Scientology

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Yes indeed, I answered as fully as possible some demands from atheists who appeared to be very anxious to hear a Christian state what they actually believed about individuals going to hell.

I'm not quite sure what that has to do with mocking anyone or abusing anyone.

Well I suppose it depends on how one defines "mocking" and "abusing"

For example, I would imagine that to you the idea of a Christian explaining the "good word" to a Muslim or Hindu, explaining that they are sinful by their nature, that their religion is ultimately a deception by Satan and that unless they give themselves to Jesus Christ they will find themselves in hell, is not considered mocking or abusing them or their own faith or beliefs, it is simply stating a fact.

On the other hand, an atheist explaining to a Christian (or Muslim or Hindu) that their god isn't actually talking to them because he doesn't actually exist, and what ever reason they have convinced themselves that he does exist that is at the end of the day a delusion caused by a number of evolutionary systems misfiring, that is mocking and abusing them and their faith?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Christians just tell you about a place that will do all that and much worse to you if you do not become a Christian.
Ah - the irony.

Now this raises a point that I always find fascinating. Christians, of various stripes, get roundly abused for telling others what they believe to be the truth about hell. For example, a recent Irish newspaper editorial blasted the Pope as "severely lacking in compassion" because he restated his belief in hell. Yet, if we leave aside the actual matter of whether hell exists or not, surely it would be a lack of compassion to keep quiet about a danger that you sincerely believe to be imminent?

Let's use the movie "Jaws" as an example. If you really believed, as Sheriff Brody did, that a Great White Shark was lurking in the waters ready to devour bathers, then what is the compassionate course of action to take? If you keep silent, believing that by so doing you will cause someone to be eaten, then that would certainly demonstrate a lack of compassion.

So, if Christians are correct about the existence of hell, then they are being very responsible and loving in warning others about that fact. If they are wrong, then add them to the long list of people who issued sincere, but ultimately false, warnings. I can certainly see that would be annoying, but no more so than a weather forecaster predicting a hurricane that fails to materialise. To accuse anyone of lacking compassion, or of being hateful and judgmental, would only make sense if, as with the nutjobs like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, they were actually gloating and rejoicing over the idea of people going to hell.

It would require a feat of breathtakingly incredible logical acrobatics and sophistry to try to make the Christian belief in hell somehow comparable to any religionist who demands conversion at the point of a sword.

humanji

eth0_ wrote:

There's a rumour (which sounds pretty believable) that these celebrities are in fact _paid to endose a product_ i.e. scientology.

Well there's also the rumours that they are being blackmailed into staying in the cult. One example (and I've no idea if it's true, so it probably isn't), is about John Travolta joining because his wife was one, and when he tried to leave, rumours of him being gay appeared everywhere. Then he decided to stay and the rumours suddenly stopped. He did want to leave and changed his mind, and there were rumours about him being gay, but as for the link between the two? Well that's what makes rumours fun

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

It would require a feat of breathtakingly incredible logical acrobatics and sophistry to try to make the Christian belief in hell somehow comparable to any religionist who demands conversion at the point of a sword.

That is kind of ignoring the issue of why the concept of "hell" exists in the religion in the first place.

The concept of hell exists to scare people into joining the religion and also to reassure the people in the religion that there is a reason for being there. There must be a down side to not joining the religion. To believe that you are saved there must equally be people who are not saved, and something bad has to happen to them, otherwise what is the point of going to the trouble of joining the religion.

I think it is more this idea, the idea that there are people out there continuing to use this scare tactic, that unnerves people in this day and age when it comes to concepts like hell.

Of course you are right, people like the Pope might genuinely believe this stuff. Which is why people like myself attack the religion itself as well as people who use the religion to manipulate people.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

So, if Christians are correct about the existence of hell, then they are being very responsible and loving in warning others about that fact. If they are wrong, then add them to the long list of people who issued sincere, but ultimately false, warnings. I can certainly see that would be annoying, but no more so than a weather forecaster predicting a hurricane that fails to materialise.

