What is Christianity?

[guillaumeb]

Is it the faith that inspired Schubert to write Ave Maria? (My preferred version)

Or is it the Crusades?

Is it the message of Jesus to "do to others as you would have them do to you"?

Or is it the forced conversion of the Jews in Spain and the First Peoples in the New World?

Or is it all of the above?


When we speak of Christianity, or any religion, we speak of humans believing. And humans are not perfect. None of us is perfect. We all have our faults, we all have our inconsistencies.

In this forum, I have posted many things. Some I have titled "good news", and some "bad news". Never have I titled any post "perfect news" because there is no perfection in humanity. But there is good and bad so the news and the titles reflect that mixture.

So when I read claims like "religion is responsible for most of the violence in the world", I often respond that every culture commits violence. Violence is a human failing and is committed for many reasons. To single out any one reason as THE reason tells me more about the person making the claim than it does about the concept of religion.

And given that history suggests that religion has been present for as long as man has walked upright, violence has also been present. (See the Bible story of Cain and Abel for one explanation)

[democratisphere]

1. Intolerance of and by Christianity and other religions have been the cause of more wars

than anything else. Seems to be the ultimate hypocracy for way too many so-called followers. Very few act truly Christ-like.

[guillaumeb]

3. Let us examine that claim.

Statistics generally show that the majority of humans are theists. So it follows that a majority of murderers are theists. And policemen. And doctors. And nurses. And teachers. And a majority of every imaginable subset of humans is likely to be composed of theists.

So the claim tells us as much as a claim that humans are responsible for most of the wars and killings. That tells us something about humans.

[democratisphere]

6. Sure does.

For your consideration.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. Is that what it tells you?

Because it tells me we should look to see if violence is represented proportionally across the concerned groups.

If atheists, 10% of the population, accounted for 20% of violent crime incarcerations, that would be something to think about, yes?

[guillaumeb]

17. It might, but there could also be other factors,

such as poverty, educational achievement, etc.

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. Hence "we should look at"

[guillaumeb]

24. I agree.

[Pope George Ringo II]

38. We have looked

The FBI has the data on offenders. Atheists are under-represented generally, and spectacularly under-represented in violent crime. This leaves theists actually over-represented in prison.

[guillaumeb]

42. The US is predominantly theist.

If crime statistics from Russia or China were available, it is quite possible that the atheists would be much more represented in prison.

[Pope George Ringo II]

45. Possibly more represented in prison

But likely still under-represented compared to the population as a whole. The American data is pretty clear that any given atheist is less likely to commit crimes than any given theist, and that any given atheist is far, far less likely to commit violent crimes than any given theist.

The math is not your friend on this one.

[trotsky]

46. You don't really "get" statistics, do you?

Theists are a greater portion of the prison population than they are of the general population.

https://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/why-atheists-make-85-percent-americas-scientists-and-07-percent-its-prison

[guillaumeb]

53. I hate to interrupt all of the congratulations, but.........

Atheism is a movement comprised mostly of middle-to-upper-class white people. A middle-to-upper-class white person is far less likely to be incarcerated than a poor person and/or a person of color. The only way atheists as a whole might be less likely to be incarcerated than theists would be if we were a female-majority community. Atheism is hardly the cause of white middle-to-upper-class people’s underrepresentation in the prison population, injustice in the criminal justice system is.

One atheists contention.


http://skepchick.org/2014/06/atheists-prison/

[Pope George Ringo II]

59. And now the point moves to explaining exactly why inmates aren't atheists.

And that's kind of an important shift in itself.

[guillaumeb]

61. No, the point goes to socioeconomic background,

and racism, and the point of which particular crimes are prosecuted and which are not. The actual point of the article.

But, as the self-identified atheist who authored the piece explains, it contradicts the simplistic meme that atheists are more moral.

[Pope George Ringo II]

69. Socioeconomic background to explain why atheists don't populate prisons

You already conceded the point by trying to explain why atheists aren't in prisons.

[guillaumeb]

77. If you missed the point, try reading the linked article.

[Pope George Ringo II]

81. No thanks, I'm aware of the data.

I'm just also aware that you're still attempting to explain why atheists don't go to prison.

[trotsky]

67. He's a pivot master, to be sure. n/t

[trotsky]

106. He'll scream all day long that someone else is "shifting" or "pivoting"...

while doing exactly that for every single one of his "arguments."

[Pope George Ringo II]

107. Increasing atheism does seem tied to lower prison populations in lots of ways, though.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/11/sweden-closes-prisons-number-inmates-plummets

Whatever the mechanism, more atheists=fewer inmates. Are we less criminal? Possibly. Are we more open to rehabilitating people rather than incarcerating them forever for petty crimes? Possibly.

I know why the Vatican doesn't have this problem, but it's still a hilarious comparison.

[trotsky]

66. So you must understand the statistics...

because that's why you're trying to change the subject, as usual.

[guillaumeb]

75. And you totally avoid what you cannot refute.

As usual.

[trotsky]

100. See, you gotta give me something to refute first.

So far you're shooting blanks.

[Brainstormy]

36. If this claim were modified

to say "violence motivated by theology" it would be indisputable. You can then include the Inquisition, thousands and thousands of witch burnings, the Holocaust and pograms which had at their basis centuries of anti-semitism, on and on and on. Even without war, religious idealogies have been lethal to the human race.

[guillaumeb]

41. So have violence and wars based on patriotism.

[trotsky]

47. #Whataboutism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[Pope George Ringo II]

50. Entirely true

But while we're on the topic we should note that civilized secular countries don't start wars because of "Gog and Magog."

[marylandblue]

52. Trump might, if he thought they were Pacific Islands hit by North Korea

[guillaumeb]

54. No, they start wars for flags and beliefs.

Much better.

[Pope George Ringo II]

58. You're back to whataboutism again

If you can't find anything good to say about christianity, it's okay. We understand.

[guillaumeb]

60. And we understand if you are reluctant to admit that there is anything good as well.

Everyone has an agenda. Mine is to present nuance in the topic of religion.

[Pope George Ringo II]

68. Why would you assume I have nothing kind to say about religion?

That's like saying I have nothing kind to say about heroin.

[guillaumeb]

76. Another marvelous turn of phrase.

[Pope George Ringo II]

79. Saying that on balance something is bad

doesn't mean I can't find anything nice at all to say about it. Heroin is useful palliative care in some parts of the world, but that doesn't make it a good thing overall.

Sorry if the nuance eludes you.

[guillaumeb]

82. Another marvelous turn of phrase.

You should be sitting on a mountain somewhere, dispensing your wisdom to the masses.

[Pope George Ringo II]

84. I forgot the mountain part.

I also appear to have missed an "M" somewhere...

I'll try to do better next time.

[Brainstormy]

73. which have usually been justified

by the belief that "God is on our side."

[Thomas Hurt]

2. I'll bite...

Christianity is an organized religion, a social institution that is mostly about fallible man/sinners not God. It is a social organization designed and managed to gather wealth, adherents, and political power in order to compete, influence and dominate society.

Thus, we have exclusivity, victimhood, tithing, proselytizing, church policy and theology for large families, no birth control, etc. You have to have butts in the pews and money in the coffers to keep the going concern going.

We also get community, compassion, charity, moral teachings, fellowship, etc.

If this does not suit some of the adherents they may turn to more radical cult tactics, brainwashing, violence, murder, genocide...

[guillaumeb]

4. Obviously your opinion.

If you know of anyone who is perfect, please let me know. And that was my point, that any group of humans is composed of imperfect humans.

[Thomas Hurt]

5. your opinion is not my point, but we are not in disagreement.

my opinion is just the opinion of an imperfect person.

[Angry Dragon]

10. Your post asked What is Christianity

now you talk about perfect people
I see no connection

[marylandblue]

7. Christianity is the claim that an all-just all-knowing God told us His will in the Bible

But if knowing God's will makes people no better than if they did not know it, then there is no point in Hiim telling us and there is no point to Christianity.

