Life, The Universe, And Everything; Continued

[Kuroikaze]

Now while the Southern Baptists can be a priggish bunch from some points of view, they don't really qualify these days. I'll admit that they used to, though. Back in the 50's it was not uncommon to come away from church thinking you were the only ones going to heaven. AoG are a conservative bunch but they're wide open to other denominations both in cooperative efforts and cross denominational fellowship. The figures we used early on (61K self-identified fundamentalists) were from the US Census Bureau's statistical abstract.

 

Southern Baptists are a bit more accepting of other sects of Christianity these days, but they are still pretty asinine to followers of any other religion, most still think that any follower of other another religion or god is actually worshiping Satan in disguise, and don't even get me started on what they think of atheists. I should know, my parents are southern baptist.

 

Thankfully, they aren't actually as conservative as most church goers, though somehow they don't realize it.

[dano]

If we think that Jesus did not rise, but "lives" and "reigns" only in his memories and imaginations, and is not actively and objectively "there" in the place of power, irrespective of whether he is acknowledged or not, we should give up hope of our own rising, and of Jesus' public return, and admit that the idea of churches and Christians being sustained by the Spirit-giving energy of a living Lord was never more than a pleasing illusion. And, in that case, we ought frankly to affirm that, though the New Testament is an amazing witness to the religious creativity of the human spirit, its actual message is more wrong than right, more misleading than helpful; and we must reconstruct our gospel accordingly. Only a weak, muddled, or cowardly mind will hesitate to do this.

... James I. Packer, "Jesus Christ the Lord"

[Vigile]

Vigile,

'By force', I assume, means political action by a minority to manipulate the law toward personal ends, justified by a narrow agenda. Kind of like using the US constitution in a fashion not envisioned by the authors and contrary to their expressed intent. Yes, I know that objection. Unless you can persuade me that's not what is currently going on, I'll just agree with the premise but probably disagree with what your application might look like.

 

While I can't help but agree that free speech is the preferred environment, we must note that oppression has long been the friend of genuine conviction. Perhaps had the church been repressed in the western world as it was elsewhere, it would have been extraordinarily different as a result. While I can't recommend getting shot at, it certainly does separate the wishers from the doers. There'd be a whole lot fewer do-nothing wannabes.

Buddy

 

It's not easy parsing Buddy-speak, but if I understand correctly you argue in true Nietzche fashion, if it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger.

 

To clarify, yes, I'm utterly opposed to groups using the political system to enforce their own bigotries.

 

I'm not sure where you are going with founder's intent, but let's be real here. The founder's intent, whatever that may be, is not the golden rule of absolute truth; neither is the government or law the ultimate guiding force by which we must live our lives. As I said before, Morality 101 would suggest it's not correct to impose upon others whose only harm to you is that they offend you.

 

Thoreau:

 

It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.

[Vigile]

The Shogunate wasn't stupid, they could see that in many other countries the westerners had used Christianity as a precursor to taking political and social control, often resulting in a total destruction of their way of life. Japan would be a very different country today if that choice had not been made.

 

I like it. Nipped that virus right in the bud!

[Vigile]

Where is this conversation going Buddy? Who's the True™ Fundy?

 

Seems to me that line is going to trail off into the abyss of the nonsensical.

[Mankey]

Vigile, on the other hand, is opposed to political action by a minority to manipulate the law toward personal ends, justified by their own narrow agenda. Unless it's atheists doing it which is fine, because it's not the same when atheists do it.

What is wrong with having a government that is neutral when it comes to spiritual beliefs? Heck, I can't say I know of any antitheists who want to legislate atheism...

 

Tell you what. If you find any atheists trying to legislate atheism bitch about it on atheists boards, and if you can show this to be the case with an atheist group just see how many atheists would be against such a thing. Even antitheists do not cotton to the idea of legislating atheism. Secularism is not atheism. Secularism is for everybody....there are some evangelicals that want a secular government. I know a few personally.......I see nothing wrong with culture wars so long as there is no violence or interference by the gubberment either way.

 

Here is another thing that you might be interested in knowing....to me anyways....atheism is earned and it can't be coerced.....it is earned. People have helped me come to atheism, but ultimately I earned it....I changed my mind about superstition. Religion on the other hand is a brainwash in many many cases....with perhaps a few exceptions and I mean a few. If Gods laws are so valuable then they stand on their own without the need for the gooberment to inculcate or coerce them. Its that simple.

 

GrandpaHarley doesn't distinguish between the fundamentalists and other Christians as they are all the dogs of the invaders, responsible for most of history's atrocities. This despite the body count from atheistic totalitarian regimes which exceeds all others combined.

Totalitarian regimes where the state is an idol.....is very bad ju ju. Very bad. You can in no way pin those atrocities on atheism. You keep ignoring that even though it has been pointed out to you before.

 

Atheism has no dogmas. It has no ideologies. It is simply a lack of of confidence in the existence of Gods. Nothing more. An atheist can hold to dogmatic ideologies. Not all atheists are Free Thinkers. Religion on the other hand does have dogmas and does teach the bad habit of non-contingent faith...ie fathis is the substance of things hoped for....'evidence' of things not seen. Christianity is stuck with apostle paul's teachings. Those who can be persuaded in believing absurdities can be persuaded to commit atrocities. Its true....because moral/political decisions that are truly beneficial require thinking and experience -not dogmatic faith as religion teaches.

[Vigile]

I didn't catch this little line Buddy slipped in:

 

Vigile, on the other hand, is opposed to political action by a minority to manipulate the law toward personal ends, justified by their own narrow agenda. Unless it's atheists doing it which is fine, because it's not the same when atheists do it.

 

Putting words in my mouth Buddy. Show me where I said any such thing.

[Sparrow]

Buddy,

 

There were never any "atheist" regimes. There were, and still are, regimes were the ideology stood-in for or replaced a religion.

 

Secondly, even if there were "evil atheist" regimes, you'd be very hard pressed to bring them all together into a body count total and, with a stright face, say that it exceeded all the atrocities ever commited by religious / belief based governments - in history.

 

That's simply not true.

 

Consider Buddy - there have been more people killed in the name of god than ever in the name of satan. This is just a fact.

 

Spatz

[dano]

From his book A letter to a Christian nation, by Sam Harris

 

More than 50% of Americans have a “negative†or “highly negative†view of people who don’t believe in God. 70% think it important for presidential candidates to be “strongly religious.â€

 

“A person who believes that Elvis is still alive is very unlikely to get promoted to a position of great power and responsibility in our society. Neither will a person who believes that the holocaust was a hoax. But people who believe equally irrational things about God and the bible are now running our country. This is genuinely terrifying.â€

 

44% of Americans think Jesus Christ will return in the next 50 years. (22% are “certain†that he will, another 22% think he “probably†will.)

 

“According to the most common interpretation of biblical prophecy, Jesus will return only after things have gone horribly awry. Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.â€

 

Only 28% of Americans believe in evolution (and two-thirds of these believe evolution was “guided by Godâ€). 53% are actually creationists.

 

“Despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of the earth, more than half of our neighbors believe that the entire cosmos was created six thousand years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue.â€

 

87% of Americans say they “never doubt the existence of God.â€

 

“Had the residents of New Orleans been content to rely on the beneficence of the Lord, they wouldn’t have known that a killer hurricane was bearing down upon them until they felt the first gusts of wind on their faces, but a poll conducted by The Washington Post found that 80% of Katrina survivors claim that the event has only strengthened their faith in God.â€

 

28% of Americans believe that every word of the Bible is literally true. 49% believe that it is the “inspired word†of God.

 

“We read the Golden Rule and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses. And then we come across another of God’s teachings on morality: if a man discovers on his wedding night that his bride is not a virgin, he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).â€

 

80% of Americans expect to be called before God on Judgment Day to answer for their sins. 90% believe in heaven. 77% rate their chances of going to heaven as “excellent†or “good.â€

 

“In the year 2006, a person can have sufficient intellectual and material resources to build a nuclear bomb and still believe that he will get seventy-two virgins in Paradise. Western secularists, liberals, and moderates have been very slow to understand this. The cause of their confusion is simple: they don’t know what is like to really believe in God.â€

 

65% of Americans believe in the literal existence of Satan. 73% believe in Hell.

 

“It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion—to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions and religious diversions of scarce resources—is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity.â€

 

83% of Americans believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. (11% disbelieve. 6% don’t know.)

 

“The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.â€

 

* Statistics cited come from PEW, Gallup, and Newsweek. All commentary is by Sam Harris.

[Sparrow]

.....

