"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Max,

I truly don't have a clue to the answer of God, Faith, Morality but from
just observing our world and everything around us, Religion isn't the
answer.

Perhaps not for you, Thom, but it may be for others. Are you a fascist? Do
you believe that others should be denied the right to their beliefs because
yours differ?


Humans are the only species on the Planet that have churches.

Are you sure? Can you say for sure that a beaver lodge isn't a primative
synagog? g

Humans are
the only species that have Wars.

Um, take a look at some of the studies of primates and/or ants some time.

Humans are the only species that build
weapons and develop ways to use them to destroy.

See my comment on primates above.

Max, Humans and animals populated this planet without Religion, without
Sin and without Churches.

Religion is a creation of intelligent, self-aware beings. Early primates,
if you subscribe to the classic Darwinian theory of evolution, didn't
possess the mental attributes to create religions. Evolved humans did.

It plain to see that animals have no problem surviving without religion

It's plain to see that man has had no problem surviving with or without
religion.

or our, so called "Civilization" Man's problem is MAN. Man's creation
of his version on God is where Evil came from.

I haven't an answer but it obvious our Religion doesn't either!

There never are simple answers to infinitely complex problems, Thom. It's a
fool's errand to attempt to solve eternal and pervasive problems with a
single bullet. Solutions are as forthcoming as the increasing facets of the
problems, and of course nothing is ever solved. But for some religion is a
component solution to the world's problems. That it isn't for you does not
make it any less viable as a part of the solution for others. Your
statement is clearly intolerant in its implication.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote
There never are simple answers to infinitely complex problems, Thom. It's a fool's errand to attempt to solve eternal
and pervasive problems with a single bullet. Solutions are as forthcoming as the increasing facets of the problems,
and of course nothing is ever solved. But for some religion is a component solution to the world's problems. That it
isn't for you does not make it any less viable as a part of the solution for others. Your statement is clearly
intolerant in its implication.

That's a nice way of saying the dude's stupid....

Cheers,
Ellen

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 14:46:31 -0500, Maxprop wrote
(in article . net):


"Mundo" wrote in message

For someone who bases everything on fact you sure leave your self dangling
with lots of hope...good luck with that.

That's pretty much a definition of *faith.* Are you implying that you never
do anything on faith? Do you take risks? Or do you live such a monastic
(definition #2) lifestyle that nothing can bring harm to you?

Max



Quite the opposite. The post however was focused towards Neil who forever
quotes and stands behind "fact" yet seems to be able to go baseless into gut
feelings, the realm of god and heaven. Pure faith. No Fact. He is an enigma.

--
Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass

Maxprop wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
....
So
you can always make the claim that religion is responsible for everything
good, and all things bad are caused by ignoring religion.

I'd never make that claim. Dispite Katy's claim to the contrary, I doubt if
ignoring religion at this stage of the evolution of human endeavor would
result in chaos and depravity. The fundamental concepts of morality brought
about by western religions over the centuries are as much a part of the
fabric of Europeans and Americans (including N, S, Central, etc.) as any
other aspects of our lives. It isn't likely to disappear overnight, nor
over the next few centuries. Of course Christianity isn't likely to
disappear either, so the point is moot.

My claim would be that those "fundamental concepts" are part of human
nature. If anything, "western morality" was setback for many people.
It certainly didn't help the native-Americans, although they were
really done in by an accident of evolution.


However, you specifically claimed that pre-Christian "morality" was
insufficient, "Not much morality in evidence" was your comment. This is
total nonsense. You've completely ignored the thousands of years of
peaceful civilization that preceded the Christian Era. Mesopotamia, Egypt,
Persia, Greece, Rome plus others had long periods peace and prosperity.
All had a strong moral systems, "raping, pillaging, and homicide" were
not, as you claim, constant events.

Is peace the only measure of morality in your vernacular? China had lengthy
periods of prosperity and peace, but state executions were as common as
births in many of the early dynasties.

So that never happened in Christian countries, such as Nazi Germany?

