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

religion: good, bad, or ????

Expand Messages
  • Jack Musser
    ... It was more likely that Christianity made things worse, after all, it was the church that said tyrants were divinely appointed.   Kirk, Have you actually
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 12, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      > Certainly sensuality, drunkenness, coarseness, greed, dishonesty,
      > robbery, and violence existed in the Middle Ages; but probably the
      > moral disorder born of half a millennium of barbarian invasion, war,
      > economic devastation, and political disorganization would have been
      > much worse without the moderating effect of the Christian ethic,
      > priestly exhortations, saintly exemplars, and a calming, unifying
      > ritual.

      It was more likely that Christianity made things worse, after all, it
      was the church that said tyrants were divinely appointed.
       
      Kirk, Have you actually compared Christian societies to others.  Do you think the Romans were better before Christianity.   Do you think the barbarians were better before Christianity?  Do you think that pre-hebraic societies were better than the Jewish?  Nazism and Communism were pitiless.  Islam is gross in its morality.   Hinduism leaves much to be desired.  I know little about Buddhism.   Christianity, because of its image of Jesus and a loving god, has steady improved.   There is much in it to be critical of.   The question is whether it deserves the wholesale condemnation that you espouse.   Slavery was defended by old testament Christianity, but it was the liberal Christians who rallied against it far more forceably than the seculars.  What are the great crimes of Christianity today: it's conversative (not liberal) stance against abortion, homosexuality, stem cell research, . . .  You has as many allies in the churches if not
      more than you have in the secular crowd fighting against these policies.

      Again, let me make it clear, I am not encouraging religion, I am merely saying the full frontal assault is a big mistake.  Atheists are alienating some of their best support by making no distinctions about what Christianity is today and what it once was when it was the government.   Many Christians support separation of church and state, but do not support angry, hateful attacks.

      What are your goals and how do you hope to achieve them? 




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • KIRK SCHWIEBERT
      Morality pre-dates Christianity and we don t need it to be moral. You make the assumption that because Christianity was present during mankind s advance from
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 14, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Morality pre-dates Christianity and we don't need it to be moral. You make the assumption that because Christianity was present during mankind's advance from barbarism to civilized behavior that it was the cause. For your assertion to be true, then places which did not have the benefit of Christianity would still be barbaric. They advanced anyway. Why? You really should study Buddhism and Hinduism.
        Your arguments revolve around the "image" of Jesus leaving aside whether or not he actually existed or did any of the things which were later written about him. Since we now know it is better to be moral, and just, we don't require a children's story to remind us.
        It is time that we grow up as a species and drop our dependence on fantasy, like a child when he realizes there is no Santa. Our growth will be stunted as long as we cling to these ideas. That is my goal. Not to prop up Christianity because it may have facilitated some advances in our culture centuries ago. Today it is not only a drag on our advancement it is outright threatening to our existence.    



        --- On Mon, 1/12/09, Jack Musser <gladflyweather@...> wrote:

        From: Jack Musser <gladflyweather@...>
        Subject: [Death To Religion] religion: good, bad, or ????
        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 12:30 PM






        > Certainly sensuality, drunkenness, coarseness, greed, dishonesty,
        > robbery, and violence existed in the Middle Ages; but probably the
        > moral disorder born of half a millennium of barbarian invasion, war,
        > economic devastation, and political disorganization would have been
        > much worse without the moderating effect of the Christian ethic,
        > priestly exhortations, saintly exemplars, and a calming, unifying
        > ritual.

        It was more likely that Christianity made things worse, after all, it
        was the church that said tyrants were divinely appointed.
         
