The all new, totally accepted, bigotry thread - "Blame a Christian"

[Leoreth]

That's only because those people are idiots. Regret to inform that a religion comprising 75% of a nation's people can expect to contain 75% of its mind-numbingly stupid ones.

Good, I think we agree then

 

[_random_]

When I become rich, I'm going to buy copies of The Genesis of Science in bulk to hand out/mail to people who say/make things like that.

Only it is not so clearcut as that. Many scholars who advanced civilization during that period were indeed clergy because they were the ones who controlled all the institutions of higher learning and had the time and funding to pursue it.

The RCC was quite dogmatic and very slow to accept the scientific method and those whose discoveries defied their beliefs of how the world supposedly worked. While there were a few exceptions, the RCC did much to slow scientific progress ever since the persecution of Galileo.

They continued that policy until they finally got tired of advances in science repeatedly proving their religious dogma to be so much nonsense, which required them to eventually modify it. They finally took a much more rational approach by accepting science instead of fighting it to a large extent, but that was only after centuries of holding back scientific progress in any area which conflicted with their official religious views.

But I would agree that we really don't know what progress would have been made without the RCC, or how much further ahead or behind we would not be without them. They did provide the infrastructure which largely made those advances possible.

This will do for now.

 

[timtofly]

Hey, we were nice enough to give the rest of the world a headstart of a few centuries of dark ages, followed by a few centuries of religious stupidity, and we still managed to bridge up the gap and come out on top.
You can't blame us if they spent 1500 years twidling their thumbs !



Considering the staggering amount of evil that happened in the world, we can safely conclude that God is really one spiteful bastard.

Or, He keeps on saying, "I told you so".

 

[Borachio]

Western/Conservative Christianity is not misanthropic, but a reaction to the changing culture around them, that slipped by in their complacent western acceptance of the changing culture. Christian influence can only go so far. Fighting back to regain a foothold in culture is not the way to go about it. Whining about it is not the way to go about it. Setting the example is the only way, but it is not guaranteed to produce results. The problem with Christianity, is that they expect results and jump ship when it does not happen. Having free speech does not help matters, because while they can state their opinion, they cannot expect others to accept their opinion. There is no problem with one running for public office. The democratic process does not supercede the will of God. God is still in control of who wins and the democratic process still works, even if the Christian does not get elected. If Christianity looses all influence, it was not because Christians became complacent and let it happen. It was because God willed it to happen. I do not claim to know God's will, but just stating that Christians have about as much influence over it as any one does. God's Will is always done, even in man's free exercise thereof.

This. I don't understand the problem. All the Christian man need do is continue with his everyday life. He does not need to talk to anyone, he does not need to study books, he does not need to engage in lively debate on any topic whatsoever. His life is his teaching.

In what respect(s) is this untrue? I am intrigued. Please explain it to me.

Perhaps, though, I have simply misunderstood what you intend to say.

 

[peter grimes]

Setting the example is the only way

I agree completely, and I have a great deal of respect for the few people who actually do this. As I said earlier, I only personally know 1 family that lives the way Christ is supposed to have commanded.

The rest of your post is self-contradictory - Will of God conflicting with Free Will, but not.

 

[Akka]

Or, He keeps on saying, "I told you so".

Doesn't that exactly cover the "spiteful bastard" part ?
Okay, you can add "childish and full of grudge" if you want it to be more explicit. At least it does explain why people act like dick, considering what they supposedly highest role-model is ^^

 

[Borachio]

In point of fact, I don't ever recall having met a so-called preachy Christian, as seems to be being portrayed in this thread. (Unless my impression is wide of the mark). Either no such animal exists or I have just been lucky.

 

[timtofly]

This. I don't understand the problem. All the Christian man need do is continue with his everyday life. He does not need to talk to anyone, he does not need to study books, he does not need to engage in lively debate on any topic whatsoever. His life is his teaching.

In what respect(s) is this untrue? I am intrigued. Please explain it to me.

