Merry Christmas

[BDS]

I've been posting on these boards for a couple of months now, and I certainly enjoy it. You're a lively and educated group.

Occasionally, however, the hostility toward religion annoys me. To each his own, I vote, and hostility toward religion smacks of some of the worst excesses of Marxism.

Humanism implies a reverence for the noblest works of man, and myths and rituals are among those works. Merry Christmas, from G.K. Chesterton (one of the great Christian apologists) and me:

A Christmas Song

There fared a mother driven forth
Out of an inn to roam;
In the place where she was homeless
All men are at home.
The crazy stable close at hand,
With shaking timber and shifting sand,
Grew a stronger thing to abide and stand
Than the square stones of Rome.

For men are homesick in their homes,
And strangers under the sun,
And they lay their heads in a foreign land
Whenever the day is done.

Here we have battle and blazing eyes,
And chance and honour and high surprise,
But our homes are under miraculous skies
Where the yule tale was begun.

A child in a foul stable,
Where the beasts feed and foam;
Only where He was homeless
Are you and I at home;
We have hands that fashion and heads that know,
But our hearts we lost---how long ago!
In a place no chart nor ship can show
Under the sky's dome.

This world is wild as an old wife's tale,
And strange the plain things are,
The earth is enough and the air is enough
For our wonder and our war;
But our rest is as far as the fire-drake swings
And our peace is put in impossible things
Where clashed and thundered unthinkable wings
Round an incredible star.

To an open house in the evening
Home shall all men come,
To an older place than Eden
And a taller town than Rome.
To the end of the way of the wandering star,
To the things that cannot be and that are,
To the place where God was homeless
And all men are at home.

(Gilbert Keith Chesterton)

A Christmas Carol

The Christ-child lay on Mary's lap,
His hair was like a light.
(O weary, weary were the world,
But here is all aright.)

The Christ-child lay on Mary's breast,
His hair was like a star.
(O stern and cunning are the kings,
But here the true hearts are.)

The Christ-child lay on Mary's heart,
His hair was like a fire.
(O weary, weary is the world,
But here the world's desire.)

The Christ-child stood at Mary's knee,
His hair was like a crown.
And all the flowers looked up at Him,
And all the stars looked down.

[Jacey]

Not an SL issue, lets try The Lounge

[AspenMama]

Preaching is not allowed in The Lounge either....

[dayton]

This thread should be moved to ~E~ , or better yet, CF.

Dayton

[Vicar Philip]

I received an e-mail very similar to this today at work. It pissed me off, and I wrote a strikingly nasty reply to it, thought better of it, and didn't send it.

If I wanted to hear shit like this I'd go to the fucking church.

Merry Christmas indeed. How about Merry Winter Solstice? That has more meaning.

[Jacey]

Yes, I should really not watch Law and Order while reading a thread I'm about to move. Doesn't belong.

[Chicken Girl]

Moving to ~elsewhere~.

[dayton]

This thread should be closed. There is no place for "Merry Christmas" or proselytizing on IIDB.


Merry Thursday

Dayton

[Nohweh]

've been posting on these boards for a couple of months now, and I certainly enjoy it. You're a lively and educated group.

I'm happy that you enjoy it here, but perhaps you should post less and read more. If you can allow yourself the luxury of being pissed off by the hostility to religion on this atheist board,(and also have the temerity to tell us that you are!) it seems that you have little understanding of why most of us rejected religion. If you are sincere in what you say, I would have expected that you might know better than to post godspam here.

Humanism implies a reverence for the noblest works of man, and myths and rituals are among those works......

I don't agree with you that the myths themselves are among the noblest works of man. Many people are capable of making up stories that snare the gullible. Some myths have certainly inspired many of the greatest works of art, but it is the artistic achievement that is noble, not the myth that inspired it.
The belief in some myths has, throughout human history, promoted persecution, ignorance and fear, and these beliefs are to this day causing great suffering in many parts of the world.

Humanism also implies the wish that all men live in peace and harmony. Religion is one of the obstacles that must be removed before this will happen.

I hope you enjoy your celebration.:)

[Leah]

Merry Christmas, BDS and all other christians or non-christians on this board

May you have loads of presents, enough to eat and drink,
and all you wish for.

And may all humans on the world have all such all year around.

http://www.dandeeimages.com/images/Christmas_Day_small.JPG

[BDS]

Just to clarify, I'm not a Christian, nor am I religious.

That doesn't mean that I can't enjoy myths and rituals, including Christmas. In fact, I enjoy Christmas a great deal, and read the story from Luke each year.

And, come off it, Nohweh. While myths have (doubtless) promoted persecution and oppression, so have atheist belief systems. The Communists and the Nazis (atheists both) were the prime slaughter mongers of the last century. Yet I wouldn't blame atheism per se for their crimes.

"Merry Christmas" is not proselytizing. It is instead recognizing the beauty of the Christian myth, and the virtues of the Christmas ritual.

Once again, Merry Christmas to all.

(Sorry if this is the wrong board, but I couldn't figure out an appropriate spot. I think this is the spot, because, in addition to sharing the poetry, the post was about the secular lifestyle -- whether atheists and agnostics should celebrate and revere Religious holidays. Personally, I think we're missing out on a great deal of fun if we do not.)

[sweep]

And may all humans on the world have all such all year around. what a lovely thing to write - same to you angel!

And if you look at Leahs pic carefully, Santa is holding back the tears by choking on his green glove!


:)

[velvetfinger]

Originally posted by BDS
The Communists and the Nazis (atheists both) were the prime slaughter mongers of the last century.

Were the Nazis atheists? I remember reading a thread here that persuasively argued against claims that Hitler was an atheist, but I can't find it. As I am uninformed on this particular matter, I will wait for someone more knowledgable to comment.

[Leah]

Originally posted by sweep
what a lovely thing to write - same to you angel!
:)
Thank you,
your pm hasn't been working for a while, by the way. :)

[Nohweh]

The Nazis Atheists BDS? Go here (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Morality/Hitler.shtml) for more information about that particular lie.

Communist persecution of religion continues in China, but were the mass killings in Russia religious or political? I believe that they were mostly purely political. Start a thread in PD if you are interested in finding out for sure.

[BDS]

The site you referred me to seems at a glance to be about as trustworthy regarding Hitler's Religiosity as a Born Again Creationist site is regarding geology. Whoever wrote it has an axe to grind.

In any event, the truth about Hitler is not really necessary to my point. The point is that both Communists and Nazis used the good of the state as an excuse for slaughtering people, just like some religious people have used religious excuses. The commies and nazis worshipped the state as the ultimate good; religious people worship religion as the ultimate good. Any time you're planning to slaughter people, you generally turn to ultimate ends for your excuse. Secular philosophies positing ultimate truths (like communism and nazism) hardly seem less bloody than religious philosophies. These philosophies (in your words) "are to this day causing great suffering in many parts of the world."

Your hostility toward religion, Nohweh, is precisely the kind I was referring to (thanks for making my point for me). You can't even enjoy a couple of Christmas poems without ranting about how they are "godspam". Aren't you limiting yourself? Do you avoid reading fiction because it's not true? An atheist who is unable to enjoy a Christmas poem reminds me of an alcoholic, who is unable to enjoy a sober and stimulating glass of wine.

[Nohweh]

I agree. The truth about the Nazis is not necessary to your point. So why did you bother to repeat the lie that the Nazis were atheists? I don't agree that the site is not trustworthy to the degree that you characterise it. If you want the truth, I am sure that you are capable of finding many sites around that will provide it for you. Or will you find that they all have axes to grind?

he point is that both Communists and Nazis used the good of the state as an excuse for slaughtering people, just like some religious people have used religious excuses. The commies and nazis worshipped the state as the ultimate good; religious people worship religion as the ultimate good. Any time you're planning to slaughter people, you generally turn to ultimate ends for your excuse.

Agreed. Then why didn't you say that instead of repeating the old naziswereatheists lie. What is the point of perpetuating that hoary old Christian myth?

Where did I say that I didn't enjoy Christmas? I very much enjoy the holidays and the pleasure that the season brings to many people. Hell, I even manage to return a "Merry Christmas" sometimes when I am not spewing forth my anti-religious venom..

MY original point was that this atheist site was not an appropriate place to post that particular type of poem. You were bound to antagonise someone. If that was not your purpose, why did you post it?

I am indeed deeply antagonistic to religion and I am affronted that you would to post here that you are annoyed by that. I would not consider going to a Christian site and expressing my annoyance that they were antagonistic towards atheists. Perhaps I might ask them why they were antagonistic before I criticized them for being that way.

[BDS]

If I'm wrong about the Nazis (which I don't fully concede), I posted that the Nazis were atheists because I was mistaken.

One of the purposes of my post (and the reason I thought it appropriate for "secular lifestyles") is that I wanted to address the issue of hostility toward religion. I mentioned it in my introduction regarding "humanism" (early humanists included Erasmus and Thomas More, highly religious men), and I did think my poems might engender some hostility. I posted them for two reasons: I like them, and wanted to share them, and I wanted to discuss the issue of whether atheists should be hostile toward religion.

So why are you antagonistic toward religion, Nohweh?

[AspenMama]

Originally posted by BDS
And, come off it, Nohweh. While myths have (doubtless) promoted persecution and oppression, so have atheist belief systems. The Communists and the Nazis (atheists both) were the prime slaughter mongers of the last century. Yet I wouldn't blame atheism per se for their crimes. I think there is an excellent argument to be made that Hitler used religion to rally the Nazis. He believed the xian god spoke directly to him. Without religion and the god of xianity to back him up, I doubt he would have had such a following. I'll be happy to debate this with you in another forum.
Originally posted by BDS
"Merry Christmas" is not proselytizing. It is instead recognizing the beauty of the Christian myth, and the virtues of the Christmas ritual. Feel free to hold that opinion, I however, do not think it is a beautiful myth. I think it is a bit twisted.
Originally posted by BDS
(Sorry if this is the wrong board, but I couldn't figure out an appropriate spot. I think this is the spot, because, in addition to sharing the poetry, the post was about the secular lifestyle -- whether atheists and agnostics should celebrate and revere Religious holidays. Personally, I think we're missing out on a great deal of fun if we do not.)
Yes, Secular Lifestyle, The Lounge or MD would all be the wrong spots to post that poem and I ask that you refrain from posting such in the future.{Mod hat off} Regarding what you now say the topic was about--- Most atheists have found a way to celebrate this holiday; and as has been discussed in several threads-- many of us choose to celebrate the original "reason for the season"-- the Winter Solstice. Do you feel atheists should celebrate and revere a religious holiday with all its orignal mythology? I feel that would be very hypocritical, especially when most atheists find said mythology as harmful to society and living as luring an acoholic to enjoy just one glass of wine---

[AspenMama]

Originally posted by BDS
One of the purposes of my post (and the reason I thought it appropriate for "secular lifestyles") is that I wanted to address the issue of hostility toward religion. I mentioned it in my introduction regarding "humanism" (early humanists included Erasmus and Thomas More, highly religious men), and I did think my poems might engender some hostility. I posted them for two reasons: I like them, and wanted to share them, and I wanted to discuss the issue of whether atheists should be hostile toward religion.
It sounds to me as though you were setting out some bait. Would you go to a xian board and post something by Monty Python-- or Douglas Adams and then ask whether xians should be hostile towards religion when you got a negative reaction? Why not honestly start this topic without the preaching/baiting tactics?

Keep in mind, not all atheists are hostile towards religion. Also, how do you define hostility? Is a dislike of a poem the same as hostility?

[Nohweh]

One of the purposes of my post (and the reason I thought it appropriate for "secular lifestyles") is that I wanted to address the issue of hostility toward religion. I mentioned it in my introduction regarding "humanism" (early humanists included Erasmus and Thomas More, highly religious men), and I did think my poems might engender some hostility. I posted them for two reasons: I like them, and wanted to share them, and I wanted to discuss the issue of whether atheists should be hostile toward religion.

So why are you antagonistic toward religion, Nohweh?


I was raised a Catholic and attended Catholic schools until I was fifteen, by which time I was some kind of vague Deist. By the time I was 20, I was an atheist.
From the age of 10 to 13, what I wanted to do most in my life was to be a priest, I could think of no higher calling. I believed in the Church implicitly.

The Sisters of Mercy imbued me with the sin and punishment drivel, and I knew that if I sinned that I would burn in hell for all eternity. This was not much of a problem until puberty struck and like a lot of boys at that time of life, I was in a semi permanent state of arousal. Now, if I had 'impure' thoughts or, God forbid, actually masturbated, then I was committing a mortal sin, and I knew, with absolute certainty that if I died, I would BURN! Consequently, for three years or so from the age of 11, I lived in a constant state of guilt and fear and this coloured everything that I did. Always in the back of my mind lurked the guilt and the fear, at the movies, at parties, wherever I went, I carried the certain knowledge that I was doomed.

One day I asked myself this question: What reasonable God would condemn a soul to eternal punishment for an action which did no harm to any other living creature? Nor did it make any sense to me that a poor grovelling human being could offend the creator of the universe by such a simple action. Soon after that, I ceased to believe in the Christian God.

Any belief system that can make a child feel so bad, at a time when they should be enjoying life and exploring new and wonderful feelings, is truly an abomination. The teachings of this religion can and do cause mental anguish and real pain. This religion should be outlawed, and in any reasonable society, it would be.

You might think that the myths are quaint and harmless and fun, but let me urge you to probe a little bit deeper than what you see on the surface and you will find repression and hatred, torment and misery.

If you look around you might find that the teachings of the Catholic Church on the subject of birth control causing millions to live and die in poverty in third world countries. Even in many first world countries Christians control the legislature and make laws that are detrimental to greater good of the population. How many people suffer long agonising deaths because the Christians don't like euthanasia? The damage that this madness has caused to humanity, and continues to cause, is immeasurable.

Lift your gaze from sweet baby Jesus in the manger and take a look at the real world.

Edited to add: It is 7:30 am on Christmas morning, and I am off to party! Have a happy holiday y'all.:)

[BDS]

To Aspenmama,

Well, yes, I might go to a Christian Board and post some poem questioning the faith. Why not? Grown-ups should surely be able to discuss such things reasonably, and appreciate good poems even if they think they refer to events that never really happened. I mean, did Ozymandias actually build that giant statue? If not, is Shelley's poem worthless? How about you, Aspenmamma? Do you refuse to look at El Greco's greatest paintings, because the assension never actually occured?

As far as your accusations of hypocrisy are concerned, you sound like a Born Again Christian, with no imagination or sense of humor. Are all those who talk about Santa Claus "hypocrites'? Good grief! Your attitude is precisely what I'm trying to understand here. It's so narrowly unsophisticated. Do you really think the Christmas story is "harmful to society"? How about King Arthur? Do you hate those stories too? And I imagine you refuse to listen to myths from other cultures too. After all, what could they possibly teach you, in all your atheistic wisdom?

How can any of us hope to understand the human condition if we don't explore those myths which have influenced so many people wiser than you or I? Myths are the essence of literature. Rejecting them as nonsense is throwing the baby out with the bath water. One might as well reject all of fiction as nonsense. Refusing to see the beauty in the Christmas story is like closing your eyes when visiting the Louvre. It reminds me of a small child, who puts his fingers in his ears shouts, "I can't hear you, I can't hear you!" over and over again.

So, in answer to your question, yes, I think that atheists should recognize and acknowledge the mythology on which a holiday is based. Why not? What harm can it do? One gets into the holiday spirit by (to some extent at least) exercising the same "suspension of disbelief" that one exercises when reading a novel, or seeing a movie. What's wrong with reading the Christmas story? When we wonder what the angels looked like, to make the shepherds so afraid, we need not think they were actual angels. It's a question about the story.

Of course two kinds of people disagree with me: the Born Agains, who think any less than full acceptance will damn one to eternal perdition, and certain atheists, who, like the Born Agains, think that there is no middle ground between full acceptance and complete rejection. But there is a middle ground. It involves looking at a story, in awe and wonder, even in reverence, just as one looks at other great stories. This is the humanistic approach, for religion is one of the humanities.

To Nohweh: I'm sorry to hear about your bad experiences with Catholocism. I was raised agnostic, so I never had to deal with a religious upbringing. Maybe that's why I can look at myth and ritual in a relatively detached way, and admire it's beauty while recognizing some of its shortcomings. The truth is elusive, and is sometimes approched more closely through subterfuge and metaphor than through direct attack. However we approach it, we never quite reach it.

[tracer]

Originally posted by Leah
http://www.dandeeimages.com/images/Christmas_Day_small.JPG
Ew! Santa's using his toy bag as a toilet!

[sbaii]

I would like to see some peace on earth and good will towards all people including unbelievers coming from the Xians. Most people who profess to be xians don't know the basic beliefs. I can't tell you how many xians have quoted the old mosaic law "An eye for an eye" to me. The basic problem with fundamentalists is their
fundamental ignorance and their fear of learning. I could feel sorry for them except so many of them are so darn scary.
The Christmas story doesn't fill me with any more awe then any of the other myths. From whence cometh your awe? This awe me:

the ivory performing rose

of you, worn upon my mind
all night, quitting only in the unkind

dawn its muscle amorous

pricks with minute odour these gross
days
when i think of you and do not live:
and the empty twilight cannot grieve
nor the autumn, as i grieve, faint for your face

O stay with me slightly. or until

with neat obscure obvious hands

Time stuff the sincere stomach of each mill

of the ingenious gods. (i am punished.
THey have stolen into recent lands
the flower
with their enormous fingers unwished.

e e cummings

(Now that's poetry)

[Nohweh]

Originally posted by BDS:

To Nohweh: I'm sorry to hear about your bad experiences with Catholocism. I was raised agnostic, so I never had to deal with a religious upbringing. Maybe that's why I can look at myth and ritual in a relatively detached way, and admire it's beauty while recognizing some of its shortcomings. The truth is elusive, and is sometimes approched more closely through subterfuge and metaphor than through direct attack. However we approach it, we never quite reach it.

I am glad that you you have never known the torment of religious guilt. Not all my experiences with the Church were bad of course. I enjoyed many of the rituals, particularly getting into drag for mass and the beauty of the latin benediction service. If that had not been discarded by the church, I might even attend occasionally, to sing along with the choir and smell the incense.

If the myths were used purely for entertainment it might be possible for me to see them the way that you are able to. Are you detached from the tragedy they help promote? Are you unconvinced that they help perpetuate injustice and increase suffering?

I see myths as lies, and if they are presented to children and the unsophisticated as fact, they are dangerous and destructive lies. In the hands of fanatics and opportunists, they produce evil.

For most of the last fifty years I have viewed most religions as outdated and dying institutions and viewed the worship of gods with mild scorn. Around these parts there seemed to be few people who took much of it seriously. With the advent of the Internet, my awareness of the damage caused by religion has increased. With that, and the seeming rise of fundamentalism in many places around the world, I have come to the realisation that bemused incredulity is not enough to defeat the hydra.

Love the theist, hate the theology.

[AspenMama]

Originally posted by BDS
Well, yes, I might go to a Christian Board and post some poem questioning the faith. Why not?
Because it is doubtful that your method would lead to a fruitful discussion. It is never a good idea to begin by angering people and posting inappropriate material in the wrong forum.
Originally posted by BDS
Grown-ups should surely be able to discuss such things reasonably, and appreciate good poems even if they think they refer to events that never really happened.
If you wanted a simple poetry appreciation session that is something else besides discussing atheists being more open to xian writings/mythology. You could have posted it in the Media/Popular Culture Forum.
Originally posted by BDS
I mean, did Ozymandias actually build that giant statue? If not, is Shelley's poem worthless? Ozymandias was the king named in the tomb, but most likely it referred to Ramesses II. http://interoz.com/egypt/ramscol.htm and yes there was quite a statue.
Originally posted by BDS
How about you, Aspenmamma? Do you refuse to look at El Greco's greatest paintings, because the assension never actually occured?
I'll look at it, and can appreciate good painting as well as the sound of good music. But words are a whole different thing to me. By the way it is AspenMama.
Originally posted by BDS
As far as your accusations of hypocrisy are concerned, you sound like a Born Again Christian, with no imagination or sense of humor.
Hey, now there is no reason to hurl insults here! I think it is indeed hypocritical to revere and celebrate a holiday I don't believe in.
Originally posted by BDS
Are all those who talk about Santa Claus "hypocrites'? Good grief!
No, because this is presented as a story and a myth.
Originally posted by BDS
Your attitude is precisely what I'm trying to understand here. It's so narrowly unsophisticated. Do you really think the Christmas story is "harmful to society"?
Ah, another insult. Yes I think it is harmful. I do not separate the story of Jesus' birth from the xian religion. And I believe xianity has caused a great deal of harm.
Originally posted by BDS
How about King Arthur? Do you hate those stories too? No. I enjoy stories about King Arthur. However, you are comparing apples and oranges here. King Arthur is presented as a myth and a story, not as truth. It has not spawned a religion that requires me to believe in it or suffer in a specific hell for eternity.
Originally posted by BDS
And I imagine you refuse to listen to myths from other cultures too. After all, what could they possibly teach you, in all your atheistic wisdom?
You imagine wrongly. Keeping up with the insults I see. I have never claimed to be wise.
Originally posted by BDS
How can any of us hope to understand the human condition if we don't explore those myths which have influenced so many people wiser than you or I? Myths are the essence of literature. Rejecting them as nonsense is throwing the baby out with the bath water. One might as well reject all of fiction as nonsense.
There is a far difference between exploring and enjoying mythology/fiction and rejecting it. There is a far difference between living religions to which a majority subscribe and say is "the truth" and mythology.
Originally posted by BDS
Refusing to see the beauty in the Christmas story is like closing your eyes when visiting the Louvre. It reminds me of a small child, who puts his fingers in his ears shouts, "I can't hear you, I can't hear you!" over and over again.
Another insult. Say your least favorite flower is the artichoke. Using your logic above, I could say to you that refusing to see the beauty in an artichoke and taste its delicious petals dipped in warm garlic butter is like pasting your mouth shut with glue when a meal lay before you.
Originally posted by BDS
So, in answer to your question, yes, I think that atheists should recognize and acknowledge the mythology on which a holiday is based. Why not? What harm can it do?
We do recognize and acknowledge it. It has been shoved down our throats from day one. That doesn't mean we have to like it.
Originally posted by BDS
One gets into the holiday spirit by (to some extent at least) exercising the same "suspension of disbelief" that one exercises when reading a novel, or seeing a movie.
This is your opinion, certainly not mine.
Originally posted by BDS
What's wrong with reading the Christmas story? When we wonder what the angels looked like, to make the shepherds so afraid, we need not think they were actual angels. It's a question about the story.
Again, nothing is wrong with reading it. But I for one do not enjoy it. I think I'll just ignore your last insult.

[BDS]

Aspenmama:

I don't mean to insult you, AspenMama (sorry for misspelling your name), but to explore the complete rejection of religion that you (and others here) seem to think a good thing.

Here's a story:

The native land of Msiehta was inhabited by a simple people, unfamiliar with modern technology. One day, an explorer arrived in the land. He brought with him a movie projector and some films, and showed them to the natives. At first, the natives thought they were watching real people and real events. They were wholly engrossed by the drama taking place on the screen; indeed, they thought it was a real-life drama.

Then, one day, a bright and curious native explored the situation further. He went up to the screen, and found that the images they had been watching were incorporeal. "These people aren't real!" he cried. "They're just images of light, projected on the screen."

Well! The Msiehta were horrified! "We've been wasting our time! None of this is real! We're never going to watch another movie again!"

Soon, however, some of the Msiehta began to miss the movies on Friday night. While others continued to avoid the movies, because they were "fake", some started going back. There were several ways in which they discussed the films they saw. Some of them like to talk about their impact on society. One lady claimed, "Movies are bad. They show violent acts, and then our young people do violent things."

Others, though, grew to like the films for what they were. They discussed plot, and character development, and camera technique. They even thought about making their own movies.

The End

Here's my question to AspenMama (and anyone else). Which is the sophisticated attitude? We know (of course) that the movies ARE fake, and that the Msietha were naive at first. But it seems to me that when the Msietha stopped watching the movies altogether, they were cutting of their noses to spite their faces. Further, it seems to me that when they thought the only value of movies was their impact on society, they were discussing something mildly interesting, but were missing the essence of the movies, which they found when they turned to more abstract criticism.

Any comments?



p.s. One more thing to AspenMama: mythology is not "fiction: (I know you don't say it is, but you equate the two). It's a different literary form, and more akin to history, not in as much as it is all true (neither is history), but in as much as most pre literate societies do not distinguish between myth and history.

