I think the problem with that is the assumption that everyone who thinks homosexuality is a sin is really just a homophobe. I've met many who are not homophobes, and yet hold this to be truth. It boggles me, but it's nonetheless the case for a good deal of Christians. There's a very casual bigotry in accepting a doctrine with these terms when their mind tells them otherwise.
I also think it's naive to think that Christians will "grow up" and see the error of their ways without taking into account the other socio-political factors in fundamentalist christianity's popularity today.
I do want to take this point though: "There is a BIG difference between saying that there is no one way to interpret scripture and saying that every way is equally valid." That's the way I feel about religion as a whole. Admitting that there are various ways to understand the universe doesn't mean they're equally right, or equally useful. (As an aside I"m much more concerned with it being right than useful). You seem to think, that religion is at least as useful as science. The evidence I've been presented leads me to strongly disagree.
Furthermore, I hope that humanity will "grow up" and discard parts of ALL religions that ARE toxic, that divide us, that lead to violence, that keep its adherents in the dark. But then, I also think that religion without those things won't look anything like it does today, which is precisely why there is so much fight to keep believing.
Everyone is afraid of change.
I tried to stay out of the chat but I must make a contribution. Meatrace has said many things slandering religion, more precisely Christianity. I would stand fast and say Christianity is a positive and enabling force in the world.
Art, science, culture, philanthropy, sociology, politics, education and medicine have all had distinctively Christian contributions as well as some brilliant individual Christian contributions.Someone has noted that in many countries colonized by missionary-minded endeavor, the rise of education and culture and learning among the people concerned also occurred. This is not to say that all that occurred was good -there were some frightful abuses. But the society of some peoples was undoubtedly improved as was their health conditions and minority or oppressed groups like women and children.
The rise of freedom and the abolition of slavery were all spearheaded or sought by Christians. Many laws have as their basis distinctively Christian principles.
Many depraved individuals who previously were a blot on society have turned from 'darkness to light' and then made and are making a positive, rather then negative impact on society.
Meatrace has said many things slandering religion, more precisely Christianity. I would stand fast and say Christianity is a positive and enabling force in the world.
I've been saying that it's both. You can't deny the negative things.
Certainly you don't think that when horrible things are excused by religion they become less horrible. I want to hold the feet to the fire of professed religious individuals to not accept these things' place in their religion.Then I'll have nothing to complain about.
Except them still being wrong :P
I tried to stay out of the chat but I must make a contribution. Meatrace has said many things slandering religion, more precisely Christianity. I would stand fast and say Christianity is a positive and enabling force in the world.
Art, science, culture, philanthropy, sociology, politics, education and medicine have all had distinctively Christian contributions as well as some brilliant individual Christian contributions.
Someone has noted that in many countries colonized by missionary-minded endeavor, the rise of education and culture and learning among the people concerned also occurred. This is not to say that all that occurred was good -there were some frightful abuses. But the society of some peoples was undoubtedly improved as was their health conditions and minority or oppressed groups like women and children.
The rise of freedom and the abolition of slavery were all spearheaded or sought by Christians. Many laws have as their basis distinctively Christian principles.
Many depraved individuals who previously were a blot on society have turned from 'darkness to light' and then made and are making a positive, rather then negative impact on society.
Just curious, how would you compare the loss of a single human life to a rise in literacy?
To reword that, if someone raised literacy rates, do you think that makes up for the fact that they murdered someone?
If someone molested a child, would your judgement be mitigated by their support of the abolition of slavery?
Your accounting is leaving out the majority negative things and I think it is diminishing the value of those negative things. If you want to claim that Christianity as a whole is responsible for positive things that it's members have done, then you must attribute it with the negative things that it's members have done as well.
If you want to make the conversation about this, go ahead, but realize that for every positive thing you mention, I'm going to bring up a whole slew of negative things. For example, the thousand year long oppression of the Jewish people in Europe that included torture and murder. It is very well documented and perpetrated by Christians.
You're better off talking about how to improve Christianity in the future and the future good it could achieve.
Darwking:
There is, for the lack of a better word, a spectrum of interpretation when you look at a text. Something can be
1) The right meaning
2) A right meaning
3) A possible meaning
4) A little iffy
5) Shoehorning it
6) Full on mental gymnastics
7) Crazy enough to be the material component for a fireball spell
8) The complete opposite of what the text says.
The idea that Homosexuality is a sin is pretty much dead on. The idea that it is not is 6 if not 7. I don't think you can blame the religious folks for coming to that conclusion, much less expect an outsider like meatrace to decide that they're not the real christians because they're using what the bible says rather than your personal thought process on the matter.
I tried to stay out of the chat but I must make a contribution. Meatrace has said many things slandering religion, more precisely Christianity. I would stand fast and say Christianity is a positive and enabling force in the world.
Art, science, culture, philanthropy, sociology, politics, education and medicine have all had distinctively Christian contributions as well as some brilliant individual Christian contributions.
Someone has noted that in many countries colonized by missionary-minded endeavor, the rise of education and culture and learning among the people concerned also occurred. This is not to say that all that occurred was good -there were some frightful abuses. But the society of some peoples was undoubtedly improved as was their health conditions and minority or oppressed groups like women and children.
The rise of freedom and the abolition of slavery were all spearheaded or sought by Christians. Many laws have as their basis distinctively Christian principles.
Many depraved individuals who previously were a blot on society have turned from 'darkness to light' and then made and are making a positive, rather then negative impact on society.Just curious, how would you compare the loss of a single human life to a rise in literacy?
To reword that, if someone raised literacy rates, do you think that makes up for the fact that they murdered someone?
If someone molested a child, would your judgement be mitigated by their support of the abolition of slavery?
Your accounting is leaving out the majority negative things and I think it is diminishing the value of those negative things. If you want to claim that Christianity as a whole is responsible for positive things that it's members have done, then you must attribute it with the negative things that it's members have done as well.
If you want to make the conversation about this, go ahead, but realize that for every positive thing you mention, I'm going to bring up a whole slew of negative things. For example,...
Thanks for the comments. I believe in order to have a meaningful discussion we have to have the presence of good faith.
I'm not willing to grant that you will be intellectually honest in your critism of Christianity.
I'm not willing to grant that you will be intellectually honest in your critism of Christianity.
Rather than an ad hom could you perhaps refute his examples?
|
There's plenty of bad in the new testament as well. But yes, Jesus himself was a pretty cool dude. He and I could've been buds.
I don't think he and I would get along. However I do have a thing for nice Jewish boys so I could see maybe mutually agreed upon fun time sex.
Yeah, I'd have been telling him to not weather all that abuse, train his support in combat, and defend themselves.
I'd also tell him that he's insane in his belief in undeserved/unearned forgiveness, niceness, and scapegoating, and would have argued instead the value of self-reliance and honor. I DO agree about the severity of betrayal. There is nothing more despicable, and any wrongdoing that involves betrayal is far worse than one that does not.
The most morally correct people in my opinion, those favoring views like Tyr. But I'll take any norse worshipper over a christian for moral value. I dont agree with descriminating against people who hold different personal beliefs than you, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else.
That theoretical gay guy? unless he is lying to people about having AIDS, or he's kidnapping and raping people, not only is it none of your business, it is Evil* for you to go out of your way to make him miserable for being different, even if you dont like him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most morally correct people in my opinion, those favoring views like Tyr.
That Duplicitous bastard! He promised to take this string off after a few minutes. I got chained to this rock for all of eternity and all i got was this stupid hand.
But I'll take any norse worshipper over a christian for moral value.
Thor was almost married to another male, and Loki definitely supports the trans gendered community.
I tried to stay out of the chat but I must make a contribution. Meatrace has said many things slandering religion, more precisely Christianity. I would stand fast and say Christianity is a positive and enabling force in the world.
Art, science, culture, philanthropy, sociology, politics, education and medicine have all had distinctively Christian contributions as well as some brilliant individual Christian contributions.
Someone has noted that in many countries colonized by missionary-minded endeavor, the rise of education and culture and learning among the people concerned also occurred. This is not to say that all that occurred was good -there were some frightful abuses. But the society of some peoples was undoubtedly improved as was their health conditions and minority or oppressed groups like women and children.
The rise of freedom and the abolition of slavery were all spearheaded or sought by Christians. Many laws have as their basis distinctively Christian principles.
Many depraved individuals who previously were a blot on society have turned from 'darkness to light' and then made and are making a positive, rather then negative impact on society.Just curious, how would you compare the loss of a single human life to a rise in literacy?
To reword that, if someone raised literacy rates, do you think that makes up for the fact that they murdered someone?
If someone molested a child, would your judgement be mitigated by their support of the abolition of slavery?
Your accounting is leaving out the majority negative things and I think it is diminishing the value of those negative things. If you want to claim that Christianity as a whole is responsible for positive things that it's members have done, then you must attribute it with the negative things that it's members have done as well.
If you want to make the conversation about this, go ahead, but realize that for every positive thing you mention, I'm going to bring up a whole slew of negative things. For example,...
In 1692 a total of twenty people were executed for witchcraft. Within five years of these executions, the Massachusetts general court offered public repentance for these actions. It also deplored the action of the judges in these cases. One of these judges publically confessed his sin from the pulpit. The jurors who convicted the alleged witches signed a statement of regret. Member of the families of those who had been executed were offered indemnities.
The Salem Witch Trials were an example of religious hysteria leading to tragic results, but human history is filled with endless examples of such punishment of the innocent. What should amaze serious historians is the unprecedented, total and timely repudiation of this crime by the very people who perpetrated it. When else in history has this happened?
Moslem Turkey today does not recognize its genocide of 1.5 million Armenian Christians in the Twentieth Century. China does not acknowledge any fault in its genocide of Tibetan Buddhists. The Soviet Union never apologized for its extermination of millions of believing Christians.
But Christians in New England, over three centuries ago, took their miscarriage of justice very seriously and did precisely what Jesus instructed them to do: repent quickly and completely. Why does Hollywood and history books make so much of this event?
The answer to that question is easy: how many of you knew only about the witch trials themselves, often in great detail, but knew nothing at all about the utter and absolute repudiation of this sad episode by the Christians of Massachusetts Bay Colony within five years of the trials?
Why do most people know nothing about the 1.5 Million Polish Christians stuffed into cattle cars and sent to concentration camps by Soviets between September 1939 and June 1941? Why do most people not know that Germans joining the Schutzstaffel, the monsters who perpetrated the Holocaust - were required to renounce their Christianity?
Christians are blamed for the Holocaust. This horrific slaughter of more than six million Jewish men, women and children is rightly condemned as among the worst crimes of the Twentieth Century.
But the very first people who voluntarily opposed Hitler and his Nazi Regime out of religious conscience were the Protestant clergy of Germany. Had they simply ignored the evil of Nazism, they could have lived in relative comfort and safety. Most did not.
The political ruler in Europe who risked the most to save Jews, who did so with no hope for any earthly reward, and who saved at least forty thousand Jews from extermination, was also the most profoundly religious political ruler on the continent of Europe: Francisco Franco of Spain.
When Tsarist Russia began its last round of pogroms at the end of the Nineteenth Century, the loudest voices in opposition were Christian church leaders from around the world. When the long exile of Jews from England ended, this was the result of the only governor of England who owed his power specifically because of the utter support of pious Christians, Oliver Cromwell, the great Puritan commander.
When Jews first found a real home after the diaspora, the safety and security of America, it was George Washington, who embraced Christianity more seriously than perhaps any president in American history, who wrote his famous letter to the Jews of Newport.
This document, which is still read every year in some synagogues, goes far beyond simple toleration, which cynical and irreligious European rulers of the Enlightenment had often offered Jews, but protection against bigotry and persecution. The letter is not legalism, but morality, Christian morality that welcomed Jews to America.
Hoo boy, Oliver Cromwell indeed. Ya know, burning Catholics...
Your laundry list is replete with exaggerations and convenient half-truths. But it doesn't matter, you're a "true believer" and can't be swayed.
|
|
The most morally correct people in my opinion, those favoring views like Tyr.That Duplicitous bastard! He promised to take this string off after a few minutes. I got chained to this rock for all of eternity and all i got was this stupid hand.
lol. Yep.
Chalk it up to moral compromise to save lives. Any other time I hear him mentioned when reading about him, he's staunchly honorable.
Thor was almost married to another male, and Loki definitely supports the trans gendered community.
But I'll take any norse worshipper over a christian for moral value.
Absolutely. And if you show up and you worshipped /other/ gods? That's not something you should have to die for, even 1000 years ago.
Independence.
Honor.
Justice.
Tolerance of other people when they aren't harming anyone.
I'll take that over the christian priorities; and I'll take Justice over Forgiveness any day.
Repentence? Worthless. Saying you're sorry has virtually no value. Restitution, on the other hand... You wrong someone, don't ask them to just let it go. Fix it. Make it up to them. Forgiveness should be earned, not given, and should never come easily.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not willing to grant that you will be intellectually honest in your critism of Christianity.
I'm willing to be honest if you are.
