Honest questions for God

[NCclimber 0]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

How do you excuse the FACT, that since the dogmatization of christianity around 325 CE(A.D.), 60 million men, women and children have been burned, tortured, raped and killed for not bowing their knee to jesus?

  Quote

Got a link to confirm this claim? A legitimate one? I'm not really interested in any of those hostile propaganda sites you regularly post.

I don't know where the 60 million figure comes from, but the Holocaust and the Crusades alone would encompass roughly a quarter of that number.

So the Holocaust was a Christian endeavor? Was the Vatican in on it? Why were 3 million Christians killed?

How many non-Christians do you think were killed during the Crusades?

There's a lot of bad info out there.

[NCclimber 0]

  Quote

  Quote

Outstanding job of missing my point!

So what is your point? Again, no matter how attractive someone finds religion, they still need to at the very least turn a blind eye to its logical inconsistencies (in a way they would not do for any other walk of life) in order to accept it as true.

I don't understand how you are arguing that religion does not require an overriding of logic just because it is attractive? Don't use an analogy, just spell it out - what are you talking about?

You know, Jakee, I would try to address these questions, if I thought you might actually consider my response. But from I've seen of your posts, relating to religion, mine would be a wasted effort.

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

I sincerely hope that development of other areas of society will now see religion's perceived usefulness diminish away.

I think that is so far away in time to be a pointless waste of discussion. Look at the rest of the world and the troubles it is having in just getting along. Look at those who you'd consider 'sophisticated' and how selfish they are.

There needs to be tools for moral training, religion (despite all it's flaws) still is the most powerful tool out there for that. "politicians" and organizations that abuse religion need the course correction.

we aren't that evolved yet

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,563]

  Quote

You know, Jakee, I would try to address these questions, if I thought you might actually consider my response.

So far as I can tell the only response you've made so far is "People like it 'cos its nice." If you do have a more in depth point than that then please let me know what I'm missing.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

  Quote

So far as I can tell the only response you've made so far is "People like it 'cos its nice."

I love irony.

[jakee 1,563]

  Quote

Look at the rest of the world and the troubles it is having in just getting along. Look at those who you'd consider 'sophisticated' and how selfish they are.

Who do you think I consider sophisticated? I think that as scientific knowledge increases then the core reason for religion (an explanation) decreases. Hopefully the influence of religion will steadily decrease alongside that.

BTW, Do you think religious differences are helping or hindering peace in the more violent parts of the world today?

  Quote

There need to be tools for moral training, religion (despite all it's flaws) still is the most powerful tool out there for that.

What happened to parental responsibility? I think morality is mostly learned in the home and then in the assimilation of society at large. Not in a church or synagogue or mosque.

Those who still follow to the letter the morals written down in most religious books are looked upon as backward thugs. The morality preached by todays mainstream religious houses is as flexible as any other, if it did not adapt it would be rejected.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,563]

  Quote

  Quote

So far as I can tell the only response you've made so far is "People like it 'cos its nice."

I love irony.

  Quote

I'm talking about getting inside believer's heads.....

(analogy).....

Maybe their attraction to faith is just something that you haven't yet considered.

Again, people believe it 'cos it's nice. So what'd I miss?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DSE 5]

  Quote

So the Holocaust was a Christian endeavor? Was the Vatican in on it? Why were 3 million Christians killed?

How many non-Christians do you think were killed during the Crusades?

There's a lot of bad info out there.

WTF are you talking about? The Holocaust was aimed directly at *all* non-Christians. Christians that were killed in the Holocaust were Polish. Poles were considered as "unworthy" and "inferior" regardless of their religion. Didn't you do world history in school? Remember all the "Polack jokes" when you were growing up? Jehovah's Witnesses were also exterminated. They're also not considered "Christian" any more than Mormons are.
If one didn't fall specifically into the Roman-Christian ethic, they were a potential inmate of the death camps.
Spend a few hours at Auschwitz, Dachau, or Bergen-Belsen. The government-sponsored (not Jewish) tour guides make all this pretty clear.
Yes, the Holocaust was heavily Christian in it's directive, and was heavily Vatican-supported. Hell, the Vatican has APOLOGIZED for their role in turning over Jewish names, refugees, etc, and there are still calls from within the Catholic church to more deeply repent and give backthe money garnered from the death of Jews.
I understand that some will say Catholics are not Christian, but that is nonsensical semantics.

