Quote: khayoz
"Trust me I've read a lot about my ancestors."

Quote:simplex
"Then you should not pretend they were innocent people who sat around living peaceful lives and minding their own business, waiting to be slaughtered by genocidal, bloodthirsty Christians"

First of all I'm not pretending, OK?
I've never denied the VIKINGS where blood thirsty murderers, neither said they where peacefull, but forcing people to think what you think is right is a big NO NO in my world.
Look at the world we are living in.... All the shitstorms is about RELIGION.

All because of a book someone wrote(Sumerian?), and has since been mistranslated and
misinterpreted.... And Christianity rewrote it twice.

Accept the fact! We are ALONE on a globe floating in universe by accident.

Cheers!

_________________

Quote: khayoz
"Trust me I've read a lot about my ancestors."

That doesn't mean that I belive in Thor, Odin or Valhalla,
same gibberish, fairytales and nonsense.

_________________

@khayoz
Quote:

I've never denied the VIKINGS where blood thirsty murderers, neither said they where peacefull, but forcing people to think what you think is right is a big NO NO in my world.

Implicit in your original claim that Vikings were exterminated by genocidal Christians is the notion that Vikings did nothing to attract attention to themselves, that foreigners invaded and imposed a foreign religion, and wiped out all who disagreed.

Every part of that is false:

1) Missionaries came to Scandinavia, experienced much failure but slowly increasing success.

2) There were civil wars between various kings, with religion sometimes used as an excuse, but the idea that they wouldn't have had wars anyway is risible. The Vikings as a people weren't wiped out; if I understand you correctly, you're one of them.

3) The religious practice of sacrificing animals to the old, pagan gods was ended, sometimes through religious conversion, sometimes through a king's action, but again, the idea that the king wouldn't have been imposing some sort of religious practice on his people is absurd; with very rare exception, that's what was done back then. The Romans were relatively tolerant, but even they compelled their subjects sacrifice to the Emperor. The most you can fault the Christian kings for was not rising above the common practice. And those Christian kings were themselves Swedes. They weren't foreign kings imposing a foreign faith.

That simply doesn't add up to genocide.

Quote:

Look at the world we are living in.... All the shitstorms is about RELIGION.

This reminds me of a statement someone made on this same website many years ago, along the lines of: 90% of all the wars in the world were due to religion. I proceeded to list every major war of the 19th and 20th century, along with a large number of minor wars, and asked the person to point out which were due to religion.

Spoiler alert: none of them were.

Greed, lust, hatred: these existed prior to the Christian faith, and they exist in the absence of religion, as every explicitly godless society ever founded has proved. The Greeks, the Romans, the Mayans, the Chinese, the Indians: all of them had harsh, ugly societies from our point of view, with slavery, blood sacrfice, wars of conquest, torture, and often bloodsport. Each of those societies also had great things within them: the Greeks developed philosophy and democracy; the Romans developed engineering and a sense of "citizenship" not based on bloodlines; the Chinese, Indians, and Mayans developed highly sophisticated societies that included some important mathematical insights and results. But that doesn't change the fact that they were shot through with violence, that war was routine and even glorified, that slavery was commonplace, that sexual exploitation was the rule rather than the exception, and was even considered proper. In many of these societies, the only acceptable thing to do with someone born disabled was to expose him to the elements; i.e., to abandon him to nature and thus certain death. Sick people were feared and often forced out of civilization by law.

The pagan Vikings were no exception to this. Why should they have been? What in their religion would have told them to do otherwise?

I will certainly concede that Christians enjoy no magical exemption from human nature, that Christians have engaged in many of the same activities named above, in many cases using Christianity as an excuse, even with the blessing of churchmen. The worst you could say is that all Christians are like everyone else.

-- But not all of them are! Christians have done great things precisely because of their faith. The Church banned the enslavement of fellow Christians (which is not to pretend that many Christians didn't disregard the precept or find loopholes). The 18th- and 19th-century abolitionists who finally succeeded in stamping out slavery from most of the world were motivated largely by Christianity. Christians invented the Monti di Pietà to make financing available the poor in a way that was not usury; one of them is the oldest bank in continual operation (though I suspect it no longer adheres to its original principles). They established hospitals, generally to serve the poor, and staffed by men and women who dedicated their lives to helping the ill; they invented the modern university; ... I could go on.

So, again, my point is relatively simple: everything you lament (often rightly!) would happen without Christianity -- maybe not at the same time and place, but it would happen, as we see plainly in non-Christian societies, including those that are officially godless, whereas Christians and Christian societies motivated by their Christianity have invented, prompted, or accomplished things that had a unique, beneficial impact on the world. So the world is far better off with Christianity in it, even if the religion were false.

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.

@khayoz Quote:

khayoz wrote: Look at the world we are living in.... All the shitstorms is about RELIGION.

Not all. I think the most are due to economic interests, or something like that.

Religion is usually USED to sustain those interests, convincing weak minds to take part of the "holy" war.
Quote:

All because of a book someone wrote(Sumerian?), and has since been mistranslated and misinterpreted.... And Christianity rewrote it twice.

Do you mean because of the old and new testaments?

Because in general the bible books weren't written only one time. I mean: written and never modified.

There are around 200-400 THOUSANDS "variants" (e.g.: parts of the text), which changed the content even in a significant way, to "promote" the particular ideas of the specific sect.

@simplex Quote:

simplex wrote: Christians invented the Monti di Pietà to make financing available the poor in a way that was not usury; one of them is the oldest bank in continual operation (though I suspect it no longer adheres to its original principles).

Correct. They are just doing business. Included scandals.

However nothing compared to the ones around Vatican's bank, the IOR:
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istituto_per_le_opere_di_religione#Scandali
unfortunately the English version is quite poor about it, and I had link only the Italian's one.
Quote:

So, again, my point is relatively simple: everything you lament (often rightly!) would happen without Christianity -- maybe not at the same time and place, but it would happen, as we see plainly in non-Christian societies, including those that are officially godless, whereas Christians and Christian societies motivated by their Christianity have invented, prompted, or accomplished things that had a unique, beneficial impact on the world. So the world is far better off with Christianity in it, even if the religion were false.

I disagree.

"Thanks" to Christians we has the Medieval, which blocked the progress for around one thousand years.

"Thanks" to Christians we had the Inquisition, crusades (yes, I know: economics interests were the primary reasons), extermination of hereticals, etc..

Still, Christians are against and act against personal freedom, and take profits of all people taxes.

I've nothing against Christians IIF they exercise their cult WITHOUT attempting to my freedom and/or my pocket. Which, unfortunately, it's NOT happening...

