Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 01-16-2003, 06:56 PM

I'm starting to think that this whole "Christianity is evil" thing would be more appropriate in Miscellaneous Religious Discussions or some forum other than Biblical Criticism & Archaeology.

best,
Peter Kirby

Dr Rick · 01-16-2003, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
I could just as easily say that Christianity has saved and reduced suffering for millions and millions of people. And offer examples like banning infanticide, promoting charity, encouraging masterpeices of art like the Sistine Chapel and Handel's Messiah, etc., etc., etc.

You could just about say most anything you want; you live in a secular nation that cherishes such things.

Do you really believe the Sistine Chapel and other works of art somehow mitigate the terror and murders of milliions that have been committed in the name of the deity you worship?

How, by the way, do you think Christianity bans infanticide when the Bible has explicit tales of commands from god condoning and demanding the killing of babies?

Rick

99Percent · 01-16-2003, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
I'm starting to think that this whole "Christianity is evil" thing would be more appropriate in Miscellaneous Religious Discussions or some forum other than Biblical Criticism & Archaeology.

best,
Peter Kirby

I agree.

01-17-2003, 01:42 AM

To all: please note that I am NOT defending the Inquisition and never have. Also, note that I am NOT claiming that Christianity did not help cause witch trials - I think it played a major part in linking peasant beliefs to diabolism. Simply calling Dr Rick on his millions and millions crap does not involve condoning the reality.

Sojourner,

First a big thank you for keeping things in perspective and I hope me saying that does not mean you get into even more trouble with the headbangers.

You asked: "My interest was how the Inquisition addressed �bad� magic, not good magic. Did your quote address both?"

Sorry, I misunderstood your interest here. Maleficia is magic that causes harm (bad magic) and is what witches are accused of (together with devil worship). The authorities were usually not bothered with the wise women and cunning men found in every village doing folk healing, nature magic and divination etc, unless they got caught up in a witch hunt. The Inquistion did worry about these people as they thought that even magic used to do good was wrong (as it came from diabolic powers).

If the Inquisition thought they had proved you had hurt someone with magic, I expect you would be in very big trouble. But this was hard to prove using the evidential procedures they had. It was much easier to prove a wise woman was selling charms - you did not have to prove to charms worked to nail her. But in this case the punishment would be relatively mild unless you were a repeat offender. As she was not practicing maleficia she was not what people thought of as a witch and might be quite popular in her village. There is loads on popular magic in Keith Thomas's magnum opus "Religion and the Decline of Magic" which deals with England (so nothing on the Inquisition) but gives a fascinating glimpse of a forgotten culture.

"I thought we agreed Scholastics began interpreting most (if not all) magic as having its source from the Devil and was therefore evil. I do not see how you are �connecting the dots� to imply �good� magic is suddenly relevent during the time period of the witch trials."

Agreed, but I must now add one more point. It seems that figures like Albertus Magnus in his Specula Astronimae were willing to allow what we might call 'magic' but they were less sure about. As long as spirits were not involved you could make a case for things like the weapon salve, sympathetic healing (which Francis Bacon believed in), astrological sigils and stuff as just about OK. You will note that this is learned magic so does not help our witch very much. Others, fllowing Augustine and probably the dominant school, thought that the whole lot was out of order and came from the devil. My course at the moment is 'Renaissance Science, Religion and Magic' and the professor does not thing there is much difference between the three.

Out of interest, here is my bibliography from my witches essay (but Levack is definitely the place to start):

Briggs, Robin Witches and Neighbours London 1996
Clark, Stuart 'Inversion, Misrule and the Meaning of Witchcraft' Past and Present 87 1980
Clark, Stuart Thinking with Demons Oxford 1997
Guskin, Phyllis J 'The Context of Witchcraft: The Case of Jane Wenham (1712)" Eighteenth-Century Studies 15:1 1981
Horsley, Richard A 'Who Were the Witches? The Social Roles of the Accused in European Witch Trials' Journal of Interdisciplinary History 9:4 1979
Jobe, Thomas Harmon 'The Devil in Restoration Science: the Glanvill-Webster Witchcraft Debate' Isis 72:3 1981
Levack Brian P The Witch-hunt in Early Modern Europe Harlow 1995
Monter, E William 'The Historiography of European Witchcraft: Progress and Prospects' Journal of Interdisciplinary History 2:4 1972
Monter, E William 'Witchcraft in Geneva, 1537 - 1662' The Journal of Modern History 43:2 1971
Peters, Edward Inquisition Berkeley 1989
Soman, Alfred 'The Parlement of Paris and the Great Witch Hunt (1545-1640)' Sixteenth Century Journal 9:2 1978
Thomas, Keith Religion and the Decline of Magic London 1971

