What people see in religion

[Wicked Pilot]

[Durandal]

Oh man, that's funny, but I like the stuff at the Landover Baptist Church better ("Jesus told me to hate you" and so on).

How about "Friends don't let friends get nailed to crosses"?

[Meghel]

RANT MODE: Ok and to that idiot who said that Christianity was not responsible for the Dark Ages, I would like say to ask them," Then who the hell burned Giordianno Bruno, the monk and Astronomer? Did he burn himself, huh?! And don't give me that shit over Christianity being the source of democracy; the best contribution it ever made towards it was the belief in individuality, and that was because of Protestantism, not Catholicism. The political chaos was initially because of the fall of the Roman Empire, but the Church essentially froze all advancement. Things actually degraded from Roman times. And of course the Church was directly responsible for the false geocentric solar system model staying in power for more than 1600 years, while it did not even accept the true solar system model until the 1990's!

Well, Mr Bass. I am sorry for not reading your post Earlier. For I am that "Idiot who said that Christianity is not resposible for the Dark Ages."

FYI:
The Dark Ages, if you can call them that, lasted from 450 AD to 1000 AD.
Bruno was burnt at the stake in 1600. GO AND READ UP ON YOUR HISTORY!

Protestantism IS CHRISTIANITY. Catholicism and Protestantism form pilars of the Christian Faith.
And Christianity, through Protestantism, was one of the reasons for Democracy because catholicism showed the dangers of a combined state-religion model.
This resulted in the famous "Seperation of Church and State".


Of course, Christianity is NOT THE ONLY instigator of Democracy, but it did have influence on the rise of Democracy.
The Individuality which was promoted by Protestantism was combined with the growing wealth and development, resulting in people seeking their own way and not blindly following GOVERNMENT or CHURCH.

The political chaos was initially because of the fall of the Roman Empire, but the Church essentially froze all advancement. Things actually degraded from Roman Times.

.
Proof Please.
And of course, it is pretty hard keeping all things going with the big Migrations. It wasn't just political chaos. It was a fricking chaos of different people invading Europe, famines and a general breakdown in government.

And of course the Church was directly responsible for the false geocentric solar system model staying in power for more than 1600 years, while it did not even accept the true solar system model until the 1990's!

Again, you seem unable to comprehend that Christianity is comprised of Catholicism and Protestantism.
Read a BOOK

[Meghel]

Saying "yes is much easier."

And USAF ACE, what is your gripe with Christian Religion? Do you dislike Bushists, Muslims and Hinduists as well?

Cheers,

Meghel

[Wicked Pilot]

And USAF ACE, what is your gripe with Christian Religion?

The same gripe I have will all religions, just that in North America Christians are more numerous and obnixious than others

Do you dislike Bushists, Muslims and Hinduists as well?

Come up with a more appropiate question if you want an answer.

[Meghel]

The same gripe I have will all religions, just that in North America Christians are more numerous and obnixious than others

From what I hear about Christians in North America, you might be correct. Just wanted to be sure that it was nothing against Christians only..

Come up with a more appropiate question if you want an answer.

Ah well, you already answered this in your above Quote.
And Ok, it was an inappropriate question. But you still answered it.


USAF, I am from Europe (The Netherlands to be precise). Can you tell me just what you dislike about Christians in North America?
If it is just the Christian faith, you do not have to bother.


Thank you and have a nice day.

Cheers,

Meghel

[Darth Wong]

USAF, I am from Europe (The Netherlands to be precise). Can you tell me just what you dislike about Christians in North America?
If it is just the Christian faith, you do not have to bother.

At the risk of being presumptuous, I will attempt to answer for him. He probably dislikes the fact that large, well-funded groups of Christians try to shove their beliefs down everybody else's throats, and the fact that these Christians often believe they're better than everybody else. Moreover, he probably resents the fact that large, well-funded groups of Christians are attempting to subvert the entire public education system with their idiotic creationist bullshit, and the fact that we must abide by many laws that are designed solely to appease Christian sensitivities (Sunday closing laws in many regions, nudity laws, prostitution laws, etc).

[Falcon]

USAF, I am from Europe (The Netherlands to be precise). Can you tell me just what you dislike about Christians in North America?
If it is just the Christian faith, you do not have to bother.

