PDA

View Full Version : Happy Crucifixition 4 Good Friday



antichrist
20-03-2008, 01:02 PM
I wish you all a Happy Crucifixition for tomorrow. For anyone wishing to be crucified they may venture to the Philippines but are recommended by authorities to have Tetanus shots first and use only sterilized nails.

Jesus died for someone's sins but not mine - Horses

Capablanca-Fan
20-03-2008, 01:26 PM
Genesis and the Cross (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5679): It may seem odd for people to celebrate the humiliating defeat of their leader and hero. But the suffering, shame and death of Jesus Christ are a source of hope to Christians.

Adamski
20-03-2008, 02:16 PM
Genesis and the Cross (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5679): It may seem odd for people to celebrate the humiliating defeat of their leader and hero. But the suffering, shame and death of Jesus Christ are a source of hope to Christians.Thanks for that Jono - hugely (infinitely?) better than the initial post on this thread.

Happy Easter to all. :)

And remember - Jesus died on the first Good Friday, yes, but He rose again on the first Easter (on the third day...):clap:

Miguel
20-03-2008, 04:18 PM
And remember - Jesus died on the first Good Friday, yes, but He rose again on the first Easter (on the third day...):clap:
Luckily, the invisible fairy EMTs were on standby, otherwise it could have been tragic.

Capablanca-Fan
20-03-2008, 04:24 PM
Luckily, the invisible fairy EMTs were on standby, otherwise it could have been tragic.
Typical of misotheists to believe in fairies. :P:evil:

Miguel
20-03-2008, 04:43 PM
Typical of misotheists to believe in fairies. :P:evil:
Nah, I'm not a misotheist. I don't hate things that don't exist. :P

Capablanca-Fan
20-03-2008, 04:54 PM
Nah, I'm not a misotheist. I don't hate things that don't exist. :P
You do, just like Dawko (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5560/):P

Rincewind
20-03-2008, 05:07 PM
Monotheism is one of the generic movements which have caused pain and suffering to mankind for centuries. I certainly wouldn't consider myself as a god-hater as I am a resolute atheist. But I do believe that religion in general and specifically the monotheistic religions in particular cause much more harm than good due to their explicit (and implied) intolerance of all other religions. Polytheists have historically been more tolerant of other religions and they don't generally have a doctrine of intolerance.

Regarding the benefits of living in a "christian" society. It's good to have an extra long weekend. I thought I'd take a page out of Jesus' book and just hang around Friday.

Miguel
20-03-2008, 05:13 PM
You do, just like Dawko (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5560/):P
Nope. I don't hate supernatural entities. I just think belief in the supernatural is silly and infantile.

Capablanca-Fan
20-03-2008, 05:17 PM
Monotheism is one of the generic movements which have caused pain and suffering to mankind for centuries.
Ah yes, Wilberforce (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4932/)in the name of Christian monotheism caused such suffering to slave owners by fighting to abolish the slave trade. Add to the suffering of the great medieval cathedrals and stained glass windows, magnificent artwork, the founding of universities, orphanages, hospitals ....

All the religious wars in history are but a drop in the ocean compared to the deaths caused by atheistic governments in the last century alone. Atheistic govenments have not demonstrated religious toleration.

See also my editorials What good is Christianity? (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5242) and The tyranny of ‘tolerance’ (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/148/).

And to counter RW's whinge about "misery", see
Believers are happier than atheists (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/18/nbelief118.xml)
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
Telegraph (UK) 18 March 2008



People who believe in God are happier than agnostics or atheists, researchers claimed yesterday.

A report found that religious people were better able to cope with disappointments such as unemployment or divorce than non-believers.

Moreover, they become even happier the more they pray and go to church, claims the study by Prof Andrew Clark and Dr Orsolya Lelkes.

The research, presented at the Royal Economic Society's annual conference, echoes academic studies that have found religion can improve people's sense of wellbeing.

Desmond
20-03-2008, 05:31 PM
Jesus Christ walks into a hotel, hands the manager 3 nails, and asks to be put up for a few nights.

Basil
20-03-2008, 05:35 PM
Jesus Christ walks into a hotel, hands the manager 3 nails, and asks to be put up for a few nights.
Hi all. Hi Brian.

Should this go in 'jokes'? Rather than involve myself whether or not this joke oversteps any mark (I simply don't know), I remind all that we are fortunate to live in a society where fatwahs and who knows what aren't declared on the back of such comments.

BTW, happy Easter to all, especially to those for whom this is a very special and meaningful time.

Garrett
20-03-2008, 05:40 PM
Monotheism is one of the generic movements which have caused pain and suffering to mankind for centuries. I certainly wouldn't consider myself as a god-hater as I am a resolute atheist. But I do believe that religion in general and specifically the monotheistic religions in particular cause much more harm than good due to their explicit (and implied) intolerance of all other religions. Polytheists have historically been more tolerant of other religions and they don't generally have a doctrine of intolerance.

Regarding the benefits of living in a "christian" society. It's good to have an extra long weekend. I thought I'd take a page out of Jesus' book and just hang around Friday.

Resolute ? Even Dawkins is not a 'resolute' atheist. See p51 of 'The God Delusion'.

Can't agree with you on 'monotheistic religions in particular cause much more harm than good'. Humans will be cruel to each other regardless of whether religion exists or not. If religion didn't exist then the atrocities you are referring to would be comitted in another name (eg. racism, heightism, weightism). Its the nature of the Universe. bigger things conquer smaller things - right up to big galaxies swallow smaller galaxies. Get used to it.

The benefits of religion are evident as per Jono's post, universities, hospitals, charities, lifeline etc.

If you have nothing better to do than hang around tomorrow then drop over for a game of chess. I bought a slab on the way home this arvo. Hope you like XXXX.

Bring a clock.

Happy Easter Everyone !!!
Cheers
Garrett.

Desmond
20-03-2008, 05:41 PM
Hi all. Hi Brian.

Should this go in 'jokes'?You tell me. Seems to be on-topic.

Basil
20-03-2008, 05:49 PM
You tell me. Seems to be on-topic.
Yup, it is on topic; the topic coming across to me, as a neutral, as irreverent. I also made the point that irreverence is tolerated in our society and that's a good thing (I defer to 'intent and context').

Just to make it clear I'm not picking any fights. I have no issues. It's all good.

Capablanca-Fan
20-03-2008, 05:55 PM
Yup, it is on topic; the topic coming across to me, as a neutral, as irreverent. I also made the point that irreverence is tolerated in our society and that's a good thing (I defer to 'intent and context').
Not in Victoria, where the two Dannys were prosecuted, among other things, for making an audience of Christians laugh in their talk on Islam. Chairman KRudd refused to rule out a similar "anti-vilification" law for all Australia, despite its demonstrably polarizing nature.

Basil
20-03-2008, 06:29 PM
Not in Victoria, where the two Dannys were prosecuted, among other things, for making an audience of Christians laugh in their talk on Islam. Chairman KRudd refused to rule out a similar "anti-vilification" law for all Australia, despite its demonstrably polarizing nature.
Yes. The double standard again. It's OK to laugh at Christians, whiteys (and just about anything with 50.1% majority). Laugh at a minority and cop a fine, imprisonment and a trail of do-gooding bleeding hearts.

I think I shall call that the Ding-a-ling double standard. In fact I will.

Rincewind
20-03-2008, 08:18 PM
The analysis presented by Jono is pretty easy to dismiss. University, hospitals, orphanages, etc, are not forces of good in themselves and many of them are not the outcomes of religion in any case. The greeks had many great traditions none of which relied on monotheism.

The thing is an outcome of monotheism in particular is that all other religions are by definition wrong. These leads to a polarisation of views which was not apparent in polytheists. This has lead to the "great" monotheistic religions to persecute the followers of all other gods, including the followers of their own god but who don;t follow that god in a way they find pleasing.

This has lead to the inquisition, the forced "conversion" of many hapless colonial subjects in south america, africa, the philipines, etc. Europe has been persecuting Jews for 100s of years including many bloody polgroms the expulsion of Jews entirely from Spain and almost entirely from many other countries. Throughout the middle ages we had the wars for the holy lands. This was not only christian versus muslims as in same cases the western christians found the eastern christians practices foreign and lead to the sacking of constantinople.

More recently we had the wars between christians and protestants throughout europe. The years of terror under bloody Mary in England, the christans versus the hugonauts in France including the St Bartholomew Day massacre, and countless other conflicts on religious grounds.

In the 20th century you had German persecution of the Jewish based at least partially on religious grounds. Certainly without the religious justification such atrocities would not have been as easy to perpetrate. The catholics are still fighting the protestants in northern island.

And this is just the conflicts which involved the christian monotheists. There are likewise other litanies of misery which have been performed in the names of other monotheisms. The point is monotheism is necessarily exclusive and this leads to an intolerance which is not apparent in polytheistic traditions.

The romans for example did not generally go out of their way to convert their subjected regions to roman religious observance. They had their gods and the celts, gauls, judeans, greeks, etc had their gods. The empire was about economics not religion.

Aaron Guthrie
20-03-2008, 08:31 PM
Nah, I'm not a misotheist. I don't hate things that don't exist. :PIndeed it seems that Jono is the one that hates things that don't exist. E.g. the God hating Miguel is a thing that doesn't exist

Rincewind
20-03-2008, 08:32 PM
Resolute ? Even Dawkins is not a 'resolute' atheist. See p51 of 'The God Delusion'.

