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
#76

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-09-2020, 01:30 AM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 10:49 PM)Cheerful Charlie 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.

There is a difference between people committing atrocities, and atrocities being mandated from government and government leaders such as these most Christian emperors.  Policy in these cases created for religious reasons.

Germany in the 30's is another sad example.

No, there is not. Not at all. The only difference is the level of power one holds.

You cannot judge an ideology by its abuses. Modifying the word atrocities with 'Christian' is ridiculous. Would you accept Stalin's activities characterized as 'atheist atrocities' or 'marxist atrocities'? No, of course not.

Why ideology can not be judged by its abuses (or what is called abuses but in reality is merely result of following ideology to it's logical conclusion)?

I would accept Stalin atrocities being called marxist-leninist atrocities (in fact I am doing such myself) or religious atrocities* as such  attributions are perfectly reasonable.


*If by some bizzare hapestance you know Polish then check Rafał Imos Faith of The Soviet Man. If not check Totalitarianism and Political Religions Volume II, chapter 6 Marxism-Leninism as political religion by Klaus-Georg Riegel whose concluding observations you can read below:


Quote:
As has become evident from the discussion to this point, the political religions that have been investigated here involve virtuoso religions that were developed by intellectuals as comprehensive systems by which both to explain the world and to change it through revolution. In all these virtuoso religions, the intellectuals represent a messianic mission. The revolutionary virtuosos emerge as representatives of human masses that are not yet mentally independent; and they promise to save these masses from their suffering.
Both the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia of tsarist Russia and its Marxist successor had performed this messianic mission with enough decisiveness to attain in the world, through particular forms of social organisation, that which they understood as the saving truths. We are not dealing, therefore, with virtuosos fleeing from the world and cultivating their sociologies in monastic communities that are secluded from the world.

The virtuoso religions of both the tsarist and the Marxist intelligentsia pressed for a revolutionary transformation of the world. Certainly, they differ in terms of content and of the organisational forms of their world toppling ideas of salvation. In his conscious confrontation with the pneumatically inspired communities of conviction of the narodnicestvo, with the revolutionary secret alliances and with the open social democracy of Menshevism, Lenin developed a model of discipline and military-like trainingof revolutionary virtuosos that was to transform revolutionary enthusiasm into an effectively functioning disciplined machine. (To be sure, the reality was a far cry from the functional efficiency that had been envisaged.) This course that Lenin took with his model of the disciplined cadre party also paved the way for Stalin’s institutional course – which was to develop further in the direction of a bureaucratised and hierarchised soteriological
of historical development were being actively promoted connected up with institution.  [...]In all the virtuoso religions within the sphere of Marxism-Leninism that have been described, a selective enlistment of Christian symbols and faith practices can clearly be recognised. The chiliastic hopes for salvation of the ‘Order of the Revolutionary Intelligentsia’ (F. Stepun), its public confessions and preparedness for heroic self-sacrifice as atonement for unearned privileges, its forms of self-organisation as pneumatically inspired conviction communities: these all draw upon the monastic communities that had formed either in reliance upon or in decisive rejection of the Russian Orthodox Church. Even the Leninist discipline machine recalls the type of the ‘revolutionary monk’ (S. Frank). The rites of purgation and purification, the catechisms and holy dogmas, the strict orders of command and exercises of ritual obedience that were practised within its ranks, occurred according to the model of ‘cloister rules’ (S. Frank). The Lenin cult that was then staged by Stalin and his rivals in the faith created a sacral faith tradition, complete with a canon of sacral scriptures, that could be selectively used to support one’s own claim to rule. The Stalinist cult of personality was also oriented towards an institutional church that knew how to assert the hierocratic power of its office by means of inquisition tribunals.[...] The Marxist-Leninist currents of faith represented religions of innerworldy salvation. They took from the sacral Marxist stock the certainty that their revolutionary efforts were in harmony with the scientific regularities that Marx had supposedly discovered. The scientific certainty that the laws the salvation doctrine that was also present in Marx’s work: the doctrine of liberating a humanity that suffers under capitalistic alienation and of leading it into a communistic paradise on earth through revolutionary deeds.

Scientific certainty and mandate for salvation were executed by the successful organisation of a ‘monks’ army’ (S. Frank) of career revolutionaries. The amalgamation of scientific certainty, mandate for salvation and revolutionary virtuosity produced an inner-worldly political religion.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
The following 1 user Likes Szuchow's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#77

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 07:20 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(03-09-2020, 01:30 AM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 10:49 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: There is a difference between people committing atrocities, and atrocities being mandated from government and government leaders such as these most Christian emperors.  Policy in these cases created for religious reasons.

Germany in the 30's is another sad example.

No, there is not. Not at all. The only difference is the level of power one holds.

You cannot judge an ideology by its abuses. Modifying the word atrocities with 'Christian' is ridiculous. Would you accept Stalin's activities characterized as 'atheist atrocities' or 'marxist atrocities'? No, of course not.

Why ideology can not be judged by its abuses (or what is called abuses but in reality is merely result of following ideology to it's logical conclusion)?

I would accept Stalin atrocities being called marxist-leninist atrocities (in fact I am doing such myself) or religious atrocities* as such  attributions are perfectly reasonable.


*If by some bizzare hapestance you know Polish then check Rafał Imos Faith of The Soviet Man. If not check Totalitarianism and Political Religions Volume II, chapter 6 Marxism-Leninism as political religion by Klaus-Georg Riegel whose concluding observations you can read below:


Quote:
As has become evident from the discussion to this point, the political religions that have been investigated here involve virtuoso religions that were developed by intellectuals as comprehensive systems by which both to explain the world and to change it through revolution. In all these virtuoso religions, the intellectuals represent a messianic mission. The revolutionary virtuosos emerge as representatives of human masses that are not yet mentally independent; and they promise to save these masses from their suffering.
Both the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia of tsarist Russia and its Marxist successor had performed this messianic mission with enough decisiveness to attain in the world, through particular forms of social organisation, that which they understood as the saving truths. We are not dealing, therefore, with virtuosos fleeing from the world and cultivating their sociologies in monastic communities that are secluded from the world.

The virtuoso religions of both the tsarist and the Marxist intelligentsia pressed for a revolutionary transformation of the world. Certainly, they differ in terms of content and of the organisational forms of their world toppling ideas of salvation. In his conscious confrontation with the pneumatically inspired communities of conviction of the narodnicestvo, with the revolutionary secret alliances and with the open social democracy of Menshevism, Lenin developed a model of discipline and military-like trainingof revolutionary virtuosos that was to transform revolutionary enthusiasm into an effectively functioning disciplined machine. (To be sure, the reality was a far cry from the functional efficiency that had been envisaged.) This course that Lenin took with his model of the disciplined cadre party also paved the way for Stalin’s institutional course – which was to develop further in the direction of a bureaucratised and hierarchised soteriological
of historical development were being actively promoted connected up with institution.  [...]In all the virtuoso religions within the sphere of Marxism-Leninism that have been described, a selective enlistment of Christian symbols and faith practices can clearly be recognised. The chiliastic hopes for salvation of the ‘Order of the Revolutionary Intelligentsia’ (F. Stepun), its public confessions and preparedness for heroic self-sacrifice as atonement for unearned privileges, its forms of self-organisation as pneumatically inspired conviction communities: these all draw upon the monastic communities that had formed either in reliance upon or in decisive rejection of the Russian Orthodox Church. Even the Leninist discipline machine recalls the type of the ‘revolutionary monk’ (S. Frank). The rites of purgation and purification, the catechisms and holy dogmas, the strict orders of command and exercises of ritual obedience that were practised within its ranks, occurred according to the model of ‘cloister rules’ (S. Frank). The Lenin cult that was then staged by Stalin and his rivals in the faith created a sacral faith tradition, complete with a canon of sacral scriptures, that could be selectively used to support one’s own claim to rule. The Stalinist cult of personality was also oriented towards an institutional church that knew how to assert the hierocratic power of its office by means of inquisition tribunals.[...] The Marxist-Leninist currents of faith represented religions of innerworldy salvation. They took from the sacral Marxist stock the certainty that their revolutionary efforts were in harmony with the scientific regularities that Marx had supposedly discovered. The scientific certainty that the laws the salvation doctrine that was also present in Marx’s work: the doctrine of liberating a humanity that suffers under capitalistic alienation and of leading it into a communistic paradise on earth through revolutionary deeds.