At the risk of being presumptuous, I will attempt to answer for him. He probably dislikes the fact that large, well-funded groups of Christians try to shove their beliefs down everybody else's throats, and the fact that these Christians often believe they're better than everybody else. Moreover, he probably resents the fact that large, well-funded groups of Christians are attempting to subvert the entire public education system with their idiotic creationist bullshit, and the fact that we must abide by many laws that are designed solely to appease Christian sensitivities (Sunday closing laws in many regions, nudity laws, prostitution laws, etc).

Is that any different than any group with issues? PETA, Gay Pride, Abortionists, etc...? They are all waging campaigns to chage laws and shove their beliefs down our throats, whats the different from someone trying to ban prostitution and someone trying to ban cow milking?

[Darth Wong]

Is that any different than any group with issues? PETA, Gay Pride, Abortionists, etc...? They are all waging campaigns to chage laws and shove their beliefs down our throats, whats the different from someone trying to ban prostitution and someone trying to ban cow milking?

You are lumping many groups together unfairly. PETA is another intrusive organization that tries to make us all live according to their ethos; they may make a few good points but they go way too far. However, gay pride is about the freedom to live their own lives the way they want, not about interfering with your life. Abortion rights, similarly, do not affect you; it is the attempt to criminalize it which intrudes on other peoples' lives (and it is a complex issue, since it deals with the question of what fetal developmental stage warrants human rights protection; for example, a two week old formless blob of cells, like it or not, has no consciousness and therefore deserves no rights; an eight-month old fetus, on the other hand, is a baby).

Moreover, none of these groups have anywhere near the power or influence of the Christian Idiot Right, which controls large portions of the government and whose intrusive demands for control over how you live your own life are already in place, not just pipe dreams. You cannot compare the corrosive impact of the Christian Idiot Right to all of the other special interest groups whose combined power, wealth, and influence does not come anywhere close to that of the Christian Idiot Right. If PETA had the kind of influence the Christian Idiot Right did, we would complain about their excesses just as much.

[Falcon]

Abortion rights, similarly, do not affect you;

Actually it does, when insurance and government pays for the procedures.

it is the attempt to criminalize it which intrudes on other peoples' lives (and it is a complex issue, since it deals with the question of what fetal developmental stage warrants human rights protection; for example, a two week old formless blob of cells, like it or not, has no consciousness and therefore deserves no rights; an eight-month old fetus, on the other hand, is a baby).

True, something that will probably never be agreed on

Moreover, none of these groups have anywhere near the power or influence of the Christian Idiot Right, which controls large portions of the government and whose intrusive demands for control over you live your own life are already in place, not just pipe dreams.

Controls such as? I'm not feeling oppressed by Chistians today, how should I be?

[Darth Wong]

Examples were given previously. Do not demand repetition.

[Falcon]

Examples were given previously. Do not demand repetition.

sigh, time to go sifting, unless you wanna point to a link

[Wicked Pilot]

From what I hear about Christians in North America, you might be correct. Just wanted to be sure that it was nothing against Christians only..

If there were Muslims on this board, I'd be the first to point out how Islam is intolerant, undemocratic, and murderous.

Come up with a more appropiate question if you want an answer.

The appropiate question would be "do you dislike Muslims, Buddist, and Hindus?." Instead you asked "do you dislike Muslims, Buddist, and Hindus as well?" Either way I answer I am in effect saying I dislike Christians, which is not always the case. McCarthy would do the same thing by asking people "how long have you been a member of the communist party?" It does not matter if you are not a communist, either way you answer you're screwed.

Please try to phrase your questions better in the future.

[Smiling Bandit]

Things actually degraded from Roman times. And of course the Church was directly responsible for the false geocentric solar system model staying in power for more than 1600 years, while it did not even accept the true solar system model until the 1990's!

"During the thousand years of the Byzantine Empire, not a single contribution was made to the benefit of Humankind, not a single advancement. The students learned the Dogma from the previous generation, and in turn became the Dogmatic teachers of the next generation."

Pretty quote. Bullhocky, too.