So were punitive slavery, innate servitude,

So that never happened in Christian countries, such as just about all
of them?

and religious sacrifice.

OK, human sacrifice has lost some if its panache since Jesus. But
Christians do seem rather fond of martyrs.

China, to this day, has been at peace
with most of its neighbors for quite a while, but their version of morality
would be considered barbaric in many respects by western cultures. China
has never embraced Christianity, and only recently--within the last century
or so--tolerated it with a strong admonition of discouragement.

You have a lot of trouble with this path - for every "evil" empire of
the past its easy to find a good one. And equally easy to find an
evil Christian country.



How moral was the feudal system?

Curiously, the feudal system has its foundations in laws passed by Emperor
Constantine at the same time he was laying the groundwork for Christianity
as the state religion.

Christianity didn't affect the current iteration of morality from its
inception. The Crusades were evidence of that. Morality evolved from
Christian ideology, and it took time. Lots of time. It continues to
evolve.

But now you're just doing what you claimed you wouldn't - your saying
the evil things are because religion hadn't taken hold yet. The
feudal system was strongly endorsed by the Church. The Crusades were
ordered by the Church. Slavery was justified by the Church. Are you
trying to tell us the the Church was not really Christian until the
Quakers showed us the way?

Witness the changes in this country, from slavery to the relative
egalitarianism of today.

The evolution of morality is not a straight-line, upward slope. There are
always setbacks to any evolving philosophy. Witness some of the exceptions
mentioned by Popeye. This is not a perfect world, but it is strongly
improved by morality brought about, primarily, by western religion. And it
continues to evolve.

It would be just as easy to say the the Church had created a pretty
nasty place until the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. These were
largely secular movements.


You seem to be ignoring that fact that half of the colonial economy was
based on brutal slavery. It was so much a part of our society that it was
endorsed by our Constitution. And the Caribbean slavery was even worse.

You obviously didn't read on before making that statement.

Sure I read on. But I have trouble seeing the Quakers as mainstream
Christianity. In fact, I could probably make a good argument that the
Liberal Quaker movement "showing the way" is proof that the dogma of
"credo based" western religions led to terrible injustices.


but it took the combined efforts of such groups as the Quakers and other
prospering religions to finally convince the fledgling country that
salvery was immoral.
Are you really suggesting Quakers are the exemplars of organized Christian
religion??? If all Christians were Quakers I don't think we would be
having this discussion.

Did I imply that? Re-read my statement. Or did you miss the "and other
prospering religions" part of my statement? But I am curious--what is your
take on Quakers? Their sense of morality is beyond reproach, at least from
what I've learned about them.

I don't know enough to understand the current "majority view," but
I've gathered that many believe in Deism, that God transcends Human
experience and thus truth can only be determined through rational
thought. Others are Pantheists, believing that God and the physical
world are one and the same. This leads to Universalism, which is that
all religions are a valid path to the same spiritual reality. Both of
these forms I see as reactions against Church dogma, not an smooth
evolution of the church.



And what if Martin L. King has advocated a bloody racial war, as opposed
to his Christian-based movement of peaceful resistance?
So are you claiming that if King had been a cleric of an African religion
he would have advocating "raping, pillaging, and homicide" of the
Christians??? Can you see how racist that sounds?

Not at all--I have no idea where you came up with that. I was implying that
if King had been a secular anarchist, not unlike Bob Seale of the Black
Panther Party, and had held the same level of influence, the outcome of his
movement might have been radically different. Racial civil war comes to
mind. Fortunately Bobby Seale was far less influential. And there's
nothing racist about that. Do some study of the early Black Panthers.
Their manifesto was quite clear, at least that which hasn't been subjected
to the left-wing historical revisionists attempting to improve his image.

Wow! That is pretty racist! You're really trying to prove that if it
weren't for the Christian background of MLK he would have been a
secular anarchist!

My hypothesis (obviously unprovable) is that had the African slaves
been allowed to keep their native religion, MLK would have been a
non-Christian preacher with the same peaceful message.


