So which is it?
me
named Christ and the rat-bag scum-sucking religions which were built on his
bones.
Why are there so many Christians hanging around in the Western World?
A few theories:
1) They killed, robbed, and drove out people who didn't believe in their
Stupid Fucking God. Sure, that's not true *anymore*, but then again,
it doesn't really need to be. If you've eliminated the people who aren't
suckered, you're left with a bunch of marks to gull with your lame
"religion".
2) Indoctrinate early, Indoctrinate often. Who needs brainwashing when
you've got the clean slate of a child's mind? Nothing makes me sicker
than righteous parents who take their kids to Church. They were stupid
enough to buy into a bankrupt religion, and now they're going to try
and get their kids to swallow it
3) Support logical inconsistencies with *MORE* logical inconsistencies.
I was accosted yesterday by an old German lady with a rolled-up copy of
_The Watchtower_ (or a similarly titled rag) in her hand. I told her
I didn't believe in God, and she told me about all the *miraculous*
coincidences in her life. Of course, if she hadn't been indoctinated
properly, she might rightly attribute these things to luck, skill,
coincidence, etc.
4) Create a circular absurdity. "I believe in God, because I have faith.
Faith supports my belief in God." The *only* supporting "evidence" of
God's existance are some fairy tales somebody wrote down. Anyone want
to start believing in Superman? No, really. I have some great tales,
like how he turned this big river to ice. It was amazing. He's pretty
powerful -- he might be God, or at least God's son. That's ALL the Bible
is. It tells some stories about how God was an asshole, and then talks
about the New God, with his feel-good image. It lays down some
lame rules, too, but that's about it.
If you've been lulled and gulled into buying this lame religion, I strongly
encourage you to give it up -- even if it's just for a day or a week or
a month. Start thinking of the world as a thing which doesn't rely on some
All-Powerful bullshit. Certainly, don't become an immoral person -- be nice.
Just stop eating the lies you're being fed.
Adam D. Bradley
> Here are some of my philosophical ramblings about an O.K. everyday Joe
> named Christ and the rat-bag scum-sucking religions which were built on his
> bones.
If they're nothing but your personal ramblings, why distribute them to the
world on a christian discussion network?
> Why are there so many Christians hanging around in the Western World?
Better question: why are there so few Christians hanging around ANYWHERE in
the world anymore, especially Europe and America, considering what a positive
impact it had and what a negative impact it's removal has had?
> A few theories:
> 1) They killed, robbed, and drove out people who didn't believe in their
> Stupid F------ God. Sure, that's not true *anymore*, but then again,
> it doesn't really need to be. If you've eliminated the people who aren't
> suckered, you're left with a bunch of marks to gull with your lame
> "religion".
[deletion mine]
No, you're thinking of Islam. Christianity was spread in spite of the capital
crime of being a believer, in spite of the marauding pagan germanic hordes.
Even when it became the "official" Roman religion, most citizens treated Christ
like just another pagan idol. As to the Crusades, those ran full contrary to
the Christian canon. The only possible justification (apart from the
non-scriptural traditions of the Roman church) was that the Moslims had somehow
violated Church property rights by refusing them access to the holy city.
As to elimination, I think the very fact that you aren't a Christian is proof
that by wiping out one generation's dissenters you don't eliminate the
dissenters of the next, the fifth, or the fiftieth afterwards. So, unless you
can find a genocide of non-believers in the last century or two, your argument
is void.
> 2) Indoctrinate early, Indoctrinate often. Who needs brainwashing when
> you've got the clean slate of a child's mind? Nothing makes me sicker
> than righteous parents who take their kids to Church. They were stupid
> enough to buy into a bankrupt religion, and now they're going to try
> and get their kids to swallow it
Gosh. That reminds me of how I feel when I talk to kids who are told "there is
no God", "don't talk about your religion here", and "sex is wrong, but here's a
condom because we know you're going to do it anyway" by their elementary school
teachers. I can't do anything about how you feel about their decision. But what
would be a better choice? Leave the child in a moral vacuum to "find his own
way?" I'm a refugee from the generation that had that opportunity, and look at
us now. Falling test scores. Skyrocketing pregnancy, sex, drug abuse, sneseless
violence. At least those kids are being given a moral compass they can choose
to reject, instead of just striking out wherever the whims of their fancy may
lead.
> 3) Support logical inconsistencies with *MORE* logical inconsistencies.
> I was accosted yesterday by an old German lady with a rolled-up copy of
> _The Watchtower_ (or a similarly titled rag) in her hand. I told her
> I didn't believe in God, and she told me about all the *miraculous*
> coincidences in her life. Of course, if she hadn't been indoctinated
> properly, she might rightly attribute these things to luck, skill,
> coincidence, etc.
Watchtower? Hmm...appreciate the detail, although you just disassociated her
from mainstream Christianity. Of course, coincidence is a matter of
perspective. But when the coincidences start lining up coherently, as if
indicating and directing, opportunities open up (in hindsight) only when you
are truly prepared for them, etc, etc, it could make one wonder if there may be
an order to it. Also, you failed to show a logical inconsistency. You showed a
potential consistency with your own reading of the situation, but a reading in
agreement with her world-view is equally consistent.
> 4) Create a circular absurdity. "I believe in God, because I have faith.
> Faith supports my belief in God." The *only* supporting "evidence" of
> God's existance are some fairy tales somebody wrote down. Anyone want
> to start believing in Superman? No, really. I have some great tales,
> like how he turned this big river to ice. It was amazing. He's pretty
> powerful -- he might be God, or at least God's son. That's ALL the Bible
> is. It tells some stories about how God was an a------, and then talks
> about the New God, with his feel-good image. It lays down some
> lame rules, too, but that's about it.
[deletion mine]
Tell me, did you write this post because you were feeling hot under the collar
and just wanted to blow off some steam on those "moronic, imbecilic" christians
(to quote a few articles on alt.christnet)? Or do you have any substantial
points to make?
The only evidence we have that anything happened prior to the late 1800's is
the written and spoken word of witnesses. The only reason we study history is
because a few crazies decided that what was happening around them was too
important, too significant to be trusted to someone else's intuition or
word-of-mouth. We have no less reason to believe that scripture (OT and NT) is
any less accurate than any of the other histories from that era, or for some
time since. Your reading of God's OT/NT character strikes me as terribly
biased by your personal views. How do you define a--hole? And how is getting
nailed to a cross or demanding your followers to surrender everything
consistent with a "feel-good image"?
"I believe in God, because I have faith. Faith supports my belief in God."
Find the circularity:
[1] I have faith --> I believe in God.
[2] I have faith --> My belief strengthens.
To obtain circularity, replace the second with:
[2] I believe in God --> I have faith.
Your argument is against faith/belief as a circular cause-effect proposition.
Unfortunately, that's not an accurate expression of what faith is anyway.
> If you've been lulled and gulled into buying this lame religion, I strongly
> encourage you to give it up -- even if it's just for a day or a week or
> a month. Start thinking of the world as a thing which doesn't rely on some
> All-Powerful bullshit. Certainly, don't become an immoral person -- be nice.
> Just stop eating the lies you're being fed.
Done it. Several times. Worst mistakes I ever made. The world doesn't rely on
anything all-powerful - not in present state, anyway. It'll just naturally
decay, wind down, etc on its own with no help from anyone. Civilization will
slide into anarchy; life will become extinct; suns will burn out; eventually,
the universe will dissipate into a massive, evenly-luke-warm, perfectly
consistent mass. The question is, is there anything BEYOND that natural,
materialistic existence that we may need to concern ourselves with? The
answer, I believe, is a resounding yes.
So stop eating the lies you've been fed - that the natural is all that is real
or relevent, that the supernatural need not be believed unless it is proved by
air-tight scientific research, that God, if he exists, cannot be known by man.
Also, if you have serious points to discuss, please frame them in a civil
manner that won't offend those you want to make the points with. If you just
want to blow off steam, pour your cr-p out into a word processor and then
delete the file. Oh, yeah, there is an alt.atheism.satire board, devoted
entirely to poking fun at and raging at christians and other theists. I'm sure
your ranting would be very welcome there.
Adam
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Food for thought: Fish! <>< | Adam D. Bradley, Soph, CompSci/Music, UNCA |
+-----------------------------+ ADBR...@UNCA.EDU and BRA...@CS.UNCA.EDU |
| I go to a state university. +----------------------------------------------+
| If they knew I was writing this stuff, I would be out the door in a flash. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Lawrence Free/ A.F. Software Services
: Here are some of my philosophical ramblings about an O.K. everyday Joe
: named Christ and the rat-bag scum-sucking religions which were built on his
: bones.
: Why are there so many Christians hanging around in the Western World?
: A few theories:
: 1) They killed, robbed, and drove out people who didn't believe in their
: Stupid Fucking God. Sure, that's not true *anymore*, but then again,
: it doesn't really need to be. If you've eliminated the people who aren't
: suckered, you're left with a bunch of marks to gull with your lame
: "religion".
Yes, the feats of the Holy Roman Empire and others since have shamed the
religeon of Christianity, which is separate from what most Christains call
the life of Christianity.
: 2) Indoctrinate early, Indoctrinate often. Who needs brainwashing when
: you've got the clean slate of a child's mind? Nothing makes me sicker
: than righteous parents who take their kids to Church. They were stupid
: enough to buy into a bankrupt religion, and now they're going to try
: and get their kids to swallow it
Some less mature Christains feel threatened by a questioning faith and indeed
do this. Those, like myself, have a growing and questioning faith that does
not take things blindly. This approach is even advocated by the Bible. It is
called working out ones faith. A blind faith is foolhardy and will generally
fail if severely tested.
: 3) Support logical inconsistencies with *MORE* logical inconsistencies.
: I was accosted yesterday by an old German lady with a rolled-up copy of
: _The Watchtower_ (or a similarly titled rag) in her hand. I told her
: I didn't believe in God, and she told me about all the *miraculous*
: coincidences in her life. Of course, if she hadn't been indoctinated
: properly, she might rightly attribute these things to luck, skill,
: coincidence, etc.
: 4) Create a circular absurdity. "I believe in God, because I have faith.
: Faith supports my belief in God." The *only* supporting "evidence" of
: God's existance are some fairy tales somebody wrote down. Anyone want
: to start believing in Superman? No, really. I have some great tales,
: like how he turned this big river to ice. It was amazing. He's pretty
: powerful -- he might be God, or at least God's son. That's ALL the Bible
: is. It tells some stories about how God was an asshole, and then talks
: about the New God, with his feel-good image. It lays down some
: lame rules, too, but that's about it.
:
Sounds like today's science where no thing can be created out of nothing,
unless you're talking about the universe which one day appeared out of nothing.
Physicists and astronomers have less of a problem with the concept of a
God creator than the biologists and anthropologists. Probably because they
have an intimate knowledge of how things work and run very hard against a wall
if they try other theories.