[guillaumeb]

25. It can offer a template. eom

[marylandblue]

34. So can everything else.

Is Christianity a better template than others?

[guillaumeb]

40. Whatever works for you should be your template.

[marylandblue]

44. If we can come up with something just as good on our own

why does God want to give us one?

[guillaumeb]

57. As I said, whatever works for you should be your template.

If you have no religious belief, the same still applies.

[marylandblue]

65. Christianity makes the grandest claims for itself

And you offer the weakest of defenses. Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the light." Pretty bold stuff, and he was tortured to death for it. Guillaumeb says, "Ehh, just do whatever works."

Jesus had something to say about that too, "you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth."

[guillaumeb]

74. So my tolerance is a weak defense?

Jesus also said to not judge. He also said to remove the beam from your eye.....etc.

[marylandblue]

85. Tolerance is not a defense and debate is not judgement

If we disagree, we can debate it. Debating is not judging another person, it's having a difference of opinion. Tolerance is the idea that we can debate without dehumanizing our opponents.

But if all you offer in defense of your opinion is that it is no worse than anyone else's and you tolerate those who disagree, that is really no defense at all. It states no case and presents no evidence.

[guillaumeb]

88. We can debate, but there is very little demonstrated tolerance

when a poster equates theism with a mental disease. Or talks of curing theism. Or talks of supposed intolerance at DU for non-theists when the exact opposite is, in my view, more obvious.

[marylandblue]

91. I believe that poster was being metaphorical

But you will never get intolerance from me, and if I do it inadvertently, you can call me on it.

I agree with you that it is hard to be a theist on this forum. You seem to be outnumbered.

[guillaumeb]

93. Agreed. A few Christians at DU tell me that they avoid this group

because of the acrimony.

And based on the many posts here, I do not feel that the poster's response, or other similar ones, was intended as metaphor.

I defined my motivation in the post as trying to present a nuanced view of religion by including positives and negatives.

[Lordquinton]

119. Foundations of intolerance claiming others are being intolerant of them?

We've become secure in the notion that we won't be burned at the stake for speaking out in this anonymous format, so we can actually push back. Theists see any sort of criticism as persecution, which is a natural leap, as the whole religion is built around persecution, the symbol is their god being tortured for promoting his faith.

If you're looking for reasons, don't look to the atheists, we're done being nice after the treatment we get, adn the treatment we see others receive.

[guillaumeb]

121. Interesting how you apparently have this feeling that you can speak for theists.

Does your rather strange statement mean that intolerance justifies intolerance?

If so, are the intolerant among atheists becoming that which they denounce when it is aimed at them?

An interesting philosophy.

[Lordquinton]

123. You know that most atheists started out as theists

and therefore do have insight into that mindset.

So, you are saying that atheists should just tolerate religious intolerance towards them? Is that really what you're saying?

‘When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression’

[Mariana]

127. I have a minor quibble with your subject line.

We all started out as atheists, until we were indoctrinated into theism by adults whom we trusted and believed. Most atheists are former theists, that is a fact. I think it's also true that all theists are former atheists. They've forgotten because the indoctrination began when they were too young to remember it.

[Lordquinton]

132. Technically yes

but we don't remember that time. The point here is that atheists remember their time as theists, while theists don't remember their time as atheists. Given that any ambiguity will be twisted in any manner of unpredictable manners into a while new OP, I wanted to narrow it down.

[guillaumeb]

128. You avoided my question. Why?

Does it make you uncomfortable?

[Lordquinton]

133. ...Really?

You have literally refused to answer any question asked of you, and you post this?

How about that definition of God you're working on, must be turning into a novel at this point.

[trotsky]

49. So Trump's template works for him.

Pat Robertson's does too.

And David Duke's.

Whatever works for them I guess, huh?

[guillaumeb]

80. Trump's template works for him.

An obvious answer to an obvious question.

[marylandblue]

87. But that doesn't make it right

If there is one thing DUer's agree on, it's that Trump's template is morally and practically wrong. We can't accept a template that has already harmed people and risks harming so many more.

[guillaumeb]

90. I did not say that it was correct.

But the poster asked a specific question. If the poster wanted to convey a different point, the poster should reframe the question.

[marylandblue]

94. You seem unwilling or unable to draw inferences from posts

I think trotsky was clearly presenting Trump and others as of examples of templates that "work" but are morally reprehensible, and he expected you to draw that inference. It is a reasonable expectation on trotsky's part because you and he agree politically about those people.

[guillaumeb]

96. I have dealt with trotsky for a while.

At one point in a long ago debate, I stated that I can only define Christianity for myself, not for others. Trotsky responded back that I was attempting to define Christianity, and another here supported that clear misreading. So no, if Trotsky wishes to ask a question, that question must be far more specific.

Speaking from experience.

[trotsky]

102. Anyone can go back and read those posts and decide for themselves if you are telling the truth.

In fact, I welcome them to do so.

Wanna link to them? I can if you are too embarrassed to admit you're wrong, and have everyone see it.

[guillaumeb]

109. I was actually responding to another poster.

If that poster wishes to research the matter, the poster is free to do that.

[trotsky]

141. Well what a relief they have your permission! n/t

[marylandblue]

124. I haven't been here very long

But I think you are drawing incorrect inferences on what people are saying, and they are draeing incorrect inferences about you. See my last comment on the "Illogic" thread before it was locked.

[guillaumeb]

130. I understand what you are saying,

but experience teaches people that many times there is a sub-text to apparently straightforward questions.

And going back to my previous comment, when my clear statement is interpreted as the exact opposite I can only wonder as to the motivation behind the tactic. In my experience, people pursue such strategies for the purpose of controlling the debate and putting the other person off balance.

Similar to my statement that being a Nazi is legally tolerated in the US miraculously became a statement of support for Nazis. And I also asked for clarification as to the exact meaning of the question from the poster, a clarification that I have yet to receive.

[marylandblue]

134. There is a subtext to your comments and questions as well

And it looks like people who have been here much longer than me are having a hard time figuring it out. Your clear statement is clear enough by itself, but in context, it's really confusing.

My experience with that sort of thing is different than yours. My experience is that people aren't using a tactic, they are genuinely confused. There is a mismatch between your assumptions and theirs. You seem to assume they think you really support Nazis. They seem to assume you are defaulting to a rather obvious statement about American law because you don't have anything more illuminating to say.

So instead of working towards clarification and understand like we all should as good intellectuals, you all end up arguing about who is being unclear.

I've seen you point out the obvious several times. I am not sure why you do that. Maybe that's the place to start.

[Lordquinton]

135. While I can't absolutely speak for others

I will propose that we have no trouble seeing what is going on.

Let's go back to the Nazi discussion. The question asked was "Should we tolerate the KKK and Nazis? Yes or no" This is a very straightforward question with an obvious answer. The answer given was "Is it legal to be a KKK or Nazi member in the US. Yes, so it is legally tolerated." He hastily reframed the question and answered what he himself asked. Unfortunately this is also a common tactic of white supremacists to defend their own intolerable beliefs so in an attempt to reframe and twist the conversation he ended up defending nazis.

Instead of backing down and clarifying what he actually meant, he doubled down, and claimed that everyone else was wrong.

It's really predictable and tiring, and I'm anticipating another new thread tomorrow, because Sunday is usually a slow day around here.

[marylandblue]

136. Yeah, I can see that, but

Some of his comments remind me of someone I know who always ends up saying what he doesn't mean, then doesn't understand why he isn't understood. So that's my working hypothesis for now. Otherwise I don't really get the point of why he would do this.

[Lordquinton]

138. It's been explained multiple times in detail

With cross references. It's also taking into account other details like constantly accusing people of reframing the debate, when he does it all the timelike I described above. Or refusing to answer straightforward questions while grilling others about not answering his. It reminds me of another poster since removed for simmilar behavior.

[Mariana]

139. He claims it only ever happens in this Group.

If that's true, he's not that guy who always says what he doesn't mean. So it seems, as far as he's concerned, he has no responsibility for any confusion or misunderstanding. It is always someone else's fault.

[marylandblue]

140. I imagine there is less to argue about on the political side

We all mostly agree there - Trump sucks, vote Dem covers most things.

[edhopper]

8. Artist inspiration comes from many places

that inspired by Christianity is mno more special than inspired by other things.
It's more about ghe artist than what inspires them.

That message is not original with Jesus.

So our conclusion, Christianity, nothing special.

[NeoGreen]

9. It is, as are all religions that default to a fundemental...

...evocation of magic at their core, a fraud. Pure and simple.

There are no talking snakes, resurrections, global floods, unicorns or adult versions of santa claus in the sky who will make everyone live forever and ever. Oh wait, excuse me, not everyone, just those like you who believe just like you. Everyone else can piss-off, suffer and die and then burn in hell for eternity. Sucks to be them.

It is a fraud.

Perpetuated by a long established, well invested network of individuals and institutions who all benefit in the here and now while selling the promise, and the fraud, of the hereafter.

It is, quiet simply, the greatest fraud.

IM (everso) HO.

Don't alert. You asked in all apparent sincerity. I answered in the same mode.
Sucks to be you if it hurts your fee fees.

[guillaumeb]

18. I have never alerted to date.

And I asked for opinions, which you provided.

[Act_of_Reparation]

11. "Culture commits violence"

Pro-tip: Religion is culture.

[trotsky]

15. Oh, snap! n/t

[guillaumeb]

20. #19

[trotsky]

29. Yep, 19 is a number.

Good job, g-man!

[guillaumeb]

39. Avoiding something?

I understand.

[trotsky]

43. Nothing substantive, nope. n/t

[guillaumeb]

51. Nothing substantive?

Like this response:

Pro-tip: Religion is culture.

[trotsky]

64. Nope.

Others have easily demolished the point you thought you were making, no need for me to do anything.

You've discredited yourself so thoroughly it's not even a challenge anymore.

[guillaumeb]

72. Your attempt at sarcasm and framing is noted.

[trotsky]

99. Excellent!

You're so cute!

[guillaumeb]

19. Religion is inseparable from human culture?

Thank you for your opinion.

[Act_of_Reparation]

26. Not in the way you are proposing, no.

[guillaumeb]

27. Which begs the question of exactly what did you mean?

If religion is inseparable from culture, would it not follow that they are linked in the same way that tribalism is inseparable from culture?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

33. Still not how you use "beg the question"

[guillaumeb]

55. My error.

I should have written begs the following question.

[Act_of_Reparation]

113. Still wrong.

Begging the question is an attempt to get your opponent to concede a point of contention by baking it into the premises. Changing the article from "the" to "a" would simply imply that I attempted to get you to concede "an" idea rather than "the" idea by creatively formulating my premises.

I didn't do this, either.

[Act_of_Reparation]

48. I can't explain that until you clarify what it is you mean.

What do you mean by "separate"?

Do you mean that, over time, could a culture become sufficiently secular that religion is no longer a major component? Or do you mean that in a religious society religion exists independently from "culture"?

If the former, yes. If the latter, no.

[guillaumeb]

56. I wrote this:

If religion is inseparable from culture, would it not follow that they are linked in the same way that tribalism is inseparable from culture?

So if religion is inseparable from culture, your stated position, how does one remove that component? Given that every human culture has/had a religious component, your contention was that the one is inseparable from the other.

Edited to add: #11 was your response, not mine.

[Act_of_Reparation]

112. Not that it is relevant.

But time cures all wounds, so to speak. A thousand years ago, Roman culture was inextricably intertwined with the worship of the Greek pantheon. That is not currently the case. Times change, people change, cultures change.

But like I said, this isn't relevant to the discussion. You're drawing a false distinction between "religion" and "culture" when religion is itself an aspect of culture if not a culture unto itself. That's the issue.

[Pope George Ringo II]

32. But if all Ford Mustangs are cars

Surely all cars are Ford Mustangs? Isn't that how this works?