This is one event I am discussing. Are you telling me that Christians weren't responsible for it? If you're going to do a total evaluation of the good/bad of Christianity, you need to tell me how many literacy points that event equals. I'm not saying good events can't cancel out bad events, but your initial accounting played down the bad events very significantly.
Talking about advances in science, when that same organization is also responsible for repressing science seems disingenuous, when that organization is also responsible for murdering and torturing people for their religious beliefs and ethnicity.
How about how the Pope ordered all the Jews to live in the same neighborhood in 1555. The Pope ordered that a wall be built around the neighborhood. Know who was required to pay for that wall? The occupants inside of it. You can say "That's just one guy" or "He doesn't represent all of Christianity". The thing is though, that ghetto existed for 300 years and was the last ghetto in Europe, until the Nazi's re-instituted them.
The Spanish Inquisition is often joked about, but it often seems like people don't know what it was actually about. At the time, Jews were being forced to convert to Catholicism. Part of the problem was that there was an ongoing struggle between Christians and Muslims in that country and the Jews were mostly neutral. Having been spread all over Europe and the Mediterranean, Jews were quite well adapted to getting along with different kinds of people, speaking their language and adapting to their culture. At first, the Muslims were targeted for harassment and torture, but as they started to disappear, it shifted to the Jews. Jews were forced to convert to Christianity, sometimes though coercion, other times they were literally held down and baptized.
After these forced conversions, people began to suspect they weren't honest about their new faith and still secretly practiced Judaism. The purpose of the inquisition was to root out these "false christians". They tortured out confessions and burned people alive.
My question, how many people do you need to teach to read for that to be okay?
|
|
How many people do you need to teach to read for that to be okay?
What a question.
The answer is none. It can't be done. The value of literacy =/= the value of lives. Saving lives? That might count towards making up for it. No amount of literacy is equal to a human life. Maybe if they start training doctors for free, or something, so there are more people who can save lives.
Or scientists finding cures for diseases.
How many people do you need to teach to read for that to be okay?What a question.
The answer is none. It can't be done. The value of literacy =/= the value of lives. Saving lives? That might count towards making up for it. No amount of literacy is equal to a human life. Maybe if they start training doctors for free, or something, so there are more people who can save lives.
Or scientists finding cures for diseases.
Which is kind of my point, nothing can truly be done to make up for the people killed in Christianity's name. Trying to justify the existence of the church through it's good works compared to it's bad works is a fruitless effort, because nothing can ever be done to make up for the people killed.
If a doctor murdered someone, should we let him go free just because he saved lives when he worked in an ER.
I said it a couple posts ago, if the Christians in this thread would rather look forward at how the religion could be used for good in the future instead, I am willing to discuss that. I think there is potential in that conversation.
|
|
In your doctor example. If the doctor murdered someone, and the victim didn't do anything to /deserve it (was a serial killer, serial rapist, killed the doctor's wife, etc)/:
Lives saved in the past don't make it okay, no.
But if he is truly sorry for it, he could be a worthwhile human being by working for redemption, as it were, by redoubling his efforts to save lives, make any amends to the victim's family (perhaps support the vic's family). That could eventually be of the same value or more than the value of making the doctor suffer for what he did wrong. An alternative to the death sentence, or a lengthy prison term. Of course, it only works if he's not being selfish about it, and he's not in it for the $$.
I was saying you could apply the same thing to the christian organizagtions, notably the catholic church. If they were to acknowledge all of the evil things they have allowed in the past, publically state those crimes were evil and wrong and unacceptable, and that they will be attempting to atone for their actions by striving to only be a force for good, and focus on feeding the starving, preventing and curing diseases (even those that are spread by "sinning", such as AIDS) training doctors and being willing to send them where they're needed, etc, they could move from being an organization that has good and evil things, to one who did evil things, then a mix of evil and good things, and is now only doing good things. Of course they can't just say it, they'd have to actually do it, and it would take a long time to make up for each an every death they caused.
And to bring it all back around, part of that conversation should include ways to stop bigotry towards gays.
Hoo boy, Oliver Cromwell indeed. Ya know, burning Catholics...
Your laundry list is replete with exaggerations and convenient half-truths. But it doesn't matter, you're a "true believer" and can't be swayed.
Typical fall back position to discredit the other guy by any and all means. Nice come back.
|
|
And to bring it all back around, part of that conversation should include ways to stop bigotry towards gays.