        Kirk, Have you actually compared Christian societies to others.  Do you think the Romans were better before Christianity.   Do you think the barbarians were better before Christianity?  Do you think that pre-hebraic societies were better than the Jewish?  Nazism and Communism were pitiless.  Islam is gross in its morality.   Hinduism leaves much to be desired.  I know little about Buddhism.   Christianity, because of its image of Jesus and a loving god, has steady improved.   There is much in it to be critical of.   The question is whether it deserves the wholesale condemnation that you espouse.   Slavery was defended by old testament Christianity, but it was the liberal Christians who rallied against it far more forceably than the seculars.  What are the great crimes of Christianity today: it's conversative (not liberal) stance against abortion, homosexuality, stem cell research, . . .  You has as many allies in the churches if not
        more than you have in the secular crowd fighting against these policies.

        Again, let me make it clear, I am not encouraging religion, I am merely saying the full frontal assault is a big mistake.  Atheists are alienating some of their best support by making no distinctions about what Christianity is today and what it once was when it was the government.   Many Christians support separation of church and state, but do not support angry, hateful attacks.

        What are your goals and how do you hope to achieve them? 

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • bestonnet_00
        ... Yes. ... No, but I don t think they were worse. ... No, but I don t think they were worse. ... Nazism was Christian. Communism really wasn t any worse than
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 14, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Jack Musser
          <gladflyweather@...> wrote:
          >
          > Have you actually compared Christian societies to others. Do you
          > think the Romans were better before Christianity.

          Yes.

          > Do you think the barbarians were better before Christianity?

          No, but I don't think they were worse.

          > Do you think that pre-hebraic societies were better than the Jewish?

          No, but I don't think they were worse.

          > Nazism and Communism were pitiless.

          Nazism was Christian.

          Communism really wasn't any worse than Christianity, just that it had
          a larger population. It should also be noted that the communists
          copied the methods of Tsarist Russia (which was Christian) and that
          Stalin had a religious upbringing.

          > Christianity, because of its image of Jesus and a loving god, has
          > steady improved.

          Jesus was not in anyway a moral person and a god who would torture
          someone for not believing in him is not very loving.

          The improvement in Christianity came not from the theology but from
          humanism, as most Christians switched to non-Christian morality.

          > There is much in it to be critical of. The question is whether it
          > deserves the wholesale condemnation that you espouse. Slavery was
          > defended by old testament Christianity, but it was the liberal
          > Christians who rallied against it far more forceably than the
          > seculars.

          The few secularists were first to oppose it and just as forceful, just
          that the mainstream of society didn't listen to them (but the liberal
          Christians did and they were listened to by the mainstream of society).

          > What are the great crimes of Christianity today: it's conversative
          > (not liberal) stance against abortion, homosexuality, stem cell
          > research, . . . You has as many allies in the churches if not
          > more than you have in the secular crowd fighting against these
          > policies.

          Yet they don't seem to be doing much, are they even worth having as
          allies?

          > Again, let me make it clear, I am not encouraging religion, I am
          > merely saying the full frontal assault is a big mistake.

          If you want to do something else that's fine, just stay out of the way
          of those of us do want to do that so that we can attack religion.

          Besides, if we're going to stop that crap we have to put the religious
          on the defensive, we don't win wars by having a good defence.

          > Atheists are alienating some of their best support by making no
          > distinctions about what Christianity is today and what it once was
          > when it was the government.

          The religious who are our allies on some issues will be so not because
          we pander to them but because they think it is the right thing to do.

          In fact making religion look bad would be a good incentive for the
          religious people who aren't theocrats to oppose the extremists in
          their religions.

          > Many Christians support separation of church and state, but do not
          > support angry, hateful attacks.

          But what is a hateful attack (I don't care about whether it's angry,
          we've got good reasons to be angry (bit less so where I am then the
          states but even so, when the US coughs, the world catches cold)).

          > What are your goals and how do you hope to achieve them?

          Long term I want to see religion disappear. For the most part I am
          expecting demographics to do the job but I don't mind helping the
          process along a little.

          For our victory to be legitimate it can't involve coercion so the
          religious shouldn't lose any rights though they should lose special
          privileges that come with being religious (and doing so would change
          the economics of religious belief in a favourable manner).

          In the short term just keeping things from getting any worse would be
          the minimum acceptable outcome, patience is also a virtue as it will
          likely take a couple of generations (although I suspect that the
          number of religious people is exaggerated).
        • kschwiebert@prodigy.net
          I enjoy reading your comments. ... Jewish? ... had ... it ... was ... just ... liberal ... society). ... way ... religious ... because ... do. ... be
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 14, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            I enjoy reading your comments.


            --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Jack Musser
            > <gladflyweather@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Have you actually compared Christian societies to others. Do you
            > > think the Romans were better before Christianity.
            >
            > Yes.
            >
            > > Do you think the barbarians were better before Christianity?
            >
            > No, but I don't think they were worse.
            >
            > > Do you think that pre-hebraic societies were better than the
            Jewish?
            >
            > No, but I don't think they were worse.
            >
            > > Nazism and Communism were pitiless.
            >
            > Nazism was Christian.
            >
            > Communism really wasn't any worse than Christianity, just that it
            had
            > a larger population. It should also be noted that the communists
            > copied the methods of Tsarist Russia (which was Christian) and that
            > Stalin had a religious upbringing.
            >
            > > Christianity, because of its image of Jesus and a loving god, has
            > > steady improved.
            >
            > Jesus was not in anyway a moral person and a god who would torture
            > someone for not believing in him is not very loving.
            >
            > The improvement in Christianity came not from the theology but from
            > humanism, as most Christians switched to non-Christian morality.
            >
            > > There is much in it to be critical of. The question is whether
            it
            > > deserves the wholesale condemnation that you espouse. Slavery
            was
            > > defended by old testament Christianity, but it was the liberal
            > > Christians who rallied against it far more forceably than the
            > > seculars.
            >
            > The few secularists were first to oppose it and just as forceful,
            just
            > that the mainstream of society didn't listen to them (but the
            liberal
            > Christians did and they were listened to by the mainstream of
            society).
            >
            > > What are the great crimes of Christianity today: it's conversative
            > > (not liberal) stance against abortion, homosexuality, stem cell
            > > research, . . . You has as many allies in the churches if not
            > > more than you have in the secular crowd fighting against these
            > > policies.
            >
            > Yet they don't seem to be doing much, are they even worth having as
            > allies?
            >
            > > Again, let me make it clear, I am not encouraging religion, I am
            > > merely saying the full frontal assault is a big mistake.
            >
            > If you want to do something else that's fine, just stay out of the
            way
            > of those of us do want to do that so that we can attack religion.
            >
            > Besides, if we're going to stop that crap we have to put the
            religious
            > on the defensive, we don't win wars by having a good defence.
            >
            > > Atheists are alienating some of their best support by making no
            > > distinctions about what Christianity is today and what it once was
            > > when it was the government.
            >
            > The religious who are our allies on some issues will be so not
            because
            > we pander to them but because they think it is the right thing to
            do.
            >
            > In fact making religion look bad would be a good incentive for the
            > religious people who aren't theocrats to oppose the extremists in
            > their religions.
            >
            > > Many Christians support separation of church and state, but do not
            > > support angry, hateful attacks.
            >
            > But what is a hateful attack (I don't care about whether it's angry,
            > we've got good reasons to be angry (bit less so where I am then the
            > states but even so, when the US coughs, the world catches cold)).
            >
            > > What are your goals and how do you hope to achieve them?
            >
            > Long term I want to see religion disappear. For the most part I am
            > expecting demographics to do the job but I don't mind helping the
            > process along a little.
            >
            > For our victory to be legitimate it can't involve coercion so the
            > religious shouldn't lose any rights though they should lose special
            > privileges that come with being religious (and doing so would change
            > the economics of religious belief in a favourable manner).
            >
            > In the short term just keeping things from getting any worse would
            be
            > the minimum acceptable outcome, patience is also a virtue as it will
            > likely take a couple of generations (although I suspect that the
            > number of religious people is exaggerated).
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.