No more religion, please.
Vexen UK
imposes most on me. I have been studying it for quite a while in alot of my
spare time ... I have backlogs and backlogs of information that I haven't got
around to putting on my pages yet.
Looking through the dark ages, looking at Christianity in particular today, I
have progressed from Atheist, to Humanist, now (for 2 years) to Activist
Humanist Satanism, highly persuaded by LaVey's useful and accurate summaries
of Satanism.
Religion has been, and still is, the single biggest set back to makind as we
know it. The Dark Ages, especially, after the demise of The Roman Empire
(which late in it's life adopted the monotheist religion of Christianity in
place of it's democratic polytheist religion) was the time that Christianity
took it's grip - intense witch hunts and devil preaching; people were killed
simply for being able to read/write ... a quote that I do not have to hand is
of a king saying "any persuit of knowledge that is not ordained by a
Christian quest is punishable by death".
Now, I would be willing to let all that drop, and accept "Christian morals" in
the modern day as a good thing. But modern Christianity is only marginally
better. The Church is the greatest source of homophobic activism in todays
world ... it's murderous stranglehold of book production and education in the
early years led to their having a monopoly on anything written or spoken about
in an official way. Today we are still feeling the dying threat of that
persecution.
The Church condemns condoms ... as all sex that is not for reproduction is
fornication and in sin ... The Pope himself voiced his contempt for
contraceptives. We are dissuaded from accepting "evolution" even today; there
are contries where "evolution is only a theory" is a law-enforced note on all
literature, and even countries where it is not legal to teach it at all.
Religious dogma affects us more than we think ... The House Of Lords is the
most obvious one. Only a short while ago they blocked the passage of a bill
promising Equal Rites for gay and straight sex ... biologically,
psychologically and philosophically there is no fundamental difference between
people; gay sex is not "gay" it is just "sex" , but the Church will fight this
on every level. Gay Priests and such have a very hard life.
I am not hateful of people who believe in a deity; I am hateful of the
doctrine of Christianity that tries to tell me what is right and wrong;
whilst at the same time frowning on science. This newsgroup is riddled with
deists proclaiming their truths ... and here is one point on which you will
probably agree ... they are all (excepting very few others) Christians, and
followers of the Bible.
Without this huge weight on all of our shoulders, the world would be a much
better place, equality is grudgingly given cm by cm by the Church. It was the
biggest defender of slavery, and in America of racial discrimination ...
blacks could not marry, be equal, own property, be tought with whites, use
white privalages ... and the Bible had a great deal of affect.
But So What? It's not like that today, so why bother? You know at the time,
people had that exact opinion. We are denied equal marriage rites between
people; but marriage is not only a Christian show ... why should they dictate
who is allowed the benefits under law of marriage? Why are we still putting up
with this? They are slowing us all down by fighting us on every level ... God
and Science should stay well apart.
Here is a thought ... what will technology be like in 400 hundred years? In
the last 20 years we have developed efficient computers, we scan Mars from
space with a footprint size of a car, we can project things into space to
scan moons on other planets. In 400 more years, what will a computer be? What
will space exploration be? How much will we have colonized? 3 or 4 planets
maybe (including moons). A satellite is being built NOW that will land on a
moon of Jupiter, land on it, break it's ice and then submerge into it's
oceans. In 400 years: What? How can we predict?
But four hundred years is nothing ... if we had have killed Christianity 400
years ago, we would be at that stage NOW ... those Dark Ages that we spent
burning books, letting buildings decay, roads decay, iron processing
practically ceased ... all those wasted years.
How many diseases could we have cured? How many animals could we have saved
(by growing our own meat in labs) if wasn't for Religion and "law abiding God
fearing white folk".
No more, this is year 33, we can all start again from a beginning of science,
the advent of the computer and technology age is our true beginning.
Vexen UK, the perky sqwrl-fur cyberpunky bounce maniac industrialist
geek with shades (of course).
my main page: http://members.xoom.com/VexenUK
religion pages: http://members.xoom.com/VexenUK/religion
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Malibu Bryan
Vexen UK wrote:
>
> I've studied religion, Christianity in particular because it is the one that
> imposes most on me. I have been studying it for quite a while in alot of my
> spare time ... I have backlogs and backlogs of information that I haven't got
> around to putting on my pages yet.
>
> Looking through the dark ages, looking at Christianity in particular today, I
> have progressed from Atheist, to Humanist, now (for 2 years) to Activist
> Humanist Satanism, highly persuaded by LaVey's useful and accurate summaries
> of Satanism.
Activist Humanist Satanism sounds *really* ridiculous.
>
> Religion has been, and still is, the single biggest set back to makind as we
> know it.
Might it not have been a completely necessary stage of human cultural
evolution?
> The Dark Ages, especially, after the demise of The Roman Empire
> (which late in it's life adopted the monotheist religion of Christianity in
> place of it's democratic polytheist religion) was the time that Christianity
> took it's grip - intense witch hunts and devil preaching; people were killed
> simply for being able to read/write ... a quote that I do not have to hand is
> of a king saying "any persuit of knowledge that is not ordained by a
> Christian quest is punishable by death".
But yet, out of that ignorance sprang the scientific method as THE way
of knowing about empirical reality.
>
> Now, I would be willing to let all that drop, and accept "Christian morals" in
> the modern day as a good thing. But modern Christianity is only marginally
> better. The Church is the greatest source of homophobic activism in todays
> world
That homophobia thing is actually much worse in many non-Western
cultures that don't have Christianity in their background.
... it's murderous stranglehold of book production and education in the
> early years led to their having a monopoly on anything written or spoken about
> in an official way. Today we are still feeling the dying threat of that
> persecution.
You are ranting and you should organize your sentences into topical
paragraphs. : ) Still, I think that institutions that promote the idea
that one sexual orientation is better than another make themselves look
stupid in this day and age.
> The Church condemns condoms ... as all sex that is not for reproduction is
> fornication and in sin
While you're equating
these pleasures with sin
I'll be enjoying
the Daughters of Men
--Class Act
... The Pope himself voiced his contempt for
> contraceptives.
Ever heard the phrase, "He ain't had pussy since pussy had him."?????
> We are dissuaded from accepting "evolution" even today; there
> are contries where "evolution is only a theory" is a law-enforced note on all
> literature, and even countries where it is not legal to teach it at all.
Don't blame the Pope or the Catholic Church for *that*. The Catholic
Church accepts evolution as fact. I'll say it now. People who do not
believe in human evolution are just stupid.
>
> Religious dogma affects us more than we think ... The House Of Lords is the
> most obvious one. Only a short while ago they blocked the passage of a bill
> promising Equal Rites for gay and straight sex ... biologically,
> psychologically and philosophically there is no fundamental difference between
> people; gay sex is not "gay" it is just "sex" , but the Church will fight this
> on every level. Gay Priests and such have a very hard life.
Why would anyone want to be a priest for a religion that calls their
sexual practices "abomination"?
> I am not hateful of people who believe in a deity; I am hateful of the
> doctrine of Christianity that tries to tell me what is right and wrong;
> whilst at the same time frowning on science.
They legislate their obsolete moral codes too.
This newsgroup is riddled with
> deists proclaiming their truths
A. Do you have any idea what the words "Deist" means?
B. Which newsgroup? You crossposted to several. I rread this on
alt.punk
... and here is one point on which you will
> probably agree ... they are all (excepting very few others) Christians, and
> followers of the Bible.
> Without this huge weight on all of our shoulders, the world would be a much
> better place, equality is grudgingly given cm by cm by the Church. It was the
> biggest defender of slavery, and in America of racial discrimination ...
> blacks could not marry, be equal, own property, be tought with whites, use
> white privalages ... and the Bible had a great deal of affect.
The churches are careful to patronize the extant social order, be it
slavery, or in the case of today, Capitalism.
> But So What? It's not like that today, so why bother? You know at the time,
> people had that exact opinion. We are denied equal marriage rites between
> people; but marriage is not only a Christian show ... why should they dictate
> who is allowed the benefits under law of marriage? Why are we still putting up
> with this? They are slowing us all down by fighting us on every level ... God
> and Science should stay well apart.
In religion vs. science, science would certainly triumph.
>
> Here is a thought ... what will technology be like in 400 hundred years? In
> the last 20 years we have developed efficient computers, we scan Mars from
> space with a footprint size of a car, we can project things into space to
> scan moons on other planets. In 400 more years, what will a computer be? What
> will space exploration be? How much will we have colonized? 3 or 4 planets
> maybe (including moons). A satellite is being built NOW that will land on a
> moon of Jupiter, land on it, break it's ice and then submerge into it's
> oceans. In 400 years: What? How can we predict?
>
> But four hundred years is nothing ... if we had have killed Christianity 400
> years ago, we would be at that stage NOW
You have absolutely no way in the world to support the above statement
and no true believer in science would ever make such a baseless
statement. *You* are sloppy.
... those Dark Ages that we spent
> burning books, letting buildings decay, roads decay, iron processing
> practically ceased ... all those wasted years.
It is from those "Dark Ages" and from a basically Christian culture that
both science and secular democracy descended.
> How many diseases could we have cured? How many animals could we have saved
> (by growing our own meat in labs) if wasn't for Religion and "law abiding God
> fearing white folk".
Now you're sounding like a BOZO.
>
> No more, this is year 33, we can all start again from a beginning of science,
> the advent of the computer and technology age is our true beginning.
>
I don't think you're going to get any converts to *your* silly-assed
religion as a result of this thread.
> Vexen UK, the perky sqwrl-fur cyberpunky bounce maniac industrialist
> geek with shades (of course).
> my main page: http://members.xoom.com/VexenUK
> religion pages: http://members.xoom.com/VexenUK/religion
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
Bryan
What do you expect when half of the people in the world are below
average intelligence?
Rock'n Roll is about throwing the mainstream
culture's ideas of morality and standards of behavior in the dumpster.
In short, Rock'n Roll is lascivious, blasphemous, arrogant and downright
sleazy. It is fantastic, escapist. Any rock that doesn't fit the above
description is not Rock'n Roll. It is merely "rock music."
Jennifer M.
>doctrine of Christianity that tries to tell me what is right and wrong;
I'd be interested in your views about Jesus Christ, and if Christianity as
we know it today reflect his teachings. My feeling is that he'd puke on
religious leaders today. Well, maybe he wouldn't go that far, but I don't
think Jesus would be a happy camper.
Jennifer M.
CyberGrrlz -- http://www.cybergrrlz.com
The e-zine for girls with brains and a sense of humor
(smarter guys will like it too)
If you reply to me by e-mail, make sure you remove the anti-SPAM "x" at the
end of my e-mail address
Medusa
If you do not like religion, then why spend so much of your time writing a
lengthy post on it? I would think if someone didn't like something or
believe in it they wouldn't devote time to it, and they'd get on with
things. By writing such a post, you show that you are quite interested in
the topic.
Just my opinion.
--
. . Medusa . . .
Dore Williamson
with God. They are not similar.
You think religion has caused the most trouble, look at China, they are all
atheists. I don't see any great bargain there.