: If you've been lulled and gulled into buying this lame religion, I strongly
: encourage you to give it up -- even if it's just for a day or a week or
: a month. Start thinking of the world as a thing which doesn't rely on some
: All-Powerful bullshit. Certainly, don't become an immoral person -- be nice.
: Just stop eating the lies you're being fed.
Lame religion is for the weak. A growing faith based on hard testing with fact
is what I advocate, and being a Christain and a scientist/engineer for many
years, I have no problems with being one. If you're looking for scientific
proof, outside of everyday mechanics, there isn't really proof that we exist,
but most accept we do. When dealing with a spritual dimension, you could make
some way with legal proof, since that deals more with interactions of beings
rather than interactions of physical manifestations.
Larry
GOdSMurf
: In <33vg6s$m...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> si...@chop.ugcs.caltech.edu writes:
: > Why are there so many Christians hanging around in the Western World?
: Better question: why are there so few Christians hanging around ANYWHERE in
: the world anymore, especially Europe and America, considering what a positive
: impact it had and what a negative impact it's removal has had?
Positive impact? I guess you mean the Inquisition and the Crucades?
: No, you're thinking of Islam. Christianity was spread in spite of the capital
: crime of being a believer, in spite of the marauding pagan germanic hordes.
Gee were those nasty Germans also stopping the christians from
exterminating the Indians?
The way you think about Christianity vs. Islam as a Good versus Bad shows
the indoctrinated state of your brain. It's quite sickening that you want
to pass this xenophobic religion of yours on to younger generation and
then have the bad taste of calling it a moral.
Face it - islam at its worst doesn't come anywhere near the crimes of
christianity - a dying religion luckily.
--
FIlip CAmerman - STudent at the FRee UNiversity of BRussel (VUB), BElgium.
WIth the horror which is at the same time bewitchment, with the extacy
which is like paralysis, overpowering all natural and habitual sense
perception, THe DReadful suddenly springs into being...
- WAlter F. OTto, 'DIonysos'
David B. Greene
>
>: > Why are there so many Christians hanging around in the Western World?
>
>: Better question: why are there so few Christians hanging around ANYWHERE in
>: the world anymore, especially Europe and America, considering what a positive
>: impact it had and what a negative impact it's removal has had?
The Church is rapidly growing in the Third World. There are more Third World
Christians then there are in Europe and America combined.
>Positive impact? I guess you mean the Inquisition and the Crucades?
>
>: No, you're thinking of Islam. Christianity was spread in spite of the capital
>: crime of being a believer, in spite of the marauding pagan germanic hordes.
Not to mention the early Romans who were also unable to stamp it out. There
have been over 40 million Christian martyrs since the time of Jesus.
>Gee were those nasty Germans also stopping the christians from
>exterminating the Indians?
The Germans certainly were not stopping nasty King Leopold II and
those nasty Belgians from ripping the heart out of darkest Africa.
As far as the Indians go, I think it was the secular colonial powers
of Western Europe that bear the responsibility for the demise of the
Indians. I don't think too many Christian missionaries had guns.
>Face it - islam at its worst doesn't come anywhere near the crimes of
>christianity - a dying religion luckily.
No religious group anywhere, at any time, has ever close to commiting the
crimes that have been perpetrated by secular governments, particularly
atheistic Marxist governments.
Dave G.
Sharon Roberts
>: Not to mention the early Romans who were also unable to stamp it out. There
>: have been over 40 million Christian martyrs since the time of Jesus
At any rate, isn't it virtually unanimous among modern scholars that
the legendary Xian martyrs of Roman times were jusst that, legendary.
There were actually only a handful of persecutions and this has even
been acknowledged by the Vatican. Most of the imaginative tortures
actually originated in the days of the Inquisition.
There's a good American Atheists book on this that I've got around
here somewhere...
.
GOdSMurf
Congratulations, you have managed to avoid all my arguments against
christianity by diverting attention to the crimes of other religions or
states. A typical coward's way of discussing.
: From: GOdSMurf <tw4...@vub.ac.be>
: >Positive impact? I guess you mean the Inquisition and the Crucades?
no answer?
: >: No, you're thinking of Islam. Christianity was spread in spite of the capital
: >: crime of being a believer, in spite of the marauding pagan germanic hordes.
: Not to mention the early Romans who were also unable to stamp it out. There
: have been over 40 million Christian martyrs since the time of Jesus.
Most of which were killed by other christians :)
: >Gee were those nasty Germans also stopping the christians from
: >exterminating the Indians?
: The Germans certainly were not stopping nasty King Leopold II and
: those nasty Belgians from ripping the heart out of darkest Africa.
Beside the point. Anyway, it might please you to know that Congo was full
of European missionaries during the mass-murders committed there under the
rule of Leopold II.
: As far as the Indians go, I think it was the secular colonial powers
: of Western Europe that bear the responsibility for the demise of the
: Indians. I don't think too many Christian missionaries had guns.
But the Church gave them permission for the mass-murders by denying that
Indians are human beings. When finally that couldn't be denied anymore,
because of the high Indian culture, the Church decided that the colonials
had to use Negroes as slaves instead of Indians - because Negroes were not
recognised by the church as being human beings.
: >Face it - islam at its worst doesn't come anywhere near the crimes of
: >christianity - a dying religion luckily.
: No religious group anywhere, at any time, has ever close to commiting the
: crimes that have been perpetrated by secular governments, particularly
: atheistic Marxist governments.
Typical answer for a christian: "others murdered too, so it's OK that
christianity is responsible for mass-murders too".
Religion of love - my ass.
Adam D. Bradley
> David B. Greene (da...@halcyon.com) schreef:
Interesting name. Symbolism?
