Tercel

But I don't hold that Communism is evil, just that it isn't a very good political system.

In forms of government we practice the one which works best. But I think you seem to be forgetting that we don't practice Christianity because it works best, but rather because we believe it to be true. Imagine professed believers in the General Theory of Relativity had slaughtered billions in its name. Would you then disbelieve it on moral grounds?
Of course not, you would believe what you believe is true because you believe it's true. Similarly you cannot seriously expect me to drop Christianity just because someone somewhere has done bad stuff in its name.

I don't approve of the things they did. I think they were acting in direct opposition to what I see as the teachings of Christianity.
We can repeat that Christians have done bad things till the cows come home, but it doesn't really help anything. I'm not them, I'm not responsible for their actions. What's the point of ranting at past acts - is it just to stir up hatred against present day Christians or is it supposed to be an emotional appeal against the truth of Chrisitianity?

I would say believing the truth because it's the truth is always worthwhile. But is what you're asking even a meaningful question? It's not as if you get to choose whether or not to have Christianity around and need to weigh up your options: It's here, so like it or lump it.

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

Vorkosigan

But I think you seem to be forgetting that we don't practice Christianity because it works best, but rather because we believe it to be true.

The inner logic of this concedes my point -- Christianity is inferior. The issue then becomes whether it is true.

Imagine professed believers in the General Theory of Relativity had slaughtered billions in its name. Would you then disbelieve it on moral grounds?

You've got it all wrong. There is nothing inherent in General Relativity that calls for the slaughter of billions. But that is not true of Christianity, both in structure and in doctrine.

Of course not, you would believe what you believe is true because you believe it's true. Similarly you cannot seriously expect me to drop Christianity just because someone somewhere has done bad stuff in its name.

The analogy fails because GR does not call for killing, but Christianity most certainly does. Christianity is not a convenient label that people attached to the bad stuff they committed; it's the reason the bad stuff was committed. That's the crucial point your response is avoiding.


I don't approve of the things they did. I think they were acting in direct opposition to what I see as the teachings of Christianity.

Historically, and even today, you are not in the majority.

What's the point of ranting at past acts...

They are not past acts. They are still with us. Been following the pedophilia accusations against the Church? The genocide trials of clerics in Rwanda? The ongoing Christian terrorism in Assam in India? The Christian on Christian violence in Ireland and in places in Africa? The Christian on Muslim violence in many places? The Christian struggle against secular democracy in the US? The past is still with us.

- is it just to stir up hatred against present day Christians or is it supposed to be an emotional appeal against the truth of Chrisitianity?

The latter. Christianity represents itself as a religion of love and peace. Maybe a few people find those things in it; they seem to be the kind that find that in any way of thought. But this religion of love and peace has marked its path with butchery and constant struggle against human progress. This contradicts its claims. This is not an emotional appeal, but a recognition that either Christianity is a lie or history is. You choose.

I would say believing the truth because it's the truth is always worthwhile. But is what you're asking even a meaningful question? It's not as if you get to choose whether or not to have Christianity around and need to weigh up your options: It's here, so like it or lump it.


What kind of point is this? I agree with your point about truth; but Christianity is not true, but nonsense, and mostly evil nonsense at that.

Yes, we do get to choose. Europe is well on its way to being almost entirely free of the evils of Christianity. It can be done.

Vorkosigan

Bede

Ok, so I didn't own up. I had a genuine question about whether the Askwhy bloke had any sources and didn't want to admit to being Bede as his pages are so full of poison I reckoned I'd just get a rant back. He had no sources and ranted anyway, so the whole thing was a waste of time.

Likewise with posing as Alexis. I wanted to know if someone who simply slavishly followed the critical historical party line would be denounced here as an apologist. In fact Peter Kirby thought I was agnostic while one of the head bangers (IntenSity, I think) thought Alexis was a conservative Christian. Oh well.

Vork is getting his knickers in a twist again. I fail to see what is unbalanced about suggesting context and besides, I suggested relevant scholarly works on Christian atrocities. I thought that might be helpful but clearly mindless diatribes from ignorant atheists are the preferred source of information. Perhaps Vork could provide some back up for all his claims rather than expecting we will all believe every word he says. Certainly, if the sceptical standards he uses towards the NT were also applied to his claims, we'd find it was all myth and polemic too.

