Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11545[Death To Religion] Re: Introduction

Expand Messages
  • kschwiebert@prodigy.net
    Jan 9, 2009
      Your 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 deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > and again
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "kschwiebert@..." <schwbert_98@...>
      > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 12:25 PM
      > Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Introduction
      >
      >
      > > Now you-below please
      > >
      > > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@>
      > > wrote:
      > >>
      > >> Below please:
      > >>
      > >> ----- Original Message -----
      > >> From: "kschwiebert@" <schwbert_98@>
      > >> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.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
      them,
      > > or your counterpoint. Christians claim a higher standard, then
      revert
      > > to the staus quo for cover when it suits them. Women's Rights,
      Black
      > > Civil Rights, Interracial Marraige, and now Gay Rights. Shouldn't
      the
      > > Christian community have been behind these human rights 100%? I
      know
      > > many Christians were supportive, but if they were adherents of
      Jesus
      > > and not just admirers, it would have been all Christians, not just
      > > some.
      >
      > ====Where do you get your idea of "supposed to be"? Where do your
      get your
      > idea of "from bad ideas"?--and where for universally supported?--
      and why
      > universally in quote marks? What is the "higher standard"?--do you
      mean
      > morality, or salvation, or what? What "status quo"?--do you
      mean "pagan
      > ways" or something like that? Many Christians do support those
      rights etc.
      > What group of any sort ever has had such 100% unanimity? Religions
      don't
      > work that way--all not just some, never have worked that way. So
      would that
      > negate any value to religion?
      >
      > >>
      > >> We see the same with the Christian zeal for
      > >> > colonialism, forced conversion, and death to those who refuse.
      We
      > > see
      > >> > witch trials in the 1600's and burning crosses in the 1960's.
      > >>
      > >> ---Where death to those who refuse? Of course, I did not
      indicate
      > > there was
      > >> 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
      vogue,
      > > they were starved or given small-pox infected blankets like the
      > > Native Americans from the 1860's-1890's. Today, our own Air Force
      is
      > > corrupted by the undue influence of evangelicals. One high ranking
      > > officer was quoted in Iraq as saying "I know my God is stronger
      than
      > > their God." Really, really defective thinking. Now non
      evangelicals
      > > are being harrassed at the Air Force Academy (google it). Is Iraq
      > > current enough?
      > > The Klan only allows Christians in its ranks, correct? They
      conflate
      > > Christianity with White Supremacy using a twisted interpretation
      of
      > > some Bronze Age scriptures. No they are not a Christian
      organization
      > > per se.
      >
      > ====Many, many forced conversions after Age of Enlightment: for
      example?
      > You have no example? Yes those Native Americans killed a lot of
      white eyes
      > who killed a lot of them. Again, of course many groups use
      religion, like
      > Christianity, to support their bad activities. You lump all Air
      Force into
      > those very few, as corrupted? Harassment goes all ways, but hardly
      > indicative of a whole group. So what Bronze Age scriptures--none of
      the
      > Bible was composed before Persian or Hellenistic times, and that's
      after
      > Iron Age.
      >
      > >>
      > >> > Christianity has developed a malignancy which permits and
      subtley
      > >> > encourages violence against and repression of non Christians.
      To
      > > say
      > >> > 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
      fade,
      > > and
      > >> 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
      one.
      > > I am nearly 50 years old. The trouble arises when the Church is
      given
      > > political power and the activist evangelical wing gains the
      > > 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
      to
      > > extremism. Just look at the US Republican Party for a domestic
      > > example, look at Israel, look at Palestine, Iran.
      >
      > ====Surely I agree that power corrupts. I also agree to religious
      brain
      > washing and I abhor that too, especially when involving kids. And
      I
      > certainly oppose extremism, which should be stamped out through
      education.
      > And on and on.
      >
      > >>
      > >> > Were the church's former powers restored we would surely see
      the
      > > same
      > >> > 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
      authority
      > > over another, based on hair color or some other arbitrary
      > > characteristic (like believing in the right god). The group in
      power
      > > slowly but surely becomes oppressive and abusive towards the
      other.
      > > It is human nature. The tribalism and exclusionary aspects of
      > > Christianity especially bring this behavior out. Again, this is
      not
      > > speculation, it is based on scientific fact.
      > > Further, we allow Christian Scientists to refuse their children
      > > medical care in the interest of freedom of religion. Looks like
      The
      > > State still has some work to do.
      >
      > Yes I am familiar with those tests concerning authority--seems to
      be in
      > human nature. I doubt Christianity is more liable to that.
      >
      > >>
      > >> > There is no such thing a "universal love" in a religion that
      > >> > insists on its being right to the exclusion of all other
      faiths or
      > >> > non believers. It can not be. There may be some derivative
      > > Christian
      > >> > sects which try to square all this up, but most of their
      bretheren
      > >> > would say that are not Christian at all.
      > >>
      > >> ---Again fallacy of composition. Christianity is on the way to
      > > reject
      > >> exclusivity.
      > >
      > > Now Richard, this statement seems like speculation to me. Why do
      you
      > > say that? Is the Catholic Church ready for a merger with the Greek
      > > 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
      ever
      > > to have run for VP or POTUS. These people never take a day off.
      They
      > > will never be satisfied.
      > > 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
      program, to get
      > interaction and cooperation among different religions and Christian
      sects.
      > As long as they can make millions of money, those televangelists
      will keep
      > going, and more will rise--a huge scam. You are wrong in thinking
      I am
      > apologizing for bad Christians or of any other religion. I'm just
      trying to
      > emphasize the facts and counter lumping some bad activities to all
      > activities. I criticize religion about as much as any, and I side
      mostly
      > with Richand Dawkins, but I lean more to Dan Dennett, also an
      atheist.
      > Basically I argue against organized religion, but the problem is
      that
      > 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:
      1/8/2009
      > 6:05 PM
      >
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic