The Rapture Index

[jeremyp]

believing that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected

I'll take this as your answer to my question. As long as you hold that belief, you are a Christian, yes?

Paisley was a Christian. The Pope is a Christian. Yet the followers of one and the followers of the other were often killing each other during the 70's and 80's.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'll take this as your answer to my question. As long as you hold that belief, you are a Christian, yes?

Paisley was a Christian. The Pope is a Christian. Yet the followers of one and the followers of the other were often killing each other during the 70's and 80's.

That was sin first and foremost but 17th and 18th century politics thrown in. Most followers, I maintain, did not kill each other.

[jeremyp]

That was sin first and foremost but 17th and 18th century politics thrown in. Most followers, I maintain, did not kill each other.

I grant most followers didn't go around killing each other. Most of them just wanted to carry on living their lives. Unfortunately, there were enough Christians who did go round killing other Christians throughout history that it was often quite miserable being the wrong type of Christian. For example, Catholics in England in the 16th and 17th centuries were certainly persecuted by the protestants.

[Sebastian Toe]

And that question is?

The one asked by jeremyp.
The one that you quoted but did not answer in your  post that I referenced.
That question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The one asked by jeremyp.
The one that you quoted but did not answer in your  post that I referenced.
That question.

I think I have agreed with Jeremy that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected and have asked people how that motivates people to evil.

If as many believe here that christian beliefs motivates people to evil we are entitled to ask what christian beliefs are you talking about.

The non receipt of an answer from those people is IMHO par for the course.

[Dicky Underpants]

I think I have agreed with Jeremy that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected and have asked people how that motivates people to evil.

If as many believe here that christian beliefs motivates people to evil we are entitled to ask what christian beliefs are you talking about.

The non receipt of an answer from those people is IMHO par for the course.

It is difficult to think that so much bloodshed in history could be in any way associated with the man who said "Blessed are the peacemakers" and "Put your sword into its sheath - those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword".
I hadn't intended this thread to develop into an appraisal of the whole of Christian history, but since it seems to have moved in this direction, it might well be worth considering the role that heresy played in the sorry tale.
" For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36
There is no doubt that this concept was of supreme importance during the Thirty Years War, for instance. I believe it was Frederick of Bohemia who said he would rather his whole kingdom be destroyed than tolerate heresy for one day.
All those who considered themselves "True Christians" believed they were playing for very high stakes.
Now this is essentially your problem. No doubt most of us fear pain and possible imminent death, but many have moved on from fearing the wrath of the Bogeyman.

[jeremyp]

I think I have agreed with Jeremy that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected and have asked people how that motivates people to evil.

If as many believe here that christian beliefs motivates people to evil we are entitled to ask what christian beliefs are you talking about.

The non receipt of an answer from those people is IMHO par for the course.

And that's the only Christian belief there is, is it? Is the virgin birth a Christian belief? What about the idea of transubstantiation? Also, were the Christians that didn't believe Jesus was God but perhaps a vessel for divinity really Christians? Before you answer no to that last one, it is precisely what the author of Mark thought. You probably think he was a Christian.

Christianity is not just the core beliefs but is everything that goes with it and suggesting that protestants persecuting catholics or vice versa had nothing to do with Christian beliefs is utter bullshit.

[Outrider]

I think I have agreed with Jeremy that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected and have asked people how that motivates people to evil.

In the specifics - institutionalised homophobia and misogyny would be high on my list, with pervasive remnants of racism still lurking here and there.

If as many believe here that christian beliefs motivates people to evil we are entitled to ask what christian beliefs are you talking about.

That white races are superior to darker skinned ones; that women have some sort of duty to be childbearers and homemakers first and foremost; that to be gay is to be immoral; that morality is somehow hereditary; that inherited guilt can be assuaged by blood sacrifice; that 'unconditional' love can come with conditions; that obedience is morally preferable to even-handedness; that genocide is fine if you're the right kind of person killing the wrong kind of person...

The non receipt of an answer from those people is IMHO par for the course.

"... and that's when this irony meter that you guaranteed me was so robust just gave up."

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And that's the only Christian belief there is, is it? Is the virgin birth a Christian belief? What about the idea of transubstantiation? Also, were the Christians that didn't believe Jesus was God but perhaps a vessel for divinity really Christians? Before you answer no to that last one, it is precisely what the author of Mark thought. You probably think he was a Christian.

Is parthenogenesis a scientific phenomena? Could Parthenogenesis not be artificially instigated....never say never. The incarnation sounds like Christ's humanity was a vessel for divinity in a way that others are base metal cauldrons for the pure 'gold' of the Holy spirit are not. The word vessel is IMHO a bit vague.

Christianity is not just the core beliefs but is everything that goes with it

That statement suggests that the core beliefs are insufficient and that is not so, besides sincere investigation demands the beating down and clearance of the peripheral to get to the heart of the matter

and suggesting that protestants persecuting catholics or vice versa had nothing to do with Christian beliefs is utter bullshit.

And yet it is perfectly possible to be a catholic and protestant and not persecute. So we have to find what it is that  triggers it.

Secondly, ''Everything that goes with it'' seems rather in the purvue of the person making the judgment and their bias and prejudices.

[Sebastian Toe]

I think I have agreed with Jeremy that Jesus is the son of God,

Thanks for the clarification.
I'm not sure that all Christians do agree on that point though?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the specifics - institutionalised homophobia and misogyny would be high on my list, with pervasive remnants of racism still lurking here and there.

That's just like saying a police force has to have institutionalised homophobia and misogyny.

That white races are superior to darker skinned ones

Jesus had dark skin. This is something that is not New Testament;

that women have some sort of duty to be childbearers and homemakers first and foremost

Not new testament where being unmarried for the sake of the kingdom is recommended for some. Unknown for a society where Heterosexual marriage was the imperative for all

; that to be gay is to be immoral;

Everybody is immoral. No group is especially immoral, that is a modern belief. The real scandal is that there is forgiveness for the worst of sinners

that morality is somehow hereditary;

Given that you probably blame upbringing when somebody does something wrong you believe that morality is transmitted across generations

that inherited guilt can be assuaged by blood sacrifice

Only by God sacrificing his son

; that 'unconditional' love can come with conditions

Love invariably carries the risk of rejection

that genocide is fine if you're the right kind of person killing the wrong kind of person...

Nothing is ''fine'' after the fall.

"... and that's when this irony meter that you guaranteed me was so robust just gave up."

Just about the same time as my ''Lumping everything outrider doesn't like under christianity'' meter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is difficult to think that so much bloodshed in history could be in any way associated with the man who said "Blessed are the peacemakers" and "Put your sword into its sheath - those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword".
I hadn't intended this thread to develop into an appraisal of the whole of Christian history, but since it seems to have moved in this direction, it might well be worth considering the role that heresy played in the sorry tale.
" For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36
There is no doubt that this concept was of supreme importance during the Thirty Years War, for instance. I believe it was Frederick of Bohemia who said he would rather his whole kingdom be destroyed than tolerate heresy for one day.
All those who considered themselves "True Christians" believed they were playing for very high stakes.
Now this is essentially your problem. No doubt most of us fear pain and possible imminent death, but many have moved on from fearing the wrath of the Bogeyman.

So when heresy stopped being a thing, that was the end of warfare was it?

[Outrider]

That's just like saying a police force has to have institutionalised homophobia and misogyny.

No, it isn't, the police do not have a foundational document so badly written that it can be interpreted as supporting homophobia and misogyny, and do not have a significant segment of their membership who believe that those are part of the purpose of being the police.

Jesus had dark skin. This is something that is not New Testament

I think it's likely that whomever the Jesus myth is based on was probably not a white European; it's not me that needs that explained to them.

Not new testament where being unmarried for the sake of the kingdom is recommended for some.

Again, that might be your interpretation, I might prefer your interpretation over others, but that doesn't change that massive swathe of Christianity that still, because of their take on Christianity, do cleave to those ideas.

Unknown for a society where Heterosexual marriage was the imperative for all

Not only are we not in such a culture now, but Christianity arose at a time when there were already a number of cultures around the world who discretely or overtly accepted gay relationship. Christianity has a long history of trying to suppress acceptance of gay relationships, and gay people, and continues to do so across the world.

Everybody is immoral.

Speak for yourself. Even if that were the case, being gay does not contribute to that.

No group is especially immoral, that is a modern belief.

Really? So the Old Testament does not explicitly call out homosexuality - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."? The New Testament does not include the Pauline Epistle which says "God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful".

Those are not general references to that Christian notion of an inherent sinfulness, those are specific allegations of immorality against a particular group.