[my statements deleted: Why are there so few Christians in the western world in
light of all the positive impact it's had and the negative impact of its
removal?]
> : >Positive impact? I guess you mean the Inquisition and the Crucades?
> no answer?
No, I mean modern universities, science, representative government (an
outcropping of Calvinism), hospitals, education, literary scholarism,
capitalist economics and the American work-ethic (now on its death bed,
unfortunately for us), most of the Bill of Rights freedoms, especially freedom
of religion, and the countless individuals throughout history converted from
lives of destruction and anger and hatred to love, productivity, and blessing
to those around them.
[statements made that Christianity is spread by genocide, brute force, coersion
by death threat, whatever, to which I replied, in part - ]
> : >: No, you're thinking of Islam. Christianity was spread in spite of the
capital
> : >: crime of being a believer, in spite of the marauding pagan germanic
hordes.
Meaning: Christianity could not be spread by the sword. Unlike the Moslems,
they wouldn't've stood a chance. The government was after them; the germanics
(from whom I'm descended) had no qualms about disemboweling them to aquire
their few worldly posessions; not a happy time. In spite of that, the Church
brought the soldiers and barbarians who would kill them into the truth of
Christianity by their love, by their compassion, by making sense in a world
that didn't.
[I was backed up by...]
> : Not to mention the early Romans who were also unable to stamp it out. There
> : have been over 40 million Christian martyrs since the time of Jesus.
I wonder...is that count including those exterminated in Hitler's
concentration camps? If I recall, more Christians were exterminated than
Jews...
> Most of which were killed by other christians :)
Thanks for using the lower-case "c". That's an important dividing point -
people calling themselves "christians" (the majority of those responsible for
such atrocities as the crusades, inquisition, the witch trials, etc) are not
necessarily capital-c Christians. By that I mean, their actions and teaching
were often either contradictory to or at lest inconsistent with the standard
canon (the Bible) and orthodox theologies (Asissi, Augustine, Luther, etc)
> : >Gee were those nasty Germans also stopping the christians from
> : >exterminating the Indians?
I missed the point of that question. My original point, already re-stated
above, was that the germanics were not terribly friendly towards the church,
until after they started to convert...
> : The Germans certainly were not stopping nasty King Leopold II and
> : those nasty Belgians from ripping the heart out of darkest Africa.
> : As far as the Indians go, I think it was the secular colonial powers
> : of Western Europe that bear the responsibility for the demise of the
> : Indians. I don't think too many Christian missionaries had guns.
> But the Church gave them permission for the mass-murders by denying that
> Indians are human beings. When finally that couldn't be denied anymore,
> because of the high Indian culture, the Church decided that the colonials
> had to use Negroes as slaves instead of Indians - because Negroes were not
> recognised by the church as being human beings.
Not recognised by some secularized and de-canonized american churches
(lower-case). Bear in mind that the racial rights and abolitionists movements
in America and abroad (in both millenia) were led by the Church.
A constant problem in Church history has been the power of economics to shape
public opinion more than issues of principle, truth, integrity, etc; it's part
of the human condition, greed, always has been a problem. But coming into the
colonial period, it was so bad that economics was shaping the church instead of
the other way around. You find a great many men, when they believe something
because it is socially convenient, will give it up when the price is right;
when they believe something because they know it is true and they value that
truth more than their lives, THEN they have principle and will stand up. The
"church" of that era, for the most part, was so socialized and popularized,
with no risk in being in and all risk in being out, that few people within felt
the need to believe what was being tought; even the clergy felt little need to
study the scriptures, the old theologians, the important issues, and simply
said what was culturally or economically expedient. The reformation certainly
did bring about an improvement, but as reformation churches became
state-backed, the same old infection crept in even faster...
> : >Face it - islam at its worst doesn't come anywhere near the crimes of
> : >christianity - a dying religion luckily.
Gosh, tell that to the countless Christian communities that were demolished by
Islam's initial spread through the eastern Med. Tell it to the priests who were
slaughtered so their churches could be converted to mosques (as opposed to the
pagan priests who were converted so their temples could be converted to
Christian shrines). Tell it to a Christian walking the streets of a
middle-eastern country where it is legal to shoot and kill a Christian without
provokation. Compare that to the basic Christian principle of free will and
individual accountability to God that led to the 1st amendment protection of
the individual's religious freedom.
Another point - the Romans and Jews seemed to think Christianity was a dying
religion when they buried Jesus. Sunday morning wrought havoc on that theory.
> : No religious group anywhere, at any time, has ever close to commiting the
> : crimes that have been perpetrated by secular governments, particularly
> : atheistic Marxist governments.
> Typical answer for a christian: "others murdered too, so it's OK that
> christianity is responsible for mass-murders too".
> Religion of love - my ass.
Christianity is a religion made up of people. Imperfect people. Many are
bonafide believers. There are also many who claim a sort of idealistic
alliance or cultural alliance with Christianity (a la Rush Limabugh), but
are not Christians. In most cases, it is these who are responsible for the
mass-murders and other crimes against humanity of which you speak. Like you
said - how can genocide be reconciled with love, with a fundamental belief in
the value and dignity of human life? When people lose their focus within the
Christian paradigm, put the details and technical outworkings at a higher
priority than the fundamental truths of Christ, then _of_course_ people are
going to get screwed up. The supernatural is not something to be taken
lightly...
But the point is significant - the death count due to so-called "christian"
crimes falls several orders of magnitude behind the toll from atheistic states
in this century alone.
