Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Jesus, Conservative or liberal?


  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

Poll: Jesus, Political leanings (42 member(s) have cast votes)

Is Jesus Conservative or Liberal

  1. Conservative (3 votes [7.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.14%

  2. Liberal (39 votes [92.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 92.86%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#91 Jaimito

Jaimito

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,823 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:41 PM

jesus was a communist
  • 0
Posted Image

#92 aeromotacanucks

aeromotacanucks

    Real Person

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:54 PM

try imagine if Jesus was or not conservative or liberal is impossible. for his time he was extremely liberal, even revolutionary. however today Jesus would be very conservative for our standarts. Jesus also wasn´t Communist, Socialist, Capitalist or liberal. He was a guy thinking about the people without being in one or on the other side...

The modern society is soo engaged to find answers that everyone tries see where our questions go. Jesus wasn´t a white guy like many people think. Jesus lived in a place where predominantly of the population were arabic and black. would you stop believe in Jesus if He was black?

maybe instead try find answers and "who is right" we should learn the good things that Jesus transmitted to the people...
  • 0
Shup up and fly! you´re not payed to think, you´re payed to fly!

#93 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,207 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:19 PM

try imagine if Jesus was or not conservative or liberal is impossible. for his time he was extremely liberal, even revolutionary. however today Jesus would be very conservative for our standarts. Jesus also wasn´t Communist, Socialist, Capitalist or liberal. He was a guy thinking about the people without being in one or on the other side...

The modern society is soo engaged to find answers that everyone tries see where our questions go. Jesus wasn´t a white guy like many people think. Jesus lived in a place where predominantly of the population were arabic and black. would you stop believe in Jesus if He was black?

maybe instead try find answers and "who is right" we should learn the good things that Jesus transmitted to the people...


Right. Why is Jesus always depicted as a white person? Because that's the Western worlds version of him? And while we're on that topic, how come God is always depicted as a 'he'? Does it state this in the bible, because I haven't actually ever looked at the book aside from the ones given in hotel rooms. I mean, man is supposedly made in his image, and man meaning humanity, no? Maybe God is a transsexual. How do you account for the women otherwise? And is God 47 different races and skin pigments? How do you account for all these different races if there is only one God which we're created after? Also, if we're made in his image, why are we not invisible? Why are we not supernatural and not able to create our own creations and universes and planets, and nature, and laws which these creations have to abide by? Created in his image? Hardly. It's like he's picking and choosing. Kind of like how which parts of the bible most Christians choose to follow and which to ignore.
  • 0
Posted Image

#94 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,787 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:23 PM

Right. Why is Jesus always depicted as a white person? Because that's the Western worlds version of him? And while we're on that topic, how come God is always depicted as a 'he'? Does it state this in the bible, because I haven't actually ever looked at the book aside from the ones given in hotel rooms. I mean, man is supposedly made in his image, and man meaning humanity, no? Maybe God is a transsexual. How do you account for the women otherwise? And is God 47 different races and skin pigments? How do you account for all these different races if there is only one God which we're created after? Also, if we're made in his image, why are we not invisible? Why are we not supernatural and not able to create our own creations and universes and planets, and nature, and laws which these creations have to abide by? Created in his image? Hardly. It's like he's picking and choosing. Kind of like how which parts of the bible most Christians choose to follow and which to ignore.


Sounds like you could create several more threads from these questions you pose?? .. :rolleyes:
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#95 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,207 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:32 PM

Sounds like you could create several more threads from these questions you pose?? .. :rolleyes:


I most certainly could ;)
  • 1
Posted Image

#96 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:48 PM

So here we go. Many Conservatives believe they are doing Gods work. Most liberals think that If there was a God there is no way he is a Conservative. The question there arises if he isn't a Conservative then is he Liberal. Or Is he conservative as the Conservatives believe today?


The bible is pretty clear that Jesus is protector of the people who can not do for themselves, The poor the disabled the oppressed. He opposed money as was shown when he flips the money changers tables in Jerusalem. Does this on the other hand promote militancy as long as it righteous?


In my mind Jesus is as Liberal as they come. Jesus would be the ultimate Liberal in my mind. Willing to battle for the poor and the needy the right man to battle the rich and the oppressors.


Jesus was famous for REFUSING to be political in any way shape or form. In fact, they tried to trick him into being anti government.

Pharisees: Should we pay Roman taxes or not?

Jesus: Show me a coin

Pharisees: here is a coin

Jesus: Whose face is on the coin?

Pharisees : Its Caesar's

Jesus: Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

There is definitely a division between God and Government.

As for dogma, there is a two different schools of thought. Should people give to charity, or should the government redistribute peoples money to help the poor.

My understanding is Jesus would vote for BOTH .
  • 0
Posted Image

#97 McMillan

McMillan

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,978 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 07

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:09 PM

:bored:


Jesus never existed, so what is the point of this?

Might as well list all the fictional gods and get a huge poll going.


Must feel great to be plainly ignorant. Regardless if you believe Jesus to be the son of God and died on this earth for our sons that doesn't change the fact that he existed. This isn't exactly a debate this is stating fact.

That being said he would be a liberal and ashamed of what people do in the name of God and missing the whole purpose of the words he spoke on God and life.
  • 0

Posted Image

Thanks VC for the sig!

Demo was great, but I'm a two-way guy.


#98 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,214 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:05 PM

There is no doubt that science and reason is powerful. But it is limited. Pure scientific method as we know it today cannot possibly analyze religion itself, only religious artifacts, historic claims and such. The insignificant aspects of religion.

Moreso, while scientists have largely denied the existence of Yahweh, they don't deny that religion is a significant guiding force behind their motives. The sense of right and wrong, morality etc. If science were left alone, without these inbred principles, you'd find it to be very cold and dark. For starters, science would have us kill off the weak and the sick because of natural selection, have us not only deny God, but also restrict all creative and imaginitive thought, because it's utter nonsense, etc. In fact pure, unguided, cold science would outright rob us of our humanity.

While you might not agree with what is happening with all the destruction caused by greed and righteousness in the name of Yahweh, you cannot dismiss religion, in the sense of our common guiding principles on morality, as being not worthy of belief.

The scientific proof of Yahweh is inconsequential when you put religion in this scope.

Believing in something makes it no more true than just stating something. Granted, preachers have been good at selling their product, but believing something due to someone else believing it is devoid of logic, and the inability to falsify any non-tangible, spiritual "thing" aids in the ability to dismiss it on the the fact that beliefs and statements by themselves are no more closer to the truth than hearing rumours on the internetz. Proof and usefulness is the reason science flourished when it could no longer be repressed by the superstitious, and that's where the concept of "doesn't require proof".. "doesn't fly", when this fiction is used as a tool against others.


  • 0
Posted Image

#99 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,365 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:40 PM

The sense of right and wrong, morality etc. If science were left alone, without these inbred principles, you'd find it to be very cold and dark. For starters, science would have us kill off the weak and the sick because of natural selection, have us not only deny God, but also restrict all creative and imaginitive thought, because it's utter nonsense, etc. In fact pure, unguided, cold science would outright rob us of our humanity.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard this awful assumption that non-religiousness is associated with not only cold-heartedness but killing the weak merely because of the principles of evolution.

This is purely assumption, and a bad assumption at that, especially when science, not "Yahweh", is used to further medicine and has been the guiding force behind keeping people healthy and living longer. I could not imagine a more baseless assumption.

While you might not agree with what is happening with all the destruction caused by greed and righteousness in the name of Yahweh, you cannot dismiss religion, in the sense of our common guiding principles on morality, as being not worthy of belief.

The scientific proof of Yahweh is inconsequential when you put religion in this scope.

It's inconsequential because it has no bearing on reality, therefore has no place as a moral compass in the real world. The usage of religions that surround the belief of the existence of certain creators justify some of the worst possible behaviours mankind has known. Due to the complete lack of evidence of a deity, and extensive evidence of the heinous acts committed in the name of this fiction, logically one can deduce it's worthlessness once stepping outside the fantasy world of superstition and into the real one.

Edited by zaibatsu, 12 November 2012 - 09:42 PM.

  • 2

#100 D.Doughty

D.Doughty

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,013 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:04 PM

Right. Why is Jesus always depicted as a white person? Because that's the Western worlds version of him? And while we're on that topic, how come God is always depicted as a 'he'? Does it state this in the bible, because I haven't actually ever looked at the book aside from the ones given in hotel rooms. I mean, man is supposedly made in his image, and man meaning humanity, no? Maybe God is a transsexual. How do you account for the women otherwise? And is God 47 different races and skin pigments? How do you account for all these different races if there is only one God which we're created after? Also, if we're made in his image, why are we not invisible? Why are we not supernatural and not able to create our own creations and universes and planets, and nature, and laws which these creations have to abide by? Created in his image? Hardly. It's like he's picking and choosing. Kind of like how which parts of the bible most Christians choose to follow and which to ignore.



Because if God was a women, we'd all be sandwiches
  • 0

#101 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,477 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:50 AM

I wasn't talking about difficulty, I was talking about being a better person.

But since you went down that rabbit hole, which is more difficult, believing in God or not?


Depends on time and place.
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#102 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,214 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:36 AM

I can't tell you how many times I've heard this awful assumption that non-religiousness is associated with not only cold-heartedness but killing the weak merely because of the principles of evolution.

This is purely assumption, and a bad assumption at that, especially when science, not "Yahweh", is used to further medicine and has been the guiding force behind keeping people healthy and living longer. I could not imagine a more baseless assumption.


It's inconsequential because it has no bearing on reality, therefore has no place as a moral compass in the real world. The usage of religions that surround the belief of the existence of certain creators justify some of the worst possible behaviours mankind has known. Due to the complete lack of evidence of a deity, and extensive evidence of the heinous acts committed in the name of this fiction, logically one can deduce it's worthlessness once stepping outside the fantasy world of superstition and into the real one.

The assumption is accurate because scientists worldwide use a moral compass that is based on the principles already outlined by the world's religions. Take away that compass and yes, you may see a darker world of science. You may not, but who's to say? This argument is part of the religion vs. science stalemate.


I know what you're saying in that Yahweh's existence has no bearing on reality, but at the same time the majority of the world's population believes in his existence. If reality is simply what one believes to be real, then Yahweh's existence has a definite bearing on reality, at least with the majority of the world's population. That would be why these 'heinous acts' are being committed.

Anyway, to deny that religion has no place as a moral compass is simply wrong. Great scientific minds such as Einstein have already admitted that religion's place as science's compass is important. They just don't like the other, abused aspects of religion, such as righteousness. The idea of a 'chosen people' is idiotic, and that deserves heavy criticism from the scientific world, not so much the broader scope of religion, which is a peaceful moral compass. That's what i was getting at when i said Yahweh existing or not existing is unimportant, as the peaceful moral compass transcends what Yahweh has to say or command. All Yahweh ever said was things we already know.

Kindof leads to the whole idea of Yahweh being a fabrication of our mind, but that's another argument. The need to personify our moral compass was apparently great back then. At the time we needed an all-seeing joe kickass party pooper that roasted you if you ever did wrong. Not exactly appealing, but needed at the time. Then at the time of Jesus some people thought we needed an ultra-forgiving approach to life. You can see the appeal of that, definitely. Both characters are merely personifying what we already know, as religiousness and spirituality, as well as our inner moral compass, transcends both of them. It's too bad so many people disregard their inner moral compass.
  • 0
Posted Image

#103 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,973 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 13 November 2012 - 12:49 PM

Uhmm.... Jesus actually created the Marijuana party I don't know why you guys are choosing to overlook that.
  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

Dr. Rand Paul 2016!


#104 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,787 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:01 PM

Well, according to reliable sources, (Kris Kristofferson):

Jesus was a Capricorn, he ate organic foods.
He believed in love and peace and never wore no shoes.
Long hair, beard and sandals and a funky bunch of friends.
Reckon they'd just nail him up if He come down again.

'Cos everybody's got to have somebody to look down on.
Who they can feel better than at anytime they please.
Someone doin' somethin' dirty, decent folks can frown on.
If you can't find nobody else, then help yourself to me.

Get back, John!

Egg Head's cousin Red Neck's cussin' hippies for their hair.
Others laugh at straights who laugh at freaks who laugh at squares.
Some folks hate the whites who hate the blacks who hate the clan.
Most of us hate anything that we don't understand.

'Cos everybody's got to have somebody to look down on.
Who they can feel better than at anytime they please.
Someone doin' somethin' dirty, decent folks can frown on.
If you can't find nobody else, then help yourself to me.

Help yourself, brother.
Help yourself, Gentlemen.
Help yourself Reverend


R.I.P. (Resurrect in Peace)

Edited by Tearloch7, 13 November 2012 - 01:01 PM.

  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#105 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:16 PM

The assumption is accurate because scientists worldwide use a moral compass that is based on the principles already outlined by the world's religions. Take away that compass and yes, you may see a darker world of science. You may not, but who's to say? This argument is part of the religion vs. science stalemate.


I know what you're saying in that Yahweh's existence has no bearing on reality, but at the same time the majority of the world's population believes in his existence. If reality is simply what one believes to be real, then Yahweh's existence has a definite bearing on reality, at least with the majority of the world's population. That would be why these 'heinous acts' are being committed.

Anyway, to deny that religion has no place as a moral compass is simply wrong. Great scientific minds such as Einstein have already admitted that religion's place as science's compass is important. They just don't like the other, abused aspects of religion, such as righteousness. The idea of a 'chosen people' is idiotic, and that deserves heavy criticism from the scientific world, not so much the broader scope of religion, which is a peaceful moral compass. That's what i was getting at when i said Yahweh existing or not existing is unimportant, as the peaceful moral compass transcends what Yahweh has to say or command. All Yahweh ever said was things we already know.

Kindof leads to the whole idea of Yahweh being a fabrication of our mind, but that's another argument. The need to personify our moral compass was apparently great back then. At the time we needed an all-seeing joe kickass party pooper that roasted you if you ever did wrong. Not exactly appealing, but needed at the time. Then at the time of Jesus some people thought we needed an ultra-forgiving approach to life. You can see the appeal of that, definitely. Both characters are merely personifying what we already know, as religiousness and spirituality, as well as our inner moral compass, transcends both of them. It's too bad so many people disregard their inner moral compass.


WHAT MORAL COMPASS

A Large dated compilation of Christian Crimes since its advent:

As soon as Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire by imperial edict (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.

Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.

Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.

Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]

Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]

Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."

In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.

In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]

The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
[DO19-25]

Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]

Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]

15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Number of victims unknown. [DO30]

16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99, 225]

First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]

Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]

9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then Turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]

Until January 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]

After 6/3/98 Antiochia (then Turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women and children) killed.
[WW32-35]
Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]

Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]

Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (Jewish, Muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude."

The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]

Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of Palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]

Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]

Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]

Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224]

Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]

Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]

Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
The Albigensians (Cathars) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept Roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (the greatest single mass murderer prior to the Nazi era) in 1209. Bezi�rs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Number of victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic
neighbors and friends) estimated between 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]

Subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]

After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324.
[WW183]

Estimated one million victims (Cathar heresy alone), [WW183]

Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).

Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada, a former Dominican friar, allegedly was responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]

John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]

Michael Sattler, leader of a baptist community, was burned at the stake in Rottenburg, Germany, May 20, 1527. Several days later his wife and other follwers were also executed. [KM]

University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]


Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.

Thomas Aikenhead, a twenty-year-old scottish student of Edinburgh University, was hanged for atheism and blasphemy.

From the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several thousand.

In the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged.
[WV]

15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]

1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]

1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. [DO31]
Between 5000 and 6000 Protestants were drowned by Spanish Catholic Troops, "a disaster the burghers of Emden first realized when several thousand broad-brimmed Dutch hats floated by." [SH216]

1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]

17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'." [SH191]

17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]

17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]

Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians.Number of Jews slain unknown.

In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]

694 17. Council of Toledo: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]

1010 The Bishop of Limoges (France) had the cities' Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]

1096 First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]

1147 Second Crusade: Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]

1189/90 Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked. [DO40]

1235, Fulda/Germany: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]

1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]

1290 Bohemia (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]

1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]

1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand) burned. [DO41]

1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]

1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]

1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all Jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear.

1492 In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way: 6/30/1492.
[MM470-476]

1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain.
[DO43]

Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.

Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion." [SH200]
While Columbus described the Indians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it." [SH204-205]

On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:

"I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him." [SH66]


Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ." [SH235]

In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess." [SH109,238]

On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]

The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and Spanish raids.
As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous." [SH69]

The Indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell." [SH70]

What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
"The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
Or, on another occasion:
"The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs." [SH83]

The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [SH72-73] "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated." [SH75]

"And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitl�n [Mexico city] was next." [SH75]

Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other Spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).

"When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead."
[SH95]

Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: "Their Warres are farre less bloudy...", so that there usually was "no great slawter of nether side". Indeed, "they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [SH111]

In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown - "being idell ... did runne away unto the Indyans," - to live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).
"Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: 'Some he apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe'." [SH105] Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow Englishmen: "This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no
choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia" methods were different: "when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community" down. [SH105]

On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the "Peqout War." The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England.

When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge they attacked.
Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: "And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies": men, women, children. [SH113-114]

So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance". [SH111].

Because of his readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow:
"Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them..." (Deut 20)

Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his readers that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents". [SH114]

Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists' own words: "blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them." (This was inspired by Spanish methods of the time)
In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. [SH107-119]

The surviving handful of Indians "were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for 'a share' of the captives, specifically 'a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good'." [SH115]

Other tribes were to follow the same path.

Comment the Christian exterminators: "God's Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!"
"Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!" [TA]

Like today, lying was morally acceptable to Christians then. "Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians 'grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne'." [SH106]

In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. [SH107]

In a single massacre in "King Philip's War" of 1675 and 1676 some "600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a 'barbeque'." [SH115]

To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive - a destruction rate of 98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 - 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about
30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 - 95% destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive - 81% destroyed. [SH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.

All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.

A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.

In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.

Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'." [SH241]

Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore"Posted Image had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [SH131]

By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'."
  • 2

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#106 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,214 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:29 PM

Your prewritten wall of text indicates nothing other than you didn't read my non-prewritten post.

Take your time, captain confusion.
  • 0
Posted Image

#107 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:46 PM

Your prewritten wall of text indicates nothing other than you didn't read my non-prewritten post.

Take your time, captain confusion.


Why do you feel the need to be abusive ?

Quote
The assumption is accurate because scientists worldwide use a moral compass that is based on the principles already outlined by the world's religions

Anyway, to deny that religion has no place as a moral compass is simply wrong

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 13 November 2012 - 03:27 PM.

  • 2

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#108 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,214 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:40 PM

That wasn't all that abusive, but pre-written walls of text are just an ultra-annoying way to appear smarter than what the thread requires. And in this case the wall of text was misused.

You'll find that people in general, not just Christians, have committed atrocities over the centuries. This is partly due to them not listening to their inner moral compass, which transcends Yahweh and all religions.

But then again, how can there be good without evil?
  • 0
Posted Image

#109 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:33 AM

That wasn't all that abusive, but pre-written walls of text are just an ultra-annoying way to appear smarter than what the thread requires. And in this case the wall of text was misused.

You'll find that people in general, not just Christians, have committed atrocities over the centuries. This is partly due to them not listening to their inner moral compass, which transcends Yahweh and all religions.

But then again, how can there be good without evil?


You stated as i have quoted that ,
The assumption is accurate because scientists worldwide use a moral compass that is based on the principles already outlined by the world's religions
and

Anyway, to deny that religion has no place as a moral compass is simply wrong


That wall of text was a list of crimes against humanity that christians have commited in the name of their god .

I think after the birth of their religion , there must have been a pole change , or their moral compass just stopped working .

You were statements were about religion , not ,"people in general".

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 14 November 2012 - 12:34 AM.

  • 3

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#110 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,214 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 14 November 2012 - 09:25 AM

Ugh, that's like saying people don't kill people, guns do.

The principles are still there. Obviously they weren't carried out by your wall of text personnel.


What needs to happen is that religion, or religiousness needs to be defined in a more broader sense. It transcends the church, for starters. You're talking on an individual scale and i'm talking in a universal scale.

btw. You don't have to come up with a wall of text to outline atrocities done by a church. This is already known, and it is not denied. If we would carry out the wall of text to include all non-church vs. church atrocities in human history, then i'm afraid there is not enough room on the internet for the wall of text needed. Let's just agree that yes, humans like committing atrocities. The question is why. The answer can be complex... or simple.
  • 0
Posted Image

#111 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,477 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 14 November 2012 - 09:34 AM

Your prewritten wall of text indicates nothing other than you didn't read my non-prewritten post.

Take your time, captain confusion.

Actually he makes a really good point about your non-prewritten post it's just not the point you may have been fishing for.

You're making a statement using a foundation; he took that foundation apart and showed you it's made of ****.
  • 4
Posted Image
Posted Image

#112 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,477 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 14 November 2012 - 09:39 AM

Ugh, that's like saying people don't kill people, guns do.

No...no it is not.

The principles are still there. Obviously they weren't carried out by your wall of text personnel.

You're really focused on this wall huh?

What needs to happen is that religion, or religiousness needs to be defined in a more broader sense. It transcends the church, for starters. You're talking on an individual scale and i'm talking in a universal scale.

Religion is a people of similar interests/opinions/beliefs in a group...nothing more, nothing less essentially. The only thing that matters is individuals.

btw. You don't have to come up with a wall of text to outline atrocities done by a church. This is already known, and it is not denied. If we would carry out the wall of text to include all non-church vs. church atrocities in human history, then i'm afraid there is not enough room on the internet for the wall of text needed. Let's just agree that yes, humans like committing atrocities. The question is why. The answer can be complex... or simple.

Would you also assert that historically humans have liked (interesting word choice) committing atrocities in the name of a higher power? I mean you're so close to the point I have to think you're avoiding it on purpose. Allow me to help...your opinion about the moral compass is seriously flawed. Not that a moral compass is not a good thing but there is a flaw in the basis of what you are saying...the moral compass never really existed in the sense you are speaking about it. If you're making any implication that taking out religions moral compass science would have bred this terrible society you need to show that religion actually has or has developed a moral compass.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 14 November 2012 - 09:53 AM.

  • 3
Posted Image
Posted Image

#113 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,214 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:12 AM

Oh snap, you're getting into this? Sht must be really boring now.

Bring hockey back!!!
  • 0
Posted Image

#114 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,214 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:15 AM

Here's a sign:

Posted Image

lol
  • 0
Posted Image

#115 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,214 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 14 November 2012 - 11:03 AM

Albert Einstein was a genius. Here's some interesting thoughts by him on this topic:

Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion."

As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as "methodical thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual experiences." Science, in the immediate, produces knowledge and, indirectly, means of action. It leads to methodical action if definite goals are set up in advance. For the function of setting up goals and passing statements of value transcends its domain. While it is true that science, to the extent of its grasp of causative connections, may reach important conclusions as to the compatibility and incompatibility of goals and evaluations, the independent and fundamental definitions regarding goals and values remain beyond science's reach.

As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that it deals with goals and evaluations and, in general, with the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the human species. Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship. These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of the accepted ideals.

It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science. Thus, it is of vital importance for the preservation of true religion that such conflicts be avoided when they arise from subjects which, in fact, are not really essential for the pursuance of the religious aims.

...

The interpretation of religion, as here advanced, implies a dependence of science on the religious attitude, a relation which, in our predominantly materialistic age, is only too easily overlooked. While it is true that scientific results are entirely independent from religious or moral considerations, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for knowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one and if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's Amor Dei Intellectualis, they wouid hardly have been capable of that untiring devotion which alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - Albert Einstein


What's often misunderstood about 'religion' is that it's definition isn't set in stone. What we tend to forget, because most of us are focusing on the argument between science and the mythical or symbolic content of religious dogma, that Einstein's 'true religion' is what should be referred to. It is this definition of religion that applies when saying that science has relied on an inner moral compass, set by our universal religious attitudes, (ie. our universal sense of right and wrong) when making great discoveries or decisions. This 'true religion' transcends Yahweh, any church and relies on, yes, individuals. Afterall, what if we are all our own universes, so to speak? (different discussion)


It is I who took the dark turn, of course, in saying that science without this moral compass would tend towards the cold ideals of killing the weak and the sick because of implemented natural selection. This is a fiction created by me to make my own twisted point for the purposes of making you think, 'What exactly is preventing a science-only world from turning dark and twisted?' A lot of science fiction relates to that possibility, actually. Anyway, it doesn't really matter, as i was just stating my own opinion there. But i suppose it's a possibility.
  • 0
Posted Image

#116 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,477 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 14 November 2012 - 11:07 AM

I agree it's a possibility and I also realize you were putting it out as a possibility but my point was that using the "moral compass" of religion as the foundation of that possibility is kind of weak.
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#117 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,784 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:51 PM

jesus was a communist

Posted Image

On a side note, it's hilarious how many pictures of Obama pop up when you search for "Communist Jesus" :lol:
  • 0
Posted Image

#118 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,827 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 14 November 2012 - 01:59 PM

I agree it's a possibility and I also realize you were putting it out as a possibility but my point was that using the "moral compass" of religion as the foundation of that possibility is kind of weak.


Nevermind that humanity's "moral compass" was developed as part of a survival strategy (cooperation of a group benefits the individual) and had zilch to do with religion.

Also as has been pointed out, there's a crap-ton of evidence that religious groups tend to actually do things COUNTER to any moral compass on a fairly regular basis.

Now that doesn't deny the possibility of science also doing things counter to a moral compass but it CERTAINLY IMO, does nothing to support the religious/moral compass argument. Ie: it's horse poopy
  • 1
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#119 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,505 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 14 November 2012 - 02:10 PM

Albert Einstein was a genius. Here's some interesting thoughts by him on this topic:


He was a smart guy, but he was not renowned for his religious views. This looks to me like a very bizarre appeal to authority.
  • 1

#120 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,214 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 14 November 2012 - 02:38 PM

Not really, when he's talking about the relationship between religion and science. Have you read the whole article that i linked to? It's quite interesting.
  • 0
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.