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
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
I suggest you read some Church History. Many Christians have taught against slavery since the very earliest days of the faith. It is certainly true that Church leaders who were in bed with State authorities have often compromised on this issue (Just as they compromised and prevaricated on a hundred other things that are clear enough in the New Testament such as humility, violence etc). However, it would be a downright lie to say that Christians only began to campaign against slavery after 2000 years.
I have read church history and your view above while correct is overstated. Many people of all faiths and none opposed slavery throughout its existence but in such tiny numbers as to make no difference.
isolated cases of heroism and opposition to slavery by Christians cannot obscure the fact that for 2000 years the churches stayed silent. Indeed even the biggest slave owners in the Americas used the bible etc to justify it.
When you are in a hole stop digging.0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »Except all of your points hinge on the IF scenario of Jesus being God, which is a rather shaky foundation. Since you've said you won't try to prove that he is God, then your arguments are without merit, since now you're not giving me any reasons whatsoever to accept them. They are without merit in their own right, since they're about accepting one's lot in life as it is and not to improve on it at all (just read Matthew Henry's commentary here http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-24.htm, it's horrifying), and not about improving human's well being.
Why should I accept my lot in life, and not seek to improve it, if you're not going to try and convince me that doing so will somehow end up with me having found favour with a dead immortal god man?
No, my arguments hinge on the poor logic and poor understanding of Christian beliefs that are displayed in your posts.
The merit of an argument pointing out a logical fallacy remains whether Jesus is God or not.
The merit of pointing out when you misunderstand or misrepresent Christian beliefs remains whether Jesus is God or not.
The practice of cherrypicking and quote-mining from a larger text, while not endeavouring to understand the overall message of the text, is intellectually risible. That remains true whether Jesus is God or not.0 -
I have read church history and your view above while correct is overstated. Many people of all faiths and none opposed slavery throughout its existence but in such tiny numbers as to make no difference.
isolated cases of heroism and opposition to slavery by Christians cannot obscure the fact that for 2000 years the churches stayed silent. Indeed even the biggest slave owners in the Americas used the bible etc to justify it.
When you are in a hole stop digging.
So you admit that I am correct. Therefore you were incorrect. Yet you think I'm the one in a hole?
That's funny.
Of course slave-owners in America used Scripture to justify the keeping of slaves. Why? Because they knew that the vast majority of opposition to slavery came from Christians who were quoting the Bible extensively in advocating abolition.
A similar scenario exists today when those who deny global warming keep quoting scientists to support their case. This does not mean that opposition to the concept of global warming can be blamed on science. It can rightfully be blamed (as with slavery) on human greed. However, greedy people who want to maintain their practices will always use similar language to that of their opponents. That's why the anti-global warming brigade resort to pseudo-science and it's why slave owners resorted to pseudo-Christianity.0 -
So you admit that I am correct. Therefore you were incorrect. Yet you think I'm the one in a hole?
That's funny.
Of course slave-owners in America used Scripture to justify the keeping of slaves. Why? Because they knew that the vast majority of opposition to slavery came from Christians who were quoting the Bible extensively in advocating abolition.
A similar scenario exists today when those who deny global warming keep quoting scientists to support their case. This does not mean that opposition to the concept of global warming can be blamed on science. It can rightfully be blamed (as with slavery) on human greed. However, greedy people who want to maintain their practices will always use similar language to that of their opponents. That's why the anti-global warming brigade resort to pseudo-science and it's why slave owners resorted to pseudo-Christianity.
This is the kind of equivocation that just destroys any credibility you have .
You can explain away all you want but the fact of the matter is Christianity has an appalling record on slavery ,women's rights, children's rights and a host of other issues .
And your notion of pseudo Christianity and global warming is one I doubt those Christians holding those beliefs would agree with.
It is funny how when good is done it is always the belief but when bad is done it is always the believer- allows you to dodge all responsibility0 -
This is the kind of equivocation that just destroys any credibility you have .
You can explain away all you want but the fact of the matter is Christianity has an appalling record on slavery ,women's rights, children's rights and a host of other issues .
It's hardly equivocation. It's a straightforward analysis of history.
Of course 'Christianity' has an appalling record on many issues. There have been hundreds of millions of people who have called themselves Christians, many of them holding sincerely held beliefs, and many of them not having any sincere beliefs at all. Many of them have been deeply involved in politics and power structures.
You could equally say the same of any ideology - including atheism.
However, the point we are discussing, that of slavery bears closer examination.
One of the hallmarks of a sincerely held belief is that its adherents will practice that belief even when there is no material benefit in doing so. That is true irrespective of whether the belief itself is true or false.
You would be very hard pressed indeed to point to anyone in history who quoted the Bible to support slavery even when it was to their own personal detriment to do so. Can you point to even one such person?
In fact, as you well know, those who quoted the Bible to support slavery were invariably those who were also benefiting financially from slavery - or who clung to power by turning a blind eye to the evil of slavery.
However, Christian history is replete with numerous examples of people who suffered huge personal loss, including the loss of careers, societal position, freedom and even life itself because they stood up for a principle, one they got from their understanding of Scripture, that slavery was wrong.
A prime example would be during the Spanish conquest of South and Central America. Missionary priests were very active in trying to protect native Americans from slavery. They even persuaded the Pope to excommunicate anyone involved in the slave trade (despite your quite untrue assertion that it took 2000 years for Christians to oppose slavery). However, a bit of pressure from the King of Spain soon persuaded the papacy to rescind the excommunication and the flow of slaves, and gold, was able to recommence.
Now, that certainly demonstrates that people were involved in leading the institutional Church that were quite unworthy of any such office. And it is a salutary lesson on political corruption and the corrosive power of wealth and influence. But it is also entirely consistent with the thesis that some Christians opposed slavery on spiritual and biblical grounds, while others supported it for reasons of greed, politics and power.
The comparison with global warming is apt. We would be hard pressed to identify any scientists who argue against man-made global warming on principled grounds to their own detriment. Instead you find that most, if not all, such 'scientists' also happen to receive grants and funding from the petroleum industry. That in itself tells you much about whether their position is a sincerely held scientific opinion or not.
So I think my point has validity here - unless of course you want to point out loads of people in history who stood to lose from the slave trade yet bravely supported it on biblical grounds?It is funny how when good is done it is always the belief but when bad is done it is always the believer- allows you to dodge all responsibility
Yes, it is funny that always happens when any reference is made to the evils committed by atheists (quite apt when you consider that the largest perpetrators of slavery in our lifetimes have been States that were very vocally atheist regimes). Yet as soon as we mention that we will hear a chorus of voices protesting that the bad actions of atheists are never the fault of the belief and always the fault of the believer.
Allows you to dodge all responsibility, doesn't it? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's hardly equivocation. It's a straightforward analysis of history.
Of course 'Christianity' has an appalling record on many issues. There have been hundreds of millions of people who have called themselves Christians, many of them holding sincerely held beliefs, and many of them not having any sincere beliefs at all. Many of them have been deeply involved in politics and power structures.
You could equally say the same of any ideology - including atheism.
However, the point we are discussing, that of slavery bears closer examination.
One of the hallmarks of a sincerely held belief is that its adherents will practice that belief even when there is no material benefit in doing so. That is true irrespective of whether the belief itself is true or false.
You would be very hard pressed indeed to point to anyone in history who quoted the Bible to support slavery even when it was to their own personal detriment to do so. Can you point to even one such person?
In fact, as you well know, those who quoted the Bible to support slavery were invariably those who were also benefiting financially from slavery - or who clung to power by turning a blind eye to the evil of slavery.
However, Christian history is replete with numerous examples of people who suffered huge personal loss, including the loss of careers, societal position, freedom and even life itself because they stood up for a principle, one they got from their understanding of Scripture, that slavery was wrong.
A prime example would be during the Spanish conquest of South and Central America. Missionary priests were very active in trying to protect native Americans from slavery. They even persuaded the Pope to excommunicate anyone involved in the slave trade (despite your quite untrue assertion that it took 2000 years for Christians to oppose slavery). However, a bit of pressure from the King of Spain soon persuaded the papacy to rescind the excommunication and the flow of slaves, and gold, was able to recommence.
Now, that certainly demonstrates that people were involved in leading the institutional Church that were quite unworthy of any such office. And it is a salutary lesson on political corruption and the corrosive power of wealth and influence. But it is also entirely consistent with the thesis that some Christians opposed slavery on spiritual and biblical grounds, while others supported it for reasons of greed, politics and power.
The comparison with global warming is apt. We would be hard pressed to identify any scientists who argue against man-made global warming on principled grounds to their own detriment. Instead you find that most, if not all, such 'scientists' also happen to receive grants and funding from the petroleum industry. That in itself tells you much about whether their position is a sincerely held scientific opinion or not.
So I think my point has validity here - unless of course you want to point out loads of people in history who stood to lose from the slave trade yet bravely supported it on biblical grounds?
Yes, it is funny that always happens when any reference is made to the evils committed by atheists (quite apt when you consider that the largest perpetrators of slavery in our lifetimes have been States that were very vocally atheist regimes). Yet as soon as we mention that we will hear a chorus of voices protesting that the bad actions of atheists are never the fault of the belief and always the fault of the believer.