David B. Greene
>David B. Greene (da...@halcyon.com) schreef:
>
>Congratulations, you have managed to avoid all my arguments against
>christianity by diverting attention to the crimes of other religions or
>states. A typical coward's way of discussing.
Gosh, if you had made any *real* arguments, I might have given you *real*
answers. Instead of debate, I choose only to provide additional information
for perspective. Any intelligent person would realize that is acceptable
in a discussion.
>: From: GOdSMurf <tw4...@vub.ac.be>
>
>: >Positive impact? I guess you mean the Inquisition and the Crucades?
>
>no answer?
I would not condone crimes commited by *any* group, those responsible were
certainly not following the teachings of Jesus. On the other hand, there
was a lot more to the crusades than most people realize. This was covered
last month in another thread.
>: >: No, you're thinking of Islam. Christianity was spread in spite of the capital
>: >: crime of being a believer, in spite of the marauding pagan germanic hordes.
>
>: Not to mention the early Romans who were also unable to stamp it out. There
>: have been over 40 million Christian martyrs since the time of Jesus.
>
>Most of which were killed by other christians :)
Actually, according to my sources, about 33 million of them were martyred
by non-Christian persecutors and about 8 million by Christian (supposedly)
persecutors.
>: >Gee were those nasty Germans also stopping the christians from
>: >exterminating the Indians?
>
>: The Germans certainly were not stopping nasty King Leopold II and
>: those nasty Belgians from ripping the heart out of darkest Africa.
>
>Beside the point. Anyway, it might please you to know that Congo was full
>of European missionaries during the mass-murders committed there under the
>rule of Leopold II.
Not beside the point at all, I think it adds a needed perspective. If
it *was* beside the point then so was *your* comment beside the point
to the previous post. As far as the missionaries go, it sounds like
they needed them. We need more missionaries like David Livingstone and
C.T. Studd.
>: As far as the Indians go, I think it was the secular colonial powers
>: of Western Europe that bear the responsibility for the demise of the
>: Indians. I don't think too many Christian missionaries had guns.
>
>But the Church gave them permission for the mass-murders by denying that
>Indians are human beings. When finally that couldn't be denied anymore,
>because of the high Indian culture, the Church decided that the colonials
>had to use Negroes as slaves instead of Indians - because Negroes were not
>recognised by the church as being human beings.
Cool, what Church ever gave such permission? In North America it was the
secular U.S. government that gave such permission (separation of Church
and State doncha know). In the Indian wars of America's Pacific Nothwest,
many Indian deaths were prevented by the efforts of the Jesuits, some of
whom were strangled at the end of US Army ropes for treason.
Greece, Rome, the Arab world, early America, Europe, and yes folks - the
*native* people of America before the White Man (especially those blood-
thirsty Aztecs), all were involved in the slave trade. Nothing new here.
Wait a minute.... did I forget something... Yes I did, African kingdoms,
they had slaves too by golly! In fact some Africans profited from selling
their brothers as slaves.
How interesting that an evangelical Protestant Christian, William Wilberforce,
was the driving force to end the English slave trade. His critics in secular
government tried to pull a "separation of church and state" kind of thing in
an effort to shut him up.If you blame the Church for slavery you must hate
the Black Church and despise Black Christians.
>: >Face it - islam at its worst doesn't come anywhere near the crimes of
>: >christianity - a dying religion luckily.
>
>: No religious group anywhere, at any time, has ever close to commiting the
>: crimes that have been perpetrated by secular governments, particularly
>: atheistic Marxist governments.
>
>Typical answer for a christian: "others murdered too, so it's OK that
>christianity is responsible for mass-murders too".
>Religion of love - my ass.
On the contrary, it is *not* OK for any group to conduct mass-murder. I'm
surprised you missed that. The problem of mass-murder is not a problem of
religion but rather of the human heart. It is the God of the Bible that
says we are our brother's keeper.
BTW, nobody loves your ass, keep it covered.
>FIlip CAmerman - STudent at the FRee UNiversity of BRussel (VUB), BElgium.
cheers,
Dave G.
GOdSMurf
: > : From: GOdSMurf <tw4...@vub.ac.be>
: Interesting name. Symbolism?
No, humour.
: [my statements deleted: Why are there so few Christians in the western world in
: light of all the positive impact it's had and the negative impact of its
: removal?]
: > : >Positive impact? I guess you mean the Inquisition and the Crucades?
: No, I mean modern universities
Whose work was completely blocked by the rule that theology comes BEFORE
science. Remember for example the members of the Paris-university in the
12th century and which developed the 'lore of double truth' (science and
theology are independant). They were of-course prosecuted by the
inquisition, as were all scientists until about the 17th century.
: science
Giordano Bruno was burnt alive in 1600 because he wasn't antropocentric
enough.
Galileo Galileo had to break off his astronomic career under pression of
the Church.
And so many other examples. Science was simply blocked from the beginning
of christianity till modernism in the 16th/17th century (Descartes!)
: representative government (an
: outcropping of Calvinism), hospitals, education, literary scholarism,
which all existed before and outside christianity. The oldest real
democracy was with some of the Germanic tribes.
: capitalist economics
Christianity has NOTHING to do with that - not that it would be much of an
honour.
: and the American work-ethic (now on its death bed,
: unfortunately for us)
oh puh-leez do you think there weren't any hard-workers before and outside
christianity?
: most of the Bill of Rights freedoms
Ha ha ha which were constituted in a time when slavery (another thing the
church approved of so much) was still legal in the usa. Freedom my ass.
: especially freedom
: of religion
nicely demonstrated by all the inquisitions catholics and protestants
performed between each other.