Sure. But it shouldn't be "ABOUT" that. That's one thing to make up for in a list of things of varying sizes and severities, and I wouldn't put it at the top, but it would be fairly high on the list, yeah.
And it would take more than talk on stopping bigotry towards gays, they'd also have to actively help gays who have been the victims of bigotry.
I'm not willing to grant that you will be intellectually honest in your critism of Christianity.I'm willing to be honest if you are.
This is one event I am discussing. Are you telling me that Christians weren't responsible for it? If you're going to do a total evaluation of the good/bad of Christianity, you need to tell me how many literacy points that event equals. I'm not saying good events can't cancel out bad events, but your initial accounting played down the bad events very significantly.
Talking about advances in science, when that same organization is also responsible for repressing science seems disingenuous, when that organization is also responsible for murdering and torturing people for their religious beliefs and ethnicity.
How about how the Pope ordered all the Jews to live in the same neighborhood in 1555. The Pope ordered that a wall be built around the neighborhood. Know who was required to pay for that wall? The occupants inside of it. You can say "That's just one guy" or "He doesn't represent all of Christianity". The thing is though, that ghetto existed for 300 years and was the last ghetto in Europe, until the Nazi's re-instituted them.
The Spanish Inquisition is often joked about, but it often seems like people don't know what it was actually about. At the time, Jews were being forced to convert to Catholicism. Part of the problem was that there was an ongoing struggle between Christians and Muslims in that country and the Jews were mostly neutral. Having been spread all over Europe and the Mediterranean, Jews were quite well adapted to getting along with different kinds of people, speaking their language and adapting to their culture. At first, the Muslims were targeted for harassment and torture, but as they started to disappear, it shifted to the Jews. Jews were forced to convert to Christianity,...
I'll stress that my initial comment to Meatrace was to counter his claim that Christianity has had no positive influence. I'm not advocating some bizarre calculus of killing X amount of people to civilize Y of the population. I hope you understand and this clears up what I meant, not what Meatrace commented on and twisted.
About your link, the 1st Crusade. I'll premise my commentary on the fact that I'm an ethnic Greek and steward in the Greek Orthodox Church. I have no love for what the Catholic Church did to the Orthodox Church in the midevil era.
The 4th Crusade was a tragedy that pitted Greek Orthodox vs Roman Catholic occupier. The Ottoman Turks later brought canons to destroy Constantinople and enslave Greece for 400 years.
It was a brutal world back then. More recently Pope John Paul gave a historic apology to the Orthodox Church on behalf of the Catholic Church about 10 years ago. We are blessed to live in relative peace now.
I don't mean to switch gears but many of my Pagan, neo Pagan friends on and off the boards will agree that Nazism had more similiarities to Paganism that Christianity. This is for the folks that say Nazi Germany was a violent homicidal Christian nation.
Peace!
How many people do you need to teach to read for that to be okay?What a question.
The answer is none. It can't be done. The value of literacy =/= the value of lives. Saving lives? That might count towards making up for it. No amount of literacy is equal to a human life. Maybe if they start training doctors for free, or something, so there are more people who can save lives.
Or scientists finding cures for diseases.
Which is kind of my point, nothing can truly be done to make up for the people killed in Christianity's name. Trying to justify the existence of the church through it's good works compared to it's bad works is a fruitless effort, because nothing can ever be done to make up for the people killed.
If a doctor murdered someone, should we let him go free just because he saved lives when he worked in an ER.
I said it a couple posts ago, if the Christians in this thread would rather look forward at how the religion could be used for good in the future instead, I am willing to discuss that. I think there is potential in that conversation.
Christians always look forward, atleast I do. Its the blame/hate the Christian crowd that keep looking back into the fog of history.
And to bring it all back around, part of that conversation should include ways to stop bigotry towards gays.Sure. But it shouldn't be "ABOUT" that. That's one thing to make up for in a list of things of varying sizes and severities, and I wouldn't put it at the top, but it would be fairly high on the list, yeah.
And it would take more than talk on stopping bigotry towards gays, they'd also have to actively help gays who have been the victims of bigotry.
By the "bring it back around" comment, I'm specifically referring to the OP. I know we're 12 pages in, but to me, that is what this specific thread has always been about. It's what restarted the thread after it was dormant for quite some time as well.
Religion: a set of rules invented some thousand years ago to handle the situation back then which vastly differs from how the world is today
Believe: a set of assumptions about how the world really is which may vastly differ from how the world really is
Put both together and you get what?
About tolerance: There is a thing that is called the "Paradox of Tolerance" which means that tolerance has to be intolerant against intolerance.
|
In 1692 a total of twenty people were executed for witchcraft. Within five years of these executions, the Massachusetts general court offered public repentance for these actions. It also deplored the action of the judges in these cases. One of these judges publically confessed his sin from the pulpit. The jurors who convicted the alleged witches signed a statement of regret. Member of the families of those who had been executed were offered indemnities.
The Salem Witch Trials were an example of religious hysteria leading to tragic results, but human history is filled with endless examples of such punishment of the innocent. What should amaze serious historians is the unprecedented, total and timely repudiation of this crime by the very people who perpetrated it. When else in history has this happened?
Germany, post WWII; culturally, the Germans are still apologizing and only recently completed paying off their war debt to the rest of Europe (from WWI--they're still working off WWII). The crimes of the Nazi government far exceed the crimes of a pitiful handful of misguided Christians in 1692 MBC, and the billions they repaid far exceed the several hundred modern dollars repaid to only four of the affected Salem families.
Moslem Turkey today does not recognize its genocide of 1.5 million Armenian Christians in the Twentieth Century. China does not acknowledge any fault in its genocide of Tibetan Buddhists. The Soviet Union never apologized for its extermination of millions of believing Christians.
I completely don't understand this reference, so I'm not sure how to respond. As an American, I feel no compulsion to apologize for what other countries do or have done.
But Christians in New England, over three centuries ago, took their miscarriage of justice very seriously and did precisely what Jesus instructed them to do: repent quickly and completely. Why does Hollywood and history books make so much of this event?
I really can't think of that many movies about the Salem trials; and Miller's play The Crucible was about the McCarthy trials, not perversions of Christian doctrine and philosophy. I'm sure there are any number of nonfiction books and a couple History channel specials on the incident, but I can think of far more mixed media for the more significant events in history, like others you've mentioned. What's the obsession with Salem, anyway?
The answer to that question is easy: how many of you knew only about the witch trials themselves, often in great detail, but knew nothing at all about the utter and absolute repudiation of this sad episode by the Christians of Massachusetts Bay Colony within five years of the trials?
The answer to that question is easy: wrongs are always easier for us to remember than apologies for those wrongs. The blood dripping from the blade, the stain in Macbeth's carpet, the pointing finger of Judas: they're simply more dramatic than the contritions, no matter how sincere.
Why do most people know nothing about the 1.5 Million Polish Christians stuffed into cattle cars and sent to concentration camps by Soviets between September 1939 and June 1941? Why do most people not know that Germans joining the Schutzstaffel, the monsters who perpetrated the Holocaust - were required to renounce their Christianity?
Many of us do know of these events--but, again, the apologies of a handful of repentent folks 300 years ago are small beans. And what about the 700,000 Orthodox Christians murdered in Catholic concentration camps in Serbia in from 1939 to 1940? How about the estimated 800,000 non-Christians killed by Rawandan Christians in 1994 over 100 days simply because they were not Christian or were the wrong kind of Christian?
Christians are blamed for the Holocaust. This horrific slaughter of more than six million Jewish men, women and children is rightly condemned as among the worst crimes of the Twentieth Century.
No, Nazis are blamed for the Holocaust.
But the very first people who voluntarily opposed Hitler and his Nazi Regime out of religious conscience were the Protestant clergy of Germany. Had they simply ignored the evil of Nazism, they could have lived in relative comfort and safety. Most did not.
I'd say a lot of Jewish people were not exactly coerced into opposing Hitler; so a handful of outspoken clergymen is hardly a good argument.
The political ruler in Europe who risked the most to save Jews, who did so with no hope for any earthly reward, and who saved at least forty thousand Jews from extermination, was also the most profoundly religious political ruler on the continent of Europe: Francisco Franco of Spain.
Seriously? You're picking a sadistic and ruthless convert-or-die dictator as a hero of Christianity?
When Tsarist Russia began its last round of pogroms at the end of the Nineteenth Century, the loudest voices in opposition were Christian church leaders from around the world. When the long exile of Jews from England ended, this was the result of the only governor of England who owed his power specifically because of the utter support of pious Christians, Oliver Cromwell, the great Puritan commander.
Again: a ruthless religious fanatic and mass murderer (think about his campaign into Ireland and his treatment of Loyalists during the Civil War) is a poor exemplar of Christian heroism.
When Jews first found a real home after the diaspora, the safety and security of America, it was George Washington, who embraced Christianity more seriously than perhaps any president in American history, who wrote his famous letter to the Jews of Newport.This document, which is still read every year in some synagogues, goes far beyond simple toleration, which cynical and irreligious European rulers of the Enlightenment had often offered Jews, but protection against bigotry and persecution. The letter is not legalism, but morality, Christian morality that welcomed Jews to America.
Washington, whom I respect and adore next only to Jefferson, was very truthfully a Deist. He attended church on average once a month, and wrote in his diaries that it was for the sake of his family, and that he'd much rather be fox hunting or writing. A true Lord of the Enlightenment, but a model Hero of Christ? Absolutely not.
|
|
History is also about understanding the Universe. But, history is not science. Neither is religion.
Historians are held up to peer review, and quite often assumptions and beliefs held about historical events are challenged and renounced once addition evidence is found to the contrary, or if logical fallacies are evident.
I would love to see the Bible or the Koran peer reviewed.
|
|
Typical fall back position to discredit the other guy by any and all means. Nice come back.Hoo boy, Oliver Cromwell indeed. Ya know, burning Catholics...
Your laundry list is replete with exaggerations and convenient half-truths. But it doesn't matter, you're a "true believer" and can't be swayed.
Hitch did it better than I ever could. Particularly in part 2.
|
|
Absolutely, there are any number of religious organizations that have done great good in the name of their religion but to the benefit of people who are never even aware that their respite came from, say, the local Catholic or Baptist congregation; and certainly this is more so the case in the last hundred years.
But I'm hard pressed right now to think of too many fully secular organizations who have, besides their humanist work, also been known for atrocities, racism, sexism, etc.
I fully acknowledge this may be because not too many fully secular organizations have been allowed to exist until the last hundred years.
|
|
Andrew,
The Soviet and Chinese governments were pretty secular. Also ruthless dictatorships which may have been more of an influence on them committing mass murder on the scale they did.
Paul,
I wasn't really thinking of national governments when I wrote 'fully secular organizations', rather I was equating, say, the Lawton Library Association with the Lawton Blessed Sacrament Catholic Sisters. One of which has only a history of secular humanist charity, and the other which has a history of assisting in Native American 'relocation'.
Also, by saying 'besides their humanist work', I would argue that I in no way meant the Maoists or Soviets.
|
|
Andrew,
The Soviet and Chinese governments were pretty secular. Also ruthless dictatorships which may have been more of an influence on them committing mass murder on the scale they did.
Paul,
I wasn't really thinking of national governments when I wrote 'fully secular organizations', rather I was equating, say, the Lawton Library Association with the Lawton Blessed Sacrament Catholic Sisters. One of which has only a history of secular humanist charity, and the other which has a history of assisting in Native American 'relocation'.
Also, by saying 'besides their humanist work' I would argue I in no way meant the Maoists or Soviets.
How about IBM's role in the Holocaust? Or all the insane working conditions in factories in the 19th century (which were heavily protested by Christian groups)?
I wouldn't say too many Dickensian factories were also humanist factories of philanthropy. As to IBM, not really what I was talking about, but it might actually meet my intent. Thanks for the remark--I had no knowledge of this. I've just ordered Edwin Black's book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one is saying that religion is all bad.
We're saying that just because religion is involved doesn't mean that it should be taken as good. A position should be judged on its own merits and ONLY its own merits. Religion encourages the acceptance of irrational reasoning and arguments from antiquated authority. Don't eat shellfish.. because the bible says so. Don't let the gays marry.. because the bible says so. Why do the right thing? Because its the right thing. No bible necessary.
There's usually a reason that religion comes up with its prohibitions: not eating shellfish madesense when you were trying to kill bacteria over a camel dung fire. Now that we're cooking with gas its an anachronistic hold over that we can let go.
Oh, come now.
If Christianity gets to use promoting literacy and feeding the poor as mitigating factors in it's "Is it bad?"ness, then certainly we can say something nice about Communism. I mean, they put an end to foot-binding in China. That's pretty cool, izzin' it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never heard/seen conclusive evidence proving Abiogenesis or Macro-Evolution, but I definitely believe in Micro-Evolution.
You know, I believe in micro-time, because I'm aware of days passing, but I've never seen/heard conclusive evidence of macro-time. All the gray hairs and wrinkles I see in the mirror are merely tricks of the Evil Mirror Devil, trying to test my faith.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still, it is a bit of a stretch to compare going from a single celled organism to a human being to a human going grey.
