Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on August 30, 2015, 07:20:58 PM
-
Atheism is portrayed here as just non belief in gods or God and yet there now seems to be a slough of books trumpeting the role of atheism in shaping the modern world.
Many talk of the courage of atheists but seem to be talking about the courage of celebs such as Rushdie, Dawkins, Dennett etc. talking (As you know I believe British atheists to be in the majority so what is courageous about British atheism I don't know ).
I'm sure there are courageous atheists but is their courage of any greater quality than anybody elses? In other words are atheist actions being sanctified in these books.
Finally does atheism actually have the effect of changing the world, is that change positive and where does that leave atheism being nothing except lack of belief.
As their bookshelves swell to match those of Evangelicals, I feel atheism is now on the brink of doorstepping people and donning sandwich boards.......The end looks nigh.
-
'Go marching in'?
-
Atheism is portrayed here as just non belief in gods or God and yet there now seems to be a slough of books trumpeting the role of atheism in shaping the modern world.
Many talk of the courage of atheists but seem to be talking about the courage of celebs such as Rushdie, Dawkins, Dennett etc. talking (As you know I believe British atheists to be in the majority so what is courageous about British atheism I don't know ).
I'm sure there are courageous atheists but is their courage of any greater quality than anybody elses? In other words are atheist actions being sanctified in these books.
Finally does atheism actually have the effect of changing the world, is that change positive and where does that leave atheism being nothing except lack of belief.
As their bookshelves swell to match those of Evangelicals, I feel atheism is now on the brink of doorstepping people and donning sandwich boards.......The end looks nigh.
Why are you so keen to use any source to show that atheism is anything more than not believing in gods ?
Most atheists on this board have already said that they use the word to simply mean not believing in gods.
If you insist on stating otherwise, would you please let the rest of us know what the correct word is for not believing in gods.
-
Methodology for philosophical naturalism - you use a plethora of ridiculously long words in your posts and your username, presumably to impress other posters with your learning and erudition and the you go and demonstrate your lack of erudition in the matter of short words by using "slough" instead of "slew".
-
Methodology for philosophical naturalism - you use a plethora of ridiculously long words in your posts and your username, presumably to impress other posters with your learning and erudition and the you go and demonstrate your lack of erudition in the matter of short words by using "slough" instead of "slew".
Nice one ;)
-
Methodology for philosophical naturalism - you use a plethora of ridiculously long words in your posts and your username, presumably to impress other posters with your learning and erudition and the you go and demonstrate your lack of erudition in the matter of short words by using "slough" instead of "slew".
No I think I was quite right using the word ''slough''
slough (slŭf) n. A layer or mass of dead tissue separated from surrounding living tissue, as in a wound, a sore, or an inflammation. v. sloughed, sloughˇing, sloughs
-
Atheism is portrayed here as just non belief in gods or God
No, atheism is DEFINED as the absence of belief in gods - that is not our portrayal.
and yet there now seems to be a slough of books trumpeting the role of atheism in shaping the modern world.
And? Cultural influences and social developments have consequent effects.
Many talk of the courage of atheists but seem to be talking about the courage of celebs such as Rushdie, Dawkins, Dennett etc. talking (As you know I believe British atheists to be in the majority so what is courageous about British atheism I don't know ).
These people have been courageous and become celebrities because, when overt atheism was frowned upon and the establishment wanted to maintain the cosy illusion that society was uniformly Christian they stood up to be counted. That we are not maintaining that illusion now is not why they are courageous, it's because they were.
I'm sure there are courageous atheists but is their courage of any greater quality than anybody elses? In other words are atheist actions being sanctified in these books.
Sanctified? No, recognised - they're human, they're not super-beings, but they have done some impressive things in the face of quite committed, obstinate opposition.
Finally does atheism actually have the effect of changing the world, is that change positive and where does that leave atheism being nothing except lack of belief.
Does atheism change the world? Not if it's hidden, no, but if it's overt, yes. It demonstrates to people that it's perfectly possible to be 'good without god', and in partnership with a global broadcasting and communication network, that message becomes apparent - it then starts to undermine some of the nonsense that certain religious regimes and organisations preach, and becomes the thin end of a broadening wedge of a fairer, more informed, more secular society.
As their bookshelves swell to match those of Evangelicals, I feel atheism is now on the brink of doorstepping people and donning sandwich boards.......
People aren't irritated with Evangelism because of the number of books they produce, they're irritated with the nonsensical content.
The end looks nigh.
The end of what? Religion - that seems unlikely. Religious privilege - here's hoping.
O.