--
http://members.tripod.com/~spirit_of_prophecy/index.html
Dore
Vexen UK wrote in message <7div44$470$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Nick the wonder goth
world
The fact is you can't make predictions about how advanced we would be with
out christianity perhaps beacuse you don;t have the faith in it that others
have you can't understand the way they put their trust in it and gather
strenght from it.
I'm not a religious nut but i can say that with out christianity we would be
in a sorry state. OK maybe slightyly advanced but that would not sufice for
the hole in society
norms and values are sporned from religion, even if a family is not
religious from one generations to the other values are taught, and these
values came from religion
Ok another attak on your argument is if religion stumped our scientific
progress then why were we not driving around in cars and such in acient
times b4 christianity
for example take 400 years out of the 5000 year egypitan empire not
christianity there and was there any great advances nope.
In fact if you look at it since christianity science has progressed the most
compared to the rest of mans long history spanning however many long years
(500,000 or somthing silly)
Nick
Malibu Bryan
Nick the wonder goth wrote:
>
>
> I'm not a religious nut but i can say that with out christianity we would be
> in a sorry state. OK maybe slightyly advanced but that would not sufice for
> the hole in society
> norms and values are sporned from religion, even if a family is not
> religious from one generations to the other values are taught, and these
> values came from religion
Patriarchal sexist "values."
xana
> Nick the wonder goth wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm not a religious nut but i can say that with out christianity we would be
> > in a sorry state. OK maybe slightyly advanced but that would not sufice for
> > the hole in society
> > norms and values are sporned from religion, even if a family is not
> > religious from one generations to the other values are taught, and these
> > values came from religion
>
> Patriarchal sexist "values."
well of course.... religion is aimed at people who cant think for themselves.
not that modern day intellectualism is much better... science and philisophy
have their limits too.
Christopher Cantor
Nick the wonder goth wrote:
>
> If we stamped out christianity then Islam would have dominated the western
> world
Given that Christianity predated and informed Islam, I dont think you
know
what you are talking about.
> The fact is you can't make predictions about how advanced we would be with
> out christianity perhaps beacuse you don;t have the faith in it that others
> have you can't understand the way they put their trust in it and gather
> strenght from it.
>
> I'm not a religious nut but i can say that with out christianity we would be
> in a sorry state. OK maybe slightyly advanced but that would not sufice for
> the hole in society
> norms and values are sporned from religion, even if a family is not
> religious from one generations to the other values are taught, and these
> values came from religion
You're right about the norms and values being informed by religion, but
little else. By the way, do you seriously think that western
civilization
is in good shape?
> Ok another attak on your argument is if religion stumped our scientific
> progress then why were we not driving around in cars and such in acient
> times b4 christianity
Oh, thats one of the more devastating "attacks" on her argument, for
sure.
You should have quit while you were ahead!
-aboy
> for example take 400 years out of the 5000 year egypitan empire not
> christianity there and was there any great advances nope.
> In fact if you look at it since christianity science has progressed the most
> compared to the rest of mans long history spanning however many long years
> (500,000 or somthing silly)
PS: This was totally incoherent. If you want to posit a strong link
between
christianity and science you have to make a stronger case than that.
PSS: You might try presenting logical arguments for a change of pace.
>
> Nick
MrPresident
got there ideas on modern thought from, did you take math in highschool, or
english? if you had you'd know that the greeks created both the foundations
of all modern math, and all the themes in literature/film that you see
today. Christ have you ever even heard of the Rennaissance or the
enlightenement. both movements which further developed modern
ideas/philosophies were condemned by the church. Ever heard of the dark ages
meathead? Christianity has repeatadly proven itself to be as ass backward as
possible when it comes to science. Go to the fucking library and read a
fucking book, or at least stop sleeping through your western civ lectures
meathead.
Nick the wonder goth wrote in message
<7dlfvs$j...@news5-gui.server.cableol.net>...
>If we stamped out christianity then Islam would have dominated the western
>world
>
>The fact is you can't make predictions about how advanced we would be with
>out christianity perhaps beacuse you don;t have the faith in it that others
>have you can't understand the way they put their trust in it and gather
>strenght from it.
>
>I'm not a religious nut but i can say that with out christianity we would
be
>in a sorry state. OK maybe slightyly advanced but that would not sufice
for
>the hole in society
>norms and values are sporned from religion, even if a family is not
>religious from one generations to the other values are taught, and these
>values came from religion
>
>Ok another attak on your argument is if religion stumped our scientific
>progress then why were we not driving around in cars and such in acient
>times b4 christianity
>
>for example take 400 years out of the 5000 year egypitan empire not
>christianity there and was there any great advances nope.
>In fact if you look at it since christianity science has progressed the
most
>compared to the rest of mans long history spanning however many long years
>(500,000 or somthing silly)
>
>Nick
>
>
>
>
Shaun Denney
<hsp...@epix.net> wrote:
>Don't confuse Jesus Christ with Christianity, and don't confuse religion
>with God. They are not similar.
Fair enough - I've never met a true Christian.
>You think religion has caused the most trouble, look at China, they are all
>atheists.
Sure, and the British are all Christians...
>I don't see any great bargain there.
1) China is only officially atheist - most people there are religious
to some degree, although they tend to keep it to themselves when the
party is listening.
2) Chinese Communism is virtually a religion in itself - and
deliberately so, as the leaders of the revolution knew that this would
be the best way to control the masses. That is why religion is
suppressed there - they don't want the competition.
Don't confuse the official propaganda of a government with the actual
situation in the country it governs, and don't confuse Communism with
atheism - there are plenty of religious communists even if you don't
count communism as a religion.
Now, if you can find a country that really *is* atheistic and has the
same problems as all those with religions, you may have a point.