Regarding the Crusades, nearly a quarter million non-Christians were killed, based on historical accountings. It may be more, it may be less. I don't know how many Christians were killed. AFAIC, it wasn't enough. Moreover, the Islamic Caliphate didn't attack the Christians, it was the other way around. The Christians wanted Jerusalem.
No different from today, Christians 1900 years ago felt the overwhelming need to force their beliefs down the throats of others, violently if necessary.

[kallend 2,106]

It was not until 1965 that the Vatican eliminated the phrase "perfidious Jews" from the liturgy of a Holy Week service.

Pope J-P II issued the apology March 1998.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

I think that as scientific knowledge increases then the core reason for religion (an explanation) decreases. Hopefully the influence of religion will steadily decrease alongside that......What happened to parental responsibility? I think morality is mostly learned in the home and then in the assimilation of society at large. Not in a church or synagogue or mosque.

so we are aligned well, actually, I just don't berate the religious - or even feel superior enough to make little cracks and jokes about it. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they have good intentions and are decent and private at heart, which I've observed is typical.

comments on this good exchange:

1 - "scientific knowledge increases" then religion will decrease. IMO, I doubt that, true scientific knowledge is really very sparsely distributed, the average joe lives with the benefits of new science, but doesn't really understand it. Not only knowledge must increase, but it needs to spread to be commonplace - that takes MUCH longer. Also, certain types of critical thinking, etc, and an objective skepticism needs to be the norm, not the exception. Else we just replace the "religion" of belief with the "religion" of active disbelief, which is likely much worse for society. Also, there is a HUGE part of the world population just concerned with shelter and food - Scientific thinking isn't really a priority with them. So you might be right if all you are concerned with is your personal social circle, but for the race of man? it's a much longer road still.

2 - "Parents don't need church/synagogue/mosque." Note I said religion and moral training needs to divorce from a large political organizational structure and be more local. I have ZERO issues with parents using religion as THEIR CHOSEN methodology/structure for raising their children. In fact, I'd encourage it. The organization will indocrinate just like schools will indoctrinate social norms onto the kids - unless the parent stays involved as the primary role model and instructor of social norms.

as for commenting on "those who still follow to the letter, etc" - I don't see the point in highlighting that group, it's really a splinter and just reinforces incorrect stereotypes of people of faith.

(FYI - did I mention I'm agnostic? - as far as I can tell - I don't know, don't care, won't fault another for his belief as long as he isn't obnoxious about it. I find those few 'vocal' atheists to be much more vitriolic than their religious counterparts - mainly because of the intentions of each, I believe. True atheism is very interesting and the debates are really good. Today's version of most atheists is just a reflection of the self centered, self congratulatory type of individual being neglected into adulthood these days. It's weak, snobbish, and poorly debated.

I like this discussion much better than most. and a hell of a lot more interesting than your back and forth with NCClimber - thanks)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[AFFI 0]

  Quote

I understand that some will say Catholics are not Christian, but that is nonsensical semantics.

So what exactly is the definition of a "Christian"?

Is believing in John 3:16 the requirement or an adherence of the teachings of Christ?


There has been some thought provoking reading in this thread…

[DSE 5]

  Quote

  Quote

So what exactly is the definition of a "Christian"?

Is believing in John 3:16 the requirement or an adherence of the teachings of Christ?


There has been some thought provoking reading in this thread…

Having been forced into a Catholic school when very young, and then having been raised by a Mormon family, I'm sure my view is somewhat distorted, but my view is that anyone ascribing to the teachings that have been attributed to Jesus the christ (actually named "Yeshua" by his parents) is a Christian. Christians seem to appreciate divisiveness, and so have created "rules" about who is and isn't Christian. To me, it seems pretty simple. Either you believe in what Yeshua taught, or you don't. If you don't, you're not Christian.
If you believe in Yeshua, then you must partake of baptism, in my view.

[Mockingbird 0]

Jack, you said this to Speedracer:

  Quote

Time is supposed to have began with the big bang so there was no "before".

