Christian Tolerance

monosharp

I'd like to ask about the Christian tolerance people often talk about here, because I frankly cannot think how anyone could consider Christianity tolerant in any way or form.

I would consider Christianity to be one of, if not the most, intolerant of religions now and in the past.

One only needs to look at the changes that took place in 'christianised' countries to see this.

Homosexuality, just one example where theres a huge intolerance shown by the Christian religion. Whereas before Christianity it was quite accepted or at least not condemned.

Please note I am not saying that ALL Christians are intolerant etc. I am saying that the religion itself is intolerant by its very nature.

'Of all religions the Christian is without doubt the one which should inspire tolerance most, although up to now the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men.' - Voltaire

prinz

monosharp wrote: »

Please note I am not saying that ALL Christians are intolerant etc. I am saying that the religion itself is intolerant by its very nature.

'Of all religions the Christian is without doubt the one which should inspire tolerance most, although up to now the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men.' - Voltaire

Who do you think might be closer to the truth, yourself or Voltaire? Bit odd to include a quote which completely contradicts your own argument.

Fanny Cradock

Let's see how this thread develops.

Monosharp, I have a request. Please don't hop on your hobby horse and start going on about Christians in S. Korea, education requirements for Christian colleges in S. Korea and all that stuff we have heard from you many times before.

Fanny Cradock

prinz wrote: »

Who do you think might be closer to the truth, yourself or Voltaire? Bit odd to include a quote which completely contradicts your own argument.

I was just thinking the same!

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

I would consider Christianity to be one of, if not the most, intolerant of religions now and in the past.

This is some what flawed from the start, given that intolerance is relative and not always a bad thing.

I'm intolerant to murder and rape for example.

Christians would no doubt argue that Christianity is intolerant to what God has show is is bad and tolerant to what God has shown us is good. Which, if it is true, is as reasonable as me being intolerant to pedophilia or bear baiting.

monosharp

prinz wrote: »

Who do you think might be closer to the truth, yourself or Voltaire? Bit odd to include a quote which completely contradicts your own argument.

Well for one because I don't think it does contradict my argument.

'Of all religions the Christian is without doubt the one which should inspire tolerance most, although up to now the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men.' - Voltaire

'I am saying that the religion itself is intolerant by its very nature.' - Monosharp

I think religion is very subjective. There are people who will look at Christianity and take 'love thy neighbour' from it, and then there are people who will look at Christianity and take 'homosexuality is evil' from it.

So while Voltaire looked at Christianity and subjectively believed it 'should' be the most tolerant, that is what he took from it because that was already his mind.

I believe the religion itself is intolerant because it allows any kind of hate filled individual to graph their beliefs onto some particular part of the bible and come off with what they believe is divinely sanctified reason for their hatred.

Hate gays ? No problem. Find some Bible verse that may or may not support it, convince yourself it does support it and away you go. Gods suddenly on your side.

Does god or Pat Robertson hate homosexuals ? If its just Pat on his own he'd probably be a bit less vocal about it but he can convince himself and anyone who listens to him that god hates homosexuals, now he can rant all about it.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Let's see how this thread develops.

Monosharp, I have a request. Please don't hop on your hobby horse and start going on about Christians in S. Korea, education requirements for Christian colleges in S. Korea and all that stuff we have heard from you many times before.

As long as no one mentions Christian 'tolerance' in Asia. Agreed.

monosharp

Wicknight wrote: »

This is some what flawed from the start, given that intolerance is relative and not always a bad thing.

I'm intolerant to murder and rape for example.

Absolutely and I should have been more specific.

Toleration and tolerance are terms used in social, cultural and religious contexts to describe attitudes which are "tolerant" (or moderately respectful) of practices or group memberships that may be disapproved of by those in the majority. In practice, "tolerance" indicates support for practices that prohibit ethnic and religious discrimination.

Thats not really much better either. Lets talk about specific situations then, I've mentioned homosexuality already. I'd also mention tolerance of other religions, tolerance of no-religion, tolerance of other races etc.

PDN

It depends what you mean as 'tolerance'.

If you mean agreeing that everything people might choose to do is good, then Christianity is not tolerant. So, taking your chosen subject of homosexuality, Christianity believes that homosexual behaviour is contrary to the will of God. Therefore such behaviour is considered incompatible with being a Christian. So Christianity is intolerant to homosexuality (as well as idolatry and a heap of other stuff) in the same sense that Jews are intolerant of eating bacon, Hindus are intolerant of eating beef etc.

However, if you mean 'intolerant' as prohibiting others from engaging in certain behaviour then most Christians I know are extremely tolerant of homosexuality. In that case most of us view homosexual behaviour as being on a par with heterosexual sex outside of marriage - it is something we don't do, but we don't attempt to stop others from doing it.

So, for example, we have a number of practising homosexuals who will attend our church services, just as we have couples who are living together out of wedlock. They know that they cannot become members of the church while they are living such a lifestyle, but they enjoy the music, worship and preaching, and they find the church to be a non-judgemental place where they can make friends and get prayed for when they are in trouble. They also apppreciated the stance we took in respect to the Civil Partnership Bill.

So, in my opinion, the above is how Christianity should and does interact with the issue of homosexuality when the Church is being true to its calling. I think this is similar to how Jesus spent time with the 'sinners' of his day (tax collectors and prostitutes). They found Him welcoming and friendly, enjoyed being with Him, but also knew that He endorsed the prevailing moral teachings of Judaism and did not say their behaviour was OK in God's sight.

Of course you will get Christians who are homophobic, just as you get people of all backgrounds that are homophobic. Just try being gay in China! Also the attitudes of Christians in some countries tend to be harsher for historical reasons (Uganda is a case in hand, where some of the martyrs in the early days of Christianity were murdered for refusing to submit to sodomy at the hands of a tribal king).

But, overall, you see a similar trend to the ones I referred to in another thread. The countries with the longest historic exposure to Christianity also tend to be those with the most liberal attitudes to homosexuality. Also, and I find this very to be an interesting sociological phenomenon, those countries with a tradition of diverse opinions and denominations within Christianity (such as Scandanavia and northern Europe) tended to develop such liberalism much sooner than those who lived under a monolithic single system (such as Catholic southern Europe or Orthodox eastern europe). This is understandable, since societies that value diversity of opinion will tend to be more tolerant than those with less diversity.

Off course exceptions can be produced to the above rule of thumb, but overall the trends are clear.

Often, when this subject is discussed, unhistorical parallels are drawn between modern attitudes towards homosexuality and those in ancient societies.

For example, in many cultures (eg Bantu, Greek, Roman) men would engage in homosexual behaviour either prior to marriage, or on the side after marriage. But there was not the labelling of people as gay nor straight as a matter of identity like we see today. In other words, homosexual behaviour was often commonplace, but "being a homosexual" was not.

So, I understand that in ancient Rome, it was not thought unusual for young men to cheerfully roger each other in the baths, or for a Roman senator to marry and father children with a respectable matron while occasionally meeting a young boy for homosexual trysts - but if the same senator had declared himself 'gay' and lived exclusively with a man then the reaction would be one of scandalised homophobia with severe sanctions. Indeed, homosexuality among free-born men was punishable by death under the Lex Scantinia (although not with slaves, indeed, giving a disobedient slave a good buggering was considered a legitimate method of punishment).

Gurgle

monosharp wrote: »

I am saying that the religion itself is intolerant by its very nature.

Love God, Love thy neighbour
Turn the other cheek
Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

I think Christianity, as a religion, is all about tolerance.
Nowhere (afaik) is persecution of anyone recommended or called for. Its arguable whether homosexuality is even a sin, the passages involved are open to interpretation.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 wrote:

- "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Apparently the 'homosexual offenders' part doesn't neccessarily refer to all homosexuals, male prostitutes being those with female clients homosexual offenders those with male clients.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Does god or Pat Robertson hate homosexuals ? If its just Pat on his own he'd probably be a bit less vocal about it but he can convince himself and anyone who listens to him that god hates homosexuals, now he can rant all about it.

I think you're possibly confusing your nut cases. Thinking of Fred Phelps (representing a tiny church of a dozen people) rather than Pat Robertson (has a large TV ministry)? I would like to see any qotation where Pat Robertson stated that either he or God hates homosexuals.

prinz

monosharp wrote: »

So while Voltaire looked at Christianity and subjectively believed it 'should' be the most tolerant, that is what he took from it because that was already his mind.

Which begs the obvious question, what is already in your mind...

PDN

prinz wrote: »

Which begs the obvious question, what is already in your mind...

Speaking of Voltaire, while he was himself a Deist, he did say, "If God did not exist, one would have to invent him. I want my attorney, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, and I think I shall then be robbed and cuckolded less often".

More off-topic, I love the quote he uttered on his death bed. When a priest asked him to renounce Satan he replied, "Now, now, my good man, this is no time for making enemies!"

Tim Robbins

Slightly off topic and perhaps eligible for a thread on its own, but could a Christian not say that it was Paul's opinion Homosexuality was wrong, not Jesus.

Paul was a Christian but he wasn't Christ ergo he was fallable and some of what he said could clearly be wrong?

Xluna

monosharp wrote: »

Homosexuality, just one example where theres a huge intolerance shown by the Christian religion. Whereas before Christianity it was quite accepted or at least not condemned.

It's not so much Christianity that was intolerant of homosexuality as it was Judaism.I mean, you'd stone a person for gay relations under Jewish law. Although Jesus himself never touched on the subject most Christian groups consider it sinful,which I find strange as there's many things which are not considered sinful by Christianity but are considered sinful in Jewish tradition,but there you go.

PDN wrote: »

.... indeed, giving a disobedient slave a good buggering was considered a legitimate method of punishment.

This thread needs to be X-rated.:pac:

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Slightly off topic and perhaps eligible for a thread on its own, but could a Christian not say that it was Paul's opinion Homosexuality was wrong, not Jesus.

Paul was a Christian but he wasn't Christ ergo he was fallable and some of what he said could clearly be wrong?

Even if Paul was wrong, why would you think Jesus would condemn the law of Moses regarding sexual immorality? Its a pretty HUGE assumption that he thinks homosexuality is ok just because the gospel does not record him saying anything specifically about that particular form of sexual immorality. When he talked to prostitutes and other sinners, it wasn't in a 'keep up the good work', way. He always said, go 'and sin no more!' Jesus taught us not to be hypocrites, and also to reach out to those considered outcast. To forgive as we are forgiven etc. However, he did not teach us to tolerate sin. He wants us to hate sin. As he said, 'The well don't need a Physician'. Jesus was the Physician to the sinner. Jesus' way was not to 'accept you for who or what you are', continuing with the Physician metaphor, that would be akin to telling a guy with treatable cancer that the cancer was part of him and to leave it alone. He was about change. He was about rebirth. He was about leaving your sin and following him. However, he was not about looking down your nose and putting oneself above the sinner.

Zombrex

didn't he "condemn" (fulfill) the laws of Moses with regard to a lot of other things?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

didn't he "condemn" (fulfill) the laws of Moses with regard to a lot of other things?

Christianity teaches that Jesus fulfilled many aspects of the Mosaic law, but they were all ceremonial issues (sacrifices, unclean foods, circumcision, sabbath observance etc). Nowhere do we see any hint that moral requirements were somehow to be abandoned now that Jesus had come.

Also, the punishments for moral offences prescribed in the Old Testament for when they were living as a theocracy in the wilderness obviously don't apply in a secular democracy (and didn't even apply in the Roman colony that was Palestine in the time of Jesus).

But Christians would believe that the moral standards (sexual purity, honesty, forgiveness etc.) of the Old Testament still apply. Indeed, the only way we see Christ addressing those standards was actually in tightening them up (don't even look at a woman in an adulterous way) rather than kicking them into touch.

eblistic

PDN wrote: »

I think you're possibly confusing your nut cases. Thinking of Fred Phelps (representing a tiny church of a dozen people) rather than Pat Robertson (has a large TV ministry)? I would like to see any qotation where Pat Robertson stated that either he or God hates homosexuals.

Well this certainly suggests he takes a very dim view of them round about 1:10:

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

didn't he "condemn" (fulfill) the laws of Moses with regard to a lot of other things?

You are equating the word 'condemn', with the word 'fulfill'?

Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial meaning of the law, and he also fulfilled the moral and every other side of the law. Ceremonially, because his life, death and sacrifice was what ceremony was about, and he lived the law perfectly, drawing attention to the 'spirit' of the law and not simply a legal document with loopholes etc. He showed us the spirit of the law in his lines about the sins of the heart etc.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

Even if Paul was wrong, why would you think Jesus would condemn the law of Moses regarding sexual immorality?

For same reason why Christians disregard quite a lot of the diktats and rues of the books of Moses. Including not shaving your face as it instructs in Leviticus (19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard) they retort:
"ah that's the old testament".

Why reject 19:27 and accept Leviticus18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."??

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

For same reason why Christians disregard quite a lot of the diktats and rues of the books of Moses. Including not shaving your face as it instructs in Leviticus (19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard) they retort:
"ah that's the old testament".

Why reject 19:27 and accept Leviticus18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."??

Because you don't need to be a genius to spot the difference between what is ceremonial and what is moral.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Because you don't need to be a genius to spot the difference between what is ceremonial and what is moral.

You also don't need to be a genius to spot a contradiction or an inconsistency

You don't know anything about a claim that if every Christian found another person to be a Christian, the entire World would be saved in seven years by any chance?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

I would like to see any qotation where Pat Robertson stated that either he or God hates homosexuals.

I couldn't find a quote which states literally "I, Pat Robertson hate homosexuals" Or "I, Pat Robertson believe God hates homosexuals" but can I presume you have no argument with accepting that he does in fact hate homosexuals and he does in fact think God does too because of the below quotes ?

"I have known few homosexuals who did not practice their tendencies. Such people are sinning against God and will lead to the ultimate destruction of the family and our nation. I am unalterably opposed to such things, and will do everything I can to restrict the freedom of these people to spread their contagious infection to the youth of this nation."
--Pat Robertson

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." –Pat Robertson

Question: "A friend of mine who is homosexual is considering adopting a child. This particular child has been in a physically abusive home, and my friend feels that he can at least give this child a loving home. He wants my advice, and I'm not sure what to say. I've been trying to lead my friend to Christ and just want to be cautious with my answer. What would you suggest?"
Pat Robertson: "You know, USA had a movie recently with Valerie Bertinelli about lesbian couples and adoption, and so forth. And I know about what happened when a young man was taken away from his Christian mother by a court and given to his homosexual father. And the next thing you know, that guy was a flaming homosexual, and if I'm not mistaken, he contracted AIDS. I don't think that homosexuals, especially single homosexual men, should be adopting children. I think it's just wrong. I think for any single man to think of adopting a child is in itself a dangerous practice because you don't have time, you don't have the mothering instinct. If you have to go to work, how are you going to take care of a child? It's very difficult to do for anybody that's single. To take on somebody else's child is difficult enough, but to do so in a homosexual environment where the contacts that the man is going to be having--his various male lovers coming in, and this youngster's going to be exposed to all that? The answer is: this would be a terrible environment. So if there's any way you can do it subtlety say, `Look, Jesus loves you, but I think right now we ought to get you straightened out before you start taking on some other responsibility.' A life of a child is very significant, and that won't be a help for him."
--The 700 Club, "Bring It On" Segment

"It's one thing to say, `We have rights to jobs...we have rights to be left alone in our little corner of the world to do our thing. It's an entirely different thing to say, well, `We're not only going to go into the schools and we're going to take your children and your grandchildren and turn them into homosexuals. Now that's wrong."
--The 700 Club, September 17, 1992

"[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers."
--The 700 Club, January 18, 1995

"If the widespread practice of homosexuality will bring about the destruction of your nation, if it will bring about terrorist bombs, if it'll bring about earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, it isn't necessarily something we ought to open our arms to."
--The 700 Club, June 8, 1998

"Many of those people involved with Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals - the two things seem to go together."
--The 700 Club, January 21, 1993

"Many observers say that AIDS is the hammer and gun of the homosexual movement, an effective vehicle to propel the homosexual agenda throughout every phase of our society."
--The 700 Club June 20, 1990

"...What kind of craziness is it in our society which will put a cloak of secrecy around a group of people whose lifestyle is at best abominable. Homosexuality is an abomination. The practices of those people is appalling. It is a pathology. It is a sickness, and instead of thinking of giving these people a preferred status and privacy, we should treat AIDS exactly the same way as any other communicable disease..."
--The 700 Club, June 6, 1988

"It is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism-everything that the Bible condemns."
--The 700 Club, April 9, 1991, talking about Planned Parenthood

"Since our nation was founded, we have discriminated against certain things. We discriminate against kidnappers. We discriminate against murderers. We discriminate against thieves...There are laws that prohibit that kind of conduct. And there have been laws since the founding of our country against what are considered unnatural sex acts, sex between members of the same sex."
-- The 700 Club, December 24, 1993

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

More off-topic, I love the quote he uttered on his death bed. When a priest asked him to renounce Satan he replied, "Now, now, my good man, this is no time for making enemies!"

One of my favourites.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

So, taking your chosen subject of homosexuality, Christianity believes that homosexual behaviour is contrary to the will of God.

And was responsible for how many centuries of inhumane treatment against this group of people ?

Therefore such behaviour is considered incompatible with being a Christian. So Christianity is intolerant to homosexuality (as well as idolatry and a heap of other stuff) in the same sense that Jews are intolerant of eating bacon, Hindus are intolerant of eating beef etc.

Thats fine except when you forceably try to apply it to everyone.

However, if you mean 'intolerant' as prohibiting others from engaging in certain behaviour then most Christians I know are extremely tolerant of homosexuality.

Today. But I want to discuss your argument which you stated in the last thread that Christianity was a force for good in Western Europe, opening society up to rational thought, tolerance etc.

But, overall, you see a similar trend to the ones I referred to in another thread. The countries with the longest historic exposure to Christianity also tend to be those with the most liberal attitudes to homosexuality.

Like Alan Turing ? A man so important to the course of WW2 that Britain might well have fallen to the Nazi's without him.

He lived in one of those countries liberalised by Christian thought, where he was of utmost importance to military intelligence until after the war when he was arrested and chemically castrated ?

And I am not picking the 'exception' to the rule. Anti-homosexuality in Europe can give its thanks largely to the Christian influence.

Off course exceptions can be produced to the above rule of thumb, but overall the trends are clear.

They are most certainly clear.

Before Christianity hit Europe and before Islam hit the middle East, homosexuality was largely accepted, in fact before societies were affected by 'the big 3' (abrahamic religions) the actual label 'homosexual' was practically unknown or extremely rare.

wikipedia wrote:

The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier, as Western societies have done for the past century. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated.

wikipedia wrote:

The Hellenophile emperor Hadrian is renowned for his relationship with Antinous, but the Christian emperor Theodosius I decreed a law on August 6, 390, condemning passive males to be burned at the stake. Justinian, towards the end of his reign, expanded the proscription to the active partner as well (in 558), warning that such conduct can lead to the destruction of cities through the "wrath of God".

but if the same senator had declared himself 'gay' and lived exclusively with a man then the reaction would be one of scandalised homophobia with severe sanctions. Indeed, homosexuality among free-born men was punishable by death under the Lex Scantinia (although not with slaves, indeed, giving a disobedient slave a good buggering was considered a legitimate method of punishment)

When ?

Early Republic
In the early Roman Republic, pederasty with freeborn boys was considered a degenerate Greek practice and as such was generally condemned.

Pederasty was between older men and young boys.

Mid and late Republic
In short, an adult Roman citizen male could acceptably penetrate (whether a male or a female) but not be penetrated - catamite was commonly used as a slander.

Empire
Pederasty largely lost its status as a ritual part of education — a process already begun by the increasingly sophisticated and cosmopolitan Greeks — and was instead seen as an activity primarily driven by one's sexual desires and competing with desire for women.[citation needed] The social acceptance of pederastic relations waxed and waned during the centuries. Conservative thinkers condemned it — along with other forms of indulgence. Tacitus attacks the Greek customs of "gymnasia et otia et turpes amores" (palaestrae, idleness, and shameful loves). [1]
Other writers spent no effort censuring pederasty per se, but praised or blamed its various aspects. Martial appears to have favored it, going as far as to essentialize not the sexual use of the catamite but his nature as a boy: upon being discovered by his wife "inside a boy" and offered the "same thing" by her, he retorts with a list of mythological personages who, despite being married, took young male lovers, and concludes by rejecting her offer since "a woman merely has two vaginas." [2] Among the Romans, pederasty reached its zenith during the time of hellenophile emperor Hadrian. Commodus had a number of male lovers. Elagabalus also had numerous male lovers and even married one of these in a public ceremony. Philip the Arabian was also known for his fondness for young men.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Of course you will get Christians who are homophobic, just as you get people of all backgrounds that are homophobic. Just try being gay in China!

I'd imagine its pretty similar to being gay in Korea.

wikipedia wrote:

Gay bashing is rare in modern China. Some scholars complain that the government is too indifferent on this issue, doing nothing to promote the situation of homosexuality in China. During the 2002 Gay Games, only 2 persons from the mainland were sent to take part, and apart from gay websites the media gave little coverage to the event. The authorities still refuse to promote either gay issues or gay rights in China. Although there is no explicit law against homosexuality or same-sex acts between consenting adults, neither are there laws protecting gays from discrimination, nor are there any gay rights organizations in China. It is believed that the Chinese policy towards the gay issue remains the "Three nos": no approval, no disapproval, and no promotion (不支持, 不反对, 不提倡).

Gay bashing is very common in western countries in comparison to China, Korea and AFAIK Japan.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You also don't need to be a genius to spot a contradiction or an inconsistency

Nor do you need to be a genius to pretend that a contradiction or inconsistency exists.

You don't know anything about a claim that if every Christian found another person to be a Christian, the entire World would be saved in seven years by any chance?

And the connection between that and toleration?