Allows you to dodge all responsibility, doesn't it? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
This is just more equivocation and a skewed reading of history , the fact of the matter is when it suited the economically powerful Christian nations to dispense with slavery they did so . This is of course the usual practice- the richer we get the more civilized we get.
And as for your global warming theory -just more bandwagon jumping . In the space of 100 years the rich Christian nations have destroyed the planetary eco system and now that we have reached ' the promised land' we desire ,as is our wont, to pull the ladder up after us and deny other nations the very same means of achieving their prosperity. No wonder we have no credibility .
As for your final lines - I don't know why you lumber me with the evils of atheists ? In fact those regimes are just religions under another name as far as I am concerned.0 -
This is just more equivocation and a skewed reading of history , the fact of the matter is when it suited the economically powerful Christian nations to dispense with slavery they did so . This is of course the usual practice- the richer we get the more civilized we get.
I would fundamentally disagree with you that there are any such thing as 'Christian nations' - but I guess that is part of your skewed reading of history.
So, once again, can you please cite me some examples of Christians who stood up for the principle of slavery on biblical grounds where there was no selfish benefit to be gained by doing so.
You claim to have read church history - so this shouldn't be too hard for you.
.And as for your global warming theory -just more bandwagon jumping . In the space of 100 years the rich Christian nations have destroyed the planetary eco system and now that we have reached ' the promised land' we desire ,as is our wont, to pull the ladder up after us and deny other nations the very same means of achieving their prosperity. No wonder we have no credibility
I'm not sure what these 'Christian nations' are in the last 100 years. And I fail to see the relevance in denying other nations anything. What's that got to do with anything we're discussing.
I chose the subject of global warming because it's something I feel passionate about, because those who suffer most from it are the poorest people of the world. For you to characterise that as 'bandwagon jumping' is rude and offensive. It reflects badly on you.As for your final lines - I don't know why you lumber me with the evils of atheists ? In fact those regimes are just religions under another name as far as I am concerned.
I lumber you with them to demonstrate the hypocrisy of an atheist criticising Christians for blaming the believer rather than the belief. Atheists do the exact same thing (except they compound it by pretending that bad atheists are actually religious).0 -
I lumber you with them to demonstrate the hypocrisy of an atheist criticising Christians for blaming the believer rather than the belief. Atheists do the exact same thing (except they compound it by pretending that bad atheists are actually religious).
Which atheist (country) started a war or commited evil or crimes in the name of atheism?0 -
-
I would fundamentally disagree with you that there are any such thing as 'Christian nations' - but I guess that is part of your skewed reading of history.
So, once again, can you please cite me some examples of Christians who stood up for the principle of slavery on biblical grounds where there was no selfish benefit to be gained by doing so.
You claim to have read church history - so this shouldn't be too hard for you.
.
I'm not sure what these 'Christian nations' are in the last 100 years. And I fail to see the relevance in denying other nations anything. What's that got to do with anything we're discussing.
I chose the subject of global warming because it's something I feel passionate about, because those who suffer most from it are the poorest people of the world. For you to characterise that as 'bandwagon jumping' is rude and offensive. It reflects badly on you.
I lumber you with them to demonstrate the hypocrisy of an atheist criticising Christians for blaming the believer rather than the belief. Atheists do the exact same thing (except they compound it by pretending that bad atheists are actually religious).
Disagree all you want - that is how those nations classified themselves. As for me citing Christians that stood up for slavery ? Why would I do that ? That is just another red herring . By their very practice of it by definition they approved of it . Of course you will use your usual get out of jail card here and say that was the believer and not the belief.
And bully for you if you feel passionate about global warming - you would be a fool if you didn't- but as we trade invective across a high speed internet connection and the infrastructure that supports it,their is something a little bit hypocritical about out concern , don't you think ?
And if you think I am being rude and offensive then it is time you opened your eyes , the Christian nations and the former communist nations ( I am not leaving them off either) have turned the planet into a toxic cesspit in less than 100 years . And to even lecture places like India or Africa on what needs to be done when we still individually consume sometimes up to what twenty of their citizens do is just a joke.
This is not to say that I am blind to the good that Christians do- there is a shift taking place in some parts of the Christian movement in the USA that sees it as our duty to safeguard the planet and this is probably our only hope of realistic change on this issue in the USA.0 -
Advertisement
-
Disagree all you want - that is how those nations classified themselves. As for me citing Christians that stood up for slavery ? Why would I do that ? That is just another red herring . By their very practice of it by definition they approved of it . Of course you will use your usual get out of jail card here and say that was the believer and not the belief.
