Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radorth · 03-13-2003, 09:47 AM

Quote:

They stopped because the civil authorities made them stop.

Heh. Yeah. Overlwhelmingly Protestant civil authorities who read that verse regularly, and all the rest.

And it took "fundies" to graduate the first black female from an American college, to nurture the first published black female poet, to reform child labor laws, to come out against slavery in 1690 at the risk of life and limb, to write about God ordained human rights before Jefferson was born, (Locke) and to create the Connecticut model for the Constitution (hooker).

Yeah it evolved all right, but only because the NT was the all time best seller of the day and read until it was memorized. Funny they didn't start killing even more heretics, using your tendentious logic.

Nice try, and thanks again.

Rad

Biff the unclean · 03-13-2003, 03:50 PM

Overlwhelmingly Protestant civil authorities who read that verse regularly, and all the rest.
These major changes and the ceasing of churches executing citizens happened during what was known as "The Age of Reason." The AoR was a backlash to hundreds of years of abuse by monarchies and the church working together and separately. Its leaders were, for the most part, Deists and the philosophy they espoused was Humanism. The benefits of Humanism were so self evident that it was adopted by many Protestant intellectuals as well who incorporated it into the teachings of their church thus changing the teachings of their church. At the same time, as a result of the French Revolution and the American Revolution the church was denied the power to punish citizens of those countries. By incorporating Humanism into Protestantism there was the change into the modern church. The teachings of today's church would be unrecognizable to the Pilgrim Fathers.

And it took "fundies" to graduate the first black female from an American college, to nurture the first published black female poet, to reform child labor laws, to come out against slavery in 1690 at the risk of life and limb, to write about God ordained human rights before Jefferson was born, (Locke) and to create the Connecticut model for the Constitution (hooker).
Yes, and why were they doing this seventeen hundred years and nineteen hundred years after Christ and not from day one? Because before then your religion was different!!!
Yes, the Fundies graduated the first African American Female from college. And she was the first because no black woman had done that before. That means there was CHANGE.
The same states that now have the nick name of "The Bible Belt" had the nick name 160 years ago of "The Slave States." Not only couldn't black women go to college, no women could go to college then.
And what was their rational for keeping slaves and subjugating women? The Bible told them to do it.
What is your boast in the present day for no longer doing these things? The Bible told you to do it.
Diametrically different religious based view-points from members of the same religion BUT at two different times. Proof that the Religion changed.

Funny they didn't start killing even more heretics, using your tendentious logic.
They abused their power so flagrantly that the people took it away from them.

Biff the unclean · 03-13-2003, 04:09 PM

the reference to John doesn't contain any Christian references

And strangely no real Jewish ones either. Baptism was a rite of the Magi, of all people.

Quote:

from Occidental Mythology by Joseph Campbell pp349

And the rite of baptism that (John) preached, whatever its meaning at that time may have been, was an ancient rite coming down from the old Sumerian temple city Eridu, of the water god Ea, "God of the House of Water," whose symbol is the tenth sign of the zodiac Capricorn (a composite beast with the foreparts of a goat and body of a fish), which is the sign into which the sun enters at the winter solstice for rebirth. In the Hellenistic period, Ea was called Oannes, which is in Greek Ioannes, Latin Johnannes, Hebrew Yohanan, English John. Several scholars have suggested, therefore, that there was never either John or Jesus, but only a water-god and a sun-god. The chronicle of Josephus seems to guarantee John, however; and I shall leave it to the reader to imagine how he came both by the god's name and by his rite.

Fiach · 03-13-2003, 05:15 PM

You have effectively dealt with the baptism issue as being taken by Christianity (probably by Paul) from Persian sources. We already know that there were a series of virgin born, human-god, saviours, who died and resurrected. We have 7 Mithraic rituals (can I say sacraments), "saving grace", "born again", "Lamb of god" concepts from older religions. Tertullian took an almost identical trinity from Egypt still presented on the Wall Murals of the Holy of Holies at the Temple in Luxor, Egypt.

The real question is what in Christianity is unique and original without a borrowed concept from an older religion?