At least Vork's very unbalanced rant in the previous post tells us all where he is coming from. I think we can lump him in with the Gospel writers as a man on mission.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Anunnaki

Tercel,
I`m not going to quote you or even say much at all because I woke up in a good mood for a change and would like to keep it like that.
I`d like to have a nice Christianity free day.

I`ll be honest here and say that I still haven`t read through everything on that page. The main reason I posted it here was because of Bedes` antics. We had discussed that site sometime last year when I was told by a moderator here that James H. was indeed Bede and I found it to be rather amusing.
Maybe there is a lot of crap on that page,but theres little doubt that Christianity did destroy Classical culture and ushered in the dark ages.
Just like theres little doubt that Christians,when they finally got power,were just as cruel to others as those in power before them. It has more to do with human nature than it does with gods and supernatural mumbo jumbo,although it does seem odd since Christianity is supposed to be all about love.

And as far as the opinions of Bede and other aplogists go,I have a hard time trusting them. I mean we`re talking about people hell bent on proving something that is so obviously not true.
It`s one thing for my grandmother to believe in Jesus. She knew very little about the bible and history and just went with the bits and pieces she was told by her church and equally ignorant parents.
It`s a whole different matter for people such as Bede and yourself to believe in Jesus. You guys have *supposably* studied this up,down,inside and out and STILL come away thinking it`s all true. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Not only do you guys believe it to be true,but are hell bent on trying to turn your own water into wine with the all the evidence when you present it to us. I find this mindset to be very scary and just can`t trust anything apologists say about anything.
You might as well try to convince me that it used to rain chocolate milk in Galilee while you`re at it.

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

Ales

As to the atrocities committed in the name of or by Christian authorities I learned that there is a detailed exposition covering the wide range of Christian history written by Karlheinz Deschner: “Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums”. So far 7 volumes have been issued:

Band 1 (1986) - Die Frühzeit
Band 2 (1988) - Die Spätantike
Band 3 (1990) - Die Alte Kirche
Band 4 (1994) - Frühmittelalter
Band 5 (1997) - 9. und 10. Jahrhundert
Band 6 (1999) - Das 11. und 12. Jahrhundert
Band 7 (2002) - Das 13. und 14. Jahrhundert

I have heard that K. Deschner was taken to court by German Christians but he won his case. K. Deschner is a laureate of many prizes including the International Humanist Award (1993). Those who read German can find more information about his life and his prolific work at:

<a href="http://www.deschner.info" target="_blank">www.deschner.info</a>

I started to learn German : )

brighid

You might want to look at this timeline about the Catholic Church and it’s history of acts very similar to those that took place in Nazi Germany. <a href="http://www.mcgill.pvt.k12.al.us/jerryd/Timeline.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mcgill.pvt.k12.al.us/jerryd/Timeline.htm</a>

Familiarize yourself with Hitler, Christianity and its influence on his henchmen and the role it played in subduing Germany and entire nations into passively and actively partaking in the genocide.

<a href="http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm</a>

I also highly recommending a book endorsed by the Church as the manual for determining who is a witch, what one is to do with a witch, and why women are more susceptible to evil and temptation by Satan. <a href="http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jup/witches/books/mal_index.html" target="_blank">http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jup/witches/books/mal_index.html</a>

The 1st time I came across the Malleus Maleficarum I was enraged and sickened by it’s contents. At the time it sold only second to the Bible! It is misogyny at it’s worst! Be sure to review the Papal Bull that accompanies and supports it. But when one reads statements by the Founding Fathers of Christianity it becomes less astonishing that such an atrocious book could be published. They were simply being dutiful. <a href="http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/women.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/women.htm</a>

Some information about the Rwandan genocide and Christianities role: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/8409/rwanda1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/8409/rwanda1.htm</a>

The Crusades were 5 CENTURIES of Holy War against the rise of Islam! <a href="http://www.georgetown.edu/labyrinth/subjects/crusades/crusades.html" target="_blank">http://www.georgetown.edu/labyrinth/subjects/crusades/crusades.html</a>

The Inquisitions lasted even longer – in Spain up through the 18th century, even though the greatest persecution was during 15-16th centuries.
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/iberianinquisition/" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/iberianinquisition/</a>

Here are some detailed confessions from a 14th century French Inquisitor
<a href="http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/jfournhm.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/jfournhm.htm</a>

The questioning is truly interesting and frightening in their result. Men and women were burned at the stake for failing to take an oath of allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church and to give up others to the Inquisition.

