hello <wave> are you Secular Humanist Atheist?

[ProScribe]

What form of government is that?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Totalitarian communist dictatorship. (Not associating atheism with such dictatorship but it is related to it) . .

- Wesley

 

[Eudaimonist]

Isaiah 46:10
New International Version (NIV)
10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, &#8216;My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.&#8217;

Your meaning isn't evident in this Bible quote. Please be more plain.

Totalitarian communist dictatorship. (Not associating atheism with such dictatorship but it is related to it)

What is your purpose for bringing up the subject of totalitarian communist dictatorship? Why discuss this with us?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[razeontherock]

Christianity is intimately linked with holocaust, not so much because Hitler and his ilk were Christians (a questionable proposition at best) but because anti-isemitism which prevailed in Christendom for so many hundreds of years created the atmosphere which allowed the holocaust to happen. I think most Christians with a sensitive conscience recognize this.

That's like saying it was Christianity that won WWII. The first soldier on D-Day was Mom's Uncle. He was raised Christian, and while when he left for war it was not known what barbarism was being committed, by the time D-Day came around Frank rallied (and lead) his troops very much along Christian principles, with no dissent from among the ranks.

Bottom line: no, you really can't blame Christianity for either Hitler's defeat, nor for the long build-up of prejudice. People with guns (etc) fought a war, and leading up to that people cultivated attitudes and made decisions that enabled a society to accept a Gov't., that truthfully pulled the wool over the eyes of it's own nation.

You're glossing over the distinction between pure teachings of a religion, and corruption amongst individuals. (You can call corruption that made it past individuals and found its way into the institution 'Christendom' of you like, but that's still not to be confused with the pure teachings of Christianity)

 

[razeontherock]

Christianity is a worldview and ideology that presupposes that the Jews were wrong, and in several cases that they are the killers of Jesus.

Logic is irrelevant when you get your facts wrong. Roman executioners killed Jesus.

You also said "and removing God out of government and society is summarized in atheistic thinking and a non-theist approach." This is a strawman argument, because atheism has nothing to do with government, but if we assume that it is valid, then getting rid of the Jews is equally a Christian approach.

Logic is not irrelevant in your statement here, but it is entirely faulty. No aspect of Christianity can rightly support "getting rid of Jews;" however, for individual atheists to wish to shed God from Gov't and society requires no murder, just votes.

You compare communist leaders and link atheism to them. Most of the Nazi party (including Hitler, possibly) were Christian.

Hitler was a madman. This is well-documented. Cease this specious line of argumentation. His influence on those around him is an extreme example. He was manipulative without conscience, which is not something Christianity teaches.

That has no logical connection to the fact that communism promoted atheism.

 

[razeontherock]

1. "intrinisitically"?
2. The same can be said about theist thinking and a theist approach, definitely including Christianity.

I don't think we could say that C is ... intrinsitically anything

 

[razeontherock]

Heck, we call ourselves a democracy when we also have a 2-tiered system that might better be termed an oligarchy. We still have some hints of democracy from time to time -- just enough to fool the masses...for a while at least.

Meh - republic, oligarchy - what's the diff? Hasn't that been what Wall Street tells us for some time anyway?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Logic is irrelevant when you get your facts wrong. Roman executioners killed Jesus.

I know. I was equating a strawman with a strawman, to demonstrate how the original argument was illogical. It's often easier to point out the faults in an argument by creating an equivalent which the other person can more easily see those faults in.

That has no logical connection to the fact that communism promoted atheism.

So? There are terrorist groups that promote Christianity. Does that mean that there's a link worth mentioning between Christianity and terrorism? I'll save us a few posts and give the answer: no, it does not. I'm pretty sure, with enough information, I could link you to Hitler, but it wouldn't mean anything. Likewise, there is no meaningful link between secular humanism and communism. That was my point, which you appear to have missed.

 

[ProScribe]

Your meaning isn't evident in this Bible quote. Please be more plain.

The Bible (Holy Scriptures is still God's Word) . . .

What is your purpose for bringing up the subject of totalitarian communist dictatorship? Why discuss this with us?

It is probably totally unrelated to you - speaking in terms of communist atheism in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Ask a Russian historian, he will show and tell you the relative subject of inquiry.

Or if it be; in instance; Chinese government not allowing public worship or freedom of religion. As it would concerning the Roman Catholic Church.

Ask a Catholic historian; and somewhere related he will explain to you what we mean by certain governments that do not allow freedom of religion.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's fine.

You can't force people to believe what you believe or force to convert by the sword as they did in primitive and medieval times.



Like the "Spaghetti Monster" ? Say a parent asks a 4th or 5th grader to draw the infinite God - If you read Early Christian Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly; in ch. 4 it is somewhat Apollinarism related to what is called the "Demiurge" is is a very flawed & poor presentation of Christ the Savior depicted in His humanity.

I'm at a loss tying to figure out how any of this applies to what I wrote. Did you respond to the wrong post?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The Bible (Holy Scriptures is still God's Word) . . .

I had asked you about your purpose posting here in this thread. How is this your purpose?

It is probably totally unrelated to you - speaking in terms of communist atheism in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Ask a Russian historian, he will show and tell you the relative subject of inquiry.

Or if it be; in instance; Chinese government not allowing public worship or freedom of religion. As it would concerning the Roman Catholic Church.

Ask a Catholic historian; and somewhere related he will explain to you what we mean by certain governments that do not allow freedom of religion.

I'm still baffled by you, but I'll try one last time. I hope I'll hit a bullseye this time. If not, I give up. Is your purpose in this thread simply to discuss varying historical perspectives on totalitarian collectivist societies?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[smaneck]

You're glossing over the distinction between pure teachings of a religion, and corruption amongst individuals.

Dear Raze,

I don't claim to know the 'pure teachings of a religion.' Any impression I have is going to colored by my own individuality as is yours. What I am talking about is the atmosphere created by the church that goes well beyond the individual. Now, if what you mean by 'pure teachings' is what is in the Bible, then I have to say that Christian anti-antisemitism begins with the NT, most especially John's Gospel which I otherwise love. Read carefully all the times it refers to "Jews." Granted this was not the author's intent. As you know aside, from Luke all of the NT writers were Jews themselves so when they asserted that Jesus' crucifixion was the fault of the Jews they were essentially saying "we did this." When Romans start becoming Christian though, it shifts to "they did it" despite the fact that historically just the opposite is true. This 'othering' of the Jews will have catastrophic consequences.

warmest, Susan

 

[ProScribe]

I had asked you about your purpose posting here in this thread. How is this your purpose?



I'm still baffled by you, but I'll try one last time. I hope I'll hit a bullseye this time. If not, I give up. Is your purpose in this thread simply to discuss varying historical perspectives on totalitarian collectivist societies?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Actually, If we revamp the whole point of the thread it was whether about non-believers (non-religious persons) -thought about- (ie) or - would accept the Christian gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Actually, If we revamp the whole point of the thread it was whether about non-believers (non-religious persons) -thought about- (ie) or - would accept the Christian gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thank you. This is something that I can understand.

In one sense, what you ask is trivially true. Some non-believers do think about Christianity, and of those some do convert to Christianity.

But perhaps you are asking if non-believers would find it easier to convert because of pre-existing Christian influences on their worldviews, that's a more interesting question.

I think that you'll find that at least some secular humanists are really Christians without Christ. By that, I mean that their ethical code isn't all that different from the main thrust of Christian ethics. They accept the Golden Rule, think "love thy neighbor" is good advice, and see Jesus as a great moral teacher. They may differ on some ethical matters (such as pertaining to the relationship between the sexes), but not more so than Christians do today.

Some secular humanists (and fellow travellers such as myself who might not regard themselves as "secular humanists") look more towards the Hellenistic philosophers for moral advice. They may have more significant disagreements with the Christian gospel.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[razeontherock]

I don't claim to know the 'pure teachings of a religion.'

Christianity is to be the pursuit of this.

Any impression I have is going to colored by my own individuality as is yours.

There are ways around this. It's what renewing the mind is all about.

What I am talking about is the atmosphere created by the church that goes well beyond the individual. This 'othering' of the Jews will have catastrophic consequences.

I don't really see John as being anti-semitic. And both sides of this divide likes to point the finger at the other, saying "they started it." How much of this separation began before 70AD I don't know, and I don't know that it's knowable. By 150 AD, (just as a round number) it was complete. Jews had removed themselves of all association with Christianity, and ... well you can't say vice-versa, so anti-semitism was alive and well in the Church. Replacement theology and etc. It's my main beef with the EO. (Well that and a couple of their practices, like iconostasis and the way they distribute Communion; those things changed from the original)

James should be the common link between them, having been involved in overseeing worship in both groups. Unfortunately his Church Liturgy never got written down for hundreds of years, and Jews disavow all knowledge of him. Precious little remains, but the Vatican's secrets will be open to the public soon ...

 

[smaneck]

Christianity is to be the pursuit of this.

Sincere followers of every religion seek the truth.

There are ways around this. It's what renewing the mind is all about.

Purifying ones heart certainly helps, but which of us can claim to have attained that. In my observation those who claim it are often the furthest from it!

I don't really see John as being anti-semitic.

There is a progression (if you can call it that) in the New Testament's attitude towards Jews. The synoptic gospels seem to focus negative attention on factions within the Jewish community, 'the scribes and the Pharisees.' By the time we get to John's Gospel, negative references are to the "Jews" collectively without any qualifications. The historical context for this appears to be the fact that Jewish Christians were being expelled from Jewish synagogues all over the Hellenistic world at the time this Gospel was written, so it literally was a situation of Christians versus Jews.

As you may be aware Baha'is suffer terrible persecution in many Muslim countries, but most especially Iran. Yet here I am defending Islam. Part of the reason for this is that I sincerely believe that if we were ever to treat Muslims like Christians treated the Jews it would be better that Baha'u'llah had never come.

And both sides of this divide likes to point the finger at the other, saying "they started it."

I don't think any there is any question that the negative references to Jews grows out of Jewish attempts to suppress the spread of Christianity in the first century. That doesn't change the fact that the texts written in that context become fodder for later generations of Christians who do not share the NT writer's intimate relationship with the Jewish community. If your adolescent son says bad things about you to your friends, it is perhaps understandable because he is trying to distance himself and establish his independent identity, but if your grandson is fed the same lies, then his heritage has been distorted.

How much of this separation began before 70AD I don't know, and I don't know that it's knowable. By 150 AD, (just as a round number) it was complete.

And John's Gospel was written around 90-100 A.D.

James should be the common link between them, having been involved in overseeing worship in both groups. Unfortunately his Church Liturgy never got written down for hundreds of years, and Jews disavow all knowledge of him. Precious little remains, but the Vatican's secrets will be open to the public soon ...

You've taught me something I didn't know. Do you have a copy of that liturgy, one that dates from before the time it was modified in line with Trinitarian theology?

 

[Booko]

Actually, If we revamp the whole point of the thread it was whether about non-believers (non-religious persons) -thought about- (ie) or - would accept the Christian gospel of Jesus Christ.

I did when I was an atheist and I became a Baha'i.

 

[BruceDLimber]

>Are you secular humanist atheist?

Nope.

(Just lucky, I guess.)



Bruce

 

[ProScribe]

There are ways around this. It's what renewing the mind is all about.

Yes, and the 'mind' is a theme throughout the New Testament.

 

[Booko]

As you may be aware Baha'is suffer terrible persecution in many Muslim countries, but most especially Iran. Yet here I am defending Islam. Part of the reason for this is that I sincerely believe that if we were ever to treat Muslims like Christians treated the Jews it would be better that Baha'u'llah had never come.

Exactly.

Or as we jokingly say at Chez Booko: Two wrongs do not make a right -- but they may make a left.

I would also mention that there is a distinction between defending Islam and defending everything Muslims do in the name of Islam.

At times I defend Christianity in the same way. Just because someone who is Christian does a poor job in some way of following the Gospel does not mean the Gospel is wrong.

Both these religions have something of a standard for what they teach. If someone is acting outside that standard, it makes no sense to blame the standard itself, particularly where it isn't at all vague.

To take it entirely out of the realm of religion, there's been a rash of reporting in the past year on peer-reviewed research that turns out to have been faked in some part. I don't blame scientific method for those problems either or go about claiming that all science is somehow worthless.

 

[razeontherock]

Purifying ones heart certainly helps, but which of us can claim to have attained that. In my observation those who claim it are often the furthest from it!

Renewing the mind =/= purifying the heart. The 2 are certainly connected, though the first is much easier.

There is a progression (if you can call it that) in the New Testament's attitude towards Jews. The synoptic gospels seem to focus negative attention on factions within the Jewish community, 'the scribes and the Pharisees.' By the time we get to John's Gospel, negative references are to the "Jews" collectively without any qualifications.

I'm surprised to see you reading it this literally. that means you maintain that John was derogatory towards Jesus? Jesus was, after all, a Jew. For this reason when I read "the Jews," I take it to be every bit as qualified as the most qualified mentions. perhaps I am missing the original intent; I just don't think so. Also, when Paul mentions "the Jews," he is no longer referring to the same group, but those within the Church that would impose circumcision, and by extension Torah, upon Gentile believers.

Read with this understanding I find it very consistent, and therefore I maintain that understanding. I wasn't there though, it could be they meant something else. If so, I haven't been able to decipher it.

The historical context for this appears to be the fact that Jewish Christians were being expelled from Jewish synagogues all over the Hellenistic world at the time this Gospel was written, so it literally was a situation of Christians versus Jews.

I sincerely believe that if we were ever to treat Muslims like Christians treated the Jews

You appear to be leaving out a very significant part of the history: the Jews weren't innocent bystanders here. They were more numerous than the little offshoot sect that came to be known as Christianity, and at least equally as aggressive. Logic would dictate they were moreso. They didn't like having their Temple destroyed, and blamed Christians for it. Not really logical, but from an emotional standpoint, I can see it.

I don't think any there is any question that the negative references to Jews grows out of Jewish attempts to suppress the spread of Christianity in the first century.

I'm sorry but this grossly mis-states the situation! To anachronize the statement "wipe them off the map" may be a bit too extreme, but if so, not by much.

That doesn't change the fact that the texts written in that context become fodder for later generations of Christians who do not share the NT writer's intimate relationship with the Jewish community.

And thus my penchant for "the pure teachings of the Faith."

You've taught me something I didn't know. Do you have a copy of that liturgy, one that dates from before the time it was modified

Again, the Liturgy of James was written down for 100's of years. But you seem to miss the fact that Trinity is clearly in Scripture. OT too.