Scientific certainty and mandate for salvation were executed by the successful organisation of a ‘monks’ army’ (S. Frank) of career revolutionaries. The amalgamation of scientific certainty, mandate for salvation and revolutionary virtuosity produced an inner-worldly political religion.

No they are not reasonable. Stalin's actions are not justified by Marxism–Leninism no more than the crusades are justified by Christian doctrine.

The logic of calling them such things leads to all kinds of silly conclusions. You imply a connection that does not exist. Why not call them white men atrocities, or 20th century atrocities? Adding a modifier to atrocities that in only incidental conveys no meaning--and certainly not the meaning you intend.
Reply
#78

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
The conclusion is that xhristards are largely full of shit.  Pretty much like communists.  Pretty much like capitalists.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#79

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 07:41 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-25-2020, 07:20 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(03-09-2020, 01:30 AM)SteveII Wrote: No, there is not. Not at all. The only difference is the level of power one holds.

You cannot judge an ideology by its abuses. Modifying the word atrocities with 'Christian' is ridiculous. Would you accept Stalin's activities characterized as 'atheist atrocities' or 'marxist atrocities'? No, of course not.

Why ideology can not be judged by its abuses (or what is called abuses but in reality is merely result of following ideology to it's logical conclusion)?

I would accept Stalin atrocities being called marxist-leninist atrocities (in fact I am doing such myself) or religious atrocities* as such  attributions are perfectly reasonable.


*If by some bizzare hapestance you know Polish then check Rafał Imos Faith of The Soviet Man. If not check Totalitarianism and Political Religions Volume II, chapter 6 Marxism-Leninism as political religion by Klaus-Georg Riegel whose concluding observations you can read below:


Quote:
As has become evident from the discussion to this point, the political religions that have been investigated here involve virtuoso religions that were developed by intellectuals as comprehensive systems by which both to explain the world and to change it through revolution. In all these virtuoso religions, the intellectuals represent a messianic mission. The revolutionary virtuosos emerge as representatives of human masses that are not yet mentally independent; and they promise to save these masses from their suffering.
Both the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia of tsarist Russia and its Marxist successor had performed this messianic mission with enough decisiveness to attain in the world, through particular forms of social organisation, that which they understood as the saving truths. We are not dealing, therefore, with virtuosos fleeing from the world and cultivating their sociologies in monastic communities that are secluded from the world.

The virtuoso religions of both the tsarist and the Marxist intelligentsia pressed for a revolutionary transformation of the world. Certainly, they differ in terms of content and of the organisational forms of their world toppling ideas of salvation. In his conscious confrontation with the pneumatically inspired communities of conviction of the narodnicestvo, with the revolutionary secret alliances and with the open social democracy of Menshevism, Lenin developed a model of discipline and military-like trainingof revolutionary virtuosos that was to transform revolutionary enthusiasm into an effectively functioning disciplined machine. (To be sure, the reality was a far cry from the functional efficiency that had been envisaged.) This course that Lenin took with his model of the disciplined cadre party also paved the way for Stalin’s institutional course – which was to develop further in the direction of a bureaucratised and hierarchised soteriological
of historical development were being actively promoted connected up with institution.  [...]In all the virtuoso religions within the sphere of Marxism-Leninism that have been described, a selective enlistment of Christian symbols and faith practices can clearly be recognised. The chiliastic hopes for salvation of the ‘Order of the Revolutionary Intelligentsia’ (F. Stepun), its public confessions and preparedness for heroic self-sacrifice as atonement for unearned privileges, its forms of self-organisation as pneumatically inspired conviction communities: these all draw upon the monastic communities that had formed either in reliance upon or in decisive rejection of the Russian Orthodox Church. Even the Leninist discipline machine recalls the type of the ‘revolutionary monk’ (S. Frank). The rites of purgation and purification, the catechisms and holy dogmas, the strict orders of command and exercises of ritual obedience that were practised within its ranks, occurred according to the model of ‘cloister rules’ (S. Frank). The Lenin cult that was then staged by Stalin and his rivals in the faith created a sacral faith tradition, complete with a canon of sacral scriptures, that could be selectively used to support one’s own claim to rule. The Stalinist cult of personality was also oriented towards an institutional church that knew how to assert the hierocratic power of its office by means of inquisition tribunals.[...] The Marxist-Leninist currents of faith represented religions of innerworldy salvation. They took from the sacral Marxist stock the certainty that their revolutionary efforts were in harmony with the scientific regularities that Marx had supposedly discovered. The scientific certainty that the laws the salvation doctrine that was also present in Marx’s work: the doctrine of liberating a humanity that suffers under capitalistic alienation and of leading it into a communistic paradise on earth through revolutionary deeds.

Scientific certainty and mandate for salvation were executed by the successful organisation of a ‘monks’ army’ (S. Frank) of career revolutionaries. The amalgamation of scientific certainty, mandate for salvation and revolutionary virtuosity produced an inner-worldly political religion.

No they are not reasonable. Stalin's actions are not justified by Marxism–Leninism no more than the crusades are justified by Christian doctrine.

The logic of calling them such things leads to all kinds of silly conclusions. You imply a connection that does not exist. Why not call them white men atrocities, or 20th century atrocities?  Adding a modifier to atrocities that in only incidental conveys no meaning--and certainly not the meaning you intend.

Your profound argumentation and deep research managed to convince me.  ROFL2  

Educate yourself kiddo and then speak. I recommend starting with Andrzej Walicki Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom: The Rise and Fall of the Communist Utopia to see why marxism-leninism is to be blamed for Stalinist atrocities.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply
#80

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
Marxist Russia was born in an era of war. The Russian - Polish war and then the White Russian war. In an era of war, this allows civilized norms to easily go by the wayside. Once on a war footing, the Marxists easily had excuses for any excesses that occurred in their early days. Once Stalin won control of Marxist Russia, he was able to use an assassination of a high ranking Bolshevik to institute a paranoid government of purges, gulags and dictatorship based on paranoia, on top of the lingering war hysteria. As Trotsky opposed Stalin, Trotsky's standing with the Red Army he had formed meant Trotsky and others allied with him were seen as dangerous rivals. To be rooted out of government and executed or imprisoned. The dynamics of revolutionary Russia had an underlying hysteria that had nothing much to do with religion per se except that opposition of the Orthodox Russian church to Bolshevikism made the church a target no less than the Red Army leadership which was decimated to end any possible opposition to Stalin's rule. Oppression of the churches had started with Lenin precisely because they supported the White Russian counter revolutionaries during the early war against the Bolsheviks. The underlying complexities of Russian anti-clericism are more complex than the simple minded cold war rhetoric us Americans have been fed for decades.
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



Reply
#81

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 07:41 PM)SteveII Wrote: The logic of calling them such things leads to all kinds of silly conclusions. You imply a connection that does not exist. Why not call them white men atrocities, or 20th century atrocities?  Adding a modifier to atrocities that in only incidental conveys no meaning--and certainly not the meaning you intend.

Atrocities never happen in a vacuum. Understanding why they happened is useful. If Christians did things like kill Native Americans who would not convert (which is what happened) that pretty much speaks to the role of their faith in their deeds. That your interpretation of your faith is different from theirs in no way diminishes the danger that blind faith presents, especially to those who don't share it. Religions the world over have taken up violence as a tool of expansion and yours is no different.
The following 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Szuchow, Dānu, brunumb
Reply
#82

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 08:10 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: Marxist Russia was born in an era of war.  The Russian - Polish war and then the White Russian  war.  In an era of war, this allows civilized norms to easily go by the wayside.  Once on a war footing, the Marxists easily had excuses for any excesses that occurred in their early days.  Once Stalin won control of Marxist Russia, he was able to use an assassination of a high ranking Bolshevik to institute a paranoid government of purges, gulags and dictatorship based on paranoia, on top of the lingering war hysteria.  As Trotsky opposed Stalin, Trotsky's standing with the Red Army he had formed meant Trotsky and others allied with him were seen as dangerous rivals.  To be rooted out of government and executed or imprisoned.  The dynamics of revolutionary Russia had an underlying hysteria that had nothing much to do with religion per se except that opposition of the Orthodox Russian church to Bolshevikism made the church a target no less than the Red Army leadership which was decimated to end any possible opposition to Stalin's rule.  Oppression of the churches had started with Lenin precisely because they supported the White Russian counter revolutionaries during the early war against the Bolsheviks.  The underlying complexities of Russian anti-clericism are more complex than the simple minded cold war rhetoric us Americans have been fed for decades.

Mostly it was born during the Great War, thanks to Russian loses, war fatigue and hunger. Russian - Polish war could be called afterbirth pains. Also Soviet Russia was dictatorial from the start even if Lenin been forced to take into consideration stances of other bolsheviks; concentration camps started before Stalin era too.

Church was enemy of the Soviet Russia by default - ideocracy or theocracy if one sees marxism-leninism as religion couldn't stomach a rival.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
The following 1 user Likes Szuchow's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#83

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 08:10 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: Marxist Russia was born in an era of war.  The Russian - Polish war and then the White Russian  war.  In an era of war, this allows civilized norms to easily go by the wayside.  Once on a war footing, the Marxists easily had excuses for any excesses that occurred in their early days.  Once Stalin won control of Marxist Russia, he was able to use an assassination of a high ranking Bolshevik to institute a paranoid government of purges, gulags and dictatorship based on paranoia, on top of the lingering war hysteria.  As Trotsky opposed Stalin, Trotsky's standing with the Red Army he had formed meant Trotsky and others allied with him were seen as dangerous rivals.  To be rooted out of government and executed or imprisoned.  The dynamics of revolutionary Russia had an underlying hysteria that had nothing much to do with religion per se except that opposition of the Orthodox Russian church to Bolshevikism made the church a target no less than the Red Army leadership which was decimated to end any possible opposition to Stalin's rule.  Oppression of the churches had started with Lenin precisely because they supported the White Russian counter revolutionaries during the early war against the Bolsheviks.  The underlying complexities of Russian anti-clericism are more complex than the simple minded cold war rhetoric us Americans have been fed for decades.

The solidification of the Party as the focal point of worship is the point @Szuchow is making, I think. Stalin even appealed actively to the OC during Barbarossa. That doesn't mean that Stalin did not appeal to the authority of Lenin's writings to justify his measures. And that also doesn't mean that millions of Soviet citizens didn't focus religious fervor upon Stalin and his secular church, the Party. They too persecuted non-believers with ferocity, and much like traditional religions reserved their deepest hatreds for breakaway sects rather than entirely different "theologies". (Many Bolsheviks hated Mensheviks more than capitalists for a long while because the Mensheviks were not just opposed, they were apostates).

You're right that it is a very complex era to study, but Soviet socialism carried a lot of religious symbolism in its secular mythos, and filled much of religion's social space in that nation, I think.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Szuchow
Reply
#84

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
Quote:and filled much of religion's social space in a nation, I think.


Hmmm..... what is religion's social space in a nation?  And, more importantly, is it ever positive?
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#85

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 08:35 PM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:and filled much of religion's social space in a nation, I think.


Hmmm..... what is religion's social space in a nation?

I'm just describing what is a fact, not saying it deserves that space. But we'd both be idiots to not see that a significant portion of people prefer to be told rather than think for themselves. Those people create the religious space in a country, no matter how much we see that it's bullshit.

 
(03-25-2020, 08:35 PM)Minimalist Wrote: And, more importantly, is it ever positive?

Not in my opinion, but I bet you already knew that.
Reply
#86

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 04:39 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-25-2020, 04:21 PM)possibletarian Wrote:
(03-25-2020, 02:54 PM)SteveII Wrote: No discussion on this would be complete without pointing out that there is a difference between Catholic and protestant views and can lead to confusion. The Catholics believe that they have the unique ability to add to what it means to be a Christian. That obviously leads to confusion because that makes many concepts a moving target. I am arguing for a NT-only definition of Christianity.

In summary, a 'Christian interpretation atrocity' is because of interpretation (in the second sense of the definition). I think it is obvious that the NT as a whole acts as a check against taking passages out of context--especially in the categories of violence and hate.

Then you have a problem, what is the NT-only definition of Christianity when much of it's teaching are justified from the O.T. ?

Let's start with your definition of what you believe is the true N.T. definition of Christianity perhaps ?

You will have to explain what you mean that "much of it's teaching are justified from the O.T." While the OT fills in the context, it is not necessary to understand the actual content.

Seriously ?

What do YOU believe the N.T. definition of Christianity is ?
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
Reply
#87

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 08:31 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(03-25-2020, 08:10 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: Marxist Russia was born in an era of war.  The Russian - Polish war and then the White Russian  war.  In an era of war, this allows civilized norms to easily go by the wayside.  Once on a war footing, the Marxists easily had excuses for any excesses that occurred in their early days.  Once Stalin won control of Marxist Russia, he was able to use an assassination of a high ranking Bolshevik to institute a paranoid government of purges, gulags and dictatorship based on paranoia, on top of the lingering war hysteria.  As Trotsky opposed Stalin, Trotsky's standing with the Red Army he had formed meant Trotsky and others allied with him were seen as dangerous rivals.  To be rooted out of government and executed or imprisoned.  The dynamics of revolutionary Russia had an underlying hysteria that had nothing much to do with religion per se except that opposition of the Orthodox Russian church to Bolshevikism made the church a target no less than the Red Army leadership which was decimated to end any possible opposition to Stalin's rule.  Oppression of the churches had started with Lenin precisely because they supported the White Russian counter revolutionaries during the early war against the Bolsheviks.  The underlying complexities of Russian anti-clericism are more complex than the simple minded cold war rhetoric us Americans have been fed for decades.

The solidification of the Party as the focal point of worship is the point @Szuchow is making, I think. Stalin even appealed actively to the OC during Barbarossa. That doesn't mean that Stalin did not appeal to the authority of Lenin's writings to justify his measures. And that also doesn't mean that millions of Soviet citizens didn't focus religious fervor upon Stalin and his secular church, the Party. They too persecuted non-believers with ferocity, and much like traditional religions reserved their deepest hatreds for breakaway sects rather than entirely different "theologies". (Many Bolsheviks hated Mensheviks more than capitalists for a long while because the Mensheviks were not just opposed, they were apostates).

You're right that it is a very complex era to study, but Soviet socialism carried a lot of religious symbolism in its secular mythos, and filled much of religion's social space in a nation, I think.

I would say that marxism-leninism was simply substitute religion, both gnostic (as marxists claimed to know the objective laws governing history) and millenarian (as communism was supposed to materialize soon, at least before Brezhnev decreed that what exists now [then] is sufficient]. Obviously it is minority position but apart from aforementioned article one can also check Raymond Aron The Opium of the Intellectuals  which is calling it political religion.

Lenin authority was bedrock of Stalin own, one could say that Stalin showed himself as faithful disciple of late prophet.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
The following 1 user Likes Szuchow's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#88

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 08:48 PM)Szuchow Wrote: I would say that marxism-leninism was simply substitute religion, both gnostic (as marxists claimed to know the objective laws governing history) and millenarian (as communism was supposed to materialize soon, at least before Brezhnev decreed that what exists now [then] is sufficient]. Obviously it is minority position but apart from aforementioned article one can also check Raymond Aron The Opium of the Intellectuals  which is calling it political religion.

Lenin authority was bedrock of Stalin own, one could say that Stalin showed himself as faithful disciple of late prophet.

No argument in essence. Minority position it may be, but it's one I share too. It contained all the social trappings of religious faith, and grew its own fanatics and apostates. Speaking as someone who deconverted from Christianity, the similarities are very clear.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Szuchow
Reply
#89

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 08:19 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(03-25-2020, 07:41 PM)SteveII Wrote: The logic of calling them such things leads to all kinds of silly conclusions. You imply a connection that does not exist. Why not call them white men atrocities, or 20th century atrocities?  Adding a modifier to atrocities that in only incidental conveys no meaning--and certainly not the meaning you intend.

Atrocities never happen in a vacuum. Understanding why they happened is useful. If Christians did things like kill Native Americans who would not convert (which is what happened) that pretty much speaks to the role of their faith in their deeds. That your interpretation of your faith is different from theirs in no way diminishes the danger that blind faith presents, especially to those who don't share it. Religions the world over have taken up violence as a tool of expansion and yours is no different.

If the ideology does not have as a feature the thing that caused the atrocity, you cannot logically call it by that name. It is a meaningless connection of two words. Even if the person perpetrating the atrocity cites the ideology as reason, if the ideology does not contain those characteristics, the perpetrator is either mistaken or lying. Either way, we have the knowledge not to make the same mistake. To continue to make it requires an intentional perpetuation of a fact that is not true.
Reply
#90

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 08:59 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(03-25-2020, 08:48 PM)Szuchow Wrote: I would say that marxism-leninism was simply substitute religion, both gnostic (as marxists claimed to know the objective laws governing history) and millenarian (as communism was supposed to materialize soon, at least before Brezhnev decreed that what exists now [then] is sufficient]. Obviously it is minority position but apart from aforementioned article one can also check Raymond Aron The Opium of the Intellectuals  which is calling it political religion.

Lenin authority was bedrock of Stalin own, one could say that Stalin showed himself as faithful disciple of late prophet.

No argument in essence. Minority position it may be, but it's one I share too. It contained all the social trappings of religious faith, and grew its own fanatics and apostates. Speaking as someone who deconverted from Christianity, the similarities are very clear.

It is sad however that such position is quite often dismissed without much thought, even among atheists who shouldn't be quick to defend religion.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
The following 1 user Likes Szuchow's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#91

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 09:02 PM)SteveII Wrote: If the ideology does not have as a feature the thing that caused the atrocity, you cannot logically call it by that name. It is a meaningless connection of two words. Even if the person perpetrating the atrocity cites the ideology as reason, if the ideology does not contain those characteristics, the perpetrator is either mistaken or lying. Either way, we have the knowledge not to make the same mistake. To continue to make it requires a perpetuation of a fact that is not true.

No True Scotsman wears pants either, does he?

Your Bible has descriptions of and commands to exterminate non-believers. That you don't believe those OT parts doesn't matter. What matters is that the ideology is in the words themselves and they are followed by many hundreds of millions.

That doesn't say anything about the veracity of your interpretation, ignoring as it does more than half the book.
The following 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Szuchow, brunumb
Reply
#92

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 08:47 PM)possibletarian Wrote:
(03-25-2020, 04:39 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-25-2020, 04:21 PM)possibletarian Wrote: Then you have a problem, what is the NT-only definition of Christianity when much of it's teaching are justified from the O.T. ?

Let's start with your definition of what you believe is the true N.T. definition of Christianity perhaps ?

You will have to explain what you mean that "much of it's teaching are justified from the O.T." While the OT fills in the context, it is not necessary to understand the actual content.

Seriously ?

What do YOU believe the N.T. definition of Christianity is ?

Yes. Explain how the OT is a problem for the definition of Christian.
Reply
#93

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 09:34 PM)SteveII Wrote: Yes. Explain how the OT is a problem for the definition of Christian.

"I worship a God that is perfectly Good."

That looks like a biggie.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Szuchow
Reply
#94

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 09:34 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-25-2020, 08:47 PM)possibletarian Wrote:
(03-25-2020, 04:39 PM)SteveII Wrote: You will have to explain what you mean that "much of it's teaching are justified from the O.T." While the OT fills in the context, it is not necessary to understand the actual content.

Seriously ?

What do YOU believe the N.T. definition of Christianity is ?

Yes. Explain how the OT is a problem for the definition of Christian.

I'm not saying it is. now.. I'm saying its justified by it..

2 Timothy 3:16
From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.…

What do YOU believe the N.T. definition of Christianity is ?
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
Reply
#95

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 08:40 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(03-25-2020, 08:35 PM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:and filled much of religion's social space in a nation, I think.


Hmmm..... what is religion's social space in a nation?

I'm just describing what is a fact, not saying it deserves that space. But we'd both be idiots to not see that a significant portion of people prefer to be told rather than think for themselves. Those people create the religious space in a country, no matter how much we see that it's bullshit.


Then there is hope because a lot of countries have thrown it off....  not ours sadly, not yet.

[Image: everywhere-they-walk-around-like-normal-...-for-trump]


 
(03-25-2020, 08:35 PM)Minimalist Wrote: And, more importantly, is it ever positive?

Not in my opinion, but I bet you already knew that.


I had my suspicions!
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#96

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 09:49 PM)possibletarian Wrote:
(03-25-2020, 09:34 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-25-2020, 08:47 PM)possibletarian Wrote: Seriously ?

What do YOU believe the N.T. definition of Christianity is ?

Yes. Explain how the OT is a problem for the definition of Christian.

I'm not saying it is. now.. I'm saying its justified by it..

2 Timothy 3:16
From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.…

What do YOU believe the N.T. definition of Christianity is ?

"useful", not "necessary". BTW, what is considered scripture in this verse? Certainly not the canon we have now. Is it a prediction or reference to something that already exists?

I still don't know what you mean by "justified by it" -- which I take to mean the NT is justified by the OT.

Chris·ti·an·i·ty
/ˌkrisCHēˈanədē/
noun
the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.
Reply
#97

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 11:03 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-25-2020, 09:49 PM)possibletarian Wrote:
(03-25-2020, 09:34 PM)SteveII Wrote: Yes. Explain how the OT is a problem for the definition of Christian.

I'm not saying it is. now.. I'm saying its justified by it..

2 Timothy 3:16
From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.…

What do YOU believe the N.T. definition of Christianity is ?

"useful", not "necessary". BTW, what is considered scripture in this verse? Certainly not the canon we have now. Is it a prediction or reference to something that already exists?

I still don't know what you mean by "justified by it" -- which I take to mean the NT is justified by the OT.

Chris·ti·an·i·ty
/ˌkrisCHēˈanədē/
noun
the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.

Scripture would have been what were considered holy writings already in existence , overwhelmingly this would be what we call the OT. Jesus used to OT many times to answer questions and considered it a source of authority.

To be useful for correcting, or instruction of any value people, it would have to be considered of authority and relevant . 

Where did the beliefs and teachings of Jesus come from, what gave them authority at the time  ?

And what do you mean by based upon ? do you mean the clear word of the teachings or your understanding of the teachings ?
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
Reply
#98

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 09:34 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-25-2020, 08:47 PM)possibletarian Wrote:
(03-25-2020, 04:39 PM)SteveII Wrote: You will have to explain what you mean that "much of it's teaching are justified from the O.T." While the OT fills in the context, it is not necessary to understand the actual content.

Seriously ?

What do YOU believe the N.T. definition of Christianity is ?

Yes. Explain how the OT is a problem for the definition of Christian.


Luke 18:18-23
18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

According to Joshua Ben Joseph, to be a good Christian does not mean having to memorize and follow some long creed, be a member of a given church, speak in tongues, handle snakes, be baptized, but to follow the ten commandments and sell all you have and give to the poor.  Which does not mean giving money to a TV evangelist so he can buy a $60 million dollar jet aircraft.


Here, Jesus can not be more plain spoken or unmistakable.
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



The following 2 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • brunumb, possibletarian
Reply
#99

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
It's always amused me how Christians use the phrase 'you have to read it in context' , but when you challenge what context they mean different sects, even people in those sects come up with different things. Yet they all claim to follow the teachings of the bible clearly.

Plainly written words become simply 'what we mean by them'
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
Reply

Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities
(03-25-2020, 11:03 PM)SteveII Wrote: Chris·ti·an·i·ty
/ˌkrisCHēˈanədē/
noun
the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.

Jesus of Nazareth Wrote:For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law, till all be fulfilled.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • possibletarian
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)