1 of 4
1
Secular Government = Democide
Posted: 22 September 2006 04:54 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Critics of Christianity rely upon widely held myths about Christian History without looking into the realities of the particular situations. We all know the myths: The Crusades = conversion by conquest; The Inquisitions = torture and the burning of heretics; Galileo = the darkness of faith impeading the progress of science, etc.

The reality is that these are modern myths about Christianity, well to be frank, about Catholicism. The reality is that the Crusades were the response of over 400 years of Muslim attacks into Europe. If it were not for the Crusades everyone on this forum would be praying 5 times a day to Allah. 

Ever hear of procedural due process? You have the Inquisitions to thank for it.  The Inquisitions were instituted in many places as a means of ending the mob rule.  It created a juridical process for the defense of people accused of heresy. The Church itself never executed anyone, it was the civil authority which handed down capital punishment for the guilty. The myth of the Inquisition was a product of English Protestant propaganda - a method of shoring up the first ideological state. Just compare the slaughter of citizens in Reformation states, to that of the Inquisitions where Justice was respected.

Similarly, critics of Catholicism point to Galileo as proof that the Church is the enemy of science. Few people know that the Galileo's work was sponsored (i.e. FUNDED) by the Church. His crime was not the proposition of heliocentrism (that idea had been around for a long time), his crime was that he didn't PROVE it but maintained it to be true (anyone can see that his proofs are wrong, as did the Church), AND he was making theological assertions which were false.  The reality is that without the Catholic Church we wouldn't have science - the scientific method is rooted in Judeo-Christian & Hellenic culture and ideas.

All of this is prologue to the point of my post.

My point is that human rights are a result of Judeo-Christianity (here I mean specifically Catholicism for Christianity), and without exception, every State which has adopted secularism as its core principle, it results in Democide - the sanctioned murder of its people.

Those like Mr. Sam Harris, who champion secularism and want to make Reason into an idol of atheistic worship must contend with the horror of secularism (and the cultural failure of modernity) of the last century. 

More blood was shed in the last 100 years than in the collected history of warfare. From a Christian perspective, there have been more martyrs in the last century than in the whole history of Christianity combined. Arguably, this past centry was about the deconstruction of Christianity and the rise of Reason as an absolute.

This is the legacy of Reason and Secularism as it has played out in history.

Secularism in Government leads to Democide because there is no transcendental (or rational) "check" on the State.

Where does the idea of human rights come from? Where does the idea of limited government come from? What keeps the State from becoming a Leviathan?

Christianity.

Our Founding Fathers understood this.

In a State where there is no God, the State becomes god. And with that it arrogates to itself omnipotence and omniscience.  The human person is stripped bare of any inherent dignity before such a monster and State sanctioned murder becomes a public good in service of the State's objectives.

Those who are atheistic secularist can give no rational explaination as to why human persons have inherent human dignity and rights.  They are left to admiting that the only reason is because the State has said so. Well if the State gives it, then the State can take it away.

What I find so astonishing is that so many secularists fail to apply the Reason which they claim to own so exclusivly.

For example:

The status of the unborn, indeed of the embryo. The secularists defys all rational thought and scientific knowledge in their defense of abortion and embryoic experimentation. 

Either human beings have inherent dignity or they don't. If they do, then it is there from the beginning and we have a duty to respect it.  If they don't then who decides who gets to live and who gets to die?

For those who would like to know more, read Fides et Ratio

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

And Clash Of Orthodoxies

http://www.amazon.com/Clash-Orthodoxies-Religion-Morality-Crisis/dp/1882926625

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2006 03:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  270
Joined  2006-05-30

[quote author=“Anonymous”]Critics of Christianity rely upon widely held myths about Christian History without looking into the realities of the particular situations…
The reality is that the Crusades were the response of over 400 years of Muslim attacks into Europe. If it were not for the Crusades everyone on this forum would be praying 5 times a day to Allah.

I’m sure it’s not on purpose, but it seems to me that there is a considerable amount of revisionism going on in your post. Or at the very least a lot of gloss, leaving only the bits that are relevant to your viewpoint.

I could point out that Europe has been continually invaded for a very long time. By the Huns, the Vandals, the Vikings, and others. And yes, the Muslims. Only in that latter case, and specifically because the Muslims had control of “the Holy Land,” did Europe rise up as a Christian entity to try and remove a non-Christian entity. You seem to forget that it was Pope Urban II who preached the first Crusade, and Bernard of Clairvaux who preached the second. 

The Crusades were military campaigns waged in the name of Christendom. They were usually sanctioned by the Pope. They were of a religious character, combining pilgrimage with militarism. When originally conceptualized, the aim was to recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims while supporting the Byzantine Empire against the “ghazwat” of the Seljuq expansion into Anatolia. But in sum, from the outset they were religious. (That they eventually descended into silliness is unimportant).

Ever hear of procedural due process? You have the Inquisitions to thank for it.  The Inquisitions were instituted in many places as a means of ending the mob rule.  It created a juridical process for the defense of people accused of heresy. The Church itself never executed anyone, it was the civil authority which handed down capital punishment for the guilty. The myth of the Inquisition was a product of English Protestant propaganda - a method of shoring up the first ideological state. Just compare the slaughter of citizens in Reformation states, to that of the Inquisitions where Justice was respected.

I hope you remember that the “due process” you admire included torture, and that unless the torture elicited the names of others, it was considered ineffective, even if one confessed one’s own sin. Balderdash. Every human endeavour has “process,” but to conflate that with “due process of law” is nonsense.

And by the by, what a convenient fiction it is that “the Church itself never executed anyone.” It is all the more disingenuous because the Church itself always piously asked for mercy from the secular authorities. But it was never-the-less incumbent upon the secular authorities to do the Church’s bidding for the sake of their own souls—and the support of the Church. You should really understand how that sort of pressure works. (Oh, and by the way, the most gruesome instruments of torture were developed for the inquisitors, so that they could piously avoid shedding blood! Screaming hypocrisy!)

Similarly, critics of Catholicism point to Galileo as proof that the Church is the enemy of science. Few people know that the Galileo’s work was sponsored (i.e. FUNDED) by the Church. His crime was not the proposition of heliocentrism (that idea had been around for a long time), his crime was that he didn’t PROVE it but maintained it to be true (anyone can see that his proofs are wrong, as did the Church), AND he was making theological assertions which were false.  The reality is that without the Catholic Church we wouldn’t have science - the scientific method is rooted in Judeo-Christian & Hellenic culture and ideas.

Surely you are aware that Galileo was not supported by the Church, but by a Cardinal (Bellarmine) acting on his own. But that’s beside the point. You state that Galileo’s crime was that he didn’t PROVE but maintained his theory. Well, you see, this same Cardinal Bellarmine issued an edict forbidding him to “hold or defend” his ideas. Not being allowed to defend your theory makes it kind of impossible to prove, doesn’t it? So in fact, the Church forbade him from offering proof.

My point is that human rights are a result of Judeo-Christianity (here I mean specifically Catholicism for Christianity), and without exception, every State which has adopted secularism as its core principle, it results in Democide - the sanctioned murder of its people.

Can you really be serious? Take a look at the Constitution of the U.S. (I’m a Canadian, so what do I know…). There is not a single word about God, and more importantly, there is not a single word about Christ. Even the first amendment does not mention God or Christ, merely religious establishment, and that the Congress mustn’t play there. You are living in a secular state, however, the Christian reconstructionists would like to change that. So, tell me about the U.S. democide. (Well, except for the deliberate murder of millions of native Americans, but that, I think must surely be another thread).

More to the point, tell me about one, just one, non-secular state (i.e. a state who’s core principle is the supremacy of God and rule according to scripture), which has not sanctioned the murder of its people. May I point out that the Inquisition you brought up would be a counter-example, as would the burning of witches, the attempted extermination of the Jews (not once but many times), the murder of the Albigensians, or the vicious extermination of the Waldensians of Piedmont, or .... well, this could go for pages.

Those like Mr. Sam Harris, who champion secularism and want to make Reason into an idol of atheistic worship must contend with the horror of secularism (and the cultural failure of modernity) of the last century.
More blood was shed in the last 100 years than in the collected history of warfare. From a Christian perspective, there have been more martyrs in the last century than in the whole history of Christianity combined. Arguably, this past centry was about the deconstruction of Christianity and the rise of Reason as an absolute.

I don’t suppose you’d recognize that (and I’m not trying to excuse it) the invention of weapons of modern warfare had anything to do with the scale of killing? One bomb can take out how many, compared to one arrow? You are conflating, under the covers, a whole bunch of stuff that doesn’t fit well together and need, therefore, to be treated separately.

I should point out, though, that the “deconstruction of Christianity and the rise of Reason as an absolute” is primarily a European thing, and has occured primarily because the Europeans finally got sick to death of all the bloodshed in the name of which religion was the right one.

This is the legacy of Reason and Secularism as it has played out in history.

Secularism in Government leads to Democide because there is no transcendental (or rational) “check” on the State.

Where does the idea of human rights come from? Where does the idea of limited government come from? What keeps the State from becoming a Leviathan?

Christianity.

Our Founding Fathers understood this.

Really, I think I must stop my analysis of your screed at this point. This is the purest form of revisionism, and it comes from reading what today’s fundamentalists have to say about the creation of the U.S., rather than reading what the founding fathers themselves had to say. Do go back and read Jefferson, instead of Pat Robertson, Ned Ryun, Rousas John Rushdoony, Gary DeMar, and others.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2006 04:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

My point is that human rights are a result of Judeo-Christianity (here I mean specifically Catholicism for Christianity), and without exception, every State which has adopted secularism as its core principle, it results in Democide - the sanctioned murder of its people.

This is about the most ridiculous and ignorant statement that Christians make.  All you have to do to see how far wrong you are is look at the state laws in effect in ten of the thirteen states prior to the adoption of the Bill For Religious Freedom in Virginia, and the first amendment.

Whenever and wherever Christians have been in charge, and able to work their will, with very few exceptions, heresy, blasphemy and unbelief has been punishable by death!  You cannot disprove that no matter how much history you try to revise or rewrite.

The inquisition was good for humanity, and not carried out by the church?  If you believe that, you are an idiot

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2006 04:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  765
Joined  2006-06-01

[quote author=“evangelicalhumanist”][quote author=“Anonymous”]Critics of Christianity rely upon widely held myths about Christian History without looking into the realities of the particular situations…
The reality is that the Crusades were the response of over 400 years of Muslim attacks into Europe. If it were not for the Crusades everyone on this forum would be praying 5 times a day to Allah.

I’m sure it’s not on purpose, but it seems to me that there is a considerable amount of revisionism going on in your post. Or at the very least a lot of gloss, leaving only the bits that are relevant to your viewpoint.

I could point out that Europe has been continually invaded for a very long time. By the Huns, the Vandals, the Vikings, and others. And yes, the Muslims. Only in that latter case, and specifically because the Muslims had control of “the Holy Land,” did Europe rise up as a Christian entity to try and remove a non-Christian entity. You seem to forget that it was Pope Urban II who preached the first Crusade, and Bernard of Clairvaux who preached the second. 

The Crusades were military campaigns waged in the name of Christendom. They were usually sanctioned by the Pope. They were of a religious character, combining pilgrimage with militarism. When originally conceptualized, the aim was to recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims while supporting the Byzantine Empire against the “ghazwat” of the Seljuq expansion into Anatolia. But in sum, from the outset they were religious. (That they eventually descended into silliness is unimportant).

Ever hear of procedural due process? You have the Inquisitions to thank for it.  The Inquisitions were instituted in many places as a means of ending the mob rule.  It created a juridical process for the defense of people accused of heresy. The Church itself never executed anyone, it was the civil authority which handed down capital punishment for the guilty. The myth of the Inquisition was a product of English Protestant propaganda - a method of shoring up the first ideological state. Just compare the slaughter of citizens in Reformation states, to that of the Inquisitions where Justice was respected.

I hope you remember that the “due process” you admire included torture, and that unless the torture elicited the names of others, it was considered ineffective, even if one confessed one’s own sin. Balderdash. Every human endeavour has “process,” but to conflate that with “due process of law” is nonsense.

And by the by, what a convenient fiction it is that “the Church itself never executed anyone.” It is all the more disingenuous because the Church itself always piously asked for mercy from the secular authorities. But it was never-the-less incumbent upon the secular authorities to do the Church’s bidding for the sake of their own souls—and the support of the Church. You should really understand how that sort of pressure works. (Oh, and by the way, the most gruesome instruments of torture were developed for the inquisitors, so that they could piously avoid shedding blood! Screaming hypocrisy!)

Similarly, critics of Catholicism point to Galileo as proof that the Church is the enemy of science. Few people know that the Galileo’s work was sponsored (i.e. FUNDED) by the Church. His crime was not the proposition of heliocentrism (that idea had been around for a long time), his crime was that he didn’t PROVE it but maintained it to be true (anyone can see that his proofs are wrong, as did the Church), AND he was making theological assertions which were false.  The reality is that without the Catholic Church we wouldn’t have science - the scientific method is rooted in Judeo-Christian & Hellenic culture and ideas.

Surely you are aware that Galileo was not supported by the Church, but by a Cardinal (Bellarmine) acting on his own. But that’s beside the point. You state that Galileo’s crime was that he didn’t PROVE but maintained his theory. Well, you see, this same Cardinal Bellarmine issued an edict forbidding him to “hold or defend” his ideas. Not being allowed to defend your theory makes it kind of impossible to prove, doesn’t it? So in fact, the Church forbade him from offering proof.

My point is that human rights are a result of Judeo-Christianity (here I mean specifically Catholicism for Christianity), and without exception, every State which has adopted secularism as its core principle, it results in Democide - the sanctioned murder of its people.

Can you really be serious? Take a look at the Constitution of the U.S. (I’m a Canadian, so what do I know…). There is not a single word about God, and more importantly, there is not a single word about Christ. Even the first amendment does not mention God or Christ, merely religious establishment, and that the Congress mustn’t play there. You are living in a secular state, however, the Christian reconstructionists would like to change that. So, tell me about the U.S. democide. (Well, except for the deliberate murder of millions of native Americans, but that, I think must surely be another thread).

More to the point, tell me about one, just one, non-secular state (i.e. a state who’s core principle is the supremacy of God and rule according to scripture), which has not sanctioned the murder of its people. May I point out that the Inquisition you brought up would be a counter-example, as would the burning of witches, the attempted extermination of the Jews (not once but many times), the murder of the Albigensians, or the vicious extermination of the Waldensians of Piedmont, or .... well, this could go for pages.

Those like Mr. Sam Harris, who champion secularism and want to make Reason into an idol of atheistic worship must contend with the horror of secularism (and the cultural failure of modernity) of the last century.
More blood was shed in the last 100 years than in the collected history of warfare. From a Christian perspective, there have been more martyrs in the last century than in the whole history of Christianity combined. Arguably, this past centry was about the deconstruction of Christianity and the rise of Reason as an absolute.

I don’t suppose you’d recognize that (and I’m not trying to excuse it) the invention of weapons of modern warfare had anything to do with the scale of killing? One bomb can take out how many, compared to one arrow? You are conflating, under the covers, a whole bunch of stuff that doesn’t fit well together and need, therefore, to be treated separately.

I should point out, though, that the “deconstruction of Christianity and the rise of Reason as an absolute” is primarily a European thing, and has occured primarily because the Europeans finally got sick to death of all the bloodshed in the name of which religion was the right one.

This is the legacy of Reason and Secularism as it has played out in history.

Secularism in Government leads to Democide because there is no transcendental (or rational) “check” on the State.

Where does the idea of human rights come from? Where does the idea of limited government come from? What keeps the State from becoming a Leviathan?

Christianity.

Our Founding Fathers understood this.

Really, I think I must stop my analysis of your screed at this point. This is the purest form of revisionism, and it comes from reading what today’s fundamentalists have to say about the creation of the U.S., rather than reading what the founding fathers themselves had to say. Do go back and read Jefferson, instead of Pat Robertson, Ned Ryun, Rousas John Rushdoony, Gary DeMar, and others.

You really nailed him there EH…cheers SD :D

 Signature 

Get with it. Millions of galaxies of hundreds of millions of stars, and a speck on one in a blink. That’s us, lost in space. The cop, you, me… Who notices?
-Vincent

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2006 09:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Guest

Um… this sounds like it came from Catholic sunday school.

I will limit my comments to your claims about what motivated the crusades and about the general behavior of Christians at that time. That motivation may have been due in part to Muslim aggression. At the time leading up to the crusades, it must have been the invasion of the Iberian peninsula, or what is now Spain and Portugal, that you had in mind. That was really the only part of Europe that had at the time been conquered by Muslims. Other motivations for the crusades were of the economic kind. There was not enough land to provide Europe’s growing population with places to live and grow crops. These people were told by kings and popes that they could make a life in the holy land with the lands of the people they vanquished! These things, when combined with good ol fashion religious fervor, motivated the masses of Europe.

It is well known that these crusaders made no distinction among Muslim, Christian, Jew, or otherwise. Along the way to and upon arrival at the holy land, they indiscriminately killed and pilaged. It was said that upon first witnessing the brutality of the crusaders, Muslims did not believe they were Christians. They had lived with Christians for many centuries and had always viewed them as peaceful people.

One more point, Islam spread more rapidly than Christianity because of how the early Muslims treated the people they conquered. Christians and Jews were allowed to continue being Christians and Jews because they were viewed in Islam as “people of the book”. They had only to pay an extra tax and to abstain from publicly commiting blasphamy against Islam. This is a far cry from how Christian Europe behaved towards people of other faiths, a far cry!

On a final side note, the Inquisition in Spain was initially directed at Muslims and then later at Jews. As usual, Christians could not tolerate their existance like they had tolerated theirs when that region was ruled by the Muslim Moores.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2006 09:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  222
Joined  2006-07-03

That last post is mine. I posted it without logging in.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2006 10:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1076
Joined  2005-12-22

[quote author=“Anonymous”]Guest

Um… this sounds like it came from Catholic sunday school.

Um…this sounds like an NPR special report.

One more point, Islam spread more rapidly than Christianity because of how the early Muslims treated the people they conquered. Christians and

Beheading, rape and pillaging?  Yeah…that’s how it spread.  There is no ambiguity.

Jews were allowed to continue being Christians and Jews because they were viewed in Islam as “people of the book”. They had only to pay an extra tax and to abstain from publicly commiting blasphamy against Islam.

The penalty for being perceived to show disrespect towards Islam was death—I imagine it to be pretty much like in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or any other country like that today.

There is no question that Islam spread through continuous conquest.

Christianity, on the other hand, early Christianity, worked mostly peacefully within the crumbling social structure of the Roman Empire.  Later, when it seized temporal power, did it use force.

This is a far cry from how Christian Europe behaved towards people of other faiths, a far cry!

On a final side note, the Inquisition in Spain was initially directed at Muslims and then later at Jews. As usual, Christians could not tolerate their existance like they had tolerated theirs when that region was ruled by the Muslim Moores.

Don’t forget Gnostics.

Put down the crack pipe—do you really believe that being subjected to extra taxes, forbidden from publicly expressing your religious sentiments, forbidden from building new places of worship, and no legal rights compared with the dominant religion is good treatment?

Muslims, to this day, are killing non-muslims solely for religious reasons while the civilized world either looks on in horror or, like you, buries its head in the sand and proclaims that Christianity is worse because it once was just as bad.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2006 01:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  222
Joined  2006-07-03

[quote author=“mudfoot”]Um…this sounds like an NPR special report.

Give me a break Mudfoot. NPR report my backside!

Beheading, rape and pillaging?  Yeah…that’s how it spread.  There is no ambiguity.

The difference between how they and the European Christians treated those they conquered is a matter of degree. The big picture clearly shows a pattern whereby Muslim rulers afforded their non-Muslim subjects more cultural and religious freedom than their Christian counterparts did.

The penalty for being perceived to show disrespect towards Islam was death—I imagine it to be pretty much like in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or any other country like that today.

And so it was under Christian rule with disrespect towards Christianity. At least Muslims at that time allowed Christians to exist. In Europe, you were either a professed Christian or you were nothing at all.

Of course, the situation is different today. It is the Christian nations that value freedom of religion, or, for that matter, things like science and culture. But it wasn’t always so.

Christianity, on the other hand, early Christianity, worked mostly peacefully within the crumbling social structure of the Roman Empire. Later, when it seized temporal power, did it use force.

Agreed. Christianity started out more peacefully than did Islam; however, after it took on a militant nature, that nature persisted for about a thousand years.

Put down the crack pipe—do you really believe that being subjected to extra taxes, forbidden from publicly expressing your religious sentiments, forbidden from building new places of worship, and no legal rights compared with the dominant religion is good treatment?

Muslims, to this day, are killing non-muslims solely for religious reasons while the civilized world either looks on in horror or, like you, buries its head in the sand and proclaims that Christianity is worse because it once was just as bad.

I don’t think that. The Muslim world is not what it used to be. It has become rotten to the core. How it got there is another issue, but rotten it is. They seem bent on smashing civilization to pieces and creating a religious “utopia” that would in reality be a living hell.

There, is that a harsh enough indictment for you?! I meant every word of it.

As for the past, you seem to want to make Islam look as bad or worse than Christianity. You’re simply wrong if that is the case.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2006 06:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Please answer:

1. How does an atheistic secularist defend the concept of human rights? Where do they come from? Are they inherent or granted by the State?

2. Why have ALL the secular States in History slaughtered their own people in massive numbers - Democide? The French Revolution, the Socialist & Communist Regimes of Europe and around the world, National Socialism, post-Christian America and Europe (with the exception of places like Ireland and Poland which still have Christian Constitutions)?
Why do so called Rational and Secular Revolutions result in massacres of the citizens?

I submit to you that where God is removed from society, there is no longer a “check” on the State. The State becomes a god - by arrogating to itself the presumption of all power and all knowledge.  Everywhere we see secularism in the State, we see the emergence of massive Democide, without exception.

Please make a defense of secularism’s own historical record.

Please make a defense of human rights from a secular basis.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2006 07:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

3. Why do those who post such patently disingenuous, criminally ill-considered “questions” always seem to be deeply religious?

. . . and even still, how do they manage it without, apparently, being even slightly embarrassed?

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2006 10:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Byron,

If indeed rational secularism is superior to Judeo-Christian principles of law and government, then it would only be to your benefit to explain (to those of us stuck in the Dark Ages & to your selves) where Human Rights come from. 

The problem is that you can’t. And if you can’t, then the kind of “Enlightened” Government you would make would leave man stripped naked before the monster of the State. Indeed, this is EXACTLY what history has shown us over the last one hundred years.

Also, it is not enough to cite the Crusades and the Inquisitions to say that Secular Atheistic governments are superior to Judeo-Christian.  Secular Atheistic Governments have to defend their own record, and that record is an abomination.

Also, Byron, don’t you think it is a bit irrational to meet a rational arguments with invective?

Name calling will not win hearts and minds.

If you want to win people to your way of thought, you must use rational argument and reason, not an hominem attacks and the “braun” of invective.  That’s what Muslims do!

I happen to think that Human Rights are EXTREMELY important, so do most people.

I can defend the basis of Human Rights using Faith AND Reason.

You CAN NOT defend the basis of Human Rights with Reason alone. If you could, you would.

Instead you call my questions “disingenuous” and “criminally ill-considered,” come on Byron, you’re not making a convincing case for secularism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2006 11:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2818
Joined  2005-04-29

[quote author=“Anonymous”]Name calling will not win hearts and minds.

Speaking of which, you may want to choose one if you expect to engage anyone willing to go into any detail with you. Better yet, you could simply read through some of the more popular threads in this forum that have titles pointing toward your topics. They’ve already been discussed over and over, and your questions have been addressed.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2006 02:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2006-07-09

The so-called myths about Christianity are not limited to the Crusades and the Inquisition, and they are not myths at all. 
The fundamental myths in Christianity(all branches) have to do with church dogmas.  Myths about the crucifixion, resurrection, the virgin birth, the life of Jesus and his teachings have been discussed, and dogma agreed upon over the ages by political and religious leaders.  Certainly the editing out of early texts and the canon created during the reign of Constantine leave room for doubts and questions about the accuracy of the stories and quotations.  Different sects of Christianity include or exclude different books in their Bibles.

Certainly Western traditions involving legal issues has been influenced by Christian teaching, especially English Common Law. However, Judaism is and has always been concerned with laws.  Jewish tradition of debate by Talmudic scholars continues today.  Then there are human societies that have never adopted Christianity, yet have developed ideals about justice, compassion, and right and wrong. To assume that Christianity is the only way is arrogant and uninformed…probably by choice on your part. Such zeal in defense of one system of dogmas speaks loudly about your beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2006 03:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2168
Joined  2005-11-15

Welcome, karenina smile. So what does the “MKIKEN” sig mean?

 Signature 


Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2006 04:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1076
Joined  2005-12-22

[quote author=“Anonymous”]
You CAN NOT defend the basis of Human Rights with Reason alone. If you could, you would.

I tend to agree with this as well—so I accept the Deistic notion of a creator and imbuer of rights to humans—even though I believe the deity to be fictional, but worth deluding myself (and others) so that we may have rights.

Though you are a buffoon if you believe that people like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin believed that Jesus Christ was divine.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2006 04:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02

[quote author=“mudfoot”][quote author=“Anonymous”]
You CAN NOT defend the basis of Human Rights with Reason alone. If you could, you would.

I tend to agree with this as well—so I accept the Deistic notion of a creator and imbuer of rights to humans—even though I believe the deity to be fictional, but worth deluding myself (and others) so that we may have rights.

There really is no need to delude ourselves, mudfoot, God is completely irrelevant to rights and to morality in general.  There is no good theory that explains how God can be the source of objective morality.  If God is the source then morality is arbitrary. Go reread the Euthyphro

To anonymous:
You CANNOT defend the existence of Human Rights by appealing to God.  If you could then you would.  You can’t and you haven’t and nor has anyone else.

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 4
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed