| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/23/2009 01:45:53 PM · #326 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Apparently, with great power comes lousy marketing ability. ;-)
|
I would argue that Paul was the greatest PR man of all time.
The way he and the early Christians incorporated pagan beliefs, holidays, diet, etc., made it easy for people to convert. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 01:51:57 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Apparently, with great power comes lousy marketing ability. ;-)
|
I would argue that Paul was the greatest PR man of all time.
The way he and the early Christians incorporated pagan beliefs, holidays, diet, etc., made it easy for people to convert. |
That, the crusades, and the inquisition. By the time America was discovered, people were afraid not to be christian. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 02:00:49 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Apparently, with great power comes lousy marketing ability. ;-)
|
I would argue that Paul was the greatest PR man of all time.
The way he and the early Christians incorporated pagan beliefs, holidays, diet, etc., made it easy for people to convert. |
That, the crusades, and the inquisition. By the time America was discovered, people were afraid not to be christian. |
Not true.
1. The crusaders were defeated by non-christians and sent home.
2. By the logic of those condeming the recent US policies against terrorism, then the hard handed tactics used during the inquisition should have produced more heretics - unless the critique is not accurate.
3. America's founding and discovery was a fair bit before the May Flower and non-chirstians were already living here.
But I digress form Dr. Achoo's point of this thread, so I return you to your egularly scheduled programing. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 02:10:15 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I was kinda hoping for something a little more knownst in this thread though. |
LOL. That made me chuckle. The truth of the matter Shannon is that I do not have all the answers. My worldview likewise does not have all the answers. For intellectuals like yourself (and I know you are a smart guy) that is like fingernails on a chalkboard and repulses you. I hear you. You probably realize there are unknowns and unanswerables in materialism, atheism, and science, but you likely feel more comfortable with those unknowns. I'm only trying to reach out and perhaps form a bridge of understanding. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 02:16:41 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
That, the crusades, and the inquisition. By the time America was discovered, people were afraid not to be christian. |
Just to point out the Spanish Inquisition was often as harsh on Protestant Christians as anybody else. It wasn't a good time for anyone really. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 02:23:04 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Not true.
1. The crusaders were defeated by non-christians and sent home.
2. By the logic of those condeming the recent US policies against terrorism, then the hard handed tactics used during the inquisition should have produced more heretics - unless the critique is not accurate.
3. America's founding and discovery was a fair bit before the May Flower and non-chirstians were already living here.
But I digress form Dr. Achoo's point of this thread, so I return you to your egularly scheduled programing. |
1. Huh? During which one? In addition to fighting against the "Muslim Hordes" the crusades also served to try to rid Europe of Jews and remove or convert 'outlying' christian denominations. They also forced Muslims out of Portugal and Spain.
2. No clue the relationship to what I said.
3. Not relevant to the discussion. I used the founding of America as a place holder date. I could have used 1350. And the people who populated the Americas had no knowledge of christianity until the missionaries came. So, they didn't fear it until later. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 02:27:59 PM · #332 |
| Frankly if we avoided every creed because of the worst acts done in its name, we would be left with literally nothing to believe in including atheism and other humanistic worldviews. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 02:58:44 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The truth of the matter Shannon is that I do not have all the answers. |
We spoke about eternity (in the biblical context of eternal life) earlier in this thread, and you were undecided if it meant an 'infinite' time or until the 'end of time'.
Either way, if I believed I was going to live forever, I'd want to be sure and certain of my answers and what my beliefs were founded on if it related to where I was going to spend eternity.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2009 03:20:52 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Frankly if we avoided every creed because of the worst acts done in its name, we would be left with literally nothing to believe in including atheism and other humanistic worldviews. |
Out of curiosity, can you name some bad acts done in the name of atheism? I'm not being sarcastic, I have never heard of some atheist group committing acts of violence in the name of no lord. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 03:45:50 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Frankly if we avoided every creed because of the worst acts done in its name, we would be left with literally nothing to believe in including atheism and other humanistic worldviews. |
Out of curiosity, can you name some bad acts done in the name of atheism? I'm not being sarcastic, I have never heard of some atheist group committing acts of violence in the name of no lord. |
Joseph Stalin. The Great Purge was done in the name of atheism easily to the extent many of the evils laid at religion's feet were done in that name. It wasn't the only aspect of the purge, but the church was specifically targeted among other groups. "After the Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks undertook a massive program to remove the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church from the government and Russian society, and to make the state atheist."
Mao Zedong. The Cultural Revolution and the current persecution of Falun Gong members by the Chinese government. "During the Destruction of Four Olds campaign, religious affairs of all types were persecuted and discouraged by the Red Guards. Many religious buildings such as temples, churches, mosques, monasteries, and cemeteries were closed down and sometimes looted and destroyed."
Albania's totalitarian regime in the 1960s. "religions, identified as imports foreign to Albanian culture, were banned altogether."
Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge "abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs."
Message edited by author 2009-01-23 15:54:22. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 04:27:26 PM · #336 |
| Jason, the examples you gave are of dictators who sought to silence ANY threat to their power- political, religious, military or otherwise. Their campaigns were all carried out in paranoia to strengthen their own private ambitions. The Wiki pages of each either don't mention church or religion at all or do so in reference to crackdowns on ALL potential sources of opposition. Their acts were no more in the name of atheism than in the name of heliocentrism. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 04:55:17 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Jason, the examples you gave are of dictators who sought to silence ANY threat to their power- political, religious, military or otherwise. Their campaigns were all carried out in paranoia to strengthen their own private ambitions. The Wiki pages of each either don't mention church or religion at all or do so in reference to crackdowns on ALL potential sources of opposition. Their acts were no more in the name of atheism than in the name of heliocentrism. |
OK, first, I want to make sure this doesn't seem like a "list your enemy's faults" arguement. I'm just answering trev's question.
Atheism, of course, doesn't have as specific a creed as say Catholocism. This shouldn't let it off the hook though. What part of the quote "After the Revolution of 1917 the Bolsheviks undertook a massive program to...make the state atheist." wouldn't qualify under Trev's inquiry?
The other's are similar. Those communist regimes persecuted religion and installed atheism. Sure it was to assure power, but we can put all sorts of political goals on the crusades and such. Nobody seems to buy that argument though when religion is doing the dirty deeds, so why should we buy it when atheism does it? |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 05:12:15 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What part of the quote "After the Revolution of 1917 the Bolsheviks undertook a massive program to...make the state atheist." wouldn't qualify under Trev's inquiry? |
The part where you pretend it was motivated by a disbelief in gods. "The purge was motivated by the desire on the part of the leadership to remove dissident elements from the Party and what is often considered to have been a desire to consolidate the authority of Joseph Stalin." Ditto the other examples. While the Crusades were literally waged in the name of God, flying cross-laden banners, the examples you gave were NOT undertaken in the name of no gods. They were campaigns in the name of dictators themselves who sought to eliminate dissent, and banning church leaders was only a piece of that aim. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 05:24:30 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Frankly if we avoided every creed because of the worst acts done in its name, we would be left with literally nothing to believe in including atheism and other humanistic worldviews. |
Out of curiosity, can you name some bad acts done in the name of atheism? I'm not being sarcastic, I have never heard of some atheist group committing acts of violence in the name of no lord. |
I'm interested in bad acts done in the name of Taoism. I know that acts have been done to quash them, but not the other way around. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 05:27:57 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I'm interested in bad acts done in the name of Taoism. |
Where have you been? The Taorrorists have been trying to destroy us for years. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 05:33:06 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I'm interested in bad acts done in the name of Taoism. |
Where have you been? The Taorrorists have been trying to destroy us for years. |
Oh dear Pete. *facepalm* |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 05:33:20 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I'm interested in bad acts done in the name of Taoism. |
Where have you been? The Taorrorists have been trying to destroy us for years. |
:P |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 05:38:40 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What part of the quote "After the Revolution of 1917 the Bolsheviks undertook a massive program to...make the state atheist." wouldn't qualify under Trev's inquiry? |
The part where you pretend it was motivated by a disbelief in gods. "The purge was motivated by the desire on the part of the leadership to remove dissident elements from the Party and what is often considered to have been a desire to consolidate the authority of Joseph Stalin." Ditto the other examples. While the Crusades were literally waged in the name of God, flying cross-laden banners, the examples you gave were NOT undertaken in the name of no gods. They were campaigns in the name of dictators themselves who sought to eliminate dissent, and banning church leaders was only a piece of that aim. |
Well, I politely disagree. If one creed wages a campaign of persecution against another creed, it's an ill of that creed. Atheism and communism of the 20th century are admittedly intertwined. However, I can't simply just blame all the bad on the communist portion and neglect the fact atheism was part and parcel of the worldview. Certainly when persecution occur the mantra would be "religion is bad" rather than "we want to keep power". Now, did the leaders really care about the former versus the later? I'm certainly willing to guess that many did not (although for some it may have been a big deal). Likewise though, I am just as confident that there were leaders in the 400 years of the crusades who could not have cared less about "spreading Christianity" when compared to the potential wealth gained through the spoils of war. I even had taught in an undergrad history class that the crusades were mainly about finding something to do with your extra sons. The first inherits the land, the second joins the church, but what do you do with the third? He goes on a crusade. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 05:39:33 PM · #344 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I'm interested in bad acts done in the name of Taoism. I know that acts have been done to quash them, but not the other way around. |
That's not a bad example. The agnostics tend to be pretty meek as well.
Sun tzu's The Art of War, is, according to wikipedia, "to be a prime example of Taoist strategy." Take that for what it's worth.
Message edited by author 2009-01-23 17:44:37. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 05:55:39 PM · #345 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I'm interested in bad acts done in the name of Taoism. I know that acts have been done to quash them, but not the other way around. |
That's not a bad example. The agnostics tend to be pretty meek as well.
Sun tzu's The Art of War, is, according to wikipedia, "to be a prime example of Taoist strategy." Take that for what it's worth. |
Wiki also says this: "Much of the text is about how to fight wars without actually having to do battle: it gives tips on how to outsmart one's opponent so that physical battle is not necessary."
And Sun Tzu says this: "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." and this: "The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities... It is best to win without fighting."
The Art of War was not about fighting tactics as people think the name implies. It is about how to defeat your enemy, preferably without having to fight at all. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 06:08:39 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
The Art of War was not about fighting tactics as people think the name implies. It is about how to defeat your enemy, preferably without having to fight at all. |
You are kidding right? I read The Art of War in undergrad. Have you? |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 06:13:10 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If one creed wages a campaign of persecution against another creed, it's an ill of that creed. |
Hence my comment on blaming heliocricity. Each of those dictators believed the earth orbits the sun, but it would be silly to attribute a crackdown against religious dogma to a desire to instill that belief. And so it is with atheism in this context: "notable" dictators tend to be atheist simply because you obviously can't control everyone if they're following someone else, and the best route to totalitarian success is to silence ALL potential dissent. The same would hold true for a Communist ideal, since any dissent would disrupt the collective like multiple queens in an ant colony.
Thus, while these people may not have believed in gods, campaigns to suppress religion were ultimately more a matter of ensuring political compliance than instilling a [dis]belief system, and as long as there was no threat of dissent these leaders generally didn't care what you believed.
"Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated for the suppression, and, ultimately, the disappearance of religious beliefs, due to their unscientific and superstitious character. In the 1920s and 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless were active in anti-religious propaganda. Atheism was the norm in schools, communist organizations (such as the Young Pioneer Organization), and the media.
The regime's efforts to eradicate religion in the Soviet Union, however, varied over the years with respect to particular religions and have been affected by higher state interests. Official policies and practices not only varied with time but also differed in their application from one nationality to another and from one religion to another. Although all Soviet leaders had the same long-range goal of developing a cohesive Soviet people, they pursued different policies to achieve it. For the Soviet regime, the questions of nationality and religion were always closely linked. Not surprisingly, therefore, the attitude toward religion also varied from a total ban on some religions to official support of others." |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 06:13:24 PM · #348 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
The Art of War was not about fighting tactics as people think the name implies. It is about how to defeat your enemy, preferably without having to fight at all. |
You are kidding right? I read The Art of War in undergrad. Have you? |
Yes. I guess we take from it what we bring into it. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 06:38:44 PM · #349 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
The Art of War was not about fighting tactics as people think the name implies. It is about how to defeat your enemy, preferably without having to fight at all. |
You are kidding right? I read The Art of War in undergrad. Have you? |
Yes. I guess we take from it what we bring into it. |
Well, I'm not disagreeing that Sun Tzu felt there was more to War than just the battle, but he had plenty of sections on tactics and strategy and when and how to maneuver and where to strike. |
|
|
|
01/23/2009 06:41:24 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
The Art of War was not about fighting tactics as people think the name implies. It is about how to defeat your enemy, preferably without having to fight at all. |
You are kidding right? I read The Art of War in undergrad. Have you? |
You must have forgotten some things in the years since, I reread it for about the 4th time last summer. That's the main emphasis; to acquire victory without actually fighting. It holds that the greatest generals win without actually fighting. Physical combat is the last resort of a good general.
Two variations of the same quote from Chapter 3:
Originally posted by SunTzu:
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities... It is best to win without fighting. |
Message edited by author 2009-01-23 18:44:10. |
|
