Controversial book

methodistgirl

New member
bible

Krummhorn! I'm glad you dropped in! Maybe you can help with this book
thing. Now that I know that you are a Lutherian, we were discussing the
bible. What is your opinion? Hey I just bought a new harmonica today.
At first I thought that it was just a toy at five dollars or a candy bar.
To my suprise the harmonica is as genuine as the church pipe organ.
This hohner bluesband harmonica is no toy. I'll have a blast playing it
in front of the top two musicians at church and laugh at them.:grin:
judy tooley
 

Sybarite

New member
Now you sound like an athiest or better have you been hurt in some way
that you think God had something to do with it? This does have me
concerned. If you were once a christian, something bad has happened
where you ask why and blame God. Anything evil really comes from the
devil. I wasn't always a methodist. I'm really new at it. I was a pentacost
church member that believed in a Jesus only religion. I'm glad that I left
that kind of church. They got on my nerves and the Methodist church
I go to is a lot different than some of the others. As for seing a doctor,
I can't afford one! The doctor bills here in the USA are so blasted
expensive. I'm better now, I just smoke too much!
judy tooley

With all due respect, Judy, did it occur to you to actually attempt to answer the points that I made?

Perhaps you'd care to explain which bits of my analysis you disagree with and why.

By the way, Martin Luther said: "reason is the devil's Where, given birth by that stinking goat called Aristotle." He knew – thinking is dangerous.
 

Krummhorn

Administrator
Staff member
ADMINISTRATOR
. . . I'm glad you dropped in! Maybe you can help with this book thing. Now that I know that you are a Lutheran, we were discussing the bible. What is your opinion?

Judy,

I prefer not to get involved in religious controversial discussions here for a couple reasons.
  • One ... Because of my Regulator status in MIMF, anything that I post or comment on, could, by some people, be construed as being the general opinion of MIMF and/or its staff members. This is the cross that we, as regulators, must bear - we knew this when we took on the very serious responsibility of our staff positions.
  • Two ... I personally feel that such religious discussions are pointless on an International scale. The members of this forum represent almost every facet of life on our planet, and represent thousands of religions and beliefs, and I have great respect for all of them.
The forum allows threads such as this one to perpetuate, sans any 'ad homs' of course :smirk:. Hope this makes my situation a little more understandable. There are times I wish I had a 2nd ID on this forum for posting anonymously - but the forum prohibits that, and I could get banned for even trying. Hmmm, I would have to ban myself ... that would be wierd!! :eek: :crazy: :rolleyes: :nut:
 

Andrew Roussak

New member
I guess Europeans have to be aware at least ,that it is only thanks to Christianity that they do not live in the caverns today but can use the Internet, can take part in the open forums, and have the average lifetime of 70-80 years - not 37 like it was B.C. I guess there must be a reason why The New Testament had existed about 2000 years without any changes and the Old Testament...( who can say how long? ) Does anybody seriously think that someone will still know who Richard Dawkins was , say, after 100 years? Don't make me laugh...I can not imagine any of his ideas could be new - this topic is as old as The Bible itself. The heresies had plagued Christianity from its very beginning - how many names can one remember now ( without clicking Wikipedia ) ?

In the modern European tradition, people are free to believe in God or not, but this freedom is given to them by the Christianity ( you may compare it , say,to the Moslem countries ). Surely one may blame his parents in all his personal troubles - but then he behaves himself only like an unthankful child.

I would say ''The Association Game'' makes much more sense than this discussion.
 

Sybarite

New member
Andrew, to answer a few of your points briefly: how is it only down to Christianity that Europeans don't live in caves?

For starters, are you suggesting that the ancient Romans and Greeks lived in caves, with no baths and central heating, for instance? That they had no philosophy, no art, no engineering, no science etc, since they were not Christians and Christianity hadn't even been invented?

Are you suggesting that, in the Dark Ages (so-called for a reason) in Europe, much vital knowledge (including that from ancient Greece and Rome) did not have to be saved from destruction in Christian-ruled Europe by the Islamic world?

Are you denying history?

Religion in general has never pushed human progress forward. It has never been behind women's right or gay rights – indeed, it has worked against these things. Even today, at least one organised Christian denomination formally and systematically attempts to control women's reproductive systems. Outside of Europe, it tells deliberate lies in an effort to promulgate its own ideas of how it thinks people should behave. Religion was used in the UK to justify imperialism and encourage support for it by demonising native peoples as uncivilised savages who had to be Christianised. This was a deliberate policy change from a Roussean idea of the 'noble savage', and came at a time in European history – 1848 and all that – when revolutionary and pro-democracy movements were sweeping the continent. Such a deliberate change is seen in the changed nature of school textbooks at the time.

Religion has denied, rejected and stood in the way of science – do I actually need to mention Galileo or Darwin? – and continues to do so (stem cell research, for instance, and crude attempts to have creationism and so-called ID taught in schools alongside science). How is the internet a result of Christianity? How are forums like this a result of Christianity? Have you checked with Tim Berners-Lee to find out whether he reckons Christianity somehow enabled him to invent the worldwide web?

And Christianity (or any other of the Abrahimic religions, for that matter) has most certainly never gone out of its way to say that people can believe what they want – or nothing – and that's okay. You do realise that Christianity has historically burnt people at the stake for having the wrong take on some aspect of theology or other, or daring to worship differently from someone else – never mind not believing? That across Europe, women were murdered during Christian-inspired and organised witch hunts? Have you heard of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition? Have you heard of blasphemy laws? We've had attempted prosecutions in the UK under such laws in the last 30 years. Have you heard that BBC managers were sent death threats by Christians who got in a strop because the broadcaster showed Jerry Springer: the Opera on TV?

As to the length of time the Bible has been around, well the oldest known story in the world is Gilgamesh – and that doesn't make that creation myth true either. The stories of Odin and Freya and Loki are old – but that doesn't make them true (although they are more genuinely north European than some Middle-Eastern cult). The stories of Zeus and Leda and Persephone and Apollo and Dionysus are older, but that doesn't make them true either. The age and longevity of a book does not make it true. And the New Testament was put together for political reasons from considerably more material that you're not really supposed to know about (Christian censorship, note), such as the Gnostic Gospels.

We have had laws in the UK to force people to go to church – so much for freedom, eh? – with fines for those who didn't attend. In Germany, your own country, there has been post-WWII legislation to ensure that every single taxpayer pays taxes to the Christian churches. They have to make a specific decision to opt out and then it's a hassle. In the US, a so-called democracy, it's nigh on impossible to be elected to political office if you don't declare openly that you're a Christian.

Andrew: I want to thank you for your post. It actually shows just why it is vital to have this discussion.
 
Last edited:

methodistgirl

New member
controversial people?

I have a question for you. How come some people are hipocrits? I have a
problem with people like that. If a person is a christian they should give an
example of it by being honest,lovable,and truthful. Here some people here
who call themselves christians do the opposite. For example a church that
I loved dearly and just left behind did me and my landlord's family kinda dirty.
Well, this hurt me to see what the church did to Charolette and Winfred.
The wednesday night dinner and class was ripped out from under Winfred's
feet. Children's church was cancled and Charolette was not told about it
so she sit in children's church during the whole service and waited for some
one to show up. I was one of the musicians who played a red bass during
service and I had to stand there one sunday in high heels enduring an hour
and a half playing the red bass. I was wore out when I got home and put
on some house shoes and never wore high heels since. It just ruined my
feet just standing there for so long. Sometimes you can go to the wrong
church. That's the reason why I joined the Methodist church. At least
that church has some order to it and I won't have to keep my nerves in
line from someone shouting HALLEUJAH at the top of their lungs! I like this
one. It's so quite you can hear a pin drop but it's very much alive and
not so typical of other Methodist churches. I know that some Methodist
churches can be cold. This one is warm and friendly where everybody
pulls together instead of one family running the whole show! I know that's
unscriptual. The preacher and elders should be the leaders. I don't like to
get my back stabbed while I'm there listening. I get mad because that
hurts. That happened this week while I was helping the secretary out
with the bulletins. The secretary and other ladies and the main preacher
didn't like it either. I hate gossip with a passion and that's wrong for
a christian to behave that way. I know that I have made mistakes in the
past and I mean big mistakes. So I have had to repent of it and turn
away from it. I have an opinion of hipocrits. Do you?
judy tooley
 

Sybarite

New member
Judy, one might as well ask why very few Christians give away all their worldly good in order to follow Jesus. You'll find that Jesus apparently had something to say on this, as he also apparently did on rich people entering heaven being about as easy as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. So there should be no rich Christians, presumably.

