hatsoff

How do you know that it is fundamentalist Christians who are responsible for the outlawing of PAS? It seems like something a lot of folks would oppose for entirely secular reasons. I am one of those, by the way.

"Largely as a result"? What does that mean? Sounds like you're taking a suicide statistic and blaming Christians simply because it suits your preconceived notions. Did you ever think that maybe homosexual suicide rates were high for other reasons--namely, the same mechanisms that determine sexual orientation in the first place?

Condemning a deviant sexual behavior as wrong or uncivil is not unique to Christianity. Many atheists and agnostics discriminate against homosexuals. As a matter of fact, my personal experience with so-called homophobes has come exclusively from non-religious males. Again, you have made some unfounded assumptions that are very probably untrue.

That's Judaism, not Christianity. If there's any cause or correlation, it's that Christianity helped put an end to those ridiculous laws.

On a large scale, I would imagine little if any.

I am neither naive nor in agreement with your harsh opinions.

Christians generally believe that everyone deserves to go to Hell.

Yes, I do.

I am curious.

Yes, there is.

That is indeed not the only thing that matters.

I don't put a lot of time into the question, because the answer is already clear.

I am less curious about that issue, generally speaking, and so I give it little attention.

It matters to me, and many others.

It gives me a knowledge base to hold engaging discussions; it also satisfies curiosity, leading to further satisfaction as I learn more and more. In other words, it is practical for recreation.

Those files are permanently sealed.

I don't.

Unlike other religions, I suspect Islam is indeed harmful to society. However, I am unsure of that, nor could I do anything about it if I wasn't. Furthermore, I am largely uninterested in religions other than Christianity--except perhaps Judaism, because it is the predecessor of Christianity.

RUmike

What about stopping and staying the progression and advancement of the human race for thousands of years?

Johnny Skeptic

I will be happy to debate physician assisted suicide with you at the Moral Foundations and Principles forum. How about it? There is already a thread there on the right of suicide. It is well-known that a much higher percentage of fundamentalist Christians oppose physician assisted suicide, homsosexuality, and same same sex marriage than atheists, agnostics, and liberal Christians do. One study showed that on average, people with more education support physician assisted suicide. I think that I can find the study if you wish. Fundamentalist Christians tend to take the Bible literally, or haven't you noticed?

But Christianity did not put an end to slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women until almost two thousand years after it was founded. The largest colonial empire in history by far that was conquered under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property.

I suggest that you and other readers read an article about religion by Bertrand Russell at http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell2.htm. The article is titled 'Has Religion Made a Useful Contribution to Civilization?' Russell lived from 1872-1970. He was a British philosopher, mathematician, and Nobel laureate, whose emphasis on logical analysis influenced the course of 20th-century philosophy.

In the first paragraph of the article, Russell says "My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others."

Oh really? How about hundreds of billions of dollars spent on churches, Christian book stores, world travel for missions etc. that could have gone to feed hungry people and improve education?

So fundamentalist Christians aren't harsh when they say that you deserve to go to hell, right?

Consider the following Scriptures:

Revelation 11:9-11 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Revelation 9:3-6 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

So that is not harsh, right? In the New Testament, God killed Ananias and Saphira over money. That is not harsh, right? Don't you object to God continuing his muderous ways in the New Testament?

Do you believe that the world is much better off with religion than without religion? Do you have any preference which world view children are taught? Are you opposed to homosexuality? Do you see any harm in fundamentalist Christian parents telling their children that homosexuality is immoral, unhealthy, and detestable to God?

That is the problem. False teachings cause division and mistrust.

What I meant was is that Christianity is not true or false dependent upon how many people accept it.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to hatsoff:

Consider the following:

http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=37

Opposition to gay marriage has increased since the summer and a narrow majority of Americans also oppose allowing gays and lesbians to enter legal agreements that fall short of marriage. Moreover, despite the overall rise in tolerance toward gays since the 1980s, many Americans remain highly critical of homosexuals and religious belief is a major factor in these attitudes.
A 55% majority believes it is a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, and that view is much more prevalent among those who have a high level of religious commitment (76%). About half of all Americans have an unfavorable opinion of gay men (50%) and lesbians (48%), but highly religious people are much more likely to hold negative views.

Religiosity is clearly a factor in the recent rise in opposition to gay marriage. Overall, nearly six-in-ten Americans (59%) oppose gay marriage, up from 53% in July. But those with a high level of religious commitment now oppose gay marriage by more than six-to-one (80%-12%), a significant shift since July (71%-21%). The public is somewhat more supportive of legal agreements for gays that provide many of the same benefits of marriage; still, a 51% majority also opposes this step.

A new national survey of 1,515 adults, conducted Oct. 15-19 by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life finds that homosexuality in general not merely the contentious issue of gay marriage is a major topic in churches and other houses of worship. In fact, clergy are nearly as likely to address homosexuality from the pulpit as they are to speak out about abortion or prayer in school, say people who attend church regularly.

The clergy in evangelical churches focus considerably more attention on homosexuality and address it far more negatively than do ministers and priests in other denominations. Two-thirds of evangelical Protestants who attend church services at least once a month say their ministers speak out on homosexual issues, compared with only about half of Catholics (49%) and just a third of mainline Protestants (33%). And compared with others who attend services where homosexuality is discussed, substantially more evangelicals (86%) say the message they are receiving is that homosexuality should be discouraged, not accepted.

The poll finds that people who hear clergy talk about homosexuality are more likely to have highly unfavorable views of gays and lesbians. This is especially the case in evangelical churches. Fully 55% of evangelicals who attend services where the issue of homosexuality is addressed have very unfavorable views of homosexuals. This compares with 28% of those who regularly attend services in non-evangelical Protestant and Catholic churches where clergy discuss homosexuality. Similarly, evangelicals who hear sermons on this issue are much more apt than others to believe that gays and lesbians can change their sexual orientation and to view homosexuality as a threat to the country.

The survey underscores how the debate over societal acceptance of homosexuality has shifted since the mid-1980s. The public has moved decisively in the direction of tolerance on many questions; in particular, discrimination against homosexuals is now widely opposed. This is seen in long-term trends in surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center and by the
Gallup Organization. And the current survey shows that a majority of Americans (54%) feel that gay and lesbian couples can be as good parents as heterosexual couples.

Yet as public attention has turned to questions of gay marriage and as homosexuals have become far more visible in society and the entertainment media there have been some signs of a backlash. Roughly three-in-ten Americans (31%) say greater acceptance of gays would be a bad thing for the country, up from 23% in a 2000 survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation. And nearly half the public (48%) thinks the entertainment media present too many gay themes and characters, compared with 37% in the same 2000 survey.
In light of this changing climate of opinion, the importance of gay marriage in the 2004 elections remains unclear. But there is evidence that this issue could become problematic for the Democratic presidential nominee. Voters who support President Bush are largely of one mind on this issue: More than three-quarters (78%) of voters who favor the president's reelection in 2004 oppose gay marriage; more than half (53%) strongly oppose the idea. But voters who prefer to see a Democrat elected in 2004 are divided 46% favor gay marriage, 48% oppose. A substantial minority of these Democratic-leaning voters strongly oppose gay marriage (25%).

The survey also shows that Americans remain deeply divided over the essential cause and nature of homosexuality. A 42% plurality believes that being a homosexual "is just the way that some people prefer to live," no change from a Los Angeles Times survey conducted in 1985. But there has been a rise in the percentage who say homosexuality is "something that people are born with" from 20% in the Times survey to 30% currently. The public also is split on the question of whether a gay person's sexual orientation can be changed 42% say it can, the same number disagrees.

Still, most Americans say they are comfortable interacting socially with homosexuals. Just one-in-five say they are uncomfortable around homosexuals, while 76% say they do not
mind being around gays. Highly religious white evangelicals are more likely to say they are uncomfortable being around homosexuals a third express that view. Even so, six-in-ten in that group say it does not bother them to be around homosexuals.

Johnny: Now then, hatsoff, are you still not convinced that a significantly disproportionate percentage of fundamentalist Christians oppose homosexuality because they believe that the Bible opposes it? Religion plays a big role in politics in the U.S., and it has since this country was founded in 1776.

In my previous post I said "But Christianity did not put an end to slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women until almost two thousand years after it was founded. The largest colonial empire in history by far that was conquered under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property." Actually, "Christianity" never did put an end to slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women. "Christians" did, but certainly not because of anything that the Bible says.

NatSciNarg

A discussion of the early success of Christianity, by Richard Carrier:
http://secularweb.org/library/modern...able/luck.html
(as part of a rubuttal of Holding) might be of some use here.

Then again, as Carrier says (based on Keith Hopkins):
"no one can claim anything definite on this subject, at least for the first two centuries. Anyone who says anything about Christian numbers is speculating, and not asserting a fact. "

Best wishes,
Matthew

aa5874

Galileo did not trust mainstream scholarship. I use my own 'telescope' to make my observations and findings. At one time Roman Catholicism was mainstream.

Malachi151

My theory is this:

It was #1 reliant on the diaspora (of course).