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Shake · 01-17-2003, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos
Catholic is just opposite to Christian in that Catholics are sinners ans Christians are not (to be set free from the law is to be free of sin, 1jn.3:9). The Catholic religion as a means to the end means that when Catholics become Christian they are no longer Catholic but Christian.

Christianity was introduced by the reformation when protestants wanted to be counted among the righteous and assured a place in heaven after they died. The problem the Catholic church has with this that our God is a God for the living and not for the dead. This kind of means that we are to enjoy heaven while alive on this earth and not after we die when it is too late.

Umm... wrong! From Dictionary.com:

Quote:

Chris�tian ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krschn)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Catholics most certainly are Christians! Ask any Catholic, and they'll tell you that they are! I know quite a few, and they all consider themselves Christians. Also from Dictionary.com:

Quote:

Catholic...
b. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
(italics added)

Now, I have noticed a trend within the last few years here in the States, where born-again fundy types are referring to themselves as "Christians," but if you're not their flavor, even though you believe in Jesus as the son of God, you're not a Christian. Just look at the root of the word: Christian! A follower of Christ. Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Pentecostals, etc. are all Christians! Specific issues such as transubstatiation, the role of Mary, holy rites, who can be allowed in the clergy, etc. all vary from sect to sect of Christianity, but, let me make this point one more time, all followers of Christ are considered Christians! Go ask a Muslim or a Jew what a Christian is. I'm sure you'll get the same response.

Also, I apologize because I haven't had the chance to fully read the whole thread, but has anything been said about the Salem Witch Trials? If memory serves, women were executed for being witches with little more than accusations from other townsfolk as "evidence." I don't recall their religious background exactly, I think they were Puritans (correct me if I'm wrong).

Dr Rick · 01-17-2003, 06:16 AM

Bede has taken one aspect of the Inquisitons, the witch-hunts, and trivialized (since he's not "defending") the suffering and death Christianity brought to the world, ignoring that "the total number of Manichaeans, Arians, Priscillianists, Paulicians, Bogomiles, Cathari, Waldensians, Albigensians, witches, Lollards, Hussites, Jews and Protestants killed because of their rebellion against Rome clearly runs to many millions ."

"The total number of deaths due to the Crusades had been estimated at around nine million, at least half of which were Christians. Many of these were simply innocent civilians caught in the carnage."

Rick

Layman · 01-17-2003, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
You could just about say most anything you want; you live in a secular nation that cherishes such things.

America's population is and always has been, overwhelmingly self-identified as Christians.

Quote:

Do you really believe the Sistine Chapel and other works of art somehow mitigate the terror and murders of milliions that have been committed in the name of the deity you worship?

You have not established the murder of "millions" by any stretch of the imagination.

Do you think that the bad deeds done in the name of God elminate the millions of people Christianity has saved or eased suffering for?

Quote:

How, by the way, do you think Christianity bans infanticide when the Bible has explicit tales of commands from god condoning and demanding the killing of babies?

Because those are the historical facts. You do know what historical facts are?

I explained this in depth here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...ht=infanticide

Some relevant excerpts:

Quote:

Christians worked against infanticide by prohibiting its members from practicing it, voicing their moral view on infanticide to the pagan world, and by providing for the relief of the poor and actually taking in and supporting babies which had been left to die by exposure by their pagan parents. As Robin Lane Fox explains in his classic, Pagans and Christians, "to the poor, the widows and orphans, Christians gave alms and support, like the synagogue communities, their forerunners. This 'brotherly love' has been minimized as a reason for turning to the Church, as if only those who were members could know of it. In fact, it was widely recognized." Id. at 324. According to Durant, "in many instances Christians rescued exposed infant, baptized them, and brought them up with the aid of community funds." Caesar and Christ, at 598. Through these efforts, Christians worked to diminish some of the causes of infanticide.