Or why so-called Christians believe in capital punishment or going to war and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. You'll not find this in the Beatitudes – or any other parts of what is supposedly Christ's teaching.

Or actually joining the military to do the killing.

How does that tally with what is supposed to be Christ's teaching?

Yet so many Christians are utterly obsessed with being raving homophobes – when there is absolutely not a single word that is reported as being spoken by Jesus on the subject of homosexuality.

Or you could ask why some Christians follow a polytheistic sect that includes the cult of Mary, something that is in complete contravention of the Ten Commandments.

The reality is that most if not all religious people play a game of pix and mix with their religion – conveniently ignoring what bits of theology they find a bit over the top and choosing the things that suit their own worldview.

Much the same sort of points can be applied to other religions.
 
Last edited:

toejamfootball

New member
I am over debating religion, maybe its because I am not as articulate as Sybarite. :grin:

Usually neither side changes their mind. But still, it is a fun read! :grin:
 

Andrew Roussak

New member
Andrew: I want to thank you for your post. It actually shows just why it is vital to have this discussion.

Hi Sybarite, first af all thank you for this invitation. I don't think it is that vital, though , because apparently neither you, nor I, and nor anybody else will change his/her opinion as a result of it. So then, why wasting time? I will try to answer your points as I can; have to say nevetheless – sorry I can not regularly take part in the discussions here presently, as I have really much studio job to do now and only 24 hours a day to accomplish it. I enjoy visiting MMIF, but presently it is somewhat like a luxury for me.
Well, here we go -

Andrew, to answer a few of your points briefly: how is it only down to Christianity that Europeans don't live in caves? For starters, are you suggesting that the ancient Romans and Greeks lived in caves, with no baths and central heating, for instance? That they had no philosophy, no art, no engineering, no science etc, since they were not Christians and Christianity hadn't even been invented?

And a bit later:

How is the internet a result of Christianity? How are forums like this a result of Christianity? Have you checked with Tim Berners-Lee to find out whether he reckons Christianity somehow enabled him to invent the worldwide web?

( I will put these two quotes together; Okay? )

Sybarite, it was not the first post of me you had read; you didn't really think I literally suggested the ancient Romans lived in caves?? Hope you did not. I only wanted to cut a very long story short and spare me a couple of minutes of typing – well, I failed with that...I do actually live near Baden-Baden, where you can visit so called Caracalla-Thermen ( baths ) made on a Roman prototype. Surely they had them, as well as the temples ( which – in terms of architecture, analysis of tensions in materials – can be by no means compared with the medieval European cathedrals ); they could as well build ships, for example ( but they couldn't seriously go in the open seas on them – as they were unable to navigate without seeing the coastline ). Philosophy, graphic arts, ...Okay. But – really – science ? As we do understand this term?

I would say they posessed the sum of empiric knowledge on various fields, being unable to systematize it ( that is what science do ). In other words – they knew, for example, some primitive explosives ( think Greek fire, if not powder or like ); they could process metals ( and how! ) - what had prevent them from inventing firearms? Why could not they build ...well, maybe not an AIRBUS – but at least a deltaplane? They could see the birds flying, the Autumn leaves, slowly falling down to the ground, they had no lack of different fabrics – I would say they had all components necessary. Didn't they want to fly? Hey , the guys could rule the world with all these things!! They could surely boil the water and knew ( empirically! ) that it turned into a vapour, being hot enough. What was a problem then – go build a steam engine! Man, only the Romans alone had a millenium to do this, to say nothing of Greeks – at least a millenium more. Pretty much time, concerning that the Europe needed only 866 years from the 1st Crusade ( 1095 ) to the first manned spaceflight ( 1961 ).

So, if you don't like the example with Internet – Okay, which model of the car you have ? Say, TOYOTA, Ford , BMW ? Well, doesn't matter . If the science had developed that „fast“ as it was in the times of ancient Romans – don't you think your means of transportation – NOW!! - would be still a horse and a carriage, at best?

Let us go a bit back to the history of your own country. Britain was colonised by Romans, which were later christianised, and the celtic population of Britain was slowly christianised too ( St. Patrick ?.. ) . Then, Romans drew back, moved by the invasions of the barbarian Jutts and Sachs ( Dark Ages ), but these were christianised in turn a bit later, as they settled down, and the following and the last invasion – Normans – didn't change nothing in this status, as they were already Christians themselves. As well as the rest of Europe – the Christianity became the stem, consolidating such different people and cultures throughout Europe, which was impossible should they all stay barbarians, each one believing in his own gods. They would just change one another, running in a circle. Thanks to the Christianity , Europe has got the chance to break from this circle, and this opportunity was well used.
Didn't the modern science begin in the universities like Sorbonne or Heidelberg? But I always thought and read that they, in turn, grew from the medieval catholic monasteries? Catholic monks were, in fact, the only educated people of the Dark Ages – they could now communicate with each other throughout Europe, as they confessed the same religion – even living in the different countries – they were not aliens anymore. So, people were able at last to exchange the accumulated knowledge and to systematize it ( the science!!!! ) . The result of this work is, among many other useful things, Internet. Okay?

I guess I am over with the point concerning caves and Internet.

Are you suggesting that, in the Dark Ages (so-called for a reason) in Europe, much vital knowledge (including that from ancient Greece and Rome) did not have to be saved from destruction in Christian-ruled Europe by the Islamic world?

Not sure I do understand exactly what you mean – who had to save which knowledge? Really – no irony - don't understand you. I'll try to answer anyway, doesn't matter if it maybe not exactly your point -
the vital knowledge from ... - such as the works of , say, Evripid, Goracius, Julius Caesar, Sophokles? Very well – who saved them in the Dark Ages? Some mysterious unknown patriots of the ancient culture? We can read these works now, but – we have no originals of them anymore. The paper ( or pergament ) can not hold that long- more than a millenium, in some cases ( Greek works ). Everything we have now are copies – who made them , how do you think? They were the result of the work of monks, who had rewrote them in their scriptoriums and had literally dedicated their lives to this process. Then rewriting them once more, and more ( the paper can not hold that long ...) through the Centuries. Without this work, there were no chance for you to even guess that smb. like Platon had actually exist.
So now – what the heck did they do this job – why did they want to save for their libraries the ancient manuscripts of the authors, who were not even Christians? Was it not much easier to throw the manuscripts away, if they were that interested in stopping the progress and stood in the way of science?

Are you denying history?

No, I do not!;)

Religion in general has never pushed human progress forward.... Religion has denied, rejected and stood in the way of science – do I actually need to mention Galileo or Darwin? – and continues to do so (stem cell research, for instance, and crude attempts to have creationism and so-called ID taught in schools alongside science).

Sorry I had to jump over one passage of yours as I didn't understand your point once again.

But Galileo is a good example . As you maybe know, he was a follower of a heliocentric idea, put forward by Nicholaeus Copernick ( the Sun as the center of the planet system, not the Earth ). It was not a heresie that time, but a punishable act , as it came into a contradiction with the „official“ cosmogonic ideas. His punishment was – to live two months at the villa of the bishop of Florence (who was his mate!!! ) , reading 7 psalms each day ( that cruel, huh ?)

Any other examples of the scientists tortured? Why not speak about Newton, Kepler, Deqart, Boillez? They were all Christians – how could they combine it with their activities? All Russian scientists – beginning from Lomonosov? How did they actually manage it , to bring their works out – they had to be totally controlled by the Church? Following your logic – the Church might have generally no problems of just burning down the bastards? Or was the European science born underground? Were the universities illegal?

And Christianity (or any other of the Abrahimic religions, for that matter) has most certainly never gone out of its way to say that people can believe what they want – or nothing – and that's okay. You do realise that Christianity has historically burnt people at the stake for having the wrong take on some aspect of theology or other, or daring to worship differently from someone else – never mind not believing? That across Europe, women were murdered during Christian-inspired and organised witch hunts? Have you heard of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition?

