Would you like to see the death of religion.

Zillah

Yes - through natural causes

PDN wrote: »

That doesn't stop most of the other posters here.

You do realise that your continual snide comments make you look petty and childish rather than clever, right?

*awaits uninventive "I know you are, but what am I?" response*

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Zillah wrote: »

You do realise that your continual snide comments make you look petty and childish rather than clever, right?

*awaits uninventive "I know you are, but what am I?" response*

As one who posts here fairly regularly I was including myself among the posters, so I thought my humour was more self-deprecating rather than snide.

Omnia munda mundis etc.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd say Zillah has avoided your trap, PDN. Out of interest, did your homophobic put forward any "Biblical justification"? Or does he remain an atheist homophobe?

No, I don't think he did manage to avoid it. In essence his defence was
a) The majority of homophobes that a Westerner like Zillah encounters are religiously based.
b) His Pavlovian response was to respond to homophobia by assuming Christianity, not vice versa.

However, I don't think that absolves him from the accusation of anti-Christian bigotry. For example, the majority of paedophiles that I have encountered were homosexual, but that does not necessarily mean that homosexuals are more prone to abuse kids than heterosexuals. My personal experience may be unrepresentative and could easily be ascribed to bad luck (or to my parents' bad choice of baby sitters). However, if I was to automatically assume that a paedophile was "almost certainly" therefore homosexual then I think I would certainly be guilty of homophobic bigotry. For me to subsequently deny the charge of bigotry by arguing that I assumed someone to be homosexual on the basis of their paedophilia, not vice versa, would, in my opinion, be rather specious.

Also, I would question Zillah's use of the word "westerner". As far as I am aware, Cuba is in the Western hemisphere, and happens to be the most homophobic country in the West. It has, however, become slightly less so in recent years. I understand that Cuba decriminalised homosexuality in the early 1990s, coincidentally around the same time that it slackened its official atheism. The homophobia in Cuba is not religiously motivated, in fact its homophobia has increased and decreased in direct proportion to its suppression of religion.

Out of interest, did your homophobic put forward any "Biblical justification"? Or does he remain an atheist homophobe?

Well, he wasn't actually my homophobe. I find homophobes do not make particularly attractive pets - I own a border collie instead.

However, this individual certainly remained an atheist homophobe. He insisted on calling the Bible "western pornography" - a phrase that can probably be attributed to his primary education coinciding with the Cultural Revolution. Apart from these 2 major character defects he was charming company and appeared to be very well read and educated.

Fanny Cradock

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Zillah wrote: »

*awaits uninventive "I know you are, but what am I?" response*

A garbage man!

I don't see how you could take this as anything but a joke.

PDN, may I suggest that you put something along the lines of 'PDN - best taken with a pinch of salt' somewhere in your profile

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

No, I don't think he did manage to avoid it. In essence his defence was
a) The majority of homophobes that a Westerner like Zillah encounters are religiously based.
b) His Pavlovian response was to respond to homophobia by assuming Christianity, not vice versa.

However, I don't think that absolves him from the accusation of anti-Christian bigotry. For example, the majority of paedophiles that I have encountered were homosexual, but that does not necessarily mean that homosexuals are more prone to abuse kids than heterosexuals. My personal experience may be unrepresentative and could easily be ascribed to bad luck (or to my parents' bad choice of baby sitters). However, if I was to automatically assume that a paedophile was "almost certainly" therefore homosexual then I think I would certainly be guilty of homophobic bigotry. For me to subsequently deny the charge of bigotry by arguing that I assumed someone to be homosexual on the basis of their paedophilia, not vice versa, would, in my opinion, be rather specious.

Context, context. I agree with Zillah that the majority of homophobes one encounters in Western society (which doesn't include Cuba, because Cuba is socialist) are Christian, unsurprisingly in a majority Christian society. The most vocal homophobes around here do tend to be conservative or radical Christian. Finally, and most importantly, you were the person who raised the subject, so in context I think Zillah's assumption can be justified without presuming prejudice. I think both of you jumped the gun slightly - one could equally well say that you assume atheists are anti-Christian.

PDN wrote: »

Also, I would question Zillah's use of the word "westerner". As far as I am aware, Cuba is in the Western hemisphere, and happens to be the most homophobic country in the West. It has, however, become slightly less so in recent years. I understand that Cuba decriminalised homosexuality in the early 1990s, coincidentally around the same time that it slackened its official atheism. The homophobia in Cuba is not religiously motivated, in fact its homophobia has increased and decreased in direct proportion to its suppression of religion.

Ah. Well, Cuba isn't "Western", except geographically. Not part of what used to be called the First World.

Homophobia, as far as I can see, has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. If you are homophobic and religious, you will use your religion to 'justify' it. If you are homophobic and atheist, you will use some other justificatory pretext.

If, on the other hand, you are not homophobic, but are religious, and your religion considers homosexuality unacceptable, that is not homophobia.

PDN wrote: »

Well, he wasn't actually my homophobe. I find homophobes do not make particularly attractive pets - I own a border collie instead.

Actually, many of them keep very well in a closet.

PDN wrote: »

However, this individual certainly remained an atheist homophobe. He insisted on calling the Bible "western pornography" - a phrase that can probably be attributed to his primary education coinciding with the Cultural Revolution. Apart from these 2 major character defects he was charming company and appeared to be very well read and educated.

Ah well, homophobia is a human commonplace, like racism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Yes - through proactive secularism

Like the new sig PDN, its a bit big tho, the SIGPO may be out to opress you soon.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=252965

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

5uspect wrote: »

Like the new sig PDN, its a bit big tho, the SIGPO may be out to opress you soon.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=252965

I'm on a warning already, but I'm struggling to resize it. I'm a technophobe rather than a homophobe.

5uspect

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

I'm on a warning already, but I'm struggling to resize it. I'm a technophobe rather than a homophobe.

How do you ever expect to get the respect of atheists with that attitude!

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Thank you, 5uspect!

Fanny Cradock

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Scofflaw wrote: »

one could equally well say that you assume atheists are anti-Christian.

I would certainly suspect that of some here.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

one could equally well say that you assume atheists are anti-Christian.

I would certainly suspect that of some here.

Both, even.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Yes - through proactive secularism

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would certainly suspect that of some here.

Considering most Irish atheists come from a Christian influenced education system and often family its not too surprising that we have a special place for Christianity.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

5uspect wrote: »

Considering most Irish atheists come from a Christian influenced education system and often family its not too surprising that we have a special place for Christianity.

Well, why not? They have a special place for us too, by all accounts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Yes - through proactive secularism

Its all pretty touchy feely really...

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

I'm on a warning already, but I'm struggling to resize it.

Now have you ever told us what the PDN stands for, or do we have to start a competition to guess?

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Dades wrote: »

Now have you ever told us what the PDN stands for, or do we have to start a competition to guess?

No, I think most entries in such a competition would probably be extremely insulting, so I'll forestall it by answering your query.

It's not very exciting, I'm afraid. PDN was originally used on an American evangelical discussion board and stands for Porpoise Driven Neptune. It was one of my little jokes but fell pretty flat.

The problem is that it is only within the evangelical sub-culture that there exists a Purpose-Driven obsession (the Purpose Driven Church, the Purpose Driven Life, The Purpose Driven School etc) so the joke means little to those outside of that sub-culture. However, most evangelicals are so poorly educated, particularly in the classics, that they don't even know that the god Neptune rode in a chariot pulled by dolphins, so the joke passes them by also.

So, as with much of my humour, it goes unappreciated.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

PDN wrote: »

It's not very exciting, I'm afraid. PDN was originally used on an American evangelical discussion board and stands for Porpoise Driven Neptune. QUOTE]

Lol, I get it anyway.

Schuhart

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

PDN was originally used on an American evangelical discussion board and stands for Porpoise Driven Neptune. It was one of my little jokes but fell pretty flat.

It’s like that bit in the Rocky Horror Show where the audience shout out ‘I come here with a dolphin’ seconds before a character on the screen says ‘I come here with a purpose’.

How’s that for a classical reference?

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

No, I think most entries in such a competition would probably be extremely insulting, so I'll forestall it by answering your query.

In hindsight now, I would not have suggested that. I hope you didn't feel you had to reveal anything involuntarily.

PDN wrote: »

It's not very exciting, I'm afraid. PDN was originally used on an American evangelical discussion board and stands for Porpoise Driven Neptune. It was one of my little jokes but fell pretty flat.

I like it. Finally - a poster with a porpoise!

PDN

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

PDN wrote: »

Omnia munda mundis etc.

I'm curious, what's that mean? Something about everyone in the world?

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

bluewolf wrote: »

Omnia munda mundis etc.

I'm curious, what's that mean? Something about everyone in the world?

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

cryptically,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm curious, what's that mean? Something about everyone in the world?

He's being clever.

It literally means "to the pure all things are pure"

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote: »

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

cryptically,
Scofflaw

Shame upon him who thinks evil of it

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

It's not very exciting, I'm afraid. PDN was originally used on an American evangelical discussion board and stands for Porpoise Driven Neptune....

Really? I had alays thought it stood for your polite darwinian nautre but there you go!~

Asiaprod

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Asiaprod wrote: »

Shame upon him who thinks evil of it

thanks

Oh, I thought munda- would be world.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

bluewolf wrote: »

thanks

Oh, I thought munda- would be world.

"Omnia munda mundis; coinquinatis autem et infidelibus nihil mundum, sed inquinatae sunt eorum et mens et conscientia"
("To the pure all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled") - Epistle of Paul to Titus, I:15

Hmm..."munda" may be Church-latin.

defiled and unbelieving,
Scofflaw

karen3212

Yes - through natural causes

PDN wrote: »

As a student of the history of missions I would be very interested in hearing more of this. Could you cite a source for this remarkable behaviour?