Perhaps, though, I have simply misunderstood what you intend to say.

You are close, it is in the "need". Living by example is all he needs to do. He can do all of the other things as he sees fit. There are examples in the Bible where men were compelled to do more. If one proclaims one thing and lives another, he is a liar. If one lives something and proclaims another, he is a liar. Unless one lives, he cannot proclaim. The proclaimation was that God came and provided the sacrifice that the law demanded. Now one can go around and tell every one these words, but as words they are meaningless. Not to get too metaphysical, but there is power in the words, but going back to square one, if the person proclaiming is not living, then that throws a stumblingblock into the equation. Living by example is proclaiming without getting into one's face. As for education, there is the fact that unless one has the knowledge needed to live, he cannot live. He would have to have the knowledge to even realize that he was a Christian.

I agree completely, and I have a great deal of respect for the few people who actually do this. As I said earlier, I only personally know 1 family that lives the way Christ is supposed to have commanded.

The rest of your post is self-contradictory - Will of God conflicting with Free Will, but not.

I realize that humans have rationalized that free will is self given and they have every right to do so, along with the right to believe there is no God. I am coming from the perspective that there is a God and the free will that He provided is that humans have their own volition. That volition will never supercede God, since He allowed it to begin with. The contradiction comes in if that is free will or not? I think some feel pretty free without the bonds of religion, or so they say, so it seems pretty free to me.

 

[Arakhor]

I was accosted by American Mormons in my home town, no less, and I've had JWs come to my door (I didn't realise that they were creationists before then), but the only hellfire and brimstone Christians I've met is with the magic of technology.

 

[Traitorfish]

I got some Jehovah's Witnesses a while back. They were nice. Didn't tear the face off me damn me to hell or anything.

 

[peter grimes]

I realize that humans have rationalized that free will is self given and they have every right to do so, along with the right to believe there is no God. I am coming from the perspective that there is a God and the free will that He provided is that humans have their own volition. That volition will never supercede God, since He allowed it to begin with. The contradiction comes in if that is free will or not? I think some feel pretty free without the bonds of religion, or so they say, so it seems pretty free to me.

Ah, now I understand your position.

The funny thing is, the more neurologists look, the less likely it is that humans have conscious free will. There's a gap your god can use to influence people.

But I find the implications of that completely evil. Gods causing mothers to strangle their babies, serial-killers to torture and torment their victims before mercifully extinguishing them, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians murdered because our stupid president thought he heard a voice in his head...

No, that's an awful world. Luckily there's no evidence at all that it's the one we live in.

 

[Borachio]

Have ye come across any specimens of the Wee Free? I like all the fundamentalists. The JW's come once a year. Mormons I haven't seen hide nor hair of for many a merry year. I think they assume I'm lost. And it is true. I am.

Can't beat the Civil War(s) period (there were three of them), for a plethora of twitterers and botherers (this was previous to the established church). Diggers, Quakers, Levellers, Adamites, erm...squillions of 'em.

Cries of "I've got religion!"...........quieter: "Keep it, madam."

 

[Borachio]

Might I recommend to interested parties:

The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner: Written by Himself: (With a detail of curious traditionary facts and other evidence by the editor)

a novel by the Scottish author James Hogg, published anonymously in 1824.


(A justified sinner is one who is convinced that his salvation is pre-ordained.)


oo bugger I've posted twice

 

[Traitorfish]

Have ye come across an specimens of the Wee Free?

You get some ranty Calvinist types in town from time to time, but I'm never sure if they're Wee Free, Wee Wee Free, or something else altogether. All I know is that, for some reason, they don't share with the Mormons, JWs, etc., the belief that you get more flies with sugar than with nuclear waste.

Can't beat the Civil War(s) period (there were three of them), for a plethora of twitterers (this was previous to the established church). Diggers, Quakers, Levellers, Adamites, erm...squillions of 'em.