Yep, I know about it . Sorry for that. But, I have to say at this point, I myself belong to the Russian Orthodox Church, which had never practised Hexenhammer and had no Inquisition or some similar institution.

As you surely know, The Gnostic Gospels – the tree so called synoptic Gospels ( Lukas, Matthaeus, Markus ) and the forth one ( Johannes ) were written in the 1st C AD and not in English language, but in Arameic ( sorry if misspelling ). Then, they were translated into Latin and Greekish and were taken as such by respectively Rome and Constantinopel – later known as the Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox Churches. Due to the variations of these translations, and surely due to the differencies of Eastern and Western mentalities (I do my best to cut the immense long story short!!! ) it came to the following situation – the Head of the Roman Catholic Church ( Pope ) was given a mundane power as well – at times unlimited . Surely you know all that – so it came to the Crusades, Inquisition and Hexenhammer. This was the main reason that the Churches splitted from each other.

As mentioned, The Greekish ( later Russian, Armenian, Romanian ) Orthodox Church had never had any claims to have a secular power of such kind. You just can not trace the necessity or possibility of it out from the Greekish translation of the Bible – that easy. I am aware that ROC ( Russian Orthodox ) is nothing for you , though Russia alone is 120 000 000 people. But, anyway – you can not blame ALL CHRISTIANS for the deeds of Torquemada? Orthodox church had always condemned them anyway.

You know that Germany is fully responsible for the WWII. And – are ALL the Germans guilty??

Much about the Roman Catholic Church – it has paid the price for its unlimited secular power, and this price was Reformation. Church is only people after all . Church is not the same as a religion – people can make mistakes and later learn on them.

Have you heard of blasphemy laws? We've had attempted prosecutions in the UK under such laws in the last 30 years. Have you heard that BBC managers were sent death threats by Christians who got in a strop because the broadcaster showed Jerry Springer: the Opera on TV?

No, but I find it interesting. Who were these Christians? I didn't send anything, so we are speaking, once again, at least not of ALL Christians? Was it a kind of Christian terror organisation – like Al Kaeda? Or a mystic Opus Dei from Da Vinci Code? I heard about a real organisation which is really called Opus Dei, and their aims seemed to have nothing to do with that described in Da Vinci Code ( hey, one another great book, and one another great writer! What was his name?...)

Once again – who were the Christians sending these threats? Did any organisation ( like Al-Islam ) take responsibility? If not – say, it was anonymous – was it worth mentioning here?

Blasphemy laws – do you mean you had the similar situation like that with the Mohammad Cartoons in the Middle East ( where they burnt down the Danish flags and refused to buy the milk from Denmark )? Or like it was with that guy from Iran who wrote the pamphlets on Mohammad and lives now in Britain as an exile ( his name was....hmmmmm...)? Come on... UK is a secular state , is not it? Or had Dawkins to flee from UK ( or US, whatever ) to save his life? Or were the authors of the Popetown ( weekly on MTV ) trialed by the English Court ( or at least stoned to death by the crowd of angry Christians )??

As to the length of time the Bible has been around, well the oldest known story in the world is Gilgamesh – and that doesn't make that creation myth true either. The stories of Odin and Freya and Loki are old – but that doesn't make them true (although they are more genuinely north European than some Middle-Eastern cult). The stories of Zeus and Leda and Persephone and Apollo and Dionysus are older, but that doesn't make them true either. The age and longevity of a book does not make it true.

That was not exactly my point ( I guess I have already sketched it above, if it was not precisely enough – sorry, I can try it next time ).

Do you really fail to see any difference between Christianity and the cults mentioned? Oh, man... Okay, they were all that old – where are all they now? What did they gave to the mankind? What good did they bring to the lives of their people who believed in all these gods?

Okay, Greeks and Romans were discussed above. Let me try a different approach.

Say, at the beginning of the 2 nd millenium ( the nomades in Europe were all at last settled, and christianised to the most part ) - the start conditions for ALL people living on Earth were approximately the same. Europe had no natural advantages anyway. Relatively poor soils ( compared to both Americas, for example ), not the best climate, maybe some special minerals? No. I would say, Arabs and Chinese had accumulated even more EMPIRIC knowledge to that point ( think astronomy, silk, powder, algebra ...). China had to this timepoint a longer history as all European states together. Thus, at times of Columbus, as the Europeans begun their expansion worldwide, they had to face the people on the other continents, who were at least at the same range of development. If not everywhere, then at least mostly. Or at least once?? Say, Mayas having their native railroad system . Or Cherokees having a regular army. And - whom did they really face? Mayas with their nice cult of a human sacrificing, and they used the oxideanean ( correct?) knives for it, because they even didn't learn it, to process the metals...Didn't they had time enough to learn it?

That is – were the Europeans maybe just more clever than the rest? Definitely not. There were a lot of theories of this kind – the racistic theories. Then, what did only they have and the other not??

And the New Testament was put together for political reasons from considerably more material that you're not really supposed to know about (Christian censorship, note), such as the Gnostic Gospels.

Let me not comment this. Of course – there are many things which I am " not really supposed to know about" , but I guess you're talking about the four Gospels ( Matthaeus, Lukas, Johannes, Markus) which are known in the Orthodox tradition as Canonic ( you would say Gnostic ) and the rest of them, which were rejected by church? They are called Apocryphic in Russian ( failed to find the English term for it ), there is not a single copy of them found which was written before 100 AD. The first obvious reason to raise a question whether they were fake or not.

I have a book dedicated partly to this problem – "Tradition, Dogma, Site" – Diakon Andrei Kuraev, in Russian. The book is about 1.5 cm thick and contains very detailed analysis of an Apocryphic Gospels issue – why namely these 4 of all were canonised. I would say let us not discuss it here, it would take terribly much time and web place. I guess one can read about it anywhere else in the Net.

We have had laws in the UK to force people to go to church – so much for freedom, eh? – with fines for those who didn't attend. In Germany, your own country, there has been post-WWII legislation to ensure that every single taxpayer pays taxes to the Christian churches. They have to make a specific decision to opt out and then it's a hassle. In the US, a so-called democracy, it's nigh on impossible to be elected to political office if you don't declare openly that you're a Christian.

Okay – at least something good about US!

About Germany – as mentioned, I am a Russian Orthodox – I live since 2001 in Germany. I don't have to pay any taxes, as I am neither Catholic nor Lütheran. You can say you're an atheist – then you must not pay anything as well. I belong to the Orthodox community of Baden-Baden and pay a FREE monthly donation to my church, as I am aware that priest and the personal need money as anybody else. If it were a tax – I would pay it anyway, then what's a problem?

I have really many good friends among Germans, I guess most of them go to the church, therefore they do pay the said taxes. I had never heard anybody of them complaining about it – though they feel themselves not really happy, for example, that they still must pay the taxes for raising the economy of the East part of Germany, former DDR. This is a commonplace, as you go drinking beer together. But about Kirchensteuer? Can not remember a single accident in six years.

So – what's here to discuss?

Sybarite,
I guess I had answered your post for now. Sorry if I missed anything.
One question from me as a conclusion.

Let us assume there is no God. It doesn't explains anything in Creation, but raises a lot more questions - without any answer. Let us forget about it. The first logical concequence of this thesis – Jesus was not the Son of God, but a normal human being. It raises a great lot of questions once again, not a single one of which can be somewhat persuisive answered, as I strongly suppose, but let us forget about it too and go further.

Next consequence – the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament came not from Above, but were figured out by the people, the same applied for the New Testament. These are all moral norms that had hold the Christian societies together – through the Centuries.

But now, in the modern times, should we presume that they are not holy anymore – they will be then reduced to the moral rules and norms, which were only good for an ethnic group of people which existed somewhere in the Middle East several milleniums ago. Their circumstances, way of life, language, mentality were totally different from ours.

Well then – WHY THE HECK FOLLOW THESE RULES? Come on, do we follow the Babylonian laws today? Or Roman codex?

If so, then – what would prevent me from stealing ( Don't Steal...) ? Or from killing ( Don't Kill )? Why should I stay true to my wife if there is lot of nice girls outside ( Don't .... ) ??

Maybe love? Come on – what is love? If you believe only in Darwin, then you must admit we are all animals at last. Do animals know love? If I am only an animal – would not it be only logical to behave myself respectively?

These questions are in no way new – you may open any book of Dostoevsky ( one of the most famous Russian and European writers, deeply Christian ) and read much more about it.

Concerning the atheistic systems – I have thought a bit, and have found out only two examples of such in a whole European history . Only two examples of the states, built completely on anti-christian, or atheistic, ideology. These were Das Dritte Reich ( of Adolf Hitler ) and the Soviet Union. Lenin was a pretty Who? – but in no way a fool. His books took app. 2 meters on the bookshelf of my Grandfather. But even Lenin ( together with the ideological and political apparatus of the Communist Party – the people specially educated ONLY for this purpose ) failed to bring up an ideology, which could hold the people together – at least for a hundred years.

Well, it was that time consuming once again...

Best regards, hope to visit MMIF at least one more time next week,

Andrew
 

Sybarite

New member
... because apparently neither you, nor I, and nor anybody else will change his/her opinion as a result of it...

Minds are changable – I changed mine a few years ago ;)

So then, why wasting time?

Can discussion and debate ever be a 'waste of time'?

Sybarite, it was not the first post of me you had read; you didn't really think I literally suggested the ancient Romans lived in caves??...

In the absence of knowledge to the contrast, Andrew, it is always best to treat another poster literally. :D Actually, I didn't think that at all – but rather that, in your haste to credit Christianity with so much of the credit for civilisation (including the fact that we don't live in caves in western Europe), you had not taken account of those civilisations where they equally didn not live in caves, but were not Christian either.

… But – really – science ? As we do understand this term?

Yes. Science – in terms of explorations to attempt to understand and explain the world. Science as we know it today had to start somewhere.

… So, if you don't like the example with Internet – Okay, which model of the car you have ? Say, TOYOTA, Ford , BMW ? Well, doesn't matter . If the science had developed that „fast“ as it was in the times of ancient Romans – don't you think your means of transportation – NOW!! - would be still a horse and a carriage, at best?

But Andrew, we are still left with your claim that science (up to and including the internet) is a direct result of a particular religion.

… They would just change one another, running in a circle. Thanks to the Christianity , Europe has got the chance to break from this circle, and this opportunity was well used…

Now this is interesting. Because you seem to be implying that there were all those little religions – and then there was a ‘true’ one. Why is Christianity any more believeable (and therefore valid) than tales of Wodin and Odin and Loki and Freya? If you don’t think tales of giants walking the Earth are believable, why should tales of virgin births be believable?

… Not sure I do understand exactly what you mean – who had to save which knowledge?

Vast swathes of ancient knowledge were nearly lost. The church at the time didn’t want this knowledge around – see Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose for a fictional view of this. Quiet a lot of ancient Greek and Roman knowledge was salvaged and kept safe by Muslims at the time.

… Everything we have now are copies – who made them , how do you think[/B]…

There’s quite an irony in this, since this is exactly what Christians (and Jews and Muslims) have too. ;)

But Galileo … His punishment was – to live two months at the villa of the bishop of Florence (who was his mate!!! ) , reading 7 psalms each day ( that cruel, huh ?)

Andrew, however gentle you consider the ‘punishment’, that does not equate with supporting science.

They were all Christians – how could they combine it with their activities?

First – were they? You know this? Or they said the right words because, at the time, it was not very tactful to admit non-belief.

All Russian scientists – beginning from Lomonosov? How did they actually manage it , to bring their works out – they had to be totally controlled by the Church? Following your logic – the Church might have generally no problems of just burning down the bastards? Or was the European science born underground? Were the universities illegal?

You seem to see only extremes. Look at the US today – the president uses his veto to stop (on religious grounds) some kinds of scientific research that could alleviate a great deal of suffering. Does that mean that universities don’t exist and are illegal? Or does it mean that science is supported by the prevailing religious attitude of those in power? It doesn’t mean either per se. To say that universities were not illegal is a straw man.

… you can not blame ALL CHRISTIANS for the deeds of Torquemada?

I have not attempted to do so. But we are, inevitably, talking in generalised terms.

… No, but I find it interesting. Who were these Christians?..

Again, for the sake of brevity, we are talking in generalised terms.

… I heard about a real organisation which is really called Opus Dei, and their aims seemed to have nothing to do with that described in Da Vinci Code…

Yes, we had a government minister who was a member of Opus Dei – a nutter who actually found herself confused between her duty to the government and the country, and her personal beliefs (which happen to support homophobia).

Once again – who were the Christians sending these threats? Did any organisation ( like Al-Islam ) take responsibility? If not – say, it was anonymous – was it worth mentioning here?

Well, we have a particularly unpleasant bunch of bigoted, hypocritical nutters in the UK called Christian Voice, led by Stephen Green, but a general campaign against the screening of the particular programme was loosely organised by two reactionary national daily newspapers, the Daily Mail and The Sun.

We have also had the fatwah against author Salman Rushdie and the recent upset over his knighthood; Sikh riots that forced a play by a Sikh woman, about Sikhs, to close. (For clarity’s sake, these things were not done by all Muslims or all Sikhs, but they were motivated by religion) We had protests about the cartoons – and have subsequently had trials where people have been sent to prison.

The UK still has an established church that is tied to the state and where high-up members of that church get to sit in the House of Lord’s (the upper chamber) and make political decisions purely because they are senior figures in that religious body – the head of which is the monarch (who isn’t allowed to be a Catholic, for instance. Nor is the Prime Minister, for that matter).

We have new legislation to prevent the religious being offended. It’s so clumsily worded that it could be used to stop comedians making jokes. We still have the former blasphemy laws on the statue book (if God is so all-powerful, why the hell does He need protecting from mere words?) We have legislation that allows religions to discriminate in employment. There are special rules for the religious everywhere. Churches and other religious places are exempt from tax – why?

We have a government that is full of religious types who are increasingly operating on the basis of their own religious agendas – Fiona McTaggart for one, Paul Coggins and his team at the Home Office for another. I’d need a lengthy essay to explain all these. Our form PM was religious. Our current PM is religious – the “son of the manse”. We have local doctors, employed by the state in the National Health Service, yet increasingly turning away women who request an abortion because of their religious views. We have rich businessmen effectively buying the right to be in charge of schools – and then bringing increased religion into them. We have school assemblies that are still required, by law, to have a Christian aspect every day. We have state funding for religious schools – including one near where I live where 50 Jewish girls get to do 50% normal education and 50% of the Torah. How does this help inclusivity? How does this prepare children for real life? So no, we are not a secular state.

Or had Dawkins to flee from UK ( or US, whatever ) to save his life? Or were the authors of the Popetown ( weekly on MTV ) trialed by the English Court ( or at least stoned to death by the crowd of angry Christians )??

Again, you are attempting to see things only in black or white. There have been blasphemy trials within recent memory – Mary Whitehouse was very fond of trying to go down that route.

Do you really fail to see any difference between Christianity and the cults mentioned? Oh, man... Okay, they were all that old – where are all they now? What did they gave to the mankind? What good did they bring to the lives of their people who believed in all these gods?

So here we get the crux – again. You view Christianity as somehow superior to any other religion. Why? On what basis? What evidence do you have that it’s more ‘truthful’ than any other religion? You say it’s different – what is the difference? What is the concrete, real-life difference?

… That is – were the Europeans maybe just more clever than the rest? Definitely not. There were a lot of theories of this kind – the racistic theories. Then, what did only they have and the other not??

This is verging on superstition, Andrew. Why don’t we just all believe in von Daniken? And since you seem to be implying that ‘my god’s bigger than your god’ and he gave us all the tools to go and conquer these places, perhaps now is the perfect opportunity to ask why you want (apparently) to worship a god who, on your basis, sees it as perfectly acceptable to murder hundreds of thousands of people – some accidentally (via viruses from Europe brought to South America) to deliberately (what is now the US). What a nice God.

… Okay – at least something good about US!

I’ll assume that’s a joke.

… Let us assume there is no God. It doesn't explains anything in Creation, but raises a lot more questions - without any answer. Let us forget about it…

No. Let’s not. Because religion does no better. If God created the world, who or what created God? Where did God come from? Do you have answers to that? No, you do not. And you cannot even begin to come up with any.

