Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Would you like to see the death of religion.
Comments
-
Yes - through natural causes
I find it a bit odd too though, that you've stated previously that it's better if churches are changed by people within, do you not hold the same beliefs with regard to cultures? Also what do you think of people who are taking advantage of the war in Iraq to look for conversions?.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owCXbDVTLRE0 -
Yes - through natural causes
Here's a bit more on how christianity is using the US military as a transmission agent:karen3212 wrote:people who are taking advantage of the war in Iraq to look for conversions?
http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20071107_the_cancer_from_within/
Even my old friend Ken Ham is having his creationist materials distributed for him amongst the US military in Iraq. This article on AiG says how wonderful this is, but is understandably coy about exactly how the military is being used.0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.Could you provide a link to your sources please?
Unfortunately I am one of those rare creatures nowadays, someone who gathers information from real books and printed materials rather than web sites. The following books give accounts of what happened in Tahiti and draw on correspondence and reports from those who were actually involved:
Richard Lovett, The History of the London Missionary Society 1795-1895 2 vols (London: Oxford University Press, 1899).
Breward, Ian, A History of the Churches in Australasia. (Oxford University Press,2001). In this book (page 26) Breward says that Pomare's guns were actually purchased from Sydney traders.
Davies,John & Newbury, C.W.,History of the Tahitian Mission, 1799-1830. (Cambridge University Press, 1961) This book also points out the fact that the tribes fighting Pomare already possessed guns! This would mean the notion of one tribe with guns slaughtering those without guns is a total fabrication.
Tim Fulford, Debbie Lee, Peter Kitson. Literature, Science and Exploration in the Romantic Era: Bodies of Knowledge. (Cambridge University Press, 2004) This book, written by those very critical of Christian missionaries, portrays the missionaries as clueless saps whop were manipulated by natives who faked conversion in order to get their hands on the missionaries' guns.
Also, Dr Williams's Library in London holds about1600 items of correspondence from LMS missionaries. The School of Oriental and African Studies Library, in Russell Square, London, holds the LMS archives.
The historical record is very clear. The missionaries may indeed have been ill-prepared or trained for the situation in which they found themselves. But to accuse them of deliberately wiping out tribes in order to gain converts is blatant lies. Far from trying to destroy Polynesian culture, the missionaries were appreciative of the native culture. Henry Nott, the principal LMS missionary to Tahiti during Pomare's civil war, actually complained to the LMS that they were censoring his reports in their literature and removing any references that expressed appreciation of Tahiti culture. As an act of protest he refused to send any more reports!
Karen, I would counsel you against placing too much store in purported historical accounts that are propaganda. This applies as much to hagiography (Christian books that try to portray missionaries and others as wonderful saints) and polemical material (anti-Muslim diatribes written by Christians, anti-Catholic nonsense from Chick Publications, or anti-Christian rants from either Hindu fundamentalists or anyone else with an axe to grind).
There are plenty of good general books on Church History in any decent book shop. Even when written by Christians they usually do not shrink from discussing the bad and shameful aspects of Church history (after all, we are more interested in learning from the past than in rewriting it). Anything that tries to portray missionaries as either the most perfect people on earth, or as genocidal monsters, is usually more interested in propaganda than in truth.0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.I find it a bit odd too though, that you've stated previously that it's better if churches are changed by people within, do you not hold the same beliefs with regard to cultures? Also what do you think of people who are taking advantage of the war in Iraq to look for conversions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owCXbDVTLRE
I found that video to be a hilarious combination of falsehood, ignorance and overblown rhetoric. It's like something the Nazi propaganda machine would have cranked out in the 1930s.
Let's see, where would I start?
1. The video repeatedly conflates the biblical terminology of Christians fighting a war (a spiritual war against evil, where the primary weapon is prayer and 'soldiers' are enjoined to forgive and bless their persecutors and turn the other cheek if attacked) and US military action. I suppose we sacrifice babies and drink their blood in our communion services as well?
