Nomad

To jess:

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you do not know how to examine expert witness testimony (which is, by definition, evidence) by the use of other evidence, then I do not know how to help you there.

As for persecution being a form of warfare, I guess we must agree to disagree. Polytheists persecute those of other faiths, just as do monotheists. Many of them also seek to impose their religious systems and beliefs on the conquored peoples. I cannot imagine that you would disagree with this fact.

They are evidence of what he did, said, saw and believed.

In my opinion, and that of orthodox Christians, yes.

Well, if he is right, then I would say that what he said was pretty important. The claim that he was right, or was not cannot be made without reference to circular reasoning, of course, but we can compare many of his non-extraordinary claims with other evidence available to us.

Very true. At the same time, I would hope that you are not arguing that only intuitive things are, or can be, true.

Be well.

Nomad

jess

Hiya, Nomad! A few definitions to start---





Merriam Webster. Please use standard definitions of words, Nomad, if you want people to understand what you are saying and be able to discuss with you without semantic differences; or else, you could define a term in a particular way for a particular arguement, if all are agreed, if you want. Merely equating two English words because they both have a negative connotation will not fly, at least not for me.


What was it Lincoln said about calling a dog's tail a leg?


I was asking for how you do it, so we can both be on the same page--- and so Bill, who asked the original question, could also be on the same page as you.


I am fairly sure that most people do not know how to/are not qualified to examine expert witness testimony. If you could just let me know how you do it, that would be awesome.


If you do not, I will have to go on the idea that for you, examining the evidence comes down to 'it sounds silly, it must be silly'. But then you should accept it when it is used against your evidence, as well.



Could you provide evidence for this accusation, please? I would like to see evidence, not just an assertion.

Actually, since my expert said that polytheistic people do not have religios wars, not that there has never been an incidence of religious persecutions, why don't we stick with debunking him, not what he did not say?

Thanks again,


jess

[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: jess ]

Nomad

You mean like polytheistic India making war on montheistic Pakistan or the Sihks?

Look jess, I understand your desire to whitewash polytheism, and present it as sweetness and light, but it has human beings as its followers as much as does any other faith or ideology. When someone tries to deny the simple facts of history, then they are either hopelessly naive, or spreading propaganda. In your own case I would have to choose the latter option.

As for persecution equating to war, what is happening in Israel right now between Jews and Palestinians qualifies as war in my books. What happened between the Hutu and Titsi (sp?) tribes of Rwanda was war. Persecutions can and do take on the nature of a war once we pass a certain threshold of violence. And to quote a wonderful line in the movie, "The Lion in Winter":

"I never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold."

People die for their beliefs at the hands of others. Polytheists have been doing this to one another, and to monotheists (and vice versa) for a very long time. And when atheists aquire power (as they did in Communist countries), they persecute others who do not share their beliefs.

Such is our nature. Christians call it the sinful nature of man. I do not know what you call it.

Nomad

[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]

jess

Yes, but Nomad, it is up to you to prove that these wars that polytheistic nations have are religious and not one of the myriad of other things humans go to war for.

I am not spreading propaganda. I have 'expert' testimony and you are not giving any reason for me to doubt it. It is you who are spreading propaganda, Nomad.

Please answer my other questions as well, will you?

jess

In defense of India and the Hindus, they are well known for their tolerance of other religions. Indeed, the World Jewish Congress, when reviewing good places for Jews to live, said this past year of India:
As I said above, there is more than one reason for them to declare war.

Again, Nomad, you are the end all of all experts--- now usurping Merriam-Webster's ability to define words.

Is that the image you really intended to give us?

Nomad

Hmm... have you become an apologist for the Hindus jess?

Will you admit that religious ferver drives the hatred felt by many in India that is held against Muslims, Christians and Sihks? After all, the Australian Christian missionary and his children were murdered for being Christian missionaries, not for driving on the wrong side of the street, or a myriad of other reasons for which people commit murder.

It is a slippery slope to try and build such a convenient escape hatch for yourself here jess. Polytheists, monotheists and atheists all go to war for many reasons. Defending or spreading their beliefs is obviously one of them.

Which questions are those jess?

Nomad

jess

Hiya, Nomad!


Thanks for the response.


Last time I checked, they didn't need one.


What I will admit is that, persecuted by monotheists for as long as they have been, even Hindus react violently. A few years back, a St. Bernard was 'put down' for killing two toddlers. During the exam, they discovered the children had been putting rubber bands around the dog's neck, slowly suffocating him.


I would call it self-defense of body, family and property in a religious persecution by monotheists, not a religious war.


Possibly. They were also killed after the Indian government issued a warning to all foreigners, including foreign Christian missionaries (which are, by the way, illegal in India; Indian Christian missionaries are not) to stay out of the area because of the unrest in that locale due to various reasons. Generally, well fed, healthy, well clothed foreigners entering an area which is not (well fed, healthy, and well clothed), add to existing unrest, regardless of their religion.


This (the murder of well fed, well clothed healthy foreigners in an area they were advised no to enter by malnourished, poor, and sickly natives) could possibly fall under 'persectuion', although persectution normally involves the persectuor in a position of power. We are, however, talking about war.
I am clear on that. Are you?



Not according to Keith F. Otterbein, current North American 'expert' anthropologist, specializing in law and war, or to Raoul Naroll, NA warfare 'expert' of the '60's, or Quincy Wright, NA warfare 'expert' of the '40's.
All three are/were professional anthropologists; two have published in peer reviewed journals (Wright could not--- he was writing prior to the inception of anthropological peer reviewed journals. However, he did the approprate thing for his time by publishing in edited professional journals.); all three say basically the same thing:


Wright's reasons for warfare are:
Naroll, in an attempt to see if Wright's reasons could be verified, and in the same level of importance that Wright used, came up with: (Please note: the equivalents are Naroll's, not mine.)


(no, the values placed on each of the reasons did not remain the same in the two studies. Naroll found that prestige and plunder were reversed in his studies.)


Otterbein, conducting new research throughout the 80's to see which gentleman was correct, discovered that the (same) factors were actually linked--- that societies went to war for:
Otterbein did not discover any new factors; indeed, he went so far as to say the importance of revenge was inflated in the previous studies, and discounted it in his own.



These. I am sorry that they weren't clear enough before.
Answered by Nomad:






see the answer to the first question above for clarification.




Answered by Nomad:

(If you need additional context, all the questions were lifted from the above posts.)


In addition, could you answer why Otterbein, Wright and Naroll are not experts, despite fitting your definitions above?


Also, could you name the peer reviewed journals that biblical 'experts' publish in?

Thanks for your time, Nomad. I am looking forward to your response.


jess

(edited for grammar)

[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: jess ]

David M. Payne

Quoted from Nomad/BT
Nice try Nomad/BT, but it was Marxists/communists etc that took power in all communist countries, not atheists. They didn’t oppress and murder in the name of atheism, it was in the name of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc or the party, or the state. I did contend in my essay; The Revenge of the Petty Bourgeois Intelligentsia
that Marxist/Communists were as true any “true believers” in their “Religion” Marxism/communism, as any of the true believers of what we call religion in the vernacular of today’s meaning. But again they didn’t kill in the name of atheism, did they? They were interested in controlling all political, economic and social institutions and they viewed any religion as a competitor for power, pure and simple. They were atheists, but that was not their driving force for being, it was a sub-set of their political philosophy. In religious conflicts, monotheist or polytheists (Look here BT, we agree on something!) use religion and/or the differences between them as the primary reason for the conflict, right? Of course this takes us back to the thread on who has done the most evil in the world, atheists/agnostics or theists, but we already know the answer to that don’t we BT? (Hint, it’s you theists that do the most evil, ie war, murder, etc in the name of god, religion, isn’t it BT? I know you would like to believe that it’s because there have been so many more theists than atheists/agnostics, but numbers are irrelevant when it comes to murder, war etc, because these are problems of behavior not just the number of people involved in the behavior.)
I hate to get off track Nomad/BT, but I posted a thread about Adam and Eve, Noah, incest and inbreeding that was addressed to you and Bede, here, you probably missed it, but it’s right here in this forum. Sure would like to get your input on this vexing little problem of biblical proportions. I know you aren’t hiding from the subject you must have just missed it, as you are a stand up guy, so I thought I would post this here for you and your friends to see. RW has just posted a response to the topic, and I am going over to that thread now to discuss his point now. Perhaps you can join us later.

All the best
David

Nomad

This is perhaps one of the most disgraceful things I have ever seen posted against Christians, Muslims and Sikhs on these boards. I have certainly expected better from you jess. Are you actually willing to blame the victims for being murdered and persecuted?

I will admit right now that as soon as I read this far, I stopped. If you are going to tell me that the Christians, Muslims and Sikhs being killed in India deserve it, or even that it is a least understandable, because of past persecutions against Hindus by these same groups, then we are done here. Such blatant acceptance of evil as a righting of past wrongs is sickening.

I am sorry that you believe such things jess, and hope that one day you will be able to get past them.

Nomad

[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]

Ulrich

Read: I am going to feign indignation now so I can skip out on the rest of the discussion, which I was losing badly.