Cheers
Shaun
-bat.
> things. By writing such a post, you show that you are quite interested in
> the topic.
People are often fascinated by things they don't like though - better han
disinterest anyday I would think.
-bat.
Lord Occum
MrPresident wrote in message <7dna82$4tl$1...@news1.channel1.com>...
>ever heard of the ancient greeks retard...
not sure i've heard of that school- is that the ones who had a limited
vocabulary when insulting their opponents?
>Christ have you ever even heard of the Rennaissance
i think he might have done, i think his mum featured in a lot of their
paintings.
Vexen UK
> Vexen UK wrote:
> > have progressed from Atheist, to Humanist, now (for 2 years) to Activist
> > Humanist Satanism, highly persuaded by LaVey's useful and accurate summaries
> > of Satanism.
> Activist Humanist Satanism sounds *really* ridiculous.
> > Religion has been, and still is, the single biggest set back to makind as we
> > know it.
> Might it not have been a completely necessary stage of human cultural
> evolution?
Maybe, without it we would have missed many many lessons...
> > The Dark Ages, especially, after the demise of The Roman Empire
> But yet, out of that ignorance sprang the scientific method as THE way
> of knowing about empirical reality.
If I had a choice, I wouldn't have made it all not happen. I don't doubt the
benefits it gave us.
> > Now, I would be willing to let all that drop, and accept "Christian morals"
in
> > the modern day as a good thing. But modern Christianity is only marginally
> > better. The Church is the greatest source of homophobic activism in todays
> > world
>
> That homophobia thing is actually much worse in many non-Western
> cultures that don't have Christianity in their background.
There are some countries and places that do in indeed get it VERY bad, two
places spring to mind that I have 2nd person knowledge of, Saudi Arabia and
modern China.
> ... it's murderous stranglehold of book production and education in the
> > early years led to their having a monopoly on anything written or spoken
about
> > in an official way. Today we are still feeling the dying threat of that
> > persecution.
>
> You are ranting and you should organize your sentences into topical
> paragraphs. : ) Still, I think that institutions that promote the idea
> that one sexual orientation is better than another make themselves look
> stupid in this day and age.
I think I was on coffee again. It normally wears off by the time I get to the
computer lab. There are of course things that should always be condemned, any
sexual activity that harms people - this is the thing that is often thrown in
the face of equality for gay people.
> > The Church condemns condoms ... as all sex that is not for reproduction is
> > fornication and in sin
>
> While you're equating
> these pleasures with sin
> I'll be enjoying
> the Daughters of Men
> --Class Act
>
> ... The Pope himself voiced his contempt for
> > contraceptives.
>
> Ever heard the phrase, "He ain't had pussy since pussy had him."?????
>
> > We are dissuaded from accepting "evolution" even today; there
> > are contries where "evolution is only a theory" is a law-enforced note on
all
> > literature, and even countries where it is not legal to teach it at all.
>
> Don't blame the Pope or the Catholic Church for *that*. The Catholic
> Church accepts evolution as fact. I'll say it now. People who do not
> believe in human evolution are just stupid.
I have one arguing with me on a different channel, currently he's trying to
prove that the theoryof evolution has been disregarded by the "scientific
community" and that they now believe we co-existed with dinosaurs.
Vexen UK
> >I am not hateful of people who believe in a deity; I am hateful of the
> >doctrine of Christianity that tries to tell me what is right and wrong;
>
> we know it today reflect his teachings. My feeling is that he'd puke on
> religious leaders today. Well, maybe he wouldn't go that far, but I don't
> think Jesus would be a happy camper.
There are a few views on what Jesus was actually like, so I can't really
figure how he would feel, I'll accept that he was a good person, and proceed
from there:
Jesus Christ contrasted with the Torah and much of the Old Testament in one
HUGE way, in that he wasn't about fear, blood or violence. Today's
Christianity is the same - somewhat subdued when considering the things old
YWHA got up to the Old. Jesus Christ never metioned homophobia, this I feel
would be a shock to him, that his own teachings are used in conjuction with
people's personal moral misadventures. He'd surely hate all the rituals and
rules that have been emplyed, and he certainly wouldn't like Church!
> Jennifer M.
> CyberGrrlz -- http://www.cybergrrlz.com
Vexen UK, the perky sqwrl-fur cyberpunky bounce maniac industrialist
Vexen UK
> If you do not like religion, then why spend so much of your time writing a
> lengthy post on it? I would think if someone didn't like something or
> believe in it they wouldn't devote time to it, and they'd get on with
> the topic.
>
I am interested in whole Religious thing, I don't deny it. I do like religion
because there is a definite art form in promoting things for people to believe
in ... but I don't like promoting regimes that hate monger, and I don't like
making our society backwardsly compatible with religions that we don't need
anymore.
>
> --
> . . Medusa . . .
>
Vexen UK, the perky sqwrl-fur cyberpunky bounce maniac industrialist
Vexen UK
> If we stamped out christianity then Islam would have dominated the western
> world
> The fact is you can't make predictions about how advanced we would be with
> out christianity perhaps beacuse you don;t have the faith in it that others
> have you can't understand the way they put their trust in it and gather
> strenght from it.
I can make predictions ... I did, chances are it was wrong of course, but it
might be true. Who can tell? People put their trust in Christianity and the
Injil and they suffer - it is a very cheap way of making people feel less
insecure.
> I'm not a religious nut but i can say that with out christianity we would be
> in a sorry state. OK maybe slightyly advanced but that would not sufice for
> the hole in society
> norms and values are sporned from religion, even if a family is not
> religious from one generations to the other values are taught, and these
> values came from religion
Ah, Christianity has only ever used societies rules as it found it could use
them. There are many religions and many cultures ... I'm sure that morals
develop regardless of which religion is present, and regardless of how many
Gods that religion has. Given these two, I think it doesn't matter whether the
religion is superstitious or technofiliash. (er, silly word alert).