Fiach

PS: I found this interesting article and its website:

Christianity or Mithraism

It is surprising that Christianity was to become the international religion, when one considers that the already well-established religion of Mithraism was a natural challenger for that title. Up until the time of the Emperor Constantine, it was the latter religion which was more popular within the framework of the Roman Empire, and Christianity was regarded as being only one sect amongst numerous other sects.

It was only when Constantine decreed that Christianity was to be the state religion, that Mithraism, together with a host of other religions and sects, was put into the melting pot, and ideas of that religion, most suited for the Christian purpose, were absorbed into the new state-approved religion.

Mithraism, the religion followed by those who worshipped the sun god Mithra, originated in Persia about 400 BC, and was to spread its Pagan ideas as far west as the British Isles. In the early centuries of the Christian era, Mithraism was the most wide-spread religion in the Western World, and its remains are to be found in monuments scattered around the countries of Europe, which then comprised the known civilised world.

Mithra was regarded as created by, yet co-equal with, the Supreme Deity. Mithraists were Trinitarian, kept Sunday as their day of worship, and their chief festivals were what we know of as Christmas and Easter. Long before the advent of Jesus, Mithra was said to have been born of a virgin mother, in a cave, at the time of Christmas, and died on a cross at Easter. Baptism was practised, and the sign of the cross was made on the foreheads of all newly-baptised converts. Mithra was considered to be the saviour of the world, conferring on his followers an eternal life in Heaven, and, similar to the story of Jesus, he died to save all others, provided that they were his followers.

For three centuries both religions ran parallel, Mithraism first becoming known to the Romans in 70 BC, Christianity following a century later, and it wasn�t until AD 377 that Christianity became sufficiently strong to suppress its former rival, although Mithraism was to remain a formidable opponent for some time after that, only slowly being forsaken by the people. It was only the absorption of many Mithraist ideas into Christianity which finally saw its downfall.

The big turning point was brought about by the Congress of Nicaea in AD 325. Constantine, a great supporter of the Christian religion, although not converting to it until the time of his decease, gathered together 2,000 leading figures in the world of theology, the idea being to bring about the advent of Christianity as the official state religion of Rome. It was out of this assembly that Jesus was formally declared to be the Son of God, and Saviour of Mankind, another slain saviour god, bringing up the tally of slain god-men to seventeen, of which Mithra, together with such men as Bel and Osiris, was included.

Just as Nicaea can be regarded as the birthplace of Christianity, so too it can be regarded as the graveyard of what we imagine Jesus taught. From that time onwards, Christianity was to absorb the superstitions of Mithraism, and many other older religions, and what was believed to have happened to earlier saviour gods, was made to centre around the Nazarene. The coming of Christianity under state control was to preserve it as a religion, and was the death knell of all other sects and cults within the Roman Empire.

Had Constantine decided to retain Mithraism as the official state religion, instead of putting Christianity in its place, it would have been the latter that would have been obliterated. To Constantine however, Christianity had one great advantage, it preached that repentant sinners would be forgiven their sins, provided that they were converted Christians at the time of their Passing, and Constantine had much to be forgiven for, He personally did not convert to the new religion until he was on his death bed, the reason being that only sins committed following conversion were accountable, so all sins committed by a convert, prior to conversion, didn�t matter, and he could hardly have sinned too much whilst he was lying on his death bed. Mithraism could not offer the same comfort to a man like Constantine, who was regarded as being one of the worst mass-murderers of his time.

The Emperor Julian, who followed Constantine, went back to Mithraism, but his short reign of only two years could not change what Constantine had decreed. His defeat, and death, at the hands of the Persians, was used by the Christians as an argument in favour of the new, against the old, being looked upon as an omen that Christianity had divine approval. If Julian had been spared to reign some years longer, the entire history of international religion would almost certainly have been different.

Under Emperor Jovian, who followed Julian, the substitution of Christianity for Mithraism made further progress, and old Pagan beliefs, like the Virgin Birth, Baptism and Holy Trinity, became generally accepted as the basis of the state religion. The early Christian idea of Unitarianism was quickly squashed in favour of Trinitarianism, and those who refused to accept the Holy Trinity were put to the sword, the beginning of mass slaughter in the name of religion, which was to go on for centuries.

http://members.aol.com/MercStG/ChriMithPage1.html

Radorth · 03-13-2003, 08:13 PM

Quote:

The AoR was a backlash to hundreds of years of abuse by monarchies and the church working together and separately. Its leaders were, for the most part, Deists and the philosophy they espoused was Humanism.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Voltaire espoused humanism. Funny Jefferson included no "humanists" in his list of the three greatest men who ever lived- all Christians. I doubt your secular humanist history professor mentioned that list.

Luther, Bacon, Newton, Locke, Hooker, the Quakers, 80% of the American founders, the Methodists, and founders of Oberlin College (to name a few) espoused no such thing. These were first and foremost reformers, in every social arena, and they did everything first- against slavery first, hiding slaves first, halting witch trials first, graduating blacks first, graduating females first and modeling the Constitution. Get over it. All the "age of reason" did was promote science, and of course the leaders there such as Pascal and Newton were Christians as well. The "enlightenment" started with the reformation, and 90% of the light came from the NT.

"For the most part" my butt. Even skeptics have admitted I'm right but say there were mostly Christians back then. Try that excuse next time.

Quote:

Yes, and why were they doing this seventeen hundred years and nineteen hundred years after Christ and not from day one? Because before then your religion was different!!!

Wrong again. From 400 AD to 1650 AD it was different. I don't suppose you've ever noted that the early Christians and the later ones are more similar than the ones in the dark ages. If it's just "evolving" then why did it start out and end up so much the same? Early Christians freed slaves and/or treated them as equals. Later Christians did same. Early Christians were nonviolent, Later Christians are non violent. Early Christians experienced the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as did later ones, etc etc. The founders admired nascent Christianity, shunned the "Papist" teaching, and in their day hired only Protestant clergy as Chaplains.

Your theory is very weak, and contains some astonishing assumptions. It should apply equally well to Muslims, but it doesn't. Do you know why that is? They saw the "age of reason" and even contributed to scientific discovery, but they never had any of this "reason" or "enlightenment" experience you are talking about. They've read all about democracy, humanism, the discoveries of science, and "enlightenment" theory. Yet they do every thing pretty much the way Muhammed taught them because HE WAS A VIOLENT PERSON, AND TAUGHT VIOLENCE.

I hereby predict the more they read, the more they will become more like Muhammed, and Christians will become more like Jesus.

Oh wait. I can't. It's coming true (again) already.

Rad

Biff the unclean · 03-13-2003, 09:36 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Voltaire espoused humanism.

So you have never read Voltaire, I take it. Let me supply you with a little then.

Let us therefore reject all superstition in order to become more human; but in speaking against fanaticism, let us not imitate the fanatics: they are sick men in delirium who want to chastise their doctors. Let us assuage their ills, and never embitter them, and let us pour drop by drop into their souls the divine balm of toleration, which they would reject with horror if it were offered to them all at once.
-- Voltaire, Hom�lies prononc�es � Londres,

Whenever an important event, a revolution, or a calamity turns to the profit of the church, such is always signalised as the Finger of God.
-- Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary (1764), quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations

As you know, the Inquisition is an admirable and wholly Christian invention to make the pope and the monks more powerful and turn a whole kingdom into hypocrites.
-- Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, quoted from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

Of all religions the Christian is without doubt the one which should inspire tolerance most, although up to now the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men.
-- Voltaire, from Harry Elmer Barnes, An Intellectual and Cultural History of the Western World (1937) p. 766, quoted from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world.
-- Voltaire, quoted from James A. Haught in "Honest Minds, Past and Present"
If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.

-- Voltaire, quoted from Kevin Courcey, "Religion a Natural When it Comes To Terrorism"

The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.
-- Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary (1764), quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations

The most genuine and efficacious charity is that which greases the paws of the priests; such charity covers a multitude of sins.
-- Voltaire, quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations

Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.
-- Voltaire, quoted from James A. Haught in "Honest Minds, Past and Present" at the Talks for History of Freethought conference Sept. 20-21, 1997, Cincinnati, Ohio sponsored by Council for Secular Humanism and Free Inquiry Group

God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.
-- Voltaire (The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations)

God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best.
-- Voltaire, Notebooks, vol. 2, "The Piccini Notebooks" (1968 ed.)

A clergyman is one who feels himself called upon to live without working at the expense of the rascals who work to live.
-- Voltaire, quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations

Which is more dangerous: fanaticism or atheism? Fanaticism is certainly a thousand times more deadly; for atheism inspires no bloody passion whereas fanaticism does; atheism is opposed to crime and fanaticism causes crimes to be committed.
-- Voltaire (The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations)

What! Have you no monks to teach, to dispute, to govern, to intrigue and to burn people who do not agree with them?
-- Voltaire: Candide, in Candide,

Funny Jefferson included no "humanists" in his list of�

The impious presumption of legislators and and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical;...
-- Thomas Jefferson, expressing concern over the authoritarian interpretation of religious views, and advocating, rather, that states allow an individual to use her or his own reason to establish or settle these opinions, in the opening passage to Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786), quoted from Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: Writings (1984), p. 346

But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

You've proved to us all that you are living in a Protestant fantasy world complete with alternate histories. And it seems that the purpose of these fantasies is that they allow you to spew out hatred for those of other religions, while kissing your own butt. Quite a trick.

I'm tempted to chide that such hatred isn't very Christian of you�but apparently it is.

Biff the unclean · 03-13-2003, 09:55 PM

To Constantine however, Christianity had one great advantage, it preached that repentant sinners would be forgiven their sins, provided that they were converted Christians at the time of their Passing, and Constantine had much to be forgiven for, He personally did not convert to the new religion until he was on his death bed

Actually Constantine never converted. Although his passing inaugurated the tradition of falsely claiming deathbed conversions of great men. The Sister Faith (I think that was her name) story of Darwin's death bed denouncement of Natural Selection is my personal favorite of these "pious frauds."
I think the best thing about Christianity for the Emperors was confession. By law (edict of Theodosius I) it was treason to be anything but a Christian--punishable by death--every Christian (which was everybody) had to confess to a priest, at regular intervals every sin of THOUGHT, WORD and DEED. And every priest was appointed by the Imperial Roman Government. No Dictator has ever had a sweeter deal for keeping their heel on the necks of the people.

There is a great book on Julian (the Apostate) by Gore Vidal. It's called Julian and is a historical novel, but it is heavily researched and very well written.

Sabine Grant · 03-14-2003, 04:03 AM

Salut Biff.... It is a fact that Francois Marie Arouet despised religion as much as he despised the Regent. However, he was considered a deist.

Radorth · 03-14-2003, 08:07 AM

Biff, you're ignoring the points I made altogether, focusing on two people.

Quote:

So you have never read Voltaire, I take it. Let me supply you with a little then.

I know what he believed. I simply assumed you would claim him as one of the holy humanists responsible for the AoR. Are you denying he was a secular humanist? Fine, no problem.

You're claiming Jefferson was what then? Who knows. You're just cutting and pasting irrelavant quotes and avoiding my points.

1. The founders invariably held Jesus himself in high regard, even those who denigrated Christianity. NOT ONE would blame him for the killing of heretics, or assert that Jesus told his disciples to burn them. It is you who are imagining things.

2. Jesus called Bacon, Locke and Newton the "three greatest men in history" for their accomplishments "in the physical and moral sciences." All Christians.

3. Your theory that Christianity is "evolving" doesn't work. Islam isn't "evolving" in spite of the age of reason, scientific and medical discoveries to which Muslims have widely contributed. I'm saying the more they study the Koran, the more violent they will become. The more Christians study the NT, the less violent they will become. It has nothing to do with "reason" or "evolving."

Quote:

You've proved to us all that you are living in a Protestant fantasy world complete with alternate histories. And it seems that the purpose of these fantasies is that they allow you to spew out hatred for those of other religions,

Blah blah blah. More gratuitous assertions and palm reading.

I don't hate anybody. Like Jesus, I love all kinds of people who are full of *&^%. You'd be a hypocrite anyway, if you claimed any greater tolerance yourself. It is the skeptics here who are found personally condemning people, not the Christians.

Rad

lpetrich · 03-14-2003, 08:57 AM

Radorth:
(skepticism about Buddha and Mohammed miracles...) ... Do any skeptics disagree with Sneddin's insight that so many Catholic "miracles" have a magical quality compared to the Biblical ones? ("Parlor tricks" was the phrase I believe he used.) ...

And who is "Sneddin"???

I, for one, don't see any fundamental difference.

And applying Radorth's skepticism to the Bible, one finds that its miracles fail miserably.

How is Jesus Christ allegedly curing some people with magical spit therapy any different from Roman Emperor Vespasian allegedly doing so?

How is Jesus Christ allegedly raising someone from the dead any different from Apollonius of Tyana allegedly doing so?

How is Jesus Christ being the son of a god and a virgin any different from Romulus and Remus being sons of a god and a virgin?

Radorth:
I suggest the Jesus and Peter of the NT wouldn't be caught dead in the Vatican, let alone the Pope's awful garb. I bet some Popes wondered about that themselves on hot days, but were afraid to ask.

Eek! I'm forced to agree with Radorth here.

03-13-2003, 05:15 PM	#164
Fiach Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 602	Good post Biff You have effectively dealt with the baptism issue as being taken by Christianity (probably by Paul) from Persian sources. We already know that there were a series of virgin born, human-god, saviours, who died and resurrected. We have 7 Mithraic rituals (can I say sacraments), "saving grace", "born again", "Lamb of god" concepts from older religions. Tertullian took an almost identical trinity from Egypt still presented on the Wall Murals of the Holy of Holies at the Temple in Luxor, Egypt. The real question is what in Christianity is unique and original without a borrowed concept from an older religion? Fiach PS: I found this interesting article and its website: Christianity or Mithraism It is surprising that Christianity was to become the international religion, when one considers that the already well-established religion of Mithraism was a natural challenger for that title. Up until the time of the Emperor Constantine, it was the latter religion which was more popular within the framework of the Roman Empire, and Christianity was regarded as being only one sect amongst numerous other sects. It was only when Constantine decreed that Christianity was to be the state religion, that Mithraism, together with a host of other religions and sects, was put into the melting pot, and ideas of that religion, most suited for the Christian purpose, were absorbed into the new state-approved religion. Mithraism, the religion followed by those who worshipped the sun god Mithra, originated in Persia about 400 BC, and was to spread its Pagan ideas as far west as the British Isles. In the early centuries of the Christian era, Mithraism was the most wide-spread religion in the Western World, and its remains are to be found in monuments scattered around the countries of Europe, which then comprised the known civilised world. Mithra was regarded as created by, yet co-equal with, the Supreme Deity. Mithraists were Trinitarian, kept Sunday as their day of worship, and their chief festivals were what we know of as Christmas and Easter. Long before the advent of Jesus, Mithra was said to have been born of a virgin mother, in a cave, at the time of Christmas, and died on a cross at Easter. Baptism was practised, and the sign of the cross was made on the foreheads of all newly-baptised converts. Mithra was considered to be the saviour of the world, conferring on his followers an eternal life in Heaven, and, similar to the story of Jesus, he died to save all others, provided that they were his followers. For three centuries both religions ran parallel, Mithraism first becoming known to the Romans in 70 BC, Christianity following a century later, and it wasn�t until AD 377 that Christianity became sufficiently strong to suppress its former rival, although Mithraism was to remain a formidable opponent for some time after that, only slowly being forsaken by the people. It was only the absorption of many Mithraist ideas into Christianity which finally saw its downfall. The big turning point was brought about by the Congress of Nicaea in AD 325. Constantine, a great supporter of the Christian religion, although not converting to it until the time of his decease, gathered together 2,000 leading figures in the world of theology, the idea being to bring about the advent of Christianity as the official state religion of Rome. It was out of this assembly that Jesus was formally declared to be the Son of God, and Saviour of Mankind, another slain saviour god, bringing up the tally of slain god-men to seventeen, of which Mithra, together with such men as Bel and Osiris, was included. Just as Nicaea can be regarded as the birthplace of Christianity, so too it can be regarded as the graveyard of what we imagine Jesus taught. From that time onwards, Christianity was to absorb the superstitions of Mithraism, and many other older religions, and what was believed to have happened to earlier saviour gods, was made to centre around the Nazarene. The coming of Christianity under state control was to preserve it as a religion, and was the death knell of all other sects and cults within the Roman Empire. Had Constantine decided to retain Mithraism as the official state religion, instead of putting Christianity in its place, it would have been the latter that would have been obliterated. To Constantine however, Christianity had one great advantage, it preached that repentant sinners would be forgiven their sins, provided that they were converted Christians at the time of their Passing, and Constantine had much to be forgiven for, He personally did not convert to the new religion until he was on his death bed, the reason being that only sins committed following conversion were accountable, so all sins committed by a convert, prior to conversion, didn�t matter, and he could hardly have sinned too much whilst he was lying on his death bed. Mithraism could not offer the same comfort to a man like Constantine, who was regarded as being one of the worst mass-murderers of his time. The Emperor Julian, who followed Constantine, went back to Mithraism, but his short reign of only two years could not change what Constantine had decreed. His defeat, and death, at the hands of the Persians, was used by the Christians as an argument in favour of the new, against the old, being looked upon as an omen that Christianity had divine approval. If Julian had been spared to reign some years longer, the entire history of international religion would almost certainly have been different. Under Emperor Jovian, who followed Julian, the substitution of Christianity for Mithraism made further progress, and old Pagan beliefs, like the Virgin Birth, Baptism and Holy Trinity, became generally accepted as the basis of the state religion. The early Christian idea of Unitarianism was quickly squashed in favour of Trinitarianism, and those who refused to accept the Holy Trinity were put to the sword, the beginning of mass slaughter in the name of religion, which was to go on for centuries. http://members.aol.com/MercStG/ChriMithPage1.html

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

03-13-2003, 03:50 PM	#162
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Overlwhelmingly Protestant civil authorities who read that verse regularly, and all the rest. These major changes and the ceasing of churches executing citizens happened during what was known as "The Age of Reason." The AoR was a backlash to hundreds of years of abuse by monarchies and the church working together and separately. Its leaders were, for the most part, Deists and the philosophy they espoused was Humanism. The benefits of Humanism were so self evident that it was adopted by many Protestant intellectuals as well who incorporated it into the teachings of their church thus changing the teachings of their church. At the same time, as a result of the French Revolution and the American Revolution the church was denied the power to punish citizens of those countries. By incorporating Humanism into Protestantism there was the change into the modern church. The teachings of today's church would be unrecognizable to the Pilgrim Fathers. And it took "fundies" to graduate the first black female from an American college, to nurture the first published black female poet, to reform child labor laws, to come out against slavery in 1690 at the risk of life and limb, to write about God ordained human rights before Jefferson was born, (Locke) and to create the Connecticut model for the Constitution (hooker). Yes, and why were they doing this seventeen hundred years and nineteen hundred years after Christ and not from day one? Because before then your religion was different!!! Yes, the Fundies graduated the first African American Female from college. And she was the first because no black woman had done that before. That means there was CHANGE. The same states that now have the nick name of "The Bible Belt" had the nick name 160 years ago of "The Slave States." Not only couldn't black women go to college, no women could go to college then. And what was their rational for keeping slaves and subjugating women? The Bible told them to do it. What is your boast in the present day for no longer doing these things? The Bible told you to do it. Diametrically different religious based view-points from members of the same religion BUT at two different times. Proof that the Religion changed. Funny they didn't start killing even more heretics, using your tendentious logic. They abused their power so flagrantly that the people took it away from them.