: and the countless individuals throughout history converted from
: lives of destruction and anger and hatred to love, productivity, and blessing
: to those around them.
Like the inquisitors themselves.
Jeez man you are ridiculous. You call all things good in this world
christian, but it has nothing to do with christianity.
The 'freedom of religion' claim is really the funniest one, considering
how violently the church prosecuted all non-christians. Really, you're a
nice example of mind-rape.
: > : Not to mention the early Romans who were also unable to stamp it out. There
: > : have been over 40 million Christian martyrs since the time of Jesus.
: > Most of which were killed by other christians :)
: Thanks for using the lower-case "c". That's an important dividing point -
: people calling themselves "christians" (the majority of those responsible for
: such atrocities as the crusades, inquisition, the witch trials, etc)
... like for example the pope.
: are not
: necessarily capital-c Christians. By that I mean, their actions and teaching
: were often either contradictory to or at lest inconsistent with the standard
: canon (the Bible) and orthodox theologies (Asissi, Augustine, Luther, etc)
A-ha! Now that's interesting. This very same Bible is full of mass-murders
which are approved of you know?
: above, was that the germanics were not terribly friendly towards the church,
: until after they started to convert...
: > : The Germans certainly were not stopping nasty King Leopold II and
: > : those nasty Belgians from ripping the heart out of darkest Africa.
: > : As far as the Indians go, I think it was the secular colonial powers
: > : of Western Europe that bear the responsibility for the demise of the
: > : Indians. I don't think too many Christian missionaries had guns.
:
: > But the Church gave them permission for the mass-murders by denying that
: > Indians are human beings. When finally that couldn't be denied anymore,
: > because of the high Indian culture, the Church decided that the colonials
: > had to use Negroes as slaves instead of Indians - because Negroes were not
: > recognised by the church as being human beings.
: Not recognised by some secularized and de-canonized american churches
: (lower-case). Bear in mind that the racial rights and abolitionists movements
: in America and abroad (in both millenia) were led by the Church.
SOME of the racial right movements etc etc. The church is always way
behind. Rerum Novarum came decades after Marx.
: > : >Face it - islam at its worst doesn't come anywhere near the crimes of
: > : >christianity - a dying religion luckily.
: Gosh, tell that to the countless Christian communities that were demolished by
: Islam's initial spread through the eastern Med.
Tell it to the countless muslims who were killed by christian crusades :)
: Tell it to the priests who were
: slaughtered so their churches could be converted to mosques (as opposed to the
: pagan priests who were converted so their temples could be converted to
: Christian shrines).
Again it has also happened the otehr way round.
: Tell it to a Christian walking the streets of a
: middle-eastern country where it is legal to shoot and kill a Christian without
: provokation.
At this moment, christianity is better than islam, because it is weaker.
But I was talking from a historical view.
: Compare that to the basic Christian principle of free will and
: individual accountability to God that led to the 1st amendment protection of
: the individual's religious freedom.
After 1500 years of killing all non-christians - kinda late.
: Another point - the Romans and Jews seemed to think Christianity was a dying
: religion when they buried Jesus. Sunday morning wrought havoc on that theory.
There was no christian religion yet when Jesus was hung. Paul invented it all.
: > : No religious group anywhere, at any time, has ever close to commiting the
: > : crimes that have been perpetrated by secular governments, particularly
: > : atheistic Marxist governments.
:
: > Typical answer for a christian: "others murdered too, so it's OK that
: > christianity is responsible for mass-murders too".
: > Religion of love - my ass.
: But the point is significant - the death count due to so-called "christian"
: crimes falls several orders of magnitude behind the toll from atheistic states
: in this century alone.
Only when you like you you define that all murderers can't possibly be
christians. A cowardly retreat from REAL history, in which fanatic
christians have caused more blood-baths than any other religious people,
with approval of all christianity's OFFICIAL institutions. You don't
represent christianity AS IT IS, you represent a peaceful sect of
christianity which I have no objections too.
End of discussion.
--
GOdSMurf - SMall, BLue and IMmortal...
GOdSMurf
[Much stuff deleted, as it all comes down to: 'OK there were many
mass-murdering christians but they weren't REAL christians, and hey, there
was always also a few christians who did good thing, so let's forget about
all the mass-murderers']
: >But the Church gave them permission for the mass-murders by denying that
: >Indians are human beings. When finally that couldn't be denied anymore,
: >because of the high Indian culture, the Church decided that the colonials
: >had to use Negroes as slaves instead of Indians - because Negroes were not
: >recognised by the church as being human beings.
: Cool, what Church ever gave such permission?
The Church in Rome, know it?
In the early colonial period, there has been a Concilie (don't know the
Enlgish word) which had to decide on whether Indians are human beings or not.
(They were being used as slaved and killed by millions by Spanish christians).
After much debate, the pope's representative decided that Indians are
humans and that the colonials had to use negroes (NOT recognised as begin
humans by the church!!!) as slaves.
: Greece, Rome, the Arab world, early America, Europe, and yes folks - the
: *native* people of America before the White Man (especially those blood-
: thirsty Aztecs), all were involved in the slave trade. Nothing new here.
I fully agree. Christianity was nothing new, just another way of approving
of slavery and mass-murder 'in the name of Christ'.
: Wait a minute.... did I forget something... Yes I did, African kingdoms,
: they had slaves too by golly! In fact some Africans profited from selling
: their brothers as slaves.
Hm it was mostly the Arabs who sold the negroes I think. Doesn't matter.
In any case, you once again mention the crimes of OTHERS as an excuse for
the gigantic crimes of christianity. Very weak.
: On the contrary, it is *not* OK for any group to conduct mass-murder. I'm
: surprised you missed that. The problem of mass-murder is not a problem of
: religion but rather of the human heart. It is the God of the Bible that
: says we are our brother's keeper.
The God of the Bible forced the farao to say NO to Mozes so He could kill
thousands of Egyptian CHILDREN!
Take that.
And if you read Rev. 2:24, you'll see that Jesus too wouldn't mind killing
children.
--
GOdSMurf - SMall, BLue and IMmortal...
WIth the horror which is at the same time bewitchment, with the extacy
Adam D. Bradley
> Adam D. Bradley (ADBR...@uncavx.unca.edu) schreef:
> : > : From: GOdSMurf <tw4...@vub.ac.be>
> : light of all the positive impact it's had and the negative impact of its
> : removal?]
> : > : >Positive impact? I guess you mean the Inquisition and the Crucades?
> : No, I mean ... [del]
> : science
> Giordano Bruno was burnt alive in 1600 because he wasn't antropocentric
> enough.
> Galileo Galileo had to break off his astronomic career under pression of
> the Church.
> And so many other examples. Science was simply blocked from the beginning
> of christianity till modernism in the 16th/17th century (Descartes!)
By a politicized Catholic Church that was more interested in consolidating its
own power than in pursuing "thinking God's thoughts after him", the motive for
most of the great formative scientists. You can argue cases both ways. But the
theology is clearly there.
> : representative government (an
> : outcropping of Calvinism), hospitals, education, literary scholarism,
> which all existed before and outside christianity. The oldest real
> democracy was with some of the Germanic tribes.
I said representative (ie, Republican) government, as in having a Congress to
deal with the complexities of government instead of dealing with every single
issue by national referrendum. Hospitals as public institutions developed in
the course of the crusades. Education of the general public is something we
find for the most part in monothesitic religions with a well-defined religious
canon (ie, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam); outside of that, it is often a
privelidge for the socially elite or wealthy.
> : capitalist economics
> Christianity has NOTHING to do with that - not that it would be much of an
> honour.
Many theologians would disagree with you. The idea of individual
responsibility (if one shall not work, one shall not eat) is the most
foundational principle of capitalism; you see a great deal of collectivism in
economies shaped by more group-responsibility-like ideologies.
> : most of the Bill of Rights freedoms
> Ha ha ha which were constituted in a time when slavery (another thing the
> church approved of so much) was still legal in the usa. Freedom my ass.
Many of the founders opposed slavery, and allowed it to remain instituted so
that the Union could be formed; what's more, they designed some aspects of the
government (such as the Amendment system) precisely because they realized the
evil of slavery and anticipated an America of the future would be able to build
up the moral stamina to eradicate it.
> : especially freedom
> : of religion
> nicely demonstrated by all the inquisitions catholics and protestants
> performed between each other.
Freedom of conscience. It is up to each man to work out his salvation with God
and God alone. Basic theology. Bear in mind, these inquisitions are in almost
all senses irreconcilable with New Testament teachings.
> : and the countless individuals throughout history converted from
> : lives of destruction and anger and hatred to love, productivity, and blessing
> : to those around them.
>
> Like the inquisitors themselves.
You can only think of the bad seeds, the corruptions; what about the Christians
around the world involved in hunger relief, volunteering foir humanitarian
causes like Habitat for Humanity and United Way, leading prison reform
movements and rehabilitation centers with return rates a miniscule fraction of
their secular equivalents. Just to name a few.
> Jeez man you are ridiculous. You call all things good in this world
> christian, but it has nothing to do with christianity.
I see a lot of good in the world, and I see how it naturally fits into and
follows from the Christian paradigm.
> The 'freedom of religion' claim is really the funniest one, considering
> how violently the church prosecuted all non-christians. Really, you're a
> nice example of mind-rape.
Really, your disbelief of my assertion is a prime example of the anti-christian
brainwashing that seems to be increasingly permeating popular culture and
education. It also exhibits your fundamental misunderstanding of the dichotomy
between the "church" (as an ecclesiastical, political body) and the "Church"
of believing, praying, devoted Christians. Almost all of the persecutions
conducted by the "church" were polical/economic, not ideological
(denominational turf, tithing rights, etc.).
> : > : Not to mention the early Romans who were also unable to stamp it out. There
> : > : have been over 40 million Christian martyrs since the time of Jesus.
>
> : > Most of which were killed by other christians :)
>
> : Thanks for using the lower-case "c". That's an important dividing point -
> : people calling themselves "christians" (the majority of those responsible for
> : such atrocities as the crusades, inquisition, the witch trials, etc)
> ... like for example the pope.
Hey, I for one do NOT advocate the inerrancy of the Pope. He's a man, just like
any other, and the legalistic structuring of the Catholic heirarchy has made it
very easy for some virtual anti-christs to head up the church.
> : are not
> : necessarily capital-c Christians. By that I mean, their actions and teaching
> : were often either contradictory to or at lest inconsistent with the standard
> : canon (the Bible) and orthodox theologies (Asissi, Augustine, Luther, etc)
> A-ha! Now that's interesting. This very same Bible is full of mass-murders
> which are approved of you know?
Ah, the OT. I assume you're referring to the wars the Hebrew tribe conducted.
Let's bear in mind the distinction between murder and killing in the process of
warfare; let's also bear in mind that the OT wars were directed by God, mostly
for the express reason of destroying a tribe or city that had set itself up
against God. Remember the standard He applied to Sodom? For just a few
righteous men, the city would have been spared. In paradigm, His passing
judgement on these small populations was perfectly reasonable. But, that's
another debate entirely.
[del]
> : > because of the high Indian culture, the Church decided that the colonials
> : > had to use Negroes as slaves instead of Indians - because Negroes were not
> : > recognised by the church as being human beings.
> : Not recognised by some secularized and de-canonized american churches
> : (lower-case). Bear in mind that the racial rights and abolitionists movements
> : in America and abroad (in both millenia) were led by the Church.
> SOME of the racial right movements etc etc. The church is always way
> behind. Rerum Novarum came decades after Marx.
Of course, like I said, not all churches are Churches. And it was William
Wilberforce who LED the abolition movement in Britain.
Please elaborate - I don't know who this Novarum guy is.
[mass deletia]
> : Tell it to a Christian walking the streets of a
> : middle-eastern country where it is legal to shoot and kill a Christian without
> : provokation.
> At this moment, christianity is better than islam, because it is weaker.
> But I was talking from a historical view.
Personally, I'm not too big on the "historical view", because it's very easy to
find spots of history to demonstrate either point or position. I would rather
discuss ideology and how well historic actions line up with those ideologies.
> : Compare that to the basic Christian principle of free will and
> : individual accountability to God that led to the 1st amendment protection of
> : the individual's religious freedom.
> After 1500 years of killing all non-christians - kinda late.
Back it up, please, with an instance that is justifiable and somewhat simply
reconcilable with the New Testament. ie, Crusades, Inquisition, Witch Trials
are all out.
> : Another point - the Romans and Jews seemed to think Christianity was a dying
> : religion when they buried Jesus. Sunday morning wrought havoc on that theory.
> There was no christian religion yet when Jesus was hung. Paul invented it all.
They thought his following, this weird new sect of Judaism, was dying. My point
is the same. What Paul "invented" was foundational theology, trying to explain
the Truth that the early believers posesses and knew from their personal
experiences with Jesus.
[again...]
> : But the point is significant - the death count due to so-called "christian"
> : crimes falls several orders of magnitude behind the toll from atheistic states
> : in this century alone.
> Only when you like you you define that all murderers can't possibly be
> christians.
No, my statistics include the anti-christian crusades, inquisition, etc., and
when comparing those grand totals to the aforementioned states, there's really
a rather stark contrast.
> A cowardly retreat from REAL history, in which fanatic
> christians have caused more blood-baths than any other religious people,
> with approval of all christianity's OFFICIAL institutions.
Which were, as all institutions in all times are, flawed, riddled with
misperceptions, shortsightedness, and the blind spots of their eras, in
addition to often being indoctrinated with an inaccurate canon (or completely
ignoring it)...what's more, the OFFICIAL institutions included the hospitals,
the boarding homes, the shelters, the monestaries/nunneries, and other
organizations that in many ways opposed the actions of the errant
state-church.
> You don't
> represent christianity AS IT IS, you represent a peaceful sect of
> christianity which I have no objections too.
Or perhaps, I represent Christianity as it is, and they represent christianity
as they wanted it to be. Like I said, if you intend to argue against
Christianity, you must argue against it on the grounds of the history that fits
within its ideology; using the form of your argument, I could just as easily
say that Stalin is substantial proof that the atheistic ideology is evil. (I
realize you're not an atheist.) I can't accept that statement - I know too many
nice atheists. You can't argue simply from titles in history books - you must
consider the roots, the principles, when judging a movement such as
Christianity.
> End of discussion.
'fraid not. It's been going for a long time, and I don't think either you or I
will be able to wrap it up any time soon.
Adam
--
"I willingly believe that the damned are, in one Adam Bradley, CompSci, UNCA
sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the HR619A / ADBR...@UNCA.EDU
doors of Hell are locked on the inside." -CSLewis Food for thought: Fish! <><
AIRD MELANIE DAWN
>In <34t27p$o...@rc1.vub.ac.be> tw4...@vub.ac.be writes:
>> Adam D. Bradley (ADBR...@uncavx.unca.edu) schreef:
>> : > : From: GOdSMurf <tw4...@vub.ac.be>
many things deleted.
>> The 'freedom of religion' claim is really the funniest one, considering
>> how violently the church prosecuted all non-christians. Really, you're a
>> nice example of mind-rape.
actually, i was quite amazed to find that some of the earliest advocates of
freedom of religion in colonial america were the BAPTISTS. will wonders
never cease... of course, they weren't big on paganism, but then people
don't generally encourage the ideologies of a people that they are scared of.
mda
Hala'sz Sa'ndor
Giordano Bruno was convicted of heresy, for preaching Neoplatonism. He adopted
the heliocentric theory because it confirmed his Neoplatonism. There is
evidence that he never fully understood it
Hala'sz Sa'ndor
> Many theologians would disagree with you. The idea of individual
> responsibility (if one shall not work, one shall not eat) is the most
> foundational principle of capitalism; you see a great deal of collectivism
> in economies shaped by more group-responsibility-like ideologies.
calld "Dame Fortune" (these days, I guess, "Lady Luck"). This was a purely
literary person, one who, under God, was considerd to assign one s earthly lot.
Clearly, this is only the personification of a widespread notion, that people
are not much to answer for their lot in this life, and that wealth and poverty
hav naught to do with grace. This is greatly reflected in the difference
between the attitude then and the attitude nou towards the poor: the poor shall
be supported in their poverty because they are in need, and this need is no
reflection whatsoever on their holiness. Clearly, at that time a much more
communitarian spirit prevaild, and this is there from early on, when "all
shared all that they had". I believ that Paul s writing "If one does not work,
neither shall he eat" really refers to obvious mooches