> Ok another attak on your argument is if religion stumped our scientific
> progress then why were we not driving around in cars and such in acient
> times b4 christianity
Because we hadn't developed that far. We had roman roads, iron mongerers and
blacksmiths whilst the Roman Empire was stable. During the Dark Ages we lost
it all.
> for example take 400 years out of the 5000 year egypitan empire not
> christianity there and was there any great advances nope.
> In fact if you look at it since christianity science has progressed the most
> compared to the rest of mans long history spanning however many long years
> (500,000 or somthing silly)
China was leagues and leagues ahead of the rest of the world in science.
Admittedly they hit a political stopper, and haven't progressed since, but
they're an example of what could have been achieved even early on. They had
surgeons whilst we still had saws.
> Nick
Malibu Bryan
Vexen UK wrote:
>
> The Catholic
> > Church accepts evolution as fact. I'll say it now. People who do not
> > believe in human evolution are just stupid.
> I have one arguing with me on a different channel, currently he's trying to
> prove that the theoryof evolution has been disregarded by the "scientific
> community" and that they now believe we co-existed with dinosaurs.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Sure, haven't you ever seen the Flintstones!?!
James.O.Rantschler
Christopher Cantor <cantor-ch...@cs.yale.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Nick the wonder goth wrote:
> >
> > If we stamped out christianity then Islam would have dominated the
western
> > world
>
> know what you are talking about.
Aren't we talking about stamping out Christianity four hundred years ago?
I think by that time Islam had taken all it would from the followers of
Christ. I think the Wonder Goth is forgetting what ol' Vexen said, too.
Now, the problem that people had at that point with Christianity was that
it was too secular - hence, the Reformation - and not that it was too
doctrinaire. Unless you believe Russell (in /Power/), who says that the
big problem with Catholicism was that it made people eat fish. In either
case, I don't see any positive critique someone might make to convince the
masses of 1599 to rise up and become good atheists with split level homes.
I think that if the West chucked the Church out of the window just then
it's unlikely the people would turn to Islam for "guidance." There were
active Germanic places of worship in sixteenth century Prussia, for other
sources of religion if people wanted it (and it seems that most people do
want religion if not its codes of conduct).
Making conjectures on the state of affairs of the world without
Christianity is just silly, however, since it has permeated the history
of the West, and thereby, just about everywhere for the past few centuries.
May as well speculate on what the world would be like if people could fly
like Dumbo. You'll note that I do make my own guesses, below.
> > The fact is you can't make predictions about how advanced we would be
with
> > out christianity perhaps beacuse you don;t have the faith in it that
others
> > have you can't understand the way they put their trust in it and
gather
> > strenght from it.
> >
> > I'm not a religious nut but i can say that with out christianity we
would be
> > in a sorry state. OK maybe slightyly advanced but that would not
suffice for
> > the hole in society
> > norms and values are sporned from religion, even if a family is not
> > religious from one generations to the other values are taught, and
these
> > values came from religion
>
> You're right about the norms and values being informed by religion, but
> little else. By the way, do you seriously think that western
> civilization is in good shape?
Good shape for what and compared to what in what context?
I think it's in good shape because it's the only civilization left, having
successfully colonized and bastardized nearly all other cultures. That
doesn't mean it's "healthy" - whatever that might mean -, just that there
really isn't anything else out there right now. North and South America,
Australia, Western Asia, Southern and Northern Africa, and Europe are all
completely Western. The major players in Central and Eastern Asia (India,
China & Japan) are highly Westernized, China becoming increasingly so
(beyond the point of the other two, if Christianity continues its spread
there). Central Africa is in disarray and I won't speculate on what (if
anything) will finally emerge in that region.
> > Ok another attak on your argument is if religion stumped our
scientific
> > progress then why were we not driving around in cars and such in
ancient
> > times b4 christianity
>
> Oh, thats one of the more devastating "attacks" on her argument, for
> sure. You should have quit while you were ahead!
They had flush toilets!!!!
> PS: This was totally incoherent. If you want to posit a strong link
> between christianity and science you have to make a stronger case than
> that.
There are links, if he really wants to try to make them, but the fact is
that "science" is something that came into being at best at the periphery of
the Church, at best something that was serendipitous, and worst something that
it impeded.
"Harmony of the World" was published posthumously for a reason.
I doubt that latter case, I think the church and its reverence for Greek
scholarship was one of many necessary conditions to allow Science to come
about, but that if Christian doctrine was scrupulously followed by Kepler,
Galileo, and so on, there would have been no science.
I think it's important to emphasize the role of the individual in science
since it's fairly clear that throughout its history science as science has
been demonized by society in general. Today only fringe groups do this,
environmentalists and extreme fundamentalists. People are, however
entitled to their religious beliefs.
I don't hold anything special for the Greeks except their unique
contributions to thought, which probably could have come from anywhere.
Unfortunately, no one knows why the Ionic physicists started thinking
about nature sans dieties, the remnants of their work being fragments.
It could have taken another thousand years or another ten thousand.
If there had been a more complete rift between Christian Europe and
Antiquity, then Arab Scholarship was definitely in a good position, having
taken up philosophy, to beget Science, and if the idea of philosophy had
ever taken up in China, their history is replete with inventions and
doo-dads that, if systematized, would have allowed for, most likely, a
faster, better, more streamlined science than we had before Newton.