@simplex Quote:

simplex wrote: Even were Christianity a false religion, the world would be much poorer without it, which is why many unbelievers respect it -- atheists included.

No, for the above reasons.

@cdimauro

Quote:

However nothing compared to the ones around Vatican's bank, the IOR:

I'm pretty aware of the Vatican Bank's scandals. I'm still wondering if the George Pell trial was indeed due to his attempts to clean up that place.

Quote:

"Thanks" to Christians we has the Medieval, which blocked the progress for around one thousand years.

In fact no, and quite a few scholars have worked to correct this misimpression. Progress before the advent of Christianity had already slowed down significantly; there was in fact progress during the Middle Ages (clocks, stirrups, sailing ships, weaponry, philosophy, mathematics (such as the cubic and quartic formulas)); Christians attempted to carry on progress (such as Boethius); and Europe and the Middle East underwent a long period of constant disruption (the aforementioned Vikings that started this conversation). It's no accident that the "Renaissance" occurred at roughly the same time invasions from the east, north, and south finally ended.

You may be aware that research faculty at universities typically teach very little. I don't know about Europe, but here in the United States a lot of less intelligent/informed people wonder why they get paid "to teach only one or two classes." It is true that a lot of them do little more than that, but the main cause is that it is well-understood that one philosophy / science needs time, leisure, and the support of people with a long-term point of view. That was largely lacking in the Middle Ages, because the vast majority of people were engaged in subsistence farming (i.e., survival); most of the people with "leisure" time were trained for military to fight off invasions; most of the people who had money were busy warring with each other, something the Church actively and openly lamented.

Italy, for instance, was essentially the playground of the Goths, the Normans, the Lombards, the Saracens, and later the Germans, the Spaniards, and the French for pretty much the entire period from roughly 400AD until 1860AD. When you're being constantly invaded by one group or another, there's not much you can do to progress. (It's actually pretty amazing that the Italians managed what they did.)

A significant number of contemporary historians and philosophers, including non-Christian ones, argue that it was medieval Christianity that laid the foundations of modern science, and it's no accident that some of the major advances in science came from clergy such as Copernicus (a canon), Mendel (a monk), and Lemaitre (a Jesuit). But the groundwork was laid for them by Christian attitudes that, for instance, the universe is created by a good, beautiful, and reasonable god (the Logos, an idea with roots in Greek philosophy), whose goodness, beauty, and reason leaves traces of himself in his works (e.g., Bonaventure, among others), so that his creation can be studied so as to give us insight into him. The created world was itself a kind of Scripture, the Medievals reasoned rather than a whimsical one

Quote:

"Thanks" to Christians we had the Inquisition, crusades (yes, I know: economics interests were the primary reasons), extermination of hereticals, etc..

I would not attribute this to economic interest; I share the opinion of those who say that attributing everything to economic interest is the fundamental fallacy of Marxism.

The Inquisition (the tool used to seek heretics) I view as the same sort of human behavior that led, say, the Bolsheviks to purge the Mensheviks; that led the French Revolutionaries to institute the Terror; that led the Japanese to torture Christians in that fashion depicted well in the movie "Silence"; and so forth. Even when religion is the vehicle, as in the case of the Inquisition but the underlying engine was human nature.

The Crusades (as generally understood) are not like the Inquisition. Some were attempts to help Eastern brethren who were under attack; that was, after all, the reason given. One, the Fourth Crusade, may have started that way, but was subverted for economic interests -- there you go! -- because while I admire the medieval Venetians for many reasons, any honest commentator of their history must admit that they were both irreligious and avaricious. For example, they helped facilitate a lot of that medieval slave trade through the loopholes I mentioned above.

Some so-called "Crusades" were non-violent at all, such as the ill-fated Children's Crusade, which is of course an embarrassment all the same.

And some Crusades, not generally taught in school in my experience, consisted simply of religious sanction for wars that would have taken place anyway, because (for instance) the Lithuanians and the Germans had a longstanding habit of fighting each other.

Quote:

Still, Christians are against and act against personal freedom, and take profits of all people taxes.

I don't quite understand what you're saying here about taxes. Do you referr to the situation in Europe, where governments still provide financial support to established churches? I don't like that, either, but it's not a Christian invention; it's inherited from ancient times. In Rome, the Republic and later the emperor were required to support the Vestal Virgins, the haruspexes, and so forth. In the ancient Middle East, the king was seen as a minor divinity who every year had to visit the temple prostitutes and engage in certain "religious activities" to help bring a good harvest. In Egypt, the pharaoh was likewise considered a minor divinity and supported an army of priests and temples; if you haven't read about how Egypt had one of the first monotheistic religions to emerge, you might want to read about how Tutankhaten became Tutankhamen.

As for "against and act against personal freedom", that's a strange argument, because most government laws are against personal freedom, either directly or indirectly. Taxes, for instance, affect how I can dispose of my earned income; that's not a matter of Christianity. Laws that define divorce, or that require a man to provide support for a child he has fathered, affect how people conduct their personal lives directly. Laws against all slavery violate the personal freedom of a man to sell himself into temporary slavery to pay off his debts. (This was common in the ancient world.) One of the legacies of Christianity is that we don't kill or abandon newborns or young children who turn out deformed or mentally disabled -- those laws, too, violate personal freedom, and many people disagree with them. I mentioned elsewhere (I think) that Christians put an end to the old Germanic practice of marrying an unwilling woman by kidnapping her and.... So I've never really understood the complaint that Christians are against personal freedom, as if that were unique to them. You may disagree and argue with particulars of what Christians advocate, but the principle that laws shouldn't violate personal freedom really means that we shouldn't have laws at all, which surely you don't advocate. (There are some who do, so if you're an anarchist, I'll grant that you're consistent.)

Last edited by simplex on 16-May-2021 at 05:49 PM.
Last edited by simplex on 16-May-2021 at 05:46 PM.

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.

@simplex

First of all, sorry guys I'm late to the game, working..

"Every part of that is false"

No I "know" it's not false, Yeah "my" guys where totally bloodthirsty
pirating, murderers etc. I don't deny any of that.

But they where either converterted(YES or NO) to Christianity or slaughtered.
And wheres the moral in that? Hey let's go to Sweden and indoctrinate the land!
Hitler style all day in my book.

I know where never gonna agree, but I'm pushing freedom! Christianity and Religion
are pushing hate, war and every single NO NO on the so called stone tablets.................

EDIT: And if you never been to Sweden the land of the VIKINGS,
get over here and get your own opinion, travel, discover and drop me a P.M.
for a free beer and a long discussion!

EDIT2: Where's BigD at?

Last edited by khayoz on 20-May-2021 at 01:00 AM.
Last edited by khayoz on 20-May-2021 at 12:58 AM.

