If you accuse one person, you are expected to show evidence against that one particular person — Vera Mont

That is an acceptable demand, in court. But if I comment that elderly people drive poorly, people outside the internet will not demand studies on the matter, because they know my conclusion comes not from the authority of a peer-reviewed doctor but from my eyes.

Surely — ToothyMaw

Surely.

I can not be sure if people are arguing for or against Christianity. I just know Christianity maintained kingdoms, a hierarchy of authority over the people, and the Bible is not a book for democracy. And Catholicism maintained a lot of ignorance. But Christians have not done much better because they also oppose science in education. All civilizations have benefitted from a religion. None of these religions is better than another and Christianity drove the West into a Dark Age that was not ended until there was widespread knowledge of Greek and Roman classics. The age of enlightenment and modern times changed by science came out of those past civilizations, not the Bible that held us in the dark ages.

These oaths were basic to our democracy before education for technology replaced education for good judgment with education for technology and left moral training to the church.


The Hippocratic Oath that doctors took came from ancient Greek.

The Hippocratic Oath is an oath of ethics historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath — Wikipedia

The Athenian Oath is important to democracy and something good might happen if children learn it in school.

The Athenian Oath was recited by the citizens of Athens, Greece, more than 2,000 years ago. It is frequently referenced by civic leaders in modern times as a timeless code of civic responsibility.

“We will never bring disgrace on this our City by an act of dishonesty or cowardice. We will fight for the ideals and Sacred Things of the City both alone and with many. We will revere and obey the City's laws, and will do our best to incite a like reverence and respect in those above us who are prone to annul them or set them at naught. We will strive unceasingly to quicken the public's sense of civic duty. Thus, in all these ways, we will transmit this City not only, not less, but greater and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.” — Augustaks

If we wish to understand the thought processes of the Islamic State or the Taliban, we need only read the Old Testament.
— alan1000

No that is not all we need. We need to understand as well, the neuroscience of tribalism, along with other things. — wonderer1

Alan is clearly talking about those thought processes as determined by belief here, and if that is the case:

Do we really need to understand the neuroscience of tribalism to determine that someone holds a belief because it exists in their holy book? Are you implying that maybe they don't actually hold the beliefs they claim to hold for the reasons they supply? They literally say that they hold their beliefs because God ordained that they are true. I don't see how neuroscience can negate such a thing.

I mean, neuroscience could explain the physical processes behind such things, but knowledge of the exact physical processes is unlikely to be a hard pre-requisite for their admitted beliefs to be genuine.

If we are instead discussing how tribalism works on a neurological level, then the neuroscience of tribalism becomes more powerful in terms of explanatory power. But we are not discussing the nature of tribalism, but rather why they hold the beliefs they hold.

If we wish to understand the thought processes of the Islamic State or the Taliban, we need only read the Old Testament — alan1000

Quite a stretch don't you think?

We can't understand the thought processes of the Jews by looking only to the OT, and that's their sacred literature, as opposed to the Muslims who obviously rely upon other texts.

Every religion, culture, nation, civilization, and even person has a long complex history. You've got to look at the whole picture, from their wars, their successes, their struggles, important leaders, events, and on and on and on.

There is a tendency to think of Islam as a religion which promotes violence and intolerance, as opposed to Christianity, which is thought to be more meek, mild, and benign. — alan1000

You've summarized the views of the least sophisticated Christians and provided the exact opposite view of the least sophisticated Muslims. You're just telling me what your crazy Uncle sounds like when he comes over for dinner.

but if you read enough old Chick tracts, and observe enough of the people who pass them out, — wonderer1

I haven't read any and I don't know what a Chick is. Are these tracts representative of all Protestantism? Might the American perspective colour your judgment? I don't know how many people share your perspective, but I do see why you wish to support an accusation against a religion you dislike. Since I dislike them all, I consider all religious intolerance equally intolerable.

Christianity is made up of a bunch of different people with beliefs that exist on a spectrum, but they are all derived from the same scriptures from the same book. — ToothyMaw

And a wonderfully big, rich book it is! You can fish in it for justification of any damn thing you want to do.
It's the leaders who decide which bits to extol and which to ignore; the flock simply follows them, even to their own detriment, so strong is the desire to belong.
But it doesn't matter which doctrine you profess; it matters what you do. If you're a killer, you might kill for Allah, or Dixie, or the Holy Land or the empire, or to save democracy or your family from some purported threat, or revenge or as a punishment for crime, or for pleasure or profit. If a leader inspires lots of killers, they'll go kill for his cause - whatever it is, and give that cause a reputation for violence.
If a leader inspires lots of altruists, they'll go forth doing good works and give their cause a reputation for benevolence.
So do religious sects change from generation to generation, under the influence thinkers, reformers, zealots and megalomaniacs.

