[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
Hanzo wrote:
Matter of fact, in the last 100 years atheist regimes have murdered and persecuted more people than the church ever did in the past 1000 years if not since the beginning of it’s existence.
Regimes? Are you talking about specific governments? If not, your post is total BS with no basis in fact.
I think your concept of how many people the Church (which BTW?) has killed is more than a little low.
Your definition of atheist may be off too. Just because a regime doesn’t have Christ as it’s central rligious figure doesn’t make them atheists. You knew that, right?
I’m more confucedthan whenI started typing. Just WTF were you talking about anyway?
[/quote]
I believe he is talking about the regimes of atheists like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
Of course it was not their atheism that made them mass murderers it was their desire for power and complete lack of scruples.
[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
Hanzo wrote:
Nonsense, Christianity itself were not responsible for all the mess in the past. Rather, it was the work of power mongers that kept people persecuted and opppressed.
Right, the same kind of power mongers who wrote the Bible in the first place; that’s whom it was designed for. You can find this much out by studying Bible history and learning not just what made the cut, but (IMHO, more importantly) the tons of would-be scripture that did not. Fundamentalists, then and now, aren’t making it up when they spew their Biblical bile and hatred at whatever group they disagree with. In fact, at times they are the only ones actually reading it off the page! Moderates make apologies and skip over the gruesome and/or embarassing parts of the Bible.
So, according to you, “Christianity itself” is a seperate entity from those who practice it? WTF? I suppose another group was responsible for the Inquisition?
Matter of fact, in the last 100 years atheist regimes have murdered and persecuted more people than the church ever did in the past 1000 years if not since the beginning of it’s existence.
Please show me one example of an “atheist regime”. That is, a government that seeks, as it’s sole end, the erradication of belief in a god or gods. After studying history at the university level, I have yet to come across one.
Soviet Union? Please. That dead horse has been beaten by fundies for years, and it’s just as erroneous today as it ever was. Atheism is a by-product of Marxist doctrine, not it’s objective.
Nazi Germany? Hitler was a staunch Catholic (he boldly proclaims it in Mein Kampf) who got “warm congratulations” from the Pope every year on his birthday. The Vatican knew for many years what Hitler and the Nazis were up to, and looked the other way as long as they had, what our modern government would term, “plausible deniability”.
Did Hitler harass/persecute Christian clergy? Sure, but only to the extent that they opposed his political objectives, and even then no more than any other non-Jewish religion. Like all Christian dictators, he wanted God on his side, but on his terms, and independent thinking outside those terms was strongly discouraged by many means, up to and including death.
It’s not my job to teach you history. Check this stuff out for yourself in objective sources not biased toward Christianity and have a ball. Or, what I’m sure is the more likely to happen, stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and yell, “LA, LA, LA, LA…”[/quote]
Way to carry a mature discussion. I’ve read up on much about the origins of Christianity. I’ve read both the Old and the New Testament, the Qu’ran and parts of other “holy books”. I’ve read many objective sources on religion and Christianity, so need for you to lecture me. I actually took two classes in college. it seems as if you got all your information from the Da Vinci Code, which is good or perhaps even mediocre fiction at best.
Is Christianity a seperate entity from its practicioners? Glad to see that you see everything in black and white. Religion, politics, nationality, ethnicity, ideology, society, etc are all factors that contribute to conflict on all levels. However, it’s common for people to blame there problems on the one factor that they don’t belong to. Atheists blame religion for all the world’s problems and conflicts, arabs (i know I am making a generalization but it just for the sake of my argumet) blame the the West for their problems, marxist blamed conflict on capitalism and so on.
Christianity is a seperate entity from what it’s practicioners do. A Christian should follow the peaceful teachings of Jesus and the New Testament.
The inquisition, again, was carried out by power mongers. I say this because if you were to actually read the bible the New Testament and the Ten Commanmdments in particular you would understand that the inquisition went against the principle teachings of Christianity. To quote Francis Collins “Would you judge Mozart’s ‘The Magic Flute’ on the basis of a poorly rehearsed performance by fifth-graders?”
The inquisition was carried out to protect the interest of the Catholic Church and the power it had over the people. Even so, it was not the christian faith per se that drove these mongers to carry out the Inquisition but greed and self-interest.
As far as atheist regimes are concerned I like to point towards the Soviet Union (yes), China and the Khmer Rouge which are responsible for deaths of towards 100 million people. you are saying that atheism is by-product when it was in fact a fundamental state doctrine. “Soviet policy toward religion has been based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which has made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs. In the 1920s and 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers. Atheism has been propagated through schools, communist organizations (such as the Young Pioneer Organization), and the media”.
There is great debate as to whether really was a Christian or whether it was just a public front.
Furthermore, Christianity today is the most persecuted religion i the world particularly in many Muslim countries and China.
[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
Hanzo wrote:
Matter of fact, in the last 100 years atheist regimes have murdered and persecuted more people than the church ever did in the past 1000 years if not since the beginning of it’s existence.
