zwi

Madam

You said

Comment #1 Most Christians would respond to your post that they agree that there were Christians in power who were evil during the time of the Inquisition (just as there clearly are some today). But they see this as part of a theme that all people are sinful: That is, they insist, the reason why all people need to accept Jesus as their savior is to salvage some decency in their behavior. Even though they believe in Jesus though, people still fall short, no matter what, to being naturally bad. It is because humans (unlike Jesus) are imperfect beings, and therefore are/will be stained in sin.


How crazy can you get???

I am not christian

I do no accept that I am full of sin

The evil people who were and are in charge of the Christian Church are
1 evil and
2 have accepted Jesus as their savior and
3 have still committed atrocities that resonate down the centuries, all in the name of Yeshu Panderik, or Jesus ben Pandera

And to think that a mind like Bede could start free of dirt, then come to accept God, fine, but why did he have to accept the unholy one Jesus and all the evils done in his name

Bede could simply have accepted God alone

Zwi

:boohoo:

Amergin

I would die for freedom. I would die to depose a bloody dictator.

But I don't think I would die if I got caught by the Religious Police in a future Fundamentalistic Taliban America, I would chicken out. I would "convert" toss in a few of Paul's barmy verses, "praise the Lord," and "Thank you Jesus" bollocks. I would do it at least until I could get a plane back to Scotland. Then I would get the Secular Republic of Scotland to propose a resolution at the UN for an international coalition led by the Afghans (who owe America) to liberate Americans from the Christian Taliban.

Amergin

The ancient celtic religion was much more beautiful than the desert killer Gods.

http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/pu...sp?id_=1411479

Layman

Doesn't sound very scientific.

Are you doing this as a zero sum game, judging pre-Christian and post-Christian changes, or just labelling everything done by something claiming to be a Christian as a "bad" effect of Christainity?


No, the best that can be said is that BECAUSE of Christainity, the Western World has developed an ethos against Infanticide.

This is a rather uncritical assesment. Since the Church was growing fast and most of the new converts were former pagans, of course the Christian leaders had to teach these former pagans that infanticide was wrong. They had probably never heard of such a prohibition before converting.

But you are really missing the point. It is most likely that some, perhaps many, Christians continued to indulge in this pagan practice. But the fact of history is that pagans sanctioned and encouraged the practice, whereas the spread of Christianity caused the western world to criticize and prohobit the practice.

That is a good thing. Actually, it's a great thing. A very great thing.


And for a thousand years and more pagans encouraged the practice as moral and helpful. The fact is that Christianity did result in first the discouragement of the practice and assistance to abandoned children, and then to an outright prohibition. You complaint it took 50 years when pagans encouraged the practice for more than a thousand.

It is "saying very much" to note that Christianity caused this. The Western World and its primary philosophies and religions encouraged infanticide. It now does not. Why? Because of Christianity. That is a historical fact. Yes, as my article pointed out, Judaism prohibited Infanticde too. In many ways, Christianity is just another branch of Judaism. But Judaism had been part of the pagan world for several hundred years and failed to impat its religion and values about infanticide to a significant part of the pagan world.

But Christianity did.

Now wait a minute. I can see how your list go to be so lopsided. You count as "bad" everything those claiming to be Christian did while ignore all the "good" those claiming to be Christians do. "Christian" wars are counted as Christian evils even though brutal wars of conquest and exploitation preexisted Christianity by many thousands of years and existed and exist outside the Christian world.

But when I show you that Christianity IN FACT changed Western attitudes from pro-infanticide to anti-infanticide, you refuse to count it beause a rather small religious group that influenced few people on the issue had the idea "first."

Or, despite the fact that Christianity has indisputably been a source of tremendous charity, you discount it because you claim others are charitable too. Very hypocritical. No wonder you got the list you did. Your unreasonable methods guaranteed that outcome.

Quite an uncritical double-standard on your part.

What is your evidence for this? In my article I presented evidence that religous people are more likely to be charitable--with their money and their time.

