I have very negative feelings about saying "His only begotten Son" for example. I don't believe there is only one, and don't believe there weren't daughters, for example.
I don't believe that belief and prayer to a God who revealed himself to such a tiny cult that came from such a teeny bit of the world is, in fact, the only saving grace for the entire world.
There's too much world out there. Too many other people. Too many other beliefs. Now, if the Christians made even a show of respecting and valuing other religions, then we'd be able to talk, but so far... I just don't believe it. That's the bottom line.
Piffka - I've never shown you any disrespect for your beliefs, for that matter a lot of others also. I bite my lip a many a time. When I sense less that respect for what I believe.
May I offer, somewhat timorously, a couple of focii for this debate.
1.Slavery
2.Mass religious warfare.
Slavery.
Now I am not a historian - but my confused sense of world history (much forgotten since I last studied it) tells me that, while, as we all know, Christians have enthusiastically captured, traded in and owned slaves, it was the Quakers in England - (and America's Harriet Beecher Stowe in "Uncle Tom's Cabin") who focussed anti-slavery sentiment and debate and helped lead to its overthrow in European-stock controlled countries.
Did Christianity eventually help overthrow slavery in these countries? What are the attitudes of Islam and Judaism towards slavery? I am aware that the most of the cultures of antiquity had no problem with it...
Mass religious warfare.
It has, I believe, been a strong undercurrent of this debate that Christianity is an especially narrow and exclusive religion - that is, it has been very doctrinaire and insisted that only its own are right and saved - (while fighting a lot about the particular nature of its "own") and that this quality of intolerance has led to terrible wars with, and massacres of, the adherents of the "wrong" sort of Christianity - whether they be resident within the borders of one's own nation, or in other nations.
Christianity has also, it could be argued, been used to justify the casual conquest of, and destruction of the cultures of, huge areas of the New World - both by providing a framework to view the peoples of those countries as inferior savages, not possessed of rights - (although the church did, in fact, in some ways, seek to ensure better treatment of these self-same "savages") - and by providing a way of making conquerers feel better about what they did (if they needed it) by allowing them to think they were bringing eternal life to the benighted damned.
So - do we think that people would have found other reasons to kill and attempt to conquer each other? The cultures of antiquity, and most other non-christian ones seem to have found plenty of reasons to fight - perhaps they felt no need to dress it up in moral clothing?
Would we have grown out of slavery anyway?
Is there something especially ornery about these Middle Eastern "desert cults" - as some have called them - of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, that has made them so intolerant of other religions?
There - a quick and dirty conversation starter ..... runs off, alarmed.....
Piffka, Out of your writing I see a belief, a very valuable belief and a very strong belief - Am I wrong?
Looking good DL. :wink:
Christianity has been blamed for many things, as has Jesus Christ, but the REAL truth is that it is the failings and abuses of INDIVIDUALS wrongly calling themselves, and their actions, Christian, which has caused so much of the atrocities throughout history.
Ah - there you go Bib - in the end, how does one judge?
Are you trying to claim as Christian only the "good" actions, and deny the "bad"?
If there seem to be a whole lot of similar "bad" actions clustered around Christianity, do they not have to be owned as well as the good and noble ones?
Hello DL - how's the weather down under?
Terminology is important in these discussions; for example, what do you mean by "good" and "bad?"
One reader's understanding of "good" or "bad" can be different from another's.
Whether we deem something to be "good" or "bad" must of necessity be based upon a standard, benchmark, or value system, in which all who make judgments about certain situations should refer to in the final analysis.
This is precisely my point with regard to the teachings of Jesus Christ (Christianity per se). If someone calls themselves a Christian then they should by definition say and do the things that Jesus Christ said and did.
Once people stray from this benchmark or value system they themselves are at fault, and a poor example, and not the value system itself.
Bib I get the feeling you are not going to give up on this.
Bib - I guess for the purposes of discussing with you I am considering good and bad to be defined via the core teachings of Christianity - eg "Thou shalt not kill" - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - "Love thy neighbour" etc.
These teachings would, generally, seem to exclude massacring your fellow citizens because they do, or don't, believe bread and wine turn literally into blood and flesh; invading other countries because they do, or don't, see the Pope as a supreme and infallible authority; burning people at the stake ostensibly for the above reasons; invading other countries and killing or converting their citizens - do you get my drift?
hey - this is fun!
DL: now that I know what your basis for "good" and "bad" is, we can now begin to chin-wag about matters Christological!
Christianity's like Communism. There's an ideal which is promulgated, and a philosophical system of sorts put forward to back it up. But in practice, people are bloody ignorant apes and want to do horrible things to each other, so neither way of living ever really pans out on a large scale.
Patio:
Christianity and Communism are NOT alike, as you have stated and described.
Christianity is not a philosophy, but by definition, it is the following and implementation of the teachings and ACTIONS of Jesus Christ. He set a real example during His life, not just a form of words or ideals, which is this basis of a philosophy.
Suit yourself. We've a considerable divergence of opinion on the matter which it probably wouldn't be fruitful to hash out. They are fundamentally different in terms of the scale on which they are intended to work (i.e., nation vs. individual), I'll definitely grant you that.
Patio: Thank you for your comments. :wink:
Sorry I don't have more to offer you on this topic...
C'mon Bib - now that we have established absolute rules for good and bad - debate me!
teehee
That's OK, I'm expecting other members to continue this topic.
I'm still interested in anyone's comments on the issue of ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY.
The only "absolute authority" in our life is mother nature. c.i.