Regimes? Are you talking about specific governments? If not, your post is total BS with no basis in fact.
I think your concept of how many people the Church (which church BTW?) has killed is more than a little low.
Your definition of atheist may be off too. Just because a regime doesn’t have Christ as it’s central religious figure doesn’t make them atheists. You knew that, right?
I’m more confused than whenI started typing. Just WTF were you talking about anyway?
[/quote]
This is the crux. The Church should be all about developing within each individual a spiritual mastery, and then get out of the way.
Control.
[/quote]
This is a fantastic insight. Unfortunately, religious organizations cannot get out of the way because they think they are “the way,
and the life and the resurection” of mankind. They place themselves on the seat of their Master and steal his authority. Isn’t that also the crux of blasphemy?
I call it spiritual arrogance. “We” the organization, are masters over your faith.
Control, indeed.
Having said that, the masses are lazy and irresponsible. When we don’t want to think for ourselves and don’t want to hold accountability for our actions, how convinient it is to turn to an organization ( religious or political) to “guide” you and “save” you from you? Then blame our church/political leaders as we seem to be doing in this thread.
Its an interesting question. Paganism as it was probably was not the hippy-peace love and new age bullshit that is “practiced” today. In fact i would believe that if the people currently espousing it met the warriars, shamans/druids/whatever of before would be a little frighttened.
If they a practicing seriously i would treat them with respect, though fundamentalist groups would not approve of them. If they are just fat older women who accept all forms of new age ism as a style thing then i get to laugh at them.
There is a difference between a belief that is practiced and something that is done for social reasons.
Way to carry a mature discussion. I’ve read up on much about the origins of Christianity. I’ve read both the Old and the New Testament, the Qu’ran and parts of other “holy books”. I’ve read many objective sources on religion and Christianity, so need for you to lecture me. I actually took two classes in college. it seems as if you got all your information from the Da Vinci Code, which is good or perhaps even mediocre fiction at best. [/quote]
Actually, I’ve never read it, although I find it quite amusing that it is enough of a threat to their religion that so many Christians feel the need to get on television and bash the shit out of it. I guess you missed the ‘I’ve studied history at the university level’ part of my post. Way to read.
That was the question, yes.
Umm… What?
Save your ranting smokescreens for someone that might be fooled into thinking you actually said something.
Ah, I see. Whenever someone does something brutal, hateful, stupid, etc. in the name of Christianity, they are always ‘not being true Christians’. Let’s just see how this holds up under Bible scripture.
Old Testament doesn’t count, right? Wait, what did Jesus say about that?
[i]“Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18)
“The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35)[/i]
Guess you have to follow all of the brutality and hatred, every “smallest letter [and] stroke” espoused by the Old Testament also, if you really want to follow Jesus’ teachings. Peacful? Maybe for his time. If he were alive today, a modern person living in the West with even a Cracker Jack box moral compass would think he was a backwards asshole. A small fraction of examples:
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Matthew 10:35)
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:37)
What a dick! Would any reasonable person even want to be this guy’s friend, let alone become his follower?
Oh, and I’ll save you some response time here; <cough-cough!> Out of context… Allegory… Not meant to be taken literally… Misinterperetation…
As I said, just like their predecessors who compiled the New Testament.
Man, did I call this, or what? First of all I have read them, and I’m betting you haven’t unless you can answer the following question: Which set of Ten Commandments?
Moving right along, let’s take a look at some of those “principle teachings of Christianity” that the Inquisition was supposedly violating. I’ll even handicap myself and just stick to the New Testament, since, well, the Old Testament is just too goddamned easy.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)
Yep, JC was all about peace.
And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. (Matthew 10:21)
Sounds to me like The Inquisition (as well as the populations they terrorized, i.e; family members and neighbors turning in one another to save their own asses) followed instructions to the letter.
I could fill page after page with such direct quotes from Scripture supporting my position, but I’m sure no amount would be enough to convince any Christian defender (I’ll refrain from saying “you”, because I don’t know whether you would or wouldn’t) that I am not taking them “out of context”.
No, I’d judge it on the basis of a virtuoso performance following every note exactly, just as I judge Christian hatred and bigotry against the written Scripture; they match up note for note.
And it’s painfully obvious (to me, anyway) the New Testament was compiled to establish said power. There were many splinter groups at the time, and there were no formal rules until the Council of Nicaea in 325 laid the ground work that would become the New Testament. Anything that encouraged independent prayer (as Jesus did) and discouraged the need for clergy was dismissed out of hand and supressed into oblivion. It is only thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls that we even know about, for example, the Gnostics’ would-be contribution to early Chrisianity.
No need for me to keep shooting this corpse of a theory.
Which is why they signed on to be clergy in the first place; they found a perfect vehicle for both in the Bible.
And I like to point towards my penis and call it an inter-continental ballistic missle. Does that mean it is? I’ve already shown the fallaciousness of this Soviet Union nonsense, but whatever.
