Historically Christian - discuss

[SusanDoris]

SteveH in the  Faith Sharing area, in the topic  on why people decide which religion is best for them said this:

I would have thought that that was crystal clear: Britain has been a Christian country for well over 1,000 years, and has a thoroughly Christian culture, even if the proportion of personally-committed believers is at an all-time low.

Bearing in mind the various burnings, hangings, etc etc carried out in the name of Christianity during the last nearly 2,000 years, I don't think people should be proud of their historical /Christianity, or hold it up as any kind of example for good!! That was the main reason why I followed the post with, 'Explain.' Perhaps SteveH might like to have a go at offering some general, if not particular, words or two on this?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

SteveH in the  Faith Sharing area, in the topic  on why people decide which religion is best for them said this:
Bearing in mind the various burnings, hangings, etc etc carried out in the name of Christianity during the last nearly 2,000 years, I don't think people should be proud of their historical /Christianity,

What about the millions killed by Stalin?

[Rhiannon]

SteveH in the  Faith Sharing area, in the topic  on why people decide which religion is best for them said this:
Bearing in mind the various burnings, hangings, etc etc carried out in the name of Christianity during the last nearly 2,000 years, I don't think people should be proud of their historical /Christianity, or hold it up as any kind of example for good!! That was the main reason why I followed the post with, 'Explain.' Perhaps SteveH might like to have a go at offering some general, if not particular, words or two on this?

I’m missing where he says it’s something we should all be proud of.

[SusanDoris]

What about the millions killed by Stalin?

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but Stalin did not live in Britain!!

[SusanDoris]

I’m missing where he says it’s something we should all be proud of.

True those words were not actually used, but I thought perhaps the implication was there and that it would be interesting to hear his/her views expanded, rather than leaving the phrase as if the meaning was clear.

[SteveH]

SteveH in the  Faith Sharing area, in the topic  on why people decide which religion is best for them said this:
Bearing in mind the various burnings, hangings, etc etc carried out in the name of Christianity during the last nearly 2,000 years, I don't think people should be proud of their historical /Christianity, or hold it up as any kind of example for good!! That was the main reason why I followed the post with, 'Explain.' Perhaps SteveH might like to have a go at offering some general, if not particular, words or two on this?

Did I say that our Christian heritage was unalloyedly good, or deny the persecution of heretics and others? I don't think so.

[Robbie]

No you didn't say that Christianity was perfect Steven, or rather those who adhered to it, you just said it was 'there', which it was in this country.

No religion or anyone who practices a religion are perfect, that would be impossible.

[SusanDoris]

In my #4 I agreed that I did not say you, SteveH, said that Christianity was good. My first post in the other thread was in response to your #9 two words, 'Historically Christian' and I thought that needed an explanation, as the two-word phrase is far too sweeping a statement and has a  touch of arrogance about it.  It must also include the burnings, hangings, etc that I have mentioned.

Perhaps we should say, 'historically humans being what they have evolved to be and using their imagined God/s to authorise - and of course to sanctify - their actions'.

[Maeght]

In my #4 I agreed that I did not say you, SteveH, said that Christianity was good. My first post in the other thread was in response to your #9 two words, 'Historically Christian' and I thought that needed an explanation, as the two-word phrase is far too sweeping a statement and has a  touch of arrogance about it.  It must also include the burnings, hangings, etc that I have mentioned.

Perhaps we should say, 'historically humans being what they have evolved to be and using their imagined God/s to authorise - and of course to sanctify - their actions'.

Historically Christian sounds fine to me. Accurate without any arrogance.

[SteveH]

In my #4 I agreed that I did not say you, SteveH, said that Christianity was good. My first post in the other thread was in response to your #9 two words, 'Historically Christian' and I thought that needed an explanation, as the two-word phrase is far too sweeping a statement and has a  touch of arrogance about it.  It must also include the burnings, hangings, etc that I have mentioned.

Perhaps we should say, 'historically humans being what they have evolved to be and using their imagined God/s to authorise - and of course to sanctify - their actions'.

You give the impression of being a rather embittered atheist who is trying to pick a fight.

[Rhiannon]

Historically Christian sounds fine to me. Accurate without any arrogance.

Well there’s a great big chunk of prehistory that wasn’t Christian, and for a lot of the time what passed for Christianity was a form of folk religion. But I don’t see that it’s arrogant to say we’re historically Christian.

[SusanDoris]

You give the impression of being a rather embittered atheist who is trying to pick a fight.

That is so completely, utterly wrong!!! I wish I could still link you to my web site, but I was deleted into irretrievable cyber space by my ISP last year.

[Robbie]

That is so completely, utterly wrong!!! I wish I could still link you to my web site, but I was deleted into irretrievable cyber space by my ISP last year.

He did say you give that impression Susan. I've thought the same, you have an unpleasant and sneering way of speaking - accuse people of being 'smug' when they're not. I've noticed it ever since I joined the forum early last year & thought it best not to engage with you on religious topics.

[SusanDoris]

He did say you give that impression Susan. I've thought the same, you have an unpleasant and sneering way of speaking - accuse people of being 'smug' when they're not. I've noticed it ever since I joined the forum early last year & thought it best not to engage with you on religious topics.