And you said this to Pajarito:

  Quote

So exactly how am I supposed to understand this crap with my limited human intellect? Just give up and blindly accept it like you do? Not an option for me I'm afraid.

Somewhere along the way you decided to accept the idea that Time began with the big bang and that before the big bang there was nothing, not even time.

All I'm pointing out is that you already "blindly accept" some things. No one doesn't blindly accept certain things. It's not a fault; it's just something we all do after pondering whatever evidence exists and adopting a philosophical framework to fit it into.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[NCclimber 0]

  Quote

  Quote

So the Holocaust was a Christian endeavor? Was the Vatican in on it? Why were 3 million Christians killed?

How many non-Christians do you think were killed during the Crusades?

There's a lot of bad info out there.

WTF are you talking about? The Holocaust was aimed directly at *all* non-Christians.

Non-Christians. Well.... except for all those non-Anglo Christians.

  Quote

Christians that were killed in the Holocaust were Polish. Poles were considered as "unworthy" and "inferior" regardless of their religion.

It was against non-Christians. No? Wait? It was against 3 million Christians, too. Nice double speak

  Quote

If one didn't fall specifically into the Roman-Christian ethic, they were a potential inmate of the death camps.

Roman-Christian ethic? What are you talking about?

Silly me. I always thought it was about ethnic/racial cleansing.

  Quote

Yes, the Holocaust was heavily Christian in it's directive, and was heavily Vatican-supported.

Where do you get this stuff?

  Quote

Regarding the Crusades, nearly a quarter million non-Christians were killed, based on historical accountings.

Earlier, you were saying 15 million for the Crusades and the Holocaust, which was part of 60 million. Now we're down to quarter of a million. I'm not saying that number isn't significant, but it's a far cry from 60,000,000.

  Quote

No different from today, Christians 1900 years ago felt the overwhelming need to force their beliefs down the throats of others, violently if necessary.

This stuff is rich.

[Mockingbird 0]

  Quote

It all makes sense if you consider organized religion to be a mechanism for an elite group to control the masses.

So Christians are under a spell cast by the Pope, or whomever. That's interesting. How do you account for protestant Christianity?

As much as you'd like to think that you have it and us all figured out, you don't. There is much you don't understand and actually can't understand for one reason or another. Do you accept that?

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[DSE 5]

60 million divided by four...not that hard.
that would equal 15 million.
Holocaust accounts for anywhere between 12 million and 26 million.
A quarter million (which was a significant number to the world population at the time) is a drop in the bucket, but it also represents the next greatest number in Christian murders of non-Christians.
So...between 12.25 million and 26.25 million falls squarely into my original statement of the Holocaust and the Crusades accounting for roughly a quarter of the 60 million that someone else claims. It could be as much as 3/8ths, if you wanna accept the higher end of the Holocaust numbers, yeah?
Perhaps you don't accept that Christians are violent. Live in the deep south for a while as a non-white, non Christian.
Then come back and tell me how "rich" this stuff is. To you, it's funny. To some of us, it's reality.

[jakee 1,563]

  Quote

1 - "scientific knowledge increases" then religion will decrease. IMO, I doubt that, true scientific knowledge is really very sparsely distributed, the average joe lives with the benefits of new science, but doesn't really understand it. Not only knowledge must increase, but it needs to spread to be commonplace - that takes MUCH longer. Also, certain types of critical thinking, etc, and an objective skepticism needs to be the norm, not the exception.

True, it does take a long time for knowledge to be filtered down, probably at least a generation since it'll be school kids being actively taught the new advances. To my mind, I think that knowledge has in fact advanced to the point that religion could easily be marginalised - think the big bang, e=mc^2, atomic theory, Crick and Watson's DNA and (of course) evolution. While our current state of knowledge does not of course copmpletely negate a deity, I think it will progressively become more difficult to believe in a personal, involved deity - especially one described with such certainty 2 or more millenia ago.

As per critical thinking - this is an interesting point. I don't think that lack of scepticism on its own is the problem - rather a lack of scepticism for what is mainstream. Take those who believe in astrology and fortune tellers (or the more marginal sects of christianity), the majority of us, even religious folks, are sceptical of astrology and probably consider them slightly eccentric. Religion has become much more marginalised over the past few centuries - the question is has it stopped the slide or is the ball still rolling? My view is that the less of a hold it has on society the easier it will be for peoples natural scepticism to win out. I hope (as some have hypothesised) that the current boom in fundamentalism in the US and also the Middle East is partly from a recognition of the loosening grip of religion, and is a temporary backlash against it.

  Quote

Also, there is a HUGE part of the world population just concerned with shelter and food - Scientific thinking isn't really a priority with them. So you might be right if all you are concerned with is your personal social circle, but for the race of man? it's a much longer road still.

My idealist political views on foreign aid, global governance and fair trade could take up a whole other thread! For now though, I guess our discussion must be confined to the world we are both familiar with.

  Quote

2 - "Parents don't need church/synagogue/mosque." Note I said religion and moral training needs to divorce from a large political organizational structure and be more local. I have ZERO issues with parents using religion as THEIR CHOSEN methodology/structure for raising their children. In fact, I'd encourage it. The organization will indocrinate just like schools will indoctrinate social norms onto the kids - unless the parent stays involved as the primary role model and instructor of social norms.

as for commenting on "those who still follow to the letter, etc" - I don't see the point in highlighting that group, it's really a splinter and just reinforces incorrect stereotypes of people of faith.

Yes, you did say "away from the central organisation." Sorry.

I commented on the splinter groups for a reason. Most people who argue in favour of religion for moral reasons do so because they say religion provides us with the morals we should follow. I absolutely disagree on this point (bear with me for a sec). Religious books codify morals that were in vogue with ancient societies. Since then society has evolved and people pick and choose the morals they like from those books. In order to stop being left behind the religious organisations adapt and improvise to the point where they are teaching the new societies message rather than the original religious message. I had thought thats what you were getting at, but I see that it wasn't.

Ok, so yes parents can use religion as a framework for presenting their views to their kids. While I don't think it's harmful (barring fundamentalists) I don't understand why it is either neccessary or beneficial. Moral behaviour can be presented as what it is, maybe for instance 1) the right thing to do, 2) beneficial for society as a whole (and therefore yourself) 3) Golden rule etc. without resort to supernatural reasoning. I myself was raised with no kind of religion whatsoever and I don't fight, don't steal, never cheated on my gf etc. (though I realise that wasn't your point).

I'm sure I've got more to say but this is a huge post already and my brain is exhausted!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,106]

  Quote

  Quote

As much as you'd like to think that you have it and us all figured out, you don't. There is much you don't understand and actually can't understand for one reason or another. Do you accept that?

Not long ago earthquakes were "Acts of God". Now we understand plate tectonics quite well, and getting a better understanding every year. No supernatural forces needed. Same with lightning, hurricanes, tornados, etc.

I am quite certain that the mysteries of life, the universe and everything will be more susceptible to investigation by the scientific method than by reference to 3000 year old myths.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[NCclimber 0]

  Quote

A quarter million (which was a significant number to the world population at the time) is a drop in the bucket, but it also represents the next greatest number in Christian murders of non-Christians.

Your contention that the Holocaust was a Christian endeavor is clearly a fringe position. I don't think you'd find many historians (especially ones who are notably objective) who would support your take on this.
So, we're left with 60,000,000 vs. a quarter of a million. One is less than 1/2 of one percent of the other. Hmm.

  Quote

Perhaps you don't accept that Christians are violent. Live in the deep south for a while as a non-white, non Christian.
Then come back and tell me how "rich" this stuff is. To you, it's funny. To some of us, it's reality.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that racial/religious hate crimes are currently the norm in the Southeast?

[kallend 2,106]

  Quote

Perhaps you don't accept that Christians are violent. Live in the deep south for a while as a non-white, non Christian.
Then come back and tell me how "rich" this stuff is. To you, it's funny. To some of us, it's reality.

Just non-white was enough in the deep south, within living memory:

MOBILE, ALA. 8/23/1958: The Alabama Supreme Court yesterday upheld a death sentence imposed on a Negro handyman, Jimmy Wilson, 55, for robbing Mrs. Esteele Barker of $1.95 at her home last year. Mrs. Barker is white.

Although robbery is a capital offence in Alabama, no one has been executed in the state before for the theft of less than $5. A court official suggested that the jury had been influenced by the fact that Mrs. Barker told the jury that Wilson had spoken to her in a disrespectful tone.

A spokesman for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People called the death sentence "a sad blot on the nation," but said that the organization is unable to aid the condemned man because it is banned in Alabama.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[hairyjuan 0]

your religion condones SLAVERY, how do you excuse that? It is in ephesians

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[DSE 5]

  Quote

  Quote

A quarter million (which was a significant number to the world population at the time) is a drop in the bucket, but it also represents the next greatest number in Christian murders of non-Christians.

Your contention that the Holocaust was a Christian endeavor is clearly a fringe position. I don't think you'd find many historians (especially ones who are notably objective) who would support your take on this.
So, we're left with 60,000,000 vs. a quarter of a million. One is less than 1/2 of one percent of the other. Hmm.

  Quote

Perhaps you don't accept that Christians are violent. Live in the deep south for a while as a non-white, non Christian.
Then come back and tell me how "rich" this stuff is. To you, it's funny. To some of us, it's reality.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that racial/religious hate crimes are currently the norm in the Southeast?

1. Hitler demanded people to ascribe to the philosophy of Kirke-Kinder-Kuchen (Church, Children, Kitchen)
In my mind, that makes it very much a Christian movement. Nazi's today are still very vocal about Christianity. Christianity was traditionally a white-man's only religion in the past. It's only been in the past 100 years that it's accepted people of various ethnicities.

2. No, I'm not saying racial/ethnic crimes are the norm in the Southeast, they're the norm _everywhere_ in the world, but in the Southeast, they're worse.
I've experienced racism from "Christians" my entire life, so please don't assign some fucked up anecdotal information to what you think I may believe and why.
Like I said, try being a non-white, non-Christian in the Southeast. We're "tolerated" in the rest of the country, barely.
Or maybe you believe in Santa Claus, the check is in the mail, and Republicans really care.

[NCclimber 0]

I'm still waiting to read about the 60 million men, women and children (that) have been burned, tortured, raped and killed for not bowing their knee to jesus

How about it, sport????

[NCclimber 0]

  Quote

2. No, I'm not saying racial/ethnic crimes are the norm in the Southeast, they're the norm _everywhere_ in the world, but in the Southeast, they're worse.
I've experienced racism from "Christians" my entire life, so please don't assign some fucked up anecdotal information to what you think I may believe and why.
Like I said, try being a non-white, non-Christian in the Southeast. We're "tolerated" in the rest of the country, barely.
Or maybe you believe in Santa Claus, the check is in the mail, and Republicans really care.

That would explain why 60 percent of African Americans live in the South. As a percentage of the population, African-Americans in the South is twice the number for the rest of the US.

[unformed 0]

  Quote

  Quote

2. No, I'm not saying racial/ethnic crimes are the norm in the Southeast, they're the norm _everywhere_ in the world, but in the Southeast, they're worse.
I've experienced racism from "Christians" my entire life, so please don't assign some fucked up anecdotal information to what you think I may believe and why.
Like I said, try being a non-white, non-Christian in the Southeast. We're "tolerated" in the rest of the country, barely.
Or maybe you believe in Santa Claus, the check is in the mail, and Republicans really care.

That would explain why 60 percent of African Americans live in the South. As a percentage of the population, African-Americans in the South is twice the number for the rest of the US.

Like that has anything to do with racial prejudice.

As of the 1860 census, the states with the highest slave percentage (relative to total population) was:
Mississippi: 49%
South Carolina: 46%
Georgia: 37%

I'm going to make the rather safe assumption that all of the slaves were African-American in heritage. I'm also going to make the rather safe assumption that all (save for a nominal few) of the non-slave population were white.

According to your logic, because there were so many slaves there wouldn't be racial prejudice. Which, if I might make the observation myself, is a truly retarded statement.

Just because a large proportion of the population is of a certain race doesn't mean that they are not prejudiced against. You need to look at who is actually in control.

And I would be willing to bet my firstborn child that it's not that given race.

edit to add my source:
Statistics from 1860 census

This ad space for sale.