Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
#26

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-08-2020, 10:51 PM)Reltzik Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 04:29 PM)SteveII Wrote: I know precision in language is not always celebrated here, but there is a difference between "Christian atrocities" and "Christians who committed atrocities." For it to be the former, it would have to be driven by the actual ideology. Since that is not the case, it is the latter.

Fair point.  So let's work through the whole list and see whether each item is simply Christians doing things incidental to their ideology (ie, things where their Christianity was not a motivating factor and they would likely have done it even if they weren't Christians), or whether it seems to be motivated by the ideology.  I'll also ask whether they seem to be promoting the ideology, because the Great Commission drives the promotion of ideology.  (EDIT:  And, too be clear, suppressing competing religions would count as promoting Christianity.)  Finally, I'll rank each as LIKELY, MAYBE, or LIKELY NOT motivated by Christian ideology, since I'm not a mind-reader and can't say for sure what was going on in the heads of people over a millenium ago.

...

So, SteveII, are there any of the ones I ranked as likely being motivated by Christianity where you think inferring likelihood is unwarranted?  Not just "we don't know for sure" or "benefit of the doubt", but where we should actually think it wasn't likely a causal factor?  Do you have any accounts or evidence about the motivations for these acts, or to suggest they didn't occur at all?

You miss the point. You could have 10,000 things listed. An ideology that has as the second greatest commandment to love your neighbor as yourself and another command to turn the other cheek cannot be a foundation for atrocities. Have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5?

You have a rather long post describing people behaving badly. Not describing a feature of an ideology. Somewhere in that long post you said something about the Great Commission and suppressing other religions is promoting Christianity. While I suppose it does, that is a strategy not found within the ideology itself (Matt 5 is actually the opposite)--so you are back to--you cannot judge an ideology by its abuses.
The following 1 user Likes SteveII's post:
  • Glossophile
Reply
#27

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-09-2020, 01:32 AM)Reltzik Wrote: Okay, trying to track down sources here.

A bit of googling has this list popping up all over, pretty close to word-for-word, allowing for typos and a few word choice differences in translation.  The original source in all cases is cited as Vlasis Rassias's Demolish Them!, a 1994 Greek-language publication.

.... so does anyone here read Greek?

I flunked ancient Greek in college.  I do remember that book getting some attention a decade ago. But only managed to find snippets of it on the net.  Google was not as rich then, and many original sources are still hard to find.
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



Reply
#28

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
https://web.archive.org/web/200810250504...-chart-395

Imperial Laws And Letters Involving Religion, AD 395 - 431
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



The following 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • Gwaithmir
Reply
#29

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-09-2020, 01:25 AM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 05:14 PM)Alan V Wrote: I agree with you except about one point.  When Christians use indoctrination techniques to pressure people into uncritical acceptance of their beliefs, atrocities large and small can be expected to follow, regardless of what Christian doctrines actually state.

You can remove the word 'Christian' from that sentence. It is unneeded. That goes for any ideology. How do you think Hitler got an entire country to be okay murdering 6 million Jews? Stalin? Pol Pot?

You cannot judge any ideology by its abuses.

That is why I oppose any form of indoctrination.

However, whenever you have some fixed dogmas, I think you will also see indoctrination techniques being employed.

That's why open-ended learning and pragmatism are so important.  Circumstances alter cases.
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#30

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-09-2020, 01:43 AM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 10:51 PM)Reltzik Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 04:29 PM)SteveII Wrote: I know precision in language is not always celebrated here, but there is a difference between "Christian atrocities" and "Christians who committed atrocities." For it to be the former, it would have to be driven by the actual ideology. Since that is not the case, it is the latter.

Fair point.  So let's work through the whole list and see whether each item is simply Christians doing things incidental to their ideology (ie, things where their Christianity was not a motivating factor and they would likely have done it even if they weren't Christians), or whether it seems to be motivated by the ideology.  I'll also ask whether they seem to be promoting the ideology, because the Great Commission drives the promotion of ideology.  (EDIT:  And, too be clear, suppressing competing religions would count as promoting Christianity.)  Finally, I'll rank each as LIKELY, MAYBE, or LIKELY NOT motivated by Christian ideology, since I'm not a mind-reader and can't say for sure what was going on in the heads of people over a millenium ago.

...

So, SteveII, are there any of the ones I ranked as likely being motivated by Christianity where you think inferring likelihood is unwarranted?  Not just "we don't know for sure" or "benefit of the doubt", but where we should actually think it wasn't likely a causal factor?  Do you have any accounts or evidence about the motivations for these acts, or to suggest they didn't occur at all?

You miss the point. You could have 10,000 things listed. An ideology that has as the second greatest commandment to love your neighbor as yourself and another command to turn the other cheek cannot be a foundation for atrocities.  Have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5?

You have a rather long post describing people behaving badly. Not describing a feature of an ideology.  Somewhere in that long post you said something about the Great Commission and suppressing other religions is promoting Christianity. While I suppose it does, that is a strategy not found within the ideology itself (Matt 5 is actually the opposite)--so you are back to--you cannot judge an ideology by its abuses.

I've read the whole thing, actually, front to back.  Been a while, though.  I am familiar with the love your neighbor and turning the other cheek quotes.

The thing is, between text and praxis lies interpretation.  There's the words on the page, and then there's what each person takes away from the words on the page, and then there's what each person does or doesn't do based on what they took away.

So in YOUR interpretation of the ideology, that is the second greatest commandment.  (And perhaps a literal reading, though we could also read that as Jesus talking about an old dispensation rather than the new one...)  But I also know there's a lot of stuff in the ideology that can be, and has been, interpreted in a contradictory way.  Suffer not a witch to live (depending on translation).  Purge the evil person from among you.  And so on.

So we can argue that it's not fully in keeping with this or that part of the ideology, and I wouldn't disagree with you.  But it's also in keeping with other parts.  Ask someone like, say, Steven Anderson to justify his extreme positions from the text of the Bible and he will do so with alacrity, and point out all the ways YOUR interpretation is wrong just as readily as you'll point out the ways HIS is wrong.  And I'm in no position to say his interpretation of the ideology is wrong and yours is right, or vice versa.

At the end of the day, results matter.  If we've got some text that says nice things, but an alarmingly large number of people who read it start doing alarmingly awful things based on it, then that's something to be eyed askance regardless of the words on the page.  And that means I damn well can judge an ideology by its abuses.

Why wouldn't I judge a tree by its fruits?
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov
The following 2 users Like Reltzik's post:
  • Glossophile, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#31

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
Okay, something is radically wrong here:

Quote:324 The emperor Constantine declares Christianity as the only official religion of the Roman empire. In Dydima, Minor Asia, he sacks the Oracle of the god Apollo and tortures the Pagan priests to death.

This book on the Dydima Oracle says no such thing but does note that Julian the Apostate became a prophet of Apollo long after this supposed suppression.

https://books.google.com/books?id=wOtqfm...24&f=false

So with two massive strikes against it one must consider the source.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#32

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
This is a translation of the list from the book.

https://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/16970


It seems to be all over the web.  Atheist sites accept it because it makes xtians look bad.  I don't know why the original posting put it up there because it still makes xtians look like shit.

But as noted, the first two entries do not survive the smell test.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 3 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • skyking, Gwaithmir, epronovost
Reply
#33

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-09-2020, 01:43 AM)SteveII Wrote: You miss the point. You could have 10,000 things listed. An ideology that has as the second greatest commandment to love your neighbor as yourself and another command to turn the other cheek cannot be a foundation for atrocities.  Have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5?

You have a rather long post describing people behaving badly. Not describing a feature of an ideology.  Somewhere in that long post you said something about the Great Commission and suppressing other religions is promoting Christianity. While I suppose it does, that is a strategy not found within the ideology itself (Matt 5 is actually the opposite)--so you are back to--you cannot judge an ideology by its abuses.

All you are doing is playing the "No True Christian" card.  The trouble with that is that when you start applying the criteria to identify True Christians, you discover that there is no such animal.  Just like God it is some sort of imaginary ideal that doesn't exist.
No gods necessary
The following 4 users Like brunumb's post:
  • Alan V, Gwaithmir, Chas, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#34

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
I think what we have to remember here is the claim that Christians are somehow endowed with a relationship with god.
If that were true there would be a significant and easily identifiable difference between Christians and, well everyone else (given the exclusive nature of their claims)

However what we see is Christians full of hate, anger, lust, greed etc. exactly what we would expect if they were no different from anyone else, and their relationship with god was simply not true.
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
The following 3 users Like possibletarian's post:
  • brunumb, Glossophile, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#35

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
Xtians are mainly full of shit.

Let's here about ideology from Pope Urban II at Cleremont as he unleashed the Crusades.

Quote:"Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

Fulcher of Chartres


Isn't that special?  Even funnier, it was a mere 46 years after the Great Schism which permanently divided the catholic West from the Orthodox East.  When it came to killing Arabs and Turks they seem to have gotten over it pretty quick.  When it came to who was going to be in charge they were less agreeable.

Assholes.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Gwaithmir
Reply
#36

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-09-2020, 02:39 AM)Reltzik Wrote:
(03-09-2020, 01:43 AM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 10:51 PM)Reltzik Wrote: Fair point.  So let's work through the whole list and see whether each item is simply Christians doing things incidental to their ideology (ie, things where their Christianity was not a motivating factor and they would likely have done it even if they weren't Christians), or whether it seems to be motivated by the ideology.  I'll also ask whether they seem to be promoting the ideology, because the Great Commission drives the promotion of ideology.  (EDIT:  And, too be clear, suppressing competing religions would count as promoting Christianity.)  Finally, I'll rank each as LIKELY, MAYBE, or LIKELY NOT motivated by Christian ideology, since I'm not a mind-reader and can't say for sure what was going on in the heads of people over a millenium ago.

...

So, SteveII, are there any of the ones I ranked as likely being motivated by Christianity where you think inferring likelihood is unwarranted?  Not just "we don't know for sure" or "benefit of the doubt", but where we should actually think it wasn't likely a causal factor?  Do you have any accounts or evidence about the motivations for these acts, or to suggest they didn't occur at all?

You miss the point. You could have 10,000 things listed. An ideology that has as the second greatest commandment to love your neighbor as yourself and another command to turn the other cheek cannot be a foundation for atrocities.  Have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5?

You have a rather long post describing people behaving badly. Not describing a feature of an ideology.  Somewhere in that long post you said something about the Great Commission and suppressing other religions is promoting Christianity. While I suppose it does, that is a strategy not found within the ideology itself (Matt 5 is actually the opposite)--so you are back to--you cannot judge an ideology by its abuses.

I've read the whole thing, actually, front to back.  Been a while, though.  I am familiar with the love your neighbor and turning the other cheek quotes.

The thing is, between text and praxis lies interpretation.  There's the words on the page, and then there's what each person takes away from the words on the page, and then there's what each person does or doesn't do based on what they took away.

So in YOUR interpretation of the ideology, that is the second greatest commandment.  (And perhaps a literal reading, though we could also read that as Jesus talking about an old dispensation rather than the new one...)  But I also know there's a lot of stuff in the ideology that can be, and has been, interpreted in a contradictory way.  Suffer not a witch to live (depending on translation).  Purge the evil person from among you.  And so on.

So we can argue that it's not fully in keeping with this or that part of the ideology, and I wouldn't disagree with you.  But it's also in keeping with other parts.  Ask someone like, say, Steven Anderson to justify his extreme positions from the text of the Bible and he will do so with alacrity, and point out all the ways YOUR interpretation is wrong just as readily as you'll point out the ways HIS is wrong.  And I'm in no position to say his interpretation of the ideology is wrong and yours is right, or vice versa.

At the end of the day, results matter.  If we've got some text that says nice things, but an alarmingly large number of people who read it start doing alarmingly awful things based on it, then that's something to be eyed askance regardless of the words on the page.  And that means I damn well can judge an ideology by its abuses.

Why wouldn't I judge a tree by its fruits?

The meaning of any writing is not relative to the reader. It is the intended meaning of the author that governs meaning of the words. While it might not always be clear what the writer meant, it does mean that all interpretations are not created equal and only one is essentially correct. If there is only one correct meaning, then the ideology remains objective whether it is correctly interpreted or not. This last point is important. There is only one meaning.

Interesting metaphor, tree and fruit. I could use the same metaphor to argue my point. If the fruit does not fit the definition of the tree, it is not the fruit of that tree.
Reply
#37

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-09-2020, 07:29 PM)possibletarian Wrote: I think what we have to remember here is the claim that Christians are somehow endowed with a relationship with god.
If that were true there would be a significant and easily identifiable difference between Christians and, well everyone else (given the exclusive nature of their claims)

However what we see is Christians full of hate, anger, lust, greed etc. exactly what we would expect if they were no different from anyone else, and their relationship with god was simply not true.

That is an argument for bad Christians and their relationship with God probably is not true. You can't actually draw any more conclusions than that though.
Reply
#38

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-09-2020, 10:43 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-09-2020, 07:29 PM)possibletarian Wrote: I think what we have to remember here is the claim that Christians are somehow endowed with a relationship with god.
If that were true there would be a significant and easily identifiable difference between Christians and, well everyone else (given the exclusive nature of their claims)

However what we see is Christians full of hate, anger, lust, greed etc. exactly what we would expect if they were no different from anyone else, and their relationship with god was simply not true.

That is an argument for bad Christians and their relationship with God probably is not true. You can't actually draw any more conclusions than that though.

What's a bad Christian ?
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
Reply
#39

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
A live one.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Chas
Reply
#40

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-09-2020, 10:40 PM)SteveII Wrote: Interesting metaphor, tree and fruit. I could use the same metaphor to argue my point. If the fruit does not fit the definition of the tree, it is not the fruit of that tree.

Exactly, the claims made about a relationship with an alleged god are not evident, so the tree does not exist.

If I claim to have come bearing the fruits of a new refreshing good tree, that has all the best flavours of everything and them give you an apple, what do you conclude. ?
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
Reply
#41

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-09-2020, 10:44 PM)possibletarian Wrote: What's a bad Christian ?

One who's breathing?      Whistling
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#42

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-09-2020, 10:40 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-09-2020, 02:39 AM)Reltzik Wrote:
(03-09-2020, 01:43 AM)SteveII Wrote: You miss the point. You could have 10,000 things listed. An ideology that has as the second greatest commandment to love your neighbor as yourself and another command to turn the other cheek cannot be a foundation for atrocities.  Have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5?

You have a rather long post describing people behaving badly. Not describing a feature of an ideology.  Somewhere in that long post you said something about the Great Commission and suppressing other religions is promoting Christianity. While I suppose it does, that is a strategy not found within the ideology itself (Matt 5 is actually the opposite)--so you are back to--you cannot judge an ideology by its abuses.

I've read the whole thing, actually, front to back.  Been a while, though.  I am familiar with the love your neighbor and turning the other cheek quotes.

The thing is, between text and praxis lies interpretation.  There's the words on the page, and then there's what each person takes away from the words on the page, and then there's what each person does or doesn't do based on what they took away.

So in YOUR interpretation of the ideology, that is the second greatest commandment.  (And perhaps a literal reading, though we could also read that as Jesus talking about an old dispensation rather than the new one...)  But I also know there's a lot of stuff in the ideology that can be, and has been, interpreted in a contradictory way.  Suffer not a witch to live (depending on translation).  Purge the evil person from among you.  And so on.

So we can argue that it's not fully in keeping with this or that part of the ideology, and I wouldn't disagree with you.  But it's also in keeping with other parts.  Ask someone like, say, Steven Anderson to justify his extreme positions from the text of the Bible and he will do so with alacrity, and point out all the ways YOUR interpretation is wrong just as readily as you'll point out the ways HIS is wrong.  And I'm in no position to say his interpretation of the ideology is wrong and yours is right, or vice versa.

At the end of the day, results matter.  If we've got some text that says nice things, but an alarmingly large number of people who read it start doing alarmingly awful things based on it, then that's something to be eyed askance regardless of the words on the page.  And that means I damn well can judge an ideology by its abuses.

Why wouldn't I judge a tree by its fruits?

The meaning of any writing is not relative to the reader. It is the intended meaning of the author that governs meaning of the words. While it might not always be clear what the writer meant, it does mean that all interpretations are not created equal and only one is essentially correct. If there is only one correct meaning, then the ideology remains objective whether it is correctly interpreted or not. This last point is important. There is only one meaning.

Interesting metaphor, tree and fruit. I could use the same metaphor to argue my point. If the fruit does not fit the definition of the tree, it is not the fruit of that tree.

And how, exactly, do we access that ideology to debate it, act on it, or live by it except through interpretation?

Any objective meaning that might be theoretically present in the original ideology is locked in the past, accessible today only through means that are subjective, as demonstrated by how so many differing interpretations are drawn from the same thing.  The only modern ideology left to be had is in the interpretations themselves, and those interpretations are subjective.

So I suppose you can talk about some theoretical original meaning, but all I have to do is say, "Okay, the tree is the practice of interpreting the Bible for its original meaning and treating it as authoritative, which is something pretty much every Christian does or relies on someone else to do, and oh look that tree bears a lot of pretty awful fruits," and then we're right back to where we were before.
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov
The following 1 user Likes Reltzik's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#43

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
Stevie does not accept the notion that actions speak louder than words.  Its one of the reasons he is such an idiot.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#44

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-10-2020, 02:07 AM)Minimalist Wrote: Stevie does not accept the notion that actions speak louder than words.  Its one of the reasons he is such an idiot.

Isn't it funny how Christian excuses sound exactly the same as excuses of all other religions they claim as false.
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
The following 3 users Like possibletarian's post:
  • Chas, TheGentlemanBastard, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#45

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
Yes, there's that.  Probably because they too use the "God Told Me To" rationale.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#46

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-10-2020, 02:04 AM)Reltzik Wrote:
(03-09-2020, 10:40 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-09-2020, 02:39 AM)Reltzik Wrote: I've read the whole thing, actually, front to back.  Been a while, though.  I am familiar with the love your neighbor and turning the other cheek quotes.

The thing is, between text and praxis lies interpretation.  There's the words on the page, and then there's what each person takes away from the words on the page, and then there's what each person does or doesn't do based on what they took away.

So in YOUR interpretation of the ideology, that is the second greatest commandment.  (And perhaps a literal reading, though we could also read that as Jesus talking about an old dispensation rather than the new one...)  But I also know there's a lot of stuff in the ideology that can be, and has been, interpreted in a contradictory way.  Suffer not a witch to live (depending on translation).  Purge the evil person from among you.  And so on.

So we can argue that it's not fully in keeping with this or that part of the ideology, and I wouldn't disagree with you.  But it's also in keeping with other parts.  Ask someone like, say, Steven Anderson to justify his extreme positions from the text of the Bible and he will do so with alacrity, and point out all the ways YOUR interpretation is wrong just as readily as you'll point out the ways HIS is wrong.  And I'm in no position to say his interpretation of the ideology is wrong and yours is right, or vice versa.

At the end of the day, results matter.  If we've got some text that says nice things, but an alarmingly large number of people who read it start doing alarmingly awful things based on it, then that's something to be eyed askance regardless of the words on the page.  And that means I damn well can judge an ideology by its abuses.

Why wouldn't I judge a tree by its fruits?

The meaning of any writing is not relative to the reader. It is the intended meaning of the author that governs meaning of the words. While it might not always be clear what the writer meant, it does mean that all interpretations are not created equal and only one is essentially correct. If there is only one correct meaning, then the ideology remains objective whether it is correctly interpreted or not. This last point is important. There is only one meaning.

Interesting metaphor, tree and fruit. I could use the same metaphor to argue my point. If the fruit does not fit the definition of the tree, it is not the fruit of that tree.

And how, exactly, do we access that ideology to debate it, act on it, or live by it except through interpretation?

Any objective meaning that might be theoretically present in the original ideology is locked in the past, accessible today only through means that are subjective, as demonstrated by how so many differing interpretations are drawn from the same thing.  The only modern ideology left to be had is in the interpretations themselves, and those interpretations are subjective.

Perhaps, but there are a wide array of tools to get at a decent approximation of what the author meant. Often it isn't all that hard--especially for the subject of this thread. For example, whether of not Paul was teaching trinitarianism in Col 2:9, is vastly different from the question of did Jesus allow for atrocities in Matthew 5:38-48.

Quote:So I suppose you can talk about some theoretical original meaning, but all I have to do is say, "Okay, the tree is the practice of interpreting the Bible for its original meaning and treating it as authoritative, which is something pretty much every Christian does or relies on someone else to do, and oh look that tree bears a lot of pretty awful fruits," and then we're right back to where we were before.

But you have not connected the "awful fruits" with the ideology--which is necessary to characterize an atrocity as 'Christian'. There are plenty of other reasons someone might want to do something bad. At best you have a shame-on-you argument because the person claimed the ideology and then did something contrary to it.
Reply
#47

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
Oh, for fuck's sake...

Hasn't this dipshit yet realised that citing his silly holy book on an atheist forum is totally pointless?

Steve Wrote:For example, whether of not Paul was teaching trinitarianism in Col 3:9, is vastly different from the question of did Jesus allow for atrocities in Matthew 5:38-48.

You simply cannot use works composed largely of fiction as any sort of viable reference.  It'd be like
me claiming that because Superman was rendered powerless by Kryptonite that it could harm me in
the same way.  Except of course that—just like the absurdities in the bible—it's a fictional material.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#48

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
Dafuq?

Quote: Colossians 3:9 New International Version (NIV)

9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices


Fucking drivel.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#49

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-10-2020, 04:25 PM)SteveII Wrote: ...

Perhaps, but there are a wide array of tools to get at a decent approximation of what the author meant.  Often it isn't all that hard--especially for the subject of this thread. For example, whether of not Paul was teaching trinitarianism in Col 2:9, is vastly different from the question of did Jesus allow for atrocities in Matthew 5:38-48.

...

But you have not connected the "awful fruits" with the ideology--which is necessary to characterize an atrocity as 'Christian'. There are plenty of other reasons someone might want to do something bad. At best you have a shame-on-you argument because the person claimed the ideology and then did something contrary to it.

But I did link it to the ideology, through the Great Commission.  It's difficult to argue that many of the abuses committed were about forcing people to convert to Christianity and/or suppressing competing religions (the evil of which is a theme throughout the Bible).  While I'm viewing the OP list with a bit of skepticism, as just one of many other examples of this doctrine leading to atrocities I could point to Charlemagne's policy towards the Saxons: Convert or die.

Or I could point to the extensive anti-Semetic abuses committed based on the doctrine of Jewish Deicide -- that the entire Jewish race bears a blood-guilt for killing Jesus, based on Mathew 17:25.  Now you may interpret this passage differently, either on its own or in regard to its larger importance in the whole Bible, and a lot of Christians do.  But the same act of interpretation also leads a lot of people to believe in that particular bloody doctrine, which is an example of how the act of belief based on interpretation of the Bible is itself both unreliable and dangerous.

But even without that link of ideology, I can also call an atrocity Christian by A) Showing it was done by Christians and B) Showing those Christians did it BECAUSE they were Christians, rather than incidental to being Christians.  This is the standard by which we might call the abuses at Abu Gharib prison following the Iraq War an American atrocity, even if they were performed by a very small percentage of Americans, who (analogous to not conforming to the ideology, whatever that actually is) violated standing orders and American law in the process.  I doubt most people would argue that classing it as an American atrocity is a totally baseless view to have, even if they might not be inclined to put it that way themselves.

The causal link is what's important, because that's how results are measured and how we make decisions about whether this or that activity is dangerous.  It's what lets us say, "If I do A, B will happen", or at least, "If I do A, there is a significant chance that B will happen."  It lets me say, "If I try to interpret the Bible (or rely on someone else's interpretation), accept it on faith, and use that as a guide in my life, there's a significant chance that this will lead me to do some horrendous things."  This particular tree frequently bears those particular fruits.
 
Am I saying "shame on every Christian because of the actions of these specific Christians" or anything like that?  No, I am not, and please quote one of my posts if I have.  I'm saying that indulging in Christian beliefs has, in many cases, led to some pretty nasty consequences.  I can go a bit further to say that indulging in such a belief could therefore be viewed as dangerous.  Not necessarily something that will definitely result in the believer doing something harmful, but which has a significant possibility of leading to that result.  A metaphor I like is of some recreational drug that is known to send, say, 5% of users into psychotic episodes, but doesn't have that side effect for anyone else.  Playing those odds can be viewed as irresponsible.  And yes, I'm also taking a few digs at an irksome and odious slander (which, to my knowledge, you have not advanced) at large in our society that being a Christian automatically makes one better, more loving, and more moral than being an atheist.  But no, I'm not saying that you specifically should feel shame for Christian atrocities.
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov
The following 3 users Like Reltzik's post:
  • Dānu, Cheerful Charlie, Glossophile
Reply
#50

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-09-2020, 01:25 AM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 05:14 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 04:29 PM)SteveII Wrote: I know precision in language is not always celebrated here, but there is a difference between "Christian atrocities" and "Christians who committed atrocities." For it to be the former, it would have to be driven by the actual ideology. Since that is not the case, it is the latter.

I agree with you except about one point.  When Christians use indoctrination techniques to pressure people into uncritical acceptance of their beliefs, atrocities large and small can be expected to follow, regardless of what Christian doctrines actually state.

You can remove the word 'Christian' from that sentence. It is unneeded. That goes for any ideology. How do you think Hitler got an entire country to be okay murdering 6 million Jews? Stalin? Pol Pot?

That does not let Christianity off the hook.

Quote:You cannot judge any ideology by its abuses.

Why not?  If it can be abused, it will be.
Philosophy is about asking questions.
Science is about answering questions.
Theology is about avoiding questions.
The following 1 user Likes Chas's post:
  • Gwaithmir
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)