_________________

@cdimauro

"Not all. I think the most are due to economic interests, or something like that."

Look broader, expand your field of view. Economic and Religion is like hand in glove and have always been.



"Do you mean because of the old and new testaments?"

Yes thats the one! The old one was far to VIKING grim ;)



"There are around 200-400 THOUSANDS "variants" (e.g.: parts of the text), which changed the content even in a significant way, to "promote" the particular ideas of the specific sect."

BINGO!

Last edited by khayoz on 20-May-2021 at 01:26 AM.
Last edited by khayoz on 20-May-2021 at 01:11 AM.

_________________

Finally I had some time for this thread.
@simplex Quote:

simplex wrote: @cdimauro Quote: However nothing compared to the ones around Vatican's bank, the IOR: I'm pretty aware of the Vatican Bank's scandals. I'm still wondering if the George Pell trial was indeed due to his attempts to clean up that place.

I'm not following all those scandals (too many, and continuously popping-up). However and regards George Pell, he's over his personal prosecutions, but what's left is that he hasn't collaborated with the police about the sexual abuses happened on Australia's church.
Quote:

Quote: "Thanks" to Christians we has the Medieval, which blocked the progress for around one thousand years. In fact no, and quite a few scholars have worked to correct this misimpression. Progress before the advent of Christianity had already slowed down significantly; there was in fact progress during the Middle Ages (clocks, stirrups, sailing ships, weaponry, philosophy, mathematics (such as the cubic and quartic formulas)); Christians attempted to carry on progress (such as Boethius); and Europe and the Middle East underwent a long period of constant disruption (the aforementioned Vikings that started this conversation). It's no accident that the "Renaissance" occurred at roughly the same time invasions from the east, north, and south finally ended.

That's a good explanation, however we can't forget that starting with the Christians anything which was supposed to be against their doctrine was persecuted and people jailed or burned at the stake. This didn't included only people which promoted a different interpretation of the holy scriptures, but "scientists" as well.
Quote:

You may be aware that research faculty at universities typically teach very little. I don't know about Europe, but here in the United States a lot of less intelligent/informed people wonder why they get paid "to teach only one or two classes." It is true that a lot of them do little more than that, but the main cause is that it is well-understood that one philosophy / science needs time, leisure, and the support of people with a long-term point of view.

I think that in Italy we have a good support regarding history in the universities (which is obvious, because of our heritage), but I can say the same as well on the regular schools.
Quote:

That was largely lacking in the Middle Ages, because the vast majority of people were engaged in subsistence farming (i.e., survival); most of the people with "leisure" time were trained for military to fight off invasions; most of the people who had money were busy warring with each other, something the Church actively and openly lamented.

That's also why studies were limited to clerks and nobles.
Quote:

Italy, for instance, was essentially the playground of the Goths, the Normans, the Lombards, the Saracens, and later the Germans, the Spaniards, and the French for pretty much the entire period from roughly 400AD until 1860AD. When you're being constantly invaded by one group or another, there's not much you can do to progress. (It's actually pretty amazing that the Italians managed what they did.)

Well, you can imagine what happened to my Sicily, which is at the center of Mediterranean Sea.

However the constant invasions and wars haven't blocked scientist to make researches and studies, which were very common in the ancient Greece. A notable example (very close to my smalltown) is Archimedes, which had no issues due to religion.

What I wanted to say is that religion wasn't a problem for the science before christians.
Quote:

A significant number of contemporary historians and philosophers, including non-Christian ones, argue that it was medieval Christianity that laid the foundations of modern science, and it's no accident that some of the major advances in science came from clergy such as Copernicus (a canon), Mendel (a monk), and Lemaitre (a Jesuit). But the groundwork was laid for them by Christian attitudes that, for instance, the universe is created by a good, beautiful, and reasonable god (the Logos, an idea with roots in Greek philosophy), whose goodness, beauty, and reason leaves traces of himself in his works (e.g., Bonaventure, among others), so that his creation can be studied so as to give us insight into him. The created world was itself a kind of Scripture, the Medievals reasoned rather than a whimsical one

This hasn't stopped the church to declare their theories as heresies. A clear example is Copernicus, albeit he had no time to experiment the church's "long hand". However we know what happend to Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei, which embraced Copernicus' heliocentric theory...

To me the fact that contributions to the modern science came from clerks et similia is only a "side-effect" that they were making researches to discover what god created.
Quote:

Quote: "Thanks" to Christians we had the Inquisition, crusades (yes, I know: economics interests were the primary reasons), extermination of hereticals, etc.. I would not attribute this to economic interest; I share the opinion of those who say that attributing everything to economic interest is the fundamental fallacy of Marxism.

I haven't attributed them only to economic interests. Some crusades were caused only by religion reasons, as well as Inquisition activities.
Quote:

The Inquisition (the tool used to seek heretics) I view as the same sort of human behavior that led, say, the Bolsheviks to purge the Mensheviks; that led the French Revolutionaries to institute the Terror; that led the Japanese to torture Christians in that fashion depicted well in the movie "Silence"; and so forth. Even when religion is the vehicle, as in the case of the Inquisition but the underlying engine was human nature.

OK, but this doesn't justify their abominable acts. Otherwise we can same the same for what nazis did...
Quote:

The Crusades (as generally understood) are not like the Inquisition. Some were attempts to help Eastern brethren who were under attack; that was, after all, the reason given. One, the Fourth Crusade, may have started that way, but was subverted for economic interests -- there you go! -- because while I admire the medieval Venetians for many reasons, any honest commentator of their history must admit that they were both irreligious and avaricious. For example, they helped facilitate a lot of that medieval slave trade through the loopholes I mentioned above. Some so-called "Crusades" were non-violent at all, such as the ill-fated Children's Crusade, which is of course an embarrassment all the same. And some Crusades, not generally taught in school in my experience, consisted simply of religious sanction for wars that would have taken place anyway, because (for instance) the Lithuanians and the Germans had a longstanding habit of fighting each other.

Maybe I wasn't clear before: I didn't wanted to make general statement against crusades.

In fact, there were some that were purely motivated by religion. Some notable examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedmontese_Easter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fra_Dolcino#History
Quote:

Quote: Still, Christians are against and act against personal freedom, and take profits of all people taxes. I don't quite understand what you're saying here about taxes. Do you referr to the situation in Europe, where governments still provide financial support to established churches?

Yes, but not only that: they are also giving indirect support through privileges.

For example, the church has 26% of Italy's real estate, but they don't pay a single cent in taxes!
Quote:

I don't like that, either, but it's not a Christian invention; it's inherited from ancient times. In Rome, the Republic and later the emperor were required to support the Vestal Virgins, the haruspexes, and so forth. In the ancient Middle East, the king was seen as a minor divinity who every year had to visit the temple prostitutes and engage in certain "religious activities" to help bring a good harvest. In Egypt, the pharaoh was likewise considered a minor divinity and supported an army of priests and temples;

Nevertheless it's not right.
Quote:

if you haven't read about how Egypt had one of the first monotheistic religions to emerge, you might want to read about how Tutankhaten became Tutankhamen.

I knew that Akhenaten was the first to introduce the monotheism in Egypt.

However from your link I read this: "He renounced the god Aten, relegating it to obscurity and returned Egyptian religion to its polytheistic form."
Quote:

As for "against and act against personal freedom", that's a strange argument, because most government laws are against personal freedom, either directly or indirectly. Taxes, for instance, affect how I can dispose of my earned income; that's not a matter of Christianity. Laws that define divorce, or that require a man to provide support for a child he has fathered, affect how people conduct their personal lives directly. Laws against all slavery violate the personal freedom of a man to sell himself into temporary slavery to pay off his debts. (This was common in the ancient world.) One of the legacies of Christianity is that we don't kill or abandon newborns or young children who turn out deformed or mentally disabled -- those laws, too, violate personal freedom, and many people disagree with them. I mentioned elsewhere (I think) that Christians put an end to the old Germanic practice of marrying an unwilling woman by kidnapping her and.... So I've never really understood the complaint that Christians are against personal freedom, as if that were unique to them. You may disagree and argue with particulars of what Christians advocate,

This is exactly what I mean, and why I'm against Christians (and religious which act the same).

I've no problem (well, not exactly: see below) accepting that the government which is taxing people or limit people's freedom as a general concept to sustain and protect the community.

I've problems if this happens due to religion. So, having more taxes which directly or indirectly finance the church, or laws that derive from the church (no abortion, no divorce, no euthanasia).

This doesn't mean that I don't recognize the good things that happened due to religion, and you reported.
Quote:

but the principle that laws shouldn't violate personal freedom really means that we shouldn't have laws at all, which surely you don't advocate. (There are some who do, so if you're an anarchist, I'll grant that you're consistent.)

Yes, I'm.

But I'm also realistic in thinking that an anarchist society isn't possible.

However I want to have/get as much freedom as possible even in this society.

@khayoz Quote:

khayoz wrote: @simplex First of all, sorry guys I'm late to the game, working.. "Every part of that is false" No I "know" it's not false, Yeah "my" guys where totally bloodthirsty pirating, murderers etc. I don't deny any of that. But they where either converterted(YES or NO) to Christianity or slaughtered. And wheres the moral in that? Hey let's go to Sweden and indoctrinate the land! Hitler style all day in my book.

What happened to populations that were assaulted by Vikings?
Quote:

I know where never gonna agree, but I'm pushing freedom! Christianity and Religion are pushing hate, war and every single NO NO on the so called stone tablets.................

I agree on this.
Quote:

EDIT: And if you never been to Sweden the land of the VIKINGS, get over here and get your own opinion, travel, discover and drop me a P.M. for a free beer and a long discussion!

Well, difficult living for men (males) in Sweden...
Quote:

EDIT2: Where's BigD at?

Why you want him here?

He cannot discuss at any level: philosophical, theological, scriptural.

He's the usual fanatic which goes to the church, listen the carefully selected pieces of the bible (because if you start reading it from the first page you can become an atheist), and spread the usual non-sense.

There can be no dialog with him about religion.

@khayoz Quote:

khayoz wrote: @cdimauro "Not all. I think the most are due to economic interests, or something like that." Look broader, expand your field of view. Economic and Religion is like hand in glove and have always been.

Many times yes, but not always.
Quote:

"Do you mean because of the old and new testaments?" Yes thats the one! The old one was far to VIKING grim ;)

Vikings can only learn from the old testament.

@khayoz

Quote:

First of all, sorry guys I'm late to the game, working..

I've also been busy, but I also don't care for disputations, as they suck up a huge amount of time, so I stayed away on purpose.

I'd like to preface what follows by perhaps agreeing with you on one thing. If your point is simply that Christians persecuted, even to death, Norsemen (if I may use the term) and others, in countries where the ruler had nominally accepted Christianity, then of course I do not disagree with this fact. I'm not ignorant.

My impression was that your original statement was more to the effect of, "Vikings were minding their business in peace and quiet until Christians came and exterminated them," which is of course not the case. And you seem to agree with that.

So overall I think we agree.

Quote:

But they where either converterted(YES or NO) to Christianity or slaughtered.

Again, part of my point is that this behavior is part of the human condition. Missionaries, lower clergy, and even some higher clergy did not work that way; they themselves experienced rather violent persecution when they first came. It was kings worked that way. Kings worked that way everywhere in those times; it's a general rule where there are very few exceptions, almost all from pragmatic necessity. I believe I have already cited the Roman divination of the emperor, which all subjects were required to participate in, as well as the Japanese persecution shown in the book Silence, written by a Japanese Christian, later adapted by Martin Scorcese.

Christianity didn't invent religious persecution, nor even persecution in general. It didn't invent the idea that states should have established religions. If it's not unique to Christians, then I'd agree that it's sensible to blame Christians who failed to rise above it, but not to blame Christianity as if it were unique in the game.

Quote:

And wheres the moral in that? Hey let's go to Sweden and indoctrinate the land!

I don't have a problem with missionaries going somewhere and trying to teach (peacefully) what they sincerely believe is the truth. That's what the first Christian missionaries to Scandinavia did. If you feel they shouldn't have done that, but should have left them pagan, then I guess we disagree. I would argue, and I would not be alone, that the Christian missionaries brought a lot of good things; there's a reason Scandinavia uses the Latin alphabet. From what I've read, one thing that helped Christianity spread throughout Europe, including Scandinavia, is that clerics typically brought literacy and education, which kings and merchants found useful.

Quote:

Hitler style all day in my book.

A completely invalid comparison. Hitler was a racist who believed that every "non-Aryan" bloodline was inferior. People remember his attempt to exterminate the Jews, but they seem less familiar with the cause of the Second World War, which had nothing to do with the Jews; it was his doctrine of Lebensraum, along with his notion that Slavs were subhumans fit only to be servants to Aryans.

Hitler also happened to believe this was scientific, while simultaneously embracing spiritualism, animal rights, and eventually vegetarianism. Hitler even felt that Christianity weakened Germans, which illustrates something I will say below: your characterization of Christianity's relationship to war as far too simplified.

Quote:

I'm pushing freedom! Christianity and Religion are pushing hate, war and every single NO NO on the so called stone tablets.................

Christianity "pushes" neither hate nor war; it's always had an uncomfortable tension with war, and has always sent missionaries to everyone. Saying "your way of life is wrong" or "this behavior of yours is wrong" is not hate, though that's the argument many take.

(Aside. Even that isn't the fundamental message of Christianity; the fundamental message of Christianity is, the ultimate reality, called God, loves us and wants us to be in communion with him, not because he needs us, but because we need him to be happy and fulfilled, and to prove this he became one of us, allowed us to sacrifice him in our perverse way, and resurrected, not resuscitated, with a glorified body, continuing to offer us this communion. I say this not to preach, and sorry if I come across that way, but rather to point out what Christianity's fundamental message is.)

Christianity has a long history of pacifism. Medieval theologians developed the "just war theory", but that was an attempt to restrict war. Many historians, most famously Edward Gibbon, have argued that the Roman Empire's collapse was because Christianity established itself, weakened it, and caused its fall.

Thinking about when a war might be "just" does not originate with Christians. For instance, Aristotle wrote on it. And it certainly wasn't unique to Christianity, as you can see if you explore that page.

Sure, Christianity pushes the NO's of the stone tablets, but it also pushes the YES's of the beatitudes and loving one's neighbor as oneself (the "positive" Golden Rule to actively love others by viewing them as yourself, as opposed to the more common "negative" Golden Rule to avoid harming others out of self-interest).

Christianity teaches one to turn the cheek in the face of provocation, to examine oneself before criticizing another, and emphasizes forgiveness to the point where after teaching his disciples the Lord's Prayer, which has the phrase "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us," Christ makes only one comment on the prayer: unless they forgive each other from the heart, they will not receive forgiveness from God.

Christianity inspired one of the greatest peaceful revolutions ever, the American Civil Rights movement, which was largely led by black clergy, and largely supported by white clergy. Two Catholic bishops either excommunicated or threatened to excommunicate Catholics who resisted integration of Catholic schools. I've always thought it amazing how this all happened within living memory, but the organized churches' support for civil rights has been memory holed as badly as anything in Orwell's 1984. (So-called "unorganized" churches were more divided.)

Quote:

And if you never been to Sweden the land of the VIKINGS, get over here and get your own opinion, travel, discover and drop me a P.M. for a free beer and a long discussion!

Thank you. I've been to Belgium, Iceland, France (multiple times & places), Germany (multiple times & places), Italy (many, many times & places), Switzerland, Russia (multiple times & places), and England... if eating fish and chips at a London airport restaurant counts. (I guess it doesn't). I'd like to visit more of Europe, and wouldn't mind visiting Sweden (outside winter), but the realities of married life, children, and a job mean I probably won't, though you do seem a pleasant enough person. Had we had this conversation 20 years ago, it would be different. (Though I'd pass on the beer; I can't stand the taste.)

Last edited by simplex on 24-May-2021 at 05:28 AM.
Last edited by simplex on 24-May-2021 at 05:13 AM.

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.

@cdimauro

Quote:

However and regards George Pell, he's over his personal prosecutions, but what's left is that he hasn't collaborated with the police about the sexual abuses happened on Australia's church.

He may not have collaborate in ways that everyone may want, but he has collaborated. For instance, the only reason they were able to arrest him is that he was collaborating by returning to Australia in order to facilitate the investigation of him. If he collaborated on the one thing most dangerous to him, it doesn't make sense to conclude that he wouldn't collaborate on something not dangerous to him.

Quote:

with the Christians anything which was supposed to be against their doctrine was persecuted and people jailed or burned at the stake. This didn't included only people which promoted a different interpretation of the holy scriptures, but "scientists" as well.

"the Christians" is a bit broad, so let me point out a few things.

- Copernicus (whom you cite elsewhere) was a member of the clergy, once nearly elected bishop. He was also a lay member of the Dominican religious order.

- Contrary to popular myth, it is now well-established that the Church did not have a problem with the Copernican theories until it became an issue with Galileo. At the time of the Galileo affair, Cardinal Bellarmine famously wrote that if there exists a conflict between empirical science and scripture, then scripture had to be re-interpreted. The main disagreement was on whether Galileo had proved his case. In fact he hadn't (e.g., Tycho Brahe rejected his arguments), and some of his arguments have turned out to be wrong, yet he mocked his Aristotelian opponents in his book. Aristotelians were rather powerful in the universities.

I do not say this to dismiss, downplay, or defend the Roman Inquisition's persecution of Galileo. It was bad, and shouldn't have happened, period. But the facts around it are typically misrepresented as if the Church opposed science. To the contrary, the Church funded Galileo's studies, and continues to fund astronomical studies today.

- Genetics was established by the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel.

- The Big Bang was first hypothesized in the West by the Jesuit Georges Lemaître. (It was also hypothesized by a Russian shortly before him, but Westerners have a habit of ignoring Russian scientists, more famously Lobachevsky.) Indeed, many atheist scientists mocked the Big Bang Theory as Lemaître's attempt to sneak God into physics.

- Many people held up as scientists who were persecuted for their scientific pursuits were actually persecuted for religious heresy, such as Giordano Bruno (e.g., denial of transubstantiation, pantheist doctrines, reincarnation).

Quote:

I haven't attributed them only to economic interests. Some crusades were caused only by religion reasons, as well as Inquisition activities.

You did write that the "primary" motivation was economic interests, and included all these things without qualification, but I understand that you didn't mean that. (We all probably say things too generally in these conversations, myself included.)

Quote:

Quote: You may be aware that research faculty at universities typically teach very little. I don't know about Europe, but here in the United States a lot of less intelligent/informed people wonder why they get paid "to teach only one or two classes." It is true that a lot of them do little more than that, but the main cause is that it is well-understood that one philosophy / science needs time, leisure, and the support of people with a long-term point of view. I think that in Italy we have a good support regarding history in the universities (which is obvious, because of our heritage), but I can say the same as well on the regular schools.

I'm not sure, but I think you misunderstand my point. My point isn't that there is no support for schools here (to the contrary; we spend on average far more per student than most other industrialized nations).

My point is that research needs leisure time; that is, time not spent teaching or trying to support yourself by other means. You need time to study, time to think about what you've studied, time to conduct experiments. You also need funds to support that.

Good luck finding those in a society where repeated invasion has destroyed your political culture.

To be clear, I don't mean that mere leisure and political stability suffice for science to arise. Of course they don't; otherwise, modern science would have arisen somewhere other than late medieval Europe. I mean that they are necessary. But you also need more. You certainly need a certain attitude toward the world, an understanding that it isn't random or whimsical. Many historians of science have argued that modern, empirical science didn't arise in pagan times because of the widespread view that the world was essentially random and chaotic, subject to the whims of the gods. Some have said that the reason Islam's scientific boom died out is due to the Islamic view that God is somewhat arbitrary. The Christian view was that God is fundamentally reasonable, which is why Christianity spoke of Λογος (Logos) and theologians like Origen, Augustine, and Aquinas wrestled with philosophy, which at their time was what passed for "science".

Quote:

Well, you can imagine what happened to my Sicily, which is at the center of Mediterranean Sea. However the constant invasions and wars haven't blocked scientist to make researches and studies, which were very common in the ancient Greece. A notable example (very close to my smalltown) is Archimedes, which had no issues due to religion.

Maybe not religion, but Archimedes actually proves my larger point. Think about how his life, and therefore his scientific studies, came to an end.

Same for Boethius, a Christian who, when he was put to death by the post-Roman Gothic "King of the Romans" Theodoric, was trying to save philosophy in the West.

Indeed, the Greeks are better known for philosophy and mathematics than for science, because those proceed from first principles. Empirical science of the modern sort was very rare in Greece. Archimedes was something of an exception.

Here's an illustration. Aristotle actually argues that one ought to determine truth from empirical evidence. But how much empirical evidence did he actually perform? precious little! His books on physics are filled with easily falsified assertions. Galileo's famous experiment from the Leaning Tower of Pisa was performed to demonstrate that one of Aristotle's most famous claims was false. -- In fact, Galileo was repeating an experiment that had already been carried out by John Philoponus some centuries before -- a Christian scientists of the middle ages.

Quote:

What I wanted to say is that religion wasn't a problem for the science before christians.

That's not actually true. To start with, science and religion were deeply intermixed for the Greeks.

For example, while the Pythagoreans are often viewed as the progenitors of science, in fact they viewed numbers with mystical reverence tantamount to religion. This could have very bad effects. When they claimed that "all is number", that partly meant that everything was a rational number, a quotient, like 2/3. Thus, when one of them discovered that the square root of 2 was irrational, they drowned him at sea.

Moreover, science had largely died out in the ancient world before the Christians came along. This is admitted even by non-Christian writers. I remember it most vividly in reading The Dream of Reason, where the author points out that Greeks themselves had largely abandoned philosophy (and all that flows from it, including science) by the 1st century AD.

The one major advance I recall after the advent of the Romans is Diophantus of Alexandria, who invented syncopated notation, an early form of algebra. It seems to have been immediately abandoned, and mathematics suffered as a result. This was over a century before Christianity was legalized, so the problem was not Christianity. The problem was the degeneration of Greco-Roman culture.

A problem with comparing Greek advances in science to those of medieval Europe is that one has to define timespans and geographic regions. Once you restrict the timespans to the same rough periods (anywhere from several centuries to a millennium), with a fair amount of political stability (Alexander's empire / the High Middle Ages and later the Renaissance) the Greeks do not seem to have done so much more than the medieval Europeans, who invented quite a lot.

Quote:

Quote: Even when religion is the vehicle, as in the case of the Inquisition but the underlying engine was human nature. OK, but this doesn't justify their abominable acts. Otherwise we can same the same for what nazis did...

First, I don't excuse or justify the use of torture as a means of determining the truth, but that was widespread then (and even now, really). Nor would I excuse or justify the practice of burning heretics at the stake. Nor would I excuse or justify the proposition that public religious dissent should be classified as a crime. (NB To be criminal the dissent had to be public. Private religious dissent was allowed, and even then a surprising amount of public religious disagreement was tolerated in medieval Europe. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, did not generally see eye-to-eye with other theologians of his time.)

All that said, multiple modern historians have published books explaining how the Inquisition began as an attempt by the Church to restrain mobs bent on religious cleansing, that it attempted to apply systematic rules and treat people fairly, that it was generally viewed as fairer than secular courts, and as a result people accused of secular crimes often tried to get themselves held for heresy so that they could be tried by the Inquisition instead. (Here's one, written by a historian at one of the US' top, "Ivy League" universities.) "Inquisition" in general is a procedure of investigating crimes, and the origin of the techniques used by the Medieval Church was pre-Christian Rome. As I understand it (and I may not) the Italian court system is still essentially the same (minus the torture and the capital punishment of course): the judge and the investigator are the same. It is entirely different from the English legal system, where the judge and the investigator are different.

Moreover, the comparison to Nazis is again invalid. The Nazis' practices of persecuting the Jews and considering Slavs subhumans were widely reviled by most people of their time. Their determination to dominate the world through war was an explicit rejection of the world consensus for peaceful cooperation though the League of Nations.

By contrast, the Inquisition at its time, and I have to repeat that this is my overall point, which you both seem determined to avoid confronting, was not worse than the contemporary secular legal system (it was generally fairer, and used less torture, less brutal torture at that, and held confessions extracted via torture in suspicion). It was not out of character for the age in treating religious dissent as a crime, as I have shown already. So the comparison of the Inquisition, or even of religious persecution, to the Nazi regime of ethnic purity and superiority, is fallacious rhetoric. I confess myself surprised that both of you fell prey to Godwin's Law so quickly.

Quote:

For example, the church has 26% of Italy's real estate, but they don't pay a single cent in taxes!

I'm not only familiar with this; I'm familiar with the suspicion that a lot of religious houses are essentially operating profitable, tax-free hotels. Again, I agree that when this is the case, then it's a problem.

However, I'd point out two things. First, again, this isn't a problem with Christianity per se. Over the millennia, states have privileged not only a religion, but entire classes of people, exempting them from taxes.

Second, when the Church uses such a privilege to pursue its mission of charity, then exempting it from real estate taxes is not entirely unreasonable. (It might even be compatible with an anarchist's point of view!) Indeed, a lot of that real estate was acquired / donated for the express purpose of assisting the Church's charitable activity, which for many centuries was more or less the only charitable activity in Europe. Though, again, I'm well aware that there is likely to be a lot of abuse in this case, and it needs to be fixed.

Finally, in the United States we have a legal principle that I think sort-of applies to this case: The power to tax is the power to destroy. (end of Section 2) This was used to say that states cannot tax institutions of the federal government, and likewise the federal government cannot tax institutions of the states.

In the same way, the state cannot tax religious institutions in the United States, so that there are some guidelines to identify a legitimate religion from a group that simply wants to avoid taxes. (e.g., a religion may not engage in overt political activity, such as endorsing a particular candidate for office.) But it is based more on that principle, I think, as well as, ironically perhaps for this argument, freedom of religion.

Perhaps you might agree that we shouldn't give the State too much power, so in general religious institutions shouldn't be taxed. But I personally have no trouble with the idea that abuses should be regulated, and my impression from reading Italian newspapers & speaking with some Italian friends is that the situation in Italy could change easily if these religious houses are in fact abusive and do not clean up their act.

Quote:

Quote: I don't like that, either, but it's not a Christian invention; it's inherited from ancient times. In Rome, the Republic and later the emperor were required to support the Vestal Virgins, the haruspexes, and so forth. In the ancient Middle East, the king was seen as a minor divinity who every year had to visit the temple prostitutes and engage in certain "religious activities" to help bring a good harvest. In Egypt, the pharaoh was likewise considered a minor divinity and supported an army of priests and temples; Nevertheless it's not right.

I don't claim it's right. What I claim is that it is not unique to Christianity, and that Christians have been by no means the worst abusers if one surveys history fairly. I also argue that Christians have struggled more than most religious people to overcome this.

I (again?) point out that if you remove religion from the picture, you still get the same behaviors, or even worse, as the 20th century proved. The avowedly atheistic states were fairly clearly worse abusers of human rights than anything dreamed up by medieval Christians: Pol Pot massacred 1/3 of his nation's population in a handful of years. Mao's Cultural Revolution arguably did more to set science in China back than anything Christians have dreamed of doing over the past 2000 years. (One of my university colleagues was among the first Chinese to attend university after Mao's death... because there were no universities in the last years of Mao's reign.)

In areas where Christianity is dominant, yes, you may get people who try to ban, say, the teaching of evolution in the schools. But in areas where Christianity is reviled, you often get highly anti-scientific attitudes as well. The highly unscientific "alternative medicine", which often explicitly rejects medicine based on science, is not generally a phenomenon associated with Christians; to the contrary. And up until this idiotic Trump phenomenon, anti-vaccine sentiment was primarily a phenomenon in states with low religious participation. I reside in one of the supposedly hardest-core "Christian" states in the nation, and it is mandatory to vaccinate your children with all the regular vaccines: if not, they cannot attend school. Whereas California, a state that has spent the last couple of decades hemming in the religious freedoms that offend its cultural elites, is regularly the locus of several outbreaks of diseases like measles and mumps, precisely because of these anti-scientific attitudes among people who actually claim to, get this, "follow the science."

Again, my point is not that an anti-scientific is good or excusable because everyone else does it. An explanation is not an excuse. My point is that it's part of the human condition, so treating religious people and/or societies as if it were unique to them, or even particularly unique to them, requires more evidence than anything I've ever seen, especially after the 20th century. After the 20th century, the claim that religion is the cause of 90% of the world's evils requires a willful refusal to face facts. Humans are flawed, and religion is not the cause.

(You are free to argue that religion is not the cure, but I will disagree. )

Quote:

I knew that Akhenaten was the first to introduce the monotheism in Egypt. However from your link I read this: "He renounced the god Aten, relegating it to obscurity and returned Egyptian religion to its polytheistic form."

I linked to Tutankhamen, who repudiated his brother's Atenism, which illustrates the involvement of the state in religion long before Christ graced the earth.

Quote:

Quote: So I've never really understood the complaint that Christians are against personal freedom, as if that were unique to them. You may disagree and argue with particulars of what Christians advocate, This is exactly what I mean, and why I'm against Christians (and religious which act the same). I've no problem (well, not exactly: see below) accepting that the government which is taxing people or limit people's freedom as a general concept to sustain and protect the community. I've problems if this happens due to religion. So, having more taxes which directly or indirectly finance the church, or laws that derive from the church (no abortion, no divorce, no euthanasia).

As Pascal and others have pointed out, there are limits to reason. At some point, you have to make decisions based on a set of values. Hilbert had proposed that there is no "ignorabimus" in math; that is, we can know everything in mathematics, and even create a logically consistent system that justifies itself. His perspective was common in the early 20th century, especially among those who believed that everything should be knowable by reason. He was proved wrong within the decade... by a religious mathematician. This alone suggests that the religious point of view is essential to the correct advance of science.

So let's consider your points: Why should divorce be legal? why euthanasia? why abortion? After all, every one of these things is easily abused, and is currently certainly abused.

- Abortion explicitly ends a human life; in any context outside the womb you would likely condemn it as murder; abortion providers market their services more aggressively to ethnic minorities (extremely so in China), and has often been advocated explicitly for racist purposes.

- Euthanasia explicitly ends a human life; it is often used to end the lives of people who not only haven't stated that they want their lives ended; it has even been justified for people who resist the procedure and cry out that they don't want it.

- Both abortion and euthanasia are currently encouraged in part to obtain raw material for medical use or for organ donation, with profit involved.

- Divorce, at least in its modern form, encourages a view of marriage where the husband and wife do not in fact form a reproductive bond with an eye to reproduction, but merely engage in a contract to be broken at will. Indeed, divorce has made it so that we have now "divorced" reproduction and marriage altogether. Divorce makes it easier for the powerful party (typically male) to exploit and abandon the weaker one (typically female). It also tends to rob children of one of their parents, and is correlated with many bad sociological outcomes for these children: lower educational attainment, higher crime rate, increased pregnancy outside of marriage.

Don't misunderstand; I don't really want to argue those here; that's taking us way off topic, and gosh I've spent about 4 hours on these replies tonight (which is why I stayed away a while). So don't misunderstand my point; I have no intention of litigating these topics in this forum. My point is simply that appealing to "freedom" in these instances ignores the fact that they are easily and often abused, and the religious perspective often encapsulates wisdom of the ages that is not easily explained in words, much less convincingly. In each case, these "freedoms" were introduced with simplistic arguments, typically admitted as "necessary evils", so at least the evil was recognized, and promises were made to limit their use. But now they are promoted as "positive goods", and they are quickly expanded.

Quote:

This doesn't mean that I don't recognize the good things that happened due to religion, and you reported.

I am glad of this. I would point out, however, that the constant drumbeat of religion's ills that I encounter, with nary a word of its good deeds unless I start to speak up, are precisely what motivate me to speak up. Remember that the origin of this thread is that I protested the apparent characterization of Vikings as innocent victims of a Christian genocide, with no further context of the times and the culture. And I hate speaking up; I much prefer asking questions.

Sorry if this is poorly written; as I indicated above, I've been working on this for about 3-4 hours now, and I should have gone to sleep about 2 hours ago. But if I don't write this now it will likely be a week before I let myself return here.

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.

@simplex

On the subject of Easter, read https://www.britannica.com/topic/Easter-holiday


Quote:

The English word Easter, which parallels the German word Ostern, is of uncertain origin. One view, expounded by the Venerable Bede in the 8th century, was that it derived from Eostre, or Eostrae, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring and fertility. This view presumes—as does the view associating the origin of Christmas on December 25 with pagan celebrations of the winter solstice—that Christians appropriated pagan names and holidays for their highest festivals. Given the determination with which Christians combated all forms of paganism (the belief in multiple deities), this appears a rather dubious presumption. There is now widespread consensus that the word derives from the Christian designation of Easter week as in albis, a Latin phrase that was understood as the plural of alba (“dawn”) and became eostarum in Old High German, the precursor of the modern German and English term. The Latin and Greek Pascha (“Passover”) provides the root for Pâques, the French word for Easter.

The fights between different Christian sects has lead to the separation of religion and government in the new world countries such as in the USA (First Amendment to the United States Constitution), Australia (Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia), Canada (Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the Constitution of Canada).

Last edited by Hammer on 04-Jun-2021 at 05:09 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 04-Jun-2021 at 04:40 AM.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

@cdimauro

Quote:

"Thanks" to Christians we had the Inquisition, crusades (yes, I know: economics interests were the primary reasons), extermination of hereticals, etc..

Spanish Inquisition was a response to the Islamic invasion. The result of the Islamic invasion has created a powerful Spanish military-industrial complex.

If you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars
The ideological trigger is Islamic teaching on slaving non-Muslims. This is 1st major instance that the secular USA involved itself in an "old world" issue against Islamic Ottoman Empire.

US involvement has lead to the weakening of the Islamic Ottoman Empire's North Africa which opens the door to Europe's The Scramble for Africa.

The lead-up to the year 1801 1st Barbary War created the US Department of the Navy (USN and USMC) and the US's infamous "freedom of navigation" enforcement. The US Department of the Navy's creation starts the US's rise as a maritime superpower.

Have you noticed the pattern for rising maritime powers of Spain's Spanish Armada and USA's Navy?

Your argument is hypocritical.

Last edited by Hammer on 04-Jun-2021 at 05:37 AM.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: This is exactly what I mean, and why I'm against Christians (and religious which act the same).

The majority of Christians in the "new world" supports freedom of religion and the separation of state and religion since it was a result of Europe's Christian sectarian conflicts. Christian's interpretation conflicts need to be removed from governments.

Christian Evangelical (a branch from Protestants) movement in the "new world" would have a problem with traditional European Christian state religion.

Quote:

I've no problem (well, not exactly: see below) accepting that the government which is taxing people or limit people's freedom as a general concept to sustain and protect the community. I've problems if this happens due to religion. So, having more taxes which directly or indirectly finance the church, or laws that derive from the church (no abortion, no divorce, no euthanasia).

Taxation for "life support" government services is okay as long it's done efficiently.

The idea "limit people's freedom as a general concept to sustain and protect the community" can lead to dictatorships.

I fully support my country (Australia)'s freedom of religion in Section 116 of the Australian Constitution.

Last edited by Hammer on 04-Jun-2021 at 05:33 AM.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

@Hammer

What precisely are you trying to say?

I'm well aware that in English, "Easter" is thought to descend from a pagan term, though in fact no one is really sure.

I have personally celebrated the Easter season in both Italian, Russian, and Spanish, never mind English, so I'm also aware that in most languages the name of the term comes from the Aramaic and Hebrew words for Passover.

From:

- Hebrew: Pesach

To:

- Aramaic: Paskha

Then to:

- Greek Πασχα (Pascha)

From there to:

- Latin Pascha
- Russian Пасха ("Paskha")

And from Latin to:

- Italian Pasqua
- French Pâques
- Spanish: Pascua

I don't think you intend to deny this; your citation more or less agrees with this. But Easter wasn't in the discussion at all, so I'm a tad confused.

(I wish I could type Aramaic or Hebrew, but alas I can't.)

Last edited by simplex on 06-Jun-2021 at 07:18 PM.

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.

@Hammer Quote:

Hammer wrote: @cdimauro Quote: "Thanks" to Christians we had the Inquisition, crusades (yes, I know: economics interests were the primary reasons), extermination of hereticals, etc.. Spanish Inquisition was a response to the Islamic invasion. The result of the Islamic invasion has created a powerful Spanish military-industrial complex. If you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars The ideological trigger is Islamic teaching on slaving non-Muslims. This is 1st major instance that the secular USA involved itself in an "old world" issue against Islamic Ottoman Empire. US involvement has lead to the weakening of the Islamic Ottoman Empire's North Africa which opens the door to Europe's The Scramble for Africa. The lead-up to the year 1801 1st Barbary War created the US Department of the Navy (USN and USMC) and the US's infamous "freedom of navigation" enforcement. The US Department of the Navy's creation starts the US's rise as a maritime superpower. Have you noticed the pattern for rising maritime powers of Spain's Spanish Armada and USA's Navy? Your argument is hypocritical.

I really don't understand how you can reach to that conclusion by reading my writings. What Pindaric flies have you done?

Quote me and prove the claims that you're saddling me with!

@Hammer Quote:

Hammer wrote: @cdimauro Quote: cdimauro wrote: This is exactly what I mean, and why I'm against Christians (and religious which act the same). The majority of Christians in the "new world" supports freedom of religion and the separation of state and religion since it was a result of Europe's Christian sectarian conflicts. Christian's interpretation conflicts need to be removed from governments. Christian Evangelical (a branch from Protestants) movement in the "new world" would have a problem with traditional European Christian state religion. Quote: I've no problem (well, not exactly: see below) accepting that the government which is taxing people or limit people's freedom as a general concept to sustain and protect the community. I've problems if this happens due to religion. So, having more taxes which directly or indirectly finance the church, or laws that derive from the church (no abortion, no divorce, no euthanasia). Taxation for "life support" government services is okay as long it's done efficiently. The idea "limit people's freedom as a general concept to sustain and protect the community" can lead to dictatorships. I fully support my country (Australia)'s freedom of religion in Section 116 of the Australian Constitution.

On this I agree, and on Italian's Constitution it's clearly written that there's freedom of religion (inside a free State).

The problem is that, in practice, this freedom had consequences and impositions also to people which are NOT part of any specific religion. And this in terms of personal freedom restrictions, and more taxes to support religions. This is unacceptable IMO.
I don't care if religion institutes use my money for charity or some other good causes: this doesn't justify the robbery from my pocket! If they want to do it I'm perfectly fine as long as their faithful finance them with their money.

@simplex: thanks for you effort, which I've appreciated.

I've to say that I've changed my idea about Medieval and crusades, reconsidering what happened, why it happened, at the light of the contextual life of people/society at the time.

For the remaining arguments (see above also my reply to Hammer) I think that we will come to endless debate due to our completely different visions, and I prefer to don't continue: I hope that you understand.