-
slough - (1) a swamp
(2) A situation characterized by lack of progress or activity
There is a third use of the word in British English, but it is as a verb and MfPNP uses the term in an adjectival sense, suggesting that this can be discounted in the context.
slew - (1) Turn or slide violently or uncontrollably (this is the word used when rail tracks are
forcibly repositioned whilst still connected to others)
(2) Past of 'slay'
(3) A large number or quantity of something informal, chiefly North American
MfPNP, I have taken these from the Oxford Online Dictionary site.
-
Atheism is portrayed here as just non belief in gods or God
No, atheism is DEFINED as the absence of belief in gods - that is not our portrayal.
and yet there now seems to be a slough of books trumpeting the role of atheism in shaping the modern world.
And? Cultural influences and social developments have consequent effects.
Many talk of the courage of atheists but seem to be talking about the courage of celebs such as Rushdie, Dawkins, Dennett etc. talking (As you know I believe British atheists to be in the majority so what is courageous about British atheism I don't know ).
These people have been courageous and become celebrities because, when overt atheism was frowned upon and the establishment wanted to maintain the cosy illusion that society was uniformly Christian they stood up to be counted. That we are not maintaining that illusion now is not why they are courageous, it's because they were.
I'm sure there are courageous atheists but is their courage of any greater quality than anybody elses? In other words are atheist actions being sanctified in these books.
Sanctified? No, recognised - they're human, they're not super-beings, but they have done some impressive things in the face of quite committed, obstinate opposition.
Finally does atheism actually have the effect of changing the world, is that change positive and where does that leave atheism being nothing except lack of belief.
Does atheism change the world? Not if it's hidden, no, but if it's overt, yes. It demonstrates to people that it's perfectly possible to be 'good without god', and in partnership with a global broadcasting and communication network, that message becomes apparent - it then starts to undermine some of the nonsense that certain religious regimes and organisations preach, and becomes the thin end of a broadening wedge of a fairer, more informed, more secular society.
As their bookshelves swell to match those of Evangelicals, I feel atheism is now on the brink of doorstepping people and donning sandwich boards.......
People aren't irritated with Evangelism because of the number of books they produce, they're irritated with the nonsensical content.
The end looks nigh.
The end of what? Religion - that seems unlikely. Religious privilege - here's hoping.
O.
Atheism is both JUST the absence of belief in God/s AND it demonstrates that one can be good without God?
That answer reflects a moral cowardice since it is a ''hedge'' from the consequences.
It shows that one can be good without God? What about being bad without God?
So far you have it that Atheism can only be a good thing and you have a retreat position for if you are wrong.
How do you think being good without God squares with the Moral Non Realism held by many?
I'm afraid that and other things show today's atheist thinking of not having matured.
I don't see how you can view British society as fairer since the gulf between the highest paid and others is becoming greater and greater as is the value of a private education. You seem to base your view solely that on the acceptance of a generally well healed constituency into a money and status oriented society.
Finally, There has for several decades been an acceptance of atheism.
Any ''Courage'' shown has been in coming out as intolerant about religion....always risky since what happened in Nazi Germany.
-
Atheism is both JUST the absence of belief in God/s AND it demonstrates that one can be good without God?
No, atheism is just the absence of a belief in gods. Being overt about atheism is a demonstration that it's possible to be good without gods.
That answer reflects a moral cowardice since it is a ''hedge'' from the consequences.
Nice ad hominem there - you punch like a weeble, and reason like one too.
It shows that one can be good without God? What about being bad without God?
I've not heard anyone denying the possibility, so there's no real need to demonstrate it.
So far you have it that Atheism can only be a good thing and you have a retreat position for if you are wrong.
Atheism is neither good nor bad, in isolation. It's good or bad in relation to how people then interpret it in a social context.
How do you think being good without God squares with the Moral Non Realism held by many?
... and when did you stop beating your wife? I don't accept your assertion of 'moral non-realism' (which I'm presuming is your latest attempt to be pejorative about the concept of moral relativism).
I'm afraid that and other things show today's atheist thinking of not having matured.
... said Mr Kettle.
I don't see how you can view British society as fairer since the gulf between the highest paid and others is becoming greater and greater as is the value of a private education. You seem to base your view solely that on the acceptance of a generally well healed constituency into a money and status oriented society.
1. I don't view fairness predominantly in terms of money.
2. I don't view the improvement in world affairs based solely on the effects in Britain.
3. I think you meant 'well-heeled', right? No-one said the world was perfect, only that it's improving.
Finally, There has for several decades been an acceptance of atheism.
Any ''Courage'' shown has been in coming out as intolerant about religion....always risky since what happened in Nazi Germany.
