 |
| |
|
|
problem_child
|
 |
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Albert Speer
problem_child:
are you an angry atheist or are you singling out Islam (which means submission, not peace, by the way) as bad but not Christianity? |
No, All religions apall me with their power to push backward anthropocentric narrow-mindedness on society as if they speak from some higher level.
To me, religions represent a kind of nationalistic egotism that insists on somehow 'owning' nature, using the cosmic-alphamale-imaginary-friend concept that in english is commonly known as 'god'.
Take blasphemy for example, the idea of blasphemy is that insulting a 'god' is a deep and utterly vile thing to do. But how can that which is unlimited possibly be insulted? There is no way that Infinity itself could be insulted. The real reason why certain people can be offended by 'blasphemy', is that to insult this god of theirs (possesive intended), you are really insulting them, your are spitting at the highest expression of their collective identity. It's mere ego, the origin of all the stars in the universe, of all time and life and what we call physics, can't possibly be insulted by anything a human being could say, because to be insulted is a uniquely human idea. You have to be 'some guy' to be insulted.
And yet all these religions, from Christians to Muslims, would probably have you flogged or killed or something (if the state in question is run by them at least) if you do something they consider 'blasphemous'.
To them all I say this, take your god and stick him up your exit-passage you sanctimonious overbearing trumped up egotist prig.
So in answer to your question, yes, I'm an angry athiest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wernazuma III
That's a problem of most religions at most times of history. Most of us would agree that there's a difference between the message of the bible and witchhunts or even crusades. But that doesn't free religions from responability. Of course, there's always a range between very liberal interpretations and times and brutal ones, depending on economic conditions, general brutalization after /during wars etc. But it's often something from within religions that is the focus and religious issues canalize hate and violence. Thus I can't hear anymore, that wherever violence happens, religion is "taken hostage" or simply "abused" by society. Religion is part of a society and not simply a tool used and twisted by it. |
I would agree with the gist of what you say here, but what I was also meaning to say is that what a society may accept as "religion" may in fact be against the spirit of that very religion. I believe that's the case on an acute level in the Muslim world today. But yes, that does not absolve any society from the responsibility to face the darker sides of its "religion". 
quote:
It is always very easy in discussion for muslims to push away topics they don't like by saying: "This is not islam". Well, I know many muslims don't support violence from a religious viewpoint, but the ways, they deal with it can most often be subsummed in 2 sentences:
"But hey, look at Christian history."
"I'm muslim, I don't like violence and intolerance, so it must not be part of islam" (I've often heard denials like "that must be a lie. this cannot be in Quran.", even after I showed the very verses)
Honest reflection has to analyze the internal elements in a religion that may lead to fundamentalism, hate and intolerance. |
To tell you the truth, I also hate the "look at christianity" answer. It's part of the reflex that assumes nothing is wrong with what they accept as their "religion".
When I discuss a particular aspect of any Islamic topic with a Muslim, say, that women are not ordered to wear headscarves in the Quran, the "this cannot be in Quran" response you mention turns into "but this is in the Quran!". When I recite the verse and give its number etc, it's "but I'm sure it's in the Quran!". Basically, this is the outer reflection of an inherent laziness to think about God and religion directly, and instead surrender one's spiritual world to the "teachings and sayings" of others...Saudis are particularly impenetrable in this respect. 
quote:
That's in many parts true. But it's nonetheless also true that Wahabits and fundamentalists go back to the very roots of what islam "is", namely Quran, sunna and hadith. It's not like in the Catholic church, where, after so many centuries, you'd have to dig very deep sometimes to find the bible. It's just too easy, again, to say "this is not islam". This is not MY islam maybe, but that's a bit muslims have a difficult time with as there can be only ONE islam. That's part of the problem in internal discussion. |
Wahhabis want a complete return to the lifestyle of the 7th century, so as not to have to confront the questions that arise with the coming of modernity and the change in physical as well as moral attitudes. In that quest, they adopt a very literal and narrow interpretation of Quran, elevate the status of the Hadith almost on par with the Quran, and have a fancy range of "supporting" hadiths from which to impose a very rigid version of "sunna". Ultimately, theirs is ultimately also an interpretation and practice, and a very repulsive one at that.
quote:
The problem is that we're not discussing the overall islam, but it's affintiy towards violence here. Otherwise, I fully agree that there are many positive sides too. |
On Islam's affinity for violence: Islam overall has a very down-to-earth and realistic teaching. That includes, if you are attacked, defend your life, save yourself, make an effort. When it was born, Islam had to fight for its existence, against a very serious danger from pagan Arabs. Thereafter, it became part and parcel of governance. Since governance comes attached with the tools of violence, both in terms of internal security and external threats, religion itself was frequently invoked to justify these.
This resulted in an overlooking that Islam basically is a guide for the individual for a decent, just and peaceful life, an emphasis on the collective and an accumulation of state-ordained clerical approval for putting a religious sanction on war. Again, this in total oblivion to the message of the Quran itself, but as a result, Islam looked from the outside as having violence inherent to it, for no religion has been made so integral by its followers to so many aspects of any society.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Again, I'm worried that people take this seriously  . |
Alas, people take religion seriously, so it is beholden upon us to take a question such as this seriously.
And I take very seriously anyone such as Speer who defends 'his' religion with fake history and equivocations, and false accusations against other 'Poly posters.
And this quote of problem_child's, is let's face it, entirely applicable to Christianity:
" Could this be because Islam is a relentlessly expansionistic and imperialistic religion that conquored and subdued its way through hundreds of cultures throughout Africa and Asia and parts of Europe, from Morocco to Indonesia and from Bosnia to Nigeria, the many diverse ways of life practised by the peoples of these lands exterminated forever...."
But then it would seem to be a problem or defect inherent in any monotheistic creed of a proselytizing nature- unless you restrict missionary activity to the type of martyrdoms favoured by the Irish monks and nuns, any state reinforced by such a faith is not going to sit on its collective hands.
In any case, like a good polemicist, problem_child overeggs his pudding- Islamic merchants and sailors were equally adept at spreading their faith not simply by conquest, but by example.
Islam's emphasis on bodily hygiene and fastidiousness with regard to animal products may well have stood its adherents in good stead in moist hot climates such as South East Asia, Indonesia, the Philippines and East Africa.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:17
|
|
I must say re. the Muslim conquests, people seem to think of that and assume a campaign of pillaging and slaughter, but in fact that wasn't the case for the most part. You had an economically prosperous, liberal and just (consider the alternatives), and intellectual vibrant society, with indeed a very small army conquering a vast swathe of land in a very small amount of time, because the conquered peoples wanted it. The Roman empire was long gone, the Byzantine empire was a shambles, everything had gone to pot and other leaders were generally barberous to their peoples, whereas those under Muslim authority were allowed to keep much of their legistlature, culture, customs, religions, and had their infrastructure and economies boosted. I would have considered the Muslim conquest to be a good thing .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
 |
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ancyrean
Wahhabis want a complete return to the lifestyle of the 7th century, so as not to have to confront the questions that arise with the coming of modernity and the change in physical as well as moral attitudes. In that quest, they adopt a very literal and narrow interpretation of Quran, elevate the status of the Hadith almost on par with the Quran, and have a fancy range of "supporting" hadiths from which to impose a very rigid version of "sunna". Ultimately, theirs is ultimately also an interpretation and practice, and a very repulsive one at that. |
I absolutely agree. I'd never claim Wahhabis would constitute something like THE islam, or even to say it's "original" or "the only authentic" or whatever, that'd be completely stupid. I merely wanted to say that it's too simple for other muslims to say: "This is irrelevant to us. Their patterns of thinking have nothing to do with islam."
quote:
Islam looked from the outside as having violence inherent to it, for no religion has been made so integral by its followers to so many aspects of any society. |
Right, and I also agree that this may have positive effects. But it, of course, is also likely to clash with any secular understanding of society or equidistance to religions as basically EVERYTHING in society is "integral" to islam.
With the rest, again, agreed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Albert Speer
and of course what was a major reason for the Muslims' success? Religious minorities around the Byzantine Empire (Coptics, Nestorians, Monophysites, etc.), persecuted by the Byzantines for years, sided with the Arabs. |
Not Coptics, but Copts, and they were monophysites.
Nestorians were hardly present on Byzantine-controlled lands.
Also, the Copts revolted several times after Muslim conquest, which can indicate they weren't so happy with Muslim rule; but true that many, especially Syrians, were happy of getting rid of Byzantines.
Someone commented it anyway
quote:
Take blasphemy for example, (...) because to be insulted is a uniquely human idea. You have to be 'some guy' to be insulted.
|
While it is an interesting topic I'm hesitant about, You tend to forget that God actually IS a being, a mind, a "guy" if You like.
However, if we get to the point that He's completely forgiving and loving, He will forgive any biasphemy.
But if You think that offending God is in fact offending the one believing in Him, and it is so, well, is offending anyone anything good?
quote:
And yet all these religions, from Christians to Muslims, would probably have you flogged or killed or something (if the state in question is run by them at least) if you do something they consider 'blasphemous'.
|
If something was done in mere intention of offending a faith, it should be prohibited or at least condemned.
Because malicious offending someone just for offending him is not anything that should be approved.
But otherwise, and perhaps even in these situations -
in Christianity, perhaps we should give our other chin. After all, Jesus said that blessed are those who will be persecuted and offended because of Him.
Ancyrean,
It's not like that Islam just defended against pagans under Muhammad and especially later.
quote:
But it, of course, is also likely to clash with any secular understanding of society or equidistance to religions as basically EVERYTHING in society is "integral" to islam.
|
And that's the biggest problem.
Ancyrean, what do You think about shari'a?
If the shari'a is considered essential part of a life of a Muslim, not as his personal path, but as a system of law for entire society, and this Muslim believes that it's a will of God to make it a law for entire society, or even just for Muslims, it is in disaccordance with democracy and this is a cause to the question if Islam is compatible with democracy at all.
Treating shari'a as a personal path is something a bit allien to Muslim tradition, but well, we can hope it will change.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Ancyrean,
It's not like that Islam just defended against pagans under Muhammad and especially later. |
True enough, but if we are talking about an inherent nature for violence, I think the process of the spread of Islam can not be a invoked as a definitive proof of any such nature. I refer to and agree with Molly's post above on this.
quote:
Ancyrean, what do You think about shari'a?
If the shari'a is considered essential part of a life of a Muslim, not as his personal path, but as a system of law for entire society, and this Muslim believes that it's a will of God to make it a law for entire society, or even just for Muslims, it is in disaccordance with democracy and this is a cause to the question if Islam is compatible with democracy at all.
Treating shari'a as a personal path is something a bit allien to Muslim tradition, but well, we can hope it will change. |
Basically sharia is a body of laws governing a Muslim's relations with basically everything: the state, fellow Muslims, non-Muslims, economy, marriage etc. As such, it is for its greater part man made, supposedly taking its clue from the Quran which by itself does not provide for such detailed prescriptions.
So almost all of what is known as Sharia is the result of clerical thinking (throwing in a hadith or two where necessary, which are by themselves often dubious) and thus by no means sacred and inviolable. Unfortunately, for a good deal of the Islamic world, sharia is taken as sacred as the Quran itself, remaining as the cause of many social ills. If you wouldn't think I'm out of my mind, I think from this perspective sharia is unislamic in its promotion of regression.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ancyrean
True enough, but if we are talking about an inherent nature for violence, I think the process of the spread of Islam can not be a invoked as a definitive proof of any such nature.
|
Why?
It's not about that Islam can not spread peacefully,
but about that the most eminent persons of Islam, Muhammad himself and the first caliphs, gave an example of a spread of religion by force and especially spread of religion-controlled state by force.
One may ask if Muhammad did that, and surely He did not act in disaccordance with Islam, why can't we do it today?
If Muhammad was wrong at that, acted wrong,
is He reliable as a messanger of God?
And if the spread of religion by sword is accepted by Islam, is it peaceful?
Then, of course, someone may ask if peacefulness is something good at all. If someone drawns, won't we try to get him out of the water, despite his attempts to stop us?
Don't we try to stop people from suicide?
quote:
As such, it is for its greater part man made, supposedly taking its clue from the Quran which by itself does not provide for such detailed prescriptions.
Unfortunately, for a good deal of the Islamic world, sharia is taken as sacred as the Quran itself, remaining as the cause of many social ills. If you wouldn't think I'm out of my mind, I think from this perspective sharia is unislamic in its promotion of regression. |
I agree with You when it comes to the lack of credibility of shari'a and that Muslims tend to overvalue it.
However, as You've said, many does, including my friend.
When it comes to Molly Bloom... that religions such as Christianity and Islam are expansionist and tend to eliminate various aspects of life of the ones that were present on some ground in some minds before - it's obvious
But it's a difference how the expansion is done.
Early, deceisive for its existance, spread of Christianity did not happen by force, nor with a help of a state by any way - in fact, it had to oppose a powerful state often.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Why?
It's not about that Islam can not spread peacefully,
but about that the most eminent persons of Islam, Muhammad himself and the first caliphs, gave an example of a spread of religion by force and especially spread of religion-controlled state by force.
One may ask if Muhammad did that, and surely He did not act in disaccordance with Islam, why can't we do it today?
If Muhammad was wrong at that, acted wrong,
is He reliable as a messanger of God?
And if the spread of religion by sword is accepted by Islam, is it peaceful?
Then, of course, someone may ask if peacefulness is something good at all. If someone drawns, won't we try to get him out of the water, despite his attempts to stop us?
Don't we try to stop people from suicide? |
On Muhammed and his early conquests, he was a statesman as well as a prophet, so he had to see heathen Arabs both as theological as well as worldly threats. I don't have access right now to expert opinion on his early conquests and whether his style was to always force the vanquished to accept Islam, but I can tell you that one of the important points in Quran and some hadith attributed to Muhammed is that forcing people to change their religion is un-Islamic.
For example, most of the Arab tribes converted immediately because they saw material benefit (by joining Islam) in the upcoming booty that the ever growing Muslim armies were sure to get from more conquered lands, in and beyond Arabia. Therefore, I doubt if one can so easily conclude that Muhammed was bent on spreading the religion by fear of death, by force to take an example of.
Hence Islamic conquests after Muhammed seldom forced the vanquished to accept the new religion by force. When the Arabs conquered Syria and Mesopotamia, for a long time Christians and Zoroastrians were larger as a proportion of the society, then the numerically few Arab conquerors (IIRC). The same with Ottomans and their Christian holdings in the Balkans (which largely kept its Christian identity intact as a result). Conversions came over time and in conjunction with adapting to new autority, not by sword, by fear of death.
quote:
When it comes to Molly Bloom... that religions such as Christianity and Islam are expansionist and tend to eliminate various aspects of life of the ones that were present on some ground in some minds before - it's obvious
But it's a difference how the expansion is done.
Early, deceisive for its existance, spread of Christianity did not happen by force, nor with a help of a state by any way - in fact, it had to oppose a powerful state often. |
I believe the persecuted start of Christianity might have in fact induced the later Christianity to be more violent on the non-believers, heathens or monotheists alike, less tolerant on diversity than it would otherwise have been (this point being not with a view to defend a religion by pointing out to another religion).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ancyrean
On Muhammed and his early conquests, he was a statesman as well as a prophet, so he had to see heathen Arabs both as theological as well as worldly threats.
|
I don't think Muslim state (in Madinah) was threatened by anyone...
Meccans perhaps, at least at some time, but in general, the Muslims were the attacking side.
quote:
I can tell you that one of the important points in Quran and some hadith attributed to Muhammed is that forcing people to change their religion is un-Islamic.
|
I recall. And I recall Muhammad honoured bishops from Nagran I think who came to him, and let them pray in their way.
But there are examples to the contrary. Like a pagan female poethe from Madinah Asma bint Marwan who was killed by a Muslim and Muhammad said that it's nothing. Or Kab ibn Zuhayr, a poethe that wrote satires about Muhammad and was due to that threatened with death until He wrote something good about him...
Or pillage raids by Muslim through Arabia...
Or destroying pagan temples by force...
Not to mention the question of Jews of Madinah and Khaybar again
quote:
For example, most of the Arab tribes converted immediately because they saw material benefit (by joining Islam) in the upcoming booty that the ever growing Muslim armies were sure to get from more conquered lands, in and beyond Arabia.
Therefore, I doubt if one can so easily conclude that Muhammed was bent on spreading the religion by fear of death, by force to take an example of.
|
Only after the conquest of entire Arabia did the Muslims get an opportunity to attack what was around it.
Also, You say that growing Muslim armies and its booties attracted other tribes - booties got by attacking who?
What was Muhammad and Muslims making expedictions up to the Roman boarders for, if they were peaceful?
The conquest of Arabia but parts of Higaz was more likely a deed of Abu Bakr than Muhammad in my opinion (the tradition says that the tribes accepted Islam, but separated from it after the prophet's death) - and it was undoubtly a fight, a war, not a peaceful conversion.
quote:
Hence Islamic conquests after Muhammed seldom forced the vanquished to accept the new religion by force.
|
Because they were realists... Also, by forcing the spread of religion I do not mean forcing people to convert (only), but also conquests of Muslim state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Early, deceisive for its existance, spread of Christianity did not happen by force, nor with a help of a state by any way - in fact, it had to oppose a powerful state often.
|
Which 'state' did it oppose ?
The Roman Empire for a long period tolerated Christianity- to them it was simply just another religion, along with Mithraism, the Cult of Isis, Celtic cults, et cetera.
Once Christinianity established itself as a state religion, it didn't turn the other cheek:
" As late as the year 391 AD, when Christianity was established by law and all other religions bloodily suppressed, the bishop of Hippo had only one church, with a few hundred worshippers, in a town of thirty thousand inhabitants, and that Augustine, who succeeded him, had not a single priest under him. Yet two hundred bishops in Africa about the year 310, yields one hundred thousand Christians. There is no known ratio of bishops and the faithful. "
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianit...onstantine.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
|
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
While it is an interesting topic I'm hesitant about, You tend to forget that God actually IS a being, a mind, a "guy" if You like.
However, if we get to the point that He's completely forgiving and loving, He will forgive any biasphemy.
But if You think that offending God is in fact offending the one believing in Him, and it is so, well, is offending anyone anything good?
|
This is a ideological difference between us. My point isn't that offending people is something we should do, my point is that religious people percieve there to be a kind of 'Cosmic Alpha Male' character, which is of course merely an extension of their own humanity, more specifically it's a creation of their own ego. Whereas others see the universe as its own thing, and not the creation of some sort of Super Man.
The religions essentially think "Big King God, He Say Do This, He Say Don't Do That", or a kind of Divine Dictator, those who show loyalty to the regime will be rewarded, those who disobey the regime will be sent to the eternal firey Gulag.
A different way of looking at things is that the universe is not a creation of some kind of Cosmic King, that we don't know what it is, or where it came from. Science can help us establish those facts that are within our reach, those things we can measure, and perhaps provide some usefull applications through technology to make our lives 'better', but basically we don't own the univers via some writ-large proxy of our selves, rather the universe and whatever is beyond it owns us.
We might not like that we're made of lowly messy yucky flesh and bone, and have to eat and deficate and fornicate to exist (hopefully not all at the same time), that we're weak and transient and are related in some way to monkeys and rats and mud-skippers, but that's the way it is- accept it, learn to live with it, and try an do good by your fellow creatures coz there ain't no one else out there that's lookin out for us, that's what we're for.
All I see in religion, is that Man made God in his own image. That's why there's so many gods, that's why they're always quarelling amongst themselves, justifying all kinds of cr*p and claiming responsability for none of it. Typical human behaviour really.
ps- watch me quote the Bible
quote:
In the beginning (...) The End. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Odin
|
 |
Biology Nerd at Minnesota State University Moorhead
Sep 2000
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by problem_child
This is a ideological difference between us. My point isn't that offending people is something we should do, my point is that religious people percieve there to be a kind of 'Cosmic Alpha Male' character, which is of course merely an extension of their own humanity, more specifically it's a creation of their own ego. Whereas others see the universe as its own thing, and not the creation of some sort of Super Man.
The religions essentially think "Big King God, He Say Do This, He Say Don't Do That", or a kind of Divine Dictator, those who show loyalty to the regime will be rewarded, those who disobey the regime will be sent to the eternal firey Gulag.
A different way of looking at things is that the universe is not a creation of some kind of Cosmic King, that we don't know what it is, or where it came from. Science can help us establish those facts that are within our reach, those things we can measure, and perhaps provide some usefull applications through technology to make our lives 'better', but basically we don't own the univers via some writ-large proxy of our selves, rather the universe and whatever is beyond it owns us.
We might not like that we're made of lowly messy yucky flesh and bone, and have to eat and deficate and fornicate to exist (hopefully not all at the same time), that we're weak and transient and are related in some way to monkeys and rats and mud-skippers, but that's the way it is- accept it, learn to live with it, and try an do good by your fellow creatures coz there ain't no one else out there that's lookin out for us, that's what we're for.
All I see in religion, is that Man made God in his own image. That's why there's so many gods, that's why they're always quarelling amongst themselves, justifying all kinds of cr*p and claiming responsability for none of it. Typical human behaviour really.
|
Exactly. Modern religions are just a form of species-wide narcisism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ancyrean
First of all, there is a difference between the message and spirit of Quran and the practice of Muslims today.
The problem with the Muslim world today is there's not enough distinction between the teaching of Quran and the practice of Muslims. In that practice, tradition (often parochial) often passes as Islam itself. Many values which are in fact based on tradition are thus protected by the guise of religion. |
From where I stand its the exact opposite. The people who want to smear Islam take the most hateful Koranic quotes, without commentary, and match them to the most hateful practices of fanatics, most typically those who aspire to a literalist reading of the text and who despise tradition, and use that as proof of the "violent" nature of Islam. If they looked at both the later legal corpus, and even more, at the practice of most muslims, theyd have a more accurate and less hateful view. Especially if one focused on muslims in the most progressive countries (including Turkey, I might add) in the last 100 to 150 years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Which 'state' did it oppose ?
The Roman Empire for a long period tolerated Christianity- to them it was simply just another religion, along with Mithraism, the Cult of Isis, Celtic cults, et cetera.
|
Not at all. For Roman gentiles, Christianity was a "superstitio", with some adjectives added usually.
It was considered dangerous for several reasons. For it differences from the gentile faith, but mostly for that it was something not backed with ancient tradition, as other "superstitions" as Judaism or some eastern cults.
Acting against the tradition, and enangering gods by refusing to commit a sacrifice for them (the action itself was not directed against Christianity on purpouse) was considered dangerous for the state and it's not the only religion that was persecuted.
184 BC I believe the cult of Dionisos was practically exterminated ammongst Romans. Manicheism, a religion connected to Christianity, was to be destroyed too at one point.
Christians were also accused by gentiles of many other crimes and strange stuff - that they worship a donkey, that they are canibals (because of the communion), that they support incest (because they were calling themselves brothers and sisters) etc.
Yes, there were times of peace - early (except for Nero), when Christianity was not yet recognised as a new faith,
and in so-called "Small peace of the church".
Still, it was persecuted for longer and shorter periods of history and that You can not deny.
quote:
Once Christinianity established itself as a state religion, it didn't turn the other cheek:
" As late as the year 391 AD, when Christianity was established by law and all other religions bloodily suppressed, the bishop of Hippo had only one church, with a few hundred worshippers, in a town of thirty thousand inhabitants, and that Augustine, who succeeded him, had not a single priest under him. Yet two hundred bishops in Africa about the year 310, yields one hundred thousand Christians. There is no known ratio of bishops and the faithful. "
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianit...onstantine.html |
That site is at least in some parts laughable and You should be ashamed to post a link like that.
For example. They quote John the Gold-mouthed who says that (probably the Christians in Antioch) number 100000, and then say that the city was 0,5mln...
As a matter of fact, I wrote a work about Antioch in late antiquity not some long time ago and while I'm no great specialist in that matter, I have something to say.
First of all, do You think John counted its citizens?
Especially that the number is so even...
Secondly, there are various estimates of the population of the city, but the number of 0,5 mln is largely exagerrated... It is assumed today that the city was about 150 - 200 thousand people large.
Antioch was particurarily reknown for its Christian devotion, and Julian the Apostate admits that;
even in that time, it seems that a definite majority of its population was Christian.
At one other point, the site is building its theories on the opinion of Zosimos' "New History"
I've read that book and I assure You it is not credible AT ALL. As one's put it, it'a generally a compilation of Eunapius of Sardes and Olimpiador(us?) of Thebes and the only thing that Zosimos has added to that - are his errors. And it's extremly biased.
Even comparison of his work with the work of (pagan) Ammianus Marcellinus can be a proof of that.
Oh c-mon... these headlines...
"Christianity revealed"
"Christian barbarism"...
This painting of synod of Nicaea...
The language they're using...
If such sites are sources of your knowledge, I can only pity You.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by problem_child
This is a ideological difference between us. My point isn't that offending people is something we should do, my point is that religious people percieve there to be a kind of 'Cosmic Alpha Male' character, which is of course merely an extension of their own humanity, more specifically it's a creation of their own ego. Whereas others see the universe as its own thing, and not the creation of some sort of Super Man.
The religions essentially think "Big King God, He Say Do This, He Say Don't Do That", or a kind of Divine Dictator, those who show loyalty to the regime will be rewarded, those who disobey the regime will be sent to the eternal firey Gulag.
A different way of looking at things is that the universe is not a creation of some kind of Cosmic King, that we don't know what it is, or where it came from. Science can help us establish those facts that are within our reach, those things we can measure, and perhaps provide some usefull applications through technology to make our lives 'better', but basically we don't own the univers via some writ-large proxy of our selves, rather the universe and whatever is beyond it owns us.
All I see in religion, is that Man made God in his own image. That's why there's so many gods, that's why they're always quarelling amongst themselves, justifying all kinds of cr*p and claiming responsability for none of it. Typical human behaviour really.
|
Dear child, You're just explaining why You don't believe in God. No-one forces You to believe in Him. You believe it's our ego that makes us believe in Him - your choice. However, even someone not believing in God will surely find your remarks like "take your God and stick it..."
as rude, childish, and not provoked by anything.
It's You who's intolerant one here.
I've referred to your post about the impossibility of insulting God. You're making contradictions here.
First, You don't believe in God. Secondly, You claim that God is Infinity, and thirdly You claim God is for religious people an Alpha male.
To sum it up, it seems You think You know better than religious people who God is, and You know better what they think God is, and You attack your own conception with an (not very wise, as God is an "alive" and intelligent infinity, and as such it can be offended) arguement referred to the other conception.
I think I'm not being clear, so I'll say it different:
If God is an "Alpha male" as You claim religious people think, He can be offended, can't he.
What You're saying is nothing new. Some ancient thinker said that if animals had the ability to draw or make sculptures, they would depict god(s) as animals; donkeys would make donkey statues, lions - lions etc.
Indeed, some of the faithful fall in the same cathegory of thinking, especially pagans and - sad to admit - many modern Christians, who depict God - Father as an old guy (depicting God-son as human is obvious, and Holy Spirit as a dove to a smaller degree has some basis). Oh, I recall a beautiful passage of Socrates Scholasticus I think in which there was a controversy ammongst Egyptian monks if God has a body, and when the patriarch of Alexandria stated He is transcendental, the enraged monks invaded the city, started making riots and attempted to kill the bishop.
Anyway, You mean rather treating God as a human person (it's not about the image).
Well, offending someone on purpouse is a way of showing your hatred towards someone. It's about what You feel in heart, not about what You say exactly.
For God, ass is a place like any other. However, for You, it is not, and it's what counts.
However, God is merciful and forgives You that, for He loves You. He sends sundhine to all of us, the sinners and the good alike.
When it comes to Christian approach towards it, Jesus informed us that we should try to imitate God. He's said that as God loves everyone, so we should, to make ourselves ideal as He is. So, in my opinion, according to New Testament, Christians should forgive You and if Christian values were applied as inspiration for law system, You could be safe.
However, indeed there's a feeling in all of us, a willingness to treat God as a human in some way, and "defend his honour". But I believe it's Old Testament's way of perceiving God, not New one's.
And one clarification: of course God can be offended, but, as I've written, He forgives it, as He forgives us all our sins, as a loving father.
That's why He's sent Jesus and so, even the sinners were bought out of the Hell through His sacrifice
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by problem_child
...
|
I thought my reply got lost, so I summed it up again.
God is infinitive, but He/She (I'll use "it") is an alive and intelligent infinitive being. Of course it can be offended.
And by saying "stick your God in your ass" You've offended Him. Not because for God asses of Christians are worse place than any else. God is there too, God's everywhere. But because for You, it is a filthy place, and it's your intention that counts. Offending someone on purpouse is showing your hatred towards someone, and hatred is bad.
But God Jesus tells us about forgives us our sins. He sends sunshine, He gives rain to everyone, the sinners and the good alike. Yes, the sinners go to hell. But not without a reason. God knows what's good and what's bad. A judgement isn't wrong itself, if it is right. We can't be completely sure what is good according to Him,
and what is not. We must try the best to distinguish it, and Jesus gives us the key to it (*). But even the sinners won't suffer for ever, for God, through sacrifice of Jesus, freed us sinners from eternal suffering.
Jesus told us to imitate God, to become as ideal as He is. We are to achieve that through imitating his love to entire existance. As He gives his love to his spoilt and good children alike, so are we supposed to answer with love and submission perhaps for every harm done.
(*that's the key). And as He forgives You your biasphemy, who are we not to forgive it.
Unfortunatelly, almost all are stucked with the Old Testament vision of God, of someone wrathful, and feel obliged to "defend his honour" or whatever.
Of course, it is wrong, and that's why I think that if Christianity was treaten serious, You could not fear being punished for biasphemy until the Day of the Judgement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Nuclear
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
I thought my reply got lost, so I summed it up again.
God is infinitive, but He/She (I'll use "it") is an alive and intelligent infinitive being. Of course it can be offended.
And by saying "stick your God in your ass" You've offended Him. Not because for God asses of Christians are worse place than any else. God is there too, God's everywhere. But because for You, it is a filthy place, and it's your intention that counts. Offending someone on purpouse is showing your hatred towards someone, and hatred is bad.
But God Jesus tells us about forgives us our sins. He sends sunshine, He gives rain to everyone, the sinners and the good alike. Yes, the sinners go to hell. But not without a reason. God knows what's good and what's bad. A judgement isn't wrong itself, if it is right. We can't be completely sure what is good according to Him,
and what is not. We must try the best to distinguish it, and Jesus gives us the key to it (*). But even the sinners won't suffer for ever, for God, through sacrifice of Jesus, freed us sinners from eternal suffering.
Jesus told us to imitate God, to become as ideal as He is. We are to achieve that through imitating his love to entire existance. As He gives his love to his spoilt and good children alike, so are we supposed to answer with love and submission perhaps for every harm done.
(*that's the key). And as He forgives You your biasphemy, who are we not to forgive it.
Unfortunatelly, almost all are stucked with the Old Testament vision of God, of someone wrathful, and feel obliged to "defend his honour" or whatever.
Of course, it is wrong, and that's why I think that if Christianity was treaten serious, You could not fear being punished for biasphemy until the Day of the Judgement. |
Way to offend the atheists and the Jews in one post! 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
How is it possible for something infinite to be offended by something finite? It's like you getting annoyed by an organelle (say a mitochondria) because it calls you names or something, but to a much smaller scale. In fact, infinitely smaller. |
I see no point in what You're saying. I would mind an organelle offending me, especially if I loved it.
quote:
Way to offend the atheists and the Jews in one post!
|
I find the view of God presented by the Old Testament not right. There's nothing bad in that.
And how did I offend the atheists?
quote:
Athiests and Agnostics can see religion in a objective light since they are not bounded by religious indoctrination or a fear of eternal damnation
|
How can You know how does a thing that does not exist look like?
Perhaps You can read the Bible with more opened eyes though
quote:
One little problem with any religion - how do you know which of the multitude is the right one ? How do you know that Islam or Christainity are mroe valid than the Chinese thing , or Hinduism , or Buddhism , or anyrandomthingism ? Every one relies on faith , thus , each is equally valid ( or , more accurately , invalid ) .
|
It's not about faith only. I don't find Christianity better than Islam because I believe in it, but because I think what Jesus presented and said was better than what Muhammad claimed. As simple as that.
quote:
That his religion is a religion of fear and intolerance (you don't believe in my God? Than you'll go to hell and for a reason!)
|
I've never said that lack of belief in God is something You go to hell for. I believe that it's the good deeds that count. Faith is not that important in my opinion, and lack of faith is not a sin as long as I'm concerned.
I don't know where do You see the fear and intolerance in what I've written.
Also, remember that I've said that the Christ's sacrifice is for all the people.
Eventually all the people will unite in Heaven.
quote:
Oh thank you for your Christian kindness and humility.
My 'sources' are hardly limited to one internet link, and that you choose to believe centuries of Church propaganda is patently obvious.
In terms of quoting numbers of believers- what's more important for a struggling sect that has already seen divisions between the Pauline and Jacobite versions of Christianity, one stressing the link to Judaism, one stressing a more gentile view? Factual accuracy has hardly been a heavy cross to bear either for Church historians or the editors of holy scripture.
The Catholic Church has had centuries to edit, delete, adulterate and fake scriptures and events. That it should choose to portray itself as somehow achieving against all odds is hardly a surprise.
|
Dear molly,
I am personally doubtful about some parts of Church history. I tend to defend the church lately because people are going too far in its criticisement. Are using false proofs and tend to consider the church as somehow eternally evil and manipulative organisation.
Remember that these people actually believed in their own opinions. People tend to forget that, thinking that people of all ages were what most are today - lacking any spirituality. I'm not sure about if the Trinity, at least the way we know it, was what people really believed in I century. I'm pretty sure they would consider the cult of reliques and of statues and icons something pagan etc...
The church and the Christians commited a lot of mistakes, that's obvious. But not all of them were made on purpouse, and not everything that's said about the church is true. The site You've shown us is a very biased one, and I hope You realise it the way I realise not everything the church claims or claimed is true either.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-12-2004 05:16
|