2. Hysterical language speaks of "millions of fanatical fundamentalists". It describes Voice of the Martyrs (VOM) as "a million dollar organisation" - technically true, but then with today's property prices even a corner shop is a million dollar organisation, isn't it?
3. It also says the 'martyrs' part of VOM refers to those who have died "fighting in the holy war". This could easily lead anyone who is excessively ignorant to conclude that VOM in some way supports sectarian violence or indeed any form of violence. Fact: VOM was set up by Richard Wurmbrand, a Romanian pastor, theologian and pacifist who was horribly tortured by the Communists because he continued to worship God rather than submit to an enforced atheist ideology. VOM encourages Christians to pray for, and where practical to send help to, those Christians living under oppressive regimes who are being persecuted, imprisoned or tortured. VOM was conducting clandestine missions to assist persecuted believers in Iraq under the Saddam Hussein regime long before the US invasion.
4. A Muslim mullah accuses the missionaries of raising sectarian and religious tensions in Iraq. WHAT? This is a country where Muslim clerics encourage their followers to commit mass murder against those who belong to rival Muslim sects. That is like blaming sectarian violence in Northern Ireland on the presence of Hare Krishnas.
5. The video focuses on one solitary US general who dares to make the following 'shocking statement': "My God is greater than their's." So what? Every single General in every army in the Muslim world daily recites the words that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. Where are the videos protesting about that? I personally have problems with a General speaking to a religious gathering in his uniform, but the guy is entitled to hold a religious opinion.
6. The video is factually incorrect. Southern Baptist Churches do not hold 'mass'. Also, George Bush is not a Southern Baptist. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore were all Southern Baptists, but Bush is a Methodist (a denomination that devotes much less energy to overseas missions and evangelism). I wonder why they didn't feature Clinton or Gore in that video? I guess it's easier to lie and claim Bush is a Baptist than it is to alienate your liberal audience by admitting that "Mr Green Environment" belonged to such a group.
Maybe you could link to where I've said that? I certainly believe it would be better if cultures were changed from within. But sometimes external pressure is required. For example, it took Christian missionaries to pressurise Hindus into largely abandoning the practices of suttee (where a widow was expected to commit suicide by jumping onto her husband's funeral pyre) and the practice of killing female infants because male children were considered more valuable. It would have been better if Hinduism could have sorted these things out themselves, but if not then thank God for those with the compassion and courage to combat such practices. Understandably the more fanatical Hindus are a bit pissed off at not being allowed to treat their women this way any more, therefore they create web sites rewriting history and pretending that Christian missionaries are genocidal monsters.I find it a bit odd too though, that you've stated previously that it's better if churches are changed by people within, do you not hold the same beliefs with regard to cultures?
The same way I think of doctors and nurses who are 'taking advantage' of the war in Iraq to treat sick children who were denied specialist treatment due to the previous regime and UN sanctions.Also what do you think of people who are taking advantage of the war in Iraq to look for conversions?
Christians were already in Iraq before the US invasion. The war, like many political changes, made it easier for missionaries to travel there to support those suffering Christians and to witness to their faith (a basic human right). That doesn't mean the war was right. I was, and am, opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but I see nothing wrong in traveling to areas which were denied to me prior to the war.0 -
Yes, except for my religion.have fun while you're there0
-
Advertisement
-
Yes - through proactive secularismFact: VOM was set up by Richard Wurmbrand, a Romanian pastor, theologian and pacifist who was horribly tortured by the Communists because he continued to worship God rather than submit to an enforced atheist ideology.
I rather suspect that if he hadn't denounced Communism, he might not have been arrested. To quote Richard Wurmbrand:
"I have decided to denounce 'communism', though I love the 'communists'. I don't find it to be right to preach the Gospel without denouncing communism."
Your version manages to make it sound like they arrested and tortured him purely to get him to renounce his faith. It's amazingly like political spin.The same way I think of doctors and nurses who are 'taking advantage' of the war in Iraq to treat sick children who were denied specialist treatment due to the previous regime and UN sanctions.