I feel the parallel is pretty good: we have a process that is noticable in the short term, and has dramatically larger effects in the long term -- effects that can be seen, quantified, and studied, and the evidence for which is overwhelming. Yet we don't want to admit to ourselves that the long-term effects are real, so we arbitrarily divide into "micro" and "macro," accept the one (because we can't avoid doing so), and continue to reject the other despite all of the evidence staring us in the face [sic].
|
|
Andrew,
The Soviet and Chinese governments were pretty secular. Also ruthless dictatorships which may have been more of an influence on them committing mass murder on the scale they did.
And Hitler killed Jews for religious reasons, but I'm not going to sit here and claim he did it for Christianity, or Stalin killed the Cossacks and starved millions of Ukrainians for Atheism. They both did it for personal power, not in the name of a higher power or cause.
We can all agree dictators and unchecked power is bad. And moral and reasonable people would all condemn the acts committed by the above mentioned, and with a distribution of power needed in any system of governance they would have been prevented.
The issue I have is that when groups that an evil act is endorsed by God and therefore good and moral. The inquisition comes immediately to mind.
What source are you quoting that is incorrect or am I missing your meaning behind "sic"?
Sorry, that was a "I meant to put that in exactly that way," indicating that my use of the idiom "staring in the face," after talking about changes in the mirror, was an intentional pun rather than an accidental parallel.
I didn't say that. I was quoting someone else.
Sorry -- over-eager quote nested quote condensing. It was Davor to whom I was replying. Thanks!
Actually, Hitler did. You listen to his speeches and read his writings, he saw it as his duty as a "Good Christian" to annhilate the jews. And if you were a "Good Christian", you'd want to kill jews to. I grew up around white supremecists and their logic when it comes to jews is extremely effed up. They support the Israeli state because the Bible says that once it is re-established, then there will be the Second Coming and the Jews will all be thrown into the Fires of Hell and they'll be Raptured and all that. Nevermind that the Bible states that the jews are God's Chosen People...Andrew,
The Soviet and Chinese governments were pretty secular. Also ruthless dictatorships which may have been more of an influence on them committing mass murder on the scale they did.And Hitler killed Jews for religious reasons, but I'm not going to sit here and claim he did it for Christianity, or Stalin killed the Cossacks and starved millions of Ukrainians for Atheism. They both did it for personal power, not in the name of a higher power or cause.
We can all agree dictators and unchecked power is bad. And moral and reasonable people would all condemn the acts committed by the above mentioned, and with a distribution of power needed in any system of governance they would have been prevented.
The issue I have is that when groups that an evil act is endorsed by God and therefore good and moral. The inquisition comes immediately to mind.
I once had a white power true believer tell me that actually white people are God's Chosen People and I was like "How do you figure?" and he was like: "Because white people made up the lost tribes of Israel, we are the original Hebrew people!"
Lol, WHAT?!
|
|
I once had a white power true believer tell me that actually white people are God's Chosen People and I was like "How do you figure?" and he was like: "Because white people made up the lost tribes of Israel, we are the original Hebrew people!"
Lol, WHAT?!
This is actually more in line with most religious WP movements/Christian Identity believe in.
.
Also on a note of history, AH’s inner cabinet was already making plans to eliminate Christ-based religions from German life. The SKH were conducting research on how many "white Aryans" were executed at the hands of the Catholic Church during the various witchcraft purges that went on in Germany. They were (along with Himmler) building an argument to purge the church and replace it with a Germanic faith - they just knew it would be a hard sell at the time. Eventually though, if the Reich had survived the war the Church would have been purged next.
I think the church (during the war) went along to get a long – for the most part they were just another tool used by the German state to get people to follow the program.
I removed a few uncivil posts. Flag it and move on, please.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They were (along with Himmler) building an argument to purge the church and replace it with a Germanic faith - they just knew it would be a hard sell at the time. Eventually though, if the Reich had survived the war the Church would have been purged next.
Another important historical note is that the Freethinkers were purged FIRST -- while Hitler was still in bed with the Catholic Church, and the bishops were singing his praises during mass. In other words, AH was a wingbat who worhipped himself and a collection of idiosyncratic crap -- I'd hardly consider him a Christian, but he sure as hell wasn't an atheist!!! Don't forget the "Gott Mit Uns" slogan on the Wehrmacht's belt buckles.