The real scandal is that there is forgiveness for the worst of sinners

I can't even begin to imagine what that's supposed to mean.

Given that you probably blame upbringing when somebody does something wrong you believe that morality is transmitted across generations

There is a vast difference between inheriting and learning; implicit in the idea of inheriting 'sin' is the idea that it's nothing related to you or your character, it's a fait accompli.

Only by God sacrificing his son.

Yes, that horrific concept.

Love invariably carries the risk of rejection

Rejection is not 'eternal fiery torment' (although if my teenage years are anything to go by it feels like it sometimes).

Nothing is ''fine'' after the fall.

So therefore God's explicit calls for genocide are absolutely fine? The ultimate throwing away of the baby with the imaginary bathwater..

Just about the same time as my ''Lumping everything outrider doesn't like under christianity'' meter.

I don't like soap operas, swimming or cabbage, but I've not managed to blame Christianity for that.

Yet.

O.

[jeremyp]

Thanks for the clarification.
I'm not sure that all Christians do agree on that point though?

Good point. Some Christians believe Jesus is God and some believe Jesus is God's son. Some Christians flip between the two beliefs depending on when it suits them and refuse to acknowledge the inherent contradiction in being your own son.

[jeremyp]

Is parthenogenesis a scientific phenomena?

Yes

Could Parthenogenesis not be artificially instigated....never say never.

Probably not in humans. I suppose you could clone somebody and that would count, but Jesus was not a clone of Mary.

The incarnation sounds like Christ's humanity was a vessel for divinity in a way that others are base metal cauldrons for the pure 'gold' of the Holy spirit are not. The word vessel is IMHO a bit vague. That statement suggests that the core beliefs are insufficient and that is not so, besides sincere investigation demands the beating down and clearance of the peripheral to get to the heart of the matter And yet it is perfectly possible to be a catholic and protestant and not persecute. So we have to find what it is that  triggers it.

If you read Mark, you'll see that he was an ordinary human who had divinity thrust upon him. In John, Jesus is divine from the beginning, literally.

Secondly, ''Everything that goes with it'' seems rather in the purvue of the person making the judgment and their bias and prejudices.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the belief is not a Christian belief. For example, there are a lot of Christians that believe in transubstantiation, but it's not universal amongst all Christians. It's still a Christian belief.

[Dicky Underpants]

So when heresy stopped being a thing, that was the end of warfare was it?

Heresy was a dominant theme in Christianity for hundreds of years, and the means of dealing with it seemed during that period to be  justified by the end. No doubt you want to attribute mankind's aggression to original sin, whatever that means. I've yet to see any meaningful explanation of this concept, which seems to me St Paul's own idiosyncratic contribution to Christian discourse - his proposed antidote no doubt had great significance for his own personal circumstances and those of many law-bound Jews of the time, but its universal application down the ages has caused more confusion than enlightenment.
Maybe humans do have a deep-rooted destructive streak, but I find more convincing explanations for this in biology than arcane mystic scenarios. Whatever the case, Christianity saw fit to harness mankind's destructiveness for its own purposes whenever it suited - whichever faction of the various divisions people adhered to.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Heresy was a dominant theme in Christianity for hundreds of years, and the means of dealing with it seemed during that period to be  justified by the end. No doubt you want to attribute mankind's aggression to original sin, whatever that means. I've yet to see any meaningful explanation of this concept, which seems to me St Paul's own idiosyncratic contribution to Christian discourse - his proposed antidote no doubt had great significance for his own personal circumstances and those of many law-bound Jews of the time, but its universal application down the ages has caused more confusion than enlightenment.
Maybe humans do have a deep-rooted destructive streak, but I find more convincing explanations for this in biology than arcane mystic scenarios. Whatever the case, Christianity saw fit to harness mankind's destructiveness for its own purposes whenever it suited - whichever faction of the various divisions people adhered to.

But heresy can still be found and yet does not motivate people to acts of violence. What then is the component that causes the violence

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it isn't, the police do not have a foundational document so badly written that it can be interpreted as supporting homophobia and misogyny, and do not have a significant segment of their membership who believe that those are part of the purpose of being the police.

Interesting term, foundational document. I wonder what we can include in that. I'm sure police foundational documents include upholding the Law....and the Law as we know can be Homophobic. Even If we take the conservative interpretations of references to Homosexuality, we must also be aware that in the Jewish world at the time it was one's duty to be in a heterosexual faithful marriage whether you were homosexually oriented or not and in the greco Roman world sexual exploitation and recreational sex and prostitution were at record highs.

I think it's likely that whomever the Jesus myth

I didn't realise you were so fringe

is based on was probably not a white European; it's not me that needs that explained to them.

Not only are we not in such a culture now, but Christianity arose at a time when there were already a number of cultures around the world who discretely or overtly accepted gay relationship. Christianity has a long history of trying to suppress acceptance of gay relationships, and gay people, and continues to do so across the world.

I'm afraid that society was still persecuting Gays long after it ceased, if it ever was, to be theocratic.

Really? So the Old Testament does not explicitly call out homosexuality - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."? The New Testament does not include the Pauline Epistle which says "God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful".

It was possible biblically to ''sexually defile oneself'' with a woman and a man and not at the same time. In the harsh world of Greco roman sexual exploitation and  the harsh discipline of a dangerous nomadic existence they obviously felt they needed rules over choice. Christianity in St Pauls time had no legal influence on Rome or non believers

Those are not general references to that Christian notion of an inherent sinfulness, those are specific allegations of immorality against a particular group.

The New testament has a whole list of groups, I would say a pretty comprehensive list of groups who do not make the kingdom so no I don't see any particular weighting to homosexual behaviour.

There is a vast difference between inheriting and learning; implicit in the idea of inheriting 'sin' is the idea that it's nothing related to you or your character, it's a fait accompli.

I think you are taking a modern interpretation of inheriting here. If say you inherited a slave plantation in the 18th century through a will, and either sold it on or kept it you have inherited the evil of your predecessors.

Rejection is not 'eternal fiery torment'

. Let's take the Orthodox view. All go to heaven. Would you want to be somewhere knowing God was there or would that constitute eternal fiery torment?

So therefore God's explicit calls for genocide are absolutely fine? The ultimate throwing away of the baby with the imaginary bathwater..

No they are not fine, but inevitable because of the fall of man.

[Dicky Underpants]

Christianity in St Pauls time had no legal influence on Rome or non believers

So St Paul's words in Romans 1 only applied to Christians of his time, whereas his words on the imminence of Christ's return (and many other matters) apply to the end of time - or until Jesus does show up?

Let's take the Orthodox view. All go to heaven. Would you want to be somewhere knowing God was there or would that constitute eternal fiery torment?

That Orthodox Church theology which you recently took issue with? We are told that God is love - he would find some way to make sure it wasn't torment, surely?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"Christianity in St Pauls time had no legal influence on Rome or non believers"
So St Paul's words in Romans 1 only applied to Christians of his time, whereas his words on the imminence of Christ's return (and many other matters) apply to the end of time - or until Jesus does show up?
"Let's take the Orthodox view. All go to heaven. Would you want to be somewhere knowing God was there or would that constitute eternal fiery torment? "
That Orthodox Church theology which you recently took issue with? We are told that God is love - he would find some way to make sure it wasn't torment, surely?

I think Pauls' epistles were about where appropriate how Christians should be conducting themselves.
Love involves the risk of refusal. If we refuse Love then we are left with self and it's own attitudes. There are many ways of describing hell, whether it is the presence of God which torments or the absence of God which torments is the question. I guess it is the separation from the spirit of life and grace that some find horrific. For others the idea of separation from the beloved Christ.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe humans do have a deep-rooted destructive streak, but I find more convincing explanations for this in biology than arcane mystic scenarios.

Can you give examples of this?

Whatever the case, Christianity saw fit to harness mankind's destructiveness for its own purposes whenever it suited - whichever faction of the various divisions people adhered to.

Not as a whole and certainly it isn't essentially 'christian'. The better model is political pressure and personal power which overrides the Christ like in people.

[Outrider]

Interesting term, foundational document. I wonder what we can include in that. I'm sure police foundational documents include upholding the Law....and the Law as we know can be Homophobic.

'Upholding the law' is not a document, it's an activity. Policing in the UK is by implicit consent, there is no 'foundational document' for the Police.

Even If we take the conservative interpretations of references to Homosexuality, we must also be aware that in the Jewish world at the time it was one's duty to be in a heterosexual faithful marriage whether you were homosexually oriented or not and in the greco Roman world sexual exploitation and recreational sex and prostitution were at record highs.

Whoop-de-doo. I just looked outside my window, and I'm in neither ancient Greece, Classical Rome or first millennium Israel. What's relevant is the current homophobic interpretation that is widespread throughout Christianity, today; the interpretation which is STILL bringing misery and pain to the lives of innocent people across the world.

I didn't realise you were so fringe

I've been quite open about the fact that whilst it seems likely that the stories of Jesus were at least partially based on someone real, the myth of divinely-blooded magician is so far removed from any possible reality as to constitute virtually an entirely separate concept.

I'm afraid that society was still persecuting Gays long after it ceased, if it ever was, to be theocratic.

The fact that other people doing the same thing are also wrong does not in any way diminish the evil that is being done by Christians because of their Christianity.

It was possible biblically to ''sexually defile oneself'' with a woman and a man and not at the same time.

That Christianity has a broader hang-up about sex and sexuality is a related, but separate discussion; it certainly neither justifies the writing, nor the current hateful interpretations of it.

In the harsh world of Greco roman sexual exploitation and  the harsh discipline of a dangerous nomadic existence they obviously felt they needed rules over choice.

Why? And even if so, why depict it as an unalterably abominable choice? Why not something to the effect of 'not now, people'. Why wasn't it one of the things changed during any of the 'new' covenants that were made?

Christianity in St Pauls time had no legal influence on Rome or non believers

And, again, that's irrelevant when we're talking about the social evils (in some instances being written into law) being done now around the world because of Christianity.

The New testament has a whole list of groups, I would say a pretty comprehensive list of groups who do not make the kingdom so no I don't see any particular weighting to homosexual behaviour.

Except for the bits that say that homosexuality is an abomination and, implicitly, include gay people in the list who won't make it to the kingdom, regardless of anything else they might or might not do. You mean apart from that?

I think you are taking a modern interpretation of inheriting here.

Not really. The story runs that 'Adam' and 'Eve' did something, and so I am therefore vicariously guilty and liable.

If say you inherited a slave plantation in the 18th century through a will, and either sold it on or kept it you have inherited the evil of your predecessors.

No. How do you 'inherit' evil; evil is manifested, it's not passed on. I might be considered to have some financial liability, in terms of reparations, but there's no accusation of criminality or immorality there.

Let's take the Orthodox view. All go to heaven.

Why? We're talking about the view of Christians who have very definite ideas about who is or isn't being invited.

Would you want to be somewhere knowing God was there or would that constitute eternal fiery torment?

Given that I don't think either of them is a possibility, it's a moot point. Real people are being really hurt in the real world; which fairy tale ending I don't believe they're not going to get is irrelevant.

No they are not fine, but inevitable because of the fall of man.

Doesn't matter if some entire groups go early, because we're all doomed? What nonsense. What 'fall of man'? We are human - either we evolved this way, and there is no 'fall', or an all-knowing deity made us in which case it's a design flaw/choice, and still not on us. This fucked-up philosophy that because we aren't some irrational notion of perfection we are therefore hateful and need to be rescued from the person that made us hateful is a really demented version of a bad relationship writ large.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'Upholding the law' is not a document, it's an activity. Policing in the UK is by implicit consent, there is no 'foundational document' for the Police.

Sorry but there were the 'instructions' to the newly established 'Peelers' and the acts of parliament which introduced police in the UK outside of London.

Whoop-de-doo. I just looked outside my window, and I'm in neither ancient Greece, Classical Rome or first millennium Israel.

And you are lucky to avoid unbelievable levels of sexual exploitation. A few posts ago you said this about that world

Not only are we not in such a culture now, but Christianity arose at a time when there were already a number of cultures around the world who discretely or overtly accepted gay relationship.

Which cultures? Ancient Greece and classical Rome the very centres of sexual exploitation and cruelty? That would be you applying modern conditions to historical contexts, Sexual exploitation of women, of slaves, of male prostitutes, and that's just the tip of it, but all forgotten because they weren't homophobic in the modern sense....Meaningless revisionist crap.

.That Christianity has a broader hang-up about sex and sexuality is a related, but separate discussion

As I said, the context it grew up in was one of horrible sexual exploitation.

Why? And even if so, why depict it as an unalterably abominable choice? Why not something to the effect of 'not now, people'. Why wasn't it one of the things changed during any of the 'new' covenants that were made?

You ignore 'the broader hang up'. Remember society was more relaxed about adultery and fornication before it started to worry about how beastly it and the church was to gays

And, again, that's irrelevant when we're talking about the social evils (in some instances being written into law) being done now around the world because of Christianity.

Certainly Christianity was instrumental in the moral excesses of the Roman empire.
However atheists like Grayling complain that Christianity weakened the glory that was Rome and other atheists complain that Christianity put the break on Greek culture which people like Sagan and Dawkins revise into an empire of science forgetting the beastly social set up.

I cannot deny that there is still homophobia but I also maintain that we have long been secular and it is that about the culture where a lot of latent and ugly homophobia still resides. This darkness also expresses itself in the fact that tens of thousands were killed by a deliberate lack of public health and yet millions can shrug that off and Laud the people that did it.

[Outrider]

Sorry but there were the 'instructions' to the newly established 'Peelers' and the acts of parliament which introduced police in the UK outside of London.

And which of those is being cited in the incidents of homophobia and misogyny that the members of the various police forces have exhibited?

And you are lucky to avoid unbelievable levels of sexual exploitation. A few posts ago you said this about that world Which cultures? Ancient Greece and classical Rome the very centres of sexual exploitation and cruelty? That would be you applying modern conditions to historical contexts, Sexual exploitation of women, of slaves, of male prostitutes, and that's just the tip of it, but all forgotten because they weren't homophobic in the modern sense....

No, they weren't significantly homophobic at all. That there were other issues within the cultures is not contested, that some of those issues had to do with sexual practices and a distasteful attitude towards things that we'd now call informed consent and grooming doesn't in any way change the fact that the institutional homophobia that Christianity pushes is all their own work.

Meaningless revisionist crap. As I said, the context it grew up in was one of horrible sexual exploitation.

Just because it has the word sex in it doesn't mean they are aspects of the same underlying problem.

You ignore 'the broader hang up'.

What 'broader hang up'?

Remember society was more relaxed about adultery and fornication before it started to worry about how beastly it and the church was to gays

Society is still improving when it comes to be being relaxed about 'fornication'. Sex isn't inherently problematic. The problem with adultery isn't really the sex, it's the breaking of an important agreement between people who have expressed a commitment and gone back on it.

Certainly Christianity was instrumental in the moral excesses of the Roman empire.

If you say so.

However atheists like Grayling complain that Christianity weakened the glory that was Rome and other atheists complain that Christianity put the break on Greek culture which people like Sagan and Dawkins revise into an empire of science forgetting the beastly social set up.

And one or more of them may have a point, but I fail to see how that speaks to current Christian manifestations of misogyny and homophobia.

I cannot deny that there is still homophobia but I also maintain that we have long been secular and it is that about the culture where a lot of latent and ugly homophobia still resides.

We are becoming more secular, but we haven't shaken off the entirety of a thousand and more years of Christian cultural influence. Within that secular space, we afford all groups the opportunity to speak, and many of the Christian groups depict their Christianity, in this increasingly secular world, as being homophobic and misogynistic. Yes, we as a culture are moving forward, but there are still anachronistic hold-outs, and many of those are explicitly Christian and their homophobia and misogyny are explicitly rooted in that Christianity. That's amongst the evil that Christianity is bringing to the world.

This darkness also expresses itself in the fact that tens of thousands were killed by a deliberate lack of public health and yet millions can shrug that off and Laud the people that did it.

On the one had I'm curious about what this is supposed to be bout (COVID?) but on the other hand it's just another Vlad attempt to move the topic on because you don't like the unavoidable conclusions that are being laid bare, here.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, they weren't significantly homophobic at all. That there were other issues within the cultures is not contested, that some of those issues had to do with sexual practices and a distasteful attitude towards things that we'd now call informed consent and grooming doesn't in any way change the fact that the institutional homophobia that Christianity pushes is all their own work.

Historical revisionism and a mealy mouth summation of the horror that was the cultural sexual exploitation going on..... added confirmation bias and the jobs a good'un.

We are becoming more secular, but we haven't shaken off the entirety of a thousand and more years of Christian cultural influence.

This suggests a greater influence of Christianity than is the case and ignores long held relaxation of attitudes toward fornication and adultery and the hope that homophobia is due to Christianity and cannot exist without it. Good luck with that

On the one had I'm curious about what this is supposed to be bout (COVID?).

Yes British society has shown how appalling it is and that it's humanism is a sham.