Victims Silenced

[trencacloscas]

As said before, Christians have poisoned the debate about religion by passing off the concept that religious claims must be treated with a kinder and gentler type of criticism than that leveled at other types of belief systems. But what about the people that was infected with this hellish doctrine, harassed with its symbols, pestered with the absurd and dogmatism from the very cradle?

Most ex-Christians who just want to express their opinion on the subject plainly, and intend to expose forward the nonsense of this religion from their personal experience, are often diminished and censored on the basis that they offend religious people. Like Jews would offend nazis for attacking nazi's doctrine, right?

Lots of people chastised, their natural instincs abnormally refrained, their guilt excited beyond the limits of paranoia, their hunger for knowledge, curiosity or study denied, and the big etcetera...

So, where is exactly the breaking point? Why the "politically correct" tag goes always against victims? Should victims of Christianity be allowed any extra rights to react towards their executioner religion?

[trencacloscas]

Well if we agree that the blame can be placed on his followers, then what about how he is presented in the NT is worth blame?

Apparently, the scriptures are not very clear. Every monster in Christian history took these words and used them in his own benefit. Aren't these words supposed to be God-inspired? If they are, God already knew of the possibility of twisting them. Why didn't he inspired something less harmful, less contradictory, something that cannot be doubted?

[otseng]

The speakers for the monstrosities of Christianity are rarely Christians.

Let me just make one (or two) quick comments. You do have a valid point here. There is no denying that Christians throughout history have committed atrocities. Yet, non-Christians have also committed atrocities. Atrocities are not limited to any particular group, but is found in all groups of people. However, it takes great humility to admit fault. And great humility is a rare quality to be found, even among Christians.

As for speaking up against monstrosities, it is interesting to note that the people that Jesus railed against were not the "sinners", but the religious people. He saved his strongest words of condemnation to the religious leaders and saved his strongest words of acceptance to the sinners. So, Jesus himself did speak up against sins committed by religious people.

[youngborean]

Apparently, the scriptures are not very clear. Every monster in Christian history took these words and used them in his own benefit. Aren't these words supposed to be God-inspired? If they are, God already knew of the possibility of twisting them. Why didn't he inspired something less harmful, less contradictory, something that cannot be doubted?

Well I guess we have to be careful not to assume. Can we be sure that they used scriptures within their context? For instance, the text can read: "Do not Murder" and I can read "murder". But is this interpretation fair in context or a representation of Judaism? I question again if we can assess the immoral context of the New Testament leading to this sinful behavior. Lets bring up texts and see if these extreme doctrines are fair at all. For instance, is conversion or death a teaching of Christ? If it is not, then it would be fair to say that the inquisistion was an un-christian act carried out by the Catholic church.

[Overcomer]

trencacloscas wrote:

But once again and with due respect, the symptons mentioned are real. Christians never assume the consecuences of the influence of Christian religion on people, neither want to talk about them. And as I said, I've seen friends and relatives transformed in zombies by religion, perhaps I myself was a zombie once. I intended to point that out, but maybe not in the most polite of ways, surely.

First of all, let me thank you for toning down your posts and approaching this discussion more respectfully. I really appreciate that and it speaks well of you.

I'm sorry that you think your friends and relatives have been transformed into zombies by religion. And I'm not going to argue that they haven't because you know them and I don't. I'm quite sure there are people who blindly follow a faith with negative consequences. I've seen them, too. Probably one of the most obvious examples is that of the terrorists who flew those planes into the World Trade Center. That kind of blind obedience to a maniac is just downright scary!

I also recognize the fact that there are some people going to some Christian churches who don't know what they believe or why they believe it and they do whatever the church teaches and if that particular church happens to teach them the wrong things, they do and say the wrong things. They're scary, too. And there are some cults masquerading as Christian churches that are doing great damage to their members. And I agree with you that these things are NOT healthy and we do need to speak out about them.

I keep making a distinction between people who practise a religion and people who are in a relationship with Jesus Christ. There are churches that are legalist in nature. By that I mean they have a whole bunch of rules and regulations which MUST be obeyed and that's that! But I question whether the people in them ever connect with Jesus and if they are ever filled with the Holy Spirit. They practise a religion that is really man-made, not Christ-ordained or Christ-guided. I join you in your protest against them because they do great damage to people and if you've seen that kind of damage to the people you love, then I understand why you are angry and why you are speaking out so passionately.

