Radorth

comments deleted

All complaints about the moderation should be directed to the Admins in the Bugs forum - Toto

Buffman

Rad

Are you seriously suggesting people were free to worship as they liked in England at the time?

Nope! Are you seriously suggesting that the people in nine of the original 13 colonies were allowed to worship as they chose...before the C-SS clauses began to be instituted by those "enlightened" Deists and Christians?

Perhaps you can explain away why the Pilgrams left England and went to live in the Netherlands for 12 years where they did have freedom to practice their cult form of Christianity without interference from the state. Naturally the question then becomes, "Why did they leave a country that allowed freedom of cult belief practice for the New World where they established an oppressive religious regime that did not permit freedom of religion or individual expression of conscience...a la the British model of the day?

Radorth

You mean Bible totin' fundy's like Locke and Hooker who virtually invented freedom of conscience and the egalitarian society?

Buffman, the Pilgrims left the Netherlands because they did not like the Dutch way of life. They wanted their children to live in a Christian environment, and they hoped to see God's kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven." They were Puritans who, right or wrong, wanted to live in a "pure" environment. They considered the Dutch to be frivolous, if tolerant.

I think they were wrong to set up yet another oppressive society, but in the end plenty of those nasty, intolerant Christians voted for Jefferson or he would never have been elected.

I say. Your attempts at pidgeonholing Christians are almost as transparent as Yb's. But I suppose it is necessary to keep your worldview from getting too complicated.

Rad

Daggah

Locke, a Bible-toting fundy?

Radorth, you're addicted to lying like some are addicted to heroin.

"Formally, Locke belonged to the dominant Anglican Church, but within the Anglican Church, he was an advocate of the broad church, or latitudinarianism. The broad church held that all that was required to belong to the Church was that you believed what Jesus taught about God and human salvation."

(Source)

Yeah, sounds very fundy to me. Sorry bud. For his day - hell, for the modern day, as well - Locke was a liberal Christian. The site I just linked to claims he was a unitarian.

And we all know how fundamentalist unitarians are, don't we?

Buffman

Rad

I think they were wrong to set up yet another oppressive society, but in the end plenty of those nasty, intolerant Christians voted for Jefferson or he would never have been elected.

Didn't you omit a word between "oppressive" and "society?" The word "CHRISTIAN." However, thank you for admitting that "those" Christians were intolerant bigots. Now, would you care to tell me exactly which Christians voted for Jefferson and which Christians didn't?

I say. Your attempts at pidgeonholing Christians are almost as transparent as Yb's. But I suppose it is necessary to keep your worldview from getting too complicated.

I am tickled that you admit that we have a worldview. Maybe you will get one someday if you ever escape from the mind numbing conditioning of your superstitious and supernatural faith beliefs. Good luck!

Radorth

Just curious Buffman. Why is anyone who wants to live in a community of people who share their beliefs an intolerant bigot? Are the Mormon towns in Utah comprised only of intolerant bigots? Or could it be they just want to live with others like them because they believe it will bring them more peace and happiness? Are people who exclude certain people from church membership intolerant bigots as well? Where is the line?

Rad

Radorth

Yes, I think atheists have quite similar worldviews, though they claim to be "freethinkers." Unfortunately few I've seen have proven to be any more efficacious or tolerant than mine, though many atheists are quick to preach to me. I do read Russell when I wish to fall asleep early. The man can preach!

Rad

Radorth

Well Toto, your site was just an atheist commercial, useless for learning anything about luther's view of heretics anyway.

Extracts from this site follow

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/ar...martin%20.html

Luther on heretics:

"If heresies and offenses come, Christendom will only profit thereby, for they make Christians to read diligently the Holy Writ and ponder the same with industry. … Thus through heretics and offenses we are kept alert and stouthearted and amid wrangles and battles understand God's word better than before."

Luther's traditional conception of heresy, or rather the heretic, was supplanted with a more gentler view; he had viewed all heretics as being wrong in their Christian beliefs, but after reviewing the ideas of many of those who the pope had burned and killed, such as John Hus and Jerome of Prague, Luther concluded that many had demonstrated that they sincerely possessed the love of the cross. Now holding this view Luther began taking issue with the practice of burning heretics, which he thought to be a violation of the Gospel. In protest he voiced, "Let the weeds grow until harvest;" and, "To burn heretics is against the will of the Holy Ghost."