Well, technically it was in a period of temporary disestablishment, but you're right enough that it's hard to keep track of the buggers. (Although the Levellers were a political tendency, rather than a religious sect; their membership varied from ultra-pious Independents to sober rationalists who verged on deism.)

 

[Formaldehyde]

This will do for now.

I saw that web page and read some of the reviews before responding. Suffice to say, I'm not that impressed except for the caveats which I have already mentioned. The Galileo incident alone likely set back the progress of modern science by at least 50 years. While the RCC just recently apologized for how he was treated after reviewing the records for the umpteenth time before finally doing so, some are still trying to spin their treatment of him as being justified even today.

While it is clear that some of the opponents of the RCC during that period now engage in a bit of hyperbole by overlooking the contributions that the RCC made during that period, so do some of those who now try to rationalize those numerous acts which set back progress which would otherwise have been made.

It wasn't really until the 20th Century that the RCC finally realized they had no place criticizing science on any level, no matter how much it conflicted with their religious dogma. And they certainly should have apologized for how Galileo was treated long ago. Religion really has no place in modern science. The scientific method divorced it from the pursuit of objective knowledge of the universe long ago.

 

[Traitorfish]

What about Galileo? The fact that the Church was willing to adopt his astrological model (albeit with certain qualifications), but only ended up rejecting it because he and the pope got into a pissy little feud that made them both look like they were about twelve? Or mebbe something else?

 

[Dachs]

I saw that and read some of the reviews before responding. Suffice to say, I'm not impressed at all. You can start by googling Galileo.

Screw that, why don't you read what Plotinus and his, uh, fellow academic historian of religion and philosophy Roger Pearse have had to say about the whole Galileo thing? On this very forum, no less.

I mean, I don't really think you'll read the post, because last time I told you to, you summarily ignored it and didn't change your opinion. But still.

 

[timtofly]

Doesn't that exactly cover the "spiteful bastard" part ?
Okay, you can add "childish and full of grudge" if you want it to be more explicit. At least it does explain why people act like dick, considering what they supposedly highest role-model is ^^

May I use your sig to answer this?

Ah, now I understand your position.

The funny thing is, the more neurologists look, the less likely it is that humans have conscious free will. There's a gap your god can use to influence people.

But I find the implications of that completely evil. Gods causing mothers to strangle their babies, serial-killers to torture and torment their victims before mercifully extinguishing them, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians murdered because our stupid president thought he heard a voice in his head...

No, that's an awful world. Luckily there's no evidence at all that it's the one we live in.

The point is there is enough in the Bible to confuse people, much less humans doing so. To go any further would be getting into the metaphysical, and out of the realm of this thread. Your point is a good example of truly blaming Christians though. Let's just say that a person's claim that goes against the example Jesus set is highly doubtful. I for one do not believe that any claim will contradict Scripture, but alas I hear that Scripture contradicts itself, so using humans as an example even falls flatter than trying to prove a Biblical account.

 

[Akka]

May I use your sig to answer this?

Man, where's "turn the other cheek" gone ?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Screw that, why don't you read what Plotinus and his, uh, fellow academic historian of religion and philosophy Roger Pearse have had to say about the whole Galileo thing? On this very forum, no less.

I mean, I don't really think you'll read the post, because last time I told you to, you summarily ignored it and didn't change your opinion. But still.

I've already been through all that the first time this topic came up. And I believe you were too.

You can't change history despite many historians and others attempting to do so, although that is certainly not what Plotinus was doing with the post I read.

1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642

The Church eventually lifted the ban on Galileo's Dialogue in 1822, when it was common knowledge that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Still later, there were statements by the Vatican Council in the early 1960's and in 1979 that implied that Galileo was pardoned, and that he had suffered at the hands of the Church. Finally, in 1992, three years after Galileo Galilei's namesake spacecraft had been launched on its way to Jupiter, the Vatican formally and publicly cleared Galileo of any wrongdoing.

How big of them to finally admit they were wrong all along.