[Pope George Ringo II]

12. If you're using Cain and Abel to say violence has always been present with mankind

May we conclude you're a literalist on that story?

[trotsky]

16. Ouch.

guillaumeb, you're gonna need this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States

[guillaumeb]

21. As I said:

(See the Bible story of Cain and Abel for one explanation)


Hint: This might help if you remember that the words story and history are not identical.

[Pope George Ringo II]

31. But if it's not literally true

And we accept that it's really just a Hebrew spin-off of the Babylonian story of Enki creating Adapa out of clay, then it has no relevance to a "from the beginning" point as it's not particularly old.

So why did you bring it up in an attempt to establish age if you understand that it's only a Bronze-age story depending on a plagiarization of an older Babylonian work? {Edit} Wouldn't Interview With The Vampire have worked as well? It's another story about violence which is not particularly old and with clear lineage.

[trotsky]

14. "every culture commits violence"

Yet some societies have less violence than others.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1101-zuckerman-violence-secularism-20151101-story.html

It is the highly secularized countries that tend to fare the best in terms of crime rates, prosperity, equality, freedom, democracy, women's rights, human rights, educational attainment and life expectancy. (Although there are exceptions, such as Vietnam and China, which have famously poor human rights records.) And those nations with the highest rates of religiosity tend to be the most problem-ridden in terms of high violent crime rates, high infant mortality rates, high poverty rates and high rates of corruption.

Take homicide. According to the United Nations' 2011 Global Study on Homicide, of the 10 nations with the highest homicide rates, all are very religious, and many — such as Colombia, Mexico, El Salvador and Brazil — are among the most theistic nations in the world. Of the nations with the lowest homicide rates, nearly all are very secular, with seven ranking among the least theistic nations, such as Sweden, Japan, Norway and the Netherlands.

Now consider the flip side: peacefulness. According to the nonprofit organization Vision of Humanity, which publishes an annual Global Peace Index, each of the 10 safest and most peaceful nations in the world is also among the most secular, least God-believing in the world. Most of the least safe and peaceful nations, conversely, are extremely religious.

Does this PROVE that non-religious nations are always going to be more peaceful? No, of course not. There are other factors, many interrelated, that all contribute.

But it does show that a society being religious clearly doesn't help, and may hurt efforts to reduce crime and violence. I think that's worth discussing and analyzing.

[guillaumeb]

22. To your last statement,

the 4 countries you cited, Sweden, Japan, Norway and the Netherlands, are reasonably wealthy, which might result in lower levels of social stress.

[trotsky]

30. No shit.

As I said:

Does this PROVE that non-religious nations are always going to be more peaceful? No, of course not. There are other factors, many interrelated, that all contribute.

I note that you cannot dispute the article or its conclusions, though.

[Pope George Ringo II]

35. There is also a trend line between wealth and quality of life

with increased atheism. So while the correlation/causation thing hasn't been explored fully, it could get complicated.

[DetlefK]

28. It is whatever a believer wants it to be at a given moment.

[guillaumeb]

62. Every believer brings himself/herself to the debate.

An obvious point.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Why do you insist on mixing history and mythology?

I'm only violent in self-defense. As a student of philosophy, I live by the non-aggression principle.


What is Christianity? It's a ideology that you are broken, unfit, and unworthy, that salvation and acceptance exist and you must scapegoat and grovel your way to it.

Pass on that noise. Thanks though.

[guillaumeb]

63. History is always mixed with mythology.

As proof, ask the Southern heritage people about the history of your civil war.

Ask Roy Moore about history. He seems to feel that the US was founded as a theocracy.

[Pope George Ringo II]

70. Your takeaway from the "lost cause" mythology is that fiction is part of history?

[guillaumeb]

78. Fiction is always a part of history.

If you are English, which I believe you previously indicated, English history generally puts a positive spin on the horrors of empire.

[Pope George Ringo II]

83. I've got three passports, a couple of visas. Don't even know my real name.

Suffice it to say my patriotism has been somewhat diluted. But I'll stipulate that the mineral wealth of South Africa and India, geographic location of any number of coaling stops, etc. and so forth played a bigger role in empire than altruism, unless we care to count the infamous "white man's burden" kind of altruism.

But repeating those lies serves no purpose. The role of pure greed in the conquistadors' actions was clearly their primary motivator, while the blessing of their church and the encouragement of their government are pale excuses for their crimes. The flimsiness of those excuses is not relevant when blaming both church and government for actions they willingly lent their name to, though. The British Empire was built on greed, as were the French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Roman, etc. Why on earth would you repeat any of those lies when we all know better?

[guillaumeb]

86. So are you conceding my point about myth being inseperable from history?

It seems so.

[Pope George Ringo II]

89. Quite the opposite.

I'm stating that people tell lies. There's some point to remembering those lies so people don't fall for the same nonsense again (there's a Scientology joke in there somewhere...) but the lies do not represent what happened.

History is what actually happened, and why.

For example, the Allies cracked a lot of codes during WW2 and lied about where they were getting their information. The fact that they lied is important, but the lies are not presented as truth. The actual history books say, "They cracked the codes and lied to cover it up." We clearly label the lies, and you're conflating them with reality. That's the mistake you're making here.

[guillaumeb]

92. The mistake you are making is misunderstanding what was said.

History is written by the victorious. And history is interpreted by the powerful.

The history of every empire is a quest for power. All claimed motivation other than that is camouflage.

[Pope George Ringo II]

95. Make up your mind

You say history is written by the victor, then you say that is just camouflage.

Memoirs, published accounts, forensic evidence, ruins, whatever. All is weighed and the most likely conclusions reached. This is why the "lost cause" of the CSA or Nazi Germany's similar crusade for civilization are not generally considered to be an honest part of history taken fully at face value. History, unlike religion, is a quest for truth. It's not just a collection of data, it's the actual study of that data, and that's why lies have no place in that study.

[guillaumeb]

97. History is also the myth.

The firebombing of Dresden, the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, these are not called war crimes but they clearly fall under that category if deliberate targeting civilians is a war crime. These are 3 of many instances where history conforms to what the victorious side wants it to be.

[Pope George Ringo II]

98. History records that those things happened and it judges them.

History does not conform to the wishes of the victors, though. There is a fairly well-articulated body of criticism of the morality of all the specifics you cite and of the strategic bombing campaigns in general. There is also some mind-numbingly extensive research into whether or not the strategic bombing campaigns of that war were ever a wise use of military resources even without any moral questions attached. The responsible nations would never countenance a repeat any more than we'd countenance indiscriminate use of cluster bombs, which is a verdict in itself.

In short, history does not conform to what the victors want at all and the specifics you cite demonstrate it.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. I think you've confused History(TM) and Legend Building History.

History, actual HISTORY is the tool we use to deflate and destroy myths and legends. It is the ONLY tool at our disposal, in fact. History is the shield and sword of truth.

[marylandblue]

104. Correct, but Legend Building History is what gets attention

Legend Building History gets made into speeches and statues and elementary school books. Real history requires that you read the work of real historians who are few and ivory towerish. So most of us end up believing legends rather than real history.

[AtheistCrusader]

105. I feel like that's changing.

Slowly, bit by bit.

[guillaumeb]

111. An excellent addition to the thread.

[guillaumeb]

110. Agreed, but many people believe the mythical version.

It makes for better reading because one is always on the side of purity and truth.

[marylandblue]

114. That's what makes the Bible such a good book

[Pope George Ringo II]

115. Just don't read the originals, then.

For example, Gilgamesh tells some of the same stories, but so much better. Utnapishtim is my favorite of the Ziusudra stories, and blows the Noah story completely out of the water. The loaves of bread were a marvelous plot device.

[marylandblue]

116. I like the story of Exodus

It's an original, and since it records a rare mass slave escape, quite inspiring.

[Pope George Ringo II]

117. To each their own, then.

A disagreement on the merits of that one would get us quite far down the rabbit hole.

[Voltaire2]

126. oh lordy, it is a horrible story about a terrible god who slaughters innocents

as the atheist curmudgeon at passover every year it is my responsibility to point out just how freaking horrendous this inspiring story is. The only way the awful Yahweh could figure out how to scare the Pharaoh was to slaughter children?

other interesting stuff about exodus:

Jews were never enslaved in egypt, the story may have evolved to explain actual enslavement in babylon.
Nomadic goat herders did not teach egyptians how to be civilized, wtf is that? Ask Ben Carson.
Post exodus nasty god ordered the slaughter of the totally innocent Canaanites to make some room for his chosen people.

[Mariana]

129. Remember, the Bible says that God hardened Pharoah's heart.

So it's even worse than God doing more and more horrible things to the innocent men, women and children of Egypt because Pharoah was stubborn. Pharoah wasn't really allowed to make the decision. He had no choice but to refuse to release the Hebrews. God was influencing his decision every time.

[marylandblue]

137. It's a story of the Ancient Near East

Which was a very nasty place. Far worse than Game of Thrones. I don't have a problem with old bloody stories from old bloody times. I only have a problem with those who want to bring those times back.

[Mariana]

101. Christianity is whatever a Christian wants it to be.

Someone can believe or disbelieve just about anything and still be a Christian of one flavor or another. They can behave decently or horribly toward other people and the same is true.

[SHRED]

103. It's a patriarchal religion

Where men rule and women are third-class people and blamed throughout their "good book".

[delisen]

108. Hey, was woman still crawling when man first walked upright?

I would not say, in the passive tense, that violence has been present. I would consider that violence has been committed.

Violence, as far as we know, has been overwhelmingly committed among human species by males.

What is the connection between the Y chromosome and violence?

Is there a cultural influence? Do some cultures produce fewer incidents of violence by men; are there cultures where female violence exceeds the norm?

The Y chromosome has only 27 genes while other chromosomes have thousands.

What if the Judeo-Christian narrative had Cain and Abel falling in love? What type of society would have given rise to such a narrative?

[guillaumeb]

122. I am quite certain that you know that the word "man" was meant to refer

to homo sapiens.

[delisen]

125. If you meant Homo sapiens I think it would be best

to use that term or humans. An alternative would be to use "man and woman".

I think that when talking about the important topics of religion and violence, or propensity of human beings to commit violence, the use of "man" to include all humans can be misleading.

It can mask the fact that the male of our species seems to have a much greater propensity to commit violence than the female. (I am not addressing here persons who identify as other than male or female but do acknowledge that gender is more complex).

So perhaps it is one subset of the binary Homo sapiens that seems to be prone to violence. The other subset (which may be the majority) seems much less prone to commit violence.

If I use "man" as a substitute for Homo sapiens instead of "man and woman" it may lead me to draw a false conclusion about humans and violence.

So yes I did have the idea that that you were including women in your use of "man" but it also seemed to me that your were just as much excluding women-and that the combination of including and excluding can lead to false conclusions about human violence.

I don't know whether patriarchal religions, such as the religions of Abraham-Judaism, Christianity, Islam are more violent than others or whether their believers are more violent than those of other religions.

Female-Male sexuality does seem to play a big role in the religions of Abraham, and is presented more from a male than a female perspective.

Although I made my comment in joking manner, the underlying issue is to me, a serious issue.

In any case I enjoy your intellectual posting on these topics.

[guillaumeb]

131. Thank you for the clarification.

And no, I do not generally write in these posts as I did in my career as a union representative. That writing was much more specific, much more footnoted than what I do here.

I am happy that you enjoy the topics here.

[rock]

118. Oh, Christ! What could it be?

I haven't a clue.

[MineralMan]

120. That depends entirely on whom you ask.

Christianity is many things to many people. It is made up of thousands of denominations, each with a somewhat different dogma. If you call yourself a Christian, then you can define it as you choose.

I don't care. I simply take people at their word. If they say they are Christians, then I'll judge their version by their behavior.

One could also look at various descriptions on the Internet, to wit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity