Jump to content

Off Topic Thread 4

mack

By mack
in Archive

Recommended Posts

thefairy

thefairy

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, marron said:

Christianity didn't change that.

Imperialism and Colonialism did.

If anyone else had the technology to expand in the same way we'd be having the same argument with the religion replaced.

And guess who tried to keep a lid on scientific developments.

Wrong. Heard of the Spanish Inquisition?

Link to comment
JoFo

JoFo

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, FCB said:

Christianity has been a target for 500 years since the reformation. Catholicism started to lose it's influence then. Later came the age of enlightenment in which the religious/spiritual paradigm was replaced by a scientific view of the world. The political changes resulting from these two movements allow us today to discuss SSM. Not because Christianity went soft all of a sudden, but because power was wrestled back from it over the last 200 years at least.

The influence of Christianity world is a questionable one. The crusades have created ill will over a 1000 years in the middle East. World wide pagan Gods were often forcefully removed with the true single God. The Spanish conquerors caused blood shed in central and South America. Nazi Germany, a Christian Nation, is responsible for the Holocaust. And we are seeing the influence of fundamentalist Protestants in Trump's America. 

 

 

 

Ah the tried and true tactic of resorting back a 1000 years to the Crusades. Never gets old. Prior to my entry in this thread you and everyone else was complaining about the CURRENT church and the current influence of Christianity on nations yet now we are going back to the Middle Ages, thus further proving my point. Weren't you sprouting 2016 statistics a few pages back, now we are back to the Crusades. Also to try and equate responsibility for the Holocaust on 'a Christian nation', to say you're grasping would be an understatement. Want to talk about America. Lets. It's the country with the largest Christian population in the world and yet another country to legalise SSM. 

You and everyone else has again glossed over the fact that the most athiest and least religious countries in the world haven't legalised SSM either. So what is your argument? Get rid of all Christian influence and we'd have a better chance at liberal ideology? Is that it? Maybe it would've been better to defeat the original Christian influence as it spread, maybe like Japan did. They have no religious influence what so ever. How are they doing with your views of the world? SSM not legal and one of the most nationalistic nations in the world. Everything you hate. 

Link to comment
JoFo

JoFo

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, marron said:

The countries are all western democracies with declining rates of religious adherence. 

Christianity didn't create that. Historical circumstance did. The black death. Weak feudal kings. Trade centres. Humanism. Bloody revolution. Empire. World war. Cold war. Decolonisation. Globalization. Disenchantment with the church as a moral compass. These are the patterns that lead us to SSM in the west. Christianity is a correlation.

 

2 hours ago, marron said:

 

yes things change.

this is a problem for fundamentalism, of any stripe. If the religion can change, then there can be no fundamental concepts to it, which is a bit of a problem. Christianity's big break from fundamentalism began with the reformation but that process has taken hundred of years. Islam has a wide range of beliefs as well, plenty far from fundamentalist, and adadptive. Butt putting it simplistically, they are 500 years younger.

If you can accept that things change, that things depend on the particular context, then you should be able to see that those historical forces have allowed christianity to change, and that in islam the same radical change hasn't necessarily happened in the same way, but that neither of those situations is simply because of the religion itself.

 

 

1 hour ago, marron said:

Christianity didn't change that.

Imperialism and Colonialism did.

If anyone else had the technology to expand in the same way we'd be having the same argument with the religion replaced.

And guess who tried to keep a lid on scientific developments.

These events occurred in non Christian nations too yet how are they doing with SSM legalisation? In fact there is basically a polar opposite of these influences on other countries and them becoming even more arachic in their beliefs. Asia, the middle east, Russia, etc, most of those events had impact there too yet only the Christian western nations are now reformed. 

The problem with your argument is that the context is actually making other religions, Islam being the main example even more strict then it ever was. If you look at the Middle East, countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, etc were all far more liberal 50 or so years ago then they are now. Countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc have as much technology progression as anyone else yet are the most 'backwards' idelogically compared to the west. Then look at Turkey. What's your excuse there? The Ottoman empire collapsed and it became a soewhat secular nation yet today it is heading back in that route, not forwards towards secularism.