That is an acceptable demand, in court. But if I comment that elderly people drive poorly, people outside the internet will not demand studies on the matter, because they know my conclusion comes not from the authority of a peer-reviewed doctor but from my eyes. — Lionino

People who share your bias with you will accept your opinion as evidence? No doubt.

If we wish to understand the thought processes of the Islamic State or the Taliban, we need only read the Old Testament
— alan1000

Quite a stretch don't you think?

We can't understand the thought processes of the Jews by looking only to the OT, and that's their sacred literature, as opposed to the Muslims who obviously rely upon other texts.

Every religion, culture, nature, civilization, and even person has a long complex history. You've got to look at the whole picture, from their wars, their successes, their struggles, important leaders, events, and on and on and on. — Hanover

I think alan was not clear about what he was trying to say here. I can't read his mind, but I don't think he was saying that every Taliban member likes vanilla ice cream because of the Quran, for example, but rather that we can see the content of the Quran clearly reflected in their behavior.

If he was indeed saying what you think he was saying, then he is definitely wrong.

And a wonderfully big, rich book it is! You can fish in it for justification of any damn thing you want to do.
It's the leaders who decide which bits to extol and which to ignore; the flock simply follows them, even to their own detriment, so strong is the desire to belong. — Vera Mont

There are definitely more or less plausible interpretations of the bible, even if a lot of stuff can be justified. So, that is never a good point. That the leaders extol certain interpretations doesn't mean that the leaders aren't influenced by other Christians or scriptures which, once again, can be more or less plausibly interpreted.

I don't have the mental wherewithal to go over these arguments, and I doubt I could sway you, so I'll just let it ride.

People who share your bias with you will accept your opinion as evidence? No doubt. — Vera Mont

I didn't say that. Perhaps I should have included "though they may disagree," after the second comma.

It is curious however that lived experience are not enough to accept the existence of the black legend or that there is slander against Catholics or South Europeans in general. However lived experience is more than enough to accept the existence of "microaggressions" or "generational trauma".

But it stops being curious when we realise that it is simply another example of that society's Gramscian reverance for their own minorities but contempt for many European nations.

The more I think about what alan meant, the less ambiguous it becomes. He presents a ham-handed, but consistent dichotomy between Christianity and secular forces, so I would think that when he (flippantly) claims that ISIS or the Taliban's thought processes can be explained by the OT he would say something like: "We need look only to the OT to understand the motivations for much of their most pernicious beliefs", but he fumbles it and just says that their thought processes are explainable purely by the OT.

It's probably because he views them as being so embroiled in a war against modernity that he can just totally write them off as barbarous idealogues that clean, western secularists have no common ground with. Which is sort of close to being true in some of the ways that matter - but to tie it all together that way is arrogant. We can all appreciate a good ice cream cone.

It is curious however that lived experience are not enough to accept the existence of the black legend or that there is slander against Catholics or South Europeans in general. However lived experience is more than enough to accept the existence of "microaggressions" or "generational trauma". — Lionino

Wow. You really just said that. No one said that the lived experience of Catholics or Southern Europeans is invalid, but there is no evidence of a black legend perpetrated against, what? Modern white European Catholics? People revere the Pope the world over, revered more so than MLK ever was. Is it part of a black legend perpetrated against black Americans that MLK is not more revered than the Pope? No, the Pope is just the Pope, and people across the world have limited knowledge of the history of the United States.

As for microaggressions or generational trauma - they are modern constructions that developed alongside an increasing desire to accommodate disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals. Totally irrelevant to your black legend.

But it stops being curious when we realise that it is simply another example of that society's Gramscian reverance for their own minorities but contempt for many European nations. — Lionino

What do minorities and European nations have to do with each other? I mean it sounds like you are complaining about minorities - whatever minorities they be - being elevated over white people.

*Cue in valley girl accent*
I literally just did.
*Cue out*

No one said that the lived experience of Catholics or Southern Europeans is invalid — ToothyMaw

Maybe nobody has said it, but they often imply it:

The mass propaganda of Protestants against Catholics is well known.
— javi2541997
Is it? By whom? Which particular Protestants are waging what propaganda campaigns? — Vera Mont

The same level of scrutinity is never raised against minorities of Anglo countries. Not that I care particularly about what they do, but it is a funny irony that I noticed, an irony which makes us doubt the judgement of people who say things such as: "Christianity had the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of witches, the medieval massacres of the Jews, and the massacres of South American native innocents". All those items are related to the Catholic church, not the protestant, even though their host nations did bad stuff too. It seems like not a just investigation but the typical bias that we see coming from the people of certain societies.

but there is no evidence of a black legend perpetrated against, what? — ToothyMaw

Black legend does not just mean smear campaign. Black legend has a specific meaning, look it up.