Yet so long as Christianity was an illegal religion, persecuted by the same culture that murdered their own babies, it had little chance of enacting policies that discouraged--or even banned--infanticide. Finally, however, with the Edict of Milan--which legalized the practice of Christianity--Christian leaders began to exert their influence on the Roman emperors regarding infanticide. Immediately after his conversion, Constantine--the first Christian Emperor--enacted two measures targeting the problem of infanticide: 1) Constantine provided funds out of the imperial treasury for parents over-burdened with children; and 2) Constantine gave all the rights of property of exposed infants to those who saved and supported them. But more generally, Constantine broadened the scope of imperial charity and provided assistance for the poor and needy. "He also acknowledged the new ideal of charity. Previous emperors had encouraged schemes to support small numbers of children in less favored families, the future recruits for their armies. Constantine gave funds to the churches to support the poor, the widow and orphans." And according to Robin L. Fox, the church used those funds for charity. "Swollen by the Emperor's gifts, it helped the old, the infirm, and the destitute." Pagans and Christians, at 668.

Although the church, with the assistance of the government, was working to address many of the causes of infanticide, it continued to pressure Rome for a ban on infanticide. Bishop Basil of Caesarea argued persistently and persuasively for such a ban. Finally, he convinced Emperor Valentinian (364-375 CE)--a Christian--outlawed the practice of infanticide in the Roman Empire.

01-17-2003, 10:19 AM

Dr Rick,

As I have explained to others, linking to the work of internet scribblers and out of date anti-Christian polemic is not going to win you any arguments. I am a history graduate student at a wholly secular university and hence demand rather better sources than you have offered. Specifically: modern academic historigraphy, journal articles or primary sources. You can find some of this on the net but you need to be discerning. Otherwise, try a library.

If you don't want to do the work of looking at real history, that is fine, but please keep your crap out of serious conversations. If you can countenance a nine million death toll for the crusades you are really not worth bothering with. You've been added to my ignore list until you show some ability to think.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

seebs · 01-17-2003, 10:29 AM

One of my all-time favorite quotes was from a rabid anti-Catholic who claimed that a specific Pope killed "100,000 million people" during the middle ages. The guy was only pope for 17 years. Doing that would have been a verifiable miracle, I think.

GunnerJ · 01-17-2003, 10:53 AM

Quote:

One of my all-time favorite quotes was from a rabid anti-Catholic who claimed that a specific Pope killed "100,000 million people" during the middle ages. The guy was only pope for 17 years. Doing that would have been a verifiable miracle, I think.

Are you sure you have the number right? If so, the age of the pope would really be irrelevent; 100,000 million is about twenty times higher than the current world population, let alone the world population in the middle ages.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-16-2003, 06:56 PM	#51
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	I'm starting to think that this whole "Christianity is evil" thing would be more appropriate in Miscellaneous Religious Discussions or some forum other than Biblical Criticism & Archaeology. best, Peter Kirby

01-17-2003, 01:42 AM	#54
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	To all: please note that I am NOT defending the Inquisition and never have. Also, note that I am NOT claiming that Christianity did not help cause witch trials - I think it played a major part in linking peasant beliefs to diabolism. Simply calling Dr Rick on his millions and millions crap does not involve condoning the reality. Sojourner, First a big thank you for keeping things in perspective and I hope me saying that does not mean you get into even more trouble with the headbangers. You asked: "My interest was how the Inquisition addressed �bad� magic, not good magic. Did your quote address both?" Sorry, I misunderstood your interest here. Maleficia is magic that causes harm (bad magic) and is what witches are accused of (together with devil worship). The authorities were usually not bothered with the wise women and cunning men found in every village doing folk healing, nature magic and divination etc, unless they got caught up in a witch hunt. The Inquistion did worry about these people as they thought that even magic used to do good was wrong (as it came from diabolic powers). If the Inquisition thought they had proved you had hurt someone with magic, I expect you would be in very big trouble. But this was hard to prove using the evidential procedures they had. It was much easier to prove a wise woman was selling charms - you did not have to prove to charms worked to nail her. But in this case the punishment would be relatively mild unless you were a repeat offender. As she was not practicing maleficia she was not what people thought of as a witch and might be quite popular in her village. There is loads on popular magic in Keith Thomas's magnum opus "Religion and the Decline of Magic" which deals with England (so nothing on the Inquisition) but gives a fascinating glimpse of a forgotten culture. "I thought we agreed Scholastics began interpreting most (if not all) magic as having its source from the Devil and was therefore evil. I do not see how you are �connecting the dots� to imply �good� magic is suddenly relevent during the time period of the witch trials." Agreed, but I must now add one more point. It seems that figures like Albertus Magnus in his Specula Astronimae were willing to allow what we might call 'magic' but they were less sure about. As long as spirits were not involved you could make a case for things like the weapon salve, sympathetic healing (which Francis Bacon believed in), astrological sigils and stuff as just about OK. You will note that this is learned magic so does not help our witch very much. Others, fllowing Augustine and probably the dominant school, thought that the whole lot was out of order and came from the devil. My course at the moment is 'Renaissance Science, Religion and Magic' and the professor does not thing there is much difference between the three. Out of interest, here is my bibliography from my witches essay (but Levack is definitely the place to start): Briggs, Robin Witches and Neighbours London 1996 Clark, Stuart 'Inversion, Misrule and the Meaning of Witchcraft' Past and Present 87 1980 Clark, Stuart Thinking with Demons Oxford 1997 Guskin, Phyllis J 'The Context of Witchcraft: The Case of Jane Wenham (1712)" Eighteenth-Century Studies 15:1 1981 Horsley, Richard A 'Who Were the Witches? The Social Roles of the Accused in European Witch Trials' Journal of Interdisciplinary History 9:4 1979 Jobe, Thomas Harmon 'The Devil in Restoration Science: the Glanvill-Webster Witchcraft Debate' Isis 72:3 1981 Levack Brian P The Witch-hunt in Early Modern Europe Harlow 1995 Monter, E William 'The Historiography of European Witchcraft: Progress and Prospects' Journal of Interdisciplinary History 2:4 1972 Monter, E William 'Witchcraft in Geneva, 1537 - 1662' The Journal of Modern History 43:2 1971 Peters, Edward Inquisition Berkeley 1989 Soman, Alfred 'The Parlement of Paris and the Great Witch Hunt (1545-1640)' Sixteenth Century Journal 9:2 1978 Thomas, Keith Religion and the Decline of Magic London 1971 Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

01-17-2003, 06:16 AM	#56
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	Bede has taken one aspect of the Inquisitons, the witch-hunts, and trivialized (since he's not "defending") the suffering and death Christianity brought to the world, ignoring that "the total number of Manichaeans, Arians, Priscillianists, Paulicians, Bogomiles, Cathari, Waldensians, Albigensians, witches, Lollards, Hussites, Jews and Protestants killed because of their rebellion against Rome clearly runs to many millions ." "The total number of deaths due to the Crusades had been estimated at around nine million, at least half of which were Christians. Many of these were simply innocent civilians caught in the carnage." Rick

01-17-2003, 10:19 AM	#58
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Dr Rick, As I have explained to others, linking to the work of internet scribblers and out of date anti-Christian polemic is not going to win you any arguments. I am a history graduate student at a wholly secular university and hence demand rather better sources than you have offered. Specifically: modern academic historigraphy, journal articles or primary sources. You can find some of this on the net but you need to be discerning. Otherwise, try a library. If you don't want to do the work of looking at real history, that is fine, but please keep your crap out of serious conversations. If you can countenance a nine million death toll for the crusades you are really not worth bothering with. You've been added to my ignore list until you show some ability to think. Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

01-17-2003, 10:29 AM	#59
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	One of my all-time favorite quotes was from a rabid anti-Catholic who claimed that a specific Pope killed "100,000 million people" during the middle ages. The guy was only pope for 17 years. Doing that would have been a verifiable miracle, I think.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.