Science has theories (the word 'theories' is here being used in a scientific way) to show how life could have begun. Evolution is a proven thing – you can even watch tiny organisms evolving in a lab dish. But science does claim to have all the answers. Unlike religion.

The first logical concequence of this thesis – Jesus was not the Son of God, but a normal human being. It raises a great lot of questions once again, not a single one of which can be somewhat persuisive answered, as I strongly suppose, but let us forget about it too and go further.

No. Let us go further. Because this is absolutely at the heart of the question. I have assumed that your earlier comment about the US and atheists was a joke. Yet such anti-democratic things occur precisely because people claim such things are real. Abortion doctors are murdered because people claim such things are real. 9/11 and 7/7 happened because claim that such things (in their religion) are real. Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem hand out leaflets offering money for anyone who murders a “sodomite” because people believe that this sort of stuff (in their religion) is real.

Next consequence – the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament came not from Above, but were figured out by the people, the same applied for the New Testament. These are all moral norms that had hold the Christian societies together – through the Centuries.

A very high percentage of the commandments are nothing to do with morals and all about how you should worship a jealous god. Indeed, these are listed first so are presumably most important. They are not the foundation of any morality. And morality/ethics is not dependent on any religious set of rules. If they are, find me one good thing that a religious person can do, because of their religion, that a non-religious person cannot do. And in turn, find one bad thing that a non-religious person can do because they are not religious, that a religious person cannot do.

But now, in the modern times, should we presume that they are not holy anymore – they will be then reduced to the moral rules and norms, which were only good for an ethnic group of people which existed somewhere in the Middle East several milleniums ago. Their circumstances, way of life, language, mentality were totally different from ours.

You’re getting there.

… If so, then – what would prevent me from stealing ( Don't Steal...) ? Or from killing ( Don't Kill )? Why should I stay true to my wife if there is lot of nice girls outside ( Don't .... ) ??

I repeat: these things are not dependent on a religious viewpoint.

Maybe love? Come on – what is love? If you believe only in Darwin, then you must admit we are all animals at last. Do animals know love? If I am only an animal – would not it be only logical to behave myself respectively?

Now you’re ducking. :lol: Where did Darwin say that we cannot know love – or any other emotion? That’s right – he didn’t. We are animals – we are primates, apes. If a bunch of aliens landed on Earth tomorrow and decided to carry out an exercise in classification of all species, we’d be classed as apes. Scientific fact. Do animals have emotions? All the evidence, both scientific and anecdotal suggests so, so your point falls (again).

These questions are in no way new – you may open any book of Dostoevsky ( one of the most famous Russian and European writers, deeply Christian ) and read much more about it.

I prefer Thomas Mann or Emile Zola.

Concerning the atheistic systems …

There is no such homogenous thing or things.

These were Das Dritte Reich (of Adolf Hitler )…

No. Hitler was not an atheist. Hitler was – on the basis of his writings, speeches and other people’s accounts of him – a Christian, a Roman Catholic. So, for that matter, were Franco and Pinochet.

Let’s go back to the core. What basis is there for belief in a God? What basis (since this seems to be predominantly about Christianity, at least from your perspective) to believe that a virgin gave birth? Why is that so much more sensible than believing in fairies at the bottom of my garden?

In other words, where is proof? There is none. I repeat the quote from Martin Luther: “reason is the devil’s Where, given birth by that stinking goat named Aristotle”.

In other words, thinking is bad. Thinking is dangerous.
 
Last edited:

Andrew Roussak

New member
Hi Sybarite,
thanks for the prompt response! Was interesting to read. Though I must complain, that you have ignored or did not answer the most of my questions. Or you still don't understand what I am saying? We should work on communication, then.;)

The quote of Lüther is cool - he was , no doubt, a clever guy. Rather strong expressions , though. What was the context of that?

I am personally not sure, whether thinking is THAT dangerous ( maybe until you are thinking of robbing a bank ...)

Now , just kidding in a coffee break.

Good, and once again a 5 cents now to the topic of the vitality of this discussion.

A lecture on a cosmogonic issue in a planetarium in a small town. The lecturer makes a slide show and explains - now, look, this is the Earth, this is the Sun, the Moon, here are another planets somewhere etc. After he has finished, an old lady comes to him and says,
" Now, it was surely nice to look at that pictures of yours, but they are all fake and you were completely wrong in all your points, because everybody knows that the Earth lays on a back of a giant turtle! "
The good man was well educated in the university, so he asks her - without delaying an instant:
" Well, and what is UNDER this giant turtle?"
" Why, sure - another one. And it is even bigger than the first!"
" Okay , and ...."
" Why, the third one! "
The lecturer opens his mouth to ask again, but the lady puts in:
" Now, you better stop with your foolish questions - that place is full with the turtles from bottom to the top! "

Sybarite, never mind - I am kidding in a coffee pause and can't come out without another silly joke!

I hope to be back to MMIF at this WE - that here was surely NOT an answer to your post -it comes next - just wanted to say I am here and still alive!!!:)

CU all,
Andrew
 

methodistgirl

New member
I know how people were persacuted in Europe and England in the name of
religon. It was horrible! It started with Constuntean the first Roman
empirer king to use christianity to get his way. People were killed if they
didn't join the Catholic church, Jewish people were slaughtered in the
name of the Virgin Mary. That was Hitler for you! Queen Mary would
put people to death if they didn't become a Catholic. That's why she was
called Bloody Mary. Now there is a drink named in her honor. I could go
on and on. As for medical help, I don't trust doctors either. The reason
why I won't go. I might someday but not now. I will wear a pair of
cheep reading glasses when I need bifocals. I will do anything to take
care of my own emergencies. Doctors here can be quacks. I saw my
husband and my dad lay there with cancer eating them up alive when
they could have recieved treatment to shrink down the cancer and
they both died. Now I sit here in front of the Library computer trying
to give you the right answer. Just send back a reply.
judy tooley P.S. on a controversial book
 

pnoom

New member
I guess Europeans have to be aware at least ,that it is only thanks to Christianity that they do not live in the caverns today but can use the Internet, can take part in the open forums, and have the average lifetime of 70-80 years - not 37 like it was B.C. quote]

I can only assume you pulled this out of your hat. Scientific progress has allowed this, and scientific progress has been constantly persecuted by Christianity. It still is today (creation anyone?), and probably always will be, because scientific discoveries erode the notion that the bible is literal truth.

At least in ancient days, it was the Muslims who promoted progress, hence the reason we use Arabic numerals, not Roman numberals.
 

Andrew Roussak

New member
Part one

Hello Sybarite ( and all still participating in the discussion ), I am here again after a long break ( sorry, I can't help it ). It is not about a lack of interest, once again, but a lack of time.

Sybarite, I want to answer herewith the last post of you. Let me begin with that of your points, which seem to me to be less significant ( concerning the sense of the whole discussion ), and move step by step closer to the core. The quotations will appear, therefore, not "chronologically " ordered.

We have new legislation to prevent the religious being offended. It’s so clumsily worded that it could be used to stop comedians making jokes. We still have the former blasphemy laws on the statue book (if God is so all-powerful, why the hell does He need protecting from mere words?) We have legislation that allows religions to discriminate in employment.

Now, first of all, I don't think I am really expected to comment the British laws – any of them. The sense of what you call blasphemy laws – on my opinion – should be actually the following . Surely God ( even if He exists only in our imagination ) doesn’t need to be protected from mere words ( you have named the reason , why ) . There are fanatics within each religion. These are, normally , nervous people. They can get angry, go out, kill somebody. The right of a free speech is inviolable , for sure, but in this particular case the human life seems to me to be more important. I guess this consideration alone could be sufficient. Surely you have to formulate such things so that they don't sound or work absurd – but it is a matter of law, anyway.

You seem to see only extremes. Look at the US today – the president uses his veto to stop (on religious grounds) some kinds of scientific research that could alleviate a great deal of suffering.

Sybarite, I don't see only extremes, I just prefer the colourful examples. Concerning George W. Bush – don't know exactly, what you mean, but even if it is true – it is surely not the only weird decision, made by the US president? I – personally – don't see any contradictions between science and religion, at least as I understand the both. This was, actually, my point from the very beginning, I will try to explain futher ONE MORE TIME , what do I mean with that. If the US president has some another point of view on the subject – why, sorry....