#2 Many diaspora Jews were engaged in active opposition to oppression and the occupation of Israel. These Jews lived everywhere from Alexandria to Rome.

#3 In order to incite more Jews to action or to get the opposition more focused, at some point the killing of "Jesus the Christ" was concocted and the rumor spread like wildfire, inciting violence and opposition throughout the Roman Empire among Jews.

#4 Over time this legendary figure took on more and more mythology, similar to someone like King Arthur, Paul Bunyon, Pacos Bill, etc.

This accounts for the facts that:

We can find more evidence of Christainity outside of Judea than within the area.

There were so many different beleifs about Jesus and different Christian customs.

We have much better evidence for Christianity than we do for Jesus himself. We know about Christians in Alexandria, Rome, Greece, and the East, yet we know nothing (in truth) about Jesus.

Christanity containts mixes militancy and messages of peace, yet the Christians seems mostly to be militant at all times. (though perhaps this is because people don't write about people who are being peaceful)

It accounts for why Christians would have been persecuted.

Didymus

Of course, there's no archeological or epigraphic evidence to support that. Paul may have been referring to congregations - house churches - rather than structures. The possible church/synagogue at Dura Europa in modern Iraq (ca 240 CE) and the more clearly Christian facility at Megiddo in Palestine seem to have been the first examples of structures used primarily as places of worship.

True, but there's some dispute on the actual extent of that persecution. Christianity has always viewed suffering in the cause as a badge of honor; ironically, reports of martyrdom seem to have been used as recruiting tools.

There's no evidence of Christians being persecuted in Palestine. In fact, outside of the NT, there's no evidence at all of Christians in Palestine until the church at Megiddo.

Examples?

Again, keep in mind that the earliest "churches" were congregations, not physical structures. And they could have consisted of just a handful of individuals.

Yes, but not until well into the 2nd century, when the stories of Jesus' life, work and teachings (aka the gospels) began to circulate. Before that, we have no reliable evidence either of rapid growth or large numbers of Christians anywhere.

For a pretty good survey of the growth of Christianity, see Rodney Stark's "The Rise of Christianity."

Didymus

Johnny Skeptic

Will you please tell us how mainstream scholarship can possibly know beyond a reasonable doubt what Paul actually wrote, and how much of what he wrote might have been revised?

In another thread, you said:

Some early authors might in fact have condemned it as a forgery. As noted award winning scholar, author, and college professor Elaine Pagels has said, “The victors rewrote history, ‘their way.’” The victors, Orthodox Christians, had a habit of destroying competing records, and frequently killed their competitors.

Consider the following:

Elaine Pagels: For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the Gnostics, while suppressing and virtually destroying the Gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how Gnostics denounced the orthodox. The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the 'true church' of the Gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says: '...we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant (pagans), but also by those think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.'"

Richard Carrier: "All other religions but Judaism were outlawed under pain of death throughout the Mediterranean and Europe by 395 AD."

Dr. Larry Taylor: "How does this apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the early critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian opinions, other than those of the establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed, and later, heretics were burned."

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2002:

"By the 3rd century Gnosticism began to succumb to orthodox Christian opposition and persecution. Partly in reaction to the Gnostic heresy, the church strengthened its organization by centralizing authority in the office of bishop, which made its effort to suppress the poorly organized Gnostics more effective."

In his book titled ‘The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World,’ Christian author S. Angus, Ph.D., D.Lit., D.D., says the following:

“No one could have dreamed that the Christians, who had themselves suffered so much from persecution and protested so vehemently against the injustice and futility of persecution, would so quickly have turned persecutors and surpassed their Pagan predecessors in fanatical savagery and efficiency, utterly oblivious of the Beatitude of the Divine Master (Matt. V. 10, 44, 45). It became ominous for subsequent history that the first General Council of the Church was signalized by bitter excommunications and banishments. Christians, having acquired the art of disposing of hostile criticism by searching out and burning the objectionable books of their Pagan adversaries, learned to apply the same method to the works of such groups of Christians as were not in power or in favour for the time; when this method proved unsatisfactory, they found it expedient to burn their bodies. The chained skeleton found in the Mithraic chapel at Sarrebourg testified to the drastic means employed by Christians in making the truth conquer otherwise than by the methods and exemplified by the Founder. The stripping and torture to death with oyster-shells in a Christian church and the subsequent mangling of limb from limb of Hypatia, the noblest representative of Neo-Platonism of her day, by the violent Nitrian monks and servitors of a Christian bishop, and probably with his connivance, were symptomatic and prophetic of the intolerance and fanaticism which Christianity was to direct throughout the
centuries upon its disobedient members and troublesome minorities until the day – yet to dawn – when a purer, more convincing because more spiritual, Christianity gains ‘the consent of happier generation, the applause of less superstitious ages.’”

It is important to note the following from one of Joseph McCabe's writings:

"From the first Constantine had, apart from his unsuccessful decrees, showered wealth and privileges upon the Church. A stream of gold flowed from the palace, and new churches, of a more attractive nature, began to rise. At court and in the army the best way, if not the only way, to secure promotion was to become convinced by the brilliant evidence of the religion. Even ordinary citizens were rewarded with a baptismal robe and a piece of gold. Villages were raised to the rank of cities if all their inhabitants exchanged Jupiter for Christ. In ten years imperial gold had done more than the blood of all the martyrs, the miracles of all the saints, and the arguments of all the apologists.

“Except that wealth continued to reach the Roman clergy, the progress of the Church in the west was now suspended. The city of Constantinople was dedicated in 330. The world had at least a Christian metropolis; and it was a superb city. Already, as I said, more than three fourths of the Christians were in the ignorant east, and they were now encouraged to attack pagan temples and openly ventilate their scorn. Few pagans could get advancement in the east. Constantine had lost all his vigor and clear wit. Dressed in effeminate robes, laden with jewels, crowned by a mass of false hair, he sat amongst the women and priests who now 'converted' the world by means of his money and favors. Only now and again did the old anger burst, when the quarrels which rent the Church, from Africa to Mesopotamia, showed him how futile was his dream of a spiritual empire or, as Napoleon would later say, a spiritual gendarmerie. But he had chosen: and he had opened a new chapter of the human chronicle. He was baptized, and died in 337."

Consider the following:

“The First Epistle claims to be from “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1), ‘a witness of the sufferings of Christ’ (5:1), and to have been penned ‘by Silvanus, a faithful brother’ (5:12). It is written in excellent Greek, reflects a knowledge of certain Epistles of Saint Paul, and accurately cites the Greek Septuagint instead of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Largely for these reasons, a number of scholars are reluctant to believe that Peter, a Palestinian fisherman, could have written it. They propose that it was written by a Roman Christian who, following a widely accepted ancient literary convention of ascribing new works to venerated figures of the past, credited his work to Peter. Scholars who accept Peter's authorship hold that Silvanus, a traveling companion of Paul, may have composed the letter for the apostle. If Peter was the author (either by himself or with the help of Silvanus), the Epistle probably dates from 64 to 65, or just after persecution of Christians began in Rome under the emperor Nero. If the letter is pseudonymous (composed under a false name), then the persecution referred to in 4:12-19 and 5:9 probably was the more general one that occurred under the emperor Domitian from 81 to 96, and the Epistle would date from about 96. The place of composition is commonly believed to have been Rome, chiefly because of the phrase ‘she who is at Babylon ... sends you greetings’ (5:13); as in the book of Revelation, Babylon is probably an apocalyptic name for Rome (see Apocalyptic Writings). Some scholars have proposed that the Epistle actually may have been composed in the ancient city of Babylon.”

© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Between the preceding scholarship, and what you have already read from other scholars, is that enough evidence for you that some or all of 1 Peter was probably not written by Peter? After all, you tend to trust mainstream scholarship, right?

Last but not least, the largest colonial empire in history by far that was conquered under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property.

Even today, a large percentage of fundamentalist Christians still try to unfairly dominate people who disagree with them, but of course, you have said that you don't have any problems with Christians or atheists.

Didymus

"Reliant"? On the diaspora? What do you mean?

Possibly, but what time period are you talking about? And on what evidence do you base that claim?

Possibly, but concocted by whom? And why do you think it was concocted? If militant Jews wanted to incite violence against Rome, why would they involve Caiaphas and the "Priests and scribes"? If that's the goal, why would they cast Pilate as a temporizer? Would it not be more effective to portray him as a brutish thug?

While that statement may be accurate, what are you saying accounts for it? Sedition? How would sedition account for the disparity? (Just saying that something "accounts for" something else is not really saying anything. You have to tell us HOW it accounts for it.)

True. But the "facts" you presented don't "account for" Gnosticism or Marcionism, the two leading beliefs about Jesus, which in any event, didn't really flourish until the 2nd century.

True. Here I'll go waaay out on a limb and say that the evidence for the existence of Christianity is indisputable. (I know it's risky. Some Detering-ite on this forum is sure to question such a boringly orthodox and conventional claim.)

What does that have to do with the historicity of Jesus? Or anything else you've said?

What does?

I think your "theory" is a tad short in the coherence and evidence departments.

Didymus