( I’ll try and be more clear next time.)
A “doctrine” perhaps, but not the end of the state; reread my earlier criteria. Christianity was a staunch “doctrine” of Nazi Germany, but to call it a Christian regime is a fallacy; making people believe in the Biblical God was not their end goal, but a powerful tool in upholding the state’s power. In the cases you cited, enforced atheism was/is a tool used to promote a state agenda, not the agenda itself. My challenge remains unanswered.
I’d comment on this sentence if it made any sense.
“Most persecuted religion i[n] the world”, huh? Ask an Israeli what he thinks about that.
Furthermore, China suppresses and/or controls all religions (remember Tibet?), Christians aren’t anything special or singled out. In fact, they are also not nearly as “persecuted” as you might think:
[quote]Hanzo wrote:
get in tune with your history please…
Christianity is a seperate entity from what it’s practicioners do. A Christian should follow the peaceful teachings of Jesus and the New Testament…
The inquisition, again, was carried out by power mongers. I say this because if you were to actually read the bible the New Testament and the Ten Commanmdments in particular you would understand that the inquisition went against the principle teachings of Christianity.[/quote]
I guess you want us to know our history, but not learn from it, right?
The Inquisition went against principle Christian teachings? Really? ya think so? Dick Fucking Tracy, what’s your next big case?! (While we’re on the subject, so did the Crusades.)
Now the fundamentalists may not be raping, torturing, and killing people in the name of God or Christ, but they’re still going against “principle Christian teachings” with their judgmental agendas. Their message is not one of love, but of subjacency and control of anyone who disagrees with them.
“Judge not” and all that…“let he who is without sin”…you get the picture (or not).
It’s hard to separate the practioners from a religion when they carry the cross before them and thump on the Bible in all their wrong-minded meddling and doings.
I’m a Christian too and I know I’m not supposed to judge, but I’d just as soon not be associated in any way with these fuckers.
“This ‘submission of will’ is a crock in order to control the obvious non thinker or the afraid. God gave us the ability to reason, to choose. Submission is a wholly human expression, and demeans the intentions of God.”
I acknowledge that the word “submission” has a negative connotation (I don’t much like it myself), but I also think it’s necessary to withhold our negative feelings about the word if we are to clearly judge the act. Submission is really not as demeaning as it’s made out to be. In a basketball game, players who want to win do not double-dribble, travel, or shoot at the wrong basket. In essence, they are submitting to the known rules of the game. However, no one would say that Michael Jordan was a non-thinker or afraid for following the rules of the game made by the basketball gods. Instead, we praise him for adapting his skills perhaps better than anyone else ever has.
Now, according to the Judeo-Christian tradition, we ought to submit to the known rules of the game by choosing what is right (the virtues such as love, humility, integrity, etc.). By preaching submission to the will of God, Christianity is trying to help the world?s players win the game of life. Someone earlier said that all religions boil down to “be a good person.” This is partially true, but it does not answer the questions of why or how one can be good and what the consequences are (all points where the various religions frequently differ). Christianity teaches that it is in our nature to go against the rules, which makes a denial of our wills frequently necessary. To revisit the basketball analogy, we are like the child learning the game who would much rather just carry the ball than have to dribble.
In short, yes Christianity teaches that a submission to the will of God is necessary. This is not just a doctrine put together by the church to control its followers, but one of the fundamental teachings of Christ. (“Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven.”) In fact, the whole Judeo-Christian tradition is aimed at dealing with the problem of rebellion against the will of God (called sin). Christianity agrees with your statement that “God gave us the ability to reason, to choose.” But it also goes on to say that God commands certain things and prohibits others.
If I am reading your post correctly, it seems like you would take issue more so with submission to church leaders than with the teaching of submission to God. I can understand your reluctance to submit to church leaders, given the history of abuses by the Christian church. However, I do think that the majority of church leaders are not in their profession for self-gain, but are instead devoted to doing what is best for the souls of their followers. You may ask what gives a minister the right to determine what is best for our souls. That is like asking what gives a college professor the right to determine what is best for our minds. The college professor will hopefully have a great mind that we can learn from. Likewise, it is my hope that the minister will have a great soul that we can be led by.
As a final note, it seems that many people who argue against submission want a freedom from all ties, obligations, and consequences. While I am under the religious conviction that we cannot rid ourselves of all obligations (since God commands them), I also think that a life without consequences is not even desirable. It would be like the NFL doing away with points, wins, and losses. If that were to happen, people wouldn?t watch because the games would have no meaning and, therefore, no excitement. Likewise, if life has no consequences, it loses its meaning and excitement. Christianity teaches that no one should tell a man that he is damned; but it also insists that we consider everyone (including ourselves) damnable (which, by the way, makes the “opiate for the masses” label is so inaccurate). Finally, because of Christianity’s insistence that we are damnable, you will always find Christians preaching the need for repentance and submission.