What is even more amusing in all this is my undergrad European history
teacher, *an atheist*, who taught his in classes that the influence of
religion in Europe was the "sole impetus" for morality.
By one definition, "morality" is a sense of right and wrong based on
religion, while "ethics" is the same sense but based on the concept that
an orderly society serves everyone best. Using this definition, religion
*is* the impetus for morality, by definition!

You seem to imply that ethics and morality are mutually exclusive.

Not at all. Nothing that deep. I'm only saying that if one defines
morality as the religious teaching, than obviously religion is the
sole impetus. I believe that its rather impossible to separate ethics
from religious teaching, because religion has be part of humanity from
as far back as we can detect.

They
aren't. Not unless your version of ethical behavior extends to, for
example, the systematic elimination of genetically inferior individuals
(Downs, CF, CP, etc.) in order to serve the remainder of an orderly society
best. Without morality, ethics are merely a society's interpretation of
what is best for the masses. The Vikings had such "ethics."

You're doing that thing you said you wouldn't do. The Eugenicists
were probably all good Christians, doing what they considered the
"moral" thing. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote "three generations of
imbeciles is enough" but I don't think we can call Ollie an
Evangelical! As for the Vikings, I don't think I would want to hold
them up as examples of the highest morality, but the did get a bad rap
based on their early habit of attacking monasteries, that is, where
the money was. Other than that, its hard to say that they were that
bad. Would you claim that the Spanish Conquistadors were any better?


Also, as I've said, religion is/was always there. But modern Christian
writers have a tendency to downplay the role of any religion perceived as
"pagan."

Yes, they do. And that is Christian bias, plain and simple, but still fails
to refute the influence of modern western religions upon morality. For
example, I'm unaware of the practice of human sacrifice in modern
Christianity.

Not sacrifice, but there was that little thing called the Inquisition.
And there were those witches burned - perhaps 100,000 around the
15th century. But those were the "bad" Christians, right? Oh, wait,
as soon as the Pope became aware of the excesses of the Spanish
Inquisition, he sent his special representative make things more
respectable. That was Thomas de Torquemada.

Re-write? Are you claiming the great empires didn't exist?

That would be asinine. They did exist, but were they moral in the modern
sense? Did Caligula possess a strong belief in the rights of individuals?

To hold Caligula as an example of the typical pagan invites holding
Hitler as the typical Christian. Do you really want to go there?


Or that chaos ruled the world until Constantine?

Chaos did rule the much of the world prior to Constatine. And it still
rules various parts of the world. Somalia comes to mind.

Ah Somalia! That was certainly a triumph of Christian compassion.

....
Have you read the Qu'ran? That's a real eye-opener as well.

Yes, I've read part of it - its not exactly the easiest thing to make
sense out of. Of course, many Muslims have on read a small portion it.


Whenever I hear someone claim they must "accept this or that as the only
path to salvation" I am offended. It is the work of the Devil!

To believe in the Devil implies that you also believe in God. Do you? Just
curious.

I believe religion is a useful metaphor with which to view the world.
I also believe that the need to believe in a deity is hardwired into
the human psyche, such that in any group the will be some that "need
to believe," and that there will also be others unable to believe, and
many who go with the flow. As for my own beliefs, I have pondered,
I've read and studied the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, the Koran,
and other "holy" texts, and none of them hold the answer for me. And
so my beliefs remain beyond articulation; perhaps they lie somewhere
between the Theism and Pantheism I mentioned above. However, I've
come to the conclusion that it is a meaningless question - like the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, asking the question destroys the
answer. What is important is whether you lead your life as thought
there was a God.

I have nothing against religion, and I have nothing against most
religious beliefs. However, I don't think any of them hold a
universal answer.

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
You have absolutely no idea what Jesus actually said. You only have the myth and rumor that was written down at least
30-40 years after the fact.

