Hatred of Christianity!

[Shermana]

Ham didn't get the curse, his Son Canaan did.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

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.

Well, maybe we are fighting over something here that doesn't exist, then.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

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.

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.

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.

I absofrickinlutely can, if it displays my point. You're not writing any new rules here. The various factors include HABIT.

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.

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?

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.

And we may not expect to find the same evidence we would for another religion, but we can expect some evidence.

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 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.

At this point Im glad of a standstill; I am too bored of this pigheaded miasma to comment on it further, I think.

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.

Their presence however displays a de facto survival. The metamemes still exist; this shows their presence in history one way or the other.

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).

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.

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.

Yet it's a better proof than 'not'.

So you are admitting he really has no evidence?

I admitted no such thing

No, I see an error based on the accepted definitions. Especially the accepted definitions in scholarly circles.

Anecdotal appeal to authority.

Fine, 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.

AAtA

 

[cablescavenger]

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.

I think you do have a point, most bad things in society do cut both ways, an examples of this might be the death penalty, gay marriage or abortion. The outcome of these decisions should be objective and based on good evidence and an equitable solution, but often religious beliefs will interfere with the process.

I think if you were a person who was directly affected by a decision under these circumstances, then you would see religious interference as a negative. You might not distinguish between a christian who was impartial, or a christian who actively campaigned.

With regard to Wilberforce he is seen as the driving force behind the abolition of slavery in the UK, but not in the US. The abolition of slavery in the US came about some 30 years or so later, because Lincoln was trying to save the Union, and offered emancipation to the slaves in a bid to win the war. Without the black slaves the outcome of the war may have been very different. So black people fought for their own freedom in the civil war.

 

[fallingblood]

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.

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.

Cultural times do matter though. Abraham Lincoln, even though he may have been racist to a point, still did a great service. It is fine looking at his flaws, but to focus just on them is foolish.

We have to take into consideration the time periods. We can not judge others by our modern ethical ideas.

 

[fallingblood]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I absofrickinlutely can, if it displays my point. You're not writing any new rules here. The various factors include HABIT.

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?

If it really was a habit, we should see much more persecution, not just with a minority of Christians. And with those Christians, we should see it on a much more regular basis. We don't. So no, it really isn't an argument.

So no argument?

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'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.

More so, the fact that they have been free for quite some time would suggest that they should have emerged quite some time ago and not recently. That, or it would suggest that we should have at least some evidence of their existence.

Your point was that they had to remain hidden because they were being persecuted. Well, for hundreds of years, they haven't been. So why did they stay hiding? It doesn't make sense. Basically, they didn't remain hiding as they didn't exist.

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.

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.

I'm not discarding any real evidence for the religion being an ancient practice. I'm discarding only the evidence that shows that it is a modern religion.

If someone wants to make a claim, they should be able to back it up. If there is no evidence for a claim, then I see no reason I should accept it as historical fact, unless I would do so based on faith. And simply, I'm not willing to base faith on such a claim.

At this point Im glad of a standstill; I am too bored of this pigheaded miasma to comment on it further, I think.

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.

Their presence however displays a de facto survival. The metamemes still exist; this shows their presence in history one way or the other.

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.

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.

Actually they did have to go underground for short periods. So it is quite a good comparison.

Yet it's a better proof than 'not'.

It is only proof that the myths continue, not that the religion continued. The myth and religion were separated quite some time ago.

 

[Averroes]

That's an interesting tale taught in black history classes.

Actually this was taught in world history in college

 

[Averroes]

Which churches did you know of still teaching this, besides the ones that the KKK go to?

We are talking about history. I am not christian nor do I concern myself what they teach at the pulpit

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Actually this was taught in world history in college

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.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

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.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I didn't realize that we were not living in 1860 until you mentioned this.

What year do you think it is?

 

[Averroes]

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.

Here ya go!

Muslims in the Americas Before Columbus

 

[Averroes]

It's easy to deny truth

 

[Heathen Hammer]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Your point was that they had to remain hidden because they were being persecuted. Well, for hundreds of years, they haven't been.

Really, hundreds of years in what sense?

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.

Once it's in play, everyone is fair game

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.

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

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.

It depends where you get your information as to how to follow it, doesn't it? Bad argument.

Actually they did have to go underground for short periods. So it is quite a good comparison.

Not in any actual way for thousands of years.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Here ya go!

Muslims in the Americas Before Columbus

http://www.alienswerehere.com/AncientAlienEvidence.html

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.

 

[Averroes]

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

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Good job dodging

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.

 

[Shermana]

Technically, Norse Pagans were the first from the Old World into the New.

Edit: More research needed on what happened exactly.

And the first man to bring back cigars and the tobacco rolling methods was a Jew.

 

[fallingblood]

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.

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.

You fail to actually look at the variety of factors that played a role in any number of persecutions. By ignoring the various factors, you do an injustice to history, and the people who were effected.

You haven't proved your point. You simply have ignored the many other factors that played a part in all of these persecutions. More so, you haven't show that it was out of habit. If it was habit, why didn't more Christians play a part? Why didn't the same Christians continually play a part? Where is the evidence that it was a habit?

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.

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.

None of that shows that it was a habit though. And it definitely doesn't show that Christians have a habit of persecuting others, or that all Christians persecute others.

Your assertion simply is not logical, as you are focusing on a minority of Christians, and then try to assume that that minority speaks for the majority. When it comes down to it, you are simply voicing a prejudice, and nothing more.

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.

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.

Also, trying to argue against it only being simple retribution is being illogical. I said retribution was just one factor, for one group.

Really, hundreds of years in what sense?

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.

Once it's in play, everyone is fair game

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.

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

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.

It depends where you get your information as to how to follow it, doesn't it? Bad argument.

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.

Not in any actual way for thousands of years.

The Greek religions also didn't go under ground for thousands of years. So your point is what?

 

[Averroes]

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.

To avoid derailing this thread let me make a thread concerning these issues.