Choosing my religion

In article ,
"0tterbot" wrote:

to secular humanists (and of course some others) in 2006 this, of course,
defies belief, and yet it is so. clearly (well, to me :-) people who would
kill for their religion are going against their own god, but evidently
there's a disconnect about what that god stands for (after all, two people
can read the same book & develop entirely different ideas about it, can't
they?) and to them, those other people are so damaging god by existing they
have to be killed. (boggle!)

Not damaging *God*, but other people. Capital punishment is traditional for
heresy. Why?

People who don't believe the correct propositions go to Hell.
A heresy is an incorrect proposition.
People who believe a heresy therefore go to Hell.
Therefore, a person who spreads a heresy sends people to Hell.

A murderer just destroys your body -- the heretic destroys your eternity. If
you believed this set of propositions, what punishment would *you* think
appropriate?

(A bit OT, but I thought I'd explain the logic of it.)

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

Chookie wrote:
"Chimp" wrote:

But to most Christians (irrespective of denomination and period), such
syncretism is necessarily heterodox. Therefore, Hitler was a heretic,
though not an atheist.

Yes, he may well have had "heretical" ideas as judged by many
Christians. But many Protestants think that Catholic doctrine
is wrong (aka "heretical") and many Catholics think that about
Protestant doctrine, and many "liberal" Christians think that
Biblical literalism is wrong (aka "heretical") whereas many
Biblical literalists think that the liberals are "heretical" for
not accepting the literal wording, and then there are Mormons
versus everyone else, etcetera . . . . so "being thought wrong
by many other Christians" is quite common and doesn't allow
one to deduce all that much.

As I said elsewhe
You'd then have to look at why each group believes
what it does, and how that fits in historically and logically,
to get at the truth. Not a small matter!

We have branches within Christendom, with *reasons* for their schisms. The
differences between denominations are not random, spontaneous and puzzling
mutations; frequently they have taken hundreds of years to evolve.

The main reason for the schisms is that in theology there is
no mechanism for establishing truth. Thus, when conflicting
opinions over truth arise, the result is often schism, since
the opinions are usually bound up with enough emotion
that the adherents are unwilling to agree-to-disagree within
the same church.

We seem to be witnessing a current schism in the Episcopal
church over the ordination of gay clergy. One of a very long
line of schisms in the Christian family.

By contrast, in science there are excellent methods for
establishing which of two competeing opinions is the
truer. So that while there is often disagreement where
the evidence is unclear, it is nearly always settled and
agreed by the next generation. So no long-lasting schisms.

A nationalist politician comes up with with a syncretistic theology that also
places the Church under the State. This doesn't fit anywhere in Christianity,
and is rejected by the Protestants and the Catholics. Still would be, for
that matter -- hence my assertion that Hitler's new church is heterodox to
most Christians *irrespective* of denomination/age.

Yes, fair enough. Just like the Mormons came up with a
new revelation that no other Christians accepted; for that
matter Christianity originated with new ideas that the Jews
didn't accept; and then Muhammed came up with a new
revalation that neither Jews nor Christians accepted.
Ditto Luther with his new ideas that Catholics didn't accept.

And I could list another 30-odd heretical groups in the
history of Christianity that weren't accepted by others
(Gnosticism, Arianism, Docetism, Priscillianism, etc, etc).

So, the Nazi's "German Christian" movement was just
another example of a very common pattern.

Chimp

Chookie wrote:
In article ,
"0tterbot" wrote:

to secular humanists (and of course some others) in 2006 this, of course,
defies belief, and yet it is so. clearly (well, to me :-) people who would
kill for their religion are going against their own god, but evidently
there's a disconnect about what that god stands for (after all, two people
can read the same book & develop entirely different ideas about it, can't
they?) and to them, those other people are so damaging god by existing they
have to be killed. (boggle!)

Not damaging *God*, but other people. Capital punishment is traditional for
heresy. Why?

People who don't believe the correct propositions go to Hell.
A heresy is an incorrect proposition.
People who believe a heresy therefore go to Hell.
Therefore, a person who spreads a heresy sends people to Hell.

A murderer just destroys your body -- the heretic destroys your eternity. If
you believed this set of propositions, what punishment would *you* think
appropriate?

(A bit OT, but I thought I'd explain the logic of it.)

An excellent analysis of why religion is dangerous
(at least those religions that prescribe Hell for "wrong"
thoughts and Heaven for "right" thoughts).

Chimp

Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
In rec.scouting.issues Chimp wrote:

[snip accounts of lots of atrocities.]

Athiest seem to be far more efficent killers since they were able to kill
millions in a tenth of the time the inquisition claimed a few thousand...

This is a largely pointless conversation since neither of us
believe that religion or atheist, per se, are the prime
motivating factors of mass murder.

However, it occurs to me that the most "efficient" killing
of all (exceeding the Mao and Pol Pot purges) was the
Rwandan genocide, where in a country of only 8 million
them managed to kill 1 million in a mere 100 days,
breaking all records for killing the biggest fraction of
ones population in the shortest time.

[I'm told that Rwanda is predominantly Catholic, though
I expect there is a lot of traditional African religion also
.. . . not that either is particularly relevant.]

Chimp

In article , Chookie
says...

In article , Banty
wrote:

But nonetheless, mass killings *do* take place in the name of religions, and
in circumstances that these would not take place if it *weren't* for the
religion.

I'm not convinced that is as frequent as commonly thought. Most wars have
economic imperatives. Religion is often used as part of the flag-waving and
trumpet-blowing process, if it helps distinguish Us from Them. But even when
it doesn't, we all know God Is On Our Side!

I definately agree with this. It's just that, I don't know what your statements
about which religions might be considered 'heretical' have to do with this.

And, " not as frequently as commonly though" (I called it a truism) does NOT
mean it doesn't happen, or that it's not a concern today.


Also, consider that, while "murder" isn't allowed in just about any religion,
killings in the course of wars and law enforcement are rationalized and
justified as a matter of course. All the jihadists, or Serbian slaughterers,
need to do, is to consider their actions as part of a war or other necessary
action.

Except that there are plenty of Christian writings on the conduct of wars, and
massacre of civilians isn't in the manual. I've always heard that it's not in
the Muslim manual either (I've heard there is a specific prohibition against
the killing of women, the old and children in warfare in Islam).


No-one gets smited in the "Christian manual"? No righteously slaughtered
Phililstines? I don't know if I go along with that. Although I do think it's
but the chronicalling of an ancient migration and extermination, from the POV of
the winners, and not necessarily a guide to live by.

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

In article , Chookie
says...

In article ,
"0tterbot" wrote:

to secular humanists (and of course some others) in 2006 this, of course,
defies belief, and yet it is so. clearly (well, to me :-) people who would
kill for their religion are going against their own god, but evidently
there's a disconnect about what that god stands for (after all, two people
can read the same book & develop entirely different ideas about it, can't
they?) and to them, those other people are so damaging god by existing they
have to be killed. (boggle!)

Not damaging *God*, but other people. Capital punishment is traditional for
heresy. Why?

People who don't believe the correct propositions go to Hell.
A heresy is an incorrect proposition.
People who believe a heresy therefore go to Hell.
Therefore, a person who spreads a heresy sends people to Hell.

A murderer just destroys your body -- the heretic destroys your eternity. If
you believed this set of propositions, what punishment would *you* think
appropriate?

(A bit OT, but I thought I'd explain the logic of it.)


But do you see how people might be a little, um, concerned about that?

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

In article .com, Chimp
says...

Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
In rec.scouting.issues Chimp wrote:

[snip accounts of lots of atrocities.]

Athiest seem to be far more efficent killers since they were able to kill
millions in a tenth of the time the inquisition claimed a few thousand...

This is a largely pointless conversation since neither of us
believe that religion or atheist, per se, are the prime
motivating factors of mass murder.

However, it occurs to me that the most "efficient" killing
of all (exceeding the Mao and Pol Pot purges) was the
Rwandan genocide, where in a country of only 8 million
them managed to kill 1 million in a mere 100 days,
breaking all records for killing the biggest fraction of
ones population in the shortest time.

I think Gengis Khan outdid that quite a few times over.

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

Originally Posted by Cathy Weeks

Banty wrote:

Stalin's purges, the Cultural Revolution - yes, I think we can say religion is
not the only motive for these insane passions of control.

Although I am very concerned that religions are motivating expectations of power
and future events which is propelling the violence of our day. And it may be
catastrophic.

Thanks. After I posted this, I found at least two major massacres
perpetrated by athiests - Stalin's purges was one, and Pol Pot's in
Cambodia was another.

shrug Throughout history, most were not done by athiests, however.
Like you, I suspect the tendency to massacre has MANY causes, and
religion is only one of them.

Sad...

Cathy Weeks

Now as far as Religion goes for the massacre and so on I beleive it has nothing to do with God but sin. when one sins he or she is not walking with God and Jesus in there heart.
Jennifer

In rec.scouting.issues Chimp wrote:
: Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
: In rec.scouting.issues Chimp wrote:
:
: [snip accounts of lots of atrocities.]
:
: Athiest seem to be far more efficent killers since they were able to kill
: millions in a tenth of the time the inquisition claimed a few thousand...

: This is a largely pointless conversation since neither of us
: believe that religion or atheist, per se, are the prime
: motivating factors of mass murder.

: However, it occurs to me that the most "efficient" killing
: of all (exceeding the Mao and Pol Pot purges) was the
: Rwandan genocide, where in a country of only 8 million
: them managed to kill 1 million in a mere 100 days,
: breaking all records for killing the biggest fraction of
: ones population in the shortest time.

Well... depends on what your measuring...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan...olitical_Roots

That article gives several numbers, ranging from 800k to a million, although
it seems to imply tribal, rather than religious bound those involved... It
does mention 3000 who took refuge in a Catholic church being killed by a
bulldozer and machettes...

Course, if you take the 77 million from China's cultural revolution (I'm
using the high end of that estimate since your on the high end estimate for
Rwanda).

Anyway, works out to about 53k per day, or nearly 5.3 million in 100 days...

: [I'm told that Rwanda is predominantly Catholic, though
: I expect there is a lot of traditional African religion also
: . . . not that either is particularly relevant.]

Ah, didn't realize we were debating what someone "told" you..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Rwanda provides some clues...

It says 56% Catholic, 26 Protestant, 11% Adventist, 4.6% Muslim, however
it also says 84% Hutu, 15% Tutsi, so there doesn't appear to be a clear
religious divide between the groups fighting...

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutsis has a very interesting line,

"... Since there weren't any blood or cultural differences between the two
"groups", it was easy for them to change their supposed identity or to
confuse the two. A Hutu could become a Tutsi, simply by raising cattle,
and a Tutsi could become a Hutu by working in agriculture. In most
circumstances, a foreigner (and even native Rwandans and Burundians) cannot
tell the difference simply by looking at a Tutsi or Hutu. ..."

Course, I have no idea if that is actually true...

Anyway, I'd still say China has the lead in this catagory...

But, I guess it depends on what your measuring... total people who have
lost their lives or the ratio of attackers to the total folks who have
lost their lives... One of the wikipedia pages claims over 170k still in
prision waiting for trial related to the genocide. I guess your claim is
that because Rwanda was a much smaller country, they were more efficent,
however in the case of China, I suspect that vast majority of the population
wasn't actually involved in the executions, rather a small minority...

Course, I don't think I could actually prove it, so if you want to claim
that every 12th person in China executed 1 person, I couldn't refute it...

Do you have a number for how many execute people during the cultural
revolution that you'd like to share?

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

In rec.scouting.issues Chimp wrote:
: Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
: In rec.scouting.issues Chimp wrote:
: : Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
: : In rec.scouting.issues Chimp wrote:
::
::: Well, I'd have to say, starting from the top down... the top three would
::: seem to be Athiests...
::
:: : Those with the most Athy? ;-)
::
:: Um... sure I guess (depending on what Athy is...)
:
: : Well you're the one talking about "athy" so you tell us.
: : Hint: It is athEIst not athIEst, even if you do insist on
: : erroneous capitalization.
:
: Actually, you introduced "Athy" to the conversation... so you'll need to
: be the one to defined it... "Those with the most Athy? ;-)" is your
: comment not mine...

: John, are you deliberately being dense and not realizing
: what I'm getting it, namely your repeated and erroneous
: spelling of atheist with ie and not ei?

I was pretty sure what you meant, but just wanted your defintion...

: Look, if you say athi-est the "est" suffix implies "most" and
: so you are talking about those with the most "athi" or "athy",
: whatever that is.

: Atheist comes from an "ist" suffix added to theos,
: thus the-ist and thus a-the-ist .

: So, no, YOU are the one who started talking about the athi-est
: people, which can only be interpreted as "those with the most
: athy".

: And yes, this is indeed a complete overreaction to your
: misspelling, but it was only supposed to be a one-liner
: that you would get -- I didn't realize that you would need
: a lengthy explanation. Sheesh!

Actually, at some point I made a typo, you decided to turn it
into a federal case... ;-)

: You snipped the top funny... can't really see who said what anymore... you
: removed all of Cathy's text ... you should really add snip where you
: snip...

: No, complete snipping is fine

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)