However, it's wrong to generalize and say that ALL Christians are zombies. In another thread, I commented on the fact that God asks us to love him not just with all our heart, but with ALL OUR MIND. That means that God values our ability to think and he wants us to think about him, about the Bible, about the world we live in, the way we relate to each other, etc. A good Christian church will encourage its members to ask questions and express their doubts and explore all kinds of information. I have been blessed to be in such churches, but I realize that not all churches are like that.

I know that everything bad in Christian history is shamelessly swept under the carpet. Christians chastise their flesh for their sins and cry for a single guy nailed to a cross, but the millions killed, tortured and denied by their hideous sect during seventeen centuries are not mentioned in their prayers, not mourned or even remembered. The late pope of the Catholics (after 17 centuries!!!) apologized for the crimes of his church without even describing them. All of a sudden, the whole Christianity assumed that, as in the sacrament of the confession, all sins were forgotten and disappeared by merely mentioning it. Now tell me hipocrisy is not the true mark of Christianity...

I just completed a seminary course in Christian history. I also studied history at a secular university and learned about the things you are pointing out. You're absolutely right about the fact that there have been religious wars and people killed and imprisoned and tortured all in the name of God. There are some horrific stories and, yes, I agree that it's shameful.

I think the fact that seminaries like the one I attend offer courses in which we study these things indicates that not all Christians ignore these ugly events that occurred in previous centuries or try to sweep them under the carpet. But I expect there are some Christians who do just that. I think they don't know what to say so that, when questioned, they get defensive or even deny them as you say. And that's too bad. It doesn't help the situation at all. It only frustrates you and it makes them feel inadequate and nothing positive gets accomplished.

I don't deny that mistakes have been made in the name of God. I expect that, as much as they make you angry, they grieve God even more so.

But sometimes I see Christians who step up and do the extraordinary out of their love for God. I mentioned Amy Carmichael in one of my posts. She went to India and started an orphanage. When a family wanted a son but got a daughter instead, they would take her to the nearest Hindu temple to get rid of her. She would be raised as a temple prostitute. Amy would disguise herself as an Indian woman and go into the temples and steal the baby girls and take them to her orphanage to keep them safe and give them a better life. I think sometimes stories like that get lost and we focus on the bad instead of the good.

I guess I'm saying that there should be a balanced view. Christians shouldn't deny the failures of the past or the present. But atheists shouldn't deny that there have been some good things come out of Christianity, too. I believe that the good things come from those who walk most closely to the Lord and listen for his voice and act as Jesus would act. I'm sorry that more of us don't do that and I don't pretend that I always do that, but I'm trying, even if I'm not always succeeding.

[Vladd44]

Most ex-Christians who just want to express their opinion on the subject plainly, and intend to expose forward the nonsense of this religion from their personal experience, are often diminished and censored on the basis that they offend religious people. Like Jews would offend nazis for attacking nazi's doctrine, right?

So now you are comparing Christians to Nazis, eh? Again, I repeat. You can express your opinions on Christianity and relate your personal experiences all you want, but in doing so, it's important that you are respectful and not rude and insulting.

I fail to see a comparison to nazis. Its an analogy to a situation. Seems like you are into the same misrepresentation you are accusing (and may be right) him of.

Excuse me if I ignore most of your arguments, Overcomer, you assume a lot of things I didn't even mention. Just one simple question... why is it that when it comes to Christianity crimes, Christians are the last to admit them?

First of all, I wasn't arguing with you. I was pointing out the need to treat people with respect. Are you telling me that you disagree with me about treating people with respect?

Talk about assumptions.... Where did trencocloscas say anything even close to an implication of not needing respect? He simply said you assume to much, and asked a question in the vein of something you said......

If you don't know Jesus, then you don't know what he's like.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

I can use the "supposed" words of jesus to judge him. And I hate to be the one to tell you, but the fruit I see is rotten to the core.

[trencacloscas]

But is this interpretation fair in context or a representation of Judaism? I question again if we can assess the immoral context of the New Testament leading to this sinful behavior.

Then again, if scriptures must be interpreted in context with Judaism, they are not universal. I don't even see Jesus talking to the whole world but exclusively to Jews, but that's another song. Anyway, if he was supposed to make a point valid for all mankind the message would be clear in all languages and cultures on simple reading. That's what we'd call "inspired".

[trencacloscas]

I also recognize the fact that there are some people going to some Christian churches who don't know what they believe or why they believe it and they do whatever the church teaches and if that particular church happens to teach them the wrong things, they do and say the wrong things. They're scary, too. And there are some cults masquerading as Christian churches that are doing great damage to their members. And I agree with you that these things are NOT healthy and we do need to speak out about them.

Good to hear some common sense. Perhaps you'll agree with me that one of the problems of religion is that it gets very difficult to take some distance from your chuch or community to judge things properly.

I keep making a distinction between people who practise a religion and people who are in a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Then again, though I see your point and trust your integrity, it seems disturbing to me the very nature of such "relationship", for a relationship requires two sides. An imaginary relationship, the kind you keep with an imaginary entity (please don't take offence, I'm just only presenting my point) I think is called schizophrenia in psychology, and doesn't look any healthy from scratch. An unhealthy relationship cannot affect positively the perception of reality or behaviour, if I'm allowed to say it frankly.

However, it's wrong to generalize and say that ALL Christians are zombies.

I agree, of course. But the frightening thing for me is that even the less infected Christians show one or another sympton of the sickness sooner or later.

In another thread, I commented on the fact that God asks us to love him not just with all our heart, but with ALL OUR MIND. That means that God values our ability to think and he wants us to think about him, about the Bible, about the world we live in, the way we relate to each other, etc.

I beg to differ about this. I never saw support for any of this affirmations in the scriptures, and rarely coming from priests or churches. Christianity as an institution never promoted independent critical thinking for it goes against its own interests.

I think the fact that seminaries like the one I attend offer courses in which we study these things indicates that not all Christians ignore these ugly events that occurred in previous centuries or try to sweep them under the carpet. But I expect there are some Christians who do just that. I think they don't know what to say so that, when questioned, they get defensive or even deny them as you say. And that's too bad. It doesn't help the situation at all. It only frustrates you and it makes them feel inadequate and nothing positive gets accomplished.

Good to hear it. Maybe you want to recreate an experiment of observation I manage some time ago. I entered a Catholic church (I was still a believer then) before the mass with permission of the priest (it was a sort of bet) and asked aloud if anybody of around a hundred people (consider a middle class community, some even with college standards) could mention the name and basic deeds of a pope previous to the XX century. St. Peter was out of question, for he never was a pope and his presence in Rome is not historic. Results? Not one, not a single answer, no idea, nothing... I was stunned, the priest was too. Almost two thousand years and not the slightest notion of the history of your own belief. I think you can carry this same experience in every Christian community around the globe with almost the same evidence, and few exceptions. Speaking about critical thinking before...

I don't deny that mistakes have been made in the name of God. I expect that, as much as they make you angry, they grieve God even more so.

Well, this is precisely the idea that shatters my concept of justice. I don't believe in God, and I don't care about an imaginary Hell where all this monsters will go after spending a whole life of lies, because they'll just go intact. As there is no more justice than human justice, at least the church and doctrine that motivated these monstrosities should pay.

But sometimes I see Christians who step up and do the extraordinary out of their love for God. I mentioned Amy Carmichael in one of my posts. She went to India and started an orphanage. When a family wanted a son but got a daughter instead, they would take her to the nearest Hindu temple to get rid of her. She would be raised as a temple prostitute. Amy would disguise herself as an Indian woman and go into the temples and steal the baby girls and take them to her orphanage to keep them safe and give them a better life. I think sometimes stories like that get lost and we focus on the bad instead of the good.

Beautiful stories, but meaningless. In the end they are all church propaganda, like Mother Theresa and her hellish attitude towards sick people that the media seldom talk about. What Christians doesn't get is the point that they have not invented charity. Charity, sacrifice and love for your fellow brother are not Christian qualities, but human, present in every culture and with many examples.

But atheists shouldn't deny that there have been some good things come out of Christianity, too.

I'm not convinced about this. When the bad surpasses the good so overwhelmingly, suspicion falls directly upon the doctrine.

[Overcomer]

quote="trencaclosca

Then again, though I see your point and trust your integrity, it seems disturbing to me the very nature of such "relationship", for a relationship requires two sides. An imaginary relationship, the kind you keep with an imaginary entity (please don't take offence, I'm just only presenting my point) I think is called schizophrenia in psychology, and doesn't look any healthy from scratch. An unhealthy relationship cannot affect positively the perception of reality or behaviour, if I'm allowed to say it frankly.

Well, that's just it. I haven't imagined it. I have a pretty good imagination, but not good enough to invent Jesus.

So what you're saying is that you think all Christians are crazy. That's millions of people you say have an imaginary relationship with God, a million people that are delusional in exactly the same way.

Bear in mind that no other religion out there offers a relationship with God. They are all striving to connect with God. In Christianity, God came to earth in the person of Christ to connect with us.

And the Gospels are a valid source of information with eye witness accounts. that, as I said elsewhere, British lawyers tried in a court of law with the conclusion that there is enough evidence to support the claims of Christ.

However, it's wrong to generalize and say that ALL Christians are zombies.

I agree, of course. But the frightening thing for me is that even the less infected Christians show one or another sympton of the sickness sooner or later.

But, unless you have met every Christian in the world, then you cannot make such a statement and suggest it is absolutely true. Perhaps the small circle of people calling themselves Christians that you know are not spiritually healthy. But you cannot assume on the basis of a few that ALL are not spiritually healthy.

Again, I take you back to the idea of the man who says he's an atheist molesting children. If I knew several hundred like that, I still could not honestly and correctly say that ALL atheists are like that. It's a fallacious argument.

In another thread, I commented on the fact that God asks us to love him not just with all our heart, but with ALL OUR MIND. That means that God values our ability to think and he wants us to think about him, about the Bible, about the world we live in, the way we relate to each other, etc.

I beg to differ about this. I never saw support for any of this affirmations in the scriptures, and rarely coming from priests or churches. Christianity as an institution never promoted independent critical thinking for it goes against its own interests.

As I said, I have belonged to churches that encourage questions and thinking. Therefore, just because you haven't seen any yourself that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

There are also all kinds of web ministries that encourage thought. You should check out Ravi Zacharias' Let My People Think. He grew up in India and therefore has had firsthand experience with Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam. He’s an absolutely brilliant man and one of the best speakers I have ever heard. You can listen to some of his stuff and read articles at this link: http://www.rzim.org/. His whole purpose his to make people think no matter whether they’re Christian or atheist or Hindu or whatever. And he does a good job at it!

Again, when you say that you have never come across a church that encourages independent critical thinking, again, I have to say that just because of your personal experience and the few Christians you've met, you cannot assume that ALL Christians are that way.

As soon as I read that paragraph above, it crossed my mind that your experience with a church was probably with a Roman Catholic one. Then I read the rest of what you wrote and that confirmed it.

Now I really understand where you're coming from. You're absolutely right that the Roman Catholic Church has a history of being a controlling church that always hides its mistakes and will never admit that they're wrong. It is also a church that, historically, has always frowned on parishioners doing any thinking on their own or questioning what they're taught. That is one of the criticisms of Reformers in the 16th century and one of reasons for the Protestant Reformation. Luther wanted people to think and not just accept what the church was teaching them.

As to what the Bible says about critical thinking, I point you to 1 Peter 3:15 which reads “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” This encourages the Christian not to believe blindly without knowing why, but to study, search, think, ponder and be able to articulate the reason for his or her belief in God. Someone once said that credulity is believing without evidence but faith is believing WITH evidence. Coming to Christ is a spiritual event which does not preclude the involvement of one's intelligence.

I think that if you were to get a book on the history of Christian theology, you will find that there was a heck of a lot of thinking going on by Christians down through the centuries. The intellectual history of the Christian church boasts a lot of great thinkers such as Augustine, Anathius, Anselm, Justin Martyr, Erasmus, Luther, Zwingli, etc.

However, you're right that the average person wasn't thinking a lot about spirituality or God. They just did pretty much as they were told in the early centuries, simply because there was no printing press and no easy access to books for the comon man and no universal education. That changed with the invention of the printing press and the Protestant Reformers.

If you're interested in reading about the intellectual history of the Christian Church, you might try The Story of Christian Theology by Roger Olson or Stephen Ozment's The Age of Reform 1250-1550: An intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformtion Europe.

Unfortunately, the RCC is also a denomination that has thrived on making people feel guilty and rarely will you find an RCC church that helps people connect with Jesus. So many of them offer a legalistic environment that is very unhealthy. I know a great many ex-RCC members. Some are like you. They hated the church so much that they threw God away when they threw the RCC away. Others, still wanting to connect with God, and refused to let their horrible experience with the RCC stand in their way. They connected with the Lord in other churches.

I am not saying that all Protestant denominations are terrific either. They aren't. Some of the most legalistic churches out there are Protestant. Nor am I saying that there are no good RCC churches. I expect they are. But many of them offer a poor environment in which to get to know Jesus and it sounds like that has been your experience. And, let's face it, every church consists of people and all people are flawed so no church is going to be perfect.

But your experience re: asking questions in the RCC church is a disappointing one. I know that there are plenty of Protestants who don't know about their background either, about Martin Luther and the Reformation, etc. So Roman Catholics aren't alone in that.

I love history. That's why I got a degree in it from a secular university and that's why I read history all the time. I just really enjoying seeing where we come from and why we are the way we are today. It also teaches a person a lot about the human race. So it's easy for me to learn about the Christian church in the past centuries. I enjoy it. People who don't like history would consider it torture, I'm sure!!!

I don't deny that mistakes have been made in the name of God. I expect that, as much as they make you angry, they grieve God even more so.

Well, this is precisely the idea that shatters my concept of justice. I don't believe in God, and I don't care about an imaginary Hell where all this monsters will go after spending a whole life of lies, because they'll just go intact. As there is no more justice than human justice, at least the church and doctrine that motivated these monstrosities should pay.

It's only an assumption on your part that there is no afterlife and no justice but that of men. The scary thing is that men disagree about what justice really is. There is no absolute truth but God's.

And the reality of it is that, while the RCC concentrate on staying out of hell, the Protestant denominations I have participated put the focus on getting to know Jesus and spending eternity with him in heaven. In other words, the RCC concentrate on the negative while the Protestants I know concentrate on the positive and that positive stems from the love and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Beautiful stories, but meaningless. In the end they are all church propaganda, like Mother Theresa and her hellish attitude towards sick people that the media seldom talk about. What Christians doesn't get is the point that they have not invented charity. Charity, sacrifice and love for your fellow brother are not Christian qualities, but human, present in every culture and with many examples.

I agree that Christians didn't invent charity. God did. Because man is made in God's image, they bear his imprint and one of the things that is part of them is that ability to do good and to reach out to others and support them.

You say that relating a story about a Christian who has done good in the world is meaningless. Why? Why is the fact that a Christian has done some good of less value than the fact that an atheist has done some good or a Buddhist has done some good? It's just your own prejudice that makes you say that. And prejudice is not a good thing. Again, you condemn all Christians because of the bad, false ones. That's not fair.


[

quote]But atheists shouldn't deny that there have been some good things come out of Christianity, too.

I'm not convinced about this. When the bad surpasses the good so overwhelmingly, suspicion falls directly upon the doctrine.

So what would it take to convince you? I can give you a long list of blessings from Christians such as William Wilberforce who was instrumental in ending slavery in England. He fought against it for years and finally won. Or John Wesley who spent a life-time riding all over England and also visiting the States to help the sick and the poor. He started the first free pharmacy in London just to help those who didn't have the finances to buy medications. He gave his money to the poor all the time. He said that if, when he died, he had more than 10 pounds to his name, then he would have failed God and humanity. Well, when he died, he had a little over seven pounds.

The above are not church progaganda as you suggest. They are historical facts. You can find them in any secular history book. You can't dismiss the good that some Christians have done as mere church propaganda. You tend to make generalizations that you cannot possibly prove because you don't have the information or the experience.

I could give you a list of such stories about Chrsitians. I think it's sad that you have had a steady diet of the bad and none of the good. Remember that a truly educated person looks at all sides of the picture, not just the side that agrees with the beliefs they already hold. Again, I learned that as a history student and also as a journalist who had to get all the information from all sides in order to write about any given topic.

And, as youngborean said, it's important to focus on who Christ was and what he did rather than on flawed Christians who aren't perfect and fail God and their fellow man all too often.

I'm enjoying this conversation but will have to abandon it for a few days as I am going away and will be off-line until the end of next week. This is a busy board and I expect this thread could be eight pages long by the time I get back, so I know I will have some catching up to do!!!!

[trencacloscas]

Well, that's just it. I haven't imagined it. I have a pretty good imagination, but not good enough to invent Jesus.

You don't need any imagination. On the contrary. All the elements are at hand in the Western civilization.

So what you're saying is that you think all Christians are crazy. That's millions of people you say have an imaginary relationship with God, a million people that are delusional in exactly the same way.

Yes. Not crazy, just delusional. The main reason for people beliefs is not real thinking, not real decision or choice. The overwhelming majority of Chinese gets into buddhism, Occidentals get into Christianism, Arabs get into Islam, and so on. It's all culture and the pressure of family and society.

And the Gospels are a valid source of information with eye witness accounts. that, as I said elsewhere, British lawyers tried in a court of law with the conclusion that there is enough evidence to support the claims of Christ.

Sorry, but this is completely unacceptable. No eyewitnesses proven, not even the connection between the Gospels and the names traditionally attached to them, all based in hearsay accounts, multiple and fatal contradictions in the texts, evidence of external forgery... Historically, all facts point in the opposite direction.

[trencacloscas]

But, unless you have met every Christian in the world, then you cannot make such a statement and suggest it is absolutely true. Perhaps the small circle of people calling themselves Christians that you know are not spiritually healthy. But you cannot assume on the basis of a few that ALL are not spiritually healthy.

As I admitted before, not every one, but there's good ground to say the majority.

Again, I take you back to the idea of the man who says he's an atheist molesting children. If I knew several hundred like that, I still could not honestly and correctly say that ALL atheists are like that. It's a fallacious argument.

Not really. In fact it's not the same at all. Nothing in the constitution of atheists point to the molestation of children. On the same track, notice that, in spite of the many latest accusation of pedophilia attached to Christian churches, I'm not affirming that it's a common behaviour of priests. I just don't think that the priesthood of Christ leads to such atrocity.

Again, when you say that you have never come across a church that encourages independent critical thinking, again, I have to say that just because of your personal experience and the few Christians you've met, you cannot assume that ALL Christians are that way.

Based on doctrine and history, apart from personal experience, it's possible to say at least that most are that way. Anyway, I'll check the link you provided, seems interesting. Please notice that Christianity does not have a tradition in independent critical thinking from the very beginning as buddhists do, for instance. "He who is not with me is against me", "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed", et al.

That is one of the criticisms of Reformers in the 16th century and one of reasons for the Protestant Reformation. Luther wanted people to think and not just accept what the church was teaching them.

Oh, yeah, Luther and the protestants. Hatred against the Jews, massacre of anabaptists and pageants, records of burning witches. Yep, probably a whole different story...

The intellectual history of the Christian church boasts a lot of great thinkers such as Augustine, Anathius, Anselm, Justin Martyr, Erasmus, Luther, Zwingli, etc.

Sorry if I'm not impressed. I rather like The Praise Of Folly and the disquisition about time in the Confessions, but I still consider that Christian authors didn't give much to human culture compared with the secular ones. That should have to do a lot with inner censorship but also probably with the constrained shell represented by Christianity itself. I'm truly amazed that you didn't even mention Dante Alighieri or San Juan De La Cruz; at least they are great religious poets. Er... no, erase the 'great' and put 'sublime'.

So it's easy for me to learn about the Christian church in the past centuries.

I appreciate your indications, and as a student interested in history I can also pass a recommendation or two. Try the "Criminal History Of Christendom" by Karlheinz Deschner, nine volumes and counting, for the guy only reached the tenth century so far.

It's only an assumption on your part that there is no afterlife and no justice but that of men.

Not at all. If you say there is actually an afterlife, the burden of proof is not on me. If you can prove there is an afterlife, then we can speculate about a divine justice. Until then...