What kind of excuse is that? Whatever the morality of this position, it does not mean that Christianity and Atheism had contributed equally to charity. If it's a fact that atheists cannot bring themselves to organize to help others, then that is just a fact about atheism. Excusing it does not change the fact that Christianity has resulted in a tremendous amount of charitable assistance to others.

The numbers disagree with you. As do the names of the succesful organizations, like the Red Cross or the Salvation Army, or the Young Men's Christian Association.

Wishful thinking and a double-standard are not a very compelling method of anlaysis.

Your "research" is a stacked deck.

Dr Rick

It is really disheartening to see this kind of drivel in response to a direct question, but these random rantings are useful as a cautious reminder that, given the chance, some apologists will not just dismiss the past but also seek justifications for it even as they tentatively disavow it. Most Christians actually agree that the Inquistions were evil and do not try to rationalize them, but tragically, because they are guided by faith in such matters, they could conceivably acquiesce to those that would allow a return to the horrors. That is a sadly recurrent theme though-out much of history.

Rick

Dr Rick

Let's keep it simple and just evaluate those things done in the name of Christian beliefs: the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the Thirty Years War, the conquest of the Americas, the "ethnic cleansing" of Bosnia, and the war in Northern Ireland are well-known starters.

That is "a zero sum game;" balancing the murders of millions, including babies, against a hypocritical stance explicitly and repeatedly violated by it's proponents.

Those same beliefs underlie the suffering of millions because of the over-population encouraged by Christianity.

Christianity has and still does to this day blocked almost every attempt to bring relief to a wretched, over-populated planet by opposing family-planning and contraception.

That's because the Jews weren't the succesful conquerers that Christians were. Christianity and its standards weren't merely proposed as an alternative to paganism ; they were forced upon hapless nation-states through terrible wars and the murders of millions.

So what? Christianity is just one of many horrible excuses used to inflict suffering.
Brutal wars of conquest and exploitation are part of history, and Christianity added much to the suffering.

That small group just wasn't as good at conquest as the Christians were.

The charitable good works of Christians are of no benefit to those that were kllled for their beliefs.

The YMCA, the Salvation Army, and the Red Cross don't really help the victims of Christian-motivated conquest and murders.

Rick

Fr.Andrew

(Layman): Doesn't sound very scientific.
(Fr Andrew): Not meant to be.

(Layman): Are you doing this as a zero sum game, judging pre-Christian and post-Christian changes, or just labelling everything done by something claiming to be a Christian as a "bad" effect of Christainity?
(Fr Andrew): No, it's really pretty simple. And it's not just about Christianity, so if you're going to get bogged down in that, we can end the exchange.
Generally, additions to my list are actions taken by individuals (or groups) claiming to act out of religious conviction. For instance, parents who withhold medication from their children on religious grounds. Or Hitler's infamous declaration that, in killing Jews, he was "...fighting for the work of the Lord." That sort of thing.
My hope is that by showing the disparity between the demonstrable good that religion has done man---and the demonstrable harm---more people will come to reject religious superstition. It's a long shot, but I do what I can.

(Layman): No, the best that can be said is that BECAUSE of Christainity, the Western World has developed an ethos against Infanticide.
(Fr Andrew): As I said, Christianity picked up the ball from Judaism and ran with it. If Paul had never seen the light of day, the western world, through the efforts of Judaism, would have come to reject infanticide.
At any rate, infanticide is on the list as a harm of religion.

(Layman): This is a rather uncritical assesment. Since the Church was growing fast and most of the new converts were former pagans, of course the Christian leaders had to teach these former pagans that infanticide was wrong. They had probably never heard of such a prohibition before converting.
(Fr Andrew): Grasping at straws, I think. There is nothing to indicate that such admonishments were addressed to recent converts rather than to 2nd and 3rd generation Christians.

(Layman): But you are really missing the point. It is most likely that some, perhaps many, Christians continued to indulge in this pagan practice.
(Fr Andrew): I think probably so.

(Layman): But the fact of history is that pagans sanctioned and encouraged the practice, whereas the spread of Christianity caused the western world to criticize and prohobit the practice.
(Fr Andrew): Or, in the absense of Christianity, the spread of Judaism or Islam into the western world would have done the same.

(Layman): That is a good thing. Actually, it's a great thing. A very great thing.
(Fr Andrew): I agree.


(Layman): The fact is that Christianity did result in first the discouragement of the practice and assistance to abandoned children, and then to an outright prohibition.
(Fr Andrew): You're mistaken. It is not the case that Christianity was the first religion to discourage the practice of infanticide. Judaism was. And if you consider a divine commandment allegedly given devout followers as an outright prohibition, they were also the first to have an outright prohibition.

(Layman): Yes, as my article pointed out, Judaism prohibited Infanticde too.
(Fr Andrew): Bingo!

(Layman): In many ways, Christianity is just another branch of Judaism.
(Fr Andrew): Yar!! Har, har!!

(Layman): But Judaism had been part of the pagan world for several hundred years and failed to impat its religion and values about infanticide to a significant part of the pagan world.
(Fr Andew): Judaism was not adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire. Had it been, you'd be giving the credit to Judaism for discouraging infanticide. Christianity was in the right place at the right time...that's the most you can say about it.

(Layman): You count as "bad" everything those claiming to be Christian did while ignore all the "good" those claiming to be Christians do.
(Fr Andrew): No...as I explained above,if someone does something bad and says he did it because of his religious convictions, he goes in the "harm" list. If he does something good and says he did it because of his religious convictions, he goes on the "benefit" list.

(Layman): "Christian" wars are counted as Christian evils even though brutal wars of conquest and exploitation preexisted Christianity by many thousands of years and existed and exist outside the Christian world.
(Fr Andew): If you can show that brutal wars of conquest and exploitation were fought over a lack of religious belief, they will go on the list.

(Layman): But when I show you that Christianity IN FACT changed Western attitudes from pro-infanticide to anti-infanticide, you refuse to count it beause a rather small religious group that influenced few people on the issue had the idea "first."
(Fr Andrew): Not at all. I include infanticide as a harm of religion and I include religious prohibitions against the practice as a plus. It's sort of a wash.

(Layman): Or, despite the fact that Christianity has indisputably been a source of tremendous charity, you discount it because you claim others are charitable too.
(Fr Andrew): It's a wonder that you can walk upright with that chip on your shoulder.
And your clairvoyent ability is remarkable.
I have listed benevolent contributions by religious people when they are affirmed as as the result of religious devotion. If you think I'm going to list every dollar contributed to the United Way or the YMCA because they were founded by Christians, you've got another think coming. I'll list the founder of the United Way if he said that his religious conviction is what motivated him, but that's as far as I'll go until the motivations of each contributor is known.

(Fr Andrew-previously): Non-theists, although no less benevolent individually,
(Layman): What is your evidence for this?
(Fr Andrew): A lifetime spent working and talking with people from each group.

(Fr Andrew-previoulsy): "...are notoriously hard to organize--"
(Layman): What kind of excuse is that?
(Fr Andew): It's not...it's a statement of fact.

(Layman): "...Christianity has resulted in a tremendous amount of charitable assistance to others.
(Fr Andew): I think that it would be more fair to say that people who label themselves "Christian" contribute a tremendous amount of charitable assistance to others. But then, so do those who label themselves "Jewish", or "Hindu", or "Muslim"...or "non-believer".
I really don't think Christianity (or any religion) creates benevolence in people who are not ordinarily charitable--I think that charitable people are drawn to religion and religious charity as an outlet for their benevolence.

Dr Rick

In stark contrast to Roman and modern European justice, the Inquisitional "trial by ordeal" was predicated upon the belief that the innocent would be divinely protected from the pain and harm of torture.

Rick

Layman

Feel free to end the exchange. Since religions have different creeds, beliefs, and histories, it's absurd to caterogize them as one belief system.