Certainly you see yourselves as necessary...I am sure there were Christians in Iraq before the war, but are you saying there were Evangelicals of your particular persuasion? Are you not going there as missionaries?Christians were already in Iraq before the US invasion. The war, like many political changes, made it easier for missionaries to travel there to support those suffering Christians and to witness to their faith (a basic human right). That doesn't mean the war was right. I was, and am, opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but I see nothing wrong in traveling to areas which were denied to me prior to the war.
I have to say that I don't see that as different from saying "I am opposed to the war in Iraq, but I see nothing wrong in doing business in areas that were denied to me prior to the war" - or "I don't support the crushing of the Cathar heresy, but I see nothing wrong in traveling to areas which were denied to me prior to the crusade".
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.I have to say that I don't see that as different from saying "I am opposed to the war in Iraq, but I see nothing wrong in doing business in areas that were denied to me prior to the war" - or "I don't support the crushing of the Cathar heresy, but I see nothing wrong in traveling to areas which were denied to me prior to the crusade".
Or, "I don't agree with the white man's genocide against the Native Americans but I see nothing wrong in taking a holiday in New York"0 -
Yes - through proactive secularismOr, "I don't agree with the white man's genocide against the Native Americans but I see nothing wrong in taking a holiday in New York"
Oddly enough, that is part of the reason I don't travel to the US. However, at a remove of 200 years, I think the point lapses. You are travelling into an occupied country, with an invasion force still on the ground and conflict ongoing. There is a difference.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Yes - through natural causes
As the link that I posted makes quite clear, Boyken is the thin end of a large christian wedge which is operating within the US military. If you care to look, there are many more examples of christian indoctrination throughout the military, extending all the way from the GI joes up to the very highest levels of the Pentagon. For example, see this article and this shameless organization.PDN wrote:The video focuses on one solitary US general who dares to make the following 'shocking statement': "My God is greater than their's." So what? Every single General in every army in the Muslim world daily recites the words that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.
And excusing the sins of one side by pointing out that the other side is just as bad strikes me as moral relativism of a especially noxious kind.
You forget to mention that Jimmy Carter (at least) resigned in disgust seven years ago from the Southern Baptist Convention. See here. In his recent books, Carter writes at some length, and with great clarity, concerning the naked politicization of the SBC and the use of religion to legitimize invasion, trampling on human rights and many other offensive actions of the current US administration.PDN wrote:Also, George Bush is not a Southern Baptist. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore were all Southern Baptists,
There are many other category and factual and spin-related errors in your post, but I've work to do today and don't have time to point them all out.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.
The issue of evangelism etc in the US military is, in my opinion, a church/state separation issue and as such unrelated to the issue of Christian missionaries in Iraq or Tahiti. I view it as almost identical to the situation here in Ireland where a member of my church who is an army officer was informed that he had zero promotion prospects as an evangelical in a Catholic nation's defence force. Discrimination is wrong.As the link that I posted makes quite clear, Boyken is the thin end of a large christian wedge which is operating within the US military. If you care to look, there are many more examples of christian indoctrination throughout the military, extending all the way from the GI joes up to the very highest levels of the Pentagon. For example, see this article and this shameless organization..
I didn't forget at all. Both Carter and Gore subsequently resigned from the Southern Baptist Convention. At the time they were active politically, however, they were very keen to trumpet their Baptist credentials when trying to appeal to the US electorate. Maybe Bush will resign from the Methodist Church once he's out of politics and isn't concerned about pretending that his conservatism is compassionate.You forget to mention that Jimmy Carter (at least) resigned in disgust seven years ago from the Southern Baptist Convention. See here. In his recent books, Carter writes at some length, and with great clarity, concerning the naked politicization of the SBC and the use of religion to legitimize invasion, trampling on human rights and many other offensive actions of the current US administration.0 -
Yes - through natural causes
Although they are two separate issues, the thread was discussing the use of the military to spread religion, so both issues are relevant.pdn wrote:The issue of evangelism etc in the US military is, in my opinion, a church/state separation issue and as such unrelated to the issue of Christian missionaries in Iraq or Tahiti.
