The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: Pancho will like this!

Re: Pancho will like this!
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Tuesday, November 1 2011, 15:37:52 (UTC)
from *** - *** Commercial - Windows XP - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

Arrow wrote:
>Clear enough...
>
>If you ask the church on what scriptural basis it used violence in the middle ages, it will not be able to respond because there are none. This is what I meant by the Gandhi example.

...which is worse: having a code of ethics which tells you to kill and which you obey...or one which tells you not to, but which you disobey? But I think you're mistaken...there was indeed a code which the Church used allowing it to kill your body if that would save your soul. Their rationale was that it was so awful to continue a life in sin thereby damning your soul to hell..better to be forgiven by the Church even at the cost of your physical life, which at least saved your immortal soul...your body was supposed to be dirt, not important; a bad casing for your immortal soul. When the Church condemned you to death they made it a particularly horrible death unless you recanted and begged forgiveness. This would save your immortal soul at least and you could get a more pleasant death....but you got death. A life lived outside the church and salvation wasn't of value anyway...not to the Church. Such people were better off dead, for at least they stopped sinning.
>
>On the other hand, there are religions that contain clear and explicit instructions for the use of violence under certain circumstances. Apostates must be killed. Those who draw insulting cartoons must also be killed. A thief's hand must be chopped off. Adulteresses must be stoned or lashed. Female captives of war can be raped and inobedient wives can be beaten.

...all of which the Church indulged in. Remember that the Christian Church only reformed itself when forced to...if the church is reporting child molestation today it is only because the civil law and courts have finally made it so expensive and criminal too that they have "repented"...without force used against this Church they would have reformed nothing...how could they? They are supposedly set up by God...how do you reform God?
>
>If you ask the followers of those religions “why did you do this or that?”, they will then point out specific verses that overtly endorse and sanction such behavior.

....yes, and nowhere more so than in Christianity....remember, we have no reason to chastise a religion which minds its own business....even though we may hate the idea of their corrupting their own innocent children...but it's another thing with Christianity, which has been the bloodiest religion this world has seen, bar none. I don't particularly care whether the Christian killing me is wrong or right, with his God...all I know is that I don't want to be dead.....and if a religion produces as many mad men and women and wars and crimes as this one has, then there is something drastically wrong with it....we say Islam preaches violence and forced conversion, yet where is there any evidence of this? When in the last 200 years have Muslim armies gone anywhere to fight anyone? And where in history do we see Muslims using the sword to convert people...and where do we see a religion killing other people JUST for their religion? Nowhere but in Christianity....since others don;t do these things and their religions don;t promote this kind of behavior,yet Christians indulge in all of this, there has to be something in the religion...
>
>So if we conduct a comparative analysis between religions based solely on what is written in their religious texts, then wouldn't one deem Christianity to be relatively more peaceful?

...not at all. Christianity insists on human sacrifice...you don't get the goods unless Jesus is murdered...you have to eat and drink him, you HAVE to...and you have to accept his murder for YOUR sake. This is all violence, it is all murder and beastial crimes and forbidden taboos...what does it matter if there are words about love and peace? It is actions which count...anyone can talk a good game.
>
>
>> The thing that is truly peculiar to Christianity, and only Christianity, is the notion that by accepting the sacrifice of Jesus we can be cleaned of our own sins..."he died for you" is literal....and yet that is the most immoral thing of all.
>
>= The bible is rich with symbolism and philosophical concepts. Its messages are far from literal. I am sure there is a deeper and non-literal explanation to this. I do not know what it is but I will try to find it get back to this point (this and the cannibalism thing).

...not so. Up to the Protestant Reformation and to this day among Catholics it is not symbolic flesh and blood at all...it starts out as a wafer and wine, but the whole point is that the priest is empowered to change it into the body and blood of Christ..that is the whole point of the Eucharist...we had this exchange before with an evangelical and finally had to produce Church writing proving that it is NOT symbolic but actual...why do you suppose it is called the miracle of the Eucharist? What is miraculous about bread and wine, if it STAYS bread and wine?

...I grant you that it's not a real cadaver hanging in churches to which young children kneel and pray...but symbolism should not be violent or disgusting...we would not let pass a symbolic religion of child molestation...
>
>
>> If you owe a fine for some crime and haven't the money I can choose to pay it for you...but if you have committed a crime, like say murder or theft, I can't serve your time for you, I can't take your punishment onto myself...
>
>= Laws are made to enforce and maintain public order and to allow societies to function constructively. That is their primary objective. Allowing someone to serve time on someone else's behalf will not effectively deter future perpetrations.

...exactly, neither will crucifying an Innocent for someone else's sins....that is a travesty of justice and bad precedent. People should take responsibility for their own actions...not hang them on someone else.
>
>Since the Christian message has a spiritual dimension, I do not think we can judge it by referring man-made laws.

...I see no spiritual dimension at all...I see words about spirituality...but I see actions in pursuit of power, pure and simple...and not power in the next life but here on earth...since religions produce citizens and neighbors and playmates for our children it matters very much what they are teaching them....let them live alone among each other in desert monasteries or communities...but if they're going to live down the street it becomes my business what they teach in their churches.

...what spiritual dimension are you talking about?
>
>
>> If you come to me and say you have a fantastic gift for me, say a gold watch, and it will be mine if I agree to the execution of the person who owns it, and I agree, then I am an accessory to murder...
>
>= What if you were told “this person sacrificed his life to preserve this gold so that you can have it” and they show you his will. Would you then be an accessory to murder?

...A German fellow a few years back killed and ate his male lover who was dying of cancer...he said his friend wanted to be eaten....but eating people is a crime to the rest of us...what your friend wants doesn't change that. Besides this person was MADE to sacrifice his life...he didn't come to the decision all by himself...if he had gone somewhere dangerous where there was a chance of dying, of his free will, that would be something else....but he didn't "do" anything except allow himself to be sacrificed. If I hear a person did a dangerous thing for my sake, and died as a result...I would still feel responsible...still wonder what on earth gave him the idea that I could accept his "gold". Besides which the entire "he sacrificed him,self for you" makes no sense...Jesus was a God, not a man. His execution and suffering was a three day charade..after that he bounced up to heaven nice and clean...where is the "sacrifice" in that? If Donald Trump rides down from his penthouse in his private elevator to panhandle on the streets for three days and afterwards rides back up to his luxury suite does that become something noteworthy? maybe as a stunt , but hardly an "example to us all". So many fine human beans have suffered for real and actually died with no chance at revival that we don;t need to be impressed by His example.
>
>
>> Had Jesus been hanged, little children would be wearing a miniature, gold, gibbet complete with hangman's noose round their necks and in their churches would be a bloody statue of Jesus hanging by the neck...
>
>= It would be disturbing indeed because a noose is still being employed as an instrument of execution. The cross ceased to be used as such and therefore it has instead become to symbolize a religion and a message.

...There have been people crucified in modern times as well....but so what? What if Jesus had been run though with a sword...or had his head cut off? I think you're splitting hairs too finely....why on earth make an instrument of torture and murder into any kind of modern symbol at all? Besides it isn't symbolic....people weep at the sight today....that execution is real in their minds....it's a horrible sight intended to foster guilt, nothing more holy than that.
>
>
>> that would be like arguing with someone who believes the world is flat...where do you start? These people begin their argument by saying that God exists, and then go from there.
>
>= No actually the book is a response to those who claim that science invalidates the existence of God. Whereas we cannot proof that God exists, we cannot prove that he doesn't either.

...we know for sure that the mad men of bibles and voodoo tribes don;t exist...we know they were invented by humans...like I said, that does not require proof from US...for we are not the ones making fantastic claims...it is people who believe in Jesus who are making fantastic claims for which they have no evidence except a few pages in a book...these same people would have revered Muhammad if they had been born to Muslims...this is hardly "spiritual" but just the luck of the draw: where and to whom you were born and when...it's about as NON-spiritual as can be....it may be that there is some energy out there that started it all, but it sure as shit ain't yahwe or Jesus or Thor or Osiris...that we know for certain because there have been 30,000 or so gods each of whose followers insisted, as you do, that theirs was the right and real one.
>
>
>> I can't simply say "I know pigs fly on Mars now YOU prove that they don't, and, if you can't, then you have to admit they MIGHT be up there flying around on Mars"...doesn't work that way.
>
>= Yes but pigs on Mars or a flying spaghetti does not explain the the meaning of life, why do we exist, how did the universe come to existence... and so on.

...we can't balance a checkbook...we don;t know how to raise a child...we can't figure out quadratic equations, so I seriously doubt we can answer these eternal questions...and to think we have only makes us more foolish. What lies "beyond" is a mystery, I'm willing to grant that, but I don't need it answered for me by some pimply faced priest or Jew carpenter...I won;t accept a carnival trick like Genesis just so I have some "explanation". I'm also not afraid of the Dark or Death so I'm content to let it all remain a mystery...I don't need cosmic answers to live a decent life on earth.

The only thing worse than Hell is Heaven....eternal life is a nightmare...but I can see why Christians are afraid to die....because till the last breath they can't be sure they're going to Heaven, even if they believe it exists...whereas I'm not afraid to die because I know there's no eternal damnation waiting for me...and incidentally the notion of a God chasing after you for an eternity to punish you for what you did in a few short years on earth is a new sadism unheard of before which comes only from sweet Jesus and the New Testicles....this is Love?
>
>
>> In India and China there are a few Christian congregations...about the number of people you'd expect if Christians in those countries were only allowed to marry within their own faith for several hundred years...but nothing like the mass conversions claimed for Ireland and other Roman provinces. It was the armies of Rome who converted people to Christianity, through force....the current pope just barely admitted it.
>
>= Maybe there is another explanation to this. Maybe European pagan religions were not philosophically profound and therefore they did not satisfy the people's thirst for knowledge. Therefore we might not be surprised if most of Europe willingly converted.

...thirst for knowledge? Is that what the Church was looking for when it condemned Galileo....or burned books....or banned thought? People don;t have a thirst for knowledge...individuals do, but not people....people like security and easy answers....all too easy.
>
>India and China, on the other hand, already had sophisticated religions which is why they did not find Christianity appealing. It would therefore take violence to convert them to Christianity just like it would take violence to convert a Christian to another religion.


...had there been armies behind the priests in China they would have converted....besides how do you know there was nothing spiritual or deeply satisfying in African and Mayan culture? What the hell is so profound in Christianity? There is nothing in it that is new or deep....people were kind before Jesus, they felt love and joy and the spirit before Jesus....all Jesus brought, or revived, was the then-dying practice of human sacrifice...of scapegoating....this is hardly an advance for humanity.



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9