Such a claim would be true depending on one's definition of 'Christian' and assuming that your strange phrase 'found another person to be Christian' means to convert one other person to the faith per year.

According to adherents.com there are 2.1 billion Christians in the world - so if they doubled in numbers each year then they would exceed the world population before the end of year two.

Heck, such is the nature of of exponential growth that the little denomination I belong to (just 7 million adult members) would exceed the population of the world if it were to double in size every year for twelve years.

So, if one were excluding children and nominal Christians, it would be fair to say that an annual doubling of the number of committed believers in the world would, allowing for some natural wastage through death, take less than seven years to exceed the global population.

Of course there are other non-religious illustrations that illustrate exponential growth in similar ways. For example, the famous story I heard as a child was of a merchant who as payment for a service persuaded an emperor to place one grain of rice on a chess board, and to double the amount each day until all 64 squares were so used. Long before they reached the final square the empire was bankrupted.

Another example is if you kept folding a sheet of paper, thus doubling its thickness. Thankfully it is impossible to do this more than about 12 times (try it and see!) After 100 folds the thickness of your paper would be 12 billion light years.

Of course we know that large religious movements do not grow at such a rate in the real world. Christianity as a whole became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire by achieving an annual growth rate of 3% for several centuries. But, such illustrations can motivate individual congregations to have more vision for growth - and I have certainly seen and experienced instances where a church more than doubled its congregation size within a year.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

I couldn't find a quote which states literally "I, Pat Robertson hate homosexuals" Or "I, Pat Robertson believe God hates homosexuals" but can I presume you have no argument with accepting that he does in fact hate homosexuals and he does in fact think God does too because of the below quotes ?

I think Pat Robertson's views are extreme, and I in no way share them, but no, I don't think that equates to hatred.

For example, he compares homosexuals to murderers. Once again, I disagree, but the point is that I don't hate murderers - nor do I think God hates them.

Seeing a practice as being dangerous does not equate to hatred of the individuals involved in that practice.

What is clear, from a bit of googling, is that many homosexuals certainly hate Pat Robertson.

And was responsible for how many centuries of inhumane treatment against this group of people ?

I've been as ready as anyone to say that horrible things have been done throughout the ages in the name of Christianity. That would apply to Jews, gays, and to those like me who don't adhere to the dominant form of Christianity in any given state.

Man's inhumanity to man can be seen in every culture in every age.

Thats fine except when you forceably try to apply it to everyone.

Yes, that is what I said. It's nice to see you agree.

Today. But I want to discuss your argument which you stated in the last thread that Christianity was a force for good in Western Europe, opening society up to rational thought, tolerance etc.

Yes. That does not mean that nothing bad was ever done in the name of Christianity. But it has brought us to a point now where we live in a tolerant society, rather than living in fear of being murdered for daring to disagree with the local despot.

And I am not picking the 'exception' to the rule. Anti-homosexuality in Europe can give its thanks largely to the Christian influence.

Your selective bias is astounding.

Anything good in western society is, in your opinion, nothing to do with Christianity. Everything bad is the fault of Christianity. Do you not see that you are coming across as being incredibly closed minded.

I think my position is much more reasonable - to acknowledge that good and bad things have been done in the name of Christianity, but that overall the influence of Christianity on culture has been beneficial, particularly when compared to societies that lacked that influence.

Before Christianity hit Europe and before Islam hit the middle East, homosexuality was largely accepted, in fact before societies were affected by 'the big 3' (abrahamic religions) the actual label 'homosexual' was practically unknown or extremely rare.

The actual label 'homosexual' was unknown because the concept of someone being defined by their attractions was also unknown. It was, in many cultures, not uncommon for people to happily have sex with men, women, children, or animals.

The idea that Europe and the Middle East were nice enlightened places to live before Christianity came along is a nice fairy tale. Life was short, brutish, and if someone else had more money and power than you then you were screwed in more ways than one. After Christianity came along human nature did not change, but life arguably became slightly less brutish and short for most people.

Pederasty was between older men and young boys.

I'm well aware that pederasty was child abuse.

Am I supposed to be sorry that this practice was not as tolerated by Christianity as it was under the Romans or under many pagan societies. The same 'intolerance' that restricted homosexual behaviour also restricted the widespread rape of children (and, due to recent Irish history, we wish to God such child rape had been eradicated forever).

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Nor do you need to be a genius to pretend that a contradiction or inconsistency exists.

To not pretend requires to be even less of a genius

Such a claim would be true depending on one's definition of 'Christian' and assuming that your strange phrase 'found another person to be Christian' means to convert one other person to the faith per year.

According to adherents.com there are 2.1 billion Christians in the world - so if they doubled in numbers each year then they would exceed the world population before the end of year two.

Heck, such is the nature of of exponential growth that the little denomination I belong to (just 7 million adult members) would exceed the population of the world if it were to double in size every year for twelve years.

I heard a reference from a preacher recently

For example, the famous story I heard as a child was of a merchant who as payment for a service persuaded an emperor to place one grain of rice on a chess board, and to double the amount each day until all 64 squares were so used. Long before they reached the final square the empire was bankrupted.

Another example...

No need for that. I have a Maths degree.

Of course we know that large religious movements do not grow at such a rate in the real world. Christianity as a whole became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire by achieving an annual growth rate of 3% for several centuries. But, such illustrations can motivate individual congregations to have more vision for growth - and I have certainly seen and experienced instances where a church more than doubled its congregation size within a year.

Yes expodential mathematics is everywhere. Even in evolution. One good mutation also grows in the gene pool expodentially. This explains why changes (and divergences) can happen very quickly in species and how speciation can happen.

However, there's as much chance of pentocostals reaching world domination as there is scientologists who number around the same - if you were to believe their stats

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

To not pretend requires to be even less of a genius

This is getting boring. If you think there's a contradiction could we talk about it sensibly rather than with smilies? I've pointed out to you that there is a difference between ceremonial matters and moral principles.

I heard a reference from a preacher recently

Good to hear you're listening to preachers.

No need for that. I have a Maths degree.

But not every reader of this thread has.

However, there's as much chance of pentocostals reaching world domination as there is scientologists who number around the same - if you were to believe their stats

As far as I know no-one here has made any mention of Pentecostals striving for world domination. So is there any purpose behind this outbreak of irrelevancy? Or are you just trolling?

Do you have anything to contribute to this thread with respect to tolerance? Or are you conducting an experiment to see how much silliness a Christianity forum will tolerate?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

I think Pat Robertson's views are extreme, and I in no way share them, but no, I don't think that equates to hatred.

For example, he compares homosexuals to murderers. Once again, I disagree, but the point is that I don't hate murderers - nor do I think God hates them.

He calls it an abomination and equates it to terrorism.

Come on PDN, what your doing is semantical and you know it. He hates homosexuals and he thinks God does too. That is very clear from his quotes.

Yes. That does not mean that nothing bad was ever done in the name of Christianity. But it has brought us to a point now where we live in a tolerant society, rather than living in fear of being murdered for daring to disagree with the local despot.

I completely disagree with you here. I am arguing that our arrival at a tolerant society, a 'better' society did not depend on Christianity. That if you exchanged Christianity for any number of religions it wouldn't have made much of a difference to where we arrived.

Anything good in western society is, in your opinion, nothing to do with Christianity. Everything bad is the fault of Christianity. Do you not see that you are coming across as being incredibly closed minded.

Come on you know I didn't say that. I think many Christians have done good in the name of Christianity and Christianity has helped some people to improve through its teaching but I strongly protest that it is anything special within Christianity that has caused this.

I strongly believe that if one replaced Christianity with any number of religions we would have a similar result, or even a better result imo if it was for example Buddhism which took Christianity's place.

I think my position is much more reasonable - to acknowledge that good and bad things have been done in the name of Christianity, but that overall the influence of Christianity on culture has been beneficial, particularly when compared to societies that lacked that influence.

And I am asking you to show me examples of this improvement of society, of this tolerance. Not examples of where we are but examples of how we got here and how Christianity supposedly helped us get here.

I think we can both agree that Christianity did not help us arrive at tolerance towards homosexuality. That tolerance to homosexuality was in fact much better before Christianity arrived.

After Christianity came along human nature did not change, but life arguably became slightly less brutish and short for most people.

Than argue it. Because I'm not convinced.

Am I supposed to be sorry that this practice was not as tolerated by Christianity as it was under the Romans or under many pagan societies. The same 'intolerance' that restricted homosexual behaviour also restricted the widespread rape of children (and, due to recent Irish history, we wish to God such child rape had been eradicated forever).

You don't think Christianity is a wee bit guilty in this regard ?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Because you don't need to be a genius to spot the difference between what is ceremonial and what is moral.

Well in fairness this distinction is not found in the Old Testament itself, it is something Christians added after the fact (and after Jesus), and a distinction that Jews themselves reject (you will often here Jews write that all of God's laws are moral laws)

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well in fairness this distinction is not found in the Old Testament itself, it is something Christians added after the fact (and after Jesus), and a distinction that Jews themselves reject (you will often here Jews write that all of God's laws are moral laws)

And, in fairness, this is the Christianity forum where we discuss Christian issues and refer to the Christian Bible (both Old and New Testaments).

If you want to discuss Judaism then by all means petition boards.ie to establish a Judaism forum - a proposal I would gladly support.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

He calls it an abomination and equates it to terrorism.

Come on PDN, what your doing is semantical and you know it. He hates homosexuals and he thinks God does too. That is very clear from his quotes.

No, I am not being semantical. The Christian position is that we should hate sin, but love the sinner.

I hate child abuse and terrorism, but I can honestly say I do not hate any child abuser or terrorists. I may feel horror and pity - but not hate.

Fred Phelps makes the claim that God hates homosexuals. AFAIK Pat Robertson has not made such a claim. (Even though I find his views extreme and wacky).

I completely disagree with you here. I am arguing that our arrival at a tolerant society, a 'better' society did not depend on Christianity. That if you exchanged Christianity for any number of religions it wouldn't have made much of a difference to where we arrived.

And you are entitled to indulge in such a belief, even if it is devoid of evidence. But just coming in here and keeping repeating your belief won't make it any more valid.

And I am asking you to show me examples of this improvement of society, of this tolerance. Not examples of where we are but examples of how we got here and how Christianity supposedly helped us get here.

Read a few history books. Read about the establishment of the universities. Read about the establishment of hospitals by monastic orders. Read about how the Reformation led to pluralist societies where diversity of opinion was not only tolerated but welcomed. Read about how religious nonconformists fought for the separation of Church and State. Read about the Quakers. Read about how the Salvation Army and the early Methodists worked to establish trade unions.

Of course you will read about atrocities and crusades in the same books, just as non-European histories will tell you about unspeakable tortures, genocides, and monstrosities such as the caste system. But the trends in history are clear to those who genuinely seek to understand rather than grind an ideological axe.

You don't think Christianity is a wee bit guilty in this regard ?

I'm getting heartily sick of your muppetry.

I have said a dozen times recently that those who claimed to be Christians have been guilty of all kinds of crimes and atrocities. How many times do I have to say that before you hear it and stop implying that I ever claim otherwise?

