11545[Death To Religion] Re: Introduction
- Jan 9, 2009Your orginal point, which spawned all of this dialogue, was that
Christianity was "one of the better options" and that atheists should
use the "best in any religion to challenge its believers". My
question is, and was originally, why is Christianity one of the
better options? For this assertion to be valid there must be some
special characteristics about it which make it "better" than other
religions as you implied. I am still waiting for an answer on that.
I have tried to point out that Christianity is in fact one of the
worst options for several reasons.
1. Exclusivity-only the "saved" are worthy of god's mythical afterlife
2. Conversion-most Christians believe that all of us need to be
converted, and our souls are damned if we are not. This streak is not
common to all or most other faiths, and it allows adherents to see
non believers as less human, less worthy of compassion
3. The status of women in the Catholic Church especially, the
treatment of minorities until recent history, and the treatment of
gays even today, the treatment of children mentally (all) and
physically (too many)
Again, I ask, what unique, paradigm changing, breakthrough
philosophy has Christianity given us which did not exist or could not
exist without its influence? Stack whatever that sliver is against
the profound evil which Christianity has been used to prop up, or
which the church itself is responsible for.
PS-the Air Force thing is no trivial matter. It goes to the top of
the organization and if you think having folks who believe in The End
Times in charge nuclear weapons (and eager to see the Rapture)is a
small matter, well you are entitled to your opinion.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...>
> and again
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kschwiebert@..." <schwbert_98@...>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 12:25 PM
> Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Introduction
> > Now you-below please
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Richard Godwin" <meta@>
> > wrote:
> >> Below please:
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "kschwiebert@" <schwbert_98@>
> >> To: <email@example.com>
> >> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 2:52 AM
> >> Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Introduction
> >> > The problem is that it is not just the Medieval Church who
> >> > committed all these crimes. As I described in my prior post, we
> > can
> >> > trace this violent streak all the way through to modern times.
> > Post
> >> > Enlightenment we witness the establishment of and Christian
> > doctrinal
> >> > support of slavery.
> >> ---Slavery was universally supported, not a good example for you.
> > ---Christianity is supposed to be a departure from bad ideas which
> > were "universally" supported. Actually, not a good example for
> > or your counterpoint. Christians claim a higher standard, thenrevert
> > to the staus quo for cover when it suits them. Women's Rights,Black
> > Civil Rights, Interracial Marraige, and now Gay Rights. Shouldn'tthe
> > Christian community have been behind these human rights 100%? Iknow
> > many Christians were supportive, but if they were adherents ofJesus
> > and not just admirers, it would have been all Christians, not justget your
> > some.
> ====Where do you get your idea of "supposed to be"? Where do your
> idea of "from bad ideas"?--and where for universally supported?--and why
> universally in quote marks? What is the "higher standard"?--do youmean
> morality, or salvation, or what? What "status quo"?--do youmean "pagan
> ways" or something like that? Many Christians do support thoserights etc.
> What group of any sort ever has had such 100% unanimity? Religionsdon't
> work that way--all not just some, never have worked that way. Sowould that
> negate any value to religion?We
> >> We see the same with the Christian zeal for
> >> > colonialism, forced conversion, and death to those who refuse.
> > seeindicate
> >> > witch trials in the 1600's and burning crosses in the 1960's.
> >> ---Where death to those who refuse? Of course, I did not
> > there wasvogue,
> >> no violence, etc. after the Enlightenment. Of course there was
> > some. There
> >> is a problem: many groups claim to be Christian, but were or are
> > they
> >> really? The Klu Klux Klan: was that a Christian organization?
> >>>>>Many, many historical examples of "heathens" who were either
> > forced to convert or put to the sword. When that became out of
> > they were starved or given small-pox infected blankets like theis
> > Native Americans from the 1860's-1890's. Today, our own Air Force
> > corrupted by the undue influence of evangelicals. One high rankingthan
> > officer was quoted in Iraq as saying "I know my God is stronger
> > their God." Really, really defective thinking. Now nonevangelicals
> > are being harrassed at the Air Force Academy (google it). Is Iraqconflate
> > current enough?
> > The Klan only allows Christians in its ranks, correct? They
> > Christianity with White Supremacy using a twisted interpretationof
> > some Bronze Age scriptures. No they are not a Christianorganization
> > per se.example?
> ====Many, many forced conversions after Age of Enlightment: for
> You have no example? Yes those Native Americans killed a lot ofwhite eyes
> who killed a lot of them. Again, of course many groups usereligion, like
> Christianity, to support their bad activities. You lump all AirForce into
> those very few, as corrupted? Harassment goes all ways, but hardlythe
> indicative of a whole group. So what Bronze Age scriptures--none of
> Bible was composed before Persian or Hellenistic times, and that'safter
> Iron Age.subtley
> >> > Christianity has developed a malignancy which permits and
> >> > encourages violence against and repression of non Christians.To
> > sayfade,
> >> > it is less prevalent today is not a credit to
> > Christian "diversity",
> >> > it is a credit to those who sought to limit its power over our
> > lives.
> >> --Again you make the mistake of lumping all so-called Christian
> > groups you
> >> despise to include all Christianity: composition fallacy. The
> > power of all
> >> religions has been fading over recent times, and continues to
> > andone.
> >> that's good.
> >>>>My point needs to be clarified. I realize there are many open
> > minded Christians. I was raised a Methodist and was a practicing
> > I am nearly 50 years old. The trouble arises when the Church isgiven
> > political power and the activist evangelical wing gains theto
> > influence, because they are more motivated. When they do, the open
> > minded Christians are influenced, brain washed, or pressured into
> > more extreme positions. We see this in many cases such as Nazi
> > Germany and China during the Cultural Revolution. Moderate,
> > reasonable people are controlled by a fanatical minority. This
> > fanatical minority is not subject to reason, and whether it be
> > National Socialism, Communism, or Christianity, it will soon lead
> > extremism. Just look at the US Republican Party for a domesticbrain
> > example, look at Israel, look at Palestine, Iran.
> ====Surely I agree that power corrupts. I also agree to religious
> washing and I abhor that too, especially when involving kids. AndI
> certainly oppose extremism, which should be stamped out througheducation.
> And on and on.the
> >> > Were the church's former powers restored we would surely see
> > sameauthority
> >> > behavior, and we do, in fact, in communities where it still is
> >> > allowed.
> >> ----Pure speculation. But yes, for those who harm others through
> > some claim
> >> of any religion, we have the laws of the State which prohibit
> > that. The
> >> quest for power over others is not only in religion, even though
> > religion
> >> has been the primary source.
> >>>>>Not speculation. I am sure you are familiar with the tests
> > involving college students where one select group is given
> > over another, based on hair color or some other arbitrarypower
> > characteristic (like believing in the right god). The group in
> > slowly but surely becomes oppressive and abusive towards theother.
> > It is human nature. The tribalism and exclusionary aspects ofnot
> > Christianity especially bring this behavior out. Again, this is
> > speculation, it is based on scientific fact.The
> > Further, we allow Christian Scientists to refuse their children
> > medical care in the interest of freedom of religion. Looks like
> > State still has some work to do.be in
> Yes I am familiar with those tests concerning authority--seems to
> human nature. I doubt Christianity is more liable to that.faiths or
> >> > There is no such thing a "universal love" in a religion that
> >> > insists on its being right to the exclusion of all other
> >> > non believers. It can not be. There may be some derivativebretheren
> > Christian
> >> > sects which try to square all this up, but most of their
> >> > would say that are not Christian at all.you
> >> ---Again fallacy of composition. Christianity is on the way to
> > reject
> >> exclusivity.
> > Now Richard, this statement seems like speculation to me. Why do
> > say that? Is the Catholic Church ready for a merger with the Greekever
> > Orthodox? Do we see fewer and fewer evangelical TV preachers,
> > collecting fewer and fewer dollars for new satellites and 737's?
> > Sarah Palin was just nominated for VP, for crying out loud. She is
> > maybe the most radical evangelical charismatic dispensationalist
> > to have run for VP or POTUS. These people never take a day off.They
> > will never be satisfied.program, to get
> > We need to call them out and be just as vigilant in protecting our
> > secular prerogatives. Apologizing for them is not helpful.
> ====Google Diana Eck at Harvard University and her Pluralism
> interaction and cooperation among different religions and Christiansects.
> As long as they can make millions of money, those televangelistswill keep
> going, and more will rise--a huge scam. You are wrong in thinkingI am
> apologizing for bad Christians or of any other religion. I'm justtrying to
> emphasize the facts and counter lumping some bad activities to allmostly
> activities. I criticize religion about as much as any, and I side
> with Richand Dawkins, but I lean more to Dan Dennett, also anatheist.
> Basically I argue against organized religion, but the problem isthat
> religion requires organization.------------
> >> Richard.
> >> >
> > ------------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1883 - Release Date:
> 6:05 PM
- << Previous post in topic