But according to Ingersoll:

Hmm. Either my site, not written by Lutherans, is mistaken, or Ingersoll is engaging in some of his famous hyperbole. Luther seems to have become LESS interested in burning heretics, the more he read.

Rad

Radorth

From the site given above, another anti-Christ commercial, as it turns out.

Luther's Christianity and his judgment
and condemnation of the Jews


Christianity has never been a religion tolerant of dissent of difference, indeed the Church Testament calls for the torturing and murder of those who dissent from the orthodox faith ('bring them here and slay them before me' we read in Matthew, the practice of a totalitarian tyrant, and again and again in Matthew's gospel we read of the torture of dissenters). In the final section of his essay Luther makes clear that his hostility towards the Jews is based mostly on there refusal to convert to Christianity (a fault also of the Muslims whom Luther also condemns, but using less vitriol than he does in condemning the Jews). This hostility towards difference and this tendency towards totalitarism and intolerance has always been a feature of the Christian faith and remains the primary impetus of evangelism to this very day...

Well yes, Jesus is a "totalitarian tyrant" toward phony religious people and incorrigible hypocrites. That I will admit. To the average Jew, I have no idea what judgement will come. Jesus calls them "my brethren" and "the lost sheep of Israel." I do not find him condemning them as a group, as Luther seems to have done. Also it is not clear when Luther wrote that the Jewish synagogues should be burned, or if he ever softened his stance as he did toward "heretics. " And it is certainly disingenuous to say Luther condemned heretics to any earthly death or torture, in general.

Luther:With prayer and the fear of God we mustpractice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

We were given this cite

http://www.awitness.org/books/luther.../15_treat.html

and told it contained Luther's "final solution" which I assumed meant killing them. What else would one think? That wasn't true.

Luther had many faults. But I think, given his background and the times, he was overall a force against blanket oppression by mother church. And he did not advocate killing Jews AS WE WERE MISLED TO BELIEVE.

Rad

Buffman

Rad

Why is anyone who wants to live in a community of people who share their beliefs an intolerant bigot?

That's a fair and very stimulating question. One not easily addressed unless one considers that America, and the world, are no longer composed of isolated, self-sufficient, villages of like minded people like they once were. There are numerous factors that require considerable study and understanding before any meaningful answer could/should be given to that question. It would make an excellent topic for discussion in a different forum.

Yes, I think atheists have quite similar worldviews, though they claim to be "freethinkers."

I must disagree. Personally I view Atheists in much the same manner as I view Christians. Christians all profess to be believers in Christ. However, that is just about the only thing that they have in common. The same is true of Atheists. They all claim that there is no God. However, that is just about the only thing that they have in common.

Freethinkers can fall into many categories. Though I feel sure that there are plenty who will disagree with me, I see nothing to prevent a religionist from being a freethinker...about every issue other than religious faith belief. Atheists attempt to claim the title of freethinker for themselves because they think that they are able to place every issue, including religion, under the critical thinking umbrella. Natrually I am inclined to accept that view because I consider a freethinker as someone who is capable of , and willing to, place any and all issues to a natural world verification based on the currently available evidence and who will readily admit that their conclusions are not locked into dogmatic cement. (i.e.: New verifiable evidence may cause previous beliefs to be thrown out and new conclusions made to replace them.) The religionist is hamstrung by the rigidity of supernatural dogma. The fact that that dogma has had the time and opportunity to spread its tentacles into so many natural world areas is what causes the outbreaks of friction between the non-believer and the believer.

When we honestly and accurately examine the the results of C-SS, there can be little question that it has been the greatest boon for religious, AND non-religious, freedom ever placed into law. Unfortunately, there are a small, though extremely successful, group of religionists who falsely(inaccurately) equated C-SS with ethical and moral values. I can think of no thoughtful Atheist that would disagree with our need to have an ethical and moral government and society. The friction comes when one group of religionists claim that they alone are in possession of the only correct/accurate/right/true set of ethics and morality (Family Values)...and attempt to codify their beliefs in the law of the land.