NOGO

Dr. Rick you evil man.
You refuse to play Bede's game.

To you and me all of the above statement is hairsplitting but for Bede it was not as bad as we all thought and that is significant. Let us all be reasonable for once and agree with him.

Let's see ... Christians who pretend to walk with God and actually know what God want of us have at some point in time actually tortured and killed some people for plotting with the devil. And why wait for God to punish them when we can do it for him. Isn't this a good model for the world to follow.

So what if someone killed a doctor for performing abortions

So what if Ben Laden decided that God wants him to punish us infidels.

So what if the crusades were misguided.

So what if even today many Christians still have such demons inside them.

Religion is not responsible for all this.

Do you now understand Dr. Rick. Let us be nice and stop ranting.

Sojourner553

Hey NOGO and Dr. Rick: I agree that Bede sees much of Christian history through rose-colored glasses/wishful thinking. However, I don't think he deserves to have his general beliefs attacked as "warped" or "hateful".

It is common for people to be defensive for the "sins" of their forefathers. I can tell you that US history does not stress their treatment of Indians/blacks. German citizens don't like to be reminded about WW II atrocities.

Of course, I believe it is important not to whitewash the truth, which is why I have stood up against some of Bede's more "wishful thinking".

However, on the flip side, I think it is lame to imply that "only" Christians/ or theists have done atrocities (or the worst atrocities) throughout history. Have not ATHEISTISTIC regimes in China and Russia not been guilty of committing atrocities as well?

Isn't the problem when ANY conservative IDEOLOGY (be it based on a theistsic OR atheistic dogma) wields too much political and/or social power?

There ARE good Christians around. Seems to me you try to draw a simplistic line to categorize all theists into one category.

The world is far more complicated than that.

My views are more similar to those of Bertrand Russell:

Here is an excerpt:

Bertrand Russell's Crusade Against Communism

During the early twentieth century, a large number of atheists and
agnostics were attracted to communism under the naive belief that ANYTHING
had to be better than a system based on orthodox religion. Bertrand Russell,
however, was one important exception.

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), world famous mathematician, philosopher,
and avowed atheist-- wrote and taught prior to the Russian Revolution of 1920.
A socialist, Russell was originally sympathetic towards the communists,
although he remained suspicious that by throwing away freedom, that they had
bypassed an important axiom of liberalism. He took a trip to the Soviet
Union shortly after the communist revolution, which confirmed his worst
fears on Marxist totalitarianism. He wrote on his experience in his
autobiography:

"For my part, the time I spent in Russia was one of continually increasing
nightmare...Cruelty, poverty, suspicion, persecution formed the very air we
breathed. Our conversations were continually spied upon. In the middle
of the night one would hear shots, and know that idealists were being killed
in prison...I felt that everything that I valued in human life was being
destroyed in the interests of a glib and narrow philosophy, and that in
the process untold misery was being inflicted upon many millions of people."

Many liberals had asked Russell to soften his public attack against the
communists (expressing the fear that reactionaries would use his arguments
to attack ALL socialist views). Russell however refused. He now declared
Russian communism to be the WORST of contemporary dogmas! In his work,
"Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind", Russell declared: "In our day the sword of
the Lord has passed to the hand of the Marxists... This doctrine has kinship
with the earlier doctrines of the Chosen People and Manifest Destiny. In
its character of fatalism it has viewed the struggle of opponents as one
against destiny."

According to Russell, Marxism-Leninism, which purported to be scientific
in nature, instead violated the very principles of scientific thinking by
not allowing a free forum for the testing of its ideas. Instead Russell
declared it to be a religion--a crusading mystical faith dependant on some
vaguely defined divine power invisibly guiding society through the course
of history towards a workman's utopia.

Russell argued that Marxism operated as a Church, with Lenin authoritatively
held up as its first prophet followed by a succession of Soviet popes starting
with Stalin to the present. To Russell, Soviet communism represented a more
dangerous threat than traditional religions because it was new--and NEW
fanaticisms are more dangerous than those mellowed by the passage of time.

Bertrand Russell pushed instead for a socialism that stressed freedom and
individualism (such as exists today in such European countries as Sweden).
The problem with capitalism, was that it concentrated power into the hands
of a few wealthy people. Communism also concentrated power into the hands of
an elite group--but this was combined with absolute totalitarian powers over
all the freedom of the people. When Russell become an international leader
for disarmament and peace during the 1960's, it was because he felt a
militaristic reactionary response (ie such as McCarthism or fascism) to the
communism danger was not the answer. Instead he believed that the more
enlightened democratic pluralism -- as laid down by of Jefferson, Madison, and
Franklin Roosevelt was the best long term response to Soviet totalitarianism.


===================
This democratic pluralism is best comprised of a group of THEISTS, ATHEISTS, and (anyone in-between--ie undecided)

It is our role --indeed I think our duty-- to challenge Bede when he does try to whitewash the past. But I don't think it's right to personally try to hang the atrocities of the world around his neck either.

Sojourner

Dr Rick

He deserved more than that for comparing me to a "warmonger," posting that I "appear to sincerely wish that the worst possible happened" on 9/11, and implying that I'm an inhumane sadist, all the while justifying the atrocities of Christianity.

I know Bede wears rose-colored glasses; why are you wearing some, too?

I implied nothing of the kind, and China and Russia have nothing to do with the Inquisition.

Yes, they can all be categorized as theists .

I never said or implied that there are no good ones, nor did I say or imply that only theists commit atrocities. Why are you erecting these strawmen?

Rick

Sojourner553

My interest was how the Inquisition addressed “bad” magic, not good magic. Did your quote address both?

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.

I ordered Brian Levack’s book on Witchcraft from Amazon last week. (I should be getting it this weekend) I thought you were bashing me for questioning HIS quotes on this? Now you are saying there is another source?

Sojourner

Sojourner553

Hi Rick,

If you look at my posts with Bede on the Dark Ages, I got little better treatment than you ... I don't think anyone can accuse me of playing up to Bede. (Bede would be the first to agree on this too.)

That doesn't mean we should play the same game. Let's treat the board as an interchange of IDEAS, not INSULTS.

(Actually, I am not perfect on this either...but I generally like to think I rarely initiate the insults, nor carry it forward into future posts when I have the chance to discuss ideas instead...)

Sojourner

Fr.Andrew

(Sojourner553): Have not ATHEISTISTIC regimes in China and Russia not been guilty of committing atrocities as well?
(Fr Andrew)" Of course, but the atrocities were not committed because China and Russia were "atheistic" regimes--religion didn't play a part--it was about politics and control.
The outrages of the witch hunts and other church persecutions were done precisely because the regimes which fostered them were theistic.
They were a religious phenomena.

Family Man

In my view, calling the Inquisition "not very nice" is not very realistic. It sounds like it was a gaggle of naughty school boys who skipped school to soap the principal's car windows.

Since no one much defends those past misdemeanors -- at least I don't see a lot of people defending the Dred Scott decision anymore -- I don't see why I should.

I can't say I disagree with that assessment. As long as you adjust your FAQ along the lines I suggested and find a slightly harsher judgement than the Inquisition "wasn't very nice", I'd say this is one of the more productive threads I've been involved in.

Layman

Which "hateful beliefs" are those? Just basic Christian theological beliefs or his referenced beliefs about historical events?

Ahh yes, the tired old tactic of the hardened skeptic. Assert to Christian A that Christians killed millions in the Inquisition. When Christian A points out that you are exaggerating significally, even dishonestly, respond by pointing out how evil Christian A is by correcting your erroneous statements.

While I generally avoid accusing people of being completely devoid of any compassion, it seems to me that many of the exaggerated attacks are motivated themselves by prejudice and hate against the religious believer. And correcting the historical record is not being dispassionate, it's being accurate.

Despite Bede's corrections we are back to "millions and millions of people" suffering.

I suppose if I ask for clarification on this number, or specifics, or evidence and proof, that I'll just be demonstrating that I lack any "true" compassion?

Dr Rick

You would be demonstrating ignorance.

Christianity has caused suffering and death for millions and millions of people.

It has to its direct credit not just the Inquisitions, but also the Crusades, the Thirty-years war, the Dark Ages, Bosnia, and Northern Ireland.

Christianity was one of the driving forces behind the Conquistators, the Rwandan genocides, and the witch-hunts.

Christianity propels over-population and the misery that accompanies it.

It is a source of suffering and death.

Rick

Layman

And requesting nothing more than self-serving, glittering generalities as well it seems. 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.

Not that this is really a subject for this board. I just had to comment on the obvious and typical "damned if you do, damned if you don't" trap you were blustering about.