I'll take your word for it but I imagine we are talking cross purposes. If god existed in the sense that most theists purport that he does then the universe would not be the way we see it today. This is the basis for my use of the term "resolute". Should new evidence come to light which showed that something we can call god exists then I would take it on board and in that sense I would no longer be an atheist.


Can't agree with you on 'monotheistic religions in particular cause much more harm than good'. Humans will be cruel to each other regardless of whether religion exists or not. If religion didn't exist then the atrocities you are referring to would be comitted in another name (eg. racism, heightism, weightism). Its the nature of the Universe. bigger things conquer smaller things - right up to big galaxies swallow smaller galaxies. Get used to it.

I don't believe humans are necessarily cruel to one another. Cruelty is something most humans do out of necessity either real or perceived. When there is the choice to be otherwise, it is my experience is most humans would prefer to be kind to their fellow man. There are good reasons for this which can be explained with game theory.

However, then how de we explain all the unkindness in the world. This is I believe the result of a necessity for cruelty which is at least partially created by competing monotheism which are by definition intolerant of other belief systems. Other reasons also exist but they would exist in any case. The religious reasons would seem to be particularly unfortunate since in that case the competing systems can't both be right. This is unlike economic reasons when two populations might be fighting for control of a particular resource which would be beneficial for either of them to control. In this case the conflict is regretable but at least it has some point.


The benefits of religion are evident as per Jono's post, universities, hospitals, charities, lifeline etc.

As I said these are not the outcomes of monotheistic religions per se as polytheistic cultures have generated such institutions. Also one should not confuse institutions begun by people of a particular faith with outcomes of that faith. Jono gets confused by this all the time.


If you have nothing better to do than hang around tomorrow then drop over for a game of chess. I bought a slab on the way home this arvo. Hope you like XXXX.

Actually I have a lot of mulch that needs moving so maybe I will do less hanging around than I might have let on. But have a beer for me. Or if nothing else is available just have a XXXX. ;)

Aaron Guthrie
20-03-2008, 08:36 PM
The greeks had many great traditions none of which relied on monotheism.
As I said these are not the outcomes of monotheistic religions per se as polytheistic cultures have generated such institutions. Also one should not confuse institutions begun by people of a particular faith with outcomes of that faith. Jono gets confused by this all the time.Would it even be right to say the ancient greeks had a faith?

Rincewind
20-03-2008, 08:40 PM
Should this go in 'jokes'? Rather than involve myself whether or not this joke oversteps any mark (I simply don't know), I remind all that we are fortunate to live in a society where fatwahs and who knows what aren't declared on the back of such comments.

We should remember that is because we live in an enlightened time, and not within an enlightened religion. This freedom of expression has been mostly be bought with the blood of atheists. But that is another thread. Suffices to say that at its core, christian monotheism is just as intolerant as muslim monotheism which has been proven time and time again.

Rincewind
20-03-2008, 08:44 PM
Would it even be right to say the ancient greeks had a faith?

My understanding is the ancient greeks had many faiths most of which fitted into a single tradition. However, there were many exceptions e.g. the pythagoreans and others.

Aaron Guthrie
20-03-2008, 08:52 PM
My understanding is the ancient greeks had many faiths most of which fitted into a single tradition. However, there were many exceptions e.g. the pythagoreans and others.Perhaps I don't really know what "faith" means anyway. I was more wondering, in comparison to modern mono-theistic religions, what role their belief in gods played in their daily lives. I imagine not much, but maybe the myths (of Homer or whoever) played a similar role to religous texts such as the Bibile. And then they probably worshiped the gods which help crops grow, war gods when they go to war and such.

Rincewind
20-03-2008, 09:07 PM
Perhaps I don't really know what "faith" means anyway. I was more wondering, in comparison to modern mono-theistic religions, what role their belief in gods played in their daily lives. I imagine not much, but maybe the myths (of Homer or whoever) played a similar role to religous texts such as the Bibile. And then they probably worshiped the gods which help crops grow, war gods when they go to war and such.

That is a bit more difficult to say definitively. Certainly there would have been worshiping of gods on an "as needs" basis as you describe and as has been recorded in classical writing. I'm think the pervasiveness of faith in greek culture was probably similar what we see today and varies a great deal between individuals and also with the fortunes of the times. When things are going well people tend to rely of supernatural explanations less. When things are tough people look for explanations and religion provides ready answers.

However for the purpose of this discussion this is largely oblique as I introduced the ancient greeks as an example of a polytheist cultures which also had many great institutions. Whether these institutions can be considered an outcome of ancient greek faith is largely irrelevant in that context.

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2008, 12:23 AM
Perhaps I don't really know what "faith" means anyway.
The biblical context is clear—see Fallacious Faith: Correcting an All-too-Common Misconception (http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html).

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2008, 12:33 AM
We should remember that is because we live in an enlightened time, and not within an enlightened religion.
It was Christians like Wilberforce (http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html)who fought against slavery. The pro-slavers told him to leave his faith out of politics! After all, pagan philosophers, like Aristotle,
regarded some people as natural slaves, and Endarkenment Enlightenment writers hostile to Christianity such as Hume and Voltaire believed in inferiority of dark-skinned people, as did Kant:

‘The Negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling…. So fundamental is the difference between those two races of men [whites and blacks]…it appears to be as great in regard to mental capacities as in color.’ [Brendan O’Flaherty and Jill S. Shapiro, ‘Apes, Essences, and Races: What Natural Scientists Believed about Human Variation, 1700–1900 (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/economics/discpapr/DP0102-24.pdf)’, Columbia University, New York, Department of Economics Discussion Paper #:0102-24, March 2002] /INDENT]


This freedom of expression has been mostly be bought with the blood of atheists.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Plenty of Christian blood has been spilt by atheists.


But that is another thread. Suffices to say that at its core, christian monotheism is just as intolerant as muslim monotheism which has been proven time and time again.
Christian monotheism teaches that people must come [I]freely to Christ.

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2008, 01:06 AM
The analysis presented by Jono is pretty easy to dismiss. University, hospitals, orphanages, etc, are not forces of good in themselves and many of them are not the outcomes of religion in any case.
They were applications of the Christian principles of loving one's neighbour.


This has lead to the inquisition,
Which executed fewer people per year than Texas (http://www.tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html).


the forced "conversion" of many hapless colonial subjects in south america, africa, the philipines, etc.
Ignoring the brainwashing and other "re-education" by atheistic communists.


In the 20th century you had German persecution of the Jewish based at least partially on religious grounds. Certainly without the religious justification such atrocities would not have been as easy to perpetrate.
Yawn, stretch, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany by Richard Weikart (http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/FromDarwintoHitler.htm).

Also remember Churchill, who said after Chamberlain's appeasement at Munich 70 years ago:


‘… there can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi power, that power which spurns Christian ethics, which cheers its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen with pitiless brutality, the threat of murderous force. That power cannot be the trusted friend of the British democracy...’

How about the famous lead prosecutor at Nuremberg, Justice Robert Jackson, who noted that ‘The Nazi Party always was predominantly anti-Christian in its ideology’, and ‘carried out a systematic and relentless repression of all Christian sects and churches.’ He cited a decree of leading Nazi, Martin Bormann: ‘More and more the people must be separated from the churches and their organs, the pastors.’ Jackson cited another defendant, the viciously anti-Jewish propagandist and pornographer Julius Streicher, who ‘complained that Christian teachings have stood in the way of “racial solution of the Jewish question in Europe.”

Maybe another Nuremberg prosecutor, General William Donovan, also got it wrong when he compiled a huge amount of documentation that the Nazis planned to destroy German Christianity systematically—see The Case Against the Nazis (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DB1F39F930A25752C0A9649C8B 63), The New York Times, 13 January 2002. Donovan’s documents were stored at Cornell University after his death in 1959, and are now being posted online at Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion. The first installment is "The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches (http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nurinst1.shtml)"


The catholics are still fighting the protestants in northern island.
More nonsense. Haven't you heard the joke about someone telling an Irishman that he's an atheist, and the reply, "Begorrah, but are ye a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist." Dr Mark Durie points out (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20460114-601,00.html):


The example of the IRA, so often cited as Christian terrorists, illustrates the Christian position, because the IRA's ideology was predominantly Marxist and atheistic.

IRA terrorists found no inspiration in the teachings of Christ.

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2008, 01:07 AM
Indeed it seems that Jono is the one that hates things that don't exist. E.g. the God hating Miguel is a thing that doesn't exist
Don't confuse strong arguments with hatred, old boy.

Aaron Guthrie
21-03-2008, 01:12 AM
Don't confuse strong arguments with hatred, old boy.I realized after I posted it that there wasn't any justification for the claim (that you hate Miguel). On the other hand if the alternative is that you presented a strong argument... :whistle:

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2008, 01:25 AM
I realized after I posted it that there wasn't any justification for the claim (that you hate Miguel).
There is an edit key ...


On the other hand if the alternative is that you presented a strong argument... :whistle:
Of course.

Rincewind
21-03-2008, 02:20 AM
It was Christians like Wilberforce (http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html)who fought against slavery.

Plenty of christians kept slaves too, e.g. Benjamin Franklin et al. Unless you are claiming the Southern Union was an atheist, marxist regime. :)

Also the use of slaves was common in ancient times and documented in the old testament.


Plenty of Christian blood has been spilt by atheists.

Not fighting for freedom of expression against the predominately christian faith, surely. People can criticise christianity precisely because of the likes of Bruno who died defending his ideas.


Christian monotheism teaches that people must come freely to Christ.

It also teaches many things which have been been the inspiration to the crusades, inquisition, pogroms, and countless other persecutions. Primarily the reason can be seen from the 1st commandment (or the 2nd one if you happen to follow the jewish numbering).

Rincewind
21-03-2008, 02:32 AM
They were applications of the Christian principles of loving one's neighbour.

That's pretty flimsy. As I pointed out the christians didn't take out the patent on loving one's neighbour. This is essentially ordinary human behaviour when the competition for resources doesn't get involved.


Which executedfewer people per year than Texas.

So what, the texan count is at least partially justified by christian teachings of an eye for an eye.


Ignoring the brainwashing and other "re-education" by atheistic communists.

Not ignoring anything just pointing out the misery done in the name of monotheism.


Yawn, stretch

None of that counters the point I made. The Jews were made the scapegoat in 1930s germany which was accepted by the largely lutheran population as justified due to the supposed jewish persecution of christ.


More nonsense.

IRA ideology is one thing but the fact remains the protestants are seen as invaders and the persecuted the native catholic Irish for centuries. The religions of the two groups was almost entirely homogeneous within the subgroups such that religion became the distinguishing factor and the basis of discrimination and the target of hostilities. Without religion maintaining the distinction between the two groups, assimilation would have occurred long ago.

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2008, 02:35 AM
Plenty of christians kept slaves too, e.g. Benjamin Franklin et al. Unless you are claiming the Southern Union was an atheist, marxist regime. :)
A huge departure from biblical Christianity. The problem is, slavery was ubiquitous, and it was only abolished under pressure from Christians.


Also the use of slaves was common in ancient times and documented in the old testament.
The OT view was more like indentured slavery. And as far as the word was concerned, Chairman Rudd's cabinet members would be called his "slaves">


Not fighting for freedom of expression against the predominately christian faith, surely. People can criticise christianity precisely because of the likes of Bruno who died defending his ideas.
But don't you dare attack Islam or any other mascots of the Anointed.


It also teaches many things which have been been the inspiration to the crusades, inquisition, pogroms, and countless other persecutions. Primarily the reason can be seen from the 1st commandment (or the 2nd one if you happen to follow the jewish numbering).
Nothing in Christ's teachings advocate forced conversions or murders.

The Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast.

Actually, many historians are recognizing that the Crusades were a justified response to centuries of Islamic aggression, e.g. Robert Spencer: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (http://www.thbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6805) and Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is — and Islam Isn’t (http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/).

The Muslims quickly conquered the Iberian Peninsula well before the Crusades. They probably would have almost certainly conquered Europe if the Frankish king Charles Martel’s infantry had not defeated the Muslim cavalry at the Battle of Tours/Poitiers in a brilliant defensive strategy.

Also, just think about the historic centres of Christianity such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and the rest of North Africa—they are now Muslim lands, converted at the point of the sword. And after the crusades, the Muslim Turks conquered the ancient land of Asia Minor, the birthplace of the Apostle Paul, the site of many of his missionary journeys and home of the Seven Churches of the book of Revelation. Furthermore, when they conquered Constantinople (now Istanbul) in 1453, they turned Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom), the world’s biggest church of its day and centre of Eastern Orthodoxy, into a mosque.

Note that a just war can still have atrocities without affecting the justness of the war itself. In the case of the Crusades, problems arose because many of the soldiers were biblically illiterate, and had justification-by-works mentality, thinking that they could earn salvation by going on the Crusade. However, biblical Christianity is not the cause but would have been a corrective if followed—salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, not by works, as shown by Paul’s citation of Genesis 15:6, ‘Abraham believed the LORD, and it was credited to him as righteousness’ (Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6, cf. Eph. 2:8–9).

Rincewind
21-03-2008, 02:48 AM
A huge departure from biblical Christianity. The problem is, slavery was ubiquitous, and it was only abolished under pressure from Christians.

It was ubiquitous in a predominately christian region (IE South Eastern United States). Just about everyone was christians both those pro and anti slavery.


The OT view was more like indentured slavery. And as far as the word was concerned, Chairman Rudd's cabinet members would be called his "slaves">

Rubbish.


But don't you dare attack Islam or any other mascots of the Anointed.

I'm more acquainted with christian history but you're right other monotheism have similar records. The Spread of Islam across north africa and the Iberian conquest for example. Though, mind you, muslim Spain was much more jewish friendly than christian Spain turned out to be.


Nothing in Christ's teachings advocate forced conversions or murders.

The Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast.

Stalin's record is irrelevant as I said as it is not a necessary consequence of a lack of monotheism.

The inquisition killed a lot of people for not fearing god in the same way that they thought you ought to fear god. These acts are easier to justify in a monotheistic world view as there is a definite right and wrong and those in the mindset are sure they are right.


Actually, many historians are recognizing that the Crusades were a justified response to centuries of Islamic aggression

Yes yes. Tell that to the Constantinople population that was attacked by the first crusaders for being a little too different from the sort of christianity they were used to.

Desmond
21-03-2008, 08:28 AM
If Jesus died knowing that he would be rezzed in a coupla days and go to paradise, what, if anything, did he sacrifice?

Rincewind
21-03-2008, 10:02 AM
If Jesus died knowing that he would be rezzed in a coupla days and go to paradise, what, if anything, did he sacrifice?

He worked on a long weekend.

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2008, 10:49 AM
If Jesus died knowing that he would be rezzed in a coupla days and go to paradise, what, if anything, did he sacrifice?
The death and shame was a sacrifice, given that He came from heaven to be placed into a judicial rather than filial relationship with God the Father.

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2008, 10:55 AM
It was ubiquitous in a predominately christian region (IE South Eastern United States). Just about everyone was christians both those pro and anti slavery.
Slavery had existed in all cultures around the world. It's significant that it was only in the Christian west that it was abolished. The Church had long condemned it, but it was not listened to (you would approved).


Rubbish.
It happens to be an accurate historical account of the word's usage. You just read the American ante-bellum South culture back into the Bible.


I'm more acquainted with christian history but you're right other monotheism have similar records. The Spread of Islam across north africa and the Iberian conquest for example. Though, mind you, muslim Spain was much more jewish friendly than christian Spain turned out to be.
Not for long.


Stalin's record is irrelevant as I said as it is not a necessary consequence of a lack of monotheism.
His destruction of churches and persecution of Christians had a lot to do with it, as well as his belief that he was not accountable to his Creator for his deeds.


The inquisition killed a lot of people for not fearing god in the same way that they thought you ought to fear god.
Again, 2000 people over 3 centuries. And the Inquisition courts were regarded as fairer than the secular courts of the day. Indeed, some criminals uttered heresies precisely so they would be tried by Inquisition courts.


These acts are easier to justify in a monotheistic world view as there is a definite right and wrong and those in the mindset are sure they are right.
Is that definitely wrong? :P

Rincewind
21-03-2008, 11:35 AM
Slavery had existed in all cultures around the world. It's significant that it was only in the Christian west that it was abolished. The Church had long condemned it, but it was not listened to (you would approved).

Some members of some churches condemned it. Some members of the same church pointed to the bible as justification for it.

Secondly slavery has not existed in all cultures around the world, unless you use a very loose definition of the word slavery. It can only operate when you have a supply bodies and a lot of work to do for some economic advantage. Hunter gatherers, especially in sparsely populated regions have neither the means not the incentive to operate a slave trade.


It happens to be an accurate historical account of the word's usage. You just read the American ante-bellum South culture back into the Bible.

No it is not. Rudd's ministers are voted officials who can opt out of the indenture at any time. The also earn sizable salaries making the position an attractive one which is sought by the applicant. This bears no resemblence to old testament slaves.


Not for long.

They were cohabitants for around 600 years while the moors ruled (at least some of) spain. At about the same time as the reconquista, the christian spaniards also forced out all the jews living on the Iberian. Muslim Grenada fell in 1492, the same year the last jew was exiled from christian spain.


His destruction of churches and persecution of Christians had a lot to do with it, as well as his belief that he was not accountable to his Creator for his deeds.

Rubbish there are plenty of christians who killed lots of people like Mary Tudor. Just as there are plenty of atheists who wouldn't hurt a fly, like Russell. Stalin 's actions were not a consequence on a non monotheistic worldview.


Again, 2000 people over 3 centuries. And the Inquisition courts were regarded as fairer than the secular courts of the day. Indeed, some criminals uttered heresies precisely so they would be tried by Inquisition courts.

You can't compare numbers between centuries Jono, haven't you studied the population of the planet as a function of time?

Also the comparison is invalid anyway. If you're admitting that the inquisition did persecute people based on religious intolerance then I've already wno this point. No need you dig the hole any deeper for yourself.


Is that definitely wrong? :P

The separation of church and state is an important principle and feeds into freedom of religious expression (or choice to opt out of religion) as well as many other areas. The tolerance we enjoy today is very special and has not existed many times in the last 2000 years mostly due to the inherent intolerance of monotheistic faiths. Monotheisms leads to absolutism and when you have two people with opposed absolutist views, then you can only have conflict. The sad thing is that the conflict is whole avoidable because at most only one of them can be right, in practice usually neither of them are.

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2008, 12:29 PM
Some members of some churches condemned it. Some members of the same church pointed to the bible as justification for it.
Condemnation was widespread in the Church, and Wilberforce used the Bible to condemn it. The churches who managed to read a justification for Deep South slavery were doing just what you praise pro-evolution churches for doing—fitting the Bible into a fashion of its day instead of letting the Bible teach them.


Secondly slavery has not existed in all cultures around the world, unless you use a very loose definition of the word slavery. It can only operate when you have a supply bodies and a lot of work to do for some economic advantage. Hunter gatherers, especially in sparsely populated regions have neither the means not the incentive to operate a slave trade.
Yet Africans enslaved Africans and merely sold them on to Europeans, who could not venture into the hinterland because of the tropical diseases.

Slavery was present on all continents and among Africans, Asians, Caucasians, Polynesians, Native Americans.


No it is not. Rudd's ministers are voted officials who can opt out of the indenture at any time. The also earn sizable salaries making the position an attractive one which is sought by the applicant. This bears no resemblence to old testament slaves.
Nonetheless, the biblical word for "slave" would include cabinet ministers in biblical times. And the biblical teachings were contrary to the slavery of the Deep South.


They were cohabitants for around 600 years while the moors ruled (at least some of) spain. At about the same time as the reconquista, the christian spaniards also forced out all the jews living on the Iberian. Muslim Grenada fell in 1492, the same year the last jew was exiled from christian spain.
That was an aberration, and that cost the nominally Christian Spain its empire, because they expelled many of the most productive members.


Rubbish there are plenty of christians who killed lots of people like Mary Tudor. Just as there are plenty of atheists who wouldn't hurt a fly, like Russell. Stalin 's actions were not a consequence on a non monotheistic worldview.
It was consistent with it, while Mary Tudor's killings were inconsistent with Christian teachings like "do not commit murder".


You can't compare numbers between centuries Jono, haven't you studied the population of the planet as a function of time?
Go ahead and make the adjustment then.


Also the comparison is invalid anyway. If you're admitting that the inquisition did persecute people based on religious intolerance then I've already wno this point. No need you dig the hole any deeper for yourself.
I have pointed out that the Inquisition was less oppressive than the state courts of the time, and executed fewer people per year than Texas. That's the best you can do? Atheistic intolerance has killed many times more.


The separation of church and state is an important principle and feeds into freedom of religious expression (or choice to opt out of religion) as well as many other areas. The tolerance we enjoy today is very special and has not existed many times in the last 2000 years mostly due to the inherent intolerance of monotheistic faiths. Monotheisms leads to absolutism and when you have two people with opposed absolutist views, then you can only have conflict. The sad thing is that the conflict is whole avoidable because at most only one of them can be right, in practice usually neither of them are.
Yet America doesn't have separation of church and state. It forbids the establishment of an American national church. At the time America was formed, many of the states had churches. And many of the signers of the American constitution were monotheists. Nothing compares in absolutist despotism to the atheistic French Revolution and 20th century atheistic Communism.

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2008, 01:19 PM
Was Gorbachev a Christian? (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTQzOTExMjc1NmFhZjI0NmQxMDVhYWFiNjZhMTU5NDg=) He claimed to share Christian morality with Reagan as an explanation for not cxracking down on the revolution of 1989, and recently knelt at the tomb of Francis of Assisi to pray.

Aaron Guthrie
21-03-2008, 02:06 PM
There is an edit key ...Yes, but I had left uni by the time I realized. I tend to not edit away mistakes like that in my posts if I have left them up for a while already.

edit-Oh I could have put a note in the post rather than removing the claim. I didn't think of that at the time.

Rincewind
21-03-2008, 02:15 PM
Condemnation was widespread in the Church, and Wilberforce used the Bible to condemn it. The churches who managed to read a justification for Deep South slavery were doing just what you praise pro-evolution churches for doing—fitting the Bible into a fashion of its day instead of letting the Bible teach them.

So you say however the operators and users of the slave trade were convinced they were christians and the bible was used to justify slaves as was used in biblical times.


Yet Africans enslaved Africans and merely sold them on to Europeans, who could not venture into the hinterland because of the tropical diseases.

The europeans created the economic environment which enabled the african slave trade. With out the sugar and cotton industries run by christians which was starved of labour the market would not have existed.


Slavery was present on all continents and among Africans, Asians, Caucasians, Polynesians, Native Americans.

At various times there were things resembling slaves on most continents again so what. The christians are certainly not blameless on the slave score and so I don't see how you can possibly count this as a plus for christianity just because one opponent of slavery was a christian.


Nonetheless, the biblical word for "slave" would include cabinet ministers in biblical times. And the biblical teachings were contrary to the slavery of the Deep South.

It is unclear what you mean by "cabinet ministers in biblical times". However, the actual biblical treatment of slaves is beside the point. The christians running the slave trade justified their business using various arguments some of them related to the historical use of slaves and other we the dehumanising of the slaves due to their unchristian background.


That was an aberration, and that cost the nominally Christian Spain its empire, because they expelled many of the most productive members.

Spain was certainly oppressive when ti come to voicing a difference of opinion. This also cost them when it came to the enlightenment as there are very few spanish scientists or philosophers of note from that period. Fortunately they did quite well at exploiting their colonies and converting their populations to christianity on pain of torture.


It was consistent with it, while Mary Tudor's killings were inconsistent with Christian teachings like "do not commit murder".

Doesn't matter. The bloodshed of the time was due to the catholics certainty that they were right lined up against the protestants certainty that they were right. A mix of opposed absolutists is a dangerous mix.


Go ahead and make the adjustment then.

It is not worth the effort as this is not an argument of comparison. The question is not if monotheism has caused the most misery. Just making the connection between the absolutist position that monotheism implies and how that often leads to poor outcomes.


I have pointed out that the Inquisition was less oppressive than the state courts of the time, and executed fewer people per year than Texas. That's the best you can do? Atheistic intolerance has killed many times more.

Yes getting tortured until you confess your heresy and then executed by being burnt alive is quite tolerant and unoppressive. How silly of me not to see this earlier.


Yet America doesn't have separation of church and state. It forbids the establishment of an American national church. At the time America was formed, many of the states had churches. And many of the signers of the American constitution were monotheists. Nothing compares in absolutist despotism to the atheistic French Revolution and 20th century atheistic Communism.

Again more uninformed comparisons. I can understand why you are trying to shift the focus off the christians poor record when it comes to intolerance and oppression. The fact remains a great deal of misery was dealt out by the christians who believed absolutely that they were acting as their god intended them to. The crusaders, the inquisition, the conquistadors, the jusuit missionaries and many, many others.

Put simply it boils down to this...

A believes god has revealed P
B believes god has revealed ~P
A union with B gives the null set

Aaron Guthrie
21-03-2008, 02:19 PM
Put simply it boils down to this...

A believes god has revealed P
B believes god has revealed ~P
A union with B gives the null setAka bottom.

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2008, 02:43 PM
So you say however the operators and users of the slave trade were convinced they were christians and the bible was used to justify slaves as was used in biblical times.
Then present this alleged justification. And as I said, pro-slavers were just like the pro-evolutionists you love.


The europeans created the economic environment which enabled the african slave trade. With out the sugar and cotton industries run by christians which was starved of labour the market would not have existed.
The Muslims enslaved far more Africans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6445941.stm)than the Europeans took across the Atlantic. It's ironic that many black radicals take Arabic names. Muslims also enslaved over a million white Europeans (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm).


At various times there were things resembling slaves on most continents again so what.
So what is that many lefties and atheists attack Western civilization and Christianity for a universal failing of man which was abolished in the very Christian west it's politically correct to despise.


The christians are certainly not blameless on the slave score and so I don't see how you can possibly count this as a plus for christianity just because one opponent of slavery was a christian.
No, there was also Thomas Clarkson (1760–1846), an evangelical Anglican; Granville Sharp (1735–1813) a New Testament scholar; Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811–1896), author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, and who compared the Exodus with freeing the American slaves; many American Christian denunciations (http://www.tektonics.org/classics/slaverevolt.html).

In the Law of Christ, the Apostle Paul lists ‘slave traders’ / ‘menstealers’ (ανδραποδιστής andrapodistēs) with murderers, adulterers, perverts, liars and other evil people (1 Timothy 1:10). Paul tells slaves to become free, if they can (1 Corinthians 7:21), and conversely tells free people to not become slaves (1 Corinthians 7:23). When it came to a personal example, he encouraged Philemon to free his escaped slave Onesimus (Philemon 16). Furthermore, he ordered masters to treat their slaves in the ‘same way’ as they were treated, and not to threaten them (Eph. 6:9).

Such practice would see the end of slavery, and without bloodshed. This indeed happened, as thoroughly documented in Rodney Stark’s book For the Glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery. He devoted ch. 4 to the consistent teachings against slavery.

Stark documented that even back in the 7th century, Christians publicly opposed slavery. The bishop and apologist Anselm (c. 1033–1109) forbade enslavement of Christians, and since just about everyone was considered a nominal Christian, this practically ended slavery. Then the famous theologian and apologist Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274) denounced the practice. Several popes supported this from 1435, and Pope Paul III (1468–1549) gave three major pronouncements against slavery in 1537, e.g. Sublimus Dei — On the Enslavement and Evangelization of Indians in the New World. As Stark writes, ‘The problem wasn’t that the [Church] leadership was silent. It was that almost nobody listened.’