[AspenMama]

Originally posted by BDS
I don't mean to insult you, AspenMama (sorry for misspelling your name), but to explore the complete rejection of religion that you (and others here) seem to think a good thing.

Once again, I will say that I am not advocating a complete rejection of relgion for everyone in the world everywhere. I am saying simply, that I do not enjoy the fiction/mythology of the xian religion, specifically. And partially because it is a living religion/mythology/fiction commonly purpoted to be the truth. It is something, unlike a projector screen I cannot turn off in the society around me. I do not live in a remote jungle society with no outside influences. You wish to encourage folks to take a step back from the daily infiltration into our lives of the xian religion, and to enjoy what you see as the art of it. I've got to go now-- I'll write more later in response to your story---

[Nohweh]

Hi BDS,

I think that you are missing my point, perhaps I have been obscure.

I do not think that myths are inherently harmful. I find Christian mythology boring, probably because I have heard it so often. There are other myths that I find interesting, attractive and entertaining, although I can't think of any that I would revere.

I dont believe that myths themselves can do harm. However, when they are taught as FACTS to unsophisticated people then they become lies. When people base their lives upon them they cause harm. When people murder others because they have been taught that the myths are true, then they become destructive lies. Religion is the enemy. Not the myth.

Your story has no relevence in this context. The natives were NOT told that they had to believe anything under threat of eternal damnation or anything else.

And you imply that I'm not sophisticated because I don't share your taste in fiction!:rolleyes: You may well be correct, but not, IMO, for that reason.

I do not now, nor have I ever questioned your right to enjoy or revere any myth that you takes your fancy, as long as you are not presenting it to anyone as a factual story that they must believe.

Have I presented my case clearly this time?

[BDS]

True, I suppose, Nohweh and Aspen. I disagree about Christianity being boring; I find it fascinating both because of the depth and beauty of the story, and because it is, after all, the heritage of my own culture.

I'm sure there are places in society in which Christianity is judgmental, pervasive, and oppressive. I've certainly never found it so, and I don't think it's generally a problem in modern, educated society.

Then again, Bush and Ashcroft are powerful figures........

[Nohweh]

Well, not exactly BDS.

I said: I find Christian Mythology boring.
You said: I disagree about Christianity being boring.

Do you discern the difference there?

The proof that I don't find Christianity boring lies in the fact that I am here, more than four decades after I left the church, still discussing religion. This fascination might be similar to the interest that I might have in a large crocodile that was running loose in my house. I don't dare take my eyes off it, and I want it destoyed.

Originally posted by BDS:
I'm sure there are places in society in which Christianity is judgmental, pervasive, and oppressive. I've certainly never found it so, and I don't think it's generally a problem in modern, educated society.

Here is just one example from a modern, educated and secular society. Some years ago an Australian Terrory enacted euthansia laws. These were held to be among the most progressive and enlightened in the world. Our Christian Prime Minister decided to overrule these laws, citing the grounds that they could be subject to abuse. In fact the safeguards that were built into these laws to prevent their abuse were more stringent than any of the safeguards that are in place today.In other words, it is easier to murder someone under the existing law, than it would have been under the euthanasia laws. Dying Australians who can afford to do so are forced to travel to Europe to legally and painlessly end their suffering. The poor just have to remain here and die in agony. Mother Theresa would have been well pleased.

I think that your final words above betray a dangerous complacency and an unfortunate degree of faith in the ability of others to look after your best interests.

'Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"...Wendell Phillips

[sbaii]

I find the assault that the religious right has made on the public schools in the U.S. very troubling. They want to divert tax dollars to schools that are primarily religious institutions. They equate
the nonscience creationism with evolution, the foundation of most of the biological sciences today. They are rewriting history as well, so the yonger generations in private and homeschooled situations are being taught lies like the U.S. is a "christian" nation. This is all very much of a plan to turn the U.S. into a theocracy. There are people in our government right now working to undermine basic tenets of our democracy like the separation of church and state. The religious right is dangerous to our democracy.

[BDS]

Originally posted by Nohweh

I think that your final words above betray a dangerous complacency and an unfortunate degree of faith in the ability of others to look after your best interests.


No doubt I am complacent about the possibility that dangerous Christian fanatics will usurp secular authority and force me to do things I don't want to do. Despite some slight "born again" revivals here in the U.S., the trend throughout Western Civilization is toward secularism in politcs and atheism and agnosticism in philosophy. Any small blip in the opposite direction need concern us only temporarily.

Here in Oregon we have legalized euthanasia. However, agnostic I voted against it (t was a ballot initiative) precisely because I thought it was open to abuse, and made euthanasia seem like another "health care option", which it isn't.

In any event, Christian mythology is stunningly beautiful, and your objections to Christian interference in politics are misguided because 1) they remind me of the film critics in my story who only wanted to discuss the impact of films on society, and 2) the idea that Christians should somehow be forbidden from influencing political decisions is anti-democratic.

[Nohweh]

So, you think it is fine that the the majority should force its myth-based morality on the minority in the name of democracy?

We should be subject to some laws that are there only to protect the feelings of an imaginary God and to hell with the needs or wishes of the individual.

Have I got that right?

[Nohweh]

If you find stories of child killing and cannibalism, rape, war and revenge, 'stunningly beautiful', you are quite entitled to do so. I don't find them beautiful but I am not even mildly surprised that others might. I can think of no good reason why you shouldn't enjoy them and I certainly don't condemn you for it. I simply don't share your taste in myths.

Originally posted by BDS
they remind me of the film critics in my story who only wanted to discuss the impact of films on society,

Where is the parallel between that story and the impact of the Christian myths on society? Nobody was being forced to watch the fim. Nobody was forced to believe that is was true. Nobody was being forced to live their lives based on anything in the film. Discussing only the social impact of a work of art/fiction that was presented as fiction, does seem narrow-minded. The Bible stories are not presented as fiction, we are expected to believe in them and we are required to maintain the ethical and moral rules contained in them. Can you honestly not see that there is a difference here?

Fundamentalism is certainly only a small blip in many countries, but it is more than that in the US. If the world's only super power were to slip further down the slope to theocracy, and that seems to be where you are heading at the moment, then all the world should be very afraid. We are all relying on you guys to keep a close eye on your government, because you are the only ones who have the power to change anything there. Am I being alarmist?

[AspenMama]

I can only echo Noweh's post above. I couldn't state it better myself.

[BDS]

"Myth-based morality" is, after all, the only morality we humans have known, until very recently. To reject it as a 'tyranny of the majority", simply because it is "myth based" is, I think, a logical error. (Of course we need to protect ourselves against tyrannies of the majority, but I don't think such tyrannies are any more likely to be wicked if they are Christian; in fact, they are probably less likely to be wicked.)

In formal theory, if one of the axioms on which a conclusion is logically based is proven to be wrong, it would be a logical error to infer that the conclusion is necessarily wrong.

Further, I think those who think they can personally invent a better moral system than that based on the traditional wisdom of the ages (whether religious or secular) are gulity of hubris.

As far as the artistic merit of the myths, well, yes, I like stories about cannibalism, child killing, rape, war, and revenge. One need only look at the best seller lists and the Hollywood productions to see that I am not alone. Not only the Bible, but also Greek Mythology, Norse Mythology, and best seller after best seller have stories based on these themes, because they are themes that resonate in the human psyche.

As far as U.S. politics is concerned, I think there are more politically dangerous belief systems than Christianity. While Fundamentalist Christians do try to limit abortion and euthenasia (horrors!), they have (in recent centuries, at least) avoided some of the excesses of the atheist communists, whose stated goal was political domination of the world. If Bush wants to dominate the world, we can't blame Christianity.

[Mediancat]

This seems to have become a serious discussion on general religious issues.

Accordingly --

Rob aka Mediancat

[AspenMama]

Originally posted by BDS
"Myth-based morality" is, after all, the only morality we humans have known, until very recently.
Are you certain about this? When you say "we humans", are you speaking of humans from the time of the Neanderthals to today, and including every human around the world? That's a pretty broad brush.
Originally posted by BDS
To reject it as a 'tyranny of the majority", simply because it is "myth based" is, I think, a logical error. (Of course we need to protect ourselves against tyrannies of the majority, but I don't think such tyrannies are any more likely to be wicked if they are Christian; in fact, they are probably less likely to be wicked.)
Less wicked? Off the top of my head I can think of several very wicked Christian tyrannies. There was the Salem witch burnings--
Originally posted by BDS
Further, I think those who think they can personally invent a better moral system than that based on the traditional wisdom of the ages (whether religious or secular) are gulity of hubris.
Well no one has offered here to personally invent a better moral system. At the same time, I don't believe that because something has a tradition, that it is wise and cannot be improved. I think our morals are much better today than they were a 100 years ago. Morals are in constant flux dependent on the real needs of society to live peacefully. Are you suggesting that no one should strive to improve our moral system, but rather rely on "traditional wisdom"?
Originally posted by BDS
As far as the artistic merit of the myths, well, yes, I like stories about cannibalism, child killing, rape, war, and revenge. One need only look at the best seller lists and the Hollywood productions to see that I am not alone. Not only the Bible, but also Greek Mythology, Norse Mythology, and best seller after best seller have stories based on these themes, because they are themes that resonate in the human psyche.
Okay fine. But these are presented as myths. The xian Bible is not.
Originally posted by BDS
As far as U.S. politics is concerned, I think there are more politically dangerous belief systems than Christianity. While Fundamentalist Christians do try to limit abortion and euthenasia (horrors!), they have (in recent centuries, at least) avoided some of the excesses of the atheist communists, whose stated goal was political domination of the world. If Bush wants to dominate the world, we can't blame Christianity.
So, you equate the communist leadership with atheism and world domination, yet you say we can't we blame Christianity if Bush wants to dominate the world, even though he claims we are a Christian nation? How are the two different? Atrocities in communist countries were not committed in the name of atheism, they were done in the name of politics and econmics.

[Invisible Insanity]

Originally posted by BDS
"Myth-based morality" is, after all, the only morality we humans have known, until very recently. To reject it as a 'tyranny of the majority", simply because it is "myth based" is, I think, a logical error. (Of course we need to protect ourselves against tyrannies of the majority, but I don't think such tyrannies are any more likely to be wicked if they are Christian; in fact, they are probably less likely to be wicked.)

I would disagree with your last statement. Christianity has been a force of environmental, social and political harm the world has ever seen. All theocracies that have ever been formed in the name of Christianity have been extremely detrimental on so many levels. For example, the concept of "divine right of kings," special treatment of clergy, the crusades, the religious wars of Europe, the destruction of native peoples in the Americas, and the massive devastation of rainforests all in the spirit of "subduing" the earth and being "fruitful and multiplying" beyond the carrying capacity of the earth, all of these, done in the name of the Christian God.

In formal theory, if one of the axioms on which a conclusion is logically based is proven to be wrong, it would be a logical error to infer that the conclusion is necessarily wrong.

Yes, but in that formal theory the argument is now invalid since said axiom is not true. The conclusion therefore has unknown veracity until a valid argument comes along or a counter-example is shown. Also, by definition axioms tend to be of a self-evident nature and are rarely false (I can only think of one off the top of my head example in Set Theory when an axiom had to be changed). So the above is better read as proposition instead of an axiom.

Further, I think those who think they can personally invent a better moral system than that based on the traditional wisdom of the ages (whether religious or secular) are gulity of hubris.


Can you prove to anyone here that any of the moral codes from various mythologies, which contradict each other by the way, are the best moral systems in existence or that will ever exist? Also, as far as I can tell the endeavor known as ethics is just that; an attempt to make a better moral code. Do you disagree with current ethics?


As far as the artistic merit of the myths, well, yes, I like stories about cannibalism, child killing, rape, war, and revenge. One need only look at the best seller lists and the Hollywood productions to see that I am not alone. Not only the Bible, but also Greek Mythology, Norse Mythology, and best seller after best seller have stories based on these themes, because they are themes that resonate in the human psyche.


True, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all people will/should like it simply because a majority does. I am a big fan of Norse Mythology. For the sake of argument lets say that the majority of the people enjoy Norse myths, does this mean that all should enjoy it and therefore it is ok for me to go to a Christian forum and tell them that Easter is really a Norse/Saxon God, which it is by the way (Eastre or Ostara), and that they should all enjoy the story of why Spring exists.


As far as U.S. politics is concerned, I think there are more politically dangerous belief systems than Christianity. While Fundamentalist Christians do try to limit abortion and euthenasia (horrors!), they have (in recent centuries, at least) avoided some of the excesses of the atheist communists, whose stated goal was political domination of the world. If Bush wants to dominate the world, we can't blame Christianity.

Unlike you, I see an unwanted child (the subsequent treatment of) or a terminally ill patient in pain as a horror. I think you will find that most if not all atheists in this forum are not "evil" or "communist" and do not have any predilection for world domination and simply would prefer to be left alone (in the religious sense) Many people here are very well educated and firmly believe in democracy. Many espouse the idea of majority rule and minority rights which you seem to disregard completely. Bush does not have the right to dominate the world because of communism. Your history of the world seems very sketchy at best. Christianity has been vying for power since its inception and will do so in whatever manner possible. Whether it is through deceit (reference to Paul; Romans 3:7), forced conversions (for example, missionaries in various countries withhold food and use coercive tactics to gain converts), killing and war (crusades and such, see above). You may simply see a little child in a manger, but many of us see a symbol of intolerance that has wreaked more havoc on this earth than any other myth-based force ever.

"The great unmentionable evil at the centre of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved-Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These are sky-god religions. They are patriarchal-God is the omnipotent father-hence the loathing of women for 2,000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his male delegates. The sky-god is jealous. He requires total obedience. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed. Totalitarianism is the only politics that can serve the sky-god's purpose. Any movement of a liberal nature endangers his authority. One God, one King, one Pope, one master in the factory, one father-leader in the family"
-Gore Vidal

[BDS]

You're nit-pickng, AspenMama.

Since, as far as we know, most homo sapiens (including neanderthals) did not differentiate between secular and religious morality or laws until very recently, my point stands. It is only in the recent past that we have so differentiated.

Also, no witches were burned in Salem; one was crushed, the rest were hanged. Also, the Salem witch trials were in 1690 (I think), which puts them outside my caveat of "recent centuries".
My point about the communists is simply this: in the past century religion did not create the great dangers to freedom in the West. The same cannot be said, of course, about the Middle East. Our greatest danger in the recent past has come from secular philosophies, like nazism and communism. It doesn't really matter if theses philosophies are specifically atheistic (as communisim is). The fact that they are secular is sufficient to make my point.

Everyone (of course) thinks his morals are superior to those of others, whether in the past or present. If he didn't, he would change his morals. The nazis thought their morals superior; so did the communists. My point is that, although we can agree that witch killing is evil (have you ever read H.R. Trevor-Roper's short book on the European witch craze of the 16th adn 17th centuries, in which he claims that close to half a million people were executed?), the modern heretics are not witches -- they are "enemies of the state". By the way -- of course we can blame Christianity for the witch hunts -- they were specifically and directly motivated by Christian theology, just as the communist gulags were specifically motivated by communist philosophy. Opposing abortion is, for Catholics at least, also specifically motivated by obedience to the Church (if not theology), but we (surely) cannot claim that it is definitively evil.

The Communists and the nazis believed that their new, statist philosophy was not only a moral development, but a moral imperative. And their beliefs led to murder and war, just as some (not all) Christian beliefs did in the past.

To Invisible:

Oh, come on, Invisible. First, axioms are determined by their position in a formal theory, not by whether we can assme them to be true. Some axioms need to be proved, some don't. A theorem in one theory can certainly be an axiom in another.

Second, I doubt very much that Christainity has been "a force for evil". Compared to what? Compared to non-Christian religions? Were the non-Christian Aztecs humane and peace loving? They (along with the rest of the native Americans) were destroyed by Christians, not by Chtristianity. To blame Christianity for the genocide of native Americans is akin to blaming atheism for Communist gulags. The Conquistadors were Christians (of a sort); Stalin and Mao atheists (of a sort), but that doesn't mean that either Christianity or Atheism can be blamed for the slaughter.

As far as the aesthetic of which myths are good art -- to each his own. I don't care if Nohweh or anyone else dislikes the Christian myth. But Nohweh's stated reasons for disliking the myth were silly; it was obvious that he disliked the vilent nature of the myth, and I assumed that he disapproved of the sociological impact of such violent stories. Fine. But lousy art criticism. He might as well say that he hates War and Peace, because it's all about violence, war, and death.

As far as the abortion issue, I happen to be on your side on this one, Invisible. I vote for abortion rights every time. My point is that people who oppose such rights have every right to do so. If they say that God opposes abortion, because each human soul contains a divine spark, we atheists can see that as being merely metaphorical. When we do, we may still disagree (as I do), but we need not think that this point of view is irrational, nor need we despise it.

We human beings are nasty and brutish creatures, Invisible. We are prone to sexism (look at the Yanamomo, if you think Christians and Jews are bad) and any number of other evils. Western Christian civilization is not morally inferior (nor superior) to other civilizations. The Aztecs, the Babylonians, the ancient Chinese et. al. were also murderous, oppressive, and, occasionally, unkind. Indeed Christianity is surely a kindly faith (compared, for example, to it's Jewish ancestor), although, no doubt, many evils have been committed in its name.

[sbaii]

Someone help me here. There was a psychologist, I think, who constructed a hierarchy of moral thinking about 30 years ago. The most infantile moral thinking was the sort that operated purely out of fear of punishment. That is the essence of most christians' christianity today. They want heaven for themselves and they fear hell. And because of this fear, they don't want to think or learn anything that might jeopardize their chance for heaven. The only chink in their thought pattern may come from a family member who is discovered to be gay.
I hope I am just being pessimistic but I see a real desire in the masses of the U.S. population to not know anything about science or the rest of the world. And Bush and company are doing what they can to destroy the public school system and small children's minds by having the schools teach nothing but how to pass a multiple guess test.
BDS: you say you voted against the right to die bill. How do you feel about it since it has been in operation? Can you understand a person's desire to not want to have his life protracted when all there will be is suffering and medical coma and large hospital bills for his family? Surveys show that having control over your last days can actually allow a person to live longer because there is less stress.

[BDS]

to sbaii:

First, I think that simplistic, reductionist, psychological "explanations' of religion are doomed to be, well, simplistic. I'm sure some Christians obey God out of fear, some for other reasons. I'd hate to presume to speak for intelligent, educated Christian apologists on this issue, but I have every confidence in their ability to argue this point.

I have no real objection to the Right To Die bill. I voted against it for several reasons:

1) I thought it forced doctors to violate their Hypocratic oaths. I would have been more likely to support it if some other group of health professionals (pharmacists? Hooded executioners?) had been involved.

2) I thought the segment in the law about assisted suicide being available only to those who had (I forget the exact wording) a month or two to live was silly. Either assisted suicide is OK, or it isn't. Doctors are not seers, and nobody can see the future.

3) I thought the involvement of doctors made assisted suicide seem like just another health care option. "Let's see, mom, you can continue to spend our inheritance at the rate of $10k per week, or you can let the kind doctor give you this little pill....." I feared that kind of abuse. I would probably have supported the measure (despite my other objections) if we had some sort of socialized medicine or National Health Insurance, so the specter of suicide being an economic decision would be eliminated.

Despite these objections, my vote was a close call.

[Invisible Insanity]

Originally posted by BDS

To Invisible:

Oh, come on, Invisible. First, axioms are determined by their position in a formal theory, not by whether we can assme them to be true. Some axioms need to be proved, some don't. A theorem in one theory can certainly be an axiom in another.

An axiom is a self-evident truth. I'm not disagreeing with you to be a dick. The reason an axiom is an axiom and not a theorem is because no formal proof exists for them. Axioms are assumed to be true. Have a look at this link which is a pdf File (http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/D7C42878-108E-4C45-902A-61783145EC0A/0/ln1.pdf).

Second, I doubt very much that Christainity has been "a force for evil". Compared to what? Compared to non-Christian religions? Were the non-Christian Aztecs humane and peace loving? They (along with the rest of the native Americans) were destroyed by Christians, not by Chtristianity. To blame Christianity for the genocide of native Americans is akin to blaming atheism for Communist gulags. The Conquistadors were Christians (of a sort); Stalin and Mao atheists (of a sort), but that doesn't mean that either Christianity or Atheism can be blamed for the slaughter.


Compared to any other religion, Christianity has out-slaughtered by orders of magnitude. What you fail to see in the slaughter of native Americans is that it was done in the name of Christianity. Similarly in the case of the Aztecs, those who were sacrificed were done so in the name of their god(s). That isn't the case with communism. To deny that the Crusades were religious wars, the Protestant/Catholic wars in Europe or that the Salem witch trials were simply acts of Christians and not of Christianity is missing the point completely. I would agree with your comparison if Communists killed people because of their theism. The point of the examples I gave in my previous post was that a group of people acted according to their beliefs. Christians did believe they were superior to "savages" and therefore it was imperative to Christianize them.


As far as the aesthetic of which myths are good art -- to each his own. I don't care if Nohweh or anyone else dislikes the Christian myth. But Nohweh's stated reasons for disliking the myth were silly; it was obvious that he disliked the vilent nature of the myth, and I assumed that he disapproved of the sociological impact of such violent stories. Fine. But lousy art criticism. He might as well say that he hates War and Peace, because it's all about violence, war, and death.


If he particularly dislikes War and Peace and this was an anti-Tolstoy forum, what would you expect. You came to this forum preaching Christmas to people who don't particularly care for it and you seemed shocked by it. Sorry, but I don't understand you.



As far as the abortion issue, I happen to be on your side on this one, Invisible. I vote for abortion rights every time. My point is that people who oppose such rights have every right to do so. If they say that God opposes abortion, because each human soul contains a divine spark, we atheists can see that as being merely metaphorical. When we do, we may still disagree (as I do), but we need not think that this point of view is irrational, nor need we despise it.


That's good. You can disagree with me. That's why we have these forums. What I find strange is that you seem to be critical of Nohweh's reasons for not caring for Christian myths. His reasons are simply more personal in nature that’s all


We human beings are nasty and brutish creatures, Invisible. We are prone to sexism (look at the Yanamomo, if you think Christians and Jews are bad) and any number of other evils. Western Christian civilization is not morally inferior (nor superior) to other civilizations. The Aztecs, the Babylonians, the ancient Chinese et. al. were also murderous, oppressive, and, occasionally, unkind. Indeed Christianity is surely a kindly faith (compared, for example, to it's Jewish ancestor), although, no doubt, many evils have been committed in its name.

We are a patriarchically organized species, which explains the sexism. Humanity is not perfect and I doubt it will ever be. If I were to pick a civilization I would pick the Minoans. They seemed to be the most advanced technologically at the time, but socially they seemed to be more advanced than us today. So humanity can learn; not all civilizations were violent. Thanks to science and humanism mankind is becoming kinder. Unlike you though, I think those Christians who are good and decent are that way despite their faith not because of it.

Al

[Nohweh]

Originally posted by BDS:

Further, I think those who think they can personally invent a better moral system than that based on the traditional wisdom of the ages (whether religious or secular) are gulity of hubris.

I thought we were discussing Christian ethics and here we are now with the 'wisdom of the ages'. Whatever.

I don't just think that I could formulate a better moral system than the Christian system, I am quite certain of it. You can call that arrogant if you wish, but Christian morality has proven to be so deficient in so many areas that I am convinced that almost any adult could come up with a better code of ethics. Where, in the Ten Commandments or even elsewhere in the Bible are child sexual abuse and rape forbidden? Where will I find condemnation of slavery? Where are we taught to respect and revere human life, let alone any other living creature? Judging by the number of times that the Christian God commands that children be eaten or dashed against rocks or that pregnant women be slit open, I would have to conclude that he didn't think that women or children were all that important. And it seems that any non-believer is fair game for slavery. What have the churches done about child sexual abuse and rape perpetrated by their own ministers and priests? It has been covered up for centuries and the offenders shielded from publicity.
Oh yes, Christian morality is great. No wonder that the world is in such a mess after two millenia of it. Let's scrap the 'wisdom of the ages' and try to do what is in the best interest of humanity in the 21st century, it may not be a simple thing to accomplish, but I am convinced that men of goodwill everywhere can do a better job than any religious code has managed to do so far.


Originally posted by Invisible Insanity:

I think those Christians who are good and decent are that way despite their faith not because of it.

Precisely.

[Nohweh]

Originally posted by BDS

......But Nohweh's stated reasons for disliking the myth were silly; it was obvious that he disliked the vilent nature of the myth, and I assumed that he disapproved of the sociological impact of such violent stories. Fine. But lousy art criticism.....
The Bible is also repetitious, lacking in humour and badly written. The author(s) display little aptitude for good characterisation, while the prose is stilted and clumsy :p

Would you want your children taught that the murders in the Rue Morgue were committed at the command of a benevolent, loving god, or that the Texas Chainsaw Massacre should be the basis for morality?

Originally posted by BDS

We human beings are nasty and brutish creatures..

So we are constantly reminded. There is certainly much evidence to suggest that this is true, but there is also a great deal of evidence to the contrary. If the brutes among us don't destroy us all first, then we stand a good chance of our species reaching a wise and benign maturity.
It sounds like you are beginning to believe the myths.

[BDS]

To Invisible: While it is true that in general speech the word "axiom" means 'a self evident truth", in formal theory an "axiom" is a statement by which theorem's are derived.

If A then B -- axiom
If B then C -- axiom

If A then C -- theorem.

The whole thing is a "theory". Obviously, something as abstract as "If A, then B' cannot be "self-evident". The statement is an axiom because of its function within the theory. (That's how I was using the word, anyway.)

And good grieg, Invisible, are you going to blame Jesus for the slaughter of native Americans? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think. As I said before, Christianity, if not Jesus Himself, is surely to blame for killing the witches (Salem was a mere drop in the bucket, when it came to witch killing), but I don't think we can blame most Indian wars (the native Americans were actually killed mainly by disease) on Christianity per se, any more than we can blame Communist gulags on atheism per se. Both Christianity and Atheism were involved, but not in any direct, causal manner. To insist otherwise is a long stretch.

I don't want to post Biblical tracts -- but read the Sermon on the Mount, the essence of Christianity. I don't see a big call to rape, pillage, and burn, do you?

And I'm hardly "shocked" that people reacted to my Christmas poetry post as they did. I knew they would, and like the warhorse in Job (have you read that part, it's great) "smelleth the battle from afar, and crieth "Ha Ha!"."

And, Nohweh, you are certainly entitled to your taste in literature. {Insult deleted}. I will point out, though, that Tolstoy thought the story of Joseph and his brothers was the ulitmate in prose perfection, as per his long essay "On Art". (Of course he also thought that Shakespeare and Beethoven were shlockmeisters, so maybe we can't trust him.)

And for all those who cite the wrathful Old Testament God as an example of how wicked Christianity is, I should point out that Christians talk about something called "A New Covenant" between man and God. As I said before, I''ll leave Chrsitian apologetics to the Christians, but I can assure you that your characterization is so inaccurate in describing intelligent, modern Christians that it need not even be answered. I seem to remember (correct me if I'm wrong) that Slavery was pretty common among Pagans, too, 2000 years ago.

I agree, Nohweh, that we should try to do what's in the best interest of humanity. Unlike you (and unlike the Fundamenatlist Christians), I'm just not quite certain what that is exactly. Based on your naive attacks on Christianity (naive because they fail to describe any intelligent Christian position), I'm not confident that you know exactly what that is, either. Maybe we should at least listen to those who are both wiser and smarter than we are, before we decide. Refusing to read and listen is (I suggest) the road not to wisdom, but to folly.

[AspenMama]

Originally posted by BDS
Our greatest danger in the recent past has come from secular philosophies, like nazism and communism. It doesn't really matter if theses philosophies are specifically atheistic (as communisim is). The fact that they are secular is sufficient to make my point.

The nazis thought their morals superior; so did the communists.

The Communists and the nazis believed that their new, statist philosophy was not only a moral development, but a moral imperative. And their beliefs led to murder and war, just as some (not all) Christian beliefs did in the past.

Hmm, you seem to be all over the place with these points. You state on the one hand that the Nazis and Communists were secular political states and committed worse atrocities than other countries led by Christian beliefs. On the other hand, you say you cannot blame atheism or Christianity as a whole for large scale atrocities. Which one is your correct viewpoint?

I'd like to state again that Nazis were not atheistic. The following website provides a researched and referenced article:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html
A growing body of scholarly research, some based on careful analysis of Nazi records, is clarifying this complex history.2 It reveals a convoluted pattern of religious and moral failure in which atheism and the nonreligious played little role, except as victims of the Nazis and their allies. In contrast, Christianity had the capacity to stop Nazism before it came to power, and to reduce or moderate its practices afterwards, but repeatedly failed to do so because the principal churches were complicit with—indeed, in the pay of—the Nazis.
and
Early Christian sects promoted loyalty to authoritarian rulers so long they were not intolerably anti-Christian or, worse, atheistic. Christian anti-Semitism sprang from one of the church’s first efforts to forge an accommodation with power.

Reinterpreting the Gospels to shift blame for the Crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews (the “Christ killer” story) courted favor with Rome, an early example of Christian complicity for political purposes. Added energy came from Christians’ anger over most Jews’ refusal to convert.

Christian anti-Semitism was only intermittently violent, but when violence occurred it was devastating. The first outright extermination of Jews occurred in 414 c.e. It would have innumerable successors, the worst nearly genocidal in scope. At standard rates of population growth, Diaspora Jewry should now number in the hundreds of millions. That there are only an estimated 13 million Jews in the world is largely the result of Christian violence and forced conversion.
Without the support of a god, specifically a Christian God, and without the Chritian Bible to back them up, the Nazis would not have had the influence they did-- there would have been little support to mass murder Jews. Have I convinced you yet that Nazis were not atheists, and instead were influenced negatively by religion?

[AspenMama]

Originally posted by BDS
And I'm hardly "shocked" that people reacted to my Christmas poetry post as they did. I knew they would, and like the warhorse in Job (have you read that part, it's great) "smelleth the battle from afar, and crieth "Ha Ha!"."
Again, baiting is highly discouraged here.
Originally posted by BDS
I agree, Nohweh, that we should try to do what's in the best interest of humanity. Unlike you (and unlike the Fundamenatlist Christians), I'm just not quite certain what that is exactly. Based on your naive attacks on Christianity (naive because they fail to describe any intelligent Christian position), I'm not confident that you know exactly what that is, either. Maybe we should at least listen to those who are both wiser and smarter than we are, before we decide. Refusing to read and listen is (I suggest) the road not to wisdom, but to folly.
Also, flaming is discouraged here. Just because someone does not agree with your viewpoint, certainly does not mean they are not well-read. Please stick to attacking the argument.

[BDS]

No, AspenMama, an article from the secular humanist web site persuades me of nothing (in fact, I didn't even bother to read it). I object to the "Secular Humanists" (some sort of cult?) because they have co-opted the word "humanist", which originally referred to Greek and Latin scholars, most of whom (like More and Erasmus) were religious. My point is that regardless of whether Nazis were Christian, they, like the overtly atheistic Communists, glorified the state as some sort of ultimate good. This philosophy is, if not atheistic, at least secular and anti-religious (religious people would never glorify the state as the ultimate good).

So I don't really care if the Nazis were religious or not.

As far as the supposed baiting and flaming -- it's all meant in good fun as friendly jousting, as I hope Nohweh will agree. When I suggested that Nohweh's characterization of Christianity was "naive", I WAS attacking his argument. I did not mean to imply that Nohweh is not well read, but was referring to his stated aversion to reading the Bible (he doesn't like it, so I assume he doesn't read it or Christian theology very often, an assumption supported by his mischaracterizations of the modern Christian position).

[Postcard73]

Originally posted by BDS
Refusing to read and listen is (I suggest) the road not to wisdom, but to folly.
Originally posted by BDS
an article from the secular humanist web site persuades me of nothing (in fact, I didn't even bother to read it). BDS, as I was going through your posts, I noticed this apparent contradiction. I agree with your first comment, and I would thus encourage you to go back and read the article AspenMama referred to...

[sbaii]

Your arguments against assisted suicide are the usual ones although I don't quite understand your criticism of assisted suicide only for those who have been told by their doctors that they only have a few months to live. Obviously, the fashioners of the law didn't want it used frivolously. It is a regulated use of a lethal dose of prescription drugs by patients who don't want their deaths protracted by medical science. And it does give those patients added months even years of life without the fears of what their last months of life will be.

As for the Christian story: It says that Jesus came to save all people from hell because we were all born in sin following the fall of Adam. Now very few people really believe that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true. And yet they still baptize their infants to wash away the "original sin." Male circumcision is still practiced in modern countries even though the risk of infection is very low. I think the belief that a newborn is sinful justifies terrible treatment of children. And the idea of worshipping a god that demands the blood sacifice of "his" "son" is not far removed from the worshippers of Baal . It all smacks of ancient superstition that doesn't belong in the twenty-first century.

[BDS]

To Postcard: Have you ever read "In Praise of Folly" by Desiderus Erasmus, an early humanist and a monk? Also, one can't read everything. As I pointed out, I don't much care if the nazis were atheists or not, and (as I explained) it's irrelevent to my point.

These death drugs aren't dramatic enough for my tastes, sbaii. I think all hospitals should be supplied with guillotines, and terminally ill patients should be allowed to behead themselves whenever they want.

[Nohweh]

Originally posted by BDS
but I can assure you that your characterization is so inaccurate in describing intelligent, modern Christians that it need not even be answered.

YEEHAAAAAA!!! Another strawman bites the dust. Good work BDS! You are correct, my characterisation does not describe intelligent, modern Christians. However it does describe Fundamentalist Christians and their influence is growing, particularly in the US. It would be foolish in the extreme to discount their influence in world affairs, just as it would be foolish to discount the influence of the Vatican, which is anything but liberal.

Originally posted by BDS
I seem to remember (correct me if I'm wrong) that Slavery was pretty common among Pagans, too, 2000 years ago.

Right again! Nowhere did I claim that slavery was a purely Christian enterprise.The point I made in passing was that the Bible does not anywhere condemn slavery.

Originally posted by BDS
I agree, Nohweh, that we should try to do what's in the best interest of humanity. Unlike you (and unlike the Fundamenatlist Christians), I'm just not quite certain what that is exactly. Based on your naive attacks on Christianity (naive because they fail to describe any intelligent Christian position), I'm not confident that you know exactly what that is, either. Maybe we should at least listen to those who are both wiser and smarter than we are, before we decide. Refusing to read and listen is (I suggest) the road not to wisdom, but to folly.

It might surprise you to learn BDS that I didn't leap out of bed one morning believing that I had the solution to all the world's problems. And yes, I am content that those who are wiser and smarter than I, should solve those problems. But I believe that we should all keep a very close eye on where these 'wiser and smarter' people are leading us. I am also arrogant enough to be certain that the answers will not be found in Bronze Age mythology.

[BDS]

Originally posted by Nohweh

I am also arrogant enough to be certain that the answers will not be found in Bronze Age mythology.

Why not? The Bronze age mythology has been a foundation of Western Ethics for millenia now. Maybe there's something to it, if only metaphorically and symbolically.

It's certrainly one place to look, in any event.

[Nohweh]

Originally posted by BDS.
Why not? The Bronze age mythology has been a foundation of Western Ethics for millenia now. Maybe there's something to it, if only metaphorically and symbolically.

It's certrainly one place to look, in any event.

Fine. If you would like to start another thread to dissect each and every Biblical command, I am sure that you will find many people here only too happy to discuss them with you one by one.

[Invisible Insanity]

Originally posted by BDS
To Invisible: While it is true that in general speech the word "axiom" means 'a self evident truth", in formal theory an "axiom" is a statement by which theorem's are derived.

If A then B -- axiom
If B then C -- axiom

If A then C -- theorem.

The whole thing is a "theory". Obviously, something as abstract as "If A, then B' cannot be "self-evident". The statement is an axiom because of its function within the theory. (That's how I was using the word, anyway.)

An implication is usually evaluated and is an operation similar to addition or subtraction in arithmetic. In your scenario above A, B, C are assumed true. Note (A->B is not an axiom in Set Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_set_theory), Boolean Algebra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra), Arithmetic (http://www.math.psu.edu/simpson/papers/philmath/node16.html), Predicate logic (http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~klement/513/pred-calculus.pdf) or in any branch of mathematics or philosophy that I know of. Which theory are you referring to?
Note that MathWorld (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Axiom.html) also regards axioms as self evident.

And good grieg, Invisible, are you going to blame Jesus for the slaughter of native Americans? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think. As I said before, Christianity, if not Jesus Himself, is surely to blame for killing the witches (Salem was a mere drop in the bucket, when it came to witch killing), but I don't think we can blame most Indian wars (the native Americans were actually killed mainly by disease) on Christianity per se, any more than we can blame Communist gulags on atheism per se. Both Christianity and Atheism were involved, but not in any direct, causal manner. To insist otherwise is a long stretch.


You seem to not realize when one is motivated by beliefs and when one isn't. Communists happen to be atheists as well. When they have committed atrocities it was in the name of said idealogy not in the name of atheism. I don't know if you know this, but atheism isn't a philosophy, but a position on the God issue. There is no atheist manifesto that I know of. The Christianization of the Native Americans was done in the name of Religion. Many Christians believed it was their duty to convert many by force due to their interpretation of the bible. Just as the Gulags were an inspiration of communism so was the systematic eradication of Native Americans the work of Christianity. To say all of it(Killing of Native Americans) was religiously motivated is to paint with a broad brush (many were greedy/bloodthirsty etc...), but to deny the religious underpinnings behind the Christianization of Native Americans is also a stretch. It was because of a belief.


I don't want to post Biblical tracts -- but read the Sermon on the Mount, the essence of Christianity. I don't see a big call to rape, pillage, and burn, do you?


I don't think the sermon on the mount is particularly violent, but I do see some urging on the part of Jesus to be complacent of one's role in life.

And I'm hardly "shocked" that people reacted to my Christmas poetry post as they did. I knew they would, and like the warhorse in Job (have you read that part, it's great) "smelleth the battle from afar, and crieth "Ha Ha!"."

So you were simply trying to piss people off? I didn't particularly care for it, but I can't say I was offended by it. I can understand why many on this board would though. Take this scenario: Nowadays people aren't offended much by Norse Mythology, but let us say that a group of people are constantly invaded by Vikings. Do you think those people would appreciate the interpretation of the seasons changing as per Norse myth, despite its beauty?


And for all those who cite the wrathful Old Testament God as an example of how wicked Christianity is, I should point out that Christians talk about something called "A New Covenant" between man and God. As I said before, I''ll leave Chrsitian apologetics to the Christians, but I can assure you that your characterization is so inaccurate in describing intelligent, modern Christians that it need not even be answered. I seem to remember (correct me if I'm wrong) that Slavery was pretty common among Pagans, too, 2000 years ago.


I think slavery is wrong period regardless of who does it. I think most athiests are ok with liberal Christians. It is the fundamentalist Christians who are constantly working to push creationism into schools, force 10C monuments on state grounds, go around knocking on my door to tell me about Jesus and the idiots who hand out religious tracts in Atlantic City while I try out my luck out at the slots.
Just to let you know, the New Covenant is an invention by Christians in order to down play Yahweh's tantrums. It's a convenient copout.

Have A Great New Year Everyone.

Al

edited my spelling errors

[BDS]

Happy new year to you, too Invisible.

I recognize that there are several meanings to 'axiom'.

Communisim is essentially atheistic because it emphasizes that the good of the state is the ultimate good, a principle that directly led to the slaughter of millions, and that is directly opposed to Religious principles. I specifically said we cannot blame atheism per se for these slaughters, but it played a role, just as we cannot blame Christianity per se for most of the slaughter of native Americans (there are obvious exceptions).

Calling the new Covenant "a convenient copout" is equivalent to saying that we can ignore Christian theology in order to blame Christians for the worst excesses of the Old Testament God. OK, God was sort of a jerk. What else is new?

The interesting thing is not that He was a jerk (so were Zeus and Thor), but how his behavior is explained in a coherent theology. It's not as if Christians have failed to address these issues. Why argue the issues as though they had never been addressed by intelligent Christians?

[trendkill]

I think Nohweh's personal experiences say all that needs to be said about Christianity. Christianity is not a dead myth of the past that we can be expected to stand back and appreciate for its aesthetic worth. Furthermore, it is not a benign or empowering myth--it is a myth of pyschological dysfunction, human debasement, and authoritarianism. Christianity may or may not be specifically guilty of killing people in political struggles, but it is for damn sure guilty of murdering the human spirit, and it is going about that sordid business as we speak.

I mean, I can (sometimes) step back and be intellectually fascinated by the self-destruction exhibited by Christianity's followers/creators. However, as long as that destruction is still being imposed on helpless children, we really have no right or reason to expect anyone to give it the time of day.