 

44% of Americans think Jesus Christ will return in the next 50 years. (22% are “certain†that he will, another 22% think he “probably†will.)

 

.....

 

It's interesting to note that jesus been going to "come back in the next 50 years" for as long as there has been official christianity.

 

When my Father became older, he became quite cynical of it all - he told me that when he was a child, he was told by some people that jesus would come back, definitely, within the next 50 years. He told me this when he was 76 - 6 years before he died. Not surprisingly, I also heard the same thing when I was child.

 

One needs to ask "how many more 50 year periods must past before christians start saying - "we don't when."?

 

Thanks

 

Spatz

[BuddyFerris]

The Richard Dimbleby Lecture:

"Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

...

For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria."

Dano,

Did I miss something in biology class? Each or our cells is a colony of bacteria?

Now there are more bacteria in the human body than human cells, not that it matters, but each of our cells a colony? Unless the quote refers to mycoplasmas (which aren't bacteria), I don't understand. You know the answer?

Buddy

It's a Dawkins quote, isn't it?

[BuddyFerris]

TBH, the Church was only 'supressed' elsewhere because it came in like the Borg and as a tool of the invaders. Effectively, they were the running dogs of the invaders, trying to grab souls for 'The Empire' most of time, but a lot of the time they were the architects of the horrors seen... They were suppressed for damned good reason. I really have problems being sympathetic to missionaries getting slotted in some third world hell, since a lot of the time, they're reaping pretty much what was sowed for a number of generations.

I'm sure Nero was deeply disturbed by the advancing hordes of Christian dogs who obviously orchestrated their public tortures and death as an attempt to overthrow the wonderful and benign rule. Then there was Domitian; anything bad that happened whether it was famine, pestilence, or earthquakes he blamed the Christians and put them to death. Trajan in A.D. 108. Christians were beaten, beheaded, and devoured by wild beasts. About ten thousand Christians were put to death. Then came Marcus Aurelius Antoninas and then Severus. Christians were burned at the stake, had hot tar poured on their heads, beheaded, placed in boiling water and ravaged by wild beasts. Then Maximus; Christians were executed without trial and buried indiscriminately in mass graves, sometimes fifty or sixty cast into a pit together. That gets us up to around 235 AD.

 

I know only a little of your reasons and can see that you detest Christianity in general and perhaps Christians as well, yet I find it a little surprising that you dismiss so much of history in your simplifications. We could throw history blurbs back and forth, but is there thought outside the repeated complaint? Or did the Jews and later the Christians literally bring trouble into an otherwise benign and near perfect world?

Buddy

[Kuroikaze]

I'm sure Nero was deeply disturbed by the advancing hordes of Christian dogs who obviously orchestrated their public tortures and death as an attempt to overthrow the wonderful and benign rule. Then there was Domitian; anything bad that happened whether it was famine, pestilence, or earthquakes he blamed the Christians and put them to death. Trajan in A.D. 108. Christians were beaten, beheaded, and devoured by wild beasts. About ten thousand Christians were put to death. Then came Marcus Aurelius Antoninas and then Severus. Christians were burned at the stake, had hot tar poured on their heads, beheaded, placed in boiling water and ravaged by wild beasts. Then Maximus; Christians were executed without trial and buried indiscriminately in mass graves, sometimes fifty or sixty cast into a pit together. That gets us up to around 235 AD.

 

I know only a little of your reasons and can see that you detest Christianity in general and perhaps Christians as well, yet I find it a little surprising that you dismiss so much of history in your simplifications. We could throw history blurbs back and forth, but is there thought outside the repeated complaint? Or did the Jews and later the Christians literally bring trouble into an otherwise benign and near perfect world?

Buddy

 

I'm not sure what history books you have been reading, but I am fairly sure that they have exaggerated these things greatly, you act as if Rome was picking on Christians in particular, but they killed many people in the coliseum, they often killed criminals there, and christians were often considered unpatriotic because they did not worship the emperor (about the equivalent of flag burring in our culture) Yet, most historians feel that the number of Christian martyrs in the first century is greatly over exaggerated. I'd be interested if you have read any primary source documents that contradict this, but truthfully the amount of historical documentation about Christianity produced by any one ELSE besides Christians in the first century is pitifully small, a few small mentions by roman historians and thats about it. Nero in particular did not probably execute more than a few hundred Christians to my knowledge.