Well, one reason why you would do it would be because it would demonstrate that people actually based their practice of slavery on biblical beliefs (rather than basing it on selfish greed and then trying to use the Bible to justify it).
Of course there's also a very strong reason why you wouldn't do it, isn't there? Because you know fine well you can't find such examples.
So come on, I call you out on your 'Get out of Jail free Card' bluff. Where are the examples of Christians who, to their own detriment, bravely practiced slavery because it was biblical?And bully for you if you feel passionate about global warming - you would be a fool if you didn't- but as we trade invective across a high speed internet connection and the infrastructure that supports it,their is something a little bit hypocritical about out concern , don't you think ?
No, I don't think there's anything hypocritical about my concern. I happen to live in a developed country. That does not make concern over global warming any less genuine.And if you think I am being rude and offensive then it is time you opened your eyes , the Christian nations and the former communist nations ( I am not leaving them off either) have turned the planet into a toxic cesspit in less than 100 years . And to even lecture places like India or Africa on what needs to be done when we still individually consume sometimes up to what twenty of their citizens do is just a joke.
Well you are rude and offensive because I haven't lectured India or africa about any of that. I used an apt illustration about science, pseudoscience and global warming - to accuse me of 'bandwagon jumping' for doing so is downright ignorant.0 -
Well, one reason why you would do it would be because it would demonstrate that people actually based their practice of slavery on biblical beliefs (rather than basing it on selfish greed and then trying to use the Bible to justify it).
Of course there's also a very strong reason why you wouldn't do it, isn't there? Because you know fine well you can't find such examples.
So come on, I call you out on your 'Get out of Jail free Card' bluff. Where are the examples of Christians who, to their own detriment, bravely practiced slavery because it was biblical?
No, I don't think there's anything hypocritical about my concern. I happen to live in a developed country. That does not make concern over global warming any less genuine.
Well you are rude and offensive because I haven't lectured India or africa about any of that. I used an apt illustration about science, pseudoscience and global warming - to accuse me of 'bandwagon jumping' for doing so is downright ignorant.
This is just all more equivocation . And when you can't defend the issues you get personal .
The fact of the matter is that Christianity has been late to the party on virtually every issue in the last millenium - slavery , women's right, childrens rights ,workers rights , democracy , global warming , the list just goes on and on.
And then its apologists try to find a way to take credit for those improvements . When is it bad it is the believer when it is good it is his/her belief.
Spare me and before you lecture me do me a favour and reign in your co-religionists like Sarah Palin George Bush and co. who with a bible in one hand and a drill in the other are blazing a path of destruction across the globe.
Oh I forgot - they are misinterpreting the message - only you have the right version.0 -
This is just all more equivocation . And when you can't defend the issues you get personal .
Personal, you mean like accusing someone of jumping on the bandwagon because they have a concern about global warming?
I'll ask you once more. Can you please cite some examples of Christians who, to their own personal detriment, supported slavery?The fact of the matter is that Christianity has been late to the party on virtually every issue in the last millenium - slavery , women's right, childrens rights ,workers rights , democracy , global warming , the list just goes on and on
And yet, when it suits you, you label as 'Christian nations' the very nations that were the foremost in history in abolishing slavery, giving women equal rights, protecting children by creating an age of consent and forbidding child labour, creating trade unions, instituting democracy etc.And then its apologists try to find a way to take credit for those improvements .
Fancy that. Imagine trying to take credit for the biblically motivated actions of Christian abolitionists in both the UK and the US. Imagine trying to take credit for the early Methodists in establishing trade unions. Imagine trying to take credit for the Salvation Army who fought the establishment to raise the age of consent from 13 to 16 so as to curb childhood prostitution. Imagine trying to take credit for the same Salvation Army in pushing for health & safety laws in factories or for the Quakers who pioneered the concept of providing good housing for their workers. Imagine trying to take credit for Rev Martin Luther King and his biblically based fight against segregation and promoting of democracy for black and white alike.Spare me and before you lecture me do me a favour and reign in your co-religionists like Sarah Palin George Bush and co. who with a bible in one hand and a drill in the other are blazing a path of destruction across the globe.
A pair of nutjobs, certainly. To use a poker analogy, I'll see you that pair and double you Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and the nutjob in North Korea. Heck, during the Great Leap Forward, Mao managed to kill more people between breakfast and lunch time each day than the Spanish Inquisition did in their entire history.
Btw, while I think Sarah Palin is certainly a few sandwiches short of a picnic, can you please tell me about the path of destruction she has blazed across the globe? How many millions has she killed? How many gulags did she set up?
