Catholicism is not Christianity

[JosephDredd]

With this portion, my point was not the legality of it. Although people often chose to be indentured servants for a variety of reasons, including room and board, for a certain amount of time. And people still can essentially do that now still, just without the contract. Someone with a housing complex for example may let the janitor live rent-free if he cleans up. Obviously the treatment would be presumably better but indentured servitude basically is just work in exchange for something (removing a debt of some kind, a place to live, etc) for a set amount of time but in its most common form the servants lived on the owners land and answered to him completely.

But there were two points behind made. What did the Bible say about slavery? Many people think it has the Bible's tacit approval by it not condemning it but it did condemn it, at least what we think of as slavery today. The second was why didn't Jesus condemn it? But the Bible doesn't contain a fraction of what Jesus said and did. There'd be no reason to think he didn't condemn it because that is what was taught. And also simply that one would view indentured servitude differently than kidnapping into slavery.

I did add a qualifier to my original post (that you hadn't quoted) that just because the Bible doesn't show what Jesus said on the subject doesn't mean he never said anything. Given his teachings and OT law one would have to conclude imo he was against it. When even OT law condemns something you know it's bad! But hopefully that will help for someone else reading it if it wasn't as clear as it could've been in the original post.

On an interesting side note, Indentured servants sometimes entered into the contract willingly and sometimes were coerced. Despite the former basically just being a legal contract, because the latter more closely resembled slavery it was all made illegal. The interesting part is that it is illegal when done by citizens but it's legal as a punishment for crime such as prisons that are labor camps. The government always seems to find itself a loophole!

Peace

Thanks for the thoughtful answers. I am skeptical that indentured servitude looked more like a janitor paying for his room and board and less like an employer overworking illegal migrant workers while docking their meagre pay for all kinds of imagined infractions while threatening to have them deported, but I appreciate your input. I do think that we're approaching this from too different positions.

 

[ucunc156]

LOL Christianity WAS catholicism. Everything is just an offshoot. Yes, the catholic church has much political power and has throughout time. Other factions simply dont have the numbers to project any of that power or else they would be structured the same way. The fundamental tenant of Christianity is belief in Christ as our Savior. Catholics, protestants, lutherans, etc all believe that. What the OP describes is what makes those religions separate branches of Christianity than Catholicism.

 

[SakuMemories]

LOL Christianity WAS catholicism.

Except it wasn't. The east-west split happened in the 11th century. Now of course catholicism have already taken shape and form before that, but at the very worst both Orthodox and Catholic churches are offshoots the first church. The vatican papists are evidently not the "first" ones to the party.

 

[ucunc156]

what are you talking about? Peter is recognized as the first pope. the east west split split catholicism and eastern orthodox. any protestants mentioned in the OP don't belong to either sect and are instead an offspring of catholicism. Luther separated from the catholic church, not the eastern orthodox. to claim catholicism isn't christianity is to claim eastern orthadox isn't as well (both are wrong statements).

As I said, the central tenant of christianity is belief that Christ is the savior. It is undisputed between Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthadox. To say any parts of the above 3 religions aren't Chrisitan is silly and incorrect.

 

[skombolis]

Thanks for the thoughtful answers. I am skeptical that indentured servitude looked more like a janitor paying for his room and board and less like an employer overworking illegal migrant workers while docking their meagre pay for all kinds of imagined infractions while threatening to have them deported, but I appreciate your input. I do think that we're approaching this from too different positions.

I agree most of the time it would not be something as simple and pleasant as a janitor living rent free in exchange for work. I was just making the point that indentured servitude by definition doesn't have to be a bad thing whereas there is no type of slavery that isn't abhorrent. And that many times both parties agree to the indentured servitude, even if it sucks for one side.

To me it would be like comparing predatory lending to stealing someone's pension. I'm not looking to minimize indentured servitude but rather am pointing out how much worse kidnapping someone into slavery is compared to someone agreeing to indentured servitude. So when people say slavery was never condemned biblically I think it is worth making the distinction that what they really mean is it never addressed indentured servitude. It did condemn slavery.

Peace

 

[skombolis]

what are you talking about? Peter is recognized as the first pope. the east west split split catholicism and eastern orthodox. any protestants mentioned in the OP don't belong to either sect and are instead an offspring of catholicism. Luther separated from the catholic church, not the eastern orthodox. to claim catholicism isn't christianity is to claim eastern orthadox isn't as well (both are wrong statements).

As I said, the central tenant of christianity is belief that Christ is the savior. It is undisputed between Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthadox. To say any parts of the above 3 religions aren't Chrisitan is silly and incorrect.

This

It would still be wrong if Eastern Orthodox was claiming it but there is nothing in dispute as far as Protestant and Catholic. Protestants were Catholics, use the Catholic Bible (except they removed 6 books from the OT) and then left the Catholic church to become Protestants because Martin Luther objected to the practice of selling indulgences.

Some Protestants not only want to burn the bridge, they want to claim it never existed. By saying Catholics aren't Christians it is saying Christianity didn't really exist until Martin Luther and is saying whether someone is a Christian or not is somehow contingent on how Martin Luther fell about indulgences and he had the ability to to say anyone who didn't leave the RCC to follow him isn't a Christian. It would essentially be making Martin Luther the same as Jesus.

Had the separation been over a teaching regarding Jesus being Lord and Savior that would be one thing. But that Christ saves through Grace was always taught. Indulgences were basically some church leaders making some money off people by telling them it would shave some time off how long it took for someone to be purified before entering Heaven. A process one easily could interpret as literal (purgatory) as explained in Ephesians (which the RCC now teaches is metaphorical)

While there is no question that practice was shady it did not change anything about the core beliefs. But even more so it has absolutely nothing to do with Catholics today. It is trying to say Catholics aren't Christians despite believing the exact same NT that all Christians are under because in the 16th century some church leaders are corrupt. But Christ's church is the body of believers, no matter what denomination

So ironically, anyone claiming this is really saying you have to be a protestant to be saved! Two denominations, both following the same Bible, and one denomination is going to tell the other one that actually commissioned the Bible that not only their church isn't Christian but none of it's members are and that over a billion people who trust in Christ for salvation are not saved. I don't know what really would be more heretical than that.

 

[SakuMemories]

what are you talking about? Peter is recognized as the first pope. the east west split split catholicism and eastern orthodox.

Umm only the catholics recognize peter to be "pope", in the sense that only they recognize popes to begin with.

You should look into medieval christian history and the byzantine empire. The churches were already diverging along ideological, political and even national grounds, centuries before the actual split occurred. Its quite interesting.

To claim catholicism isn't christianity is to claim eastern orthadox isn't as well (both are wrong statements).

Actually I do recognize catholics to be christians. I said as much earlier.

It is undisputed between Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthadox. To say any parts of the above 3 religions aren't Chrisitan is silly and incorrect.

Catholics and the orthodox are "kind of" compatible and even recognize one another's dogmatic validity to some extent. Of course there are unbridgeable gaps, the Pope being one of them, but both recognize one another as christians. However both agree with each other that the protestants are heretics. So the idea that all 3 denominations (i like how you said "religions" lol) are equally christian is not true. Unless you are a protestant, that is, there is no way you can think that all 3 are cool.

 

[skombolis]

Umm only the catholics recognize peter to be "pope", in the sense that only they recognize popes to begin with.

You should look into medieval christian history and the byzantine empire. The churches were already diverging along ideological, political and even national grounds, centuries before the actual split occurred. Its quite interesting.


Actually I do recognize catholics to be christians. I said as much earlier.


Catholics and the orthodox are "kind of" compatible and even recognize one another's dogmatic validity to some extent. Of course there are unbridgeable gaps, the Pope being one of them, but both recognize one another as christians. However both agree with each other that the protestants are heretics. So the idea that all 3 denominations (i like how you said "religions" lol) are equally christian is not true. Unless you are a protestant, that is, there is no way you can think that all 3 are cool.

The issue some have with Protestant teachings is that they don't use anything Jesus says about salvation. If you were to ask a Protestant to list 10 verses on how one is saved, for most it would not be uncommon if the majority of the verses listed (or all of them) didn't include what Jesus said about it. They basically go by what Paul says.

However that doesn't mean they aren't Christians because the entire NT is valid. Granted it makes it a little more odd when some people from the group that emphasizes Paul's teachings more accuses the other group of not following Christ but if they trust in Christ for salvation than they are Christians.

Who is saved however is something only God knows for sure. But even if Protestants don't believe obedience is required yet they obey anyway because they want to then there is every reason to think they will be saved. And if a Catholic believes obedience is needed but returns to a life of sin there is every reason to think he won't be saved. The disagreement is simply whether obedience is required. But both sides should agree it is a moot point if it is done regardless and someone trusts in Christ for salvation. So I disagree that Catholics somehow by definition wouldn't think Protestants are Christians. Although just like some Protestants, I am sure some Catholics feel others aren't Christians. But I don't think but is the norm, certainly not from my life experiences.

 

[JosephDredd]

I agree most of the time it would not be something as simple and pleasant as a janitor living rent free in exchange for work. I was just making the point that indentured servitude by definition doesn't have to be a bad thing whereas there is no type of slavery that isn't abhorrent. And that many times both parties agree to the indentured servitude, even if it sucks for one side.

To me it would be like comparing predatory lending to stealing someone's pension. I'm not looking to minimize indentured servitude but rather am pointing out how much worse kidnapping someone into slavery is compared to someone agreeing to indentured servitude. So when people say slavery was never condemned biblically I think it is worth making the distinction that what they really mean is it never addressed indentured servitude. It did condemn slavery.

Peace

I get what you're saying now.

Peace

 

[skombolis]

I get what you're saying now.

Peace

Cool

And normally I just post whatever pops into my head. I must have deleted portions of this and started over half a dozen times. For whatever reason I was having a hard time articulating the idea that one is worse without it sounding like I was half-defending indentured servitude.

Peace