General Interest > Tacitus' Realm
American History -
Froderik:
--- Quote from: "Shadyacres" ---The crusades, the inquisition, the sword-point conversions of thousands and thousands of Northern European pagans and the murders of those who would not convert. The systematic subjugation of women, widespread sexual abuse of children, shameless graft and fraud. I wonder how any educated person could not be biased against an institution guilty of so many transgressions against humanity. Of course I am biased, the program I was in when I was fifteen was run by "Christians".
--- End quote ---
I was getting ready to say that all of that was history (in other words, let's not dismiss a good thing over these rotten apples), until you got to the part about the program you were in being run by a bunch of corrupt, so-called Christians. Given that, it is easy to understand your present animosity. That is perhaps too close to home to deal with....but I hope you will consider that Jesus would not have agreed with that bullshit they forced on you; that wasn't the way it was meant to be. This a case in point of people using the Word to facilitate thier own fucked-up agenda.
Shadyacres:
Witch burnings, persecution of homosexuals, persecution of jews, contributing to the population problem by prohibiting birth control, contributing to the general ignorance of mankind by perpetuating an outdated fairy tale. The list goes on and on, why do Christians always line up with the fascist element in our society? Who would Jesus persecute? Who would Jesus bomb?
Most of these things are history but they serve to illustrate how easy it is for unscrupulous people to twist the holy scripture of ANY religion to justify their own selfish agenda. Religions emerged as a way for mankind to explain the unexplainable, a hypothesis of sorts. Now that hypothesis has largely been proven wrong and we have invented science to take over where religion left off. Religions today are just a tool for con artists.
I also don't believe that the founding fathers saw all mankind as "inherently evil", but they may have seen "power" that way; power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Froderik:
It sounds like you and I are, for the most part, on the same page about all of this...
Anyway, this quote from an article concerning science and religion may be of interest to you:
Fortunately, science and religion need no longer be at war, as developments in modern physics have shown, (especially those relating to the significance of the fundamental constants), which may indicate that the time for hostilities may finally be over. It is interesting to note that the "multiple universes" concept which has inspired so many short stories in the past decade is a purely hypothetical theory developed without any experimental basis in an attempt to answer the "anthropic principle," which not only has a solid foundation in current scientific method, but threatens to demolish the entire notion of a random, mechanistic universe. The concept does not, of course, provide the least bit of evidence for the legitimacy of the prophet's revelation, the infallibility of the pope, or the likelihood of the Second Coming. What it does demonstrate is that what has been long considered an antagonistic dichotomy between science and religion may not actually exist at all.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=33609
Shadyacres:
--- Quote from: "Froderik" ---It sounds like you and I are, for the most part, on the same page about all of this...
Anyway, this quote from an article concerning science and religion may be of interest to you:
Fortunately, science and religion need no longer be at war, as developments in modern physics have shown, (especially those relating to the significance of the fundamental constants), which may indicate that the time for hostilities may finally be over. It is interesting to note that the "multiple universes" concept which has inspired so many short stories in the past decade is a purely hypothetical theory developed without any experimental basis in an attempt to answer the "anthropic principle," which not only has a solid foundation in current scientific method, but threatens to demolish the entire notion of a random, mechanistic universe. The concept does not, of course, provide the least bit of evidence for the legitimacy of the prophet's revelation, the infallibility of the pope, or the likelihood of the Second Coming. What it does demonstrate is that what has been long considered an antagonistic dichotomy between science and religion may not actually exist at all.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=33609
--- End quote ---
Interesting article, Lewis and Tolkien are two of my favorite authors, Twain too. I have no problem with the underlying theme of Christianity, I just don't see many Christians adhering to it. I also think that most religious texts, our Old and New Testaments included, are valuable resources for mankind, I just think they should be more of a guide book than a law book. The society of man is constantly changing and our laws and customs must change with it.
Stonewall:
--- Quote from: "Antigen" ---
--- End quote ---
If you look into the Treaty of Tripoli... you would find the same trouble we are in today.
The Constitution, when reading it, it becomes very clear what were the religious beliefs of those who wrote it. Without a doubt Christians wrote that document.
That is not to say that they wanted a theocracy. They did not.
When adopted, there were States that had official religions. Thus making a non-denominational National Government was a must. And, nothing prohibited a State having an official State religion. The so-called 'Bil of Rights' at their adoption did not apply to the States. That is new in our nations history, the 20th Century. The 'incorporation theory'. I disagree with it. Only because the people should have been the ones who decided that issue. The Courts do not rule America. The people do, or used to anyway.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version