As you admit, very unscientific. Hitler was not trying to take over the world or kill the Jews because of his religious beliefs. He did so because he wanted to take over the world and the Jews were a convenient scapegoat. You take one statement by Hitler completely at face value but deny that the YMCA or the Salvation Army were really benefits of religion.

Like I said, your entire "analysis" is devoted to ensuring you get the result you want.

If you want anyone to take you seriously, you should take your task, methods, and history seriously. Otherwise your just sprouting baseless propoganda and encouraging prejudice.

Completely speculative. There is no evidence or historical trends to indicate that infanticide was going to fall in disfavor. Indeed, the Jewish opposition to infanticide was dismissed by pagan critics as wickedness itself.

You are employing sheer fantasy to completely ignore the good done in the name of religion. Your methods are engineered to promote anti-religious prejudice.

Yikes! I think you are projecting here. Assuming that pagans would have simply rejected infanticide on their own -- having held to it for a thousand years and more --is grasping at straws. Noting that Christianity, spreading a rather Jewish ethic to a pagan audience, had to cope with incoming pagans and their beliefs systems fits the historical situation exactly. Writings like the Didache, which prohibited infanticide, are considered by historians to be instruction manuals for new converts.

Which is an irrelevant point.

And a contribution of Christianity. And, I'll agree, of Judaism and Islam as well.


Since I explicitly stated in my article that Christianity inherited its opposition to infanticide from Judaism, I can only assume that did not read the article. Is that correct?

And I did not here say that Christainity was the first religion to prohibit infanticide, I can only assume that you are intentionally distorting my current posts, are are failing to read them closely.

What I said was that Christianity lead to a change in the wider Hellenized culture: first it instilled an ethos against infanticide. Then it lead to its prohibition the empire wide.

And once again you have shown yourself to be rigging the analysis to avoid having to admit a "good." First you claim you will not discuss Christianity specifically, but only religion generally. Then you say that opposition to infanticide does not count as a "good" because other religions also prohibited it.

If you had bothered to read my article or my previous post, you could have avoided this misunderstanding. If you have any real intereste in avoiding such misunderstandings that is.

Christianity worships the same God, incorporated their scriptures, respects the same "founders" such as Abraham and Moses, and practices much of the same moral code, such as prohibitions against infanticide and sexual immorality.

Yes, if Judaism had been adopted as the state religioin of the Roman Empire I would give it credit for discouraging infanticide. And rightly so. Because the pagans were not going to do so. But what happened is that Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. And Christianity, in fact, is the reason the western world has an ethos against infanticide.

But whether it was Christianity or could have been Judaism, by your own standard, "religion" is the reason for its prohibition and therefore this would be a "good" of religon--by your own standards. If you had any interset in applying your own standards fairly that is.

No, you've completely ignored a very great good that is directly traced to Christianity. You do so by erroneously arguing that the pagans would have outlawed it anyway. You do so by hypocritically arguing that the Jews were the first to do so and therefore it does not count.

You should really go back to the drawing board and rethink how you analyze history and how you "count" your goods and bads. That is, if you have any interest in real historical inquiry.

I can show that the Romans engaged in brutal wars and exploitation before and after they became Christians. There does not seem to be any detectable "increase" in warfare because of Christianity, unless you think you can show otherwise. And dedicated atheistic states like Soviet Russia engaged in their own brutal wars and persecutions.

How have you established that infanticide is a "harm" of religion? And since not all religions are the same, why should a religion that has completely changed Western conceptions of infanticide for the better be credited with the "harm" of a completely different belief system?

The only reason I can think of is that it serves your purposes.

So are you just doing a head count or are you measuring the impact of the contributions? Once again you seem to be shifting in and out and changing the standard in order to fit your agenda. The "impact" of the establishment of the Red Cross and the United Way and the Salvation Army based on religious values is tremendous.

Completely anectdotal. And since you as the evaluator are obviously biased and manipulate your "methods" to acheive the desired result, completely untrustworthy. Besides, I provided the polls showing that religious people are in fact more charitable than nonreligious people.

Yes, a fact which shows that religion has caused more "good" by its charitable organization.

Actually, non-believers are not as likely to give to charity as believers. And if people are caused to give by their Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism, those are "goods" prompted by "religion" in general.

That's a convenient assumption for you, but the facts are that religious people are more likely to give to charity. Religion is better at organizing charitable assistance. And Christianity cause a net increase in charitable giving and ethos in the western world.

brighid

Here are a few notable atheists/non-theists who contribute to the world's people WITHOUT discrimination, unlike such sectarian charities like the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, or even good ol' Mother Theresa:

Ted Turner -The Turner Foundation, founded in 1990, gives millions to environmental causes, and in 1994, Turner himself gave $200 million to charity.
His promised gift of $1 billion to a new foundation to support the United Nations, announced in September, 1997, may be the largest single donation by a private individual in history. (In comparison, all charitable giving by Americans in 1996 was approximately $120 billion.)
http://abcnews.go.com/reference/bios/turner.html

Bill Gates - Microsoft chairman Bill Gates will announce plans on Thursday to donate at least $1bn to fund full college scholarships for minority students, by far his biggest charitable contribution to date. Gates' biggest single contribution was $200m to libraries in the United States and Canada, largely to bring Internet access to poor communities. He also has donated $100m toward bringing vaccines to children in developing countries, $50m to develop a vaccine for malaria and $50m to help reduce maternal deaths in developing countries.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2073759,00.html


Then there is George Soros - http://www.soros.org/ - his charitable contributions are hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

And too many to list. I also found that religious people give just as often to secular charities ... hmmmm .... secular charities ...

Brighid

Edited to add: Just how much money does it take to make up for the murder or one person, let alone tens of thousands to millions? Personally I don't think there is enough charitable action is ALL Of Christendom, through out the whole of it's collective history to make up for that kind of loss. I think it's the least they can do.

Fr.Andrew

(Layman): Since religions have different creeds, beliefs, and histories, it's absurd to caterogize them as one belief system.
(Fr Andrew): I define religion as the belief that a supernatural power has some or total control over one's life. That belief is shared by Christians and pagans alike. No absurdity.

(Layman): Hitler was not trying to take over the world or kill the Jews because of his religious beliefs.
(Fr Andrew): He said he was. How do you know otherwise?

(Layman): He did so because he wanted to take over the world and the Jews were a convenient scapegoat.
(Fr Andrew): Do you have a quote to that effect? I have his written word that it was because of his belief that he was doing the will of God.

(Layman): You take one statement by Hitler completely at face value but deny that the YMCA or the Salvation Army were really benefits of religion.
(Fr Andrew): I haven't denied that the YMCA or the SA are benefits of religion. I've only said that I wasn't going to assume that every contribution made was the result of the donor's religious convictions. If you can provide evidence to that effect, let me know and I'll add them to the list.

(Layman): Like I said, your entire "analysis" is devoted to ensuring you get the result you want.
(Fr Andrew): I'm not analyzing anything. I'm just a list keeper. I let the person reading and comparing the lists do the interpretation.

(Layman): If you want anyone to take you seriously, you should take your task, methods, and history seriously. Otherwise your just sprouting baseless propoganda and encouraging prejudice.
(Fr Andrew): Actually, I'm taken fairly serious by more open-minded, less belligerent people, but I thank you for your advice and shall file it in the appropriate place.

(Layman): Indeed, the Jewish opposition to infanticide was dismissed by pagan critics as wickedness itself.
(Fr Andrew): I assume your reference is to Tacitus' polemic against the Jews. But he also indicated a change in attitude about the practice among fellow pagans, for he had praise for the Germans, writing, "Setting a limit to the number of children or killing a late-born [full term] child is considered a sin, and good customs accomplish more here than good laws elsewhere."--Germania

(Layman): You are employing sheer fantasy to completely ignore the good done in the name of religion.
(Fr Andrew): Can you get some help with comprehension? Where have I said that I was completely ignoring the good done in the name of religion?

(Layman): Your methods are engineered to promote anti-religious prejudice.
(Fr Andrew): You continue to misrepresent my methodology.

(Layman-previously): It is most likely that some, perhaps many, Christians continued to indulge in this pagan practice.
(Fr Andrew-previously): I think probably so.
(Layman-currently): Which is an irrelevant point.
(Fr Andew): Then why did you raise it?

(Layman): And a contribution of Christianity. And, I'll agree, of Judaism and Islam as well.
(Fr Andrew): Yay!

(Layman): Since I explicitly stated in my article that Christianity inherited its opposition to infanticide from Judaism, I can only assume that did not read the article. Is that correct?
(Fr Andrew): That's correct. I was going by remarks in this thread such as: "The fact is that Christianity did result in first the (sic) discouragement of the practice."
I say again, that's not true. Judaism discouraged the practice before Christianity came on the scene.

(Layman): And I did not here say that Christainity was the first religion to prohibit infanticide
(Fr Andrew): Sure you did. You said, "The fact is that Christianity did result in first the discouragement of the practice and assistance to abandoned children, and then to an outright prohibition."

(Layman): I can only assume that you are intentionally distorting my current posts,, are are failing to read them closely.
(Fr Andrew): I can only assume that you're parsing your words to avoid having to deal with what you actually said.

(Layman): Then you say that opposition to infanticide does not count as a "good" because other religions also prohibited it.
(Fr Andrew): Here's what I said in my last post, Layman:
"I include infanticide as a harm of religion and I include religious prohibitions against the practice as a plus. It's sort of a wash."

(Layman): But what happened is that Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.
(Fr Andrew): What I said. Right place, right time. Pure happenstance.

(Layman): And Christianity, in fact, is the reason the western world has an ethos against infanticide.
(Fr Andrew): There you go again. In fact it's not. You've already admitted that it came to them from the Jews. The Jews are "the reason the western world has an ethos against infanticide."
And there is no reason to suppose that Christianity would have evolved a prohibition against infanticide if they had not inherited it from the Jews.

(Layman): But whether it was Christianity or could have been Judaism, by your own standard, "religion" is the reason for its prohibition and therefore this would be a "good" of religon--by your own standards.
(Fr Andrew): I've already said that it was. Twice now.
Is English your primary language?

(Layman): You've completely ignored a very great good that is directly traced to Christianity.
(Fr Andrew): If you're still talking about the discouragement of infanticide, it is not directly traced to Christianity. By your own admission.
Actually, I've got quite a list of good that can be laid to religion in general and to Christianity in particular. It's just that it's quite short when compared to the list of harm done by religion in general and by Christianity in particular.

(Layman): You do so by erroneously arguing that the pagans would have outlawed it anyway.
(Fr Andrew): I'm sorry...where have I argued that? I've said that the gradual evolution of humane thought would probably have taken care of the problem, but I have no way of knowing (neither do you) and certainly wouldn't argue the point.

(Layman): "You do so by hypocritically arguing that the Jews were the first to do so..."
(Fr Andrew): How is it hypocritical to tell the truth? The Jews were the first (long before Christianity) to discourage infanticide and outlaw the practice. It's disingenuous of you to assert otherwise.
(Layman): "...and therefore it does not count."
(Fr Andrew): This is three times, now, that I've told you that I count the discouragement of infanticide as a plus of religion. I think you've gotten all the mileage out of misrepresenting me on this issue that you can hope for.

(Layman): I can show that the Romans engaged in brutal wars and exploitation before and after they became Christians.
(Fr Andrew): Can you show that they were caused by religious belief? If not, they're irrelevent to either of my lists.

(Layman): There does not seem to be any detectable "increase" in warfare because of Christianity, unless you think you can show otherwise. And dedicated atheistic states like Soviet Russia engaged in their own brutal wars and persecutions.
(Fr Andrew): More irrelevencies.

(Layman): Feel free to end the exchange.
(Fr Andrew): Done!