after He Himself said, "these things and more shall you do."
- treating Jesus as the only Son of God

and other blasphemies like that.

Thank God for gnostic Christianity and modern day revelations which make embracing Christianity more palpable. And thank God for the 2 greatest commandments, one of which doesn't even require a belief in God. Though in reality, if that one were practiced with consistency, knowledge of God would surely return to full awareness.

Aquitaine · May 29, 2016

truelight Mike said:
Honestly, what is it that turns you away from embracing Christianity?

Do you feel differently about Jesus than you do Christianity?

Christians and Christianity.

MARCELLO · May 29, 2016

Clearly and shortly ; baptism.

illykitty · May 29, 2016

Well, there are several factors, not just one reasons, but I'll try to list some of the broadest reasons, otherwise we'll go too much into details and it could take a while.

-I'm not convinced Jesus existed, some historians are presenting arguments that he didn't.
-There are some good messages in it, just like any religions, but there's some really bad stuff too, which turns me away from it.
-The above makes me question whether I'd want to follow such a religion, with mixed messages.
-I'm not convinced about the existence of an "omni" creator god either, at least some of the omni contradicts with how the world is.
-Lack of interest in most of it. Some denominations are somewhat interesting to me to read about, but my interest isn't deep enough to actually want to be part of it.

I don't feel very different about Jesus. If you would have asked this questions a few years ago, I might have had a different answer along the lines that I think the character was good but the religion not... But now I've looked deeper into it, I don't think the character is all that great nor am I convinced he existed.

Shad · May 29, 2016

Vouthon said:
I am certainly open to the idea that not everything in the letter is "positive" from a contemporary perspective (this is 866, after all, not 1966), nonetheless I cannot quite submit to the idea that the Pope could so flagrantly contradict himself in the same letter. He was pretty emphatic on numerous occasions that belief must be voluntary. Why state it so often?

The problem is how the Pope addresses those that leave the faith and rebelled against the King not those that come to faith willingly.

I am wondering, though, if the translation might be the issue. The pope made it clear that he does not believe in violent coercion in matters of religious belief. But he also knew that Khan Boris was a mercurial warlord desirous to keep his "status" and not appear weak in the eyes of his subjects. He converted to Christianity and staked his entire reputation on this - which essentially amounted to a revolution for his culture. Some of his boyars then committed treason against him. So the Pope has to balance his clear statements about "freedom from coercion" in matters of religious belief with Boris' sensibilities and determination to defend his own integrity as the Khan.

Except that the Pope quoted various verse in scripture which allows secular powers to oppress the "unfaithful". Also there is no questioning of what caused this rebellion which now we know they did have a cause which was forced conversion and the gathering of power in the hands of Boris in his bid to become Khan, after all he was just a war chief prior to the expansion of the Bulgars.. Boris' status as Khan is treated as unquestionable even though in this letter he admits to murdering anyone based on guilty by association.

Elsewhere in the letter, he states that it would be legitimate for Boris if he decided remove these people from his service and friendship:

But if they do not listen to you, you should neither take food nor have any communion at all with them, but rather remove them from your service and friendship (familiaritas) as if they were foreign and polluted, in order that, once pierced by such confusion, they may be converted with God's inspiration to Him Who is the true and not the false God, creator and not created, unmade but maker of all

A problem is that nobility is not a service or form of employment but a contract between an overlord and lesser lords. This contract was fine until Boris' conversion and bid to become the Khan. Now the Pope gives authority for Boris to invalidate any feudal/tribal contract based on religion alone. That is nothing more than discrimination. However since nobles are not someone you can just fire and will go into exile or poverty they had the resources to rebel, and did.

This appears to be the "oppression" he permits. Again, he "hopes" this will lead them to change their mind but he asks Boris to tolerate them.

Nope, the Pope quoted scripture which provides a wide range of options for Boris.

The Pope seems to be doing everything in his power to soften Boris' instinct in this matter - which is to simply kill and eradicate perceived threats to his rule - while respecting his authority and ego concerning the rebellion.

So the Pope plays softball with a tyrant? Amusing.

The original treasonous rebels had all "left the faith" - to the extent that they tried to overthrow a Christian King and reinstate paganism. The Pope pleaded for their lives - ALL of them:

Chapter XVIIII.

Should a person that murders people still be Khan or is asking forgiveness enough to retain this status? Say a few hail marys and everything is fine. Chapter 12 has no issues with death sentences expect on certain days. We have conflicting views here. In one case rebellion either does not deserve a death sentence or the sentence is commuted while those that "deserve" death are to be executed except on certain religious days. So in one case the Khan judgement is not valid but in another case it is.... 18:22 applies to the Kingdom of God not kingdoms of man. 7:47 again does not apply to kingdoms of man. The Pope is manufacturing interpretation. nothing more. Also being spare does not mean the death sentence was not justified as per the above.

The men who lifted arms, the parents, the children...Every one of them. The pope said they should have been allowed to live.

Again no real consequence of Boris' acts. He murdered people based on guilt by association. He forced the conflict but faces no consequences. The Pope only displays he has no sense of justice for the victims. Again a murder can repent and all is forgiven.

So he is not in favour of slaughtering 'apostates'. 'Oppression' whatever it might be does not include that.

Read the end of chapter 18.

I don't dispute this but would such knowledge have been available to Pope Nicholas? He lived in the 9th century, almost a millennium before the Enlightenment. I see no reason why the Pope could not have believed that God could have worked a miracle. He indicates that Boris told him a divine act had taken place (i.e. "divine clemency").

He could of easily inquired into the matter. He had no issues in receiving a letter from Boris, replying to it and sending members of the clergy to his "kingdom" not only to educated Boris but to deliver the letter. Putting forward God did it is typical lapse in thinking. Excusing it because of time and place is a copout, nothing more.

This is ludicrous to our ears, but would it have be so to the Pope? I don't think so. People actually believed in miracles back then.

Which only shows the Pope is easily swayed to follow his presupposition without issue and to accept anything that confirms his bias. If the miracle is accredited to Christianity it is accepted. If it is accredited to another religion it is rejected.

Wrong:

http://www.pravoslavieto.com/history/09/866_responce_pope_Nicholas_I.htm

This is incoherent. If Boris' victory was due to the divine than he could of done nothing to save those that died in the actual fighting. If not then he would have had to accept the Boyar's had valid concerns that should of been addressed prior to the conflict itself. Yet no such concerns are raised only if Boris sinned or not ie a religious matter not law or secular matter. You can not save someone that died during the fighting after the fighting is over. This is pure nonsensical. The only option is a non-lethal battle(s) which itself is ridiculous in the context of war during this era.

The pope said that ALL the 'apostate' rebels should have been spared - the men who took up arms, the parents (that is their wives) who were taken as captives and the children. He wanted them all to live. He was enraged that Boris had acted so cruelly.

Read the end of chapter 18.

Actually, the Pope criticizes the harshness of Boris' laws in many places:

Chapter XXV.

Which is religious in nature thus indirect coercion.

Chapter LXXXVI.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with this when it comes to this specific Pope.

Chapter XIIII.

Click to expand...

Read chapter 12. All the Pope is doing is shifting the basis of the laws to a Christian one from the previous Bulgar "pagan" one. Also read chapter 16 again specifically the parts you didn't both to put in bold. If this man can not be confirmed to be a priest or not per the following. "First, because, as far as we are able to understand the matter, it was not yet clear that the man was not a priest, and it is written: Do not judge before the time.[I Cor. 4:5]" Then the judgement is completely invalid or based on the principle of guilt before innocent. Yet per the third parameter states he is culpable. which is a direct contradiction to the first statement. This is followed up by more incoherence give the first statement that the very least exile is an acceptable punishment for one that may or may not be a priest. Excellent sense of justice there....

The pope thought that Bulgaria had unjust laws in place - indeed he considered them horrendous. He was no fan, as you can see.

I have no doubt that the Pope thought a lot of laws not based on Christianity were unjust. Yet in cases in which "one deserves death (paraphrased)" is acceptable in a certain basis, which is most likely a Christian one.

What you must bear in mind is that this letter was the outcome of a diplomatic mission, which intended to establish foreign relations for the first time between the Bulgarian Empire - which before 866 had been a pagan kingdom at odds with its Christian neighbours - and the Holy See.

Yes I understand that. I am just pointing out how easily the Pope forgives the acts of Boris for the sake of spreading Christianity, maintaining it and the new authority dynamic between secular and papacy emergent nation. Also keep in mind this dialogue was opened after one with the Byzantium Church had run it's course and failed. The Pope is was obvious to this as the letter touched on the subject of the "Greek Church"

The pope had to take into consideration the sensibilities of the Bulgarians. He vigorously criticizes their legal system and intolerance but he has to be coy in doing so. He implies very clearly, in the above, that he does not think Boris' laws were acceptable and this seems to indicate scepticism on his part regarding the tale Boris is telling him about the rebellion.

Obviously. However being "coy" about it may have more to do with needing new Christian allies due to the era rather than any sense of justice on the Pope's part. As I said the Pope is quick to pass over any worldly judgement on the King himself but has no issues with endorsing it on other people if using a Christian basis

But he has to speak diplomatically. He's dealing with a powerful, barbarian warlord who has only recently been baptized and knows next to nothing about Christianity.

He know more about Christianity at the time of the letter and the Pope's reply than you think. He and his family had been interacting with Christians for decades. His sister was a Christian. Some of the southern areas the Bulgars controlled were Christian as these lands were annexed from Byzantium.

Personally, I feel that the Pope walked the diplomatic 'tight rope' well. Khan Boris doesn't sound like a man you could have sat down to afternoon tea and cakes with.

Yes I would agree. However I do take issues when people ignore the acts of people for the sake of religious and political gains.

And it should be noted that near the end of the letter, the Pope reiterates again:

Chapter CII.

We have taught above that violence should not be inflicted upon the pagan in order to make him become a Christian.

Don't you think he's trying to give Khan Boris a message? Why does he reiterate this yet again just before the end? Obviously he doesn't want Boris to miss/forget this point....Why?

I agree. However violence is not the only form of coercion nor oppression.

Vouthon · May 30, 2016

Firstly, I would like to extend a "thank you" to Shad for actually engaging with me in a discussion over a primary source. Often when folks debate regarding history, its based around opinionated secondary material.

I find it refreshing to be able discuss a document free from secondary bias but simply on its own merits. So thank you for that Shad.

As you can see, this is fairly complicated - so I feel we still have to reason this out a little more...

Shad said:
The problem is how the Pope addresses those that leave the faith and rebelled against the King not those that come to faith willingly.

To me it is evident that the Pope categorically condemns Boris' handling of the rebellion and states on repeated occasions that the Khan should have spared the lives of the rebels - all of whom were apostates from the faith (if we take Boris' line that they were validly converted).

We thus have testimony from the Pope that had he been advising Boris from the very beginning, as opposed to Boris asking him about this tragic episode after it happened, he would have pleaded clemency for the rebels fighting to reinstate paganism. And indeed, he does plead clemency for any survivors or subsequent individuals who may find themselves in a similar situation of treasonous apostasy towards the Khan.

So on that basis, I feel we can take the Pope at his word - he thinks that the "apostates" (as Boris depicts them whether factually or not), should not have been slaughtered.

Irrespective of his seemingly contradictory scripture references later (which I'll get on too in time), I think thus far the Pope has been fairly up-front about his perspective regarding those who rebelled and left the faith.

Why does he state, blatantly, that Khan Boris has sinned in killing these people if - as you interpret it - he seems to justify doing so later on? I cannot personally believe him to have expressed so logically inconsistent a message in the same letter.

Except that the Pope quoted various verse in scripture which allows secular powers to oppress the "unfaithful".

Yet this is exceedingly vague. What exactly is "oppression"? Since neither of us can read Latin (so far as I am aware), we cannot turn to the original letter to actually determine what the word used is definitely implying. Scripture references by themselves are little use either since they require exegesis.

The Pontiff reiterates on a frequent basis throughout the letter that belief must be voluntary, it is a continual refrain for him - to so great an extent that he exclaims, "anything that is not voluntary cannot be good". If anything that isn't voluntary is morally unacceptable in his eyes, as he plainly tells us - and on that basis he condemns confession-extracting judicial torture and even something as mundane as forcing women to become nuns against their will - I find it difficult to construe "oppression" as signifying religious compulsion or coercion. He has emphatically told us that he is "pro-choice"/voluntaristic in mind-set - and NOTHING that is not voluntary can be "good". He actually says as much.

I just cannot quite understand how he can make an appeal to voluntary decision-making such a key-stone of his agenda in the letter only to (as you understand it) suddenly blurt out that the Khan is free to subject apostate rebels among his people to all manner of oppression intended to take away their free will.

There seems to be no way to reconcile the two statements, along with his explicit defence of the right of the apostate rebels to be spared the death penalty.

Also there is no questioning of what caused this rebellion which now we know they did have a cause which was forced conversion and the gathering of power in the hands of Boris in his bid to become Khan, after all he was just a war chief prior to the expansion of the Bulgars.. Boris' status as Khan is treated as unquestionable even though in this letter he admits to murdering anyone based on guilty by association.

On the forced conversion point, the Pope has been completely clear with Khan Boris: it is morally unacceptable.

He wasn't just a war chief - he was the chieftain of the nomadic horsemen who made up the Bulgar elite. But it is clear that by the 680s, he had changed this nomadic lifestyle into a settled, territorial state.

This may have been another reason for the uprising, yes but Boris' position pre-conversion was not contestable. Under Bulgar law, he was the head of the country, the undisputed leader of the empire.

It does seem, however, that he used Christianity to help cement his reign. The reason? The Bulgars were of Turkish origin but the people (peasants) they ruled over where largely Slavic and inclined towards Christianity already. There was thus a massive disconnect between a poorly treated Slavic majority and a privileged elite of pagan Bulgars, a gulf that Boris wanted to breach. Because he achieved this, he gained far more credence with the common folk of his empire than any preceding Khan had.

But this didn't please the Bulgar nobility, who saw their power and privileges weakening in favour of a charismatic autocrat popular with the common folk.

A problem is that nobility is not a service or form of employment but a contract between an overlord and lesser lords. This contract was fine until Boris' conversion and bid to become the Khan.

He didn't bid to become the Khan, he was the Khan before his conversion. What he did was make the Khananate for the first time genuinely popular with the dispossessed mass of Slavic peasant subjects whom the Bulgars ruled over as an aristocracy, by converting to Christianity and adopting the Slavic Cyrilic alphabet. The common folk were increasingly inclined towards Christianity because of its strong emphasis upon the idea that the poor are the closest to God. The result was that his conversion expanded "the powers" of the Khan by increasing his legitimacy with the poor Slavs but he had always been the Khan.

Of course, the aristocratic Bulgars - or boyars as they are known - rightly saw this as a grave threat to their privileged position in society and traditional culture. So they revolted.

Now the Pope gives authority for Boris to invalidate any feudal/tribal contract based on religion alone. That is nothing more than discrimination. However since nobles are not someone you can just fire and will go into exile or poverty they had the resources to rebel, and did.

I am not quite sure how you read it as such.

The Pope would not have been aware of the nature of Bulgar customs or laws before Boris reached out to him with questions about his country's laws.

All the Pope knew was that Boris was the chief and that his subjects had revolted against him because he tried to change the state religion.

I think you are reading far too much into this context than is warranted.

Nope, the Pope quoted scripture which provides a wide range of options for Boris.

True but the offending passage itself is ambiguous and doesn't actually explicitly say what Boris should do. It indicates at one point that the "oppressed" should be treated as "outsiders" (i.e. "oppressed by the external power as an outsider"). This fits in with the "remove from your service and friendship" passage that I quoted. Then it notes that Christian Kings often want to keep the Church at peace and undiminished. So I agree, this section creates ambiguity since it seems to make concessions to Boris' religious zealotry.

But it's quite ambiguous and hard to read, so I do take your point.

Then there is that odd reference to King Nebuchadnezzar in the Bible and some discussion of blasphemy.

He does seem to say that for those who flagrantly defame Christ in public before their Christian king and have abandoned the faith, then these can be oppressed. That isn't pretty, nor am I defending it.

But one must balance that against his other statements, constant appeals for mercy and frequent beseeching that Boris spare lives rather than inflict deaths because he now worships a "pious God" who doesn't desire the death even if the "wicked".

Should a person that murders people still be Khan or is asking forgiveness enough to retain this status? Say a few hail marys and everything is fine.

You seem to overlook the fact that the Khananate was a warlord status founded upon death and pillaging. The better the pillager and killer, the better the Khan. The letter tells us that the Bulgar legal system put people to death willy-nilly for the slightest alleged misdeed.

One of Boris' predecessors Khan Krum (the first Khan of the empire) had slaughtered the Byzantine Emperor in battle, sliced off his head and used his skull as a drinking cup. True. Boris himself still drank from that skull at every public ceremony.

If Boris had been defeated in the rebellion, he and his family would have been slaughtered as well, just as he did too the defeated. That was how the Khananate operated from time immemorial. It was a brutal system, inherently.

These were a savage, brutal tribe of people and the Pope was being asked to guide them towards more humane practices. Generally, I think he did do this.

Chapter 12 has no issues with death sentences expect on certain days. We have conflicting views here. In one case rebellion either does not deserve a death sentence or the sentence is commuted while those that "deserve" death are to be executed except on certain religious days. So in one case the Khan judgement is not valid but in another case it is.... 18:22 applies to the Kingdom of God not kingdoms of man. 7:47 again does not apply to kingdoms of man. The Pope is manufacturing interpretation. nothing more. Also being spare does not mean the death sentence was not justified as per the above.

The Pope states that Boris should strive to spare even the guilty and no longer put people to death with "ease". Why does the Pope refer to St. Paul as not having "called for the death penalty on anyone" as the ideal for Boris to emulate?

Again no real consequence of Boris' acts. He murdered people based on guilt by association. He forced the conflict but faces no consequences. The Pope only displays he has no sense of justice for the victims. Again a murder can repent and all is forgiven.

How can the Pope, who has no jurisdiction in Bulgaria, tell Boris in a diplomatic letter that he should be executed or imprisoned?

I think you are demanding too much. Boris reached out to the Pope and the Pope replied to him with honest answers, telling him that his actions were wrong.

Which only shows the Pope is easily swayed to follow his presupposition without issue and to accept anything that confirms his bias. If the miracle is accredited to Christianity it is accepted. If it is accredited to another religion it is rejected.

But why would you expect someone living pre-18th century enlightenment to think otherwise?

Again, you are asking too much of someone who lived 1,200 years ago IMHO.

You can not save someone that died during the fighting after the fighting is over. This is pure nonsensical.

I'm not following you here. Boris contacted the Pope after the rebellion. The Pope told him he had sinned in how he handled the rebellion

He know more about Christianity at the time of the letter and the Pope's reply than you think.

Yes his sister was Christian but Boris does not appear to have been at all knowledgeable. He had not even read any of the Bible - he asked the Pope to send him the scriptures. His questions prove that he had little to no understanding of Christian ethics or customs - I mean he asks the Pope if it's OK to wear pants in Chapter LIX, which is rather ridiculous.

Vouthon · May 31, 2016

As an addendum to the above, it should be noted that at the time Pope Nicholas wrote this Letter the Catholic Church was, in general at least, stridently opposed to capital punishment for heretics or the state using compulsion to force people to believe. Prior to the 12th century, the RCC - as a general rule - did not allow states to suppress 'heresy' using violent intimidation or execution. Such punishments had many ecclesiastical opponents, so such a system did not exist in Catholic theology. To provide you with an example, in 350 the first execution for heresy took place (it was orchestrated by secular authorities) but the decision to execute the person was vehemently opposed by the Catholic Church, by the Pope, St Ambrose and St Martin of Tours. Most theologians saw punishment for 'heresy' as therapeutic not punitive - Christians believed that you could not force somebody to change their mind. God had given them freewill after all. To elucidate the viewpoint of this period, St. John Chrysostom (died AD 407) one of the greatest of the Church Fathers wrote, "To kill a heretic is to introduce upon earth an inexpiable crime".

"Men ought not to be compelled to believe, because God will have mercy on those whom he will have mercy. As man fell by his own free will in listening to the wiles of the serpent, so man can only be converted by his free acceptance of the Christian faith"

- (Fourth Council of Toledo, 633)

"...Faith should be a matter of persuasion, not of imposition..."

- (Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, 1090 –1153)

Later on, Waso, the Bishop of Liege urged against using force upon the Carthari, arguing much as St. John Chrysostom had seven centuries earlier. Peter Cantor, the most learned man of this age, expressed the prevailing sentiment within the Church leadership: “Whether they be convicted of error, or freely confess their guilt, Catharists [apostates] are not to be put to death, at least not when they refrain from armed assaults upon the Church. For although the Apostle said, ‘A man that is a heretic after the third admonition, avoid,’ he certainly did not say, ‘Kill him.’ Throw them into prison, if you will, but do not put them to death’” (De investigatione Antichrist 3:42). St. Bernard put down the law, in direct opposition to the mobs, “Fides suadenda, non imponenda.” Men are to be won to the Faith, not by violence, but by persuasion. He censured the princes, arguing that “the obstinate were to be excommunicated and if necessary, kept in confinement for the safety of others” (O’Brien, p. 15). The views of Peter Cantor and St. Bernard were ratified by a whole series of synods during that time: Rheims (1049) under Leo IX, Tolouse (1119) under Callistus II, and the Lateran Council of 1139. (This of course changed later on but many centuries after the letter we are discussing).

In this context, I think we can understand what "oppression" might indicate.

9-10ths_Penguin · May 31, 2016

Vouthon said:
As an addendum to the above, it should be noted that at the time Pope Nicholas wrote this Letter the Catholic Church was, in general at least, stridently opposed to capital punishment for heretics or the state using compulsion to force people to believe. Prior to the 12th century, the RCC - as a general rule - did not allow states to suppress 'heresy' using violent intimidation or execution. Such punishments had many ecclesiastical opponents, so such a system did not exist in Catholic theology. To provide you with an example, in 350 the first execution for heresy took place (it was orchestrated by secular authorities) but the decision to execute the person was vehemently opposed by the Catholic Church, by the Pope, St Ambrose and St Martin of Tours. Most theologians saw punishment for 'heresy' as therapeutic not punitive - Christians believed that you could not force somebody to change their mind. God had given them freewill after all. To elucidate the viewpoint of this period, St. John Chrysostom (died AD 407) one of the greatest of the Church Fathers wrote, "To kill a heretic is to introduce upon earth an inexpiable crime".

"Men ought not to be compelled to believe, because God will have mercy on those whom he will have mercy. As man fell by his own free will in listening to the wiles of the serpent, so man can only be converted by his free acceptance of the Christian faith"

- (Fourth Council of Toledo, 633)

"...Faith should be a matter of persuasion, not of imposition..."

- (Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, 1090 –1153)

Later on, Waso, the Bishop of Liege urged against using force upon the Carthari, arguing much as St. John Chrysostom had seven centuries earlier. Peter Cantor, the most learned man of this age, expressed the prevailing sentiment within the Church leadership: “Whether they be convicted of error, or freely confess their guilt, Catharists [apostates] are not to be put to death, at least not when they refrain from armed assaults upon the Church. For although the Apostle said, ‘A man that is a heretic after the third admonition, avoid,’ he certainly did not say, ‘Kill him.’ Throw them into prison, if you will, but do not put them to death’” (De investigatione Antichrist 3:42). St. Bernard put down the law, in direct opposition to the mobs, “Fides suadenda, non imponenda.” Men are to be won to the Faith, not by violence, but by persuasion. He censured the princes, arguing that “the obstinate were to be excommunicated and if necessary, kept in confinement for the safety of others” (O’Brien, p. 15). The views of Peter Cantor and St. Bernard were ratified by a whole series of synods during that time: Rheims (1049) under Leo IX, Tolouse (1119) under Callistus II, and the Lateran Council of 1139. (This of course changed later on but many centuries after the letter we are discussing).

In this context, I think we can understand what "oppression" might indicate.

Why didn't you mention the Papal bull during this period that explicitly allowed torture of heretics?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_extirpanda

Why didn't you mention that executions for heresy still happened (and in great numbers); the Church just outsourced them?

The unrepentant and apostates could be "relaxed" to secular authority, however, opening the convicted to the possibility of various corporal punishments, up to and including being burned at the stake. Execution was neither performed by the Church, nor was it a sentence available to the officials involved in the inquisition, who, as clerics, were forbidden to kill.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition

Vouthon · May 31, 2016

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Why didn't you mention the Papal bull during this period that explicitly allowed torture of heretics?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_extirpanda

Why didn't you mention that executions for heresy still happened (and in great numbers); the Church just outsourced them?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition

Penguin, this is the LATER period I referred too...The Church changed its approach to both heresy and torture in the High Middle Ages in response to Catharism. It is a tragic case of political expediency transforming religious conviction for the worse.

If you check the source material, you will see that the position of the Church in the EARLY MIDDLE AGES was as I described above. Pope St. Nicholas wrote Ad Consulta Vestra to the Bulgars in AD 866 condemning both judicial torture and compulsion in religious belief. Pope Innocent IV wrote Ad Extirpanda in 1252 sanctioning both of these things (for heretics, not non-believers).

Dramatic change in teaching but nearly 400 years of a difference in time. A LOT changed between 866 and 1252, including the development of a papal monarchy. The Medieval Inquisition did not begin until 1184.

I am discussing 866 with Shad. Pope St. Nicholas' approach held as the official position until the 1184-1252 period. Everything I referred to in my above posts - including all the quotations - relates to the pre-1184 era. Look back at the dates and you'll see.

You cannot use the reasoning of a later historical period to understand the thought of an earlier period.

9-10ths_Penguin · May 31, 2016

Vouthon said:
Penguin, this is the LATER period I referred too...The Church changed its approach to both heresy and torture in the High Middle Ages in response to Catharism. It is a tragic case of political expediency transforming religious conviction for the worse.

If you check the source material, you will see that the position of the Church in the EARLY MIDDLE AGES was as I described above. Pope St. Nicholas wrote Ad Consulta Vestra to the Bulgars in AD 866 condemning both judicial torture and compulsion in religious belief. Pope Innocent IV wrote Ad Extirpanda in 1252 sanctioning both of these things (for heretics, not non-believers).

Dramatic change in teaching but nearly 400 years of a difference in time. A LOT changed between 866 and 1252, including the development of a papal monarchy. The Medieval Inquisition did not begin until 1184.

I am discussing 866 with Shad. Pope St. Nicholas' approach held as the official position until the 1184-1252 period. Everything I referred to in my above posts - including all the quotations - relates to the pre-1184 era. Look back at the dates and you'll see.

You cannot use the reasoning of a later historical period to understand the thought of an earlier period.

You said that the Church's position didn't change until "many centuries" after 1139. 1139 to 1252 is 1.13 centuries; do you consider 1.13 to be "many"?

Flankerl · May 31, 2016

Vouthon said:
Penguin, this is the LATER period I referred too...The Church changed its approach to both heresy and torture in the High Middle Ages in response to Catharism. It is a tragic case of political expediency transforming religious conviction for the worse.

I bet the Arians(and all the other extinct Christian ways) would disagree. But then again they were dirty Heretics weren't they?

Vouthon · May 31, 2016

9-10ths_Penguin said:
You said that the Church's position didn't change until "many centuries" after 1139. 1139 to 1252 is 1.13 centuries; do you consider 1.13 to be "many"?

Sorry but you've misread my statement. I said:

The views of Peter Cantor and St. Bernard were ratified by a whole series of synods during that time: Rheims (1049) under Leo IX, Tolouse (1119) under Callistus II, and the Lateran Council of 1139. (This of course changed later on but many centuries after the letter we are discussing).

The letter I referred to above was the 866 one myself and Shad are discussing.

The dates above are the last occasions in which Pope St. Nicholas's position was reiterated at the official level.

1184 was the date when a decisive change started to occur - a regressive change.

Vouthon · May 31, 2016

Flankerl said:
I bet the Arians(and all the other extinct Christian ways) would disagree. But then again they were dirty Heretics weren't they?

That was the Roman Empire, not the Church.

See the episode I referred to above regarding St. Ambrose, the Pope etc. and St. John Chrysostom which is from this period. They argued against capital punishment and for clemency.

I'll explain what happened: a bishop named Priscillian had created a large movement in Spain which went against the established church and taught "heresy". Emperor Maximus decided to issue the death penalty against Priscillian and his disciples. Saint Martin of Tours travelled to the Imperial court of Trier to free these unfortunate people from the secular jurisdiction of the emperor. Martin prevailed upon the emperor to spare the life of the heretic Priscillian

However when Martin had departed, the emperor ordered Priscillian and his followers to be beheaded in AD 385. Martin was incensed and refused to remain in communion with the emperor. Saint Ambrose of Milan and Pope Siricius supported Saint Martin and said they too would excommunicate him for his position regarding the accused heretics.

See:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscillian

Pope Siricius, Ambrose of Milan, and Martin of Tours protested against the execution, largely on the jurisdictional grounds that an ecclesiastical case should not be decided by a civil tribunal, and worked to reduce the persecution. Pope Siricius censured not only Ithacius but the emperor himself. On receiving information from Maximus, he excommunicated Ithacius and his associates. On an official visit to Trier, Ambrose refused to give any recognition to Itacius, "not wishing to have anything to do with bishops who had sent heretics to their death".[9] Before the trial, Martin had obtained from Maximus a promise not to apply a death penalty. After the execution, Martin broke off relations with the bishop of Trier and all others associated with the enquiries and the trial, and restored communion only when the emperor promised to stop the persecution of the Priscillianists.[9]

A stand-off ensued between the Empire and the Church. St. John Chrysostom later wrote that executing heretics was an "inexpiable crime".

I have read that this was the first ever recorded case of Christians executing other Christians for heresy. And as you can see, blame must be attributed to the State and not the Church - which did all it could to try and stop the executions.

The Church changed its attitude between 1184-1253. In this period, the Church decided to collaborate with States that had declared heresy as a capital offence tantamount to treason by handing condemned heretics over to civil authorities for execution.

It's sad but that's just it.

Luciferi Baphomet · Jun 10, 2016

truelight Mike said:
Honestly, what is it that turns you away from embracing Christianity?

Do you feel differently about Jesus than you do Christianity?

Many things actually. My site http://tswae-bol.wix.com/satanismandeducation.

Akivah · Jun 10, 2016

truelight Mike said:
Honestly, what is it that turns you away from embracing Christianity?

It is foreign.
It doesn't make any sense to me.
I have no reason to.
I have a close relationship with G-d.

truelight Mike said:
Do you feel differently about Jesus than you do Christianity?

Yes.
I believe that jesus is a fictional character that never really existed. However, blame for his death has been used to persecute Jews for over a thousand years.
OTOH Christianity is a real religion. There have been both evil and good adherents of it. I wish that Christians could be satisfied with their own beliefs. Several Christians are members of my own family.

what turns you off from Christianity?

Gone

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler

Revelation all the time

Well-Known Member

Transitioning from male to female

RF's pet cat

Veteran Member

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Well-Known Member

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est

Lucifer, is my Liberator

Well-Known Member