There's millions have what I think is the right version. But don't let facts get in the way of your rant.Oh I forgot - they are misinterpreting the message - only you have the right version0 -
Personal, you mean like accusing someone of jumping on the bandwagon because they have a concern about global warming?
I'll ask you once more. Can you please cite some examples of Christians who, to their own personal detriment, supported slavery?
And yet, when it suits you, you label as 'Christian nations' the very nations that were the foremost in history in abolishing slavery, giving women equal rights, protecting children by creating an age of consent and forbidding child labour, creating trade unions, instituting democracy etc.
.
Fancy that. Imagine trying to take credit for the biblically motivated actions of Christian abolitionists in both the UK and the US. Imagine trying to take credit for the early Methodists in establishing trade unions. Imagine trying to take credit for the Salvation Army who fought the establishment to raise the age of consent from 13 to 16 so as to curb childhood prostitution. Imagine trying to take credit for the same Salvation Army in pushing for health & safety laws in factories or for the Quakers who pioneered the concept of providing good housing for their workers. Imagine trying to take credit for Rev Martin Luther King and his biblically based fight against segregation and promoting of democracy for black and white alike.
A pair of nutjobs, certainly. To use a poker analogy, I'll see you that pair and double you Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and the nutjob in North Korea. Heck, during the Great Leap Forward, Mao managed to kill more people between breakfast and lunch time each day than the Spanish Inquisition did in their entire history.
Btw, while I think Sarah Palin is certainly a few sandwiches short of a picnic, can you please tell me about the path of destruction she has blazed across the globe? How many millions has she killed? How many gulags did she set up?
There's millions have what I think is the right version. But don't let facts get in the way of your rant.
You are actually serious with this , abolitionists trade unionists etc ? After over 1500 years of total silence and repression they finally began to comprehend the Gospel message !
Yeah right , just like you are leading the way right now on gay rights same sex marriage and in 20 years times the discussion boards will reflect how yet again you were in the vanguard of change.
You really couldn't make this stuff up.
And by the way there may well be millions that think as you do but there are billions that don't, only now you can't coerce them .0 -
You are actually serious with this , abolitionists trade unionists etc ? After over 1500 years of total silence and repression they finally began to comprehend the Gospel message !
So you want to diminish and deride the achievements of William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King and others because they occurred later in history rather than sooner?Yeah right , just like you are leading the way right now on gay rights same sex marriage and in 20 years times the discussion boards will reflect how yet again you were in the vanguard of change.
Wow, you're really going for the full set of red herrings and strawmen now, aren't you?And by the way there may well be millions that think as you do but there are billions that don't, only now you can't coerce them .
I've never attempted to coerce anyone into anything, nor have I ever wanted to. And you are being deeply dishonest in suggesting otherwise.0 -
So you want to diminish and deride the achievements of William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King and others because they occurred later in history rather than sooner?
Wow, you're really going for the full set of red herrings and strawmen now, aren't you?
I've never attempted to coerce anyone into anything, nor have I ever wanted to. And you are being deeply dishonest in suggesting otherwise.
Because I point out the silence of Christianity for over 1500 years in no way diminishes the achievements of King, Niemoller etc but again it is the way you seek to personalise and diminish every point you have no answer to.
Just your very own version of ignore the facts and teach the controversy.
Would it hurt you so much to accept that on those issues Christianity was a bit late to the game ?0 -
Because I point out the silence of Christianity for over 1500 years in no way diminishes the achievements of King, Niemoller etc but again it is the way you seek to personalise and diminish every point you have no answer to.
Just your very own version of ignore the facts and teach the controversy.
Would it hurt you so much to accept that on those issues Christianity was a bit late to the game ?
Well Christianity was late to the party on all those issues, however it was from the same Christendom that all those issues progressed. Was Christianity to blame for it taking so long or dose it deserve credit for it happening aat all?
I see it more like progress happening inevitably once the general Christian principals are established, from the refer nation to the enlightment to the westerns way of living, all stem from the spread of Christianity, not Judaism or Islam or budism or Shinto. You have to wonder why?0 -
Well Christianity was late to the party on all those issues, however it was from the same Christendom that all those issues progressed. Was Christianity to blame for it taking so long or dose it deserve credit for it happening aat all?
I see it more like progress happening inevitably once the general Christian principals are established, from the refer nation to the enlightment to the westerns way of living, all stem from the spread of Christianity, not Judaism or Islam or budism or Shinto. You have to wonder why?
Yeah I know replying to myself........
I just spotted the Euro centric bias in that post so read it as just thinking out loud. Obviously once things go in a direction that's the direction it goes in, no guidance needed.0 -
Well Christianity was late to the party on all those issues, however it was from the same Christendom that all those issues progressed. Was Christianity to blame for it taking so long or dose it deserve credit for it happening aat all?
I see it more like progress happening inevitably once the general Christian principals are established, from the refer nation to the enlightment to the westerns way of living, all stem from the spread of Christianity, not Judaism or Islam or budism or Shinto. You have to wonder why?
Of course Christianity deserves credit , as do the Jews Greeks and Romans . I don't think you can separate Judaism out of the mix .
But is it not also true that once Christianity became the dominant power progress stagnated for a thousand years ?. And it was the long slow tortuous process of the Enlightenment that got us where we are to day .
And that was based on reason and not religion .0 -
The fact of the matter is once Christianity attained power it behaved no better than any other power.
And it was the erosion of that power that brought about the surge in progress. And we can see this still today in other regions where religion is still a dominant force, be it Ireland emerging into modern Europe or Islam in so many places around the globe.0 -
Advertisement
-
Nick, I do have to question why you keep trumpeting the biblically motivated people you mention such as Martin Luther King Jr. Were people like him considered great and heroic for what they did?
Yes. They accomplished great social progress in promoting human rights. They deserve eternal gratitude for what they did, you will get no argument from me on that matter.
However, to try and say that it was all due to the bible is to me actually quite sickening. It robs these people of any sense of moral revulsion they had and reduces them to only doing good because they think an ancient book tells them to do so.
It also doesn't help your argument any when you admitted that for centuries, the bible was used to justify slavery and other horrible practices. Whether out of a sense of true belief or not, it doesn't help that people were able to do so, since verses such as "Slaves, obey your earthly masters" (or the 1 Cor 7:24 verse I showed you...how come you ignored that verse? It'd be all too easy for me to accuse you right back of being the one who's actually cherry-picking)
are in the bible, all too readily accessible to literate people to point at and say "See! God himself approves of slavery! It's right there!"...instead of saying point blank, in no uncertain terms, in as plain a language as possible, not to own another human being as property.
You also mentioned earlier how before you were a christian you were a different person. For one, you mentioned you were homophobic. Okay, good thing you no longer are, but why? If you say something along the lines of the bible teaching you not to be, that is a classic case of cherry-picking, since there are quite a few verse in the OT that decry homosexuality (since you say you're no longer homophobic due to bible teachings, then this means you're deliberately ignoring certain passages you don't agree with). If you say something along the lines of Jesus doing away with the old laws, then why is the OT even in the bible at all? Why retain it?
Do you agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? If no, why not? If no, and your stated reason is because of what Jesus said in the bible, then how is this not at the least still a mild example of homophobia or anti-homosexual bias? (since this means preventing one group of people from entering into a legally recognised union, while allowing another group to do so, all based on what their junk is downstairs, this is blatantly unfair).0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »Nick, I do have to question why you keep trumpeting the biblically motivated people you mention such as Martin Luther King Jr. Were people like him considered great and heroic for what they did?
Yes. They accomplished great social progress in promoting human rights. They deserve eternal gratitude for what they did, you will get no argument from me on that matter.
However, to try and say that it was all due to the bible is to me actually quite sickening. It robs these people of any sense of moral revulsion they had and reduces them to only doing good because they think an ancient book tells them to do so.
It also doesn't help your argument any when you admitted that for centuries, the bible was used to justify slavery and other horrible practices. Whether out of a sense of true belief or not, it doesn't help that people were able to do so, since verses such as "Slaves, obey your earthly masters" (or the 1 Cor 7:24 verse I showed you...how come you ignored that verse? It'd be all too easy for me to accuse you right back of being the one who's actually cherry-picking)
are in the bible, all too readily accessible to literate people to point at and say "See! God himself approves of slavery! It's right there!"...instead of saying point blank, in no uncertain terms, in as plain a language as possible, not to own another human being as property.
You also mentioned earlier how before you were a christian you were a different person. For one, you mentioned you were homophobic. Okay, good thing you no longer are, but why? If you say something along the lines of the bible teaching you not to be, that is a classic case of cherry-picking, since there are quite a few verse in the OT that decry homosexuality (since you say you're no longer homophobic due to bible teachings, then this means you're deliberately ignoring certain passages you don't agree with). If you say something along the lines of Jesus doing away with the old laws, then why is the OT even in the bible at all? Why retain it?
Do you agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? If no, why not? If no, and your stated reason is because of what Jesus said in the bible, then how is this not at the least still a mild example of homophobia or anti-homosexual bias? (since this means preventing one group of people from entering into a legally recognised union, while allowing another group to do so, all based on what their junk is downstairs, this is blatantly unfair).
I think you will find when it comes to homophobia Nick will one one the 'hate the sin and not the sinner' variety , just as is the believer and not the belief that is approving of slavery or witch burning or whatever.
The best get out of jail card there is .0 -
I think you will find when it comes to homophobia Nick will one one the 'hate the sin and not the sinner' variety , just as is the believer and not the belief that is approving of slavery or witch burning or whatever.
The best get out of jail card there is .
Hate the sin, and not the sinner/hate the sin, love the sinner, is an incredibly evil phrase. It's nothing more than a way for the user of that phrase to try and pretend that he's part of the "treat all humans decently" crowd, while still subscribing to the very same religion that treats a section of that same crowd as being inherently evil or sinful, when the thing being decried has no negative consequences whatsoever. It reinforces the notion of calling something evil merely because a divine master said he didn't like it, not on the basis of whether or not it causes harm.
When you're puzzling out morals and right and wrong actions, you're simply doing it wrong if you're not judging them based on human goodwill.0 -
I think you will find when it comes to homophobia Nick will one one the 'hate the sin and not the sinner' variety , just as is the believer and not the belief that is approving of slavery or witch burning or whatever.
The best get out of jail card there is .
I suspect he may also, on behalf of the evangelical alliance, or some such organisation, have campaigned for civil partnerships, which is admirable. Though I always feel a little sad when someone dramatically changes a bad aspect of their life, and rather than giving themselves the credit they are due, lavish it on some supernatural being, without which they think they could not have changed. Sad.
MrP0 -
Mod: Rather than speculating on the motivations, associations, or character of Nick or any other user, it might be an idea to get back on topic.0
-
Because I point out the silence of Christianity for over 1500 years in no way diminishes the achievements of King, Niemoller etc but again it is the way you seek to personalise and diminish every point you have no answer to.
Just your very own version of ignore the facts and teach the controversy.
Would it hurt you so much to accept that on those issues Christianity was a bit late to the game ?
It was certainly later than it should have been, but still much earlier than most other ideologies or philosophies.The fact of the matter is once Christianity attained power it behaved no better than any other power.
And it was the erosion of that power that brought about the surge in progress.
Well not quite as bad as 'any other power'. Atheist States, for example, have proved to be far worse.
However, it's certainly true that Christianity as a politically dominant power is a very bad idea - and that's why I believe that the impact of Christianity on culture was severely retarded by the Church jumping into bed with the State and producing a bastard child called Christendom.
If you read the words of Jesus, or the writings of Paul, you find no endorsement of the idea of 'Christian nations' or of passing laws to enforce Christian views on others. Instead you read about a counter-cultural movement that was to be in the world but not of the world.
And if you think about the kind of achievements that I mentioned earlier (abolition of slavery, starting the trade union movement in the UK, introducing better factory conditions, ending segregation) these were all brought about by people who were outside the power structures of society. For that is where Christianity, as taught in the New Testament, thrives and is at its most effective - on the margins and living among the poor and oppressed. That is where you could find the abolitionists, the Quakers, the Salvation Army, the early Methodists and MLK.0 -
Atheist States
Just wondering, can you name one of these states? If you name something like communist Russia, China or North Korea, I counter with that those are still religious nations - the focus of the religion has merely shifted from a magical being to the state or national father figure (Stalin and the Kim family are infamous for having personality cults centred around them, with strong religious overtones such as exaggerated myths about achievements accomplished by these figures, and warnings of punishments for those who don't believe and obey).
Nick, why continue to wax poetic about christian charities and social progressives? You do realize that there are secular counterparts to those groups and figures, don't you? Great, the Salvation Army does charitable work...so does Amnesty International for example, and yet it doesn't do it because of the teachings of a guy who died over 2,000 years ago. It does it for other reasons that cannot be denied.
The bible is a ridiculous book because it can be used and cited for both good and evil reasons. As others here have been saying, it took centuries before the vast majority of people started interpreting the book in favour of human rights, instead of against them. Do you not wonder how and why such an interpretation managed to last so long? If as you say the bible is 'clear' in its support for human rights, then how come anti-human rights rhetoric was able to justify itself by pointing to the bible for so long?0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »Just wondering, can you name one of these states? If you name something like communist Russia, China or North Korea, I counter with that those are still religious nations - the focus of the religion has merely shifted from a magical being to the state or national father figure (Stalin and the Kim family are infamous for having personality cults centred around them, with strong religious overtones such as exaggerated myths about achievements accomplished by these figures, and warnings of punishments for those who don't believe and obey).
The problem there is that you are playing semantic games to argue that atheists were really religious.
Congratulations, all you've managed to do is to divorce religion from belief in God.
The fact remains that nations who claim to be atheist have consistently been among the worst human rights abusers in history and, in our lifetime, have proven to be the most enthusiastic practitioners of slavery.
Trying to redefine 'religion' to suit your purposes doesn't address that.Nick, why continue to wax poetic about christian charities and social progressives? You do realize that there are secular counterparts to those groups and figures, don't you? Great, the Salvation Army does charitable work...so does Amnesty International for example, and yet it doesn't do it because of the teachings of a guy who died over 2,000 years ago. It does it for other reasons that cannot be denied.
Of course there are such secular charities. And the fact that they came into existence after their Christian counterparts pretty well explodes Marienbad's myth about Christianity coming late to the party.0 -
The problem there is that you are playing semantic games to argue that atheists were really religious.
Congratulations, all you've managed to do is to divorce religion from belief in God.
The fact remains that nations who claim to be atheist have consistently been among the worst human rights abusers in history and, in our lifetime, have proven to be the most enthusiastic practitioners of slavery.
Trying to redefine 'religion' to suit your purposes doesn't address that.
Still doesn't change the fact that such nations acted just like the religions of their day. They had dogma and myths spouted as fact, they punished non-believers or warned that there would be punishment of one kind or another for non-believers. Being obedient was declared virtuous.
All of these christianity has had in its history.
As for divorcing religion from belief in God...if by belief in God you mean the christian god Yahweh as talked about in the bible, then this is a rather laughable statement to make, since there have been religions before and after christianity that taught a belief in things other than that one specific character.
As for those 'atheist' nations being among the worst human rights abusers...what, are you playing the "My crowd is not as bad as them" card? Yes, they did horrible things...so did nations that fervently adopted christianity. They would have disagreed with you violently as to what the 'true interpretation' of the bible is, they would have been able, and in fact, did point to passages that endorsed their actions.0 -
Advertisement
-
It was certainly later than it should have been, but still much earlier than most other ideologies or philosophies.
Well not quite as bad as 'any other power'. Atheist States, for example, have proved to be far worse.
However, it's certainly true that Christianity as a politically dominant power is a very bad idea - and that's why I believe that the impact of Christianity on culture was severely retarded by the Church jumping into bed with the State and producing a bastard child called Christendom.
If you read the words of Jesus, or the writings of Paul, you find no endorsement of the idea of 'Christian nations' or of passing laws to enforce Christian views on others. Instead you read about a counter-cultural movement that was to be in the world but not of the world.
And if you think about the kind of achievements that I mentioned earlier (abolition of slavery, starting the trade union movement in the UK, introducing better factory conditions, ending segregation) these were all brought about by people who were outside the power structures of society. For that is where Christianity, as taught in the New Testament, thrives and is at its most effective - on the margins and living among the poor and oppressed. That is where you could find the abolitionists, the Quakers, the Salvation Army, the early Methodists and MLK.
No I would contend that it was just as bad as any other power. It just depends on how you do the comparisons , sure if it is just raw gross numbers the Stalins Lenins and Pol Pots of this world win out every time . But that is just a factor of massively increased population and mechanised forms of killing .
If you want to measure in on a percentage basis I would say you might get some very interesting stats . The population of Germany decreased by between 25% and 40% by the time the Thirty Years War and Wallenstein were finished with it. And to show just how much it was about power the tide was turned by Catholic Louis X111 of France with a little help from Cyrano De Bergerac fighting on the side of the Protestant Princes .Needless to say when it was all over they all agreed on a witch burning programme.
And one of the truly staggering things about Rwanda , which had a religious as well as a tribal element to it, was the amount of killing that was done in such a short space of time with just machetes.
To go back to those achievements you attribute to Christianity , it is true that in those specific instances Christians were to the fore , but why in that century and not in previous centuries ? Why specifically at that time and in the main in that place ? I attribute it to the success of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution and the growth of a thoughtful leisured class.
Similarly today we have unbelievably wealthy Christians distributing aid in Africa ,but in most cases, then as now with major strings attached from banning condoms to legislating against LGBT's.
When they start taking on the root causes of these problems ( the inherent imbalance between the mega rich west and everyone else) then I might start believing. But then that would be to tackle the origins and basis of their own fortunes and prosperity . ( and my prosperity so I am not absolving us Irish either)
But as they say plus ca change - when we had those soup kitchens during the Irish Famine there were strings attached and that model still applies 150 years later .0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement