Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Well, maybe we are fighting over something here that doesn't exist, then.If you notice, the only time I mention Christians doing great things, is when people comment on how bad Christianity is. More so, I don't say they do those things because they are Christians. I simply show that Christians don't only do evil, as some want to point out (maybe not that they only do evil, but they choose to ignore the good that Christians have done, and instead focus only on the evil. Which is ridiculous).
More so, I have never denied that Christians do evil things. I accept that. Christians do a lot of different things. Some I agree with, some I don't. However, just because a Christian does something, that does not reflect on me personally. If a Christian is a murder, that doesn't mean I am a murder, or part of a murderous religion. To make such a connection is ridiculous and simply is void of any and all logic. The same is true for good deeds.
Christianity is extremely diverse. What one sect does does not necessarily reflect on another. What some Christians did in the past do not necessarily reflect on modern Christians. Really, am I not trying to have my cake and eat it too. I'm just trying to point out that Christians are extremely diverse, and that what one Christian does does not necessarily reflect on another. Instead, we should look at the person.
I may have misunderstood you, but that is what I assumed.
So now the requirement is 'at the current time'? Looking back trying to pin this one part of your statements down, it appears you are trying to work out that, IF it were the habit of Christians to persecute, then, it would be going on today too?I never said there was never persecution. I am speaking in current times. The fact is, most Muslims and Christians get along, or at least tolerate each other. As of right now, there is no mass persecution of Muslims.
It isn't habit. To call it habit ignores the many various factors that are involved. Me pointing out that Christians were persecuted was just one factor. Other factors were political etc.
I absofrickinlutely can, if it displays my point. You're not writing any new rules here. The various factors include HABIT.And I am not denying that Christians have (and still) persecute people. However, we have to look at the actual factors instead of just blaming Christians or Christianity. To do so simply is dishonest, and illogical. We must look at the various factors that contribute to these different persecutions.
I'm not wishing any factor didn't exist. I'm simply pointing out that you can't focus on just one factor and assume that makes a real argument.
Dishonest denials? I haven't denied anything. I just refuse to make it black and white as you are trying to do. I'm trying to not just focus on one factor, but one the whole picture.
He isn't only a primary source to him being of that religion. He is not a primary source to show that it has existed since ancient times. I don't doubt that the religion is in practice today. I do doubt that it has remained in practice since early times.
It's irrelevant if they are free now when your issue remains an attempt at unbroken practice through years OF PERSECUTION. You keep falling back in this 'well but there's nothing/everything going on NOW isn't there?' as if this is some kind of valid sticking point. Abandon it, its bs regarding the issue.However, until he can provide some evidence for the claim, then there is no reason to accept it as fact.
Murderous persecution since when? They are free now aren't they?
Yet its the same evidence which you keep expecting. So make up your mind. You are discarding that we have us a live practitioner; you discard his own statements; you discard the presence of the metamemes of his faith. Basically you want this to be, it would appear, at your discretion.And we may not expect to find the same evidence we would for another religion, but we can expect some evidence.
At this point Im glad of a standstill; I am too bored of this pigheaded miasma to comment on it further, I think.And again, him practicing it (he never said anything about it being handed down from generation to generation, and really something like that could easily be made up) is not evidence for anything besides that the religion exists today. That is the only argument that has been made for his religion, that can be supported; it exists today.
Again, without some actual type of evidence, there is no reason to assume it is fact.
Then we have a standstill. Without evidence, there is no reason to assume it is fact. It is an idea of faith.
Their presence however displays a de facto survival. The metamemes still exist; this shows their presence in history one way or the other.Myths don't show that a religion survived. It shows that the myth survived. The reason being that myths get attached to cultures. They become traditions. They become nothing more than stories.
Burt since xtianity never had to go underground you are comparing apples and oranges, so this is pointless. And as for 'its not the myths', let's not get ahead of ourselves now... Of course it's the myths.. let's insert the word 'too' if that makes it go down easier.With Christianity, it is not the myths that are continued today that let us know that Christianity has continually been practiced since ancient times. We have a vast amount of other evidence (art, writings, etc).
Yet it's a better proof than 'not'.My point is that myth being continued to this day is not evidence that the religion also has continued in existence, especially when those myths are not seen as fact, or religious anymore, but as mere stories.
I admitted no such thingSo you are admitting he really has no evidence?
Anecdotal appeal to authority.No, I see an error based on the accepted definitions. Especially the accepted definitions in scholarly circles.
AAtAFine, lets use your definition. I really don't care. It is not an accepted terminology in the studies that I have done, as it defines something else, but if you want to use it, fine.
Most people also have absolutely no notion of just how much they have benefited from religion. Christianity, in the United States, has done quite a bit.
Look at the slave trade. In the United States what fueled the trade was economics (yes, later on some justified it by the Bible, however, that was after the fact, when abolitionists (which many were Christians, and in this particular case, most were) started to criticize slave owners and state that they could not be Christians if they owned slaves. More so, it was not just Christians who participated in the slave trade). It was Christian abolitionists, particularly in England (William Wilberforce for one) who really helped end the slave trade, and eventually slavery.
We can look at many of the missionary movements, and yes, even though there were cases of atrocity, they also helped many many people. Partially because of the schools that they built, which allowed many of the indigenous get the jobs they wanted. In fact, if we look at many of these communities, the indigenous people were happy for the missionaries to be there because of the schools that they also brought.
The missionary movement in general gave rise to more secular philanthropy in itself. It was from more liberal strands of Christianity, that began rethinking what they were doing, that gave rise to the secular philanthropy.
It really goes both ways. Some, in the name of religion, have committed horrible acts. Others have committed extreme good. Some in the name of science have committed horrible acts. Others have committed extreme good.
Columbus is and has been under a lot of attack recently. No one glorifies him though because he was a Christian. That simply does not come up. And in fact, the focus is going from Columbus to others, who we are discovering came to America before him. That and those who came after and knew what they were looking at.The daring trip to America? Please. There were Muslims sailing across the atlantic ocean long before Coloumdumb. Stop glorifying him accept the fact that their are christians who simply used their faith as a reason to justify hatred.
I have always been speaking at the current time in regards to what started this particular discussion. I also never said that persecution isn't happening. I'm saying that we don't have widespread persecution. In fact, most Christians are not persecuting anyone. So if this persecution is a habit of Christians, why are most Christians not persecuting anyone? Because it is not a habit of Christians.So now the requirement is 'at the current time'? Looking back trying to pin this one part of your statements down, it appears you are trying to work out that, IF it were the habit of Christians to persecute, then, it would be going on today too?
I guess Bosnia was ancient history to you? Also, is there not a thread in this very forum, about someone of an Eastern religion, not even a Muslim, who went to a local mall wearing a headscarf and was incorrectly labeled a Muslim and harassed? IM sorry, but while it's not the wholesale slaughter of the crusades or the Spanish Inquisition, it is definitely going on, right now. Just as the reverse definitely is. Persecution of the nonbeliever is in there, and that's just the facts.
You haven't shown that it includes habit. And really, should we expect it to be habit if nearly every group throughout time has also practiced persecution? And that even though one may persecute one idea at one time, that doesn't mean they will ever persecute another idea?I absofrickinlutely can, if it displays my point. You're not writing any new rules here. The various factors include HABIT.
So no argument?
I'm not falling back to anything. I've only mentioned this idea once, in regards to you saying that persecution is a habit of Christians. Which, if it was, we should see it much more of it, and it being much more widespread.It's irrelevant if they are free now when your issue remains an attempt at unbroken practice through years OF PERSECUTION. You keep falling back in this 'well but there's nothing/everything going on NOW isn't there?' as if this is some kind of valid sticking point. Abandon it, its bs regarding the issue.
I don't know how to make this clearer. A modern day practitioner of a religion does not mean that religion is ancient and has continued to us from ancient times. It simply means that it is being practiced now. He hasn't made any credible statements that would show that his religion has continued to ancient times.Yet its the same evidence which you keep expecting. So make up your mind. You are discarding that we have us a live practitioner; you discard his own statements; you discard the presence of the metamemes of his faith. Basically you want this to be, it would appear, at your discretion.
Now was that called for? I do find it funny that you harped on me for insulting him, yet you make a statement like this.At this point Im glad of a standstill; I am too bored of this pigheaded miasma to comment on it further, I think.
Their presence only shows that they exist today. There are many recreational religions out there, but there is no evidence they have survived from ancient times. I mean, if I started practicing Sumerian worship, does that mean that the religion survived? No, it simply means I picked it up again. That seems to be the case here.Their presence however displays a de facto survival. The metamemes still exist; this shows their presence in history one way or the other.
Actually they did have to go underground for short periods. So it is quite a good comparison.Burt since xtianity never had to go underground you are comparing apples and oranges, so this is pointless. And as for 'its not the myths', let's not get ahead of ourselves now... Of course it's the myths.. let's insert the word 'too' if that makes it go down easier.
It is only proof that the myths continue, not that the religion continued. The myth and religion were separated quite some time ago.Yet it's a better proof than 'not'.
That's an interesting tale taught in black history classes.
Which churches did you know of still teaching this, besides the ones that the KKK go to?
Actually this was taught in world history in college
We are talking about history. I am not christian nor do I concern myself what they teach at the pulpit
I didn't realize that we were not living in 1860 until you mentioned this.
Nobody in any reputable history class is being taught that Muslims landed in the New World before anyone else. There are those who look at some of the ancient architecture of South America and see what look like "black" features on their faces. They've also found some species of plant life originally thought to be indigenous to the New World growing places like Africa which appear to have been there quite a while. They then HYPOTHESIZE that Africans made it to the New World before Leif Ericson or Columbus. These are all just theories.
It was a habit when the persecution to which it was, as YOU asserted, a kind of retribution for, was gone for centuries. Seriously, doubt all you want but I have proved my point. Why now - because it's not as easy to slaughter people wholesale.. except in Bosnia.I have always been speaking at the current time in regards to what started this particular discussion. I also never said that persecution isn't happening. I'm saying that we don't have widespread persecution. In fact, most Christians are not persecuting anyone. So if this persecution is a habit of Christians, why are most Christians not persecuting anyone? Because it is not a habit of Christians.
Look, your continued assertion that because other people do it, or that because the vast majority of xtian people right this very minute aren't doing it, it's ok, is nonsense, but I think we've run this horse over long enough. We won;'t agree because you'll never concede that Christians have blood on their hands.Persecution is simply a human thing. We see religious and non-religious persecuting people. We have seen this from the beginning of human time. To try to then label it as a habit for Christians is simply ignoring everything that would say otherwise.
I can logically say it's habit because there is no reason for it to be simple retribution, which was one of your own reasons for it initially.Again, if not all Christians, or even a majority are persecuting others, how can one logically say that it is a habit? Maybe it is a habit for a minority of Christians (and this would be true for out history), but not for Christians in general.
You haven't shown that it includes habit. And really, should we expect it to be habit if nearly every group throughout time has also practiced persecution? And that even though one may persecute one idea at one time, that doesn't mean they will ever persecute another idea?
Really, hundreds of years in what sense?Your point was that they had to remain hidden because they were being persecuted. Well, for hundreds of years, they haven't been.
Once it's in play, everyone is fair gameNow was that called for? I do find it funny that you harped on me for insulting him, yet you make a statement like this.
Except for so far here, a statement from an actual practitioner, whom you have already stated you dismiss because he could be making it upTheir presence only shows that they exist today. There are many recreational religions out there, but there is no evidence they have survived from ancient times.
It depends where you get your information as to how to follow it, doesn't it? Bad argument.I mean, if I started practicing Sumerian worship, does that mean that the religion survived? No, it simply means I picked it up again. That seems to be the case here.
Not in any actual way for thousands of years.Actually they did have to go underground for short periods. So it is quite a good comparison.
AliensWereHere.com | Evidence and Photos of Ancient Alien Theory | Ancient Aliens
Ancient Aliens | Ancient Alien
Actually I think the evidence these aliens left behind proves they visited the Americas long before any of the other explorers in question.
Good job dodging
It wasn't a habit. There is no evidence that it was habit. The only argument that you've made for it being a habit is by calling it a habit, and that is a poor argument.It was a habit when the persecution to which it was, as YOU asserted, a kind of retribution for, was gone for centuries. Seriously, doubt all you want but I have proved my point. Why now - because it's not as easy to slaughter people wholesale.. except in Bosnia.
When did I say Christians don't have blood on their hands? I never did. However, to make such a foolish, sweeping generalization, as if all Christians have blood on their hands, is simply nothing more than your ignorance and bias showing through.Look, your continued assertion that because other people do it, or that because the vast majority of xtian people right this very minute aren't doing it, it's ok, is nonsense, but I think we've run this horse over long enough. We won;'t agree because you'll never concede that Christians have blood on their hands.
One of the reasons. Not the only reason. As I have stated, there were a variety of reasons. There were in fact many reasons. Habit simply can not be shown to be the reason. You definitely haven't shown any evidence of that. It really isn't logical.I can logically say it's habit because there is no reason for it to be simple retribution, which was one of your own reasons for it initially.
In the sense that they haven't been persecuted. That the persecution stopped long long ago. That there was no threat of persecution. How can that be clearer.Really, hundreds of years in what sense?
I never insulted him though. At least not intentionally. You did. And really, that is just a foolish argument that basically voids your argument for Christian persecution being a habit. I mean, once it is play, everyone is fair game.Once it's in play, everyone is fair game
I didn't say he was making it up. I have no doubt that he practices it today. However, that doesn't show it has ever been practiced elsewhere. It isn't logical to assume that just because someone is practicing a form of religion today, it has been practiced in the past. He is an isolated practitioner, who can't show that since he practices it, it has remained in practice.Except for so far here, a statement from an actual practitioner, whom you have already stated you dismiss because he could be making it up
Not really. In this case, he simply said that he practiced the religion. That is what he said. If I said I practiced Sumerian religion, it only means I practice it. I can get others to practice it, but that does not mean that it has continued from the past.It depends where you get your information as to how to follow it, doesn't it? Bad argument.
The Greek religions also didn't go under ground for thousands of years. So your point is what?Not in any actual way for thousands of years.
I'm not going to play the "quote the scholar" game in which two non scholars run to the appropriate apologetic websites to find arguments which support their position. The only argument necessary is that nowhere in the Western world is the information you shared part of the curriculum with possible exception of a few classes dedicated to deconstructing negative stereotypes about African peoples and the diaspora. Why is that the only argument necessary? Because it means that any assertion contradicting the current curriculum has either been largly discredited and/or just doesn't contain enough credible evidence to be taken seriously. It's something such claims have in common with reports of alien landings in the ancient New World. Still, when talking about an area as vast as the Western world there's alway a rogue educational institution willing to teach the most unsubstantiated "facts" as part of it's curriculum to suit it's agenda. In case you haven't learned, you can find a "scholarly" argument to support about any assertion under the sun.