Not the same thing at all - I might spend a day or two worrying unnecessarily about a hurricane which is anticipated on some reasonable if erroneous grounds, but you want me to spend my entire life in fear of - and construct my lifestyle/beliefs around the possibility of - something for which you have no proof, no objective evidence, not even a reasonably cogent logical argument, simply because it might be true. In fact, the only things you have to support this possibility are a selectively edited old book and your opinion.

What if I told you that you should spend your life in fear of being abducted by aliens? It's possible - but would you think it reasonable for me to ask you to dedicate your entire lifestyle to avoiding this remote possibility, based entirely on my subjective opinion with no supporting evidence?

How many other remotely unlikely possibilities would you suggest I spend my life going to extreme lengths to avoid?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Well I suppose it depends on how one defines "mocking" and "abusing"

For example, I would imagine that to you the idea of a Christian explaining the "good word" to a Muslim or Hindu, explaining that they are sinful by their nature, that their religion is ultimately a deception by Satan and that unless they give themselves to Jesus Christ they will find themselves in hell, is not considered mocking or abusing them or their own faith or beliefs, it is simply stating a fact.

On the other hand, an atheist explaining to a Christian (or Muslim or Hindu) that their god isn't actually talking to them because he doesn't actually exist, and what ever reason they have convinced themselves that he does exist that is at the end of the day a delusion caused by a number of evolutionary systems misfiring, that is mocking and abusing them and their faith?

I would have no problem with a Muslim explaining the Koran to me, telling me that I am an apostate, and that I am going to hell because I reject Mohammed as a prophet. I have a number of Muslim friends who have had such conversations with me and neither of us felt the other was being mocking or abusive - but we did agree to disagree.

Similarly I have no problem with an atheist who is capable of engaging in rational conversation and making the points you mention. I would not see that as mocking or abusive at all. If they began making silly claims about Christianity being a virus that is really a form of child abuse, then that would be a different matter.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

If they began making silly claims about Christianity being a virus that is really a form of child abuse, then that would be a different matter.

Why are those "silly" claims? You don't consider indoctrinating children, too young to understand what they are being told, into a religion or cult a bad thing?

Is that not just because you would consider that a bad thing to do yet you don't want to think that your own religion would do that since you are convinced your religion is a good thing?

5uspect

PDN wrote:

Let's use the movie "Jaws" as an example. If you really believed, as Sheriff Brody did, that a Great White Shark was lurking in the waters ready to devour bathers, then what is the compassionate course of action to take? If you keep silent, believing that by so doing you will cause someone to be eaten, then that would certainly demonstrate a lack of compassion.

You see now I see the church as being more like the Mayor and the tourist industry. The Sheriff has some evidence that there was something out there. The dead orca, the dead girl etc. He enlists the help of a marine biologist to prove the existence of the shark, and only when the evidence is so overwhelming resulting is terrible consequences is the "Church" forced to take action.

Now the town needs tourism to survive, just like a church needs believers to survive. Evidence that there is a shark or some danger is like evidence that evolution is a valid theory for example or any piece of science that any particular religion says is "just a theory". People are not going want to holiday/worship where the evidence shows thats its not safe to do so or in the case of the church is just pointless.

Christians believe in Hell, they have no evidence for this. It is what they inherited through the generations, just like prosperous summers in JAWS.
By sticking to their beliefs, and not acknowledging that they are simply that, just beliefs, they put people at risk into thinking that they won't end up eaten by the very real shark, or ruining the lives of millions by, say, not encouraging safe sex.

now there's a turn around!

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

Not the same thing at all - I might spend a day or two worrying unnecessarily about a hurricane which is anticipated on some reasonable if erroneous grounds, but you want me to spend my entire life in fear of - and construct my lifestyle/beliefs around the possibility of - something for which you have no proof, no objective evidence, not even a reasonably cogent logical argument, simply because it might be true. In fact, the only things you have to support this possibility are a selectively edited old book and your opinion.

What if I told you that you should spend your life in fear of being abducted by aliens? It's possible - but would you think it reasonable for me to ask you to dedicate your entire lifestyle to avoiding this remote possibility, based entirely on my subjective opinion with no supporting evidence?

How many other remotely unlikely possibilities would you suggest I spend my life going to extreme lengths to avoid?

So you don't believe them when they talk about hell. That's fine.

You think the idea of hell is without any objective support. That's fine.

You think that living life as a Christian is going to extreme lengths. That's fine.

You have a perfect right to hold those beliefs. I have a perfect right to hold opposing beliefs. But none of that makes it logical for anyone to accuse me of lacking compassion because I like to talk about my beliefs.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Now this raises a point that I always find fascinating. Christians, of various stripes, get roundly abused for telling others what they believe to be the truth about hell. For example, a recent Irish newspaper editorial blasted the Pope as "severely lacking in compassion" because he restated his belief in hell. Yet, if we leave aside the actual matter of whether hell exists or not, surely it would be a lack of compassion to keep quiet about a danger that you sincerely believe to be imminent?

Let's use the movie "Jaws" as an example. If you really believed, as Sheriff Brody did, that a Great White Shark was lurking in the waters ready to devour bathers, then what is the compassionate course of action to take? If you keep silent, believing that by so doing you will cause someone to be eaten, then that would certainly demonstrate a lack of compassion.

So, if Christians are correct about the existence of hell, then they are being very responsible and loving in warning others about that fact. If they are wrong, then add them to the long list of people who issued sincere, but ultimately false, warnings. I can certainly see that would be annoying, but no more so than a weather forecaster predicting a hurricane that fails to materialise. To accuse anyone of lacking compassion, or of being hateful and judgmental, would only make sense if, as with the nutjobs like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, they were actually gloating and rejoicing over the idea of people going to hell.

It would require a feat of breathtakingly incredible logical acrobatics and sophistry to try to make the Christian belief in hell somehow comparable to any religionist who demands conversion at the point of a sword.

Argument by analogy once again - not valid PDN, and a very good example of sophistry.

Your analogies are just ridiculous, you are comparing a mass movement to an 80s movie or something with no scientific evidence (Hell) to something with a lot of scientific evidence, the weather forcast.

I don't think people with any logical ability would fall for those arguments.

Why do you continue to use such a bad arguing technique?

What does bother me, is the way Christians use Hell to scare other people who may not be in a position to hear a counter argument. Some of these people are not well educated or just quite young for example.

There is no logical acrobats required to see the hypocriscy of christianity here.
Your arguments, of warning people and saving people and hell talk are only valid if Christianity is right. Scientologies arguments are valid if they are right. Extreme Islamic arguments are valid if they are right. Problem is, none of you have any evidence to support your claims and furthermore you can't all be right.

You are all cults, or at best, all of you are cults minus the one that is right.

No logical acrobatics required.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

But none of that makes it logical for anyone to accuse me of lacking compassion because I like to talk about my beliefs.

Eh

You think it an act of compassion to fill people with fear of something for which you can provide no supporting evidence whatsoever?

5uspect

PDN wrote:

If they began making silly claims about Christianity being a virus that is really a form of child abuse, then that would be a different matter.

This language may seem extreme but they are far from silly.
The spread of a religion may be modeled just like that of a virus.
Such ideas are used to describe the spread of ideas all the time. Have you ever heard of viral marketing?

Also to refer to the religious indoctrination of children as child abuse is often seen as extreme when applied to religion (Jesus camp not included) but what if you indoctrinated your kids into a political party, or even professional sports etc.
Many might be concerned that children being groomed to be the next Venus sisters is a form of abuse.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

But none of that makes it logical for anyone to accuse me of lacking compassion because I like to talk about my beliefs.

What if discussing hell upsets or frightens the person you are talking to?

Is that not the argument used against atheists, who are often told to "just shut up"?

Zombrex

5uspect wrote:

Many might be concerned that children being groomed to be the next Venus sisters is a form of abuse.

Good point. Imagine if their father told them that if they weren't successful at tennis they would spend eternity suffering. I think there would be few that wouldn't consider that child abuse

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Good point. Imagine if their father told them that if they weren't successful at tennis they would spend eternity suffering. I think there would be few that wouldn't consider that child abuse

Good point hell talk to children under the age of 12 is child abuse.
Why tell them about hell when they don't even know about evolution theory or the fact they are many supernatural belief systems?
This is something I feel strongly about. Christian Churches still run most of our schools and fill their heads with it when they are young and cannot think critically about it.
Disgraceful.

5uspect

PDN wrote:

So you don't believe them when they talk about hell. That's fine.

You think the idea of hell is without any objective support. That's fine.

You think that living life as a Christian is going to extreme lengths. That's fine.

You have a perfect right to hold those beliefs. I have a perfect right to hold opposing beliefs. But none of that makes it logical for anyone to accuse me of lacking compassion because I like to talk about my beliefs.

The problem is that in the vast vast majority of cases (you seem to be one of the few exceptions here) people are told that [insert religion here] is true. That [insert random belief here] is fact and must be accepted because of [insert carrot/stick here]. And fair enough, if you tell me what you believe but, I was told these things when I was too young to decide what to believe like every other child in this country.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

Great posts PDN - assuming you think that hiding behind the "evangelist" label and declining to answer any of the difficult questions will impress us..

I neither know nor care what impresses you.

I am hiding behind nothing. Posters in this thread made mocking comments about evangelical (not 'evangelist' the two words are obviously connected but have totally distinct meanings) Christians. I responded to those comments, therefore we are discussing evangelical Christians. If someone ignorantly attempts to confuse evangelicals with other religious groups entirely then I have a perfect right to make a very valid distinction. That is not hiding behind anything, it is simply keeping the discussion on the subject at hand. I appreciate that some might find this difficult because it prevents them from trotting out their tired old straw men, but give it a go and you might just find that having an adult conversation can be an enriching experience.

BTW, how do you christians cope with the knowledge that you almost certainly wouldn't be christians at all but for the early catholic church's ruthless dedication to the acquisition of wealth and suppression of dissent?

I do normally enjoy counterfactual history, but this is a particularly appallingly inept example. Firstly, I do not agree that I would not be a Christian were it not for the Catholic Church's activities. Christianity grew phenomenally quickly in its first 250 years of existence. The early Christians were pacifists who were mercilessly persecuted for their faith. Their numbers rapidly grew to the point where a Roman Emperor considered it politically expedient to hijack Christianity and amalgamate it with the Empire. Under Imperial control there developed a blasphemous perversion of Christianity that persecuted pillaged and killed. Thankfully those days are behind us and evangelical Christians, trying to sincerely model themselves on the Christianity of those first 250 years, are once again growing at an unprecedented rate (now comprising approximately 10% of the world's population) despite horrible persecution in many parts of the world. Therefore, it is perfectly possible that true Christianity would be much stronger and more widespread today if the Catholic Church had never developed at all.

Even if your counterfactual theory was true, I don't see why that creates a problem. We all, as western Europeans, enjoy a much higher standard of living because previous generations of Europeans raped and pillaged other parts of the globe. We all enjoy technological gadgets and inventions that were developed through the exploitation of the working man during the Industrial Revolution. The adult response is not to keep scourging ourselves as if we are responsible for all the ills of the past. The mature response is to acknowledge clearly the occasions in history where people were wronged, and then to do our utmost to try to improve the present.

And why do you think it matters to non-believers whether you happen to wear the evangelist badge or some other? It doesn't exempt you from culpability for the evil inherent in your religion, however much you would like it to.

If any of my beliefs or practices are evil, then I will gladly accept responsibility for them. Why should I be culpable for what other people, with very different beliefs from mine, did hundreds of years ago? That would be nonsense. Do you want to be held accountable for the actions of Stalin because he was an atheist?

And why doesn't it bother you that the mission statement of Dialogue Ireland concerns itself with NRMs yet the real (half-buried) content on its web site is all to do with evangelising. Is this an example of the kind of "ethical" evangelism you mentioned before?

Actually, having checked out Dialogue's website, I don't agree that is their real aim. They are a joint effort by various Christians, more Catholics than evangelicals, to provide info on NRMs. I do agree that they should avoid the whole evangelizing Islam bit and leave that to individual churches. After all, Islam is a world religion, not a NRM. I would indeed be bothered if an organisation set up to inform about NRMs (something that is very much needed) lost its focus.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

What if discussing hell upsets or frightens the person you are talking to?

Is that not the argument used against atheists, who are often told to "just shut up"?

It's not an argument I have ever used, or ever would used, against atheists. I might find you all a bit illogical at times, but frightening? No.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

Eh

You think it an act of compassion to fill people with fear of something for which you can provide no supporting evidence whatsoever?

I am so sorry to hear that you are filled with fear about hell.

karen3212

EDIT meant to use the quote about the blackmail earlier

I'm inclined to believe this, as they seem to make an issue of everyone's previous convictions. I mean, they seem to go on about the critics convictions. Why not just say something like, "don't believe a word he says about us, he isn't trustworthy" instead of pulling out the convictions and showing them to the cameras.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

I am so sorry to hear that you are filled with fear about hell.

Another nice attempt to avoid the question... Not me though.

Let me put it another way.

I regard any (non-fictional) attempt to inculcate fear of an unsubstantiated phenomenon not as an act of compassion but one of violence.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I am so sorry to hear that you are filled with fear about hell.

Why are you sorry? The entire point of hell is to fill someone with fear, it is a fundamental core of your religion (the "stick" as 5uspect puts it)

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Argument by analogy once again - not valid PDN, and a very good example of sophistry.

We have had this discussion before. I would only be arguing by analogy if my argument was to make an analogy, and then to say "The analogy is true, therefore my original proposition is true".

That is not what I have done. I made a point and then used an illustration to try to make it clearer to some of those who obviously struggle with logic. The
proof of my proposition in no way depends on the analogy. Are you really unable to understand that distinction, or are you just taking the mickey?

Your arguments, of warning people and saving people and hell talk are only valid if Christianity is right. Scientologies arguments are valid if they are right. Extreme Islamic arguments are valid if they are right. Problem is, none of you have any evidence to support your claims and furthermore you can't all be right.

Not so, my argument is valid even if Christianity is wrong. Christians, in that case, would still be sincere in telling others what they believe to be true. The same would apply to Scientologists and to Muslims providing they avoid dishonesty and violence.

What does bother me, is the way Christians use Hell to scare other people who may not be in a position to hear a counter argument. Some of these people are not well educated or just quite young for example.

I can only speak for my own church here, but we would never use hell as a stick to scare children or the vulnerable (mentally handicapped, for example) into making a faith step. As for the not very well educated, I think one of the beauties of the Christian faith is that it is accessible to all and not just an educated elite. Having said that, our church concentrates much more on the positive aspects of becoming a Christian. Quite often we only get to talk about hell with someone after they have received Christ as their Saviour. It is noticeable that in the Bible Jesus spoke about hell primarily to His disciples - an incentive to them to reach out to others, rather than a stick to scare unbelievers.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I can only speak for my own church here, but we would never use hell as a stick to scare children or the vulnerable (mentally handicapped, for example) into making a faith step.

PDN you have far more in common with Richard Dawkins that you would probably realise

Would you agree then that telling children about hell, or other manipulative aspects of a religion, both the carrot and the stick (which in all fairness includes most of the religion), is morally wrong?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Why are you sorry? The entire point of hell is to fill someone with fear, it is a fundamental core of your religion (the "stick" as 5uspect puts it)

Actually that is not the point of hell at all. But no doubt you have managed to convince yourself that it is.

I personally believe that hell does exist, therefore it was not invented as a doctrine at all.

Some non-Christian theologians and historians believe that hell was invented by persecuted religious groups who, desperate to justify what appeared to them to be a horribly unfair set of circumstances, comforted themselves with the thought that everything would be set right in the future when their oppressors would get their comeuppance.

Remember that belief in hell did not originate with Christianity and Islam (expansionist religions that seek to grow through conversion). It already existed in religions that were primarily confined to one tribe or race of people (eg Judaism). They did not see hell as something that applied to themselves at all, but rather to others. Therefore it would have served no useful purpose as a stick at all.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

PDN you have far more in common with Richard Dawkins that you would probably realise

Would you agree then that telling children about hell, or other manipulative aspects of a religion, both the carrot and the stick (which in all fairness includes most of the religion), is morally wrong?

I see nothing wrong with me as a parent telling my child about hell when she was already trying to follow Christ's teachings. I don't believe in the idea of any religion having some secret hidden doctrines that can only be revealed when you are old enough.

I would totally disapprove of anyone using the idea of hell to manipulate a child into anything. As for the carrot? I think it was in perfect order for me to explain to my daughter (6 years old at the time) that her sister went to heaven when she died. I am very glad that she could see so much of the carrot as we grew up (prayers answered etc).

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Actually that is not the point of hell at all. But no doubt you have managed to convince yourself that it is.

Other way around, I have yet to convince myself that that isn't the point of hell.

Considering the concept of hell predates the Judeo/Christian religion by a couple of thousand years, and is found in a wide range of different religions, it can be said that is actually the point of hell for most religions, even if you believe it isn't the point of hell for your particular religion.

PDN wrote:

I personally believe that hell does exist, therefore it was not invented as a doctrine at all.

Well even if you believe hell exists, and was created by God, the purpose remains the same -

Luke 12:5
But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

Even taken literally hell is designed/created to be feared.

PDN wrote:

They did not see hell as something that applied to themselves at all, but rather to others.

That is kinda the point.

Nearly all religions define themselves as a group of people who believe they have been saved from something that others, not in the religion, will face because they have not accepted the religion.

Hell is an obvious extension of that. There has to be something bad as a consequence of not being part of the religion.

PDN wrote:

Therefore it would have served no useful purpose as a stick at all.

You will notice though that hell becomes a far more up front belief in Christanity. This makes sense since Christianity moved away from the tribal aspect of the Jewish religion into a religion where spreading the religion became important. Instead of needing to be part of the chosen people any one can now be saved.

Naturally as this happened the new members of the religion needed a justification for being a member of the religion, hell being something that they are being saved from because of the religion.

The concept of hell becomes more nasty the more a particular religion or cult moves away from the idea that a certain people are automatically saved, and everyone else isn't.

The more people you need to convince the bigger the stick

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I see nothing wrong with me as a parent telling my child about hell when she was already trying to follow Christ's teachings.

Why would your child be already trying to follow Christ's teachings if you weren't instructing her to?

Why would she not be following Muhammad's teachings, or Buddha's teachings, or Confucius's teachings? I imagine your daughter hasn't been reading up on world religions and picked Christianity as the one that made the most sense to her.

PDN wrote:

I don't believe in the idea of any religion having some secret hidden doctrines that can only be revealed when you are old enough.

Do you believe that a person should make up their own mind about religion when they are old enough to actually educated and understand religion, without being biased to a particular religion simply because they are born into it?

PDN wrote:

I think it was in perfect order for me to explain to my daughter (6 years old at the time) that her sister went to heaven when she died.

Yet you fail to see that in doing so you are indoctrinating your daughter into your particular religion.

For your daughter to continue to believe that her sister is in heaven she must continue to accept the religion of her parents.

Do you not see the problem with that?

PoleStar

PDN wrote:

.

This is why, whilst you might find evangelical Christians annoying because they keep asking you if you want to be saved, they never hold a sword to your throat and tell you that if you don't get saved they will cut your head off.

Unless of course you do something like..............

Practice in an abortion clinic. Then is ok for them to blow up your practice and attempt to kill you. As has happened in the US where pro-life evangelical Christians went nut over some doc who had an abortion clinic.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

If someone ignorantly attempts to confuse evangelicals with other religious groups entirely then I have a perfect right to make a very valid distinction.

So are you saying you don't share a faith with other christians?

I can see why the distinction is important to you, because you wish to disassociate yourself from other believers in your faith who you perceive to be less worthy than yourself. But to me it's irrelevant because it's the same faith, based on the same flawed literature and teachings. It sounds like you're trying to convince me you're not the same as those bad others, but your arguments betray the fact that in reality you're just like them.

PDN wrote:

give it a go and you might just find that having an adult conversation can be an enriching experience.

It's hard to have an adult conversation with somebody who relentlessly insists there are fairies at the bottom of the garden but can't show them to me. It's much more like talking with a child, in fact.

PDN wrote:

I do normally enjoy counterfactual history, but this is a particularly appallingly inept example. Firstly, I do not agree that I would not be a Christian were it not for the Catholic Church's activities. Christianity grew phenomenally quickly in its first 250 years of existence.

From a very low user base. It also didn't grow as a single unified church, but was an agglomeration of different sects each holding its own view of what christianity represented. Without the catholic church achieving its supremacy its entirely possible that christian would either have a very different meaning than it does today or would have died out entirely as a result of fragmentation. It might even have been reabsorbed into the Judaic faith.

All of these are of course only possibilities. None of us know what would have happened. We do, however, know what did happen, which is that your religion attained supremacy on the back of extortion and bloodshed. You can try as hard as you like to spin it differently, but them's the facts. To argue otherwise is pure speculation.

PDN wrote:

The early Christians were pacifists who were mercilessly persecuted for their faith. Their numbers rapidly grew to the point where a Roman Emperor considered it politically expedient to hijack Christianity and amalgamate it with the Empire.

The fact that they were persecuted neither supports the truth of what the early christians had to say nor singles them out for special treatment. How is this relevant? As for them being pacifists, I can't comment as I wasn't there.

There are various perspectives on why Constantine jumped on the christian bandwagon. To say it was down to the rapid growth of the religion is far too simplistic.

PDN wrote:

Under Imperial control there developed a blasphemous perversion of Christianity that persecuted pillaged and killed. Thankfully those days are behind us and evangelical Christians, trying to sincerely model themselves on the Christianity of those first 250 years, are once again growing at an unprecedented rate (now comprising approximately 10% of the world's population) despite horrible persecution in many parts of the world.

So are you saying your church's expression of christianity takes no modern advantage or benefit from the fact of the catholic church's historical supremacy? That's self-delusion. How do you think you would get on in these times if you were a new faith? Any way you cut it, modern churches owe the fact they are taken seriously at all to the catholics.

PDN wrote:

Therefore

No "therefore" about it - there's no logical continuity in what you say next.

PDN wrote:

it is perfectly possible that true Christianity would be much stronger and more widespread today if the Catholic Church had never developed at all.

Possible but entirely speculative.

PDN wrote:

Even if your counterfactual theory was true, I don't see why that creates a problem.

It doesn't create a problem for me - I just thought it might for you because you continue to adhere to a discredited faith awash in blood. But since you neatly sidestep this question by simply denying it, that's fine. I guess.

PDN wrote:

We all, as western Europeans, enjoy a much higher standard of living because previous generations of Europeans raped and pillaged other parts of the globe. We all enjoy technological gadgets and inventions that were developed through the exploitation of the working man during the Industrial Revolution. The adult response is not to keep scourging ourselves as if we are responsible for all the ills of the past. The mature response is to acknowledge clearly the occasions in history where people were wronged, and then to do our utmost to try to improve the present.

I don't recommend scourging ourselves - I suggest leaving the old superstitions behind and moving on to better value and belief systems. Forgive me, but you're the one who wants to hang on to the beliefs of the past and yet you wish to disassociate yourself from the implications of those beliefs.

As I say, you want it both ways.

PDN wrote:

If any of my beliefs or practices are evil, then I will gladly accept responsibility for them. Why should I be culpable for what other people, with very different beliefs from mine, did hundreds of years ago? That would be nonsense. Do you want to be held accountable for the actions of Stalin because he was an atheist?

Because they did those things in the name of beliefs you continue to uphold. Stalin didn't commit his horrors in the name of atheism, and anyway, it's illogical to group atheists together as we are united only by a non-belief. Christians of whatever stripe, on the other hand, believe in the same hostile, vindictive and exclusive god. The violent history of christianity is entirely consistent with the values expressed in your scriptures.

Edit:

re: early Christian pacifism, half an hour googling reveals plenty of evidence that this isn't the case, at least not nearly as entirely as you make out. Members of early christian sects are known to have participated in various militias, and there's evidence that at least some of the sects weren't averse to a bit of a scrap amongst themselves. I can't find any clear documentary support for the view that all early christians shared a pacifist belief system (and why would they? Neither scripture nor their so-called 'saviour' ever required it of them).