03-13-2003, 09:36 PM	#166
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	HAHAHAHAHAHA! Voltaire espoused humanism. So you have never read Voltaire, I take it. Let me supply you with a little then. Let us therefore reject all superstition in order to become more human; but in speaking against fanaticism, let us not imitate the fanatics: they are sick men in delirium who want to chastise their doctors. Let us assuage their ills, and never embitter them, and let us pour drop by drop into their souls the divine balm of toleration, which they would reject with horror if it were offered to them all at once. -- Voltaire, Hom�lies prononc�es � Londres, Whenever an important event, a revolution, or a calamity turns to the profit of the church, such is always signalised as the Finger of God. -- Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary (1764), quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations As you know, the Inquisition is an admirable and wholly Christian invention to make the pope and the monks more powerful and turn a whole kingdom into hypocrites. -- Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, quoted from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom Of all religions the Christian is without doubt the one which should inspire tolerance most, although up to now the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men. -- Voltaire, from Harry Elmer Barnes, An Intellectual and Cultural History of the Western World (1937) p. 766, quoted from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world. -- Voltaire, quoted from James A. Haught in "Honest Minds, Past and Present" If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities. -- Voltaire, quoted from Kevin Courcey, "Religion a Natural When it Comes To Terrorism" The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning. -- Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary (1764), quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations The most genuine and efficacious charity is that which greases the paws of the priests; such charity covers a multitude of sins. -- Voltaire, quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the Christian sect in horror. -- Voltaire, quoted from James A. Haught in "Honest Minds, Past and Present" at the Talks for History of Freethought conference Sept. 20-21, 1997, Cincinnati, Ohio sponsored by Council for Secular Humanism and Free Inquiry Group God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. -- Voltaire (The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations) God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best. -- Voltaire, Notebooks, vol. 2, "The Piccini Notebooks" (1968 ed.) A clergyman is one who feels himself called upon to live without working at the expense of the rascals who work to live. -- Voltaire, quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations Which is more dangerous: fanaticism or atheism? Fanaticism is certainly a thousand times more deadly; for atheism inspires no bloody passion whereas fanaticism does; atheism is opposed to crime and fanaticism causes crimes to be committed. -- Voltaire (The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations) What! Have you no monks to teach, to dispute, to govern, to intrigue and to burn people who do not agree with them? -- Voltaire: Candide, in Candide, Funny Jefferson included no "humanists" in his list of� The impious presumption of legislators and and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical;... -- Thomas Jefferson, expressing concern over the authoritarian interpretation of religious views, and advocating, rather, that states allow an individual to use her or his own reason to establish or settle these opinions, in the opening passage to Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786), quoted from Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: Writings (1984), p. 346 But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments? -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82 History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. -- Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813 You've proved to us all that you are living in a Protestant fantasy world complete with alternate histories. And it seems that the purpose of these fantasies is that they allow you to spew out hatred for those of other religions, while kissing your own butt. Quite a trick. I'm tempted to chide that such hatred isn't very Christian of you�but apparently it is.

03-13-2003, 09:55 PM	#167
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	To Constantine however, Christianity had one great advantage, it preached that repentant sinners would be forgiven their sins, provided that they were converted Christians at the time of their Passing, and Constantine had much to be forgiven for, He personally did not convert to the new religion until he was on his death bed Actually Constantine never converted. Although his passing inaugurated the tradition of falsely claiming deathbed conversions of great men. The Sister Faith (I think that was her name) story of Darwin's death bed denouncement of Natural Selection is my personal favorite of these "pious frauds." I think the best thing about Christianity for the Emperors was confession. By law (edict of Theodosius I) it was treason to be anything but a Christian--punishable by death--every Christian (which was everybody) had to confess to a priest, at regular intervals every sin of THOUGHT, WORD and DEED. And every priest was appointed by the Imperial Roman Government. No Dictator has ever had a sweeter deal for keeping their heel on the necks of the people. There is a great book on Julian (the Apostate) by Gore Vidal. It's called Julian and is a historical novel, but it is heavily researched and very well written.

03-14-2003, 04:03 AM	#168
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	Salut Biff.... It is a fact that Francois Marie Arouet despised religion as much as he despised the Regent. However, he was considered a deist.

03-14-2003, 08:57 AM	#170
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Radorth: (skepticism about Buddha and Mohammed miracles...) ... Do any skeptics disagree with Sneddin's insight that so many Catholic "miracles" have a magical quality compared to the Biblical ones? ("Parlor tricks" was the phrase I believe he used.) ... And who is "Sneddin"??? I, for one, don't see any fundamental difference. And applying Radorth's skepticism to the Bible, one finds that its miracles fail miserably. How is Jesus Christ allegedly curing some people with magical spit therapy any different from Roman Emperor Vespasian allegedly doing so? How is Jesus Christ allegedly raising someone from the dead any different from Apollonius of Tyana allegedly doing so? How is Jesus Christ being the son of a god and a virgin any different from Romulus and Remus being sons of a god and a virgin? Radorth: I suggest the Jesus and Peter of the NT wouldn't be caught dead in the Vatican, let alone the Pope's awful garb. I bet some Popes wondered about that themselves on hot days, but were afraid to ask. Eek! I'm forced to agree with Radorth here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.