Quite a number of nifty things were invented during the "dark ages". Anyway, Christianity, Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, had very little to do with it. The Catholic Church in the west concentrated mainly on trying to assimilate and deal with the expanding ethnicicties and rearangin of kindoms and such. Understand - The people who lived in Europe before 0AD and after 500AD are not always even remotely related to each other. These new peoples brought different customs, ideas (if somwhat primitive ones) and languages. And they did not always, or even usually, care to assimilate into Roman life and ROman rule. Many roamed around, fighting and sacking. There was no place in the entire Western Empire that was safe. The Vandals sacked Rome and went off to Morocco. Then the Huns came through.

In short, Europe was royally screwed up by the time the Empire fell. And the Catholic Church, imperfectly perhaps, tried to recreate some of that stability. Maybe in later years they went too far.

But the Dark Ages were not always what myth and literature make it out to be. It represented the growth of culture in a new people, not a decline in an older one (except in Rome proper, which was more or less broken by repeated invasions). Heck, if you want to find a real reasons for the Dark Ages, you can most likely look at the lack of moving wealth. The "new" Europeans did not use money uite like the Patrician Romans did, partly because food was so important and money was simply scarce. So the Feudal system developed. And farming technology did improve on the not-really-all-that-good European soil.

And eventually, power and money began to accumulate and flow into the cities, farming tech improved and more people had non-agriculture jobs, and trade revived after the Crusades.

PS: You might not realize it, but much of Europe has rather poor soil, compared to say, India, Central China, and Egypt and Mesopotamia, the other great Imperial centers of the world.

[Smiling Bandit]

I've senn many, many, anti-religion and anti-Christian posts, and every single damned one of them goes out and sees every Christian as a bible-thumping undamentalists. Only a small portions of Christians or Muslims or what-have-you actually support those big name jerks, big-name political initiatives, so forth. They are very, very loud and geographically concentrated in some areas, but there you are.

Secondarily, do you think this doesn't rankle me, either? I scored a 98% in biology II, which is half about evolution's place and creatures' life cycles. I accept this. It doesn't have much to do with my faith.

Likewise, I feel the best way to bring others into my faith is good living and quiet peace. I'm not above inviting someone to my Church, but I don't go around making a nuisance of myself.

AGain, Muslims are more or less like anyone else living in the world.

[His Divine Shadow]

Smiling Bandit, you are right in that technology did not stop, it did move forward, though on a worldwide scale, China and such stood for most of it, percentage wise, there is also the factor of what kind of developments where made, not that much technology wise was made for farming and such, it was pretty much the "same old same old" except people where getting better at squeezing more out of the ground, better at fertilizing and so on.

Millitary technology did move forward with the Crusades, thats a given, and we have the armored knight and such.

However on the "social side" things weren't as good as during the better days of Rome, things like a sewer system was non existant in London even in the 1700's IIRC but Rome had them before the first century.

[Falcon]

Smiling Bandit, you are right in that technology did not stop, it did move forward, though on a worldwide scale, China and such stood for most of it, percentage wise, there is also the factor of what kind of developments where made, not that much technology wise was made for farming and such, it was pretty much the "same old same old" except people where getting better at squeezing more out of the ground, better at fertilizing and so on.

Millitary technology did move forward with the Crusades, thats a given, and we have the armored knight and such.

However on the "social side" things weren't as good as during the better days of Rome, things like a sewer system was non existant in London even in the 1700's IIRC but Rome had them before the first century.

You can't blame Christianity for technology not moving quickly during those times. The lack of freedom prevented technology from advancing at the rate we are used to in todays times. If you want to get right down to it, Chirstianity actually has made everything we have possible. Many of the people who came to America did so for religious freedom. The founders themselves were mostly what we would consider the 'Christian right' in todays world.

[Darth Wong]

You can't blame Christianity for technology not moving quickly during those times. The lack of freedom prevented technology from advancing at the rate we are used to in todays times.

The lack of intellectual freedom caused by the church's stifling dogma, you mean. When scientists were forced to recant theories upon pain of death.

If you want to get right down to it, Chirstianity actually has made everything we have possible.

How? There was no scientific advancement in the European world during the reign of Christian theocracy; not until the Renaissance, which just coincidentally started with the breaking of church dogma. During the Dark Ages, science was mostly advanced by other societies such as Islam and China. Interestingly enough, as Islam became fundamentalist/intolerant and Christianity became more liberal/tolerant, the torch passed. Doesn't this suggest something to you?

Many of the people who came to America did so for religious freedom. The founders themselves were mostly what we would consider the 'Christian right' in todays world.

Ignorant bullshit. Read the works of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin on the virtues of Christianity, and you will see that they hated Christian fundamentalists and thought they were idiots. Why do you think they put the "establishment" clause into the Constitution?

Go to http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationis ... ration.pdf if you want to know more about the Founding Fathers and the Christian Right.

[Graeme Dice]

How? There was no scientific advancement in the European world during the reign of Christian theocracy; not until the Renaissance, which just coincidentally started with the breaking of church dogma.

Is metallurgy not a science? Is civil engineering not? They both definetly advanced during the dark ages and before the renaissance.

[Darth Wong]

Is metallurgy not a science? Is civil engineering not? They both definetly advanced during the dark ages and before the renaissance.

Metallurgical techniques are engineering, which is applied science. You can improve the state of engineering without necessarily discovering any new scientific principles. We engineers start from science and work forward from there. We need science, but that doesn't mean our advancements represent scientific discoveries. Quite the contrary; engineering developments routinely occur decades or even centuries after the discovery of the underlying scientific principles.

Scientific advancement halted during the Dark Ages. All attempts to disprove this well-known fact employ the deceptive technique of confusing science and technology.

[Graeme Dice]

Metallurgical techniques are engineering, which is applied science. You can improve the state of engineering without necessarily discovering any new scientific principles. We engineers start from science and work forward from there. We need science, but that doesn't mean our advancements represent scientific discoveries. Quite the contrary; engineering developments routinely occur decades or even centuries after the discovery of the underlying scientific principles.

Scientific advancement halted during the Dark Ages. All attempts to disprove this well-known fact employ the deceptive technique of confusing science and technology.

Well stated. Good to see that avenue of attack closed down for now.

[Falcon]

The lack of intellectual freedom caused by the church's stifling dogma, you mean. When scientists were forced to recant theories upon pain of death.

You mean the catholic church I assume. You can't fairly lump all forms of Christianity together. They all have different beliefs and histories. In the Dark Ages many Christians were killed, even by other proclaimed Christians. Also, the crimes that were committed by Christians, well, were they really Christians or did they just call themselves that? Anyone can give themselves a title, or say they believe in something, but actions speak louder...

How? There was no scientific advancement in the European world during the reign of Christian theocracy; not until the Renaissance, which just coincidentally started with the breaking of church dogma. During the Dark Ages, science was mostly advanced by other societies such as Islam and China. Interestingly enough, as Islam became fundamentalist/intolerant and Christianity became more liberal/tolerant, the torch passed. Doesn't this suggest something to you?

You are lumping again. The Church often broke its own rules, bending accepted laws if needed to fuel their own agendas. You cannot blame Christianity for things done by those who wern't really practicing it.

Ignorant bullshit. Read the works of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin on the virtues of Christianity, and you will see that they hated Christian fundamentalists and thought they were idiots. Why do you think they put the "establishment" clause into the Constitution?

That part of the Constitution was to prevent the church from taking over the government and oppressing the people like it had in Europe. Many of the founders were religious, which you very well know, and many of the people who came to america came for religious freedom, as you also very well know.

Go to http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationis ... ration.pdf if you want to know more about the Founding Fathers and the Christian Right.

As I stated before, the founders had respects for the rights of all people, one of those rights is the right to determine your own religion or lack thereof without government interfearence. To suggest they hated all Christians is just as short sighted as to say they hated any religion.

Also, your quotes of Franklin and Washington are true, but they do not show the intense hatred of religion you would like to make out. Thomas Paine didn't like religion(not just Christianity you might note), but there were others who did, as you very well know.

[Durandal]

You mean the catholic church I assume. You can't fairly lump all forms of Christianity together. They all have different beliefs and histories. In the Dark Ages many Christians were killed, even by other proclaimed Christians. Also, the crimes that were committed by Christians, well, were they really Christians or did they just call themselves that? Anyone can give themselves a title, or say they believe in something, but actions speak louder...

He specifically stated "the Church." That means the Catholic Church.

