Sojourner553

Yes the early Protestant reformers were not (excuse the metaphor) angels:


Regarding Luther on peasant revolts:

First a little background: As happened with other earlier religious movements, Luther's writings became entangled with general economic and social discontent--and threatened to flare up into a large peasant revolt. Luther was determined not to let the peasants destroy his religious movement! Angered by the violence shown in
these riots, Luther, In his AGAINST THE MURDERING, THIEVING HORDES OF PEASANTS,urged his German prince allies to quash the peasant rebellion:

"They should be knocked to pieces, strangled and stabbed, secretly and openly, by everyone who can do it, just as one must kill a mad dog".


(Luther's feelings were shared by the German nobles, who cruelly put down the revolt.--It's been estimated that some fifty thousand people, mostly peasants were killed in suppressing the revolt).

Regarding Jews:

Early in his career, Martin Luther blamed Catholics for Jews not converting to Christianity: According to Luther in his THAT JESUS CHRIST WAS BORN A JEW:


"For our fools, the popes, bishops, sophists, and monks--the course
blockheads!--dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs and not human
beings. They have done nothing for them but curse them and seize their
wealth. I would advise and beg everybody to deal kindly with the Jews and
to instruct them in the Scriptures; in such case we could expect them to come over to us."

When Jews did not convert to Lutheranism, Luther raged against the Jews with a fury and viciousness that would later have its
echoes in twentieth century Nazism. Now, according to Luther, his solution to the "Jewish problem" was to drive them out of Germany:

" ... They are a heavy burden like a plague, pestilence, misfortune...".

For those Jews that refused, Luther recommended, "that their synagogues
or schools be set on fire... that their houses be broken up and destroyed...
and they be put under a roof or stable, like the gypsies...in misery and captivity as they incessantly lament and complain to God about us."

Luther on witches:


"I would have no compassion on the witches; I ould burn them all." Luther had four of
them burned to the stake in Wittenburg.

I had already noted Wesley's attitude on witches
In 1769, John Wesley wrote in his JOURNAL:

"With my latest breath will I bear testimony against giving up to the infidels one great proof of the invisible world: I mean that of witchcraft and apparitions, confirmed by the testimony of all ages."

Calvinism's extremist views on authoritarianism and damnation, led to more witch burnings than any other protestant sect.


Luther on Reason:

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: It never comes to the aid of spiritual things; but--more frequently than not--struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."

--Martin Luther (TABLE TALK)

Luther on Catholics:

Luther declared that the pope was the antiChrist, and called upon the people to rise up against the evil empire of Catholicism:


"Why do we not turn on all those evil teachers of perdition, those popes, cardinals and bishops, and the entire swarm of the Roman Sodom with arms in hand, and wash our hands in their blood."


Of course, Catholics returned the favor. Here for example is the Jesuit Juan Mariani (1599) offering Philip III the following advice on stamping out Protestant heresy--(note the reference to St. Augustine's writings on heretics):

"It is a glorious thing to exterminate the whole of this pestilential
and pernicious race from the community of mankind. Limbs, too, are cut
off when they are corrupt, that they may not infect the remainder of the
body; and likewise this bestial cruelty in human shape must be separated
from the state and cut off with the sword."


Catholics on Reason:

Catholics (during the time of the Reformation) denounced the use of reason over faith):

"When God commands us to believe, he does not propose to have us
search into his divine judgments, nor to inquire their reasons and
causes, but demands an immutable faith...Faith, therefore, excludes
not only all doubt, but even the desire of subjecting its truth to
demonstration."
--Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566)


and

"That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the
Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to
our eyes appears white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it black."

--Jesuit founder, Ignatius Layola
SPIRITUAL EXERCISES, Rule #13


With all this rhetoric and opposition to REASON --it should come as no surprise that superstition ( such as belief in witchcraft) was at its maximum height.

Sojourner

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Butters

Posted by Amos,
I say we kill all the whales right now!
Here is a good over view of the end times.
<a href="http://www.xs4all.nl/~mke/bijbel.htm" target="_blank">web page</a>

I'm sorry I can't remember who posted this originaly.

NOGO

Hi Sojourner,

It is amazing how differently you and I think.
And perhaps this shows that rational reason cannot be a common thread to anything.

I agree with everything except for the last statement. The ideology is communism not atheism. Communism can coexist with Christianity. Early Christians did practice a form of communism.

What you are saying is that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are examples of theist ideologies and communism is an example of an atheist ideology.

I am shaking my head violently in disbelief. If Bede had said this I would not have been surprized but from a non-believer ...

Christianity, Judaism and Islam follow from the belief in God. Communism does not follow from a non belief in God. I think that this is obvious.

But more importantly ...

There is a fallacy in your statement. Christianity, like communism, Buddhism etc, was born as an ideology. You cannot have Christianity without the ideology; it is part and parcel.
An atheist may believe that man would be better off without religion however no atheist believes that the disbelief in God will solve all of man's problems.

Therefore Atheism is not an ideology.
It is therefore wrong to claim that communism is an example of an atheist ideology. Communism, 20th century version, happened to have adopted atheism. In Russia one of the reason for this choice was to break down the power of the church. They could have adopted Buddhism. Another reason was to break down the power that myth have on people. Perhaps this was misguided but Christians did exactly the same when converting pagans to Christianity. The blind belied that one is totally right.

I agree that someone can take a statement like "let's rid the world of myth and superstition" and create an ideology. However atheism is not that ideology and neither is communism. Communism may have cohabited with such an ideology but one does not imply the other.

In fact I don't believe that deism is an ideology either. Christianity, Judaism Islam, and communism are examples of ideologies.

You cast your net too wide.
What unifies Christians is a well defined Christian doctrine.
What unifies Jews is a a well defined Judaic doctrine.
What unifies Muslims is a well defined muslim doctrine.
etc.
The fact is, that you cannot find a single subdivision of atheism because there aren't any.

I do not claim that rational reason will stop anybody from doing evil and I don't think that anybody ever made such a claim. This is the stuff of ideologies and religions in particular. Perhaps you have just proved my point.
Actually I do not see the relationship between rational thinking and atheism.

I do not see the connection. Christians do expect that a fellow Christian behaves in a certain "good" way but I do not expect rational people to behave in any particular way.

Something like ... He was an atheist and committed murder. Shame on him for not living up to his disbelief in God.
or
Something like ... He was a rationalist and committed murder. Shame on him for not living up to reasonable behaviour.

Rational people do not always behave or think rationally. I happen to be one such case although I do try very hard.

What can I say ... I do not idealize Mr Spock.
I am not an idealist and I would not be surprized if many atheist aren't either. And no I do not see that as my ideal either.

Early Christians were all fundamentalists. As an example, divorce should not be allowed by Christians since Jesus spoke quite categorically against it. So Christianity has changed over time, softened up and became almost humane. This is normal. All ideologies tend to fade with time and neutrolize themselves. Ideologies are all infected by zeal at the beginning but it does go away with time and reason returns.

Sojourner: "fundamentalist Christians who interpret the verses you present in a LITERAL manner. "

Ok, tell me how else can you intepret this verse "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".
Have you any doubt that the person who wrote this meant exactly what it says?

I thought that I addressed this already.
Christians can brush away criticism by saying that Christians are people and they make/made mistakes.

Christians cannot help but be embarassed when the book which they believe is the word of God and therefore the basis for their ideology says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

As I said Christianity is to blame not Christians.

Obviously a man wrote "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". He made a mistake. But it is each and every Christians who choses to believe that the Bible was inspired by God.

Today Christians may say that this particular verse was not inspired by God. The question now remains is how many Christians back in the 16th century believed that any part of the Bible was not inspired by God? How many would entertain the idea that some verses in the Bible do not actually say that they say?

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Amos

The Catholics took them away because Luther wanted to open them long before they were ready to hatch. Luther's way was to hatch eagles with immature wings and so you can see why they crash all the time.

Fr.Andrew

(NOGO): Ok, tell me how else can you intepret this verse "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".
(Fr Andrew): I've heard it interpreted to mean that witches (sorcerers, really) should not be allowed to earn a living...and was subsequently mis-translated and mis-applied. The reasoning has to do with the wording--different from other situations for which the Bible proscribes death (for instance, the very next verse [Exodus 22:19] says: "Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.").
The notion was that sorcerers were superstitious competition for Yahweh and the early Hebrews patronized them for potions and casting out spells and such--and as a go-between when communication was desired with the dead (Saul and the Witch of Endor would be the most obvious example).
Exodus 22:18 was instruction not to do this.

Amos

If my idea of witches is true there is no need to make apologies for witch trials.

Devilnaut

Bede:

Speak for yourself will ya? I've personally found Amos' answers far and away the most sensible christian responses in the thread.

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Sojourner553

NOGO

First, let me point out that my noting there are "atheist ideologues"
IS NOT THE SAME THING as proclaiming that "all atheists are ideologues".

However, I do admit fault for using terms loosely that I have not
defined. (In this, I should have followed Voltaire warning, "I will not
debate with you until you have defined your terms.")

Generally everyone has some philosophy or outlook of life. This
philosophy can be further broken down between the categories of: theism and
atheism. It can be INDEPENDENTLY categorized between rational or
irrational. Again this can be independently carved up between altruism and
egoism.

Atheists can be rational and irrational. They can also be altruists (I like to use the term humanist) or nonhumanists?(ie the latter being where other principles are considered more important than the general welfare of
ALL members of society. I am trying to define my terms.)

The same applies to theists.


An ideologue is (using Hannah Arendt's definition) is a philosophy that "claims to possess either the key to history, or the solution for all the 'riddles of the universe' or the intimate knowledge of the hidden universal law which are supposed to rule nature and man."
Typically followers of an ideology (ideologues) are insistent that ONLY their belief system can solve the ultimate problems of the world/universe.

Many religions could qualify as an "ideology"-- since they believe in a powerful deity who can solve all the "riddles of the universe". One important exception are deists--ie those who believe in a powerful deity, but not necessarily one that intervenes in the daily affairs of humans. Practically- speaking, only CONSERVATIVE groups view their LEADERS as having perfect and
exclusive UNDERSTANDING of God's Will--which will lead mankind towards some utopia-like state if they can only gain absolute power. More moderate to liberal religious groups believe they worship a perfect God and follow His essential doctrines.--Yet, they are more open-minded towards the possibility that they do not understand ALL of his "Will"-- and how this translates into
daily living. Politically, this makes them more TOLERANT towards other groups who did not believe the same way that they do.

Ideologies may, of course, be based on atheistic systems! Russian Marxist communism would be an example of an ideology--because its members have claimed that there is an invisible force progressively moving civilization towards
a workman's utopia. If an atheistic group believes their philosophy will solve all of mankind's problems (essentially a state of "utopia") -- then this group of atheists may be appropriately dubbed as "ideologues

How one draws the lines as to what groups they are members of is an
arbitrary and subjective (ie not objective) exercise. Therefore I could
say to you that I belong in the group "atheism" because I do not believe in
a divine external power that cares about the welfare of people and this is
where I "draw the lines". According to you, this definition is too broad
to have any practical meaning. Therefore you do not feel yourself a
"member" of this group. You draw the lines to the groups you belong to
differently.

I do not think atheists are made up of one giant group with no
subdivisions. If you have read many of my posts around here, you will see
me frequently categorizing atheists (and theists) as humanists vs.
fundamentalists. Fundamentalists comprise the majority of atheist
ideologues. But let me be clear (this time): This does not mean that all
atheist fundamentalists are atheist ideologues. The flip side is also
true, (although I think rarer): one can also find atheist humanists who are
ideologues.


Actually, I feel you lump "all Christians" together, just as you feel me
doing the same with lumping all "atheists" together.

It is true that there are very inhumane verses in the Bible. But there are
other verses that are very humane and inspiring.

Of course, a lot of this IS in the interpretation. Take your verse on "not
suffering a witch to live". The key is how one defines a "witch". If a
witch is defined as an evil person actually attempting to inflict harm on
another person, than "I" am in full agreement that witches should be
punished.

I have debated a number of Christians who assume many of the OT laws were
written during a time of primitive tribalism and barbarism and that Jesus'
message of love replaces these. I have no quarrel with these more
"humane" Christians, except to point out where these "interpretations" are
somewhat arbitrary--ie not clear nor "set in stone" (as is often believed).

Historically speaking, I would argue that the EARLIEST Christians were made
up of a large number of humane sects, operating peacefully. To me, this
changed when the Orthodox Church (later to become the Catholic Church in
the West), turned fundamentalist and persecuted all other Christian sects
plus the pagans and to a lesser extent the Jews out of existence. Bede
would of course disagree with me, stating this action by the Church was a
"necessary" step to save Christianity over the long term from barbarian
influences. I think it triggered the chain of events that created the Dark Ages.


But the point is: I make a distinction between the authoritarian Christians that
gained control, and all the earlier Christian groups that were persecuted
out of existence.

Do I think dictatorial authority such as the Catholic Church possessed was at times employed for evil? "Absolutely". (Many Protestant sects agree with this view too, by
the way!) Do I think ALL Christian sects aspired to this type of power?
"No!" Do I think other non-Christian and atheist groups who have such
power can also be corrupt and evil? "Absolutely".

There is an old adage, that "absolute power corrupts and power corrupts
absolutely". Just because Christians have wielded more authoritarian
powers in the past (and therefore was the source of much of the abuse) this
does not mean "Christianity" is inherently more "evil" than non-Christians
or atheists. Indeed many Christians would claim that you are defining
Christianity too broadly ? the same error you accuse me of in classifying
myself in the "atheist" general group.

In recent times, modern Christianity turned out to be far more tolerant
than many other religions. In this environment, the sciences thrived. For
this group of Christians in the societies where they lived, they should be
commended/complimented. Bede claims science must be an offshoot of
Christianity, because it can be observed that science has reached its highest level of advancement within a modern society that is
predominately Christian. I would argue that it was liberal Christian societies that created the tolerate society or favorable environment so
that the sciences could flourish. (This would also explain why a high percentage of modern scientists are also atheists, Jews, or deists/Unitarians.)

As for your point that I am at fault for categorizing myself as an atheist
and therefore feeling the need to apologize for all atheists: Does not the
same apply to Christians? Since all Christians are not alike, why should
Christians apologize for the evil done by other Christians?


You will probably find it is primarily humanist atheists (such as myself)
AND humanist Christians/theists who feel the need to understand why others
pursue a different path, and are somewhat ashamed of their non-humanist members.

But I do agree with you, I should probably withhold from making such
strategic (sweeping high level) statements in the future because this is
really too complex a topic to be making generalizations of and one's words
can be easily distorted/twisted.

I would like to see you make the same concession in discussing Christianity as if it were just one group. I would never lump DavidH in with Jerry Falwell as one example.

Take care,

Sojourner

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

Let me guess-- you're really Amos under another pseudoname...


Sojourner

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Devilnaut

Hey now, I registered first! And besides, it's not really that great of a compliment