Technological advancement? Scientific development, etc. Japan is miles ahead of most countries in the world technologically, they even kept out the horrible Christians from spreading influence. They are modern, have been through more pain from a World War than most, have had empires fall, are a major part of Globalisation and so on. Yet how are they doing with SSM legalisation? Your argument doesn't hold up at all. I'm not even going to mention China. 

Every argument you have brought up has only had a positive impact IF the core foundation of that nation was Christianity. Anything else, INCLUDING athiesm and the result has actually thrown the nation more towards Middle Age way or had zero forward movement towards SSM legalisation. Those are the facts no matter how people may disagree. 

Link to comment
DinoPresinger

DinoPresinger

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, JoFo said:

Every argument you have brought up has only had a positive impact IF the core foundation of that nation was Christianity. Anything else, INCLUDING athiesm and the result has actually thrown the nation more towards Middle Age way or had zero forward movement towards SSM legalisation. Those are the facts no matter how people may disagree. 

You are pointing to correlation  (which you haven't even proved) and claiming causation. In what ways has christianity caused liberalism (which rejects religion in favour of rationality) to be advanced.

Link to comment
JoFo

JoFo

Posted
Posted
Just now, DinoPresinger said:

You are pointing to correlation  (which you haven't even proved) and claiming causation. In what ways has christianity caused liberalism (which rejects religion in favour of rationality) to be advanced.

Firstly I'd heavily argue your statement that liberalism rejects religion in favour of rationality. Have a look at some of the modern liberal movements and rationality would be bottom of the list in their reasoning.

However, to answer you question. I don't think many people are understanding my point. I am saying it is a trait of a country with Christian foundations for you to be able to turn your back on it's religion (if you choose), talk large amounts of crap about it (with no Earthly consequence), make laws that are polar opposite to some of it's teachings while still having it as a majority religion, to basically 100% disagree with it and be able to enact it into law. Those world events that marron mentioned aren't exclusive to Christian nations, they happened in Islam majority nations, Hindu and Buddhist majority nations and totally non religious nations. Yet they only had the influence towards liberalism in Christian nations, why is that? I'm saying Christianity has allowed liberalism more than any other 'influencing' movement in the world so having it being criticised so heavily in holding back liberalism is laughable, because it has held it back the least.  

 

Link to comment
DinoPresinger

DinoPresinger

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, thefairy said:

The Africans and South Americans will still be living in mud huts and throwing sticks at each other.

Perhaps, but who's to say that would be a bad thing? This is the thing. Your assumptions about what is 'good' and 'bad' will ultimately shape what you think and no one else can change that.  

Link to comment
Zelinsky

Zelinsky

Posted
Posted

Jofo,

I am posting this from a smart phone which is a bit tricky, and I hope I am covering the main points of your critique. 

The current Christian churches are standing on "traditions" like the crusades which were kicked off a 1000 ago, and repeated over and over into our time. The conflicts in Bosnia or Jerusalem are rooted in the same "traditions". My view anyway. 

We could argue until the cows come home about this, and the value of Christianity vs others, who is better or worse than the others, and what argument is considered valid. 

Yet the point that I was making at the beginning: the churches here in general and the Catholic church in particular have been caught with their pants down, quite literally. And they've been weaseling about for years when it comes to accepting guilt and responsibility, or offering apologies and compensation. And so they further alienate and upset those they harmed. 

Now they have just drawn a line what gay catholics working for the church, and chose to get married, can look forward to. How could anyone who believes in "love they neighbour" think this is ok? Where is the outcry of those who claim to live according to "Christian values"? 

They got away with raping boys and girls because they are the predominant Church. Until recently they were untouchable, and that's finally changing. If they were a secular organization they would have been shut down by now. 

Dogma first, people second. Considering their history and their recent actions, Vatican Pty Ltd has no reason to assume a moral high ground. And no, the Catholic hierarchy in Australia is not alone when it comes to being pathetic. Far from it.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/aug/21/india-annulment-mixed-faith-marriage-love-jihad-hindu-woman-muslim-man-akhila-ashokan-shafin-jahan

PS The third reich soldies swore allegiance to Hiltler "in the name of God". It was that nation rooted in and practising "Christian values"  which is responsible for the Holocaust. I grew up there, I am familiar with the chatter and the hypocrazy. 72,years after WW2, my sister's mother in law is still a good old Catholic Jew hater and Holocaust apologist. Love they neighbour. 

Link to comment
thefairy

thefairy

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, DinoPresinger said:

Perhaps, but who's to say that would be a bad thing? This is the thing. Your assumptions about what is 'good' and 'bad' will ultimately shape what you think and no one else can change that.  

http://www.orijinculture.com/community/masculinisation-dehumanization-sambia-tribe-papua-guinea/

When you leave things behind things like the sambia tribe happens. WARNING. Read link above if you dare.

Good or bad? I don't know. Thoughts?

Link to comment
marron

marron

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, JoFo said:

Firstly I'd heavily argue your statement that liberalism rejects religion in favour of rationality. Have a look at some of the modern liberal movements and rationality would be bottom of the list in their reasoning.

However, to answer you question. I don't think many people are understanding my point. I am saying it is a trait of a country with Christian foundations for you to be able to turn your back on it's religion (if you choose), talk large amounts of crap about it (with no Earthly consequence), make laws that are polar opposite to some of it's teachings while still having it as a majority religion, to basically 100% disagree with it and be able to enact it into law. Those world events that marron mentioned aren't exclusive to Christian nations, they happened in Islam majority nations, Hindu and Buddhist majority nations and totally non religious nations. Yet they only had the influence towards liberalism in Christian nations, why is that? I'm saying Christianity has allowed liberalism more than any other 'influencing' movement in the world so having it being criticised so heavily in holding back liberalism is laughable, because it has held it back the least.  

 

Turning your back on religion is not a trait of christianity.

It's a trait of secular ideals.

Those secular ideals happened because of historical forces, despite, and not because of, christianity, in the west. The countries you talk about - Japan, China, the middle east etc - did not have this process. There were pockets of it, but again, contexts killed it. (Often those contexts involved western incursion and interference ironically enough - look at Mughal India; extremely liberal for its time, crushed by the British.. .who knows what would have happened there if it weren't for that?). Where were the bourgeouis revolutions of the enlightenment in the middle east? Where was the succesful imperialism? The development of human rights treatises? The same events did not occur. It's not to do with technology. These places have technology as a result of imperialism, effectively - but they didn't go through the same things that the west did, over hundreds of years, all the debate, the thought, the socialisation, that leads us to secularism. Turkey is having a debate at the moment. They began their modern journey comparatively shorter ago. Same with Japan.

Here are the countries: : Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico,[nb 1] the Netherlands,[nb 2]New Zealand,[nb 3]Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom,[nb 4] the United States[nb 5] and Uruguay.

Note - not ALL the "christian" countries have. Not ALL the european ones have.

Some of the most homophobic places in the world -  Uganda, Jamaica, Honduras, Lithuania, Russia - have majority christian populations; it's not just a simple matter.

And the research suggests that if there is any correlation about acceptance - it's about how important religion is in that country. Less important? More chance of SSM.

Link to comment
JoFo

JoFo

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, FCB said:

Jofo,

I am posting this from a smart phone which is a bit tricky, and I hope I am covering the main points of your critique. 

The current Christian churches are standing on "traditions" like the crusades which were kicked off a 1000 ago, and repeated over and over into our time. The conflicts in Bosnia or Jerusalem are rooted in the same "traditions". My view anyway. 

We could argue until the cows come home about this, and the value of Christianity vs others, who is better or worse than the others, and what argument is considered valid. 

Yet the point that I was making at the beginning: the churches here in general and the Catholic church in particular have been caught with their pants down, quite literally. And they've been weaseling about for years when it comes to accepting guilt and responsibility, or offering apologies and compensation. And so they further alienate and upset those they harmed. 

Now they have just drawn a line what gay catholics working for the church, and chose to get married, can look forward to. How could anyone who believes in "love they neighbour" think this is ok? Where is the outcry of those who claim to live according to "Christian values"? 

They got away with raping boys and girls because they are the predominant Church. Until recently they were untouchable, and that's finally changing. If they were a secular organization they would have been shut down by now. 

Dogma first, people second. Considering their history and their recent actions, Vatican Pty Ltd has no reason to assume a moral high ground. And no, the Catholic hierarchy in Australia is not alone when it comes to being pathetic. Far from it.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/aug/21/india-annulment-mixed-faith-marriage-love-jihad-hindu-woman-muslim-man-akhila-ashokan-shafin-jahan

PS The third reich soldies swore allegiance to Hiltler "in the name of God". It was that nation rooted in and practising "Christian values"  which is responsible for the Holocaust. I grew up there, I am familiar with the chatter and the hypocrazy. 72,years after WW2, my sister's mother in law is still a good old Catholic Jew hater and Holocaust apologist. Love they neighbour. 

You have been using the line 'love thy neighbour' incorrectly over and over again so before we continue you need to learn the actual meaning of it in Christianity if you're going to continue using it as some point against Christians and the Church. Jesus spent most of his time with sinners ranging from murders, prostitutes, thieves and so on and preached 'love thy neighbour'. In his teachings though he never once encouraged them to continue the sins they were committing. When he saved Mary Magdelene from stoning and said the line 'let the man who hasn't sinned throw the first rock', he also followed it up by saying 'go, and do not sin again'. Nowadays you and many others are twisting lines like 'love thy neighbour' to mean to accept forms of sin that have always been considered sin in Christianity. Now I'm not arguing whether homesexuality is right or wrong in a non religious way, I'm just saying you are continually using Christian quotes incorrectly. 

You continue to bring up the horrendous acts of the Church (against their own teaching) as if now it means they should just say 'You know what, we're fine with it all'. All the acts that certain people in the church committed are complete opposite of the teachings of the Church. That means what was wrong were the people who committed them and hid them, not the actual teachings. You are asking them to change their teachings for committing acts that were against the teachings in the first place. 

P.S. Did this Muslim Divison of the Nazi Party also doing it because of their religion? Or does it have nothing to do with religion in this case?

http://www.oldpicsarchive.com/muslim-bosnian-soldiers-of-the-13th-waffen-mountain-division-of-the-ss-handschar/

Also do you want me to talk about a random athiest who also happens to be a Jew hating, Holocaust denying apologist and somehow equate that to Athiesm? 

 

Link to comment
JoFo

JoFo

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, marron said:

Turning your back on religion is not a trait of christianity.

It's a trait of secular ideals.

Those secular ideals happened because of historical forces, despite, and not because of, christianity, in the west. The countries you talk about - Japan, China, the middle east etc - did not have this process. There were pockets of it, but again, contexts killed it. (Often those contexts involved western incursion and interference ironically enough - look at Mughal India; extremely liberal for its time, crushed by the British.. .who knows what would have happened there if it weren't for that?). Where were the bourgeouis revolutions of the enlightenment in the middle east? Where was the succesful imperialism? The development of human rights treatises? The same events did not occur. It's not to do with technology. These places have technology as a result of imperialism, effectively - but they didn't go through the same things that the west did, over hundreds of years, all the debate, the thought, the socialisation, that leads us to secularism. Turkey is having a debate at the moment. They began their modern journey comparatively shorter ago. Same with Japan.

Here are the countries: : Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico,[nb 1] the Netherlands,[nb 2]New Zealand,[nb 3]Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom,[nb 4] the United States[nb 5] and Uruguay.

Note - not ALL the "christian" countries have. Not ALL the european ones have.

Some of the most homophobic places in the world -  Uganda, Jamaica, Honduras, Lithuania, Russia - have majority christian populations; it's not just a simple matter.

And the research suggests that if there is any correlation about acceptance - it's about how important religion is in that country. Less important? More chance of SSM.

I never said all Christian countries have legalised SSM, I said all the ones that have legalised it have Christianity as their no.1 religion. Which the list you have just posted further proves.

If your last line was correct than surely the most secular countries in the world would all have legalised SSM. Yet somehow the country with the most Christians in the world has (USA) while the one where religion is least important hasn't (China). Also the second most secular country hasn't either (Japan). You can pick and choose specific reasons for each to fit your narrative but they don't all fit with each other and have conflicting evidence elsewhere. Time passing hasn't made all regions more liberal, Turkey isn't having the debate now, that debate ending when Erdogan won even more control of power and Japan is so much further ahead on their 'modern journey' than so many western countries that it would hilarious to compare. Only 50% of top 6 most secular nations in the world have legalised SSM. 

 

Link to comment
JoFo

JoFo

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, thefairy said:

Wrong. Try again.

If that is the case. Australia would have already SSM done.

It's funny because they think Australia is an example of a Christian nation holding SSM back while Australia is actually in the top 10 most secular nations on the planet and an example of secularism.

Yet somehow countries like Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, USA, Ireland and Malta have all legalised SSM before Oz and most of the rest of the top secular countries in the world. 

Edited by JoFo
Link to comment
Zelinsky

Zelinsky

Posted
Posted

Well, I shall stick with  "You shall love your neighbor as yourself"  then. 

I believe that was in one of the gospels, was thought in the Catholic bible school I attended, and emphasized alturism. I shall use this phrase from now on.

No, I am asking them to put people before dogma, the stuff they made up. Celebacy is a human invention, introduced as "teaching" 1000 years ago. I doubt that altar boys would be raped if Catholic priests could have sex like they are meant to have.

Aren't you letting the church elders off the hook too easily? Rome knew about it, covered it up, and provided a refuge for perpetrators. People like Georg Ratzinger, the brother of the last pope. Over decades. Vatican Pty Ltd at it's foulest.

Not sure why you make a reference to atheism. I am neither an atheist, nor do I believe I argued for it. I believe that faith and church are two different things but are fused together.

What I do stress is how the older generation in my home town spoke. Catholic church goers, all prim and proper, but 40,000 dead in a concentration camp just down the road, and the Jewish community entirely gone. But "not everything Hitler did was bad" talk. Yeah yeah. 

 

Link to comment
marron

marron

Posted
Posted (edited)

@fairy But we're Christian and we don't. So... (I say this not to say that Christianity holds back the vote here, but to say, the list is not proof one way or the other.)

 

@Jofo

I keep saying it's about context. Its not just secularism. Its the entire history behind it. Japan has its history. It did not ecperience what western democracies have done. Putting it simply, It doesn't have enlightenment thinking in its DNA, taught in schools,  valued in the same way. Neither does Uganda. China. Turkey. Russia. Now maybe there's an argument that says Christianity was inherently weak and allowed the changes to occur and hence is responsible. That ignores trade and money, imperial drive, creation of middle classes, etc etc... not to mentiom thevresistance to ideals of equality among beliefs - but even then, saying Christianity created this situation is a bit disingenuous then isn't it.

 

what beliefs only held by Christians make Christianity the religion which fosters acceptance of homosexuality? 

 

Edited by marron
Link to comment
Carns

Carns

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, JoFo said:

Yet somehow countries like Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, USA, Ireland and Malta have all legalised SSM before Oz and most of the rest of the top secular countries in the world. 

I would argue that is because the Australian political landscape has been so fractured over the last 5-10 years (5 different PMs in that period, minority Governments etc.) that they've been more concerned with appeasing factions within their party rather than passing legislation which has the support of the public.

SSM has been supported by a majority of Australians for much of the last decade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia#Public_opinion

Link to comment
  • mack locked this topic
  • mack unlocked this topic
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...