I am sorry I do not have a statistical analysis to give hard numbers of people killed. I am not sure if there is one. But how many murdered people is enough to warrant distrust and a contempt for this faith and the foundations of blood shed, despotic control, propaganda and greed it has been built upon? Is it enough to say that these things happened centuries ago and aren’t relevant to today? Do we examine these atrocities for what they are worth and what role they played in developing dogma, attitudes, traditions and actions and apply those to present day circumstances? Is it EVER really moral to murder someone because a religious leader claiming to know a God’s word instructs its follower to destroy any group of people? Isn’t century upon century of tyranny, control, murder, torture, slavery, repression of women, etc. enough?

Brighid

Toto

There's no need to stir up hatred against Christians - Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson do the job for us.

And it's not an emotional appeal against Christianity. Christianity makes various claims about improving life, setting people free. When you see Christians acting against their own moral code, to the point where even the Pope feels a need to apologize, it is valid to ask if Christianity actually changes lives or improves people. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

And what is the "truth" of Christianity? Who's version of Christianity, and why did they have to burn other Christian heretics to prove it?

I'm starting to wonder if you are someone's sock puppet.

Vorkosigan

Vork is getting his knickers in a twist again. I fail to see what is unbalanced about suggesting context and besides, I suggested relevant scholarly works on Christian atrocities. I thought that might be helpful but clearly mindless diatribes from ignorant atheists are the preferred source of information.

Poor Bede. Busted again omitting crucial information.

Perhaps Vork could provide some back up for all his claims rather than expecting we will all believe every word he says.

ROTFL. My back-up is called "history." What are you saying, that the Christians didn't conduct crusades in Europe against heretics? That there were no religious wars? That the Europeans did not stamp out native religions and destroy their cultures? That missionary work is not an attempt to wipe out competing belief systems? CAn you make a precise point? Or are you just going to express your usual helpless frustration with...

...Certainly, if the sceptical standards he uses towards the NT were also applied to his claims, we'd find it was all myth and polemic too.

...Yep. All het up over some skeptic regarding your religion with the same cold eye he regards all others. Discovered you have no effective argument, haven't you? Speaking of which, are you ever going to give us this amazing methodology that is going to make history out of the legends in the NT?

At least Vork's very unbalanced rant in the previous post tells us all where he is coming from. I think we can lump him in with the Gospel writers as a man on mission.

This from a man who worships in a Church that is busy canonizing the Croatian Nazi leader Stepanic, just canonized Padre Pio, a man its own investigation says is a fraud, and accuses children of seducing priests? You look quite ugly in apologist's clothing, Bede.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Likewise with posing as Alexis. I wanted to know if someone who simply slavishly followed the critical historical party line would be denounced here as an apologist. In fact Peter Kirby thought I was agnostic while one of the head bangers (IntenSity, I think) thought Alexis was a conservative Christian. Oh well.

Yes, Intensity had you pegged. I always thought there was something wrong with Alexis, but couldn't put my finger on it. That's why I didn't interact with Alexis much. Now I know why.

Were you denounced as an apologist? I don't recall that.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Let's document:

<a href="http://www.jasenovac.org/" target="_blank">http://www.jasenovac.org/</a>
Site on Jasenovac Death Camp, run by a Catholic Cleric. The Ustashe, the Croatian Nazis, were closely linked to the Catholic Church, which apparently helped them escape after the war, and moved money for them as well. Cardinal Stepanic, their spiritual leader, is currently on the way to being canonized as a Catholic saint. And this is the institution that wants to act as a moral guide for us all?

More in a moment...

Vorkosigan