|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 30, 2011 19:20:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by indianchap1234deep on Jul 1, 2011 3:45:27 GMT
humphreyclarke, Baerista:
The general lack of urbanity in your discourse is only to be expected. After all, nothing is more characteristic of the devotees or advocates of monotheism than short tempers.
It was the sheer pervasive anger in the Bible and the Koran compared to the much more cool texts of Stoicism, the dailogues of Socrates, the sayings of Confucius, Buddha etc, that alerted me to the fact that the Middle East's was a bad way to go in religion and philosophy. Socrates was the gentle arguer, never the burning egoist Jesus who savagely condemned any critic to hellfire.
That polythiestic societiies have been, on the whole, strikingly more tolerant in matters of religion that monotheistic ones is not a matter of dispute for those informed of world affairs and history.
A great historian like Joseph Needham, the author of the monumental "Science and Civilization in China", repeatedly dwells on this fact. Chinese toleration and reasonableness in matters religious as compared to the savage intolerance of the Middle Eastern monotheisms, including Christianity, deeply impressed Western Enlightenment founders like Voltaire.
As for India, it is obvious that Hinduism, whatever its faults, has treated the Muslim minority incomparably more leniently that Hindus have been treated in Muslim countries.
Muslims in most parts of India have the possibility of freely condemning Hinduism; for a Hindu to venture to whisper the mildest criticism of the proclaimed successor of Jesus known as Mohammed would be to invite being torn to pieces. Muslims live by the Muslim law in India.
Hindu India with its multitudinous Gods and easy-going attitudes to religious dogmas has proved highly hospitable to liberalism and democracy, unlike the Muslim states. The difference can be verified by the zealots of Middle Eastern montheism by simply reading the newspapers, assuming they ever do something so ignoble and profane.
It is well known and not a matter of dispute among historians that the Graeco-Roman world was, in matters relogious, strikingly tolerant compared the situation of fierce religious intolerance and jealous upholding of one tightly defined faith intrduced by the zealots of the Lamb.
The Romans cheerfully adopted and adapted the gods of other cultures into their pantheon. When you have many gods, the religions of others are not an immdiate threat - unless they themselves be intolerant, like Christianity. One finds it easy to adopt a live-and-let-live attitude to all gods, and to accept the notion that there may be truth in all religions, not just one.
A Lamb who, so far from lying at ease with lions, finds it necessary to introduce ruthless book-burning, wiping out of the temples of other faiths, inquisitions and yellow patches for a brutally shunned race, the Jews, is a Lamb who needs to be looked at with scepticism. When we see that Christian history led to the Holocaust, a crime graver than any other humanity has known, the beginings of Christianity seem not so much moving as sinister and fateful. To this day the role of the Jews in "handing over" Christ is recalled in the Catholic Mass.
Monotheusts lose their tempers easily in argument because they are shocked that there are those who would gently doubt the One-God slavation that seems so obvious to them; and nowadays because they wish at least to appear tolerant and find it impssible when their religion itself is by definition theologically intolerant.
I am glad you say that religious fundamentalism is despicable. That is a step forward. It is religious fundamentalism when writers claim, for instance, that Christianity launched modern science. This is like saying that Hindu theology is vindicated by the fact the the zero - an essential device for profound mathematics - originated in India and the counntry had a great role in laying the foundations of mathematics.
Newton would have been nought without the zero, after all. Does that vindicate Hinduism?
What history shows, I would gently suggest to the zealots of Middle Eastern monotheism, is rather different. At least in pre-modern times the development of science has needed some real freedom of debate, in addition to a literate culture.
States with fierce and tightly defined reliious orthodoxies seem to have stifled science. We see the coincidence of the decline of science and philosophy and the introduction of fierce monotheistic states in the Roman world and in India. Morever, the Arab world, so fecund in science in its early, relatively freer centuries. ceased to be creative in science after the imposition of an intolerant Islamic orthodoxy. As for the West, science took wings simultaneously with the decline in the authority of the Church.
All mere coincidence? Methinks no.
I remain midly amused to see that Westerners who deplore the imposition of the closed society today in places like Iran welcome as Salvation the imposition of a closed society in the luckless Graeco-Roman world. Why? Salvation from thought and sensible doubt?
|
|
|
Post by blessedkarl on Jul 1, 2011 6:29:34 GMT
I see that you are just a troll. I will refrain from responding to your posts any further. You have consistently refused to answer my points, something I do not appreciate.
By the way, for what its worth, you actually think that the cult of Dionysius, Jews, and Christians were not persecuted?! How about the several major Jewish revolts which took place? Did you know that the Romans tried to build a Roman colony on Jerusalem which prompted a massive and bloody revolt?
The fact that you try and ignore what I say as well as don't understand these facts demonstrates the true purpose of why you are here.
Good bye.
|
|
|
Post by indianchap1234deep on Jul 1, 2011 7:41:29 GMT
blessedkarl:
I did reply to your points, if you read carefully my replies to yourself and to others who made similar points.
As for the Jews, the Romans were undoubtedly tough on them when they rebelled, as they were on all rebellious subjects. No-one is confusing the Roman empire with liberalism. We are speaking of relative religious live-and-let-live. Here the polytheistic philosophy of the Romans found it infinitely easier to come to reasonable terms with most other religions than the stiff, obdurate, severely defined monotheistic faiths. Significantly, it was with these faiths - themselves intensely intolerant - that the Romans had most trouble.
Wht the Jews faced under the rule of the zealots of the Lamb is something else again. Here was a hatred unleashed that went to depths that truly terrify and had never been plumbed before. The Jews were ostracised like lepers, and to this day the Catholic Mass intones solemnly about their role in "handing over" the great Saviour. At Easter, I have sat in church in Vancouver (in a liberal parish) and been stunned by the intensity of the bitterness about the supposed "handing over". How many souls over the centuries have been mentally poisoned by this death cult and hate propaganda?
It will take a much braver man than me to pretend that the advent of Christian rule was a blessing for Jews. To them it opened the way to the really heartrending crucifixion: the Holocaust.
|
|
|
Post by blessedkarl on Jul 1, 2011 14:18:01 GMT
blessedkarl: I did reply to your points, if you read carefully my replies to yourself and to others who made similar points. As for the Jews, the Romans were undoubtedly tough on them when they rebelled, as they were on all rebellious subjects. No-one is confusing the Roman empire with liberalism. We are speaking of relative religious live-and-let-live. Here the polytheistic philosophy of the Romans found it infinitely easier to come to reasonable terms with most other religions than the stiff, obdurate, severely defined monotheistic faiths. Significantly, it was with these faiths - themselves intensely intolerant - that the Romans had most trouble. Wht the Jews faced under the rule of the zealots of the Lamb is something else again. Here was a hatred unleashed that went to depths that truly terrify and had never been plumbed before. The Jews were ostracised like lepers, and to this day the Catholic Mass intones solemnly about their role in "handing over" the great Saviour. At Easter, I have sat in church in Vancouver (in a liberal parish) and been stunned by the intensity of the bitterness about the supposed "handing over". How many souls over the centuries have been mentally poisoned by this death cult and hate propaganda? It will take a much braver man than me to pretend that the advent of Christian rule was a blessing for Jews. To them it opened the way to the really heartrending crucifixion: the Holocaust. All right then. I am not trying to be rude or nasty to you and I hope you don't mistake me for doing that, Indianchap. I am glad that you are not accusing the Romans of liberalism and I agree with your views on that point. Yet you just said that the Romans were hard on the Jews when they rebelled. Yet Hadrian's example clearly nullifies that argument because a significant reason for the Jewish rebellion is the poor treatment Hadrian gave the Jews. Also Pope Benedict XVI, our present pope, has clarified that the Church does not mean to accuse all Jews of being participants in what occurred nor to blame the Jewish people. I do understand that throughout the ages there have been wicked men and women in the Catholic faith who have used the crucifixion of Chris as a way to persecute Jews. These people are wicked and act contrary to the faith. You also say the following: "To them it opened the way to the really heartrending crucifixion: the Holocaust." Hitler did not endeavor to kill all of the Jews because he was a Christian. Let us be honest, despite the fact that Hitler used religion to augment his political power the only real god he and his party believed in was the state. That and their crazed ideology. Please clarify: Is your point that because Catholicism specifically states that it is the successor to the Jewish faith there will be, in the long term, violence? Does that mean that such a belief naturally leads to violence against Jews. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jul 1, 2011 15:10:55 GMT
Indian Chap, I still think you are romanticising the Roman Attitude to toleration too much – in truth the attitude of the Pagan Empire and that of late antiquity & the middle ages isn’t as far apart as you might think. The earlier Roman approach is essentially that of ‘toleration by default’ – or in other words ‘our own religious system is superior but we will tolerate other cults so long as they are harmless’ – if they looked like posing any sort of threat, like the Bacchanals in the 180s BC, the Chaldeans, the adherents of Isis and the Jews at various periods, the Druids and the Christians then they would be wiped out. Roman style polytheism was disposed to absorb or neutralise other Gods and religious organizations that weren’t authorised were permitted to exist purely because there was no way to eliminate them. It is not a ‘many paths to the same truth’ ideology at all. Typical example is Diocletian’s edict against the Manicheans: ‘A new cult ought not to find fault with traditional practices. For it is a most serious offence to re-examine matters decided and fixed once and for all by our ancestors, which retain their standing and contain the path to be followed. For this reason we are very keen to punish the obstinate and perverse thinking of these utterly worthless people. For they introduce strange new creeds in opposition to the traditional cults, excluding by their own perverse judgement the practices which divinity granted us in former times.’ On the Holocaust point – it is a far too simple and linear view to blame Christian anti-Semitism for the Nazi genocide. There is no doubt that Christian anti-Semitism was a factor, however the relationships between Christians and Jews over time is very complex and there is a significant gulf between the Nazi architects of the holocaust and Christianity. The Nazi reasons for carrying out the extermination were biological rather than spiritual – they could count on ingrained attitudes in European populations but these did not just stem from Christian hostility to Jews. humphreyclarke, Baerista: The general lack of urbanity in your discourse is only to be expected. After all, nothing is more characteristic of the devotees or advocates of monotheism than short tempers. Dunno about that. Baerista has a much shorter temper than me by the looks of it and is an atheist like yourself.
|
|
|
Post by blessedkarl on Jul 1, 2011 16:13:50 GMT
Indian, I think that one of the problems with your perspective on this is your dependence upon Gibbon as a historian. Gibbon was very biased and wrote more than two centuries ago. Since then a great deal of progress has occurred and much has been learned about the matters Gibbon wrote on. Furthermore, much of what Gibbon said is often disputed and dismissed as non-factual by historians today.
|
|
|
Post by indianchap1234deep on Jul 2, 2011 2:35:35 GMT
Not much point in debating with people who regard as negligible Gibbon, one of the giants of the Western Enlightenment who freed the Western mind from the thralldom of bigoted religion....
However, for others who might view this site I would suggest that the whole gambit of crediting a particular religion, Christianity, with breakthroughs in science, is ideal stuff for satire. The obsession proves a lack of any sense of humour, a key trait of Christian apologists.
To say the world view of some modern scientists of importance was Christian and therefore Christianity can be credited with their science is laughable.
As well say Einstein's Theory of Relativity is "Jewish science", as indeed the Nazis described it. Are we going to say the achievements of Catholic scientists like Pasteur (I suppose he was Catholic? Who cares?) is due to some mystic property derived from Catholicism? That Clerk-Maxwell's discoveries on the other hand are to be credited to the particular brand of Protestantism he signed up to?
Are we to say the discovery of the zero, so crucial for enabling modern science, was Indian and therefore Hinduism is to be credited with modern science?
Give us a break.
I suggest that science needs some freedom of debate and considerable literacy. Given these factors, any part of the world can develop it, the Son who was identical with his Father and whose flesh and blood can be literally eaten as wafers and whose mother gave virgin birth and who couldn't care less for learning notwithstanding.
|
|
|
Post by noons on Jul 2, 2011 3:29:19 GMT
Clearly you are not aware that Gibbon is no longer seen as a credible or accurate historical source. I'll leave it to others to respond to the rest of your post.
|
|
|
Post by indianchap1234deep on Jul 2, 2011 4:40:23 GMT
noons:
Are we then affirming Hitler was right after all, and that if there is "Christian" science there must be "Jewish" science, too? As well as all mathematicians being signed up as Hindus if they use the zero?
Just curious.
It's sweet to cook up stories attributing all good things to the Saviour, is it not? Unfortunately, like so many nice games, OTHERS too, can play it.
|
|
|
Post by indianchap1234deep on Jul 2, 2011 4:55:33 GMT
Here is what the Wiki entry on Gibbon notes:
"Today, historians tend to analyze economic and military factors in the decline of Rome, although generally allowing the spread of Christianity an underlying causative role."
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Jul 2, 2011 8:21:58 GMT
Here is what the Wiki entry on Gibbon notes: "Today, historians tend to analyze economic and military factors in the decline of Rome, although generally allowing the spread of Christianity an underlying causative role." Not any more it doesn't. I broke the habit of a lifetime and improved Wikipeadia. Best wishes James
|
|
|
Post by noons on Jul 2, 2011 12:55:01 GMT
Here is what the Wiki entry on Gibbon notes: "Today, historians tend to analyze economic and military factors in the decline of Rome, although generally allowing the spread of Christianity an underlying causative role." Not any more it doesn't. I broke the habit of a lifetime and improved Wikipeadia. Best wishes James Now he's just going to say you're rewriting history
|
|
|
Post by indianchap1234deep on Jul 2, 2011 16:21:32 GMT
James Hannam:
Just befor I retreat into my God-appointed slot of Hindu science, may I, out of sheer curiosity about the ways of religious apologists, know your thoughts on the comments I post below?
"Are we then affirming Hitler was right after all, and that if there is "Christian" science there must be "Jewish" science, too? As well as all mathematicians being signed up as Hindus if they use the zero?
It's sweet to cook up stories attributing all good things to the Saviour, is it not? Unfortunately, like so many nice games, OTHERS too, can play it.
I would suggest that the whole gambit of crediting a particular religion, Christianity, with breakthroughs in science, is ideal stuff for satire. The obsession proves a lack of any sense of humour, a key trait of Christian apologists.
To say the world view of some modern scientists of importance was Christian and therefore Christianity can be credited with their science is laughable.
As well say Einstein's Theory of Relativity is "Jewish science", as indeed the Nazis described it. Are we going to say the achievements of Catholic scientists like Pasteur (I suppose he was Catholic? Who cares?) is due to some mystic property derived from Catholicism? That Clerk-Maxwell's discoveries on the other hand are to be credited to the particular brand of Protestantism he signed up to?
Are we to say the discovery of the zero, so crucial for enabling modern science, was Indian and therefore Hinduism is to be credited with modern science?
Give us a break.
I suggest that science needs some freedom of debate and considerable literacy. Given these factors, any part of the world can develop it, the Son who was identical with his Father and whose flesh and blood can be literally eaten as wafers and whose mother gave virgin birth and who couldn't care less for learning notwithstanding. "
|
|
|
Post by indianchap1234deep on Jul 2, 2011 16:25:17 GMT
James hannam:
One furtherpoint: which Christian church should I become a devotee to, now I have been taught that science is owed to Christianity and no other religion makes sense?
Just tell me, sir.
|
|