Another necessary condition was Arabic in origin - that is, algebra -, but
this doesn't preclude anything that I don't want to talk about right now
from also being necessary. I don't think any of this is sufficient for
the birth of science. Unfortunately, if you have to extrapolate from one
data point all you have is a guess.
> PSS: You might try presenting logical arguments for a change of pace.
No! No Fun!!!!
JR
Christopher Cantor
" James.O.Rantschler" wrote:
>
> In article <36FF0337...@cs.yale.edu>,
> Christopher Cantor <cantor-ch...@cs.yale.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Nick the wonder goth wrote:
> > >
> > > If we stamped out christianity then Islam would have dominated the
> western
> > > world
> >
> > Given that Christianity predated and informed Islam, I dont think you
> > know what you are talking about.
>
> Aren't we talking about stamping out Christianity four hundred years ago?
> I think by that time Islam had taken all it would from the followers of
> Christ. I think the Wonder Goth is forgetting what ol' Vexen said, too.
Im not sure. I wasnt following the thread too closely.
> Now, the problem that people had at that point with Christianity was that
> it was too secular - hence, the Reformation - and not that it was too
> doctrinaire. Unless you believe Russell (in /Power/), who says that the
> big problem with Catholicism was that it made people eat fish. In either
> case, I don't see any positive critique someone might make to convince the
> masses of 1599 to rise up and become good atheists with split level homes.
>
> I think that if the West chucked the Church out of the window just then
> it's unlikely the people would turn to Islam for "guidance." There were
> active Germanic places of worship in sixteenth century Prussia, for other
> sources of religion if people wanted it (and it seems that most people do
> want religion if not its codes of conduct).
It sounds like you know a whole hell of a lot more about this than me.
All of this sounds good but I have no basis for judging whether
I should agree with it...
> Making conjectures on the state of affairs of the world without
> Christianity is just silly, however, since it has permeated the history
> of the West, and thereby, just about everywhere for the past few centuries.
Agreed!
> May as well speculate on what the world would be like if people could fly
> like Dumbo. You'll note that I do make my own guesses, below.
They used to call me dumbo in grade school, on account of my big ears.
And my girlfriend still teases me about them.
> > > The fact is you can't make predictions about how advanced we would be
> with
> > > out christianity perhaps beacuse you don;t have the faith in it that
> others
> > > have you can't understand the way they put their trust in it and
> gather
> > > strenght from it.
> > >
> > > I'm not a religious nut but i can say that with out christianity we
> would be
> > > in a sorry state. OK maybe slightyly advanced but that would not
> suffice for
> > > the hole in society
> > > norms and values are sporned from religion, even if a family is not
> > > religious from one generations to the other values are taught, and
> these
> > > values came from religion
> >
> > You're right about the norms and values being informed by religion, but
> > little else. By the way, do you seriously think that western
> > civilization is in good shape?
>
> Good shape for what and compared to what in what context?
Well, if hes satisfied with it in general. It was a personal question.
> I think it's in good shape because it's the only civilization left, having
> successfully colonized and bastardized nearly all other cultures. That
> doesn't mean it's "healthy" - whatever that might mean -, just that there
> really isn't anything else out there right now. North and South America,
> Australia, Western Asia, Southern and Northern Africa, and Europe are all
> completely Western. The major players in Central and Eastern Asia (India,
> China & Japan) are highly Westernized, China becoming increasingly so
> (beyond the point of the other two, if Christianity continues its spread
> there). Central Africa is in disarray and I won't speculate on what (if
> anything) will finally emerge in that region.
I dont think that western civilization is untouched, and christianity is
certainly been bastardized. Just look at usury as one example. Banker
is practically synonymous with Old, White, Male, WASP. Profiteering
used to be illegal in the christian faith. Thats one of the reasons the
Jews got a bad rap.
> > > Ok another attak on your argument is if religion stumped our
> scientific
> > > progress then why were we not driving around in cars and such in
> ancient
> > > times b4 christianity
> >
> > Oh, thats one of the more devastating "attacks" on her argument, for
> > sure. You should have quit while you were ahead!
>
> They had flush toilets!!!!
Yeah, and another argument that counters his point is that the aliens
shared technology with the egyptians and the mayas to help build their
temples. Nick, you nimrod, "b4 christianity" we werent driving around
in cars because we were hitching rides in flying saucers!
> > PS: This was totally incoherent. If you want to posit a strong link
> > between christianity and science you have to make a stronger case than
> > that.
>
> There are links, if he really wants to try to make them, but the fact is
> that "science" is something that came into being at best at the periphery of
> the Church, at best something that was serendipitous, and worst something that
> it impeded.
I didnt say it would be easy to make a case that got Christianity and
Science
in bed together. I imagine such a hypothetical case would have
something to
do with the Jesuits (but they were founded in the 1500's, ironically, to
fight muslims)
> "Harmony of the World" was published posthumously for a reason.
>
> I doubt that latter case, I think the church and its reverence for Greek
> scholarship was one of many necessary conditions to allow Science to come
> about, but that if Christian doctrine was scrupulously followed by Kepler,
> Galileo, and so on, there would have been no science.
of course. and the basics were there way before christ (B.C).
> I think it's important to emphasize the role of the individual in science
> since it's fairly clear that throughout its history science as science has
> been demonized by society in general. Today only fringe groups do this,
> environmentalists and extreme fundamentalists. People are, however
> entitled to their religious beliefs.
thats not altogether true. society holds scientists in great contempt.
they love technology, but they dont revere the people that make it
possible.
this is why politicians dont pay attention to scientists while
scientists grovel at the feet of politicians.
> I don't hold anything special for the Greeks except their unique
> contributions to thought, which probably could have come from anywhere.
> Unfortunately, no one knows why the Ionic physicists started thinking
> about nature sans dieties, the remnants of their work being fragments.
> It could have taken another thousand years or another ten thousand.
>
> If there had been a more complete rift between Christian Europe and
> Antiquity, then Arab Scholarship was definitely in a good position, having
> taken up philosophy, to beget Science, and if the idea of philosophy had
> ever taken up in China, their history is replete with inventions and
> doo-dads that, if systematized, would have allowed for, most likely, a
> faster, better, more streamlined science than we had before Newton.
>
> Another necessary condition was Arabic in origin - that is, algebra -, but
> this doesn't preclude anything that I don't want to talk about right now
> from also being necessary. I don't think any of this is sufficient for
> the birth of science. Unfortunately, if you have to extrapolate from one
> data point all you have is a guess.
Im not familiar with most of this but it sounds fine.
> > PSS: You might try presenting logical arguments for a change of pace.
>
> No! No Fun!!!!
-aboy
> JR
The Incy Wincy Spider
goth <nick...@hotmail.com> writes
>If we stamped out christianity then Islam would have dominated the western
>world
I doubt this to be the case, for starters Islam occurred only after the
advent of Christianity and draws some of its inspiration from
Christianity (I believe they see Jesus Christ as one of their prophets,
but not as the messiah, I may be wrong here, but I am pretty sure)
>
>The fact is you can't make predictions about how advanced we would be with
>out christianity perhaps beacuse you don;t have the faith in it that others
>have you can't understand the way they put their trust in it and gather
>strenght from it.
>
I am nit sure you can say that surely that would be one of the points of
studying history?
>I'm not a religious nut but i can say that with out christianity we would be
>in a sorry state. OK maybe slightyly advanced but that would not sufice for
>the hole in society
Actually Christianity perhaps more then most other religions hindered
science. Most religions had to come up with answers to questions, like
how was the universe created, where did we come from, etc. Since over
time science has tended to answer these questions, religion has tended
to feel threatened by science because it undermined its criteria, and at
times instead of adapting to these advances it tried to block them. It
is interesting to note that astronomers and biologists tended to come in
for the roughest ride from the Church (because they tended to deal with
how humans were formed, mapped the heavens and worked out how humans
worked). However Christianity is far too big to stereotype by the
actions of just a few you will always find exception.
>norms and values are sporned from religion, even if a family is not
>religious from one generations to the other values are taught, and these
>values came from religion
>
A bit I sort of agree. I believe that in today's society religion is
there to give people spiritual fulfilment (as in to deal with the
psychological for spiritual fulfilment). To provide some moral
guidelines (but this is so heavily abused by far too many people in
positions in power IMO). Some of religion has shaped our society because
it was so dominant, and certain base (e.g. Thou shall not kill) seem to
be a fairly good starting point. Well I know religion can provide
morality, I do not see the fact that you need religion to be moral or
why one religions should be better then another 9OK I can see one or
two of the more extreme one being a little dodgy, especially the cult
styled ones, but of the major religions)
>Ok another attak on your argument is if religion stumped our scientific
>progress then why were we not driving around in cars and such in acient
>times b4 christianity
So why with 2000 years of Christianity why has this happened only in the
last years or so? In fact you could argue that Western society has made
its greatest since the decline of Christianity and the replacement of it
by liberal thought. Perhaps you could also explain why a large number of
scientists such as Einstein and Freud were not Christian, but are
credited with advancing their scientific field?
>
>for example take 400 years out of the 5000 year egypitan empire not
>christianity there and was there any great advances nope.
Well apart from the pyramids (pretty damn good engineering type
technical skills, which have been only able to replicated this century
[1]), the development of language through hyropgylhpics, the lighthouse
at Alexandria and the Library there, the start of modern medicine. No I
supposed they did not achieve that much really :)
>In fact if you look at it since christianity science has progressed the most
>compared to the rest of mans long history spanning however many long years
>(500,000 or somthing silly)
I could point that science has progressed most in my lifetime then in
any other point in history, I doubt this is because of me, it is just
that as time goes on more science progress has been made and this
logical since it builds what goes on, sometimes advances are even made
before their time (Babbage invented the computer halfway through the
last computer, but believed the technology was not available to build it
and would have to wait for engineering to catch up with him). In fact
Islam could use this argument on the grounds that the advance has been
statistically even greater then that during the time of Christianity.
You would then also argue that Judaism is the religion most hindering
the development of science (because it has been around longest) despite
have produced Einstein, Freud, etc.
Incy
[1] I believe Napoleon or at least his engineers actually calculated
that it was way beyond them to build an Egyptian pyramid when he was
conducting his Egyptian campaign
fasc...@my-dejanews.com
Christopher Cantor <cantor-ch...@cs.yale.edu> wrote:
I'm only taking the time to agree because we have to seem united in front of
the goths, even if they are uk.people.goths and not proper alt.goths at all.
> They used to call me dumbo in grade school, on account of my big ears.
> And my girlfriend still teases me about them.
Well, yeah, that's what girlfriends are for.
> I dont think that western civilization is untouched, and christianity is
> certainly been bastardized. Just look at usury as one example. Banker
> is practically synonymous with Old, White, Male, WASP. Profiteering
> used to be illegal in the christian faith. Thats one of the reasons the
> Jews got a bad rap.
Yeah, the West has been stealing and incorporating the ideas of the East for
centuries, at least. This is a good thing, surely, but I don't think that
effects of this have been anywhere near as great as the effects of
colonization were.
For example, in many parts of Africa, "traditional" religious practices were
revived by the only means available: reading what white men had written about
them. Zimbabwe had problems in at least its first decade because people were
dying due to lack of knowledge of the old systems. I haven't read anything
about it for about ten years, but I expect they've stopped feeding people the
poisons they were.