To be Christian means that you believe in Christ as God's son, the Second Coming and all that jazz. Anyone who meets meets those criteria is a Christian.

You are lumping again. The Church often broke its own rules, bending accepted laws if needed to fuel their own agendas. You cannot blame Christianity for things done by those who wern't really practicing it.

Religious bigotry. "Anyone who is a Christian who commits unspeakable atrocities in the name of Christianity isn't a 'true Christian,' because being a Christian means that you must be a moral person with respect to the humanist moral code, even though the Bible makes no such requirement." I heard that spiel in retreats and Theology classes, and it doesn't float. It's the reasoning used by Christians who feel guilty about their religion's ugly past and similarly ugly beliefs in order to make themselves feel better. They concoct their own brand of the religion and call it "True Christianity," while saying that anyone who doesn't follow their brand of Christianity is not a Christian, thus absolving Christianity, as a whole, from any blame for the atrocious actions it has brought forth.

The fact is that the Crusaders and Inquisitors had scriptural basis for their actions. Thus, they did what they did in the name of Scripture or Christianity.

That part of the Constitution was to prevent the church from taking over the government and oppressing the people like it had in Europe. Many of the founders were religious, which you very well know, and many of the people who came to america came for religious freedom, as you also very well know.

No, many of the founders were extremely distasteful toward Christianity. I'd suggest taking a look at www.positiveatheism.com's list of quotes. Look under any of the founding fathers, and you'll find a quote dealing with their disdain for Christianity, especially Ben Franklin.

As I stated before, the founders had respects for the rights of all people, one of those rights is the right to determine your own religion or lack thereof without government interfearence. To suggest they hated all Christians is just as short sighted as to say they hated any religion.

You're equating a dislike of the belief for the dislike of the people. I'm an atheist, and I think that Christianity is one of the most destructive, miserable beliefs in existence, but most of my friends are Christians.

Also, your quotes of Franklin and Washington are true, but they do not show the intense hatred of religion you would like to make out. Thomas Paine didn't like religion(not just Christianity you might note), but there were others who did, as you very well know.

Strawman. No one claimed that they hated Christianity, just that they did not practice it, and that they just didn't like it all that much.

[Graeme Dice]

You are lumping again. The Church often broke its own rules, bending accepted laws if needed to fuel their own agendas. You cannot blame Christianity for things done by those who wern't really practicing it.

Religious bigotry. "Anyone who is a Christian who commits unspeakable atrocities in the name of Christianity isn't a 'true Christian,' because being a Christian means that you must be a moral person with respect to the humanist moral code, even though the Bible makes no such requirement." I heard that spiel in retreats and Theology classes, and it doesn't float. It's the reasoning used by Christians who feel guilty about their religion's ugly past and similarly ugly beliefs in order to make themselves feel better. They concoct their own brand of the religion and call it "True Christianity," while saying that anyone who doesn't follow their brand of Christianity is not a Christian, thus absolving Christianity, as a whole, from any blame for the atrocious actions it has brought forth.

The fact is that the Crusaders and Inquisitors had scriptural basis for their actions. Thus, they did what they did in the name of Scripture or Christianity.

So Stalin is a valid representative of atheism then. Check.

[Antediluvian]

You are lumping again. The Church often broke its own rules, bending accepted laws if needed to fuel their own agendas. You cannot blame Christianity for things done by those who wern't really practicing it.

Religious bigotry. "Anyone who is a Christian who commits unspeakable atrocities in the name of Christianity isn't a 'true Christian,' because being a Christian means that you must be a moral person with respect to the humanist moral code, even though the Bible makes no such requirement." I heard that spiel in retreats and Theology classes, and it doesn't float. It's the reasoning used by Christians who feel guilty about their religion's ugly past and similarly ugly beliefs in order to make themselves feel better. They concoct their own brand of the religion and call it "True Christianity," while saying that anyone who doesn't follow their brand of Christianity is not a Christian, thus absolving Christianity, as a whole, from any blame for the atrocious actions it has brought forth.

The fact is that the Crusaders and Inquisitors had scriptural basis for their actions. Thus, they did what they did in the name of Scripture or Christianity.

So Stalin is a valid representative of atheism then. Check.

Stalin didn't murder all those people in the name of atheism, so your statement is non-sensical.