Wrong! You don't have to hear somebody say something for it to be true.
I never heard Kennedy say, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what
you can do for your country." But I know he said it. There's historical records and
probably video tapes. But they can be faked. You can believe or not believe.
The Bible is an historical record. It's based on what people did and what people saw.
There's no reason to call Jesus and his followers liars just because you weren't there.
That's dumb, Jeff, dumb! Before there was writing there was oral tradition. People
were in charge of telling history. It was passed down from generation to generation.
American indians did it that way. It doesn't make it false.

It doesn't make it literally true, either. It was common practice in
Greek history to completely make up speeches and dialog. The Greeks
(that is, the educated Romans in the Eastern Mediterranean) would
never have guessed that the Gospels were were the actual spoken words
of Jesus.



Jesus was probably a reasonable guy. Many people have added layers to his teachings, some reasonable, some not.

The authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all added the same layers?

Duh! Have you not read the Gospels?

Fascinating.... Prophesy come true written hundreds of years prior to Jesus even
being born was people adding layers. Incredible...

Odd, these "prophesies" were mostly not considered prophetic by the
people who made them. The early Christians had a small industry going
in trying to show that they were the "fulfillment" of the Jewish
destiny. That way, they would inherit the benefits that Jews had, as
an "Ancient Religion" in the Roman Empire. This was evident in the
letters of Paul, which were written before the Gospels (except
possibly Mark). Its pretty clear that much of the New Testament was
written to appear as fulfillment.

But, believe what you must.

Oh, and Jesus was a guy but he
was also God. But, he was anything but reasonable. He said it's his way or you never
have eternal life. I believe him. There's nothing to lose by believing him and everything
to gain.

You're certainly entitled to your beliefs. But you really should
study your sacred texts a bit. That way, you might not sound like a
little child parroting the comments of her Sunday School teacher.

Jeff,

Well stated. Bible history and Biblical history should be a combined
study. Jesus was a wonderful teacher for that time of world development.

Faith is a wonderful thing but should be tempered with Knowledge. Blind
Faith can be a dangerous thing.

I like your approach

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ILLDRINKTOTHAT

"Thom Stewart" wrote

Well stated. Bible history and Biblical history should be a combined
study. Jesus was a wonderful teacher for that time of world development.

That's typical what your saying, Tom. People dismiss Jesus by calling him a wonderful
teacher. That's so soo soooo shallow of people to attempt to diminish him like that. You and
others say. "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a wonderful teacher but I'm not gonna accept his
claim that he's God." Duh!
That's the very thing you shouldn't say. Why? It's pretty obvious to me. Anybody who
was just plain human and said the things Jesus said wouldn't be a wonderful moral teacher.
Nope, he'd be a raving lunatic or he'd be the devil incarnate.
You've got to choose one thing or the other. Either Jesus was what he said he was - God -
or he was a wack job nut case man or even the devil himself. So stop with the patronizing crap
about Jesus being just a wonderful teacher. It's an insult. That's not the choice he gave us.
Either believe he's what he says he is or reject him outright as a fraud. That's the choice he
demands of us. Don't try to diminish him by insulting him.

Cheers,
Ellen

"Jeff" wrote in message
news
Maxprop wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
...
So you can always make the claim that religion is responsible for
everything good, and all things bad are caused by ignoring religion.

I'd never make that claim. Dispite Katy's claim to the contrary, I doubt
if ignoring religion at this stage of the evolution of human endeavor
would result in chaos and depravity. The fundamental concepts of
morality brought about by western religions over the centuries are as
much a part of the fabric of Europeans and Americans (including N, S,
Central, etc.) as any other aspects of our lives. It isn't likely to
disappear overnight, nor over the next few centuries. Of course
Christianity isn't likely to disappear either, so the point is moot.

My claim would be that those "fundamental concepts" are part of human
nature. If anything, "western morality" was setback for many people. It
certainly didn't help the native-Americans, although they were really done
in by an accident of evolution.