In the UK there has been a growing acceptance, yes. In other countries that's less the case. I'll take your 'Godwin' as an extremely crass, offensive, childish, puerile admission that you're a tool. There is no intolerance of religion, there's an intolerance of religious privilege - that's secularism, not antitheism, but don't let things like facts and reality get in the way of the sort of paranoid victim-mentality thinking that ACTUALLY contributed the predominantly Christian nation of Germany perpetrating the holocaust on a wide number of irrational hatreds: religious, homophobic and ethnic amongst them.
Don't let reality hit you on the arse on your way out...
O.
-
Atheism is both JUST the absence of belief in God/s AND it demonstrates that one can be good without God?
No, atheism is just the absence of a belief in gods. Being overt about atheism is a demonstration that it's possible to be good without gods.
That answer reflects a moral cowardice since it is a ''hedge'' from the consequences.
Nice ad hominem there - you punch like a weeble, and reason like one too.
It shows that one can be good without God? What about being bad without God?
I've not heard anyone denying the possibility, so there's no real need to demonstrate it.
So far you have it that Atheism can only be a good thing and you have a retreat position for if you are wrong.
Atheism is neither good nor bad, in isolation. It's good or bad in relation to how people then interpret it in a social context.
How do you think being good without God squares with the Moral Non Realism held by many?
... and when did you stop beating your wife? I don't accept your assertion of 'moral non-realism' (which I'm presuming is your latest attempt to be pejorative about the concept of moral relativism).
I'm afraid that and other things show today's atheist thinking of not having matured.
... said Mr Kettle.
I don't see how you can view British society as fairer since the gulf between the highest paid and others is becoming greater and greater as is the value of a private education. You seem to base your view solely that on the acceptance of a generally well healed constituency into a money and status oriented society.
1. I don't view fairness predominantly in terms of money.
2. I don't view the improvement in world affairs based solely on the effects in Britain.
3. I think you meant 'well-heeled', right? No-one said the world was perfect, only that it's improving.
Finally, There has for several decades been an acceptance of atheism.
Any ''Courage'' shown has been in coming out as intolerant about religion....always risky since what happened in Nazi Germany.
In the UK there has been a growing acceptance, yes. In other countries that's less the case. I'll take your 'Godwin' as an extremely crass, offensive, childish, puerile admission that you're a tool. There is no intolerance of religion, there's an intolerance of religious privilege - that's secularism, not antitheism, but don't let things like facts and reality get in the way of the sort of paranoid victim-mentality thinking that ACTUALLY contributed the predominantly Christian nation of Germany perpetrating the holocaust on a wide number of irrational hatreds: religious, homophobic and ethnic amongst them.
Don't let reality hit you on the arse on your way out...
O.
Nazi Germany a predominantly Christian country? Interesting.
The Bible is replete with stories of Israel which frequently abandoned it's general allegiance with God. Showing that any country can.
I think you underestimate the casual homophobic chatter which still remains within secular society and as a society we have to be after all legally, contractually and financially bound though not to be seen as homophobic.
Also racism and ethnicism seems to be more acceptable now.
-
Nazi Germany a predominantly Christian country? Interesting
Only if it's a new realisation for you.
The Bible is replete with stories of Israel which frequently abandoned it's general allegiance with God.
And in Return of the King, Gandalf the Grey returns as Gandalf the White...
I think you underestimate the casual homophobic chatter which still remains within secular society and as a society we have to be after all legally, contractually and financially bound though not to be seen as homophobic.
No, not really, but I don't see people being carted off to the gas chamber by the authorities in the same sort of numbers, though institutionally sanctioned homphobia is still rampant in third world piss-holes like (the fundamentalist Christian) Nigeria and (the fundamentalist Islamic) Saudi Arabia.
Also racism and ethnicism seems to be more acceptable now.
Because we're contractually and financially bound not to be seen as racist, right? I see reality really didn't even get close to catching you, did it...
O.
-
Nazi Germany a predominantly Christian country? Interesting
Only if it's a new realisation for you.
The Bible is replete with stories of Israel which frequently abandoned it's general allegiance with God.
And in Return of the King, Gandalf the Grey returns as Gandalf the White...
I think you underestimate the casual homophobic chatter which still remains within secular society and as a society we have to be after all legally, contractually and financially bound though not to be seen as homophobic.
No, not really, but I don't see people being carted off to the gas chamber by the authorities in the same sort of numbers, though institutionally sanctioned homphobia is still rampant in third world piss-holes like (the fundamentalist Christian) Nigeria and (the fundamentalist Islamic) Saudi Arabia.
Also racism and ethnicism seems to be more acceptable now.
Because we're contractually and financially bound not to be seen as racist, right? I see reality really didn't even get close to catching you, did it...
O.
Well, there have been atheist pissholes as well......To which you will now doubtlessly skulk back to your safe hedge position...''Atheism is merely.......etc.....etc.
-
Well, there have been atheist pissholes as well......To which you will now doubtlessly skulk back to your safe hedge position...''Atheism is merely.......etc.....etc.
So your defence is 'I know I am, but what are you...' Resounding rebuttal, there, Vlad.
If you already know the difference between Christian Germans being motivated by their Christian faith to commit genocide against the Jewish people vs atheist Russian leadership using their populace's nationalism to inspire them to purge the land of rival power systems, why do you feel the need to raise an argument you're going to lose? If you don't know the difference, I suggest you go work it out.
O.
-
Well, there have been atheist pissholes as well......To which you will now doubtlessly skulk back to your safe hedge position...''Atheism is merely.......etc.....etc.
So your defence is 'I know I am, but what are you...' Resounding rebuttal, there, Vlad.
If you already know the difference between Christian Germans being motivated by their Christian faith to commit genocide against the Jewish people vs atheist Russian leadership using their populace's nationalism to inspire them to purge the land of rival power systems, why do you feel the need to raise an argument you're going to lose? If you don't know the difference, I suggest you go work it out.
O.
What about the ubermensch princip drawn from Neitszche and Galton, and Pagan Aryan mysticism?
Wasn't the ''international jewish finance'' of Nazi lore also ''a rival power system''.
Given that it is difficult to see how the Christian faith in your theory did not also lead other Christian peoples to go down the genocide route. So you see there must have been other ''local factors''.
-
Given that it is difficult to see how the Christian faith in your theory did not also lead other Christian peoples to go down the genocide route. So you see there must have been other ''local factors''.
Hitler and the Nazis "attempted" the genocide of the Jews, the Russian/Slav untermench and Roma/gypsies and failed in all three.
The Christian, well Catholic, church achieved it twice by military action and venerial disease - the Aztecs and the Mayans who refused to give up Sun worship and replace it with Son worship.
And, before the old chestnut of "Oh no, that was done in the name of the Kings of Spain and Portugal, not the Christian (Catholic) church, it was the priests (missionaries) who accompanied the armed forces of Spain and Portugal who ordered the slaughter when their offers of salvation by conversion were refused and failed to halt the army's process of "kill the men and rape the women", and sometimes vice versa.
-
Given that it is difficult to see how the Christian faith in your theory did not also lead other Christian peoples to go down the genocide route. So you see there must have been other ''local factors''.
Hitler and the Nazis "attempted" the genocide of the Jews, the Russian/Slav untermench and Roma/gypsies and failed in all three.
The Christian, well Catholic, church achieved it twice by military action and venerial disease - the Aztecs and the Mayans who refused to give up Sun worship and replace it with Son worship.
And, before the old chestnut of "Oh no, that was done in the name of the Kings of Spain and Portugal, not the Christian (Catholic) church, it was the priests (missionaries) who accompanied the armed forces of Spain and Portugal who ordered the slaughter when their offers of salvation by conversion were refused and failed to halt the army's process of "kill the men and rape the women", and sometimes vice versa.
Are you denying that the mission was primarily for the purpose of expanding the territory and wealth of Spain?
The colonial exploits were not after all the crusades.
-
Given that it is difficult to see how the Christian faith in your theory did not also lead other Christian peoples to go down the genocide route. So you see there must have been other ''local factors''.
Hitler and the Nazis "attempted" the genocide of the Jews, the Russian/Slav untermench and Roma/gypsies and failed in all three.
The Christian, well Catholic, church achieved it twice by military action and venerial disease - the Aztecs and the Mayans who refused to give up Sun worship and replace it with Son worship.
And, before the old chestnut of "Oh no, that was done in the name of the Kings of Spain and Portugal, not the Christian (Catholic) church, it was the priests (missionaries) who accompanied the armed forces of Spain and Portugal who ordered the slaughter when their offers of salvation by conversion were refused and failed to halt the army's process of "kill the men and rape the women", and sometimes vice versa.
Are you denying that the mission was primarily for the purpose of expanding the territory and wealth of Spain?
The colonial exploits were not after all the crusades.
. . . and had the secondary purpose of spreading the influence of Catholic Christianity, thus attracting the approval of the Pope to the enterprise.
Let's face it, at that time in history, practically nothing happened anywhere without the approval of the Pope and the Catholic (Christian) Church.
-
Given that it is difficult to see how the Christian faith in your theory did not also lead other Christian peoples to go down the genocide route. So you see there must have been other ''local factors''.
Hitler and the Nazis "attempted" the genocide of the Jews, the Russian/Slav untermench and Roma/gypsies and failed in all three.
The Christian, well Catholic, church achieved it twice by military action and venerial disease - the Aztecs and the Mayans who refused to give up Sun worship and replace it with Son worship.
And, before the old chestnut of "Oh no, that was done in the name of the Kings of Spain and Portugal, not the Christian (Catholic) church, it was the priests (missionaries) who accompanied the armed forces of Spain and Portugal who ordered the slaughter when their offers of salvation by conversion were refused and failed to halt the army's process of "kill the men and rape the women", and sometimes vice versa.
Are you denying that the mission was primarily for the purpose of expanding the territory and wealth of Spain?
The colonial exploits were not after all the crusades.
. . . and had the secondary purpose of spreading the influence of Catholic Christianity, thus attracting the approval of the Pope to the enterprise.
Let's face it, at that time in history, practically nothing happened anywhere without the approval of the Pope and the Catholic (Christian) Church.
The reformation bucked that trend.
-
For fuck's sake learn to quote properly.
-
Are you denying that the mission was primarily for the purpose of expanding the territory and wealth of Spain?
The colonial exploits were not after all the crusades.
. . . and had the secondary purpose of spreading the influence of Catholic Christianity, thus attracting the approval of the Pope to the enterprise.
Let's face it, at that time in history, practically nothing happened anywhere without the approval of the Pope and the Catholic (Christian) Church.
The reformation bucked that trend.
[/quote]
Oh yeah! Bloody shame that the Aztecs and the Mayans weren't around to see it happen.
-
Are you denying that the mission was primarily for the purpose of expanding the territory and wealth of Spain?
Spain was an overtly Christian nation, run by devout Catholics.
-
Are you denying that the mission was primarily for the purpose of expanding the territory and wealth of Spain?
The colonial exploits were not after all the crusades.
. . . and had the secondary purpose of spreading the influence of Catholic Christianity, thus attracting the approval of the Pope to the enterprise.
Let's face it, at that time in history, practically nothing happened anywhere without the approval of the Pope and the Catholic (Christian) Church.
The reformation bucked that trend.
Oh yeah! Bloody shame that the Aztecs and the Mayans weren't around to see it happen.
[/quote]
yes...I understand both civilisations practiced human sacrifice.........Bloody catholics.
-
Are you denying that the mission was primarily for the purpose of expanding the territory and wealth of Spain?
The colonial exploits were not after all the crusades.
. . . and had the secondary purpose of spreading the influence of Catholic Christianity, thus attracting the approval of the Pope to the enterprise.
Let's face it, at that time in history, practically nothing happened anywhere without the approval of the Pope and the Catholic (Christian) Church.
The reformation bucked that trend.
Oh yeah! Bloody shame that the Aztecs and the Mayans weren't around to see it happen.
yes...I understand both civilisations practiced human sacrifice.........Bloody catholics.
[/quote]
This does not give the bloody Christians the right to wipe them out!
Let'ds face it, the Christians had been sacrificing humans, so-called "witches", for 100 years before they started on South America.
Pot - Kettle - Black - - - Mote - Beam - Eye.
-
Well just to educate Matty and other's over in Europe. My ancestors, pagan Crees, lived in fear and hate. We became the largest peoples in N America. How did we achieve this and how come today you find Cree first nations spanning thousands of miles? By war and hunting down and slaughtering those in our way. Matty and many of you Europeans like to crucify Christianity for what you Europeans did over here. Shut up! It's over, have a cookie. If it wasn't for the protestant and catholic missionaries and the Mounted police arriving on the prairie here, we would still be third world, chasing down the Blackfoot confederacy, the Crow and Sioux, taking their scalps, stealing their horses and taking the women. Pagan Europe is a history of bloodshed, hate and fear as well.
-
Well just to educate Matty and other's over in Europe. My ancestors, pagan Crees, lived in fear and hate. We became the largest peoples in N America. How did we achieve this and how come today you find Cree first nations spanning thousands of miles? By war and hunting down and slaughtering those in our way. Matty and many of you Europeans like to crucify Christianity for what you Europeans did over here. Shut up! It's over, have a cookie. If it wasn't for the protestant and catholic missionaries and the Mounted police arriving on the prairie here, we would still be third world, chasing down the Blackfoot confederacy, the Crow and Sioux, taking their scalps, stealing their horses and taking the women. Pagan Europe is a history of bloodshed, hate and fear as well.
Same broken record yet again!
YAWN! BORING!
-
yes...I understand both civilisations practiced human sacrifice.........Bloody catholics.
Says the man whose entire religion is founded on a purported human sacrifice... The irony, it burns!!!!
O.
-
yes...I understand both civilisations practiced human sacrifice.........Bloody catholics.
Says the man whose entire religion is founded on a purported human sacrifice... The irony, it burns!!!!
O.
As did the so-called "witches" during the 14th to 17th centuries!
Except in England where they were hanged or drowned - England being Protestant and burning being the Catholic punishment for heresy - the "witch's" pact with the devil.
-
Well just to educate Matty and other's over in Europe. My ancestors, pagan Crees, lived in fear and hate. We became the largest peoples in N America. How did we achieve this and how come today you find Cree first nations spanning thousands of miles? By war and hunting down and slaughtering those in our way. Matty and many of you Europeans like to crucify Christianity for what you Europeans did over here. Shut up! It's over, have a cookie.
So genocide's only a problem if you're unsuccessful?
If it wasn't for the protestant and catholic missionaries and the Mounted police arriving on the prairie here, we would still be third world, chasing down the Blackfoot confederacy, the Crow and Sioux, taking their scalps, stealing their horses and taking the women. Pagan Europe is a history of bloodshed, hate and fear as well.
Well, if it weren't for the advent of technology and industrialisation - the fact that those emerged from nations in the early stages of shedding their religious shackles means that your claim is, at the very least, questionable.
O.
-
Outrider
. . . [ JC] your claim is, at the very least, questionable.
As is his claim to being a Cree - he is, at best only half-Cree as, by his own admission, his father was French.
Hang on! Hang on! The French are European! The light begins to dawn - he hates Europeans because one of them robbed him of a claim to the full Cree nationality he so fervently promotes.
Or was that his adoptive father that was French? I can't remember what nationalities his birth parents were; he hasn't berated me with his full genealogy for some time, probably because he has been so busy questioning mine!
-
There is no sign that the first nations, my Metis, nor the Inuit are shedding religion because of technology. The exact opposite is the truth. If an aboriginal is not a Catholic or Protestant then they have gone back to paganism not to atheism. To find an aboriginal atheist Canadian is a rare find.
Matty just google Metis and get an education. Too funny you.
Having a Jewish grannie doesn't make you 100% as you claimed. Only in Hitler's eyes.
-
There is no sign that the first nations, my Metis, nor the Inuit are shedding religion because of technology. The exact opposite is the truth. If an aboriginal is not a Catholic or Protestant then they have gone back to paganism not to atheism. To find an aboriginal atheist Canadian is a rare find.
Matty just google Metis and get an education. Too funny you.
Having a Jewish grannie doesn't make you 100% as you claimed. Only in Hitler's eyes.
YES IT DOES - you obviously know less about Judaism that you do about Paganism.
Jewish is passed through the maternal line - my mother was Jewish because her mother was, I am Jewish because my mother was. My children are not because their mother is not.
Nothing that you, Christian, can say can change that, no matter how many times you say it. Why my being born a Jew irks you so much I cannot imagine - well I can but I cannot post it!
-
Does not irk me in the least. But DNA says you are not 100% and that is fact. As far as spiritually, this is the soul of jewishness and is passed through the mother. Again you fail because you reject that and are a witch.
-
Does not irk me in the least. But DNA says you are not 100% and that is fact. As far as spiritually, this is the soul of jewishness and is passed through the mother. Again you fail because you reject that and are a witch.
And you have a sample of my DNA from where?
Give it up - your ignorance is absolutely appaling even for someone from the Americas!
I did NOT reject my Jewishness - my father was goyim and brought me up as a Christian - I did not get the chance to accept my jewishness, - this is probably why my grandmotther hated my father so much - and it was his religion that I rejected, as I reject your version of the same religion.
אולי חורי אוזנך לפנות לחורי תחת וחרא כל על הכתפיים שלך
-
Whatever Matty. Too funny you!
-
Does not irk me in the least. But DNA says you are not 100% and that is fact. As far as spiritually, this is the soul of jewishness and is passed through the mother. Again you fail because you reject that and are a witch.
DNA just tells us we're human. All the rest, all the cultural and ethnic and geographic is just social stuff that we glaze over the surface with.
O.
-
There is no sign that the first nations, my Metis, nor the Inuit are shedding religion because of technology. The exact opposite is the truth. If an aboriginal is not a Catholic or Protestant then they have gone back to paganism not to atheism. To find an aboriginal atheist Canadian is a rare find.
But there's plenty of evidence that increased lifespan and education associate with technological development and use in a culture, and with a decrease in religiosity. There's no absolute demonstration which way is causitive - it may be that as people ditch religion they turn to education instead, I suppose.
O.
-
Are you denying that the mission was primarily for the purpose of expanding the territory and wealth of Spain?
The colonial exploits were not after all the crusades.
. . . and had the secondary purpose of spreading the influence of Catholic Christianity, thus attracting the approval of the Pope to the enterprise.
Let's face it, at that time in history, practically nothing happened anywhere without the approval of the Pope and the Catholic (Christian) Church.
The reformation bucked that trend.
Oh yeah! Bloody shame that the Aztecs and the Mayans weren't around to see it happen.
yes...I understand both civilisations practiced human sacrifice.........Bloody catholics.
This does not give the bloody Christians the right to wipe them out!
Let'ds face it, the Christians had been sacrificing humans, so-called "witches", for 100 years before they started on South America.
Pot - Kettle - Black - - - Mote - Beam - Eye.
[/quote]
And you are saying I support murder?
-
Let's face it, the Christians had been sacrificing humans, so-called "witches", for 100 years before they started on South America.
Pot - Kettle - Black - - - Mote - Beam - Eye.
And you are saying I support murder?
No, I am saying that the religion that you follow has no right to put down any other religion or civilsation on the grounds that it carried out human sacrifice, when it was spectacularly guilty of the same crime itself.
-
Let's face it, the Christians had been sacrificing humans, so-called "witches", for 100 years before they started on South America.
Pot - Kettle - Black - - - Mote - Beam - Eye.
And you are saying I support murder?
No, I am saying that the religion that you follow has no right to put down any other religion or civilsation on the grounds that it carried out human sacrifice, when it was spectacularly guilty of the same crime itself.
You have a mere characature of ''my religion''.
A religion which insists on human sacrifice or burning witches is not the Christian religion of the New Testament...........
I suppose you have carte blanche to do all the criticising...........
-
Let's face it, the Christians had been sacrificing humans, so-called "witches", for 100 years before they started on South America.
Pot - Kettle - Black - - - Mote - Beam - Eye.
And you are saying I support murder?
No, I am saying that the religion that you follow has no right to put down any other religion or civilsation on the grounds that it carried out human sacrifice, when it was spectacularly guilty of the same crime itself.
You have a mere characature of ''my religion''.
A religion which insists on human sacrifice or burning witches is not the Christian religion of the New Testament...........
I suppose you have carte blanche to do all the criticising...........
I don't know about a characature - did the 14th-17th century Catholic Church use the old or the new testament to formulate its witch-hunts for heresy. I know that the original, early, 13th century Inquisition, was set up to destroy the Cathar and Waldensian heresies (The Inquisition - The Hammer of Heresy: Edward Burman; Sutton Press (c) 1984 and 2004 ISBN 0 7509 3722 X) and when that job was 'completed' moved on to chasing witches and I presumed that they would be working from the Old Testament Exodus 22:18 as a starting point and adding whatever from the New Testament that was necessary to allow them to do so.
-
A religion which insists on human sacrifice or burning witches is not the Christian religion of the New Testament...........
Thomas Cranmer might disagree, as regards the burning aspect.
-
I suppose you have carte blanche to do all the criticising...........
. . . and this means what, precisely?
-
Let's face it, the Christians had been sacrificing humans, so-called "witches", for 100 years before they started on South America.
Pot - Kettle - Black - - - Mote - Beam - Eye.
And you are saying I support murder?
No, I am saying that the religion that you follow has no right to put down any other religion or civilsation on the grounds that it carried out human sacrifice, when it was spectacularly guilty of the same crime itself.
You have a mere characature of ''my religion''.
A religion which insists on human sacrifice or burning witches is not the Christian religion of the New Testament...........
I suppose you have carte blanche to do all the criticising...........
I don't know about a characature - did the 14th-17th century Catholic Church use the old or the new testament to formulate its witch-hunts for heresy. I know that the original, early, 13th century Inquisition, was set up to destroy the Cathar and Waldensian heresies (The Inquisition - The Hammer of Heresy: Edward Burman; Sutton Press (c) 1984 and 2004 ISBN 0 7509 3722 X) and when that job was 'completed' moved on to chasing witches and I presumed that they would be working from the Old Testament Exodus 22:18 as a starting point and adding whatever from the New Testament that was necessary to allow them to do so.
And what does this have to do with the Gospel? Is the Inquisition mentioned therein? No.
A complete host of Christian lives have been led without membership of an inquisition.
-
A religion which insists on human sacrifice or burning witches is not the Christian religion of the New Testament...........
Thomas Cranmer might disagree, as regards the burning aspect.
Messrs. Latimer and Ridley might want to have some input as well.
-
Let's face it, the Christians had been sacrificing humans, so-called "witches", for 100 years before they started on South America.
Pot - Kettle - Black - - - Mote - Beam - Eye.
And you are saying I support murder?
No, I am saying that the religion that you follow has no right to put down any other religion or civilsation on the grounds that it carried out human sacrifice, when it was spectacularly guilty of the same crime itself.
You have a mere characature of ''my religion''.
A religion which insists on human sacrifice or burning witches is not the Christian religion of the New Testament...........
I suppose you have carte blanche to do all the criticising...........
I don't know about a characature - did the 14th-17th century Catholic Church use the old or the new testament to formulate its witch-hunts for heresy. I know that the original, early, 13th century Inquisition, was set up to destroy the Cathar and Waldensian heresies (The Inquisition - The Hammer of Heresy: Edward Burman; Sutton Press (c) 1984 and 2004 ISBN 0 7509 3722 X) and when that job was 'completed' moved on to chasing witches and I presumed that they would be working from the Old Testament Exodus 22:18 as a starting point and adding whatever from the New Testament that was necessary to allow them to do so.
And what does this have to do with the Gospel? Is the Inquisition mentioned therein? No.
A complete host of Christian lives have been led without membership of an inquisition.
Irrelevant
-
Let's face it, the Christians had been sacrificing humans, so-called "witches", for 100 years before they started on South America.
Pot - Kettle - Black - - - Mote - Beam - Eye.
And you are saying I support murder?
No, I am saying that the religion that you follow has no right to put down any other religion or civilsation on the grounds that it carried out human sacrifice, when it was spectacularly guilty of the same crime itself.
You have a mere characature of ''my religion''.
A religion which insists on human sacrifice or burning witches is not the Christian religion of the New Testament...........
I suppose you have carte blanche to do all the criticising...........
I don't know about a characature - did the 14th-17th century Catholic Church use the old or the new testament to formulate its witch-hunts for heresy. I know that the original, early, 13th century Inquisition, was set up to destroy the Cathar and Waldensian heresies (The Inquisition - The Hammer of Heresy: Edward Burman; Sutton Press (c) 1984 and 2004 ISBN 0 7509 3722 X) and when that job was 'completed' moved on to chasing witches and I presumed that they would be working from the Old Testament Exodus 22:18 as a starting point and adding whatever from the New Testament that was necessary to allow them to do so.
And what does this have to do with the Gospel? Is the Inquisition mentioned therein? No.
A complete host of Christian lives have been led without membership of an inquisition.
Irrelevant
I don't see why. There is no reason to abandon the Christianity of the New Testament just on the say so of a militant pagan.
-
A complete host of Christian lives have been led without membership of an inquisition.
[ quote] Irrelevant [/quote]
I don't see why. There is no reason to abandon the Christianity of the New Testament just on the say so of a militant pagan.
It is irrelevant because the subject under comment was Chrstianity of the 13th century not the 21st.
-
A religion which insists on human sacrifice or burning witches is not the Christian religion of the New Testament...........
Thomas Cranmer might disagree, as regards the burning aspect.
Messrs. Latimer and Ridley might want to have some input as well.
Indeed, they would undoubtedly enlighten matters.
-
And what does this have to do with the Gospel? Is the Inquisition mentioned therein? No.
A complete host of Christian lives have been led without membership of an inquisition.
Just out of interest, were any of them Scots?
O.
-
slough - (1) a swamp
(2) A situation characterized by lack of progress or activity
There is a third use of the word in British English, but it is as a verb and MfPNP uses the term in an adjectival sense, suggesting that this can be discounted in the context.
slew - (1) Turn or slide violently or uncontrollably (this is the word used when rail tracks are
forcibly repositioned whilst still connected to others)
(2) Past of 'slay'
(3) A large number or quantity of something informal, chiefly 7North American
MfPNP, I have taken these from the Oxford Online Dictionary site.
Is that like when people get mixed up and refer to others that they think have been indoctrinated and then get it wrong and say brainwashed insted of what they really mean?
ippy
-
Brainwashing is just a more invasive form of indoctrination.
-
Whether any of Vlad's celebrity atheists are actually courageous,I don't know but Vlad himself is considered certainly brave in mentioning Rushdie in that manner since he then associates himself with the depraved loons who have threatened Rushdie's life because he wrote a book.
-
What has happened to #55, please?
-
D'uh!
-
Whether any of Vlad's celebrity atheists are actually courageous,I don't know but Vlad himself is considered certainly brave in mentioning Rushdie in that manner since he then associates himself with the depraved loons who have threatened Rushdie's life because he wrote a book.
I have no control over the shit you write Sane...but you do......Please exercise it.
-
No, he means fuck off and stop being sinister.
-
No, he means fuck off and stop being sinister.
He said something similar in the original version of #55 - the one that vanished,