 

GH was not referring to first and second century, unless I'm wrong he was referring to more modern (after Christianity had become dominate in Europe) events such as Europe's colonization of Africa and India during the 17th and 18th centuries.

 

In any case, it is illogical to suggest that a belief is true simply because it was suppressed...I'm sure you weren't suggesting that though, right?

 

Judaism and Christianity certainly didn't bring problems into a perfect world, my problem is that they make claims that would lead one to believe they would make the problems better....facts show, they don't. The world is absolutely no better with Christianity in it that it would be without it.

[BuddyFerris]

TBH, the Church was only 'supressed' elsewhere because it came in like the Borg and as a tool of the invaders. Effectively, they were the running dogs of the invaders, trying to grab souls for 'The Empire' most of time, but a lot of the time they were the architects of the horrors seen... They were suppressed for damned good reason. I really have problems being sympathetic to missionaries getting slotted in some third world hell, since a lot of the time, they're reaping pretty much what was sowed for a number of generations.

 

This is very true, in Japan for instance Christianity was outlawed by the shogunate (in the 16th century I believe) Foreign Christians were kicked out and many converts were killed. Sad for sure, but politically it was probably the best choice they could have made in the circumstance.

 

The Shogunate wasn't stupid, they could see that in many other countries the westerners had used Christianity as a precursor to taking political and social control, often resulting in a total destruction of their way of life. Japan would be a very different country today if that choice had not been made.

I'm sure those words are a great comfort in Nanking. There were 10 - 15 million civilian dead in China at the hands of the Japanese who may have killed more civilians deliberately that the Germans. Brutally. With contests to see who could kill the most with a sword. Women of every age, raped. Soldiers going door to door looking for young girls to rape and kill. Read the accounts and tell me again how fortunate we are that there was no Christian influence in that country.

 

Doesn't your conscience wiggle even a little when you do that? It often seems to me that you're not quite honest in these exchanges. The characterization of some group as evil for the purposes of justifying an attack is, if I'm not mistaken, a doublespeak argument. It doesn't say what you mean, but it may suffice. If examined and dismantled, your opposition still remains. What do you really mean?

Buddy

[Kuroikaze]

I'm sure those words are a great comfort in Nanking. There were 10 - 15 million civilian dead in China at the hands of the Japanese who may have killed more civilians deliberately that the Germans. Brutally. With contests to see who could kill the most with a sword. Women of every age, raped. Soldiers going door to door looking for young girls to rape and kill. Read the accounts and tell me again how fortunate we are that there was no Christian influence in that country.

 

Doesn't your conscience wiggle even a little when you do that? It often seems to me that you're not quite honest in these exchanges. The characterization of some group as evil for the purposes of justifying an attack is, if I'm not mistaken, a doublespeak argument. It doesn't say what you mean, but it may suffice. If examined and dismantled, your opposition still remains. What do you really mean?

Buddy

 

 

OH FUCKING HELL....I know you did not just suggest that Japan would not have committed war crimes if they had been a Christian nation. This has to be the most ignorant, foolish thing I've heard you say. Study European (or American) history and tell me that "Christian nations" don't commit atrocities. The crimes the united states committed against the native Americans should be enough to convince you. I'm the one whose conscience is supposed be be "wiggling" Give me a break.

 

Did YOU not just characterize the Japanese as evil because they rejected your pet religion? do you read what you write before you post?

 

I think I've put the finger on where our disagreement comes from. You have a very irrational habit to wear blinders when it comes you your religion.

 

In your view, If a Christian does something good its because they are a believer, but when they do bad its because they are a human. A common view given original sin, but a stupid one.

 

Let me spell out what I think the main problem with Christianity is. It encourages an "us an them" mentality. You might say, "But Kuro, I don't think that way" DON'T YOU?

 

First, Christianity is exclusive, salvation comes only through belief is Jesus, we can walk around this elephant all day, but at the end of it, most Christians think I am going to hell for disagreeing with them, why should they be nice to me if God is going to burn me for eternity?

 

Second, most Christians believe in atonement salvation, that is salvation though the atonement of a blood sacrifice. This whole idea is both offensive, and intolerable in the modern world.

 

Thirdly, original sin teaches that every human is a sinful worm worthy of gods wrath, except Christians of course, because they are saved. Why should most Christians treat any non-Christians with respect, after all you guys are better because you have the holy spirit to guide your actions, and all we have is our own intellect?

 

Maybe, just maybe if Christianity dumped all this crap it would be an OK religion, but it would cease to be Christianity in the opinion of most conservative Christians, so I'm not holding my breath. As long as those beliefs persist Christianity will always encorage an "us and them" mentality, and it will never do anything but make the world a worse place.

 

Would we be perfect without it? I don't even think perfection is a meaningful concept, so that would be a no, but I don't believe in original sin, Christianity IS responsible for its own messes, and until Christians can admit that, it won't get any better.

[Kuroikaze]

Also, making disparaging remarks about Japan in my presence is probably not the wisest thing I for one an glad there is no Christian influence there, if there was I wouldn't have any anime to watch.

[BuddyFerris]

I'm sure those words are a great comfort in Nanking. There were 10 - 15 million civilian dead in China at the hands of the Japanese who may have killed more civilians deliberately that the Germans. Brutally. With contests to see who could kill the most with a sword. Women of every age, raped. Soldiers going door to door looking for young girls to rape and kill. Read the accounts and tell me again how fortunate we are that there was no Christian influence in that country.

 

Doesn't your conscience wiggle even a little when you do that? It often seems to me that you're not quite honest in these exchanges. The characterization of some group as evil for the purposes of justifying an attack is, if I'm not mistaken, a doublespeak argument. It doesn't say what you mean, but it may suffice. If examined and dismantled, your opposition still remains. What do you really mean?

Buddy

 

 

OH FUCKING HELL....I know you did not just suggest that Japan would not have committed war crimes if they had been a Christian nation. This has to be the most ignorant, foolish thing I've heard you say. Study European (or American) history and tell me that "Christian nations" don't commit atrocities. The crimes the united states committed against the native Americans should be enough to convince you. I'm the one whose conscience is supposed be be "wiggling" Give me a break.

 

Did YOU not just characterize the Japanese as evil because they rejected your pet religion? do you read what you write before you post?

 

I think I've put the finger on where our disagreement comes from. You have a very irrational habit to wear blinders when it comes you your religion.

 

In your view, If a Christian does something good its because they are a believer, but when they do bad its because they are a human. A common view given original sin, but a stupid one.

 

Let me spell out what I think the main problem with Christianity is. It encourages an "us an them" mentality. You might say, "But Kuro, I don't think that way" DON'T YOU?

 

First, Christianity is exclusive, salvation comes only through belief is Jesus, we can walk around this elephant all day, but at the end of it, most Christians think I am going to hell for disagreeing with them, why should they be nice to me if God is going to burn me for eternity?

 

Second, most Christians believe in atonement salvation, that is salvation though the atonement of a blood sacrifice. This whole idea is both offensive, and intolerable in the modern world.

 

Thirdly, original sin teaches that every human is a sinful worm worthy of gods wrath, except Christians of course, because they are saved. Why should most Christians treat any non-Christians with respect, after all you guys are better because you have the holy spirit to guide your actions, and all we have is our own intellect?

 

Maybe, just maybe if Christianity dumped all this crap it would be an OK religion, but it would cease to be Christianity in the opinion of most conservative Christians, so I'm not holding my breath. As long as those beliefs persist Christianity will always encorage an "us and them" mentality, and it will never do anything but make the world a worse place.

 

Would we be perfect without it? I don't even think perfection is a meaningful concept, so that would be a no, but I don't believe in original sin, Christianity IS responsible for its own messes, and until Christians can admit that, it won't get any better.

I recognize your perspective, but can't quite agree. To use your own analogy, if a person does something good it can't be because they're a Christian, and if somebody does something bad, it must be because they're a Christian or a church official or some such. Your citation wasn't about Christianity but about politics and power and the mentality of the times. My references to WWII were sound. Read the accounts of Nanking and tell me the US would have done the same. There were no Imperial actions against the troops for having done what they did; there was even imperial sanction for declassifying the Chinese as POWs so that they could be murdered with impunity. Tell me the US or the UK would have done the same. Seriously, K.

Buddy

What the heck is anime about anyway. A friend of mine is a rather good artist in the anime style, and for the life of me, I can't get excited about either the visual art form or the literary underline.

[Kuroikaze]

I recognize your perspective, but can't quite agree. To use your own analogy, if a person does something good it can't be because they're a Christian, and if somebody does something bad, it must be because they're a Christian or a church official or some such.

 

I didn't say this, in fact I carefully avoided saying this, as it would be just as illogical as your position.

 

Your citation wasn't about Christianity but about politics and power and the mentality of the times.

 

You are still doing the same thing I've pointed out a dozen times...it must have been the politics the religion couldn't posibly be to blame cause Christianity is so wonderful and everyone in it has their own pink fluffy bunny. *rolls eyes*

 

My references to WWII were sound. Read the accounts of Nanking and tell me the US would have done the same. There were no Imperial actions against the troops for having done what they did; there was even imperial sanction for declassifying the Chinese as POWs so that they could be murdered with impunity. Tell me the US or the UK would have done the same. Seriously, K.

 

They would and they have...how many civilians were killed during WW2 by American bombs? during the 19th century American soldiers were known for rounding up native Americans and force baptizing them...then lining them up and shooting them. (cause hey they were saved now right? They gave blankets to them which they knew were infected with small pox to kill them off....and these people were civilians not soldiers...some of them small children. American soldiers can also be quite cruel on the battle field. You might remember a little bit of a social altercation in our country in the 60's over a place called Vietnam. It wasn't an issue because the American soldiers were over there having coffee and toast with the Vietnamese, they were killing an torturing civilians. Are you really this ignorant of your own countries history?

 

What the heck is anime about anyway. A friend of mine is a rather good artist in the anime style, and for the life of me, I can't get excited about either the visual art form or the literary underline.

 

 

You can take it or leave it, I don't care, I like it. And one thing I like about Japanese entertainment is that it is almost totally devoid of Christian influence.

[Rime]

First, I'll let you know that was my daughter at a year old. First time she'd seen a pumpkin and she wanted to hold it in her chair. Then she started drumming on it, and my wife snapped the candid photo, which makes her look like a demented tribal drumming on a gourd.

 

Second, I many cases I prefer a amime over American made movies. If it's not your thing, though Buddy, it's not a crime . I'm like that with top 40 bands. People look at me funny because I don't like the Tragically Hip and Nickelback. And you can't be Canadian if you don't think they're awesome.

 

I'll duck out a bit for now because I'll have to chew on those 10 last posts or risk having the title of "Tourist." I like active forums, but take two days off...

[Kuroikaze]

Your citation wasn't about Christianity but about politics and power and the mentality of the times. My references to WWII were sound. Read the accounts of Nanking and tell me the US would have done the same.

 

Its also worth noting that while you blame politics for the bad behavior of Christians, you very clearly blamed religion for the behavior of the Japanese, rather than the politics of that era. Hypocritical much? Which is it? does religion effect behavior or not?

 

 

Edit: Unless what you really mean to say is that Christianity only effects people in a positive way, but all those evil satanic Japanese religions make people do bad things. Is that what you meant?

[Grandpa Harley]

TBH, the Church was only 'supressed' elsewhere because it came in like the Borg and as a tool of the invaders. Effectively, they were the running dogs of the invaders, trying to grab souls for 'The Empire' most of time, but a lot of the time they were the architects of the horrors seen... They were suppressed for damned good reason. I really have problems being sympathetic to missionaries getting slotted in some third world hell, since a lot of the time, they're reaping pretty much what was sowed for a number of generations.

I'm sure Nero was deeply disturbed by the advancing hordes of Christian dogs who obviously orchestrated their public tortures and death as an attempt to overthrow the wonderful and benign rule. Then there was Domitian; anything bad that happened whether it was famine, pestilence, or earthquakes he blamed the Christians and put them to death. Trajan in A.D. 108. Christians were beaten, beheaded, and devoured by wild beasts. About ten thousand Christians were put to death. Then came Marcus Aurelius Antoninas and then Severus. Christians were burned at the stake, had hot tar poured on their heads, beheaded, placed in boiling water and ravaged by wild beasts. Then Maximus; Christians were executed without trial and buried indiscriminately in mass graves, sometimes fifty or sixty cast into a pit together. That gets us up to around 235 AD.

 

I know only a little of your reasons and can see that you detest Christianity in general and perhaps Christians as well, yet I find it a little surprising that you dismiss so much of history in your simplifications. We could throw history blurbs back and forth, but is there thought outside the repeated complaint? Or did the Jews and later the Christians literally bring trouble into an otherwise benign and near perfect world?

Buddy

 

TBH, you're taking the Christian documentation of why the Emperors did what they did. Effectively, the problem with Christians was that they were a civil problem. The Romans didn't give a good shit who you worshipped, as long as you paid your taxes and didn't cause riots. The different sects of Christians were pretty much a pain in everyone's ass, denouncing each other to the authorities as 'seditionist' when they weren't fighting each other in the streets over the nature of their 'loving god'. The hash was finally settled by Eusebius under Constantine, by rendering the popularist t views 'correct' (Irenaeus, Marcion, parts of Arius, and the Tarsean Triune) while simultaneously rendering each a heresy. Since Eusebius was a supporter of Irenaeus, that line was 'least heretical' in it's pure form.

 

After Theodosius, 'Orthodox' Christianity then took the battle out to the rest of the world, as an organ of Empire.

 

As to simplifying things, I'd say it was you doing the simplifying, since the histories of the Martyrs are pretty much exclusively a Catholic fiction, taking the deaths of some Gnostic sects (the ones who believed that flesh was a prison) and making them more than they were... chances are it was other 'Christians' who'd put them there.

 

And the reason I detest apologists is that they seldom know history 'Buddy'. So I keep it simple for those of little brains who use flowery language. Capice?

[Grandpa Harley]

Your citation wasn't about Christianity but about politics and power and the mentality of the times. My references to WWII were sound. Read the accounts of Nanking and tell me the US would have done the same.

 

Let's see... Native Americans probably have a comment on that... As would the North Vietnamese.... and the lads in Abu Girab.

[Vigile]

Your citation wasn't about Christianity but about politics and power and the mentality of the times. My references to WWII were sound. Read the accounts of Nanking and tell me the US would have done the same.

 

Let's see... Native Americans probably have a comment on that... As would the North Vietnamese.... and the lads in Abu Girab.

 

And there he goes with the ol' US is a xian nation line again.

 

Buddy, are you suggesting that the reason the US wouldn't slaughter millions gleefully is due to their xian roots?

 

Your logic skills are crackers man. But then that's why you're still a xian so we'll continue to coddle you along.

 

The US has in fact slaughtered millions around the globe. Should we then say that they did so in a somber manner because they had god's pius pride shoved up their ass?

[dano]

The Richard Dimbleby Lecture:

"Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

...

For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria."

Dano,

Did I miss something in biology class? Each or our cells is a colony of bacteria?

Now there are more bacteria in the human body than human cells, not that it matters, but each of our cells a colony? Unless the quote refers to mycoplasmas (which aren't bacteria), I don't understand. You know the answer?

Buddy

It's a Dawkins quote, isn't it?

 

Here is the speech!

 

Where I think you weren't paying enough attention was in nomology, and homology class!

 

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldO...2dimbleby.shtml

[dano]

TBH, the Church was only 'supressed' elsewhere because it came in like the Borg and as a tool of the invaders. Effectively, they were the running dogs of the invaders, trying to grab souls for 'The Empire' most of time, but a lot of the time they were the architects of the horrors seen... They were suppressed for damned good reason. I really have problems being sympathetic to missionaries getting slotted in some third world hell, since a lot of the time, they're reaping pretty much what was sowed for a number of generations.

I'm sure Nero was deeply disturbed by the advancing hordes of Christian dogs who obviously orchestrated their public tortures and death as an attempt to overthrow the wonderful and benign rule. Then there was Domitian; anything bad that happened whether it was famine, pestilence, or earthquakes he blamed the Christians and put them to death. Trajan in A.D. 108. Christians were beaten, beheaded, and devoured by wild beasts. About ten thousand Christians were put to death. Then came Marcus Aurelius Antoninas and then Severus. Christians were burned at the stake, had hot tar poured on their heads, beheaded, placed in boiling water and ravaged by wild beasts. Then Maximus; Christians were executed without trial and buried indiscriminately in mass graves, sometimes fifty or sixty cast into a pit together. That gets us up to around 235 AD.

 

I know only a little of your reasons and can see that you detest Christianity in general and perhaps Christians as well, yet I find it a little surprising that you dismiss so much of history in your simplifications. We could throw history blurbs back and forth, but is there thought outside the repeated complaint? Or did the Jews and later the Christians literally bring trouble into an otherwise benign and near perfect world?

Buddy

 

No, they only perfected trouble, torture, deceit, and most all forms of repression into an otherwise benign and near perfect world!