The Jews bad rap was one of those little hypocritical things, though, wasn't
it. The Princes of Italy were quite happy to take out loans from the Jews,
then turn around and pronounce them as very bad people for doing what they
wanted.
If only that kind of thing would stop just by getting rid of the aristocracy.
> > There are links, if he really wants to try to make them, but the fact is
> > that "science" is something that came into being at best at the periphery of
> > the Church, at best something that was serendipitous, and worst something
> > that it impeded.
>
> I didnt say it would be easy to make a case that got Christianity and
> Science
> in bed together. I imagine such a hypothetical case would have
> something to
> do with the Jesuits (but they were founded in the 1500's, ironically, to
> fight muslims)
Well, Jesuits just rock.
My kids are going to go to a Jesuit High School because I know that the
priests scare those little fuckers into learning.
> > I doubt that latter case, I think the church and its reverence for Greek
> > scholarship was one of many necessary conditions to allow Science to come
> > about, but that if Christian doctrine was scrupulously followed by Kepler,
> > Galileo, and so on, there would have been no science.
>
> of course. and the basics were there way before christ (B.C).
Oh, sure. Quite a bit of real empirical reasoning took place back then, not
just in engineering contexts, but in scienfic contexts. Astronomy has a good
gee-whiz example in the acceptance of the Ptolemaic solar system. The greeks
were smart enough to know that if the Earth revolved around the sun, then
parallax would change the apparent the distance between the stars that can be
seen in the sky for long periods at times several months apart. But the
stars are so far away that the naked eye can't tell the difference in the
spacing, no matter how good your eyesight or how careful you take the data.
So, the best information of the time said that the Earth was stationary.
> thats not altogether true. society holds scientists in great contempt.
> they love technology, but they dont revere the people that make it
> possible. this is why politicians dont pay attention to scientists while
> scientists grovel at the feet of politicians.
Some do. Others grovel at the feet of industrialists.
Politicians, really, pay attention to all their constituents, and they
influence federal agencies when they try to do investigative work. There was
the Sudden Acceleration Syndrome case, where people's Volvos were
mysteriously speeding up "by themselves." Well, the DOT checked it out and
found out that the Volvos were speeding up because, oddly, people would press
on the accelerator instead of the break and pronounced the problem to be
"user error."
That decision had to change, because no one in the US can ever be responsible
for his own misfortune. People wrote their congressmen and DOT had to change
its decision in a way that blamed those evil Swedes.
Fascinet
Lord Occum
Vexen UK wrote in message <7dqt1f$m7l$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> Malibu Bryan <clas...@brick.net> wrote:
>> Vexen UK wrote: I'll say it now. People who do not
>> believe in human evolution are just stupid.
speak for yourself, monkey boy.
dez.
Nemesis
Vexen UK <UKV...@Bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> Looking through the dark ages, looking at Christianity in particular today, I
> have progressed from Atheist, to Humanist, now (for 2 years) to Activist
> Humanist Satanism, highly persuaded by LaVey's useful and accurate summaries
> of Satanism.
>
While I agree with most of what you say, I have to tell you that IMHO
Satanism, in whatever form, cannot be anything other than another xtian
denomination. Argue it any way you want to, but Satan is a judeo-xtian
concept, and belief in that being implies belief in the other concepts &
tenets. For example, catholics praise the Virgin as well as say god & Jesus
are the same being (how?), protestants reject the Virgin, Jews pick Moses, &
Satanists pick yet another being out of the morass to follow.
On your historical arguments, however, I agree totally.
Yours,
Nemesis
Malibu Bryan
Lord Occum wrote:
>
> Vexen UK wrote in message <7dqt1f$m7l$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > Malibu Bryan <clas...@brick.net> wrote:
> >> Vexen UK wrote: I'll say it now. People who do not
> >> believe in human evolution are just stupid.
>
> speak for yourself, monkey boy.
>
> dez.
People who do not believe in evolution are just *plain* stupid. One
might as well believe in the tooth fairy.
Lord Occum
> believe in human evolution are just stupid.
>>malibu brian:wrote
>>People who do not believe in evolution are just *plain* stupid.
monkey see monkey do.
dez.
Malibu Bryan
Lord Occum wrote:
>
> > Vexen UK wrote: I'll say it now. People who do not
> > believe in human evolution are just stupid.
>
> >>malibu brian:wrote
> >>People who do not believe in evolution are just *plain* stupid.
>
> monkey see monkey do.
monkey pee all over you.
> dez.
Lord Occum
>monkey pee all over you.
are we to take from this the thrust of your evolution theory has been to
mutate incontinent monkies?
dez.
Snare Rush
>
>are we to take from this the thrust of your evolution theory has been to
>mutate incontinent monkies?
Great. I think I need a new keyboard.....and another mouthfull of SpriteЩйо.
Chalk me up to the "I don't give a toss" theory.
m.
"Santa dog's a jesus fetus" - Residents
GoldRush
GoldRush
For Scriptures & Christian Studies
visit . .http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
Subscribe to daily Bible verses at:
jrr...@mlode.com
Corey Barr
--
Corey Barr
"Just Born encourages Peeps fans to let their creativity 'take flight' using
Marshmallow Peeps and Bunnies, Marshmallow Peeps Eggs, and Peeps
Jelly Beans to make festive springtime ornaments to decorate their homes."
Corey Barr
Happy Noodle Boy
GoldRush wrote in message ...
>This "Rush" is no relation to us. . .
>
>GoldRush
I'm betting "Rush" Limbaugh is, tho.