From this and your previous posts re church/state separation, can I conclude that you are against the military (or the state) supporting religion in any context? ie, that you condemn the use of the military in the way that I described? And that you're in favour of the military becoming religion-free which would include the firing of chaplains, dismantling on-base churches (where a local alternative exists), and the abolition of tax-free status for religions, as enjoyed by religions in the USA for example?0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.
I condemn the practice of the military providing preferential treatment, or financially subsidising, any religion. I do believe soldiers should have the individual freedom, as do people in other walks of life, to be able to share their faith with their workmates without hindrance providing it does not interfere with their duties, constitute an abuse of authority (commanding officers pressurising those under their command) or allow someone to create a nuisance.From this and your previous posts re church/state separation, can I conclude that you are against the military (or the state) supporting religion in any context? ie, that you condemn the use of the military in the way that I described?
1. I do not believe military chaplains should be paid by the State. However, I believe all churches and faiths (including pagans and satanists) should be free to provide chaplain support to soldiers where the demand exists.And that you're in favour of the military becoming religion-free which would include the firing of chaplains, dismantling on-base churches (where a local alternative exists), and the abolition of tax-free status for religions, as enjoyed by religions in the USA for example?
2. As for on-base churches, soldiers should be free to organise themselves into churches just as they are free to form soccer teams, debating societies etc. To prohibit voluntary religious activities yet to permit other voluntary associations would, I believe, be discriminatory.
3. A lot would depend on your definition of making the military religion free. I believe religious people have as much right to enlist in the military as anyone else. I would prefer to see no-one of my faith in the military, as I prefer pacifism, but I am a minority voice in this regard.
4. The US provides tax-free status for all non-profit organizations, not just churches. I don't think a non-profit organization should be singled out for special treatment (better or worse) just because it is religious. I do believe that religious organizations whose executives draw huge salaries and benefits should be stripped of their non-profit status due to their non-prophet reality.0 -
Yes, except for my religion.
No objection there. Just as long as it's understood that some people don't want what you're "sharing", and you need to accept an answer of "no".I do believe soldiers should have the individual freedom, as do people in other walks of life, to be able to share their faith with their workmates without hindrance providing it does not interfere with their duties, constitute an abuse of authority (commanding officers pressurising those under their command) or allow someone to create a nuisance.0 -
Yes - through natural causes
Oh you said that earlier in this thread.
Maybe you could link to where I've said that?I certainly believe it would be better if cultures were changed from within. But sometimes external pressure is required. For example, it took Christian missionaries to pressurise Hindus into largely abandoning the practices of suttee (where a widow was expected to commit suicide by jumping onto her husband's funeral pyre) and the practice of killing female infants because male children were considered more valuable. It would have been better if Hinduism could have sorted these things out themselves, but if not then thank God for those with the compassion and courage to combat such practices. Understandably the more fanatical Hindus are a bit pissed off at not being allowed to treat their women this way any more, therefore they create web sites rewriting history and pretending that Christian missionaries are genocidal monsters.
And one day I hope the compassion and courage of atheists will pressure Christians into abandoning the idea of converting people to a different religion just because part of the culture is destructive. I can't understand how any Irish person wouldn't balk at the notion of tearing apart another culture, and throwing the good bits out as well as little bad bits.
Completely different, doctors and nurses are there to help, not to get people killed by converting them. And I have done charity work abroad and not once was I asked why was I doing it, the majority of human beings from all cultures/religions will help when they see dire need, for no other reason than that they can and it relieves some of the pain they feel when they see suffering. At least that is my experience with others who do any charity work. I just think that helping in the hope of converting, taking somone's religion from them, giving soup for a soul is wrong, disprectful, and offensive.The same way I think of doctors and nurses who are 'taking advantage' of the war in Iraq to treat sick children who were denied specialist treatment due to the previous regime and UN sanctions.
Actually I should have said all converters, not just Christian. And also I know many religious people who feel the same way as I do about changing people's religion.0 -
Yes - through natural causesI just think that helping in the hope of converting, taking somone's religion from them, giving soup for a soul is wrong, disprectful, and offensive.
I couldn't agree more.
I just can't see how it is "Christian" to give people food and shelter in return for them taking a Christian name, getting baptised and denouncing their current Gods if they have any.
My aunt is a Nun and has travelled to missionairies all over the world and I just have to bite my tongue every time she mentions the lovely work they do.
I'm not saying that they don't save peoples lifes and/or educate them but if it comes at a price then its not charity IMO.0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.Oh you said that earlier in this thread.
I've waded through 527 posts of this thread, many of which (including a few of my own) were mind-numbingly nonsensical. I still can't find where I said that!
Maybe it's in a parallel universe where missionaries arm tribes if they promise to turn the island Christian after massacring their enemies, where George Bush is a Southern Baptist, where Christian missionaries are responsible for sectarian tensions in Iraq and where atheism is noted for courage and compassion?
I can't understand it either. Are people doing that?I can't understand how any Irish person wouldn't balk at the notion of tearing apart another culture, and throwing the good bits out as well as little bad bits.0 -
-
Yes - through natural causes
In your study of history that you alluded to in a recent post, you seem to have overlooked your compassion-free co-religionists who, up until relatively recently, frequently required apostates, atheists and others to be sanctioned, if not outright murdered. Indeed, many christian-derived religions still have families disowning their apostates and derelicts today.pdn wrote:...where atheism is noted for courage and compassion?
Meanwhile, the courage of people like Galileo, Diderot, Hume, Gibbon and many more in squaring off against the overwhelming power of your religion was especially notable in those times when the safest political place to be was in a christian church pew, nodding in time with the fatuous thumping of a preacher's fist.0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.In your study of history that you alluded to in a recent post, you seem to have overlooked your compassion-free co-religionists who, up until relatively recently, frequently required apostates, atheists and others to be sanctioned, if not outright murdered. Indeed, many christian-derived religions still have families disowning their apostates and derelicts today.
Meanwhile, the courage of people like Galileo, Diderot, Hume, Gibbon and many more in squaring off against the overwhelming power of your religion was especially notable in those times when the safest political place to be was in a christian church pew, nodding in time with the fatuous thumping of a preacher's fist.
What a revealing little rant. I have not overlooked any such thing. I have frequently acknowledged that Christendom has, in its many perverted forms, frequently been murderous and disgustingly dictatorial - as has atheism.
Indeed, thousands of persecuted believers in China would find the idea of "compassionate courageous atheists" to be an oxymoron. I don't think either of us is in a position to throw stones.
I'm highly amused by your claiming Galileo as an atheist. Do you have a source for this? By the way, Galileo was hardly squaring off against the power of my religion. I'm not a Catholic, indeed anyone holding my particular beliefs would have been burned at the stake back then (both by Catholics or Protestants) faster than you could blink.
I don't deny that many individual atheists are compassionate and courageous, but this is probably because they are nice people - not because of their atheism. I certainly don't see courage or compassion as distinctive qualities of atheism per se.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.Meanwhile, the courage of people like Galileo, Diderot, Hume, Gibbon and many more in squaring off against the overwhelming power of your religion was especially notable in those times when the safest political place to be was in a christian church pew, nodding in time with the fatuous thumping of a preacher's fist.
I presume the Diderot you refer to is the same guy who demonstrated his compassion by declaring, "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
And which Gibbon are you referring to? Not Edward Gibbon, I presume, who, although scathing indeed of Catholicism, wrote unambiguously about Jesus as “the Son of God” and of “the pure and proper divinity of Christ.” Gibbon said that the first cause for the success of the Christian religion was due to “the convincing evidence of the doctrine itself and to the ruling providence of its great Author,”.
Was Hume an atheist or a deist?0 -
Yes - through proactive secularism
In fairness, you have a point and its not as if Stalin is as distant as the Spanish Inquisition.Indeed, thousands of persecuted believers in China would find the idea of "compassionate courageous atheists" to be an oxymoron. I don't think either of us is in a position to throw stones.
Some reality has to creep in. Its hard not to notice that there was quite a lot of activity in the course of the last century aimed at building new societies that, inter alia, left religion and superstition behind. I don't think any of them could be regarded as a stunning success.
In terms of pictures painting a story, I know I'm not the only person on the planet to find images of the Ryugyong Hotel have that sort of car accident 'I've got to look' quality. Apart from anything else, for me its a symbol just how far humans can chase down a pointless dead end. In principle, that really does go for atheism as much as theism and we're kidding ourselves to think otherwise.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularismIn fairness, you have a point and its not as if Stalin is as distant as the Spanish Inquisition.
Some reality has to creep in. Its hard not to notice that there was quite a lot of activity in the course of the last century aimed at building new societies that, inter alia, left religion and superstition behind. I don't think any of them could be regarded as a stunning success.
In terms of pictures painting a story, I know I'm not the only person on the planet to find images of the Ryugyong Hotel have that sort of car accident 'I've got to look' quality. Apart from anything else, for me its a symbol just how far humans can chase down a pointless dead end. In principle, that really does go for atheism as much as theism and we're kidding ourselves to think otherwise.
Sure - it's all people-operated, at the end of the day. As an atheist, it's difficult to claim some kind of special dispensation from human folly for atheism.
There certainly are, and have been, ideological atheists, but PDN consistently lumps them in with atheistic ideologies. To be fair, from his point of view there probably isn't any difference, but he can hardly then complain if we equally don't bother to distinguish between him and a Catholic.
That the Inquisition would have burned PDN is neither here nor there - they would have burned me too, and I'm 100% certain the Stalinists or Maoists would equally have shot either of us.
If PDN wishes to point out that his kind of Christian wasn't responsible for the Inquisition, I will quite willingly accept it - as long as he accepts equally that my kind of atheist wasn't responsible for Maoism. Otherwise, we're simply in slur territory, and he can be reminded in every thread about how "his lot" burned heretics and killed millions. It will be tedious, but it will be just.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.If PDN wishes to point out that his kind of Christian wasn't responsible for the Inquisition, I will quite willingly accept it - as long as he accepts equally that my kind of atheist wasn't responsible for Maoism. Otherwise, we're simply in slur territory, and he can be reminded in every thread about how "his lot" burned heretics and killed millions. It will be tedious, but it will be just.
Agreed. Too often this isn't acknowledged by either side.0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.If PDN wishes to point out that his kind of Christian wasn't responsible for the Inquisition, I will quite willingly accept it - as long as he accepts equally that my kind of atheist wasn't responsible for Maoism. Otherwise, we're simply in slur territory, and he can be reminded in every thread about how "his lot" burned heretics and killed millions. It will be tedious, but it will be just.
I agree. It is tedious. I keep Mao and Stalin up my sleeve and tend only to employ these strawmen in response to the Inquisition and Crusades strawmen.
Just as a matter of interest, a quick glance at the search facility on boards.ie reveals that (when we take the Christianity and the A&A fora together) the Crusades and the Inquisition are referred to twice as often as are Stalin and Mao (65 threads refer to the Crusades, 62 to the Inquisition, 26 to Mao and 25 to Stalin). So our retaliation is fairly measured, even if it hardly qualifies as turning the other cheek.
Funnily enough one of the results of all this straw-manning is that it makes us all less likely to examine our own positions critically. For example, most Christian discussion boards I have seen are much more critical of the churches, and much more candid about the shameful aspects of church history, than is the Christianity forum here on boards.ie. I think the real OTT attacks that occur here hinder honest appraisal, which is consistent with human nature. For example, when the Jesuits were being falsely accused of being fanatical assassins in Elizabethan England it made it harder for them to address real issues that were compromising their mission. Similarly, it is harder to discuss the very real mistakes and wrongs that some evangelical missionaries have committed if you are having to defend them against Munchausenian tales of genocide.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularism
+1Fanny Cradock wrote: »Agreed. Too often this isn't acknowledged by either side.
Well said Scofflaw.0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.Funnily enough one of the results of all this straw-manning is that it makes us all less likely to examine our own positions critically. For example, most Christian discussion boards I have seen are much more critical of the churches, and much more candid about the shameful aspects of church history, than is the Christianity forum here on boards.ie. I think the real OTT attacks that occur here hinder honest appraisal, which is consistent with human nature.
Indeed. Thought it is understandable when you consider the often heated nature of debates that go on. Both sides stretch out their lines a bit.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularismFanny Cradock wrote: »Indeed. Thought it is understandable when you consider the often heated nature of debates that go on. Both sides stretch out their lines a bit.
Sometimes very far indeed.PDN wrote:I agree. It is tedious. I keep Mao and Stalin up my sleeve and tend only to employ these strawmen in response to the Inquisition and Crusades strawmen.
Just as a matter of interest, a quick glance at the search facility on boards.ie reveals that (when we take the Christianity and the A&A fora together) the Crusades and the Inquisition are referred to twice as often as are Stalin and Mao (65 threads refer to the Crusades, 62 to the Inquisition, 26 to Mao and 25 to Stalin). So our retaliation is fairly measured, even if it hardly qualifies as turning the other cheek.
I wonder, idly, on how many of those latter occasions you were involved?
No, I admit that we have a share of atheist posters who lump all excesses committed by every religion together and seek to ram them down the throats of every theist they encounter - and that it's a natural response to do the same. The opposite is equally true.
However, one can stop such slanging matches becoming general by the simple addition of a qualifying statement that lumping all "religious" excesses together and ascribing them to the nature of religion is the same as lumping all "atheist" atrocities together and ascribing them to the nature of atheism - and that one is willing to play tit-for-tat with a poster who first plays such a card.
However, if you're going to simply state it as a bald fact, then one can hardly be surprised if even quite moderate posters become irritated. It's troll food, pure and simple.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I agree. It is tedious. I keep Mao and Stalin up my sleeve and tend only to employ these strawmen in response to the Inquisition and Crusades strawmen.
Oh well at least you now seem to accept Hitler as one of your own.
But scofflaw concedes this too easily - it's not about throwing straw-men around it's about certain claims made (mainly) by theists.
The first claim is that religion (and belief in God) is a force for good in society. This is easily falsifiable with examples such as the Inquisition and the Crusades - and the fact that in general throughout history the more power and influence any religious body has had the more nasty, intolerant and bigoted a society it was.
There have been societies where religious organisations have had almost total power and not *one* has produced anything resembling 'utopia', you'd think that one of these societies throughout history, guided by a loving God with the warmth of human kindness in their hearts could have managed it wouldn't you? But instead they produce dogmatic oppressive backwaters, where a rich upperclass rules over a poverty-stricken underclass.
The second claim (regarding Mao, Stalin et al) is a theist strawman - some atheists can be evil bastards! Who exactly is claiming that *all* atheists are not? Who is claiming that atheism is a moral code?
Where exactly can you find the claim that somehow a lack of a belief in God makes people love each other?
We all know anyway that the Mao/Stalin claims are tenuous at best, they did what they did for their ideologies - the atheism was of secondary importance.
Even if a militant atheist organisation emerged and started bombing churches under the banner of atheism then I'm still not sure what it would prove.
Christians make a claim that there is a God, he watches over us and intervenes here on earth - and that letting Christ into your heart and believing in God is a good thing - a force for good - look at modern day USA - this claim is made time and time again every day
Atheists make a single claim - they don't believe in God.0
Advertisement