It is unclear what you mean by "cabinet ministers in biblical times".[/QUOTE]
The King's courtiers and viceroys, for example.


However, the actual biblical treatment of slaves is beside the point.
Hardly. Biblical Christianity can't be blamed for those who acted contrary to its teachings.


The christians running the slave trade justified their business using various arguments some of them related to the historical use of slaves and other we the dehumanising of the slaves due to their unchristian background.
Yet many American slaves were Christian.


Spain was certainly oppressive when ti come to voicing a difference of opinion. This also cost them when it came to the enlightenment as there are very few spanish scientists or philosophers of note from that period. Fortunately they did quite well at exploiting their colonies and converting their populations to christianity on pain of torture.
Yeah, should have left the peaceful Aztecs alone with their human sacrifice cult.


Doesn't matter. The bloodshed of the time was due to the catholics certainty that they were right lined up against the protestants certainty that they were right. A mix of opposed absolutists is a dangerous mix.
None more dangerous than atheistic absolutists.


It is not worth the effort as this is not an argument of comparison.
It should be: you damn monotheism for tragedies but not atheism for worse tragedies.


Yes getting tortured until you confess your heresy and then executed by being burnt alive is quite tolerant and unoppressive. How silly of me not to see this earlier.
First, there is nothing in the Bible about torturing people. Second, the Inquisition prisons were usually less oppressive than the secular ones.


Again more uninformed comparisons. I can understand why you are trying to shift the focus off the christians poor record when it comes to intolerance and oppression. The fact remains a great deal of misery was dealt out by the christians who believed absolutely that they were acting as their god intended them to. The crusaders, the inquisition, the conquistadors, the jusuit missionaries and many, many others.
Again, you ignore the much good done by Christians, exaggerate the atrocities, and ignore the far greater number of casualties of atheistic regimes.


Put simply it boils down to this...

A believes god has revealed P
B believes god has revealed ~P
A union with B gives the null set
Atheists believe neither, and the atheistic regimes often persecuted or "re-educated" people with theistic beliefs.

Death By Government
By R.J. Rummel
New Brunswick, N.J.:
Transaction Publishers, 1994.

Here are his top figures

61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State [NB, even more than Nick's grossly inflated Crusade figures when normalized for population]
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State

...

1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea

Axiom
21-03-2008, 03:48 PM
I used to argue that religion itself was mostly to blame for man's inhumanity to man.
However i have since learned that religion is used as a tool or means to support this inhumanity.
In the absence of the tool of religion , other constructs can similarly be utilised to commit such inhumane atrocities.

Note how zionists use judaism for political and inhumane purposes.

hPlkZc09aCo&feature=related

www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

Rincewind
21-03-2008, 03:51 PM
And as I said, pro-slavers were just like the pro-evolutionists you love.

No the pro-slavers were just good christians making an honest living... in their absolutist mindset.


The Muslims enslaved far more Africans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6445941.stm)than the Europeans took across the Atlantic. It's ironic that many black radicals take Arabic names. Muslims also enslaved over a million white Europeans (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm).

As the Muslims are also monotheists this reinforces my position. Thanks.


So what is that many lefties and atheists attack Western civilization and Christianity for a universal failing of man which was abolished in the very Christian west it's politically correct to despise.

There are many good things about the west and I don't despise it. However it hasn't quite shaken free of the shackles of monotheistic intolerance yet.


No, there was also Thomas Clarkson (1760–1846), an evangelical Anglican; Granville Sharp (1735–1813) a New Testament scholar; Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811–1896), author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, and who compared the Exodus with freeing the American slaves;

Yawn. Poor wording by mean. I meant some not none. In any case it is hypocritical to praise the christian faith of those who spoke out against slavery when those perpetrating the practice shared the same faith.


The King's courtiers and viceroys, for example.

Hardly the same thing. Kevin Rudd is not a king ruling with the unquestionable authority of a supposed deity.


Hardly. Biblical Christianity can't be blamed for those who acted contrary to its teachings.

The issue is any cultural idea which teaches anything in a absolute way is going to run into problems. Monotheism in a form or religion in which absolutism is particularly apparent as when there is only one god, there is no doctrinal wiggle room.


Yet many American slaves were Christian.

Many did adopt the faith of their overlords that is true. Prior to that many were polytheists and so a different god was easy to adopt. As is shown by the voodoo cults that exist today in many of the old slave areas, this form of christianity is very different to the mainstream european christianity.


Yeah, should have left the peaceful Aztecs alone with their human sacrifice cult.

Things were certainly worse for the average Aztec after the conquista.


None more dangerous than atheistic absolutists.

All absolutism is dangerous. The difference is atheism is not inherently absolutist. Atheism is just there is no reason to believe in god yet. Evidence could come to light ni the future and if it did I would be the first one to sit up and take notice.


It should be: you damn monotheism for tragedies but not atheism for worse tragedies.

I'm damning monotheism because of its inherent absolutism. The bible/koran/book of cyril/etc is the word of the one and only true god and cannot be wrong. It is just intrinsically dangerous.

There is no equivalence in atheism as no human writes from a privileged position. That is not to say that atheists cannot be absolutist or intolerant, just it is not an intrinsic part of all atheism.


First, there is nothing in the Bible about torturing people. Second, the Inquisition prisons were usually less oppressive than the secular ones.

That didn't stop the inquisition from using torture to extract confessions and from burning people at the stake for saying the wrong thing. These were possible because the inquisitioners believed what they were doing was justifiable as the work of the one true god.


Again, you ignore the much good done by Christians, exaggerate the atrocities, and ignore the far greater number of casualties of atheistic regimes.

Christians have done some good but in general the good has been a side issue and it is not clear that the outcomes were the outcomes of the religion or just the usual constructive way humans tend to behave where there is not a competition for resources. Please clarify where I exaggerate atrocities - in general I just mention the events with quantification and thus it is difficult to exaggerate.

Finally the point on the casualties of so-called atheistic regimes - this isn't a competition and population disparities slant the figures hugely in favour of events in the last 150 years. Still you have the holocaust as perpetrated by christians so even by your rules the monotheists are not looking so good.


Atheists believe neither, and the atheistic regimes often persecuted or "re-educated" people with theistic beliefs.

Atheists are willing to entertain either P or ~P based on merit because they don't have the scribblings of an iron age mystic to bind their minds.


20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State

Largely perpetrated by christians.

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2008, 05:55 PM
Yawn. Poor wording by mean. I meant some not none. In any case it is hypocritical to praise the christian faith of those who spoke out against slavery when those perpetrating the practice shared the same faith.
Not at all. The anti-slavers appealed to the biblical context; the pro-slavers twisted the Bible to support the fad of the day, as you advocate with evolution.


Hardly the same thing. Kevin Rudd is not a king ruling with the unquestionable authority of a supposed deity.
Doesn't matter. In the biblical context, the word for slave had a semantic range including Chairman Rudd's cabinet.


Things were certainly worse for the average Aztec after the conquista.
At least they didn't have their hearts cut out while they were alive. How do you think the Spaniards managed it, if not without the help of many people oppressed by the murderous Aztecs?


I'm damning monotheism because of its inherent absolutism. The bible/koran/book of cyril/etc is the word of the one and only true god and cannot be wrong. It is just intrinsically dangerous.
So is belief in absolutes absolutely wrong? ;)


There is no equivalence in atheism as no human writes from a privileged position. That is not to say that atheists cannot be absolutist or intolerant, just it is not an intrinsic part of all atheism.
It is consistent with it. But professing Christians committing atrocities are acting contrary to the teachings of Christ.


That didn't stop the inquisition from using torture to extract confessions and from burning people at the stake for saying the wrong thing. These were possible because the inquisitioners believed what they were doing was justifiable as the work of the one true god.
There was no biblical mandate.


Atheists are willing to entertain either P or ~P based on merit because they don't have the scribblings of an iron age mystic to bind their minds.
What minds? Just the motions of atoms in their brains.


Largely perpetrated by christians.
Crap, as already documented. The Nazis were motivated by evolution, and wanted to exterminate Christians.

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2008, 05:58 PM
www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
So what? Jews can be found holding all sorts of opinions. When five Jews were stranded on a desert island, and rescued a year later, they had already formed seven political parties.:lol:

Israel and the Palestinian territories are identical: in both it is legal to curse Olmert and praise the late Arafat.:lol:

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2008, 05:58 PM
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” —C.S. Lewis

Axiom
21-03-2008, 06:09 PM
So what? Jews can be found holding all sorts of opinions. When five Jews were stranded on a desert island, and rescued a year later, they had already formed seven political parties.:lol:

Israel and the Palestinian territories are identical: in both it is legal to curse Olmert and praise the late Arafat.:lol:
regardless,
Zionism is a most evil pursuit.
And i would hope you would likewise denounce such evil

Aaron Guthrie
21-03-2008, 06:09 PM
So is belief in absolutes absolutely wrong? ;)It seems to me that Rincewind is arguing against the unrevisable nature monotheistic religions. There is no self-refutation in the claim that "everything is revisable". Yes that means that statement is also revisable, but this doesn't damage the claim, just mean that if there are good reasons to abandon it, it will be abandoned.

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2008, 06:19 PM
It seems to me that Rincewind is arguing against the unrevisable nature monotheistic religions. There is no self-refutation in the claim that "everything is revisable". Yes that means that statement is also revisable, but this doesn't damage the claim, just mean that if there are good reasons to abandon it, it will be abandoned.
His absolute rejection of absolutes is self-refuting.

Rincewind
21-03-2008, 10:42 PM
Not at all. The anti-slavers appealed to the biblical context; the pro-slavers twisted the Bible to support the fad of the day, as you advocate with evolution.

So the bible can and was used to both support as well as speak against slavery. You can hardly call the abolishment of slavery as a positive outcome of monotheism.


Doesn't matter. In the biblical context, the word for slave had a semantic range including Chairman Rudd's cabinet.

Perhaps it did but that is hardly the point. They certainly had very few slaves who could be compared to cabinet ministers in any meaningful way.


At least they didn't have their hearts cut out while they were alive. How do you think the Spaniards managed it, if not without the help of many people oppressed by the murderous Aztecs?

Gun powder, steel and a absolute belief that their spreading of the monotheistic faith was the will of god didn't go astray.


So is belief in absolutes absolutely wrong? ;)

Any belief which is not open to question is dangerous. The reason is two people with opposed absolute beliefs cannot reach a compromise.


It is consistent with it. But professing Christians committing atrocities are acting contrary to the teachings of Christ.

That is rather beside the point. The bible is so full of contrary teachings that anything can be supported with the "right" interpretation. This is exactly why we have so many christian sects from essential the same holy text.

To use an example you like to deride, lets take the American Episcopals. Same faith, same bible as you. However, you don't like to be associated with that particular brand of monotheism.


There was no biblical mandate.

By your interpretation perhaps not, however by their interpretation they were doing an important job in protecting the faith.


What minds? Just the motions of atoms in their brains.

Very complicated collections and interactions which cannot at this stage be completely understood in a deterministic way. I don;t see how my usage of the word mind is any different from anyone else's.


Crap, as already documented. The Nazis were motivated by evolution, and wanted to exterminate Christians.

Like it or not, before, during and after the holocaust the general population as well as a good part of the nazi machine were christians. The jews were handy scape goats and had been for many years even before the 1930s. Therefore the justification of the persecution of jews by reason of deicide can be laid at the feet of monotheism even though the christian and jewish deity as in essence the same.

Rincewind
21-03-2008, 10:43 PM
His absolute rejection of absolutes is self-refuting.

Logic never was your strong suit. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
22-03-2008, 11:07 AM
Logic never was your strong suit. :lol:
Not until the extensive one-on-one tuition by a specialist in logical paradoxes that stem from self-reference. It's amusing to see your absolutist rejection of absolutes! :P :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
22-03-2008, 11:16 AM
So the bible can and was used to both support as well as speak against slavery. You can hardly call the abolishment of slavery as a positive outcome of monotheism.
I can, because it was ubiquitous before Christian monotheists led the way to abolish it.

The Bible contradicts what passed for slavery in America.


Perhaps it did but that is hardly the point. They certainly had very few slaves who could be compared to cabinet ministers in any meaningful way.
The WORD was used that way. It is just folly to read the antebellum American South into the Bible every time the word "slave" is used.


Gun powder, steel and a absolute belief that their spreading of the monotheistic faith was the will of god didn't go astray.
It had its uses in ending human sacrifice, which the Spaniards thought was absolutely wrong. All these helped abolish slavery too: the British navy intercepted ships carrying slaves—there's that dastardly British imperialism and absolutist belief that slavery was wrong again!


Any belief which is not open to question is dangerous. The reason is two people with opposed absolute beliefs cannot reach a compromise.
So? Doesn't mean they have to fight; they could agree to disagree.


That is rather beside the point. The bible is so full of contrary teachings that anything can be supported with the "right" interpretation. This is exactly why we have so many christian sects from essential the same holy text.
No, there are not; there are proper interpretations that follow the grammatical and historical context, and eisegesis.


To use an example you like to deride, lets take the American Episcopals. Same faith, same bible as you. However, you don't like to be associated with that particular brand of monotheism.
No, precisely because that church has little to do with the Bible, and is dying.


By your interpretation perhaps not, however by their interpretation they were doing an important job in protecting the faith.
My interpretation is the right one. If you disagree, then prove a case that the Bible commands torturing heretics.


Like it or not, before, during and after the holocaust the general population as well as a good part of the nazi machine were christians.
No, biblical Christianity was extremely rare, as Ernst Mayr said. Germany was the birthplace of theological liberalism that downgraded the Bible.


The jews were handy scape goats and had been for many years even before the 1930s. Therefore the justification of the persecution of jews by reason of deicide can be laid at the feet of monotheism even though the christian and jewish deity as in essence the same.
No it can't. There is nothing in the Bible about persecuting Jews. Hitler's master race and eugenics policies can be traced to Darwin. Their propaganda films showed strong animals overpowering weak ones, and the youth had to confess "we have sinned against natural selection".

Rincewind
22-03-2008, 12:46 PM
Not until the extensive one-on-one tuition by a specialist in logical paradoxes that stem from self-reference.

:lol: That piece of marketing puffery has already been punctured. You can keep saying it but it doesn't make it any more true.


It's amusing to see your absolutist rejection of absolutes! :P :lol:

Where do I argue my position as an absolute rejection?

Aaron Guthrie
22-03-2008, 02:12 PM
Not until the extensive one-on-one tuition by a specialist in logical paradoxes that stem from self-reference.For the record, the semantic paradoxes (i.e. the liar paradox and variations of), do not rely on self reference.

The sentence below is true.
The sentence above is not true.

Rincewind
22-03-2008, 04:11 PM
I can, because it was ubiquitous before Christian monotheists led the way to abolish it. The Bible contradicts what passed for slavery in America.

Parts did (although they are few and far between) others didn't. There was certainly no biblical imperative to end slavery and christians only got to it after 2000 years. The time would indicate the abolishmentment of slaver had more to do with the enlightenment than the anything stemming from the teaching of christ.


The WORD was used that way. It is just folly to read the antebellum American South into the Bible every time the word "slave" is used.

It is a folly which enabled good christians to engage in a slave trade in good faith.


It had its uses in ending human sacrifice, which the Spaniards thought was absolutely wrong. All these helped abolish slavery too: the British navy intercepted ships carrying slaves—there's that dastardly British imperialism and absolutist belief that slavery was wrong again!

The british navy actions would have had more to do with the enlightenment than any sort of monotheistic imperative.


So? Doesn't mean they have to fight; they could agree to disagree.

Of course but they can never agree. And if P and ~P cannot both be accommodated then we have problems. The problem is there are these so-called revealed truths, which is one thing when you say well your god tells you one thing and our god tells us something else. However, the monotheistic position is our god is the ONLY god. What whatever your god says is irrelevant as that is just an invention of a misguided people.


No, there are not; there are proper interpretations that follow the grammatical and historical context, and eisegesis.

I'm sure that makes you feel better. But the fact of the matter is that there are many interpretations and your is a pretty insignificant when you count numbers.


No, precisely because that church has little to do with the Bible, and is dying.

They are a part of the episcopal communion of churches which is enormous worldwide.


My interpretation is the right one. If you disagree, then prove a case that the Bible commands torturing heretics.

That is exactly the sort of attitude I'm talking about.


No, biblical Christianity was extremely rare, as Ernst Mayr said. Germany was the birthplace of theological liberalism that downgraded the Bible.

By your narrow definition that is true but by the everyday definition of guided by biblical principles the Lutherans are every bit as christian as you are.


No it can't. There is nothing in the Bible about persecuting Jews. Hitler's master race and eugenics policies can be traced to Darwin. Their propaganda films showed strong animals overpowering weak ones, and the youth had to confess "we have sinned against natural selection".

I'm sure you and christian commentators like to think that if it makes you sleep better at night. Truth is the population was overwhelmingly christian and a common justification of antisemitism throughout european history has been the retribution deserved due to the supposed jewish persecution of jesus. The nazi's employed all sorts of arguments including ones which they thought were supported by science (of course they are not). The fact remains that over a period of around a decade, christian germans killed 10 million jews. That atrocity can be firmly laid at the doorstep of monotheism.

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2008, 01:47 AM
Parts did (although they are few and far between) others didn't. There was certainly no biblical imperative to end slavery and christians only got to it after 2000 years.
No, far sooner, as already documented (http://ctlibrary.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html). Trouble was that too many pro-slavers thought that religion should stay out of politics.


The time would indicate the abolishmentment of slaver had more to do with the enlightenment than the anything stemming from the teaching of christ.
Crap. The Endarkenment people believed in white superiority and slavery.


It is a folly which enabled good christians to engage in a slave trade in good faith.
Folly nonetheless, and the corrective was understanding the Bible in context.


The british navy actions would have had more to do with the enlightenment than any sort of monotheistic imperative.
Not at all, since the slavery abolition stemmed from Wilberforce and other people who today would be called "the religious right".


Of course but they can never agree. And if P and ~P cannot both be accommodated then we have problems. The problem is there are these so-called revealed truths, which is one thing when you say well your god tells you one thing and our god tells us something else. However, the monotheistic position is our god is the ONLY god.
So what? In the case of Christians it is the correct view.


What whatever your god says is irrelevant as that is just an invention of a misguided people.
A very absolutist statement. And your fellow atheists Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were determined to exterminate or "re-educate" those who didn't agree.


I'm sure that makes you feel better. But the fact of the matter is that there are many interpretations and your is a pretty insignificant when you count numbers.
Then put them up and justify them contextually.


They are a part of the episcopal communion of churches which is enormous worldwide.
Which is likely to end in schism, since many of the worldwide episcopals have had a gutsfull about the apostasy of the Western version.


That is exactly the sort of attitude I'm talking about.
You mean demanding proof for your assertions?


I'm sure you and christian commentators like to think that if it makes you sleep better at night. Truth is the population was overwhelmingly christian
No it wasn't. Ernst Mayr said that in his youth, ‘there was no Protestant fundamentalism’ in his native Germany.


and a common justification of antisemitism throughout european history has been the retribution deserved due to the supposed jewish persecution of jesus.
Which is crass, since that "reasoning" would justify anti-Italian persecutions, because it was a gutless Roman governor who sentenced Jesus to crucifixion, added the punishment of a horrific scourging of his own volition (the baying mob had not asked for that), Roman nails that were hammered into a Roman cross, Roman soldiers who divided His clothes and who stabbed him ...


The nazi's employed all sorts of arguments including ones which they thought were supported by science (of course they are not).
Without the replacement of judeo-Christian sanctity-of-life ethic with an evolutionary one, there would have been no eugenics or master race ideology or mass murders. That's why the Nazis wanted to exterminate Christianity.


The fact remains that over a period of around a decade, christian germans killed 10 million jews. That atrocity can be firmly laid at the doorstep of monotheism.
More atheopathic nonsense.

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2008, 01:55 AM
For the record, the semantic paradoxes (i.e. the liar paradox and variations of), do not rely on self reference.

The sentence below is true.
The sentence above is not true.
The late professor of logic at Victoria University of Wellington, George Hughes, evidently disagreed, because he wrote John Buridan on Self-Reference. Chapter Eight of Buridan's Sophismata, with a Translation, an Introduction, and a Philosophical Commentary. For example, there is self-reference in that combination of propositions, and Buridan covers that as well.

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2008, 01:57 AM
:lol: That piece of marketing puffery has already been punctured. You can keep saying it but it doesn't make it any more true.
I didn't have to say it at all for it to be true. But according to Buridan, it would have to be uttered or written for it to be a true proposition.


Where do I argue my position as an absolute rejection?
If it isn't, then stop whinging.

Aaron Guthrie
23-03-2008, 11:12 AM
The late professor of logic at Victoria University of Wellington, George Hughes, evidently disagreed, because he wrote John Buridan on Self-Reference. Chapter Eight of Buridan's Sophismata, with a Translation, an Introduction, and a Philosophical Commentary.That title does nothing to establish that the semantic paradoxes rely on self reference. It also doesn't establish what Hughes thought on the matter. It only establishes what Hughes thought Buridan thought he was writing about in that chapter.
For example, there is self-reference in that combination of propositions, and Buridan covers that as well.If by "self-reference" you are including that example, we are using the term differently.

Rincewind
23-03-2008, 12:05 PM
No, far sooner, as already documented (http://ctlibrary.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html). Trouble was that too many pro-slavers thought that religion should stay out of politics.

The point is that the christians only got around to issues of personal freedom after the enlightenment despite being in charge of europe for more than 1500 years prior to that. They were products of their age and the libertarians you vaunt only acquired their humanism as a result of secular enlightened philosophy.


Crap. The Endarkenment people believed in white superiority and slavery.

Ipse dixit.


Folly nonetheless, and the corrective was understanding the Bible in context.

Like it or not Jono you are also a product of the enlightenment and you only interpret the bible in this way because of your post-enlightenment conditioning. The monothesists spent 1500 years persecuting, forcing conversion and burning heretics at the stake before the enlightenment afforded the religions to reinterpret their holy text.


Not at all, since the slavery abolition stemmed from Wilberforce and other people who today would be called "the religious right".

Certainly almost everyone back then would be considered right wing today. 99% were also religious so almost the entire population would today be considered the religious right.


So what? In the case of Christians it is the correct view.

More example of the dangerous absolutism of monotheism.


A very absolutist statement. And your fellow atheists Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were determined to exterminate or "re-educate" those who didn't agree.

You again fail comprehension 101. If you read that whoe paragraph in context...


Of course but they can never agree. And if P and ~P cannot both be accommodated then we have problems. The problem is there are these so-called revealed truths, which is one thing when you say well your god tells you one thing and our god tells us something else. However, the monotheistic position is our god is the ONLY god. What whatever your god says is irrelevant as that is just an invention of a misguided people.

You see that I was presenting the argument of one monotheist against another.


Then put them up and justify them contextually.

I've alrady presented numbers in earlier threads. From memory stats for Australians is something like 80% of people are either catholic or anglican, with the tykes having a slight edge.


Which is likely to end in schism, since many of the worldwide episcopals have had a gutsfull about the apostasy of the Western version.

Your skills even extend to telling the future and speaking on behalf of a world wide communion of churches. What else can you tell us Archbishop Jono Nostrodamus?


You mean demanding proof for your assertions?

No just your usual absolutist nonsense.


No it wasn't. Ernst Mayr said that in his youth, ‘there was no Protestant fundamentalism’ in his native Germany.

That is hardly a rebuttal to the claim that germany was overwhelmingly christian. It certainly was and continues to be a predominately christian country. I don't have the figures but I think Lutherans have numbers over the catholics and a small number of other christian sects.


Which is crass, since that "reasoning" would justify anti-Italian persecutions, because it was a gutless Roman governor who sentenced Jesus to crucifixion, added the punishment of a horrific scourging of his own volition (the baying mob had not asked for that), Roman nails that were hammered into a Roman cross, Roman soldiers who divided His clothes and who stabbed him ...

Perhaps if it ever happened or such arguments were ever voiced, but they were not. At least not to my knowledge. This is in stark contrast to the number of writers whose anti-semitic polemics regularly use biblical justification. From Tertullian in C2 through to the present day anti-semites like Mel Gibson.


Without the replacement of judeo-Christian sanctity-of-life ethic with an evolutionary one, there would have been no eugenics or master race ideology or mass murders. That's why the Nazis wanted to exterminate Christianity.

The overwhelming german population were christian before, during and remained so after the holocaust. These were the people running the camps, guarding the ghettos, rounding up and shipping off the jews in huge numbers. Not just the Nazi elite sitting around dreaming up the intellectual justification to the atrocities. The minds of the rank and file germans were monotheistic ni outlook and could partly justify the persecution as their god taught racism.


More atheopathic nonsense.

Hardly the whole concept of the bible is inherently racist. The OT portrays the Israelites as the chosen people with a god given right to property and salvation due to their special relationship with the creator. Afterwards Jesus comes along and opens the door to other races via conversion and turns the tables on the jews who are then scorned throughout history by the christians for their persecution of the saviour.

But all monotheisms are like this and it comes from the underlying premise of there being just one god. With a single god view you are sure you are on the road to salvation and all other religions cannot be true because there is only one god. It is right to forcibly convert others to the faith because their faith can't possibly be valid because there is only one god. The holy land should be preserved in the hands of believers of the one true faith because there is only one true god. etc.

This is why monotheism is so dangerous and has caused so much suffering so far and lamentably will continue to do so well into the future.

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2008, 11:48 AM
The point is that the christians only got around to issues of personal freedom after the enlightenment despite being in charge of europe for more than 1500 years prior to that. They were products of their age and the libertarians you vaunt only acquired their humanism as a result of secular enlightened philosophy.
As I have shown, the abolitionists were following a long tradition of anti-slavery within the church, and contradicted many Endarkenment thinkers.


Like it or not Jono you are also a product of the enlightenment and you only interpret the bible in this way because of your post-enlightenment conditioning.
Why don't you demonstrate this from the text?


The monothesists spent 1500 years persecuting, forcing conversion and burning heretics at the stake before the enlightenment afforded the religions to reinterpret their holy text.
The epitome of the Endarkenment was the French Revolution!



Certainly almost everyone back then would be considered right wing today. 99% were also religious so almost the entire population would today be considered the religious right.
Not at all. Wilberforce was exceptional even in his days. But the pro-slavers told him to keep his religion out of politics, as you advocate.



You see that I was presenting the argument of one monotheist against another.
Some monotheists are right; others are not. Big whoop.



No just your usual absolutist nonsense.
You really do think absolutism is absolutely wrong!


That is hardly a rebuttal to the claim that germany was overwhelmingly christian.
Mayr was testimony from one who was there, that most Germans did not believe the Bible.


It certainly was and continues to be a predominately christian country. I don't have the figures but I think Lutherans have numbers over the catholics and a small number of other christian sects.
Only nominally—indeed, the sort you love so much that dispenses with the Bible.


Perhaps if it ever happened or such arguments were ever voiced, but they were not. At least not to my knowledge. This is in stark contrast to the number of writers whose anti-semitic polemics regularly use biblical justification. From Tertullian in C2 through to the present day anti-semites like Mel Gibson.
Tiresome assertions are one thing, demonstrating this from the Bible is quite another. Neither can Christianity be held responsible for those that acted contrary to its teachings.


Hardly the whole concept of the bible is inherently racist. The OT portrays the Israelites as the chosen people with a god given right to property and salvation due to their special relationship with the creator.
Rubbish: the Bible is very clear that the Jews were not chosen because they were anything special, but because of God's grace (Deut. 7:6–8). See also A brief history of the Jews (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3805).


Afterwards Jesus comes along and opens the door to other races via conversion and turns the tables on the jews who are then scorned throughout history by the christians for their persecution of the saviour.
Where in the BIBLE or church creeds does it say that the Jews were particularly responsible?

It's ironic that atheopaths and other assorted christophobes have accused the movie The Passion, and even the New Testament, of anti-Semitism. The New Testament (including Luke—see Romans 3:1–2) was of course written by Jews. And it strongly repudiates anti-Semitism and racism of all forms. It is absurd to persecute the Jews on the grounds that they are “Christ-killers”—the New Testament clearly states that Jesus was sentenced to an excruciating death by a cruel and spineless Roman governor, flogged by a Roman whip (though no Jew asked for this), fastened to a Roman cross by Roman nails, but no one is crazy enough to persecute Italians as “Christ-killers”! The widely accepted early Christian creeds, the Apostle’s (2nd century) and Nicene (4th C) makes this clear. They say that Jesus suffered/was crucified “under Pontius Pilate”, not “under the Jews”.

Something even more important is highlighted by the cameo appearance of producer/director Mel Gibson’s hand as the one holding the nail or spike hammered into Jesus’ wrist. Gibson has clearly stated that he did this to show that it was his fault that Christ died. In several shows, he even challenged interviewers by saying, “Look at yourself, I look at myself.” I completely agree. It was not just the Jews’ fault, nor the Romans’ either. It is our fault—all of us. Because of our sin, Jesus came into our world to pay the penalty of sin that was our due.

According to the whole New Testament, these are the ones responsible for Jesus’ death:


The Jews: you [Jewish audience], with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross (Acts 2:23).
The Gentiles: He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him (Luke 18:32).
Our sins: Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3).
The whole world’s sins: He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
Jesus Himself!: I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself (John 10:17–18).
God the Father!: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son (John 3:16).


So no one has any grounds for persecuting Jews (or anyone else) over their role in Jesus’ death—that’s the point.


It is right to forcibly convert others to the faith because their faith can't possibly be valid because there is only one god. The holy land should be preserved in the hands of believers of the one true faith because there is only one true god. etc.
Where in the BIBLE does it say that forced conversions are right? The Bible says that those who come to Christ must come freely.


This is why monotheism is so dangerous and has caused so much suffering so far and lamentably will continue to do so well into the future.
More crap. 90% of wars had no religious backing. And if you want a competition between monotheistic and atheistic atrocities, you will lose hands down.

Miguel
02-04-2008, 12:38 PM
And if you want a competition between monotheistic and atheistic atrocities, you will lose hands down.
Shorter Jono:
<wild-eyed rant>ATHEISM KILLZ!!!</wild-eyed rant>

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2008, 01:19 PM
Shorter Jono:
<wild-eyed rant>ATHEISM KILLZ!!!</wild-eyed rant>
Amazing how misotheists will rant against the specks in monotheists' eyes but ignore the huge beams in their own eyes.

Miguel
02-04-2008, 03:41 PM
Amazing how misotheists will rant against the specks in monotheists' eyes but ignore the huge beams in their own eyes.
Amazing how Jono sees misotheists where none exist. Still, I guess people who believe in fairy tales are prone to seeing things that don't exist.

Axiom
02-04-2008, 03:44 PM
Happy-Crew-See-Fiction

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2008, 04:03 PM
Amazing how Jono sees misotheists where none exist.
Look in the mirror (if it doesn't crack) :P


Still, I guess people who believe in fairy tales are prone to seeing things that don't exist.
It was biblical Christianity that got rid of superstitions including fairy tales, as even a Skeptic article admitted (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/792/).

Miguel
02-04-2008, 04:28 PM
It was biblical Christianity that got rid of superstitions including fairy tales
Translation: "My fairy tale iz da best!!!" :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2008, 04:34 PM
Translation: "My fairy tale iz da best!!!" :lol:
Yeah, your fairy tale of goo to you via the zoo is pretty comical.:hand:

Miguel
02-04-2008, 05:42 PM
Yeah, your fairy tale of goo to you via the zoo is pretty comical.:hand:
Yeah, very comical. The evidence-based theory of evolution is far more ridiculous than the scientific theory dogmatic fairy tale of Magic Man done it. :lol:

Rincewind
02-04-2008, 09:10 PM
As I have shown, the abolitionists were following a long tradition of anti-slavery within the church, and contradicted many Endarkenment thinkers.

Despite the fact that overwhelmingly the consumers of the slave trade were monotheists: christians (in the West Indies and America) and muslims (in North Africa).
.

Why don't you demonstrate this from the text?

The Bible says many things, much of it contradictory. This allows christians to come in so many flavours and even want to kill one another over their own particular brand of christianity. Therefore, rather than argue over specific text we need to just look at a behavioural study of monotheism. There is plenty of evidence in witch trials, slavery, holy wars, forced conversion of colonial conquests, racial intolerance, particular of jews perpetrated by christians, culminating in the holocaust.


The epitome of the Endarkenment was the French Revolution!

Maybe in your mind. The French revolution was to my mind far more a class struggle and driven more by economics than anything related to the enlightenment. There was a certain component which was questioning the religious indoctrination that the royal lineage was supported by god in a tradition which could be traced back to David, but that was minor. Whilst there was an atheist element to revolutionary thought much of it is, over emphasised, particularly in English histories of the era and in any regard they were ideological arguments which were not accepted by the masses, who were otherwise accepting of the new regime. This is evidenced by that fact that christianity has remained the main faith in France throughout the last 200-odd years.


Not at all. Wilberforce was exceptional even in his days. But the pro-slavers told him to keep his religion out of politics, as you advocate.

Where do I advocate that? I advocate keeping faith separate from matters of evidence and if possible keeping monotheism out of everything.


Some monotheists are right; others are not. Big whoop.

The problem (I would go so far as to say, the MAIN problem) is monotheism promotes a belief that the faithful MUST be right. If there is only one god then obviously the one I follow is right and all others are false idols. This leads to irreconcilable difference between monotheists as we see in Northern Island, the Middle East, throughout out Northern Africa, and elsewhere, even today.


You really do think absolutism is absolutely wrong!

This is getting tired Jono, especially since Mangafranga dealt with it almost instantly weeks ago.

I don't hold that absolutism is absolutely wrong. What I do is put forward that based on logic and historical evidence, the absolutist elements intrinsic to monotheistic faiths are detrimental to the greater good.

The news is regularly populated with stories of monotheists who have laid down their lives for their religion. When I think of this it reminds me of a (possible apocryphal) story concerning the atheist and outspoken pacifist Bertrand Russell. He's quite well-known, perhaps you would have heard of him had you studied philosophy.

Anyway, Russell was asked whether he was willing to die for his beliefs, to which he replied, "No, of course not! I might be wrong."


Mayr was testimony from one who was there, that most Germans did not believe the Bible.

That is crap which got currency because people could not deal with atrocities of that scale were perpetrated by christians. The fact remains Germans before and after the war were overwhelming christian. The were educated in christian pre-war Germany and the atrocities were made easier by centuries of persecution of Jews all over Europe and such practices supported by christian writers going back to the first fathers of the church.


Only nominally—indeed, the sort you love so much that dispenses with the Bible.

It's called mainstream christianity, Jono. I'm not picking on the loony fringe you belong to in this thread, remember.


Tiresome assertions are one thing, demonstrating this from the Bible is quite another. Neither can Christianity be held responsible for those that acted contrary to its teachings.

As I said above while you may like to think there is only one interpretation of the bible, this is simply not the case. That is why we have such a richness and diversity of chritians sects who love to constantly poo-poo each other and occasionally shoot each other as well.


Rubbish: the Bible is very clear that the Jews were not chosen because they were anything special, but because of God's grace (Deut. 7:6–8). See also A brief history of the Jews (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3805).

Parts of the bible are clear. The point is they were chosen by the grace of god and they are going to heaven and no one else is. The OT seems to have no problems with God or God's people killing lots of non Jews, for example the plague of the first born Egyptians, Samson's numerous mass murders, etc.


Where in the BIBLE or church creeds does it say that the Jews were particularly responsible?

It does say they were responsible and that has been used as justification for uncountable persecutions over the last 2,000 years. This belief is also reinforced by the other writings of the church fathers which I mentioned before.


According to the whole New Testament, these are the ones responsible for Jesus’ death:


The Jews: you [Jewish audience], with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross (Acts 2:23).

Thank you. I knew it was in there somewhere. :)


Where in the BIBLE does it say that forced conversions are right? The Bible says that those who come to Christ must come freely.

A point which was lost the Spanish conquistadors and Jesuit missionaries. According to the doctrine of the time a dead pagan was a soul lost so better to convert the pagan by any means and if death eventuated anyway, it was no loss.


More crap. 90% of wars had no religious backing. And if you want a competition between monotheistic and atheistic atrocities, you will lose hands down.

Only because of your poor accounting practices. I'm quite happy for you to measure the monotheism toll versus say, those following the pacifist philosophy of Bertrand Russell. (Though I don't particularly advocate that myself).

The point is and has always been in this debate, monotheism promotes the mindset that the faithful are right and everyone else is being deceived, because there is only one true god. The same cannot be said for atheism because there is no supernatural deity running around, dispensing absolute truth.