We have a government that is full of religious types who are increasingly operating on the basis of their own religious agendas – Fiona McTaggart for one, Paul Coggins and his team at the Home Office for another. I’d need a lengthy essay to explain all these. Our form PM was religious. Our current PM is religious – the “son of the manse”. We have local doctors, employed by the state in the National Health Service, yet increasingly turning away women who request an abortion because of their religious views. We have rich businessmen effectively buying the right to be in charge of schools – and then bringing increased religion into them. We have school assemblies that are still required, by law, to have a Christian aspect every day. We have state funding for religious schools – including one near where I live where 50 Jewish girls get to do 50% normal education and 50% of the Torah. How does this help inclusivity? How does this prepare children for real life? So no, we are not a secular state.

Sybarite, I do answer this point only because I am , probably, expected to give an answer. This is not the heart of a question. If the things are that bad ( as you are trying to outline them ), they must be approximately the same in all countries throughout EU. In Germany , where I live now, I can only say I don't see any bad concequences of smth. like this in my everyday life. Concerning the schools you describe – do these people have an opportunity to just choose another school ( without 50% of Torah )? I am sure , yes ( bad if not! ) . Then, it is a matter of their free choice, is not it? My daughter attends a normal grammar school ( Gymnasium, in German ), where she has only one lesson of a religion per week – I had never heard it was different in any other school here. Even if I were an atheist I would say it's Okay to attend this lesson, because they learn the history of the Christianity there, which is a part ( whether you like it or not ) of the history of Europe.
Concerning everything you mentioned above, it still doesn't make UK an unbearable place for you – you are not urged to leave it, saving your life – like Salman Rushdie had to do? I have spent about 4 months of my life in UAE – and I would say, a real non-secular states do not look like UK anyway, in many respects.

To be continued....
 

Andrew Roussak

New member
Part two

Hello once again ... the post was too long - I had to divide it in 2 parts.

From this point on , I have decided to systematize the further quotations in attempt to make this post at least somehow transparent. I hope it is Okay. So , you can just skip to the next "chapter", if this or that one seems boring. These are : 1. Moral Aspects; 2. Some Scientific Aspects; 3. European Science; 4. Basical Questions; 5. Conclusions.

1.Moral Aspects

A very high percentage of the commandments are nothing to do with morals and all about how you should worship a jealous god. Indeed, these are listed first so are presumably most important. They are not the foundation of any morality.
Even if you don't like the first 4 of them ( that is what you presumably call "very high pecentage"? Weak argumentation ), another 6 would be alone sufficient – Don't Kill, Don't Steal...- you know. In a religious society, especially in an earlier one, they would not nevertheless work without the convincing religious context ( that’s why the first 4 ).

In Christianity, it is even more simple – love the near as yourself ( Markus 13:31 ) . Not sufficient foundation?

You may as well compare – The Moral Codex Of the Builder Of Communism, in the Soviet Union. This crazy thing had to be the basis of the new moral, and I had to learn it in a primary school by heart, as all the rest. The main principle – "The hatred to the enemies of the Communism, and the merciless struggle against them". 20 000 000 murdered only in the 30es, before WWII. I am not saying this document automatically made the monsters of the people. But such things were now allowed .
And morality/ethics is not dependent on any religious set of rules. If they are, find me one good thing that a religious person can do, because of their religion, that a non-religious person cannot do. And in turn, find one bad thing that a non-religious person can do because they are not religious, that a religious person cannot do.
Well, if we are only primates then – we should have followed the law of natural selection, as all animals do, right? That is, the strongest must survive. The human society has nevertheless, these weird moral norms, working exactly against this law. Old people's homes, hospices...you know. Do animals do that too? Where then the moral norms come from?
Surely the atheists have the same moral norms as the religious people. Everybody knows, that killing, stealing is bad ( why??? ). These norms are, nevertheless, only instructions – you know, that you should follow them. Whether you do it or not, is the matter of your choice. I'm not saying that the fact of just belonging to this or that confession makes you holy. I am saying that the really religious person would LIKELY think twice before offending these norms, because the origin of this norms is being understood as God Himself. The religious person risks with his/her soul on the way, an atheist has nothing to lose.

As for the examples of what non-religious person would do and religious not – can GULAG be a sufficient one?
No. Hitler was not an atheist. Hitler was – on the basis of his writings, speeches and other people’s accounts of him – a Christian, a Roman Catholic. So, for that matter, were Franco and Pinochet.

First of all , let me notice that you – and not for the first time – has torn the phrase out of its real context. I did not mean Hitler in person, but rather the regime he created ( as one based on an anti-christian ideology ). Then, I don't see Lenin in your list – what did make you to ignore him?

For the sake of truth, a few words about Adolf Hitler. You are right – he was not, exactly, an atheist. He was born in Austria in 1889 – I have no doubt he should have been baptized there as Catholic. Surely he had also attended the services – in his early days . But later – the "minds are changeable", eh? The views of Hitler, as well as that of Goebbels, Himmler, Göring, were esotheric, not Christian. I have read a book about it ( which was called "The Criminal Nuber One", D.Melnikov - first published in the Soviet Union, later republished in Russia ) – if there was a single hint found, showing that Hitler was actually a Christian – I can't imagine it could be missed there. The doctrine of the Third Reich was based on a whimsical mixture of esotheric and occult views, taken from old European pre-christian myths ( that's why the Der Ring des Nibelungen ), as well as from Indian and Tibethian eposes. The word "swastika" itself has the Sanskritik roots. They needed the theoretical basis sufficient to justify the idea of Aryan ( or Indogerman ) race, as the dominating one. Christianity could not deliver the basis for such things – so they had to search for it in the myths. They have even undertaken the "scientific" expeditions in Tibethian region, to explore the esoterical backgrounds there, which they could use as a proof.

Franco and Pinochet – please see above , concerning how Hitler was baptized and later on . I would be interested to know which source you have used – in Wikipedia, I have failed to find anything about their religious views. Btw, if you mean they were Catholics – find me a quotation from the New Testament excusing mass murder.

2.Some Scientific Aspects.
Science has theories (the word 'theories' is here being used in a scientific way) to show how life could have begun. Evolution is a proven thing – you can even watch tiny organisms evolving in a lab dish. But science does claim to have all the answers. Unlike religion.

Sybarite,first of all, there is a logical crux here. You see, this "life could have begun" means actually, that you are speaking of a theory, which is a matter of belief, until it is proven. This belief is not better, than any other. Then – you said "theories". The presence of two or more points of view ( scientific theories ) on the same subject in the same time means, in fact, that they are all wrong, strictly speaking. Because it means, that every of these theories has its lacks.

Well, it doesn't actually matter. Furthermore – only for the sake of clarity:
Evolution – if you mean the classical evolution theorie of Darwin (1859 : On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life ) - it describes , actually , only the evolution WITHIN the specific race, and fails to explain or show how the races mutate, or transform, in the higher forms. There were attempts to model it – in the SU, in the 50es. These attempts failed ( disgracefully failed, because there was a political context in it in that time ).

Now, we have a theorie of gen mutations, which , theorethically , can make such things possible. Though, they still didn't become a single one positive mutation on this way – the new species, which could be reproductive and viable. All they have at the present moment , are - at best - monsters, waste. I believe, it is only a matter of time, though – sooner or later, such new species can arrive. BUT EVEN THIS WILL PROVE NOTHING, because they will know, at that point, HOW. But they will be not a step nearer to explain , WHY, because the science just does not give the answers of such kind.
There is even no question that the positive mutations are possible – though , I guess they work in the labs CONSEQUENTLY in this direction – still without sensible result. The real question is – WHY so much positive mutations ( how many species on Earth? ) within that critical period of time, without any help from outside?

Science may claim to have all answers – yes, sure. But these answers are not contradictory with that, given by the religion. These are different answers on the different questions.

The copy of the Bible, that I own, has 1225 pages of the text, and the description of the Creation itself takes less than 2 of them. If you will take care to read these two pages (once again) , and then will try to reproduce the ESSENCE with your own words , there will be not much. It is being, in fact, affirmed, that God had created the Universe, the Earth, the life on it, and the human beings. That’s all. It is not being described, HOW and on which ways it was done. It is not the matter of the Bible.

That is, if God had created life – he had to do it SOMEHOW. You say , gen mutations? Ok, why not?

Now you’re ducking. :lol: Where did Darwin say that we cannot know love – or any other emotion? That’s right – he didn’t. We are animals – we are primates, apes. If a bunch of aliens landed on Earth tomorrow and decided to carry out an exercise in classification of all species, we’d be classed as apes. Scientific fact. Do animals have emotions? All the evidence, both scientific and anecdotal suggests so, so your point falls (again).

Good, and rather funny. Even if I looked exactly like an ape ( say I was a little bit more hairy as I am and had a tail ) – I would still think of myself as of homo sapiens and not as of ape, because the actual difference is not the common physiology but reason and moral ( I guess it was already mentioned – see Moral Aspects above, 2nd quote ).

Logically, the common physiology is not a proof of any theorie. I could as well say, that God had used this type of a body ( of an ape ) because it had to perfectly fit to all what I was supposed to do in my everyday life. It fits, actually, doesn't it? So, He used the ape's form as a matrix and put the reason and soul inside. That's all – now try to find a gap in this logic.

Emotions – again, wrong context. Have I ever answered what Darwin did or did not say about love? I have meant love as a part of the moral obligation – see above , in the same place.

Surely I know that my cat has emotions – fear, anger etc. Love, in many cases, too – but all these emotions do not contradict with the law of natural selection – they are absolutely logical in its context. But I don't see WHY this emotions must have transformed in the moral norms, which are purely irrational – from this point of view. You will even fail to find any intermediate form on the way of such transformation in the nature, to come up with an example.

So, your argument does not fall – because it was not an argument.

3 . European Science


Let’s take these two for a starter.

Vast swathes of ancient knowledge were nearly lost. The church at the time didn’t want this knowledge around – see Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose for a fictional view of this. Quiet a lot of ancient Greek and Roman knowledge was salvaged and kept safe by Muslims at the time.

Now I do at last understand what you wanted to say with this – and I would say, you would better not use it as an argument.

The "Vast swathes of ancient knowledge", and the works of Aristotle among them, were not given to the Muslims by the Aristotle in person. It was the result of their continuous raids to Byzantium, they were in the constant state of war throughout the whole history of the East Roman Empire. The distant parts of it ( Syria, Egypt ) were conquered by Arabs already in 646, the first registered blockade of Consantinopolis was in 674. The "vast swathes of knowledge" were not lost, but taken by Arabs from the libraries of Byzantium, plundered by their troops. On the same way, these works came to Europe later ( crusades, began 1095-97 ).

Btw, Byzantium did not have such thing as the Dark Ages. Should I say now, that the mentioned works would be no less safe in Byzantium without any "help" from Muslims?

The Name of the Rose – a really important detail for me here is the fact of the existence of the library itself. If they did not want this – or , following your logic, any other – knowledge around, what then this library for? All costs, complexities connected – why? They could just throw it all away and use the library for some other needs?

Btw, I was never able to understand ( Name of the Rose ) which knowledge EXACTLY they did not want to be around. Even now, we do not have any knowledge which could be somewhat dangerous.

Andrew:... Galileo is a good example . As you maybe know, he was a follower of a heliocentric idea, put forward by Nicholaeus Copernick ( the Sun as the center of the planet system, not the Earth ). It was not a heresie that time, but a punishable act , as it came into a contradiction with the „official“ cosmogonic ideas. His punishment was – to live two months at the villa of the bishop of Florence (who was his mate!!! ) , reading 7 psalms each day ( that cruel, huh ?)

Sybarite: Andrew, however gentle you consider the ‘punishment’, that does not equate with supporting science.

A little bit of history once again.

You cannot trace any cosmogonic ideas from the Bible, because this book just does not contain them. It says, that God had created this world ( the Universe ), but it doesn't say how, it does not say nothing about how the material world functions, which physical laws it has etc.

That is, the field of the practical knowledge was left to science.
There was no such thing as an Academy of Sciences in the Middle Ages – these functions had to be carried out by the church. As the Bible did not provide ANY cosmogonic system, they had to accept the best one available. This was the system of Aristotle, which placed the Earth in the middle of the system. The heliocentric idea was put out by Kopernikus ( who failed to prove it – there were still no methods and instruments available ). The idea was suported by Galilei and finally proven by Johannes Kepler in the XVII C.
Why did I write all this? I guess, it must be clear now that this case had nothing with the religion to do – but only with the fact, that the scientific knowledge had to be sufficiently proved, because it had to replace the official cosmogonic model then – which was, by no means, a "holy" one. The church acted in this case more like an Academy of Sciences,not as a religious organisation, and used the instruments it had on this way. That's all.


Now we are coming to the point of my personal interest in this discussion.


Andrew: Why not speak about Newton, Kepler, Deqart, Boillez? They were all Christians – how could they combine it with their activities? All Russian scientists – beginning from Lomonosov? How did they actually manage it , to bring their works out – they had to be totally controlled by the Church?

Sybarite:
First – were they? You know this? Or they said the right words because, at the time, it was not very tactful to admit non-belief.

In this case the truth is exactly one mouseclick away. Visit this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Religious_views
  • about the religious view of Sir Isaac Newton, who wrote ( did you know it ? ) more works on theology as the scientific works . I can't think he had dedicated the significant part of his life to it only wanting to be "tactful". The words of Alexander Pope:
Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night;
God said "Let Newton be" and all was light!
You may as well find in Wikipedia the biographies of all the scientists mentioned: Rene Dekart, Robert Boyle, Johannes Kepler. And of many others ( you may follow the links on the pages – you know ). You may find out, for example, that Francesco Antonio Grimaldi ( the wave nature of light, optics ) was taught in the jesuit college in Bologne and was , actually, Father Grimaldi, because he was a Catholic priest at the same time. About the Russian scientists – I can provide you a lot of examples, actually, though I may search in the Russian Wikipedia then – but I guess you have no doubt I can do it on demand. I can even post here some quotations from Albert Einstein, showing that he accepted the existence of God ( his views were not exactly Christian , as much as I know, but in no way materialistic ).
Now, I guess these examples would be enough. I have to repeat my question, which you have simply ignored last time:

How, on your opinion, could the mentioned above scientists ( the cream of the crop , each at his time ) combine their professional activities with their obviously religious world-views? Were they just fools?
So here we get the crux – again. You view Christianity as somehow superior to any other religion.

Let us make a stop here and clear up this point. I did not formulate it this way. We were speaking about the European science, and the dominating European religion is , obviously, Christianity. It is a history and does not have anything to do with my personal religious views.

Why is Christianity any more believeable (and therefore valid) than tales of Wodin and Odin and Loki and Freya? If you don’t think tales of giants walking the Earth are believable, why should tales of virgin births be believable?

And once again – more to the context of this point. I said , the Christianity did not stand in the way of science, because it had no sensible reasons to do that. You said it did. Let us end up with this point at first.

Whether Christianity is more believable or not – does not play any role in this light. If I am saying that the Christianity was the decisive factor, which has made the breakthrough of the European science possible – it doesn't have absolutely nothing to do with my own religious confession. It is more about an ability to analyse the historical facts, known from the school programm. That is what you describe as a dangerous process of thinking. I could as well be an atheist – the facts would stay the same.
Now this is interesting. Because you seem to be implying that there were all those little religions – and then there was a ‘true’ one....You say it’s different ( the Christianity – A.R.) – what is the difference? What is the concrete, real-life difference?..
I have put these quotations together, because they all have the same context, so I guess I can try to answer them all at once.

Now let's see. The Greekish mythology says, the ocean is ruled by Poseidon and is only subject of his mood or his will. Then comes the Roman mythology which says approximately the same, only the name of their god is now Neptune. Pre-christian Celts believed, that the elements were "gods" – or like that – themselves. And so on.

That is, if I really believe, that the stars are being lighted on the sky by the hand of a god, responsible for that – I will hardly come to the idea of researching the objective laws of Astrophysics. If I think, that the water itself is "sacred", that it is a part of a god's body – I will hardly come to the idea of studying the chemical compound of water.

And what does the Bible say? Nothing , actually. It doesn't contain ANY cosmogony ( see above ). God had created the Universe, as we do see it. It does not say HOW, it does not say nothing about the functioning of this system. This field is left completely to science.

That is, Christianity did not stand in the way of science, because there was no any sensible reason for it. The church ,actually, needed sciences , because this cosmogonic vakuum should have been filled with knowledge. You may find out in Wikipedia, that the sponsor of Galileo's researches was cardinal Mattheo Barberini ( later Pope Urban VIII ). You may find the links to the universities, founded by the jesuits – like that in Graz, where Kepler had studied. And so on.

I am not saying that Christianity is "better". It is just the only religion ( as far as I know it from a school program) that does not contain any own cosmogonic model. This was a chance, that the European science had used ( and quite well, I would say ).
But Andrew, we are still left with your claim that science (up to and including the internet) is a direct result of a particular religion.

I guess it is quite evident now. I just see the internet ( as well as the telescopes, spaceships, toothbrushes, ... ) as a particular consequence and result of the various scientific researches in Europe. Physics, Mathemathics...Hope it's clear now.

Well, Sybarite, I would like to end up with that point at last, and want to post a question for you now.

Once again – my point – the Christianity didn't stand in the way of science ( there was no reason for it ) Such situation was unique in the world, and provided the conditions, necessary and sufficient for the scientific breakthrough.

Your points:

Religion in general had never pushed the human progress forward...Religion had denied, rejected and stood in the way of science...
and:
So no, we are not a secular state . ( about UK now – A.R. )
Which makes me think, that UK, as well as presumably all other European states, stood in the Middle Ages at least not better, than today.

So, your point – the Europe in a whole was not secular, and its religion ( Christianity ) stood in the way of science. Good, accepted. Which means Europe stood in no way better than the rest of the world .

If so, now my question – please name me at least 10 non -European ( non-American, non-Russian ) scientists in the period of time, say 1400 – 1900 AD and, say, 5 fundamental laws discovered not in Europe ( US, Russia ) in the same period of time.

You know that I will come up any time with another 20 names , or laws – from Europe. And I know , that you will fail to find at least one example. Then, you will have to accept, that the scientific breakthrough, one of the results of which ( internet ) you do use everyday, origins from Europe – exclusively. And it must have a clear and sensible reason. If you don't like my version – please give me yours.

And now we came to the core.

4.Basical questions.

Let’s go back to the core. What basis is there for belief in a God? What basis (since this seems to be predominantly about Christianity, at least from your perspective) to believe that a virgin gave birth? Why is that so much more sensible than believing in fairies at the bottom of my garden? In other words, where is proof ? There is none.

First of all - the formulation is a little bit incorrect.

BELIEF – 1.The feeling that smth. is real and true; ...2. smth. accepted as true or real ( Oxford dictionary ). Belief, as such, doesn't need a direct proof . If it is proven , it becomes a knowledge. I believe in smth., if it don't contradict to my knowledge, the common sense, and until the opposite is proven. And I guess you will need such thing as belief too – in 5 minutes.

Concerning the proof .
  1. 1. If we are speaking of Jesus Christ as God – I don't think I will have sufficient troubles on this way. First of all, His existence as a historical person is not even being seriously discussed any more. There are tons of the special ( historical ) literature on this subject. Let me just spare it now. Concerning whether he was God – the tons of it , once again. I have to cut this extremely important issue very short. The probability of appearing of an uneducated man with such ideas in the Middle East in that time is miserable. The origin of these ideas is unclear. He had preached only THREE years. The spreading of Christianity, after Jesus was crucified , buried and denied ( even by His best scholar – Petrus ) is unexplainable.. The probability that it all should had necessary happen in the best time and place possible ( Christianity became – through the chain of accidents - the official religion of Rome, and then thus – all-European religion ) is miserable. And much more. So, you have to believe in Jesus as in God, or you have to stop to believe in a Probability theory. This question was, btw, simply ignored by the atheistic historiography in the SU.

    2. Proof of God's Existence – generally. Take a look:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant
    Immanuel Kant has in his works Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Practical Reason actually proved, that any practical arguments of the existence of God( or non-existence as well ) will never be sufficient. It is logically impossible to prove His existence or non-existence on this way. The particular case of it – natural sciences can not, logically, deliver any arguments sufficient, because the subject of their researches is the material world, and God – if He created this world - can not be Himself a part of it.

    3. One more reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Only_Possible_Argument_in_Support_of_a_Demonstration_of_the_Existence_of_God
    Immanuel Kant, The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God.
    Rather shortly – Kant proves, that the human freedom can not origin from the material world. Its origin must have an over-material nature. Such origin is known as God. Even if our freedom and God are only imaginary, they can not be logically parted from each other.
    Sorry if it was a little bit complicated – but we are not discussing Star Wars now.
If God created the world, who or what created God? Where did God come from? Do you have answers to that? No, you do not. And you cannot even begin to come up with any.

The last and the best of all your questions. It shows me, that you can not accept anything that can exist eternally.

Let's see.

If I accept God , I must accept Him as the The Unique Not Created Essence. I accept that He was ALWAYS because I have no other logical opportunity. No, I can not imagine such thing. But I accept it , nevertheless, and I will have even less problems on this way, as you may expect, because I know that the TIME is one of the properties of MATTER. It makes no sense to apply the material cathegories to Something or Someone unmaterial. As such, God must have no problems to exist eternally. Btw, there many things even in material world, which nobody can actually imagine , but they are still accepted – these are, for example, the 4th dimension, dual nature of light, some paradoxes of time.

Now let's look in your cards. On the very same reason, you will have to accept ( denying God ) that the matter , regardless in which form of it , had existed ALWAYS. Logically, no other way. Matter, or energy, can not begin from nothing because it would contradict to the law of conservation of energy. Any reason, which could have caused such deviation, MUST have had an unmaterial nature – and is known as God.

That is, end of the road. Someone or something – God or matter – should have existed always. This is exactly the state of affairs, in which the materialistic and idealistic world-views co-exist the last 2000 years ( a little bit longer, since 100 BC – Lucrecius ). That's why this debate did not generally make any sense from the very beginning.

But at this point I want to ask you ( the last question ) - why the eternal matter should be more believable that the eternal God ?

5. Conclusions.

After all said and done, let's see what we both have in the long run.

Accepting God as the Reason of the Beginning, I become an answer – WHY did this all happened exactly in this time and place, why the Earth orbit the Sun at the best distance possible, why such incredible amount of the positive mutations had happened, why Jesus had chosen the best possible time and place to appear on Earth, and so on. The questions, HOW this all ( Universe, evolution etc. ) works are delivered by science. I have no problems to understand – where the all-common moral norms come from, because I see the "good" and "bad" things as the reflections of Good and evil existing Above ( and beneath ). I have no problems to understand , why all known cultures did come to idea of God ( or gods ) without even ever seeing Him ( them ).

Denying God, you must accept the eternal matter. You have to explain everything listed above only basing on the the law of the causal-investigatory communications – which is universal for all the phenomena in the material world. That is , you must have regard it all as the chain of accidents. The Earth had accidentally came to its orbit ( any other would be killing ) , the mutations were accidential etc. Theorethically, possible. Practically, I believe in a Probability theory. And therefore in God.

Now, that's all. Thank you for attention, was fun writing. I can not add anything more to it and don't think it is, actually, necessary.

Sybarite, I really respect your point of view. I have said that this discussion is useless – not because it is not interesting, but it just hardly can change the point of view of anybody.

Nevertheless, if you would want to answer – please begin with the underlined questions.

Best regards,

Andrew
 
Last edited:

pnoom

New member
Good, and rather funny. Even if I looked exactly like an ape ( say I was a little bit more hairy as I am and had a tail ) – I would still think of myself as of homo sapiens and not as of ape, because the actual difference is not the common physiology but reason and moral

We only have morals because we have bigger brains. It's not because we're special in some way.
 

pnoom

New member
why the eternal matter should be more believable that the eternal God ?

This one is fairly easy to answer. Because the evidence of matter is right in front of our eyes. There is zero evidence for an eternal God. I may not understand eternal matter, but I accept it because I see that it is there. Inserting God into the equation only complicates the matter without actually explaning anything.
 
Top