First one mentioned in this link:
In 1797, the London Missionary Society put its first missionaries on the shores of Tahiti. Fourteen years later they had not made one convert, even though the happy Tahitians provided them with servants galore, built their houses and fed them. Finally the Christians devised an ingenious plan, which ‘converted’ the entire island in one day. According to a letter written home by brethren J. M. Orsmond, one of their own members, they reduced the local chief, Pomare, to an alcoholic and backed him in a war against other island chiefs, supplying him with firearms, to be used against the other islanders clubs. The understanding was that with his victory all would be forced to convert. Then, a reign of terror followed where non-believers were killed. It was declared illegal by the Christians for anyone to decorate themselves with flowers, to sing (other than hymns), to surf or dance. Within 25 years the native culture of Tahiti and the entire Pacific was extinguished

http://www.burningcross.net/crusades/christian-missionary-atrocities.html

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

karen3212 wrote: »

First one mentioned in this link:
In 1797, the London Missionary Society put its first missionaries on the shores of Tahiti. Fourteen years later they had not made one convert, even though the happy Tahitians provided them with servants galore, built their houses and fed them. Finally the Christians devised an ingenious plan, which ‘converted’ the entire island in one day. According to a letter written home by brethren J. M. Orsmond, one of their own members, they reduced the local chief, Pomare, to an alcoholic and backed him in a war against other island chiefs, supplying him with firearms, to be used against the other islanders clubs. The understanding was that with his victory all would be forced to convert. Then, a reign of terror followed where non-believers were killed. It was declared illegal by the Christians for anyone to decorate themselves with flowers, to sing (other than hymns), to surf or dance. Within 25 years the native culture of Tahiti and the entire Pacific was extinguished

http://www.burningcross.net/crusades/christian-missionary-atrocities.html

I am well aware of what happened in Tahiti, as would most other students on the subject of missions, and this is one of the most garbled one-eyed rewritings of history I have ever encountered (pasted from a fundamentalist Hindu site).

The true story, as recorded in the archives of the London Missionary Society (LMS) is as follows.
A team of missionaries worked on Tahiti during the reign of King Pomare. At times he gave them permission to minister but at other times he hindered them and destroyed their house and printing press. Eventually there were only four missionaries left, foraging for food such as berries in the mountains. When that king died his son, Pomare II took over and was more tolerant of the missionaries. Some of Pomare's followers professed Christianity, and the King himself requested baptism, but the missionaries refused due to the king's heavy drinking, polygamy, and homosexual behaviour.

A civil war broke out on the island and the missionaries were faced with a stark choice - either lend their guns to the government forces or be massacred by the rebels (this was at a time when a number of LMS missionaries were already dying in similar events elsewhere in the world).

This scenario is still debated today in seminaries across the world. Should the missionaries have accepted their impending deaths, or were they entitled to arm the one group that promised to save their lives? My personal belief, and that of most missiologists, is that they should have accepted their martyrdom - but that is easy for us to say from the comfort and security of a classroom.

Pomare's forces defeated the rebels, and he subsequently demanded baptism as his reward for saving the missionaries' lives. They delayed this for seven years as the king still manifested no evidence of true Christian faith.

What happened on Tahiti was a sorry affair, no doubt, but very different from the version the Hindu fundamentalists are peddling. The missionaries did not turn the king into an alcoholic - the LMS were strongly teetotal and abhorred alcohol. They did not deliberately arm one tribe as a strategy to expand Christianity - they made an understandable but morally debatable decision to intervene in an existing war in order to save their own lives.

The idea that the island was converted "in one day" is a flight of fantasy. The war with the rebels dragged on for over a year, with the few guns that the missionaries provided probably being the deciding factor. Such wars were a constant feature on Tahiti and normally lasted much longer with greater loss of life.

Some marks of Tahiti native culture did disappear (cannibalism and infanticide, for example) but much native culture did survive by absorbing traits of Christianity. Cultures do change continually - no culture remains unaltered as a museum piece but constantly changes whether it be due to missionaries, coca-cola or antibiotics. As for the final comment about the culture of 'the entire Pacific' being extinguished - that is patently nonsense. In fact, according to LMS records, the growth of Christianity in other Pacific islands was painfully slow and not affected at all by the sad events on Tahiti.

karen3212

Yes - through natural causes

PDN wrote: »

I am well aware of what happened in Tahiti, as would most other students on the subject of missions, and this is one of the most garbled one-eyed rewritings of history I have ever encountered (pasted from a fundamentalist Hindu site).

Could you provide a link to your sources please?

bogwalrus

Yes - through proactive secularism

The London Missionary Society was a non-denominational missionary society formed in England in 1795 by evangelical Anglicans and Nonconformists, largely Congregationalist in outlook, with missions in the islands of the South Pacific and Africa. It now forms part of the Council for World Mission (CWM).

Just thought a Wikki description of what the LMS is might help with further discussion on the topic.

Peace