Well, I cannot prevent you adding in your mind a sneering or similar tone to the words I write. I challenge, yes, but assume that a discussion board needs that, but I recommend listening to every word of every post via the voice of Snthetic Dave and then you would hear only the content and not apply a pejorative tone to it! You can believe it or not as you choose but I think one of the last adjectives which would occur to those who know me - my tap group for a start -  is 'sneering'. ah, well!

[Rhiannon]

He did say you give that impression Susan. I've thought the same, you have an unpleasant and sneering way of speaking - accuse people of being 'smug' when they're not. I've noticed it ever since I joined the forum early last year & thought it best not to engage with you on religious topics.

I don’t always agree with Susan but I don't recognise this description of her.

[Owlswing]

Well, I cannot prevent you adding in your mind a sneering or similar tone to the words I write. I challenge, yes, but assume that a discussion board needs that, but I recommend listening to every word of every post via the voice of Snthetic Dave and then you would hear only the content and not apply a pejorative tone to it! You can believe it or not as you choose but I think one of the last adjectives which would occur to those who know me - my tap group for a start -  is 'sneering'. ah, well!

I wonder if Steve H and Robbie even realise that you are blind and 'hear' not 'read' their posts?

[Nearly Sane]

I wonder if Steve H and Robbie even realise that you are blind and 'hear' not 'read' their posts?

What difference would that make to how they perceive SD's posts read to them?

[SteveH]

I wonder if Steve H and Robbie even realise that you are blind and 'hear' not 'read' their posts?

Yes, I do know that. What of it?

[floo]

Christianity has had a lot to be ashamed of over the centuries. Nowadays there appears to be more moderate Christians here in the UK, than ones with extreme views. However, the extremists can still do a lot of harm even is their abusive tactics are more likely to be of the emotional kind rather than the physical.

[trippymonkey]

Agreed but why does any religion have extremist views?
Why is something not SO clear it CAN'T be mistranslated?

Nick

[SusanDoris]

Agreed but why does any religion have extremist views?
Why is something not SO clear it CAN'T be mistranslated?

Nick

Human nature!! Since all religious ideas came from human imagination in the first place and have been re-thought a million times since, we'll just have to wait until a majority of people worldwide realise this is so .

A phrase like 'historically Christian' is riddled with questions, misunderstandings, falsehoods, misinterpretations of texts written by people who thought they were expounding the word of their particular God/god/s, and then assuming power and leadership roles. It doesn't matter how well-intentioned they were, we can see now with the benefit of science and the scientific method plus the evidence of technology that their beliefs and assumptions were not objective truths.

During my lifetime I have seen a huge change from a time when to question someone's religious beliefs or a person's position in society because of his(not hers of course) titlawas taboo to a time, now, when it is openly and vigorously   challenged and shown to be totally lacking in proper evidence. The beliefs themselves are being ridiculed where appropriate and this is being done whilst most ordinary, thoughtful people maintain an understanding of the people concerned and that includes respect for them as human beings because, well, we can see how easy it would be for us, for me at anyrate, to be in that position because of the cultures and societies we are in.

I am grateful (to natural Nature!) for this  knowledge and will die with the confidence that this process will continue, albeit with fits and starts because of all us humans involved.

[Maeght]

I don't see that the phrase 'Historically Christian' implies anything more than that for the majority of recent history Christianity has been the most common religion in Britian. I don't see it as riddled with questions etc

[SusanDoris]

I don't see that the phrase 'Historically Christian' implies anything more than that for the majority of recent history Christianity has been the most common religion in Britian. I don't see it as riddled with questions etc

That is of course true in general conversation, but this is, after all, a forum for discussion... ...!

[Harrowby Hall]

I think that it may be appropriate to ask at this point "what is the purpose of religion?"

My own view is that it is a system of social control - different from systems which involve physical methods such as violence or the threat of physical restraint - which uses the suggestion of revealed knowledge to influence behaviour. A shaman, or priest, or imam or witchdoctor ... or whatever ... has "knowledge" not possessed by ordinary people and this is used as a source of power. Allied to this is a general lack of understanding of the physical world (lightning is a weapon used by the gods or whatever) and a promise of continued existence following death.

Brutality and violence is accepted because it is considered necessary for the "truth" to be accepted by everyone and the violent suppression and subjugation of alternative ideologies is essential to ensure that "truth" is not corrupted. It has been a hallmark of Christianity over many centuries and is seen at present in factions of Islam.

Religion is the practice of telling minimally plausible fairy tales to a frightened community in order to ensure compliance.

[floo]

I think that it may be appropriate to ask at this point "what is the purpose of religion?"

My own view is that it is a system of social control - different from systems which involve physical methods such as violence or the threat of physical restraint - which uses the suggestion of revealed knowledge to influence behaviour. A shaman, or priest, or imam or witchdoctor ... or whatever ... has "knowledge" not possessed by ordinary people and this is used as a source of power. Allied to this is a general lack of understanding of the physical world (lightning is a weapon used by the gods or whatever) and a promise of continued existence following death.

Brutality and violence is accepted because it is considered necessary for the "truth" to be accepted by everyone and the violent suppression and subjugation of alternative ideologies is essential to ensure that "truth" is not corrupted. It has been a hallmark of Christianity over many centuries and is seen at present in factions of Islam.

Religion is the practice of telling minimally plausible fairy tales to a frightened community in order to ensure compliance.

That sums up my experience of it.