Are you serious? Do you really want me to list every scientific discovery over the past 2000 years that has been fought one way or another by at least one form of Christianity? Do you want me to list every scientist over the past 2000 years who has been labeled a heretic? Seriously, take your blinders off for a second. Actually, I'm not an atheist, and I'm not intolerant of the Christian perspective. What I am intolerant of is the hard-core, fundamentalist Christians who believe that their way is the only way and that everyone else is some horrible sinner who needs to be "saved" or else they're going to hell. And don't tell me the historical Christian persecution towards non-Christiands pales in comparison to the Soviet regime. Again, do you really want me to start tallying up 2000 years worth of Christians persecuting non-Christians?
Your playing with the definition. Most people understand fundamentalism to be rigid and inflexible textual rationalization. They don't understand it like you are trying to make it sound here -- people who are really follow the good principles of Christianity. Fundamental Christianity is almost certain to render a Christian very judgmental because the Bible is filled with very judgmental people and ideas.
If you are unable to attach a value to killing when coming up with "social value" in your ethical construct, you have a pretty empty ethical construct. Now that mainstream Mormonism appears to look askance at blood atonement and murder for the sake of preserving the faith, I would submit that Mormonism's social value to society is increased, as has its ablity to survive and attain "mainstream" status. In the early christian church, gnostics had no problem denying their faith for the sake of survival, whereas the church that ultimately survived was filled with martyrs. To the extent that surviving religions have a better chance of attaining "truthful" status -- just by their mere existence -- I would argue that those who survived by violent means have a higher numerical chance of attaining "truth value".
Yes, in the sense that they believe it to be the literal word of God and the purest translation of his ancient scriptures (to include the Old and New Testament).
You live in a strange, protective world. I went to Catholic school and now mix it up between Methodist and Episcopalian services. Homophobia is inherent in the teachings. Get away from the actual service, and "Christians" are repulsed and joke and fear homosexuals. You have your head deep in the sand. You seem to tacitly admit Christians are less concerned about adultery than homosexuality. So it shouldn't surprise you that Christians are more hateful about that particular sin. And I find Christians wallowing in relative self-pity. Which embarrasses me as a Christian. "The most significant persecution"? That's pretty overblown. Pol Pot, the persecution of the Jews with its Christian roots, Muslim and Christian massacres of each other. Persecution of Albanians.
Anyone see South Park's recount of the origins of Mormonism? Sums the wacky sect up perfectly DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB...
believing the the Bible is Truth doesn't turn people into murders. the problem with your position is that you equate fanaticism with fundamentalism. and you think that Christians are as likely to kill for their beliefs as Muslims. that has not been born out by historical fact. since the Protestant Reformation, there has been small and isolated fanatical killing by Christians. i would submit that the reasons for those events were that the people became isolated and were influenced by fears and superstitions that their leaders allowed to grow because of their weaknesses, not their allegiance to Jesus. the Salem witch trials are an example of that, but there are few other examples, and that was a very isolated event. Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps are sad, sad men whose position of media access, in Robertson's case, built by his success as a personality, in Phelps case self-proclaimed, has allowed them to acquire a following. their supporters are misguided. both Robertson and Phelps may say some reasonable things, but those are drowned out by their haranguing.
Here is the problem, Stilton. I think you are trying to equate fundamentalism with orthodoxy or conservatism (Catholic conservative, for example). I think the way the term is used today, fundamentalism is generally viewed closer to fanaticism. The Mormon fundamentalists who are the subject of the book that started this thread clearly are fanatics.
Ok, you can't say something is historical fact and then cherry pick which part of history you're going to use. You also can't ignore people like Jim Jones and David Koresh. While you may not like their brand of Christianity, they were Christians. Besides, lets not pretend that those who kill in the name of Jesus and those who kill in the name of Allah are any different. They are both examples of weak men allowing themselves to be fooled into doing horrible things because "God told them to". The fact that you even bring it up and then ignorantly go on to cherry pick parts of history and make excuses for other intolerant Christians says a lot about you. And yes, I'm being judgmental, sue me.
i'm not entirely sure that Jim Jones and David Koresh were Christians. neither one of us can be sure of that. the "evidence" seems a bit mixed. feeding poison to his followers doesn't sound like something that Jesus would do. the motives behind Jonestown are complex, but The People's Temple is viewed by most of mainstream Christianity as a very divergent cult. David Koresh is another story. The Branch Davidians were a Christian sect, at least to my thinking, but Koresh's self-view, as the final prophet of God for his followers, borders on delusional thinking. It seems probably that he was under some sort of demonic oppression. I don't really know. Having no first hand information about the situation, I can hardly make a balanced assessment. I don't think that he is personally responsible for the deaths at Palestine, Texas. He may have been misguided, but the FBI significantly over-reacted, I think. What intolerant Christians am i making excuses for? not Robertson and Phelps. These men do not advance the cause of Christ as much as they detract. Maybe Robertson 20 years ago was a healthy example of a Christian spokesperson, but he shot himself in the foot. His right to speak for Jesus has been compromised by his blatant intolerance. He can apologize all he wants for being a fallen soul in need of grace. In my view, he should sit down and keep his mouth shut until he learns to temper his words. As far as cherry-picking history is concerned, I think it's reasonable to allow for paradigm shifts. We have stopped characterizing Germany as "The Nazis". We don't demonize Japan. The former Soviet Union is not "the evil empire". You want to demonize contemporary Christianity because of the Crusades? Wow! Let's bring up the fact that the Romans crucified people and lay that at the feet of Italy. Let's punish Spain for Cortez' treatment of the indigenous peoples of Central America. And since Africans were responsible for part of the slave trade, why don't we barricade the west coast of The Dark Continent. And let's make sure we call it The Dark Continent. Create the most negative possible image. You are aware that the slave trade in Africa was substantially aided by Muslims, I'm sure. That fact ought to be brought up as often as possible. No. We know that everyone has a past that is less glorious than our hopes for their future. Some things may weigh in the balance more heavily than others, but the longer ago something took place the less it registers.
i think you're misconstruing what my point was. i'm not wallowing in anything. i'm reporting my observation that Christians are being labeled in a specific pejorative manner. does my observation differ from yours? say so. estimates of Stalin's purges run from 750,000 to twice or three times that many. the NKVD assessment probably isn't to be taken as the most accurate reportage. estimates of Pol Pot's rampages in Campuchea are around the same numbers, but obviously a far higher percentage of the population. bringing up Pol Pot as an example of genocide is one that i might have used as well as Stalin. it qualifies as the work of an atheistic political regime, though the oppressed were notably non-Christian. it's a good example of extreme Communism at its worst.
Stalin was an atheist, but he did not rule in the name of atheism. That's a very important distinction.
Stalin killed 750,000 solely because of their Christianity? I think you are making a religous purge out of something that was much more political. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge The quick research I did indicated that less than 200,000 orthodox christians were killed after the revolution. I am not saying that the repression and purges weren't terrible. I am saying that there is little comparison between being a lay Christian in Russia and a jew in Nazi Germany or an intellectual in Pol Pot's Cambodia.
Of course you don't think he was, he did horrible things so you don't want to claim him. But since he was an ordained minister of The Diciples of Christ I think history will have to disagree with you. And yes, it was a cult, a Christian cult. Demonic oppression? How about he was bat-shit crazy and used religion (in this case a form of Christianity) in order to carry out his bat-shit crazy plans. We could argue about whether or not the FBI over-reacted, and I'd probably agree with you. But let's not pretend like the FBI showed up down there because of some unpaid parking tickets. Well, I stand corrected. It certainly sounded at first as if you were making excuses for them. I apologize. No, I don't want to demonize Christians for what happened a thousand years ago, but for once I would like it if a Christian wouldn't try to demonize another religion without first accepting the fact that Christianity doesn't exactly have a perfect past either.
Exactly, it is a good example, but it has nothing to do with religion. Communism and atheism do not, contrary to popular belief, go hand in hand. In fact, it would be pretty easy to argue that the opposite is true.
Not really, they just have different names, different hair styles, different skin color, and one doesn't dig on the swine.
Let's. I've always thought that Cuba's Hatuey said it best when referring to the Armies of Christ. "Here is the God the Spaniards worship. For these they fight and kill; for these they persecute us and that is why we have to throw them into the sea... They tell us, these tyrants, that they adore a God of peace and equality, and yet they usurp our land and make us their slaves. They speak to us of an immortal soul and of their eternal rewards and punishments, and yet they rob our belongings, seduce our women, violate our daughters. Incapable of matching us in valor, these cowards cover themselves with iron that our weapons cannot break..." Before he was burned, a priest asked him if he would accept Jesus and go to heaven. Hatuey asked "Are there Spaniards in heaven?" When the priest assured him that there were many, Hatuey replied that he wanted nothing to do with a God that allowed people of such cruelty to be perpetuated in His name. That was long ago, and yet Bush still uses the term "Crusade" when referring to a war against fundamentalist Muslims. I trust you to see the distinction, but I frankly wonder what he is thinking. Since his Father is the one who is guiding him.
if you spend a lot of time in the company of Christians, one thing you find is that a surprising number of church pastors discover during their ministry that they aren't Christians. the typical decision at that point is to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, but it would be wrong to assume that the fact someone pastors a church and has been ordained as a minister of the Gospel is "proof" that he is a disciple of Jesus. it should be, but it isn't. i just found out that Jim Jones pastorship was being reviewed by his denomination, but because Disciples of Christ has congregational governance, the larger denomination wasn't in a position to take specific action. people generally are uncomfortable with the idea of demonic oppression. in the case of Jones and Koresh, it's hard to know which came first, the demonic oppression or their involvement in the ministry that went sideways. some people become psychiatrists, apparently, because they hope to resolve some of their "hangups". who knows what the timeline was for Jones and Koresh? my best guess is that Koresh was sincere in his views, but he was under strong delusion. he wasn't trying to scam anyone. i don't know that to be true. it's my shot in the dark. if you know more than i do about the actual facts, feel free to tell me. of course the FBI had reason for alarm. but i think it's fairly well established at this point that the holocaust that resulted in Texas wasn't something that either side sought from the outset. it was a horrible mistake. the gunshot deaths of the Branch Davidians at the compound in Palestine TX is disturbing. it may be that Koresh ordered the killings. the fact that he died in similar circumstances, coupled with the lack of a conclusive explanation leaves a lot to be desired as far as understanding what really happened. Ruby Ridge, IMO, muddies the water considerably. there is no perfect past. what other religion am i demonizing on the basis of an imperfect past? as far as Islam is concerned, i think that the current trend is very troubling. radical Islam is a major threat to the unconverted, Christians, Jews, and those who Islam regards as pagan. the militant history of Mohammed is a key to the way that Islam has used force in dealing with its adversaries. as soon as Mohammed was able to consolidate power, he ceased being someone whose tolerance for "people of the Book" was something that Christians and Jew could count on. this is not an indictment against Islam as a whole. and there is a big difference between the public stance of radical Islam and fundamentalist Christianity. surely you can see the difference.
I really never gave it a thought. However, I certainly am never going to try to convince non-Christians that belief in some guy rising from the dead and having to die for the sins that stained me a few thousand years before I was born is "rational". Christianity is a divine madness. I honestly don't think of it as anything else.