This is typical of secular-progressive thinking. American indians, now the
so-called native Americans, ranged from peaceful, hunter-gatherers to
violent, warlike tribes. You've been watching too much TV and "Dances With
Wolves." Many tribes were so brutal and immoral that they simply
disappeared with time due to self-attrition, and without any intervention
from the imported European-Americans. They killed both other tribes and
even their own with no apparent conscience. Some powerful tribal members
killed the offspring of tribal opponents or pretenders to the throne in
order to maintain their stranglehold on power. And some simply killed other
tribal members for no apparent reasons other than being ****ed off by
something insignificant. If it is your opinion that such tribes were
"moral," you need to reconsider your definition. By the way, are you aware
that the producers of "D with W" cut the scene in which the tribe butchered
the white buffalo hide hunters who killed the animals and left them skinned
to die on the prairie? It was a brutal scene and didn't fit with the
popular warm-and-fuzzy image they were trying to portray. Instead they
portrayed John Dunbar as not wishing to join the tribe that evening because
of a guilty conscience, rather than what the original script called for,
which was shock and dismay at the brutality of the tribe against the white
hunters.

I personally believe that morality is not fundamental to human nature.
Humans are innately carnivorous and contentious. They will kill for food
and out of rancor. They will kill for power and for wealth. Such has been
the case from the beginning, and it continues today, albeit to a far lesser
extent. Morality is learned and self-imposed, not innate. Many noteworthy
authors of fiction and non-fiction have based their works on this premise.


However, you specifically claimed that pre-Christian "morality" was
insufficient, "Not much morality in evidence" was your comment. This is
total nonsense. You've completely ignored the thousands of years of
peaceful civilization that preceded the Christian Era. Mesopotamia,
Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome plus others had long periods peace and
prosperity. All had a strong moral systems, "raping, pillaging, and
homicide" were not, as you claim, constant events.

Is peace the only measure of morality in your vernacular? China had
lengthy periods of prosperity and peace, but state executions were as
common as births in many of the early dynasties.

So that never happened in Christian countries, such as Nazi Germany?

There will always be abberations. Hitler was no Christian, despite the
prevailing religions of Germany, Italy, and Austria during the period. For
you to cite such things as proof of the failure of Christianity to invoke
morality in various societies shows an anti-religious bias.

So were punitive slavery, innate servitude,

So that never happened in Christian countries, such as just about all of
them?

Of course it happened, but Christianity was the major impetus for the
elimination of such things. That has been my contention all along. The
outcry against slavery in this country began with the various churchs and
sporadic religions, such as the Quakers.

and religious sacrifice.

OK, human sacrifice has lost some if its panache since Jesus. But
Christians do seem rather fond of martyrs.

China, to this day, has been at peace with most of its neighbors for
quite a while, but their version of morality would be considered barbaric
in many respects by western cultures. China has never embraced
Christianity, and only recently--within the last century or so--tolerated
it with a strong admonition of discouragement.

You have a lot of trouble with this path - for every "evil" empire of the
past its easy to find a good one. And equally easy to find an evil
Christian country.

No trouble at all. Christian countries tend to be generally more civilized
and observant of individual human rights than those of other religions or of
no particular religion. I doubt if you can find an equal number of
non-Christian countries with the observed morality of the more prominent
Christian ones.

How moral was the feudal system?

Curiously, the feudal system has its foundations in laws passed by
Emperor Constantine at the same time he was laying the groundwork for
Christianity as the state religion.

Christianity didn't affect the current iteration of morality from its
inception. The Crusades were evidence of that. Morality evolved from
Christian ideology, and it took time. Lots of time. It continues to
evolve.


But now you're just doing what you claimed you wouldn't - your saying the
evil things are because religion hadn't taken hold yet. The feudal system
was strongly endorsed by the Church. The Crusades were ordered by the
Church. Slavery was justified by the Church. Are you trying to tell us
the the Church was not really Christian until the Quakers showed us the
way?

Don't be absurd.

Witness the changes in this country, from slavery to the relative
egalitarianism of today.

The evolution of morality is not a straight-line, upward slope. There
are always setbacks to any evolving philosophy. Witness some of the
exceptions mentioned by Popeye. This is not a perfect world, but it is
strongly improved by morality brought about, primarily, by western
religion. And it continues to evolve.


It would be just as easy to say the the Church had created a pretty nasty
place until the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. These were largely
secular movements.

Nothing during the Renaissance was strictly secular, despite the outward
appearance. The church was a major factor throughout. Take a look at
Renaissance-period art. What are the vast majority of the subjects?


You seem to be ignoring that fact that half of the colonial economy was
based on brutal slavery. It was so much a part of our society that it
was endorsed by our Constitution. And the Caribbean slavery was even
worse.

You obviously didn't read on before making that statement.


Sure I read on. But I have trouble seeing the Quakers as mainstream
Christianity. In fact, I could probably make a good argument that the
Liberal Quaker movement "showing the way" is proof that the dogma of
"credo based" western religions led to terrible injustices.

The Quakers were among the first religions to essentially decry the
brutality and unfairness of slavery. Most slavers at the time considered
themselves to be Christians. And some Quakers owned slaves as well, but
they were among the first to free their servants from bondage.

but it took the combined efforts of such groups as the Quakers and
other prospering religions to finally convince the fledgling country
that salvery was immoral.
Are you really suggesting Quakers are the exemplars of organized
Christian religion??? If all Christians were Quakers I don't think we
would be having this discussion.

Did I imply that? Re-read my statement. Or did you miss the "and other
prospering religions" part of my statement? But I am curious--what is
your take on Quakers? Their sense of morality is beyond reproach, at
least from what I've learned about them.

I don't know enough to understand the current "majority view," but I've
gathered that many believe in Deism, that God transcends Human experience
and thus truth can only be determined through rational thought. Others
are Pantheists, believing that God and the physical world are one and the
same. This leads to Universalism, which is that all religions are a valid
path to the same spiritual reality. Both of these forms I see as
reactions against Church dogma, not an smooth evolution of the church.

The Quakers, now generally knows as "Friends," are not a church at all.
They do not have pastors, and meeting places can be anywhere. They do
consider themselves to be Christians, but because of a complete lack of
national organization and due to local interpretations throughout the
country, the philosophies of Quakers vary dramatically. They do subscribe
to a basic Christian morality, however. Perhaps moreso than many other
organized religions. But it's foolish to try to categorize or classify
them. They might best be termed a loosely-organized movement, rather than a
church, at least that's my take.


And what if Martin L. King has advocated a bloody racial war, as
opposed to his Christian-based movement of peaceful resistance?
So are you claiming that if King had been a cleric of an African
religion he would have advocating "raping, pillaging, and homicide" of
the Christians??? Can you see how racist that sounds?

Not at all--I have no idea where you came up with that. I was implying
that if King had been a secular anarchist, not unlike Bob Seale of the
Black Panther Party, and had held the same level of influence, the
outcome of his movement might have been radically different. Racial
civil war comes to mind. Fortunately Bobby Seale was far less
influential. And there's nothing racist about that. Do some study of
the early Black Panthers. Their manifesto was quite clear, at least that
which hasn't been subjected to the left-wing historical revisionists
attempting to improve his image.


Wow! That is pretty racist! You're really trying to prove that if it
weren't for the Christian background of MLK he would have been a secular
anarchist!

Not at all. I was giving an example of one of many possibilities. And if
you want a clear-cut example of blatant racism, take a close look at the
early Black Panthers. Or the modern-day Nation of Islam, ala Lou Farrakhan.
You've been swallowing liberal dogma for far too long, Jeff. Open your mind
to some truths that may not gybe with your current beliefs, but true
nonetheless.

My hypothesis (obviously unprovable) is that had the African slaves been
allowed to keep their native religion, MLK would have been a non-Christian
preacher with the same peaceful message.

That may very well be true. I never implied that it wasn't possible. My
example of a secular anarchist was simply that: an example. It was you who
filled in the blanks with other examples that I neither implied, nor
actually even thought of.

What is even more amusing in all this is my undergrad European history
teacher, *an atheist*, who taught his in classes that the influence of
religion in Europe was the "sole impetus" for morality.
By one definition, "morality" is a sense of right and wrong based on
religion, while "ethics" is the same sense but based on the concept that
an orderly society serves everyone best. Using this definition,
religion *is* the impetus for morality, by definition!

You seem to imply that ethics and morality are mutually exclusive.

Not at all. Nothing that deep. I'm only saying that if one defines
morality as the religious teaching, than obviously religion is the sole
impetus.

Nope. Never said that. I was implying that the *basis for moral behavior*
originated with western religion. The *evolution of morality* has been both
secular and religious. My entire point in all this discussion is that
*without Christianity it is unlikely that the stimulus for morality, as we
interpret it today, would not have occurred. This would be a far different
world without the influence of religion. This would be a vastly different
country without the influence of religion.*

I believe that its rather impossible to separate ethics from religious
teaching, because religion has be part of humanity from as far back as we
can detect.

Bingo. Why have you been arguing with me?

They aren't. Not unless your version of ethical behavior extends to, for
example, the systematic elimination of genetically inferior individuals
(Downs, CF, CP, etc.) in order to serve the remainder of an orderly
society best. Without morality, ethics are merely a society's
interpretation of what is best for the masses. The Vikings had such
"ethics."

You're doing that thing you said you wouldn't do. The Eugenicists were
probably all good Christians, doing what they considered the "moral"
thing. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote "three generations of imbeciles is
enough" but I don't think we can call Ollie an Evangelical! As for the
Vikings, I don't think I would want to hold them up as examples of the
highest morality,

I wasn't. My comment was sarcastic.

but the did get a bad rap based on their early habit of attacking
monasteries, that is, where the money was. Other than that, its hard to
say that they were that bad. Would you claim that the Spanish
Conquistadors were any better?

Nope. But as I stated earlier morality has undergone an evolutionary
process, both by secular and religious influences. My point is that without
religion, the process of moral evolution would have been severely retarded,
if it occurred at all.



Also, as I've said, religion is/was always there. But modern Christian
writers have a tendency to downplay the role of any religion perceived
as "pagan."

Yes, they do. And that is Christian bias, plain and simple, but still
fails to refute the influence of modern western religions upon morality.
For example, I'm unaware of the practice of human sacrifice in modern
Christianity.

Not sacrifice, but there was that little thing called the Inquisition. And
there were those witches burned - perhaps 100,000 around the 15th century.
But those were the "bad" Christians, right?

They were excellent examples of the necessity of the concept *separation of
church and state.* Yes, they were bad Christians, interpreting the gospel
to their own political needs, rather than following any particular moral
compass. And they are minor, spurious examples of what Christianity has
affected in its 2000 year history.

Oh, wait, as soon as the Pope became aware of the excesses of the Spanish
Inquisition, he sent his special representative make things more
respectable. That was Thomas de Torquemada.

Re-write? Are you claiming the great empires didn't exist?

That would be asinine. They did exist, but were they moral in the modern
sense? Did Caligula possess a strong belief in the rights of
individuals?

To hold Caligula as an example of the typical pagan invites holding Hitler
as the typical Christian. Do you really want to go there?

Nope. Just giving you a taste of your own spurious-example tactics. Sort
of idiotic, isn't it.


Or that chaos ruled the world until Constantine?

Chaos did rule the much of the world prior to Constatine. And it still
rules various parts of the world. Somalia comes to mind.

Ah Somalia! That was certainly a triumph of Christian compassion.

I'd say it's more an example of fundamental Islamic sectarian animosity.
And abject poverty.

Have you read the Qu'ran? That's a real eye-opener as well.

Yes, I've read part of it - its not exactly the easiest thing to make
sense out of. Of course, many Muslims have on read a small portion it.

And many have memorized it in its entireity, especially the young extremist
radicals about to strap on a couple pounds of C-4 and walk into a crowded
marketplace.

Whenever I hear someone claim they must "accept this or that as the only
path to salvation" I am offended. It is the work of the Devil!

To believe in the Devil implies that you also believe in God. Do you?
Just curious.


I believe religion is a useful metaphor with which to view the world. I
also believe that the need to believe in a deity is hardwired into the
human psyche, such that in any group the will be some that "need to
believe," and that there will also be others unable to believe, and many
who go with the flow. As for my own beliefs, I have pondered, I've read
and studied the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, the Koran, and other
"holy" texts, and none of them hold the answer for me. And so my beliefs
remain beyond articulation; perhaps they lie somewhere between the Theism
and Pantheism I mentioned above. However, I've come to the conclusion
that it is a meaningless question - like the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle, asking the question destroys the answer. What is important is
whether you lead your life as thought there was a God.

AKA: morality. Not a bad concept, eh? I'll agree that enlightened
individuals can be moral without leading thier lives as if there were a God.
And many. perhaps the masses, cannot, ergo the influence of Christianity and
other western religions on societal and world morality. Perhaps that is
*all* religion and theism is about--the creation of morality. Perhaps the
writers of the Bible had that, and only that, in mind. Perhaps that was the
stimulus for Jesus' teachings as well. Guess we'll never know for sure.

And what do Werner Heisenberg and subatomic particles have to do with any
of this?? g


I have nothing against religion, and I have nothing against most religious
beliefs. However, I don't think any of them hold a universal answer.

Not for you, certainly, but for many theism holds *all* the answers. And
for many the basis of their morality is their theistic belief. I'm not
saying it's right or wrong, or implying rational vs. irrational
introspection on the matter. I'm only saying that the world is in general a
more moral place due to the influence of religion, particularly western
religions.

Katy made the statement that moving from a religious basis to a more secular
basis for the administration of our government will foment depravity and
chaos. (not her exact words, but the idea is essentially valid) I can't say
whether she's right or wrong--no one can, save for someone living in the
late 21st Century, should we follow a more secular path. But the atheistic
movement in this country is primary a political one, brought about by a
general hatred on the part of the far left for the so-called "religious
right." Extremists attempt to injure or discredit their opponents, rather
than promote their particular brand of dogma. The extreme left is no
exception in this respect. I'm only saddened that moderate Democrats have
bought into this line of anti-religious "reasoning." It is a fool's errand
to attempt to show no relationship between Christianity and our governmental
foundations. And it's counterproductive to move away from Christianity
simply because it is injurious to the religious right. Christianity is a
large part of the foundation of morality in this country, I believe, and to
throw it out as a useless impediment to the progress of the country is like
throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Max

"Mundo" wrote in message
. net...
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 14:46:31 -0500, Maxprop wrote
(in article . net):


"Mundo" wrote in message

For someone who bases everything on fact you sure leave your self
dangling
with lots of hope...good luck with that.

That's pretty much a definition of *faith.* Are you implying that you
never
do anything on faith? Do you take risks? Or do you live such a monastic
(definition #2) lifestyle that nothing can bring harm to you?

Max



Quite the opposite. The post however was focused towards Neil who forever
quotes and stands behind "fact" yet seems to be able to go baseless into
gut
feelings, the realm of god and heaven. Pure faith. No Fact. He is an
enigma.

There is little or no fact where religion is concerned. Only faith. If
you're waiting for a Christian to provide evidence (facts) of God, you're in
for a long wait. But you are of course right--to a Christian, his belief
*is* fact. That's part and parcel of the faith business.

Max

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Maxprop" wrote
There never are simple answers to infinitely complex problems, Thom.
It's a fool's errand to attempt to solve eternal and pervasive problems
with a single bullet. Solutions are as forthcoming as the increasing
facets of the problems, and of course nothing is ever solved. But for
some religion is a component solution to the world's problems. That it
isn't for you does not make it any less viable as a part of the solution
for others. Your statement is clearly intolerant in its implication.

That's a nice way of saying the dude's stupid....

I'm far too polite to ever do such a thing. Mom brought me up right.

Max