Yes, some of those who profess Christianity have been more than a wee bit guilty of perpetrating child rape. How many times do you want me to state that? Five? Ten? A hundred?

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

How many times do you want me to state that? Five? Ten? A hundred?

Seventy times seven?

krudler

I'm getting heartily sick of your muppetry.

All he did was raise a valid point

PDN

krudler wrote: »

All he did was raise a valid point

It's not a valid point when a conversation goes like this:

PDN: Of course people professing Christianity have done bad things.

Monosharp: But you have to admit Christians did x bad thing 500 years ago.

PDN: Yes, that's right, I think we should recognise both the good things and the bad things.

Monosharp: But what about y bad thing in bongobongoland?

PDN: Yes, I've already said we should recognise and acknowledge the bad things done in the name of Christianity.

Monosharp: You don't think Christianity is a wee bit at fault?

Cue facepalm.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

No, I am not being semantical. The Christian position is that we should hate sin, but love the sinner.

So you believe Robertson doesn't hate homosexuals ? Just their 'crimes' ?

And you are entitled to indulge in such a belief, even if it is devoid of evidence. But just coming in here and keeping repeating your belief won't make it any more valid.

I am the one giving evidence to the contrary, you are the one who is just constantly repeating yourself about 'Christianity made society better over time' without giving any evidence for it.

My argument in my last post was not that Christianity did bad thing X, it was that Christianity did not improve tolerance for homosexuals, they made it far worse.

Read a few history books. Read about the establishment of the universities.

I talked about this with you before and you have given no proof as to why Christianity was necessary for the establishment of universities.

Read about the establishment of hospitals by monastic orders.

Christianity was not necessary.

Read about how the Reformation led to pluralist societies where diversity of opinion was not only tolerated but welcomed. Read about how religious nonconformists fought for the separation of Church and State. Read about the Quakers. Read about how the Salvation Army and the early Methodists worked to establish trade unions.

And none of these things require the religion in question to be Christianity. It could just as easily have been Buddhism or Hindu.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

So you believe Robertson doesn't hate homosexuals ? Just their 'crimes' ?

I don't believe that their activities are crimes. :rolleyes:

No, while Robertson is an intolerant fruitcake, I don't think he does hate homosexuals.

I am the one giving evidence to the contrary, you are the one who is just constantly repeating yourself about 'Christianity made society better over time' without giving any evidence for it.

Your denial of the facts is up to you. I'm bored with pointing out the same facts to you again and again. Since you just refuse to listen I don't think there's much point, is there?

I talked about this with you before and you have given no proof as to why Christianity was necessary for the establishment of universities.

I think you are deliberately being obtuse. I have stated several times that the point is not whether Christianity was necessary to establish the universities, but that it was Christians who did establish the universities.

Christianity was not necessary.

Nobody said it was necessary. What I said was that monastic orders founded the hospitals. We are not discussing whether it was necessary - so why do you keep trying to derail your own thread?

The question is whether Christianity, over a long period of time, promoted tolerance or intolerance, not whether it was necessary for tolerance or intolerance.

And none of these things require the religion in question to be Christianity. It could just as easily have been Buddhism or Hindu.

And, yet again, no-one has argued that the religion in question had to be Christianity. You started a thread, in the Christianity forum, about what Christianity did or didn't do - not what other religions might have done.

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

Read about how the Reformation led to pluralist societies where diversity of opinion was not only tolerated but welcomed. Read about how religious nonconformists fought for the separation of Church and State. Read about the Quakers. Read about how the Salvation Army and the early Methodists worked to establish trade unions.

And none of these things require the religion in question to be Christianity. It could just as easily have been Buddhism or Hindu.

I'm not sure how your "after the fact" hypothesis even remotely shows Christian intolerance.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

I don't believe that their activities are crimes.

He does.

No, while Robertson is an intolerant fruitcake, I don't think he does hate homosexuals.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree then. I think the majority of people will agree with me.

Your denial of the facts is up to you. I'm bored with pointing out the same facts to you again and again. Since you just refuse to listen I don't think there's much point, is there?

You haven't given me any.

You have general sweeping statements about Christianity's contributions to society throughout history as if our rationality, our tolerance and other things depended on the Christian religion and you have given no reason why.

You might as well say our societies rationality is a result of using the English language since it has been prevalent in much of western society.

I think you are deliberately being obtuse. I have stated several times that the point is not whether Christianity was necessary to establish the universities, but that it was Christians who did establish the universities.

In Europe. In other parts of the world it was other people.

Nobody said it was necessary. What I said was that monastic orders founded the hospitals. We are not discussing whether it was necessary - so why do you keep trying to derail your own thread?

I am sure you said that Christianity was necessary for the society we have today regarding rational thought, tolerance etc. Am I mistaken ?

The question is whether Christianity, over a long period of time, promoted tolerance or intolerance, not whether it was necessary for tolerance or intolerance.

And I'd argue it promoted intolerance as has just been pointed out in the case of attitudes towards homosexuality.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

I'm not sure how your "after the fact" hypothesis even remotely shows Christian intolerance.

Attitudes towards homosexuality were much more tolerant before Christianity.
Attitudes were much more intolerant during the majority of Christian influence in Europe then they were beforehand.

Xluna

Just a thought...I personally think that perhaps the reason why homosexuality was so frowned upon by the Abrahamic religions may have a Darwinian explanation. If you have a relatively small tribe and wish to survive then you want as many people in the tribe as possible. Homosexual relations don't lead to more tribes people,so it's deletarious to the growth and survival of the small tribe. Hence religious laws prohibiting it.

Now the Romans and Greeks were not desert tribes and their civilisation was far more stable and large than the emerging religious tribes,so the possibility of being eradicated was far less than the Jews,so they could afford to tolerate gay relations. I could be way off,but I can't help feel there's some truth in my musings.

PDN

Xluna wrote: »

Just a thought...I personally think that perhaps the reason why homosexuality was so frowned upon by the Abrahamic religions may have a Darwinian explanation. If you have a relatively small tribe and wish to survive then you want as many people in the tribe as possible. Homosexual relations don't lead to more tribes people,so it's deletarious to the growth and survival of the small tribe. Hence religious laws prohibiting it.

Now the Romans and Greeks were not desert tribes and their civilisation was far more stable and large than the emerging religious tribes,so the possibility of being eradicated was far less than the Jews,so they could afford to tolerate gay relations. I could be way off,but I can't help feel there's some truth in my musings.

Interesting. Would you say that the same explanation could account for the extreme homophobia against gays under regimes that are officially atheist?

Xluna

PDN wrote: »

Interesting. Would you say that the same explanation could account for the extreme homophobia against gays under regimes that are officially atheist?

I know very little about LGBT rights in communist countries,bar the earlier posts in this thread. Although not atheist, I can see how there could be a similiar explanation for homophobia in the third Reich. There was an obsession with tribalism in Nazi Germany and with that came all sorts of harsh and extreme measures to ensure the survival and prosperity of the Aryan tribe, sterilisation,genocide, involuntary euthanasia (the T-4 programme.) and of course violent surpression of gay relations were also a measure.
So we can see the connection, when anything threatens the survival of our tribe,and to an even greater extent our immediate family and oneself, we become aggressive to all threats,whether it be liberating ones nation from imperialism,racism,self defence or homophobia-it all comes down to the survival of the tribe,the imperitive of passing on ones DNA and the selfish gene.
Ironically Christianity was the opposiate of Judaism,regarding tribalism,it was inclusive and universal. Though Christians have done a great job of destroying the intent of its founder by creating a multitude of sects and thus encouraging tribalism via nit picking at different interpretations and missing the more important core teachings. Pehaps it's just human nature. Many Buddhist sects seem to teach the exact opposiate of what the original Buddha taught. I have no regard for organised religion due to this.

Saint Ruth

monosharp wrote: »

Homosexuality, just one example where theres a huge intolerance shown by the Christian religion. Whereas before Christianity it was quite accepted or at least not condemned.

Tolerance means: "Inclined to tolerate the beliefs, practices, or traits of others; forbearing"
He does not mean "agreeing with the beliefs, practices, or traits of others"

Having an opinion about anything (inc homosexuality) is not "intolerant"...

What makes an opinion "intolerant" is what you do with the opinion.

So, thinking that prostitution is wrong and stoning one to death is intolerant.

And when Jesus saved that woman being stoned with the words "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", did that mean he thought prostitution was okay?
And was Jesus intolerant because after he saved her, he said: "go, and sin no more".

LoganRice

After scanning through the topic, I'm just gonna jump in.
I hate the way Christianity is against homosexuality. It's not a choice if you're homosexual or not, I don't think my friend (who is homosexual) even wants to like boys, but he can't help it =\ and becuase of this, he's constantly being bullied at school because he's "gay". With the way today's society is going, I don't see a good future for homosexuals, becuase from evidence in most of today's teenage popular shows (I.E family guy, American dad), they're clearly against "gays".

And this is coming from a 14 year old.

And oh yeah, sorry if I'm interrupting an argument, just scanned through the topic xP

chozometroid

LoganRice wrote: »

After scanning through the topic, I'm just gonna jump in.
I hate the way Christianity is against homosexuality. It's not a choice if you're homosexual or not, I don't think my friend (who is homosexual) even wants to like boys, but he can't help it =\ and becuase of this, he's constantly being bullied at school because he's "gay". With the way today's society is going, I don't see a good future for homosexuals, becuase from evidence in most of today's teenage popular shows (I.E family guy, American dad), they're clearly against "gays".

And this is coming from a 14 year old.

And oh yeah, sorry if I'm interrupting an argument, just scanned through the topic xP

Family Guy and American Dad do not represent Christianity.

krudler

LoganRice wrote: »

After scanning through the topic, I'm just gonna jump in.
I hate the way Christianity is against homosexuality. It's not a choice if you're homosexual or not, I don't think my friend (who is homosexual) even wants to like boys, but he can't help it =\ and becuase of this, he's constantly being bullied at school because he's "gay". With the way today's society is going, I don't see a good future for homosexuals, becuase from evidence in most of today's teenage popular shows (I.E family guy, American dad), they're clearly against "gays".

And this is coming from a 14 year old.

And oh yeah, sorry if I'm interrupting an argument, just scanned through the topic xP

Stewie is gay...

Anyway FG and American Dad take the piss out of everyone, so i wouldnt use that as a yardstick for who they're "against" you can add black people, the disabled, women, catholics, jews, nazis, giant chickens, greased up deaf guys and star wars characters to their targets, also Seth McFarlane (their creator) is a massive gay rights supporter so he clearly doesnt hate homosexuals, quoted from the man himself about gay marriage:

"Why is it that Johnny Spaghetti Stain in ****ing Georgia can knock a woman up, legally be married to her, and then beat the **** out of her, but these two intelligent, sophisticated writers who have been together for 20 years can't get married?"

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Interesting. Would you say that the same explanation could account for the extreme homophobia against gays under regimes that are officially atheist?

For example ?

Are you going to mention China here ? Because I already made an argument against your Chinese comment which you haven't replied to.

As for Stalin, well he was against just about everyone, even those who were on his side.