People revere the Pope the world over, revered more so than MLK ever was — ToothyMaw

I don't know how that connects to my post, I didn't bring up reverence.

As for microaggressions or generational trauma - they are modern constructions that developed alongside an increasing desire to accommodate disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals — ToothyMaw

Yeah it is constructed aka made up, that is my point. It is not a real thing, but they pretend to undergo it because it gives them attention/benefits/privilege, and people believe them. But when a Spanish or even Russian person says that they are constantly misjudged and stereotyped in the press and movies and whatnot, people demand "evidence".

What do minorities and European nations have to do with each other? — ToothyMaw

Nothing, it is a comparison.

but there is no evidence of a black legend perpetrated against, what?
— ToothyMaw

Black legend does not just mean smear campaign. Black legend has a specific meaning, look it up.

People revere the Pope the world over, revered more so than MLK ever was
— ToothyMaw

I don't know how that connects to my post, I didn't bring up reverence. — Lionino

I know what a black legend is, and I used the term correctly.

My point in bringing up the Pope is that you wouldn't assert that there is an equally likely black legend including a representation of MLK just because there is a difference in perceived stature, and recognition of the accomplishments of, a group of people - namely black Americans - and another group of people. And, even if you did, it would likely be explainable by something other than a black legend. You need to supply some serious evidence for your claim that modern Catholics are the victims of such a thing.

As for microaggressions or generational trauma - they are modern constructions that developed alongside an increasing desire to accommodate disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals
— ToothyMaw

Yeah it is constructed aka made up, that is my point. It is not a real thing, but they pretend to undergo it because it gives them attention/benefits/privilege, and people believe them. But when a Spanish or even Russian person says that they are constantly misjudged and stereotyped in the press and movies and whatnot, people demand "evidence". — Lionino

Okay, the concepts are technically invented by a mind, but people's feelings and difficulties are as real as anything else you can perceive with your senses. To say that the difficulties that someone raised in a violent Ghetto experience are just made up because the idea of generational trauma is an idea is really stupid. The same goes for the assertion that they are feigning difficulties for benefits and privileges. Nobody who has to worry about being robbed by a crackhead has time for that.

It seems like not a just investigation but the typical bias that we see coming from the people of certain societies. — Lionino

Make that all societies.
There are lots of biases and prejudices flying around, being reinforced by like-minded, same-interest factions.
That's the reason I dislike collective characterizations of any group, large or small, majority or minority. None of those bad things that were done by humans were done by all Cahtolics, all French people, all Muslims, all old people or teenagers, all men or women or whites or Asians. Those acts were committed by a variety of human beings for a variety of reasons. I don't judge them en masse, and I question anyone who does.

I know what a black legend is, and I used the term correctly. — ToothyMaw

So what you are trying to say is that there is no black legend against Spaniards?

You need to supply some serious evidence for your claim that modern Catholics are the victims of such a thing. — ToothyMaw

I guess you are.

Okay, the concepts are technically invented by a mind, but people's feelings and difficulties are as real as anything else you can perceive with your senses. To say that the difficulties that someone raised in a violent Ghetto experience are just made up because the idea of generational trauma is an idea is really stupid — ToothyMaw

Perfect proof of what I have been saying. Poetic almost.

Speaking of, mister Biden just announced:


They are replacing Easter (Catholic) with a celebration of men who think they are women. Very representative of their values, as if the entire planet does not know at this point. Can't wait for China to take over.
@javi2541997 Who is going to say that I am not unintentionally prophetic?

Who is going to say that I am not unintentionally prophetic? — Lionino

Yeah. Who would say otherwise? Sorry, I didn't pay so much attention in the replies of this thread because it is always the same. North European countries are good, South European countries are bad. Christianity is very evil, and it is against democracy, etc. It is funny how some say I should not judge in mass. But they quickly spread negative comments on the inheritors of the Crown of the Castile.

But they quickly spread negative comments on the inheritors of the Crown of the Castile. — javi2541997

Who are the inheritors of the crown of Castile? Do they all behave in the same way? Who here has commented on them, negatively or positively?

This misconception rests upon a failure of historical perspective. If Christianity today appears to be a benign and peaceful religion, it is because modern secularism and the rule of law have drawn its fangs. — alan1000

I think you're just wrong about people's thoughts. I don't think I've heard anyone make the former claim without acknowledging the latter. It's Islam's resistance to update that puts it in the position it's in, in this context.

Who are the inheritors of the crown of Castile? — Vera Mont

Me. I am Castilian.

Do they all behave in the same way? — Vera Mont

No. Absolutely not. But I think it is very difficult for me to prove it.

Who here has commented on? — Vera Mont

Really? Is this new or what? :roll: We already discussed this, Vera... In this thread and another with Ciceronianus.

Me. I am Castilian. — javi2541997

I had no idea, Your Majesty! I'd go an erase every negative comment I've posted about you, if you could please point them out.

Do they all behave in the same way? — Vera Mont
No. Absolutely not. — javi2541997

I didn't think so!

We already discussed this, Vera... In this thread and another with Ciceronianus. — javi2541997

Oh, I see. Telling the truth about the history of a nation. Can't be helped I'm afraid, especially as Ciceronianus is not my sock-puppet.

Telling the truth about the history of a nation — Vera Mont

This sort of disingenuity is typically part of the issue we are talking about. But I have never seen you people performing cultural self-criticism, even the partisans of progressivism present their self-flailing "we are so racist, we are historically sexist" as a humble brag every time. Sorry, but Spain and France were much more skillful at being opressive than England, you just rewrote the history books to pretend you invented the steam engine even though you never did. Like today you are rewriting history books to pretend minorities invented the traffick light even though they never did.

you people — Lionino

Nice riposte! Covers all the bases.

I question the meaningfulness of blaming/crediting "Christianity". It's people who are engaging in good/bad behavior. Sometimes they point to scripture to rationalize their behavior (eg slavery), but that's generally post hoc.

If we wish to understand the thought processes of the Islamic State or the Taliban, we need only read the Old Testament. — alan1000

It seems everyone is neglecting the pith and substance of the OP.

Comments like, not all Christians "this," or, blame Christians not Christianity, can be applied almost mot a mot to Islam (not all Muslims are terrorists or fanatically sexist). And, as alan1000 was directly suggesting, historically, vice versa. The blame we hurl against one religion can be hurled at the other.

I agree with the OP. We can criticize terrorism and oppression taking place in the name of Islam. We can criticize "forced" conversion, inquisition and crusades which took place in the name of Christianity. But we cannot criticize Islam or Christianity on those bases.

I agree with the OP. We can criticize terrorism and oppression taking place in the name of Islam. We can criticize "forced" conversion, inquisition and crusades which took place in the name of Christianity. But we cannot criticize Islam or Christianity on those bases. — ENOAH

But the OP didn't make the distinction you did in your post. And that's why I recall I replied looking for more specific criticism towards Christianity, because Alan stated that this religion (or belief) has been - and is -, by nature, negative to its impact on the world. Just look at the examples: the Inquisition and Colonialism. Also, the supposed negative role of religion in education, sexism and oppression towards women, etc.

He didn't mention Bartolomé de las Casas or Francis of Assisi, amongst others, who did good things on behalf of Christianity.

Basically, the point in this OP was to criticise the role of religion and Western European countries for their evilness. You can clearly note that in the replies by Vera Mont.

Alan stated that this religion (or belief) has been - and is -, by nature, negative to its impact on the world. Just look at the examples — javi2541997

Ok, well if that's an issue, I don't even need to look at your examples. It is clear to me there are numerous examples of good tgat has come out of Christianity in the broadest sense of the word. Jesus alone.

But in case the point is polemic, much good has come out of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on. Right?

But in case the point is polemic, much good has come out of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on. Right? — ENOAH

Yes. I agree. I am aware that this is a controversial topic that is easy to criticise.

It is clear to me there are numerous examples of good tgat has come out of Christianity in the broadest sense of the word. Jesus alone. — ENOAH

I couldn't have said it better! :smile:
What a good example, ENOAH. It is a pleasure to find someone who is open-minded regarding this religious topic. Well, apart from religion, I see important ethical values. I learnt this by reading Russian authors or Kazantzakis, not the Bible, ironically.

I try to be open minded, as you say, but I'm biased. Am I a "Christian"? Not necessarily. If you look at "Jesus" from a few angles, I don't know how you can deny "His" positive contributions to History. I'll be way more brief than the argument requires.

Historical Jesus of Nazareth: the courage and insight to say, to Judeans, in Occupied Judea, to love even your enemies...

Theological Christ: Wait. God is not there to condemn me? There to rescue me? God is love?

Social Jesus: care for the sick, the poor, the criminals.

But given this whole discussion, I feel compelled to say, there are similar positive contributions to History from all religions. As there has been "bad". Humans are good and bad. That's the Kazantzakis struggle, is it not?

Historical Jesus of Nazareth: the courage and insight to say, to Judeans, in Occupied Judea, to love even your enemies... — ENOAH

I think about this one sometimes. IMO a peculiar teaching. I guess in some circumstances it would necessitate internally reaffirming your love of an enemy and then picking up your rifle (or whatever weapon you have) and ending his life e.g. in a time of war where your enemy is out to kill you. I suppose this is the right way to think about it?