Secularists having a paddy over the KJV Bible Readings

[Louis VI the Fat]

I own a 1870s 'Gentleman's Dictionary'.

It says paddies are best hunted on horseback with hounds, in the open field. They taste somewhat like chicken. Served with any choice of potato dish.

[Beskar]

Other than a slang term for an Irishman, a 'paddy' is a tantrum fit, where some one goes hysterical like a spoilt child.

Infact, here is an amusing video of a child having a paddy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nojWJ6-XmeQ

[jabarto]

When finals are over however, I will be able to show you ample evidence of the overwhelmingly positive effect of Christianity on the world, that will be able to, I believe, convince even one as determined to believe otherwise as you.

I'm going to hold you to this. While I'm not particularly biased against Christianity, you've made some flagrantly absurd claims and I really want to see you justify them.

[Ronin]

You blame bad stuff on the catholics, a catholic might blame all the worlds evil on you protestant whores... Oh, and let's have a little game of "who is really a proper christian?" shall we?

That's like playing a game of "who's the prettiest Denny's waitress"...even if you win you have a lot of work to do.

[al Roumi]

flagrantly absurd claims

What, did Vuk post something?

[HoreTore]

Kidd, Colin. The Forging of Races: Race and Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World, 1600-2000. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Christianity at the least served as a hindrance to those who sought to stereotype people based on outward appearance, and to exaggerate racial construction by assigning to those outward appearances negative views. That is one of the many books I have been reading while I am writing the paper for my senior seminar. I have to turn in the final paper by tomorrow morning, so I will not be able to argue this with you till finals are done. When finals are over however,

BY THE HEAVENS! SOMEONE WROTE A BOOK SAYING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I'M SAYING! MY POSITION MUST BE WRONG THEN!!

Seriously though, christianity served as a hindrance to stereotyping? What nonsense. No christian ever death with slavery, imperialism, etc etc... No wait, it was Christian Europe who subjugated the inferior primitives around the world, driven by power-hungry christian zeal...

I'm not sure it's a coincidence that christian Europe got Hitler, while hindu/buddhist/muslim India got Gandhi.

OH WAIT, BREAKING NEWS!

Turns out someone wrote a book saying Communism is superior: Marx, Engels(1848): Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei. So..... Since they wrote them in a book, their words are now truth.

Sorry, capitalists, looks like you're beaten

I will be able to show you ample evidence of the overwhelmingly positive effect of Christianity on the world, that will be able to, I believe, convince even one as determined to believe otherwise as you.

I have no desire to discuss the importance of religion with religous people. It's a debate where the odds of any common ground at all is zero.

Just like I seriously doubt that you'd agree that Communism has been a positive force, I won't agree that Christianity has been a positive force.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...OH WAIT, BREAKING NEWS!

Turns out someone wrote a book saying Communism is superior: Marx, Engels(1848): Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei. So..... Since they wrote them in a book, their words are now truth.

Sorry, capitalists, looks like you're beaten

Oh rats. 234 years shot to ****. If only Smith had published AFTER M&E....

<<heads off to thrift store to look for Mao jacket>>

[Banquo's Ghost]

Seriously though, christianity served as a hindrance to stereotyping? What nonsense. No christian ever death with slavery, imperialism, etc etc... No wait, it was Christian Europe who subjugated the inferior primitives around the world, driven by power-hungry christian zeal...

Whilst I am not a subscriber to the idea that Christianity was, on balance, a force for overall good, your assertion here above is significantly flawed.

Slavery existed long before Christianity and subjugation of less developed peoples is arguably a defining characteristic of Mankind regardless of spiritual persuasion. In fact, the modern concept of abolishing slavery through law is rooted in Christian thought refined through the Enlightenment. There's a case for arguing that outlawing slavery is one of the few universal goods to emerge from Christian tradition.

I'm not sure it's a coincidence that christian Europe got Hitler, while hindu/buddhist/muslim India got Gandhi.

And the above is even sillier. One might just as well argue that Europe also got St Francis of Assisi whilst the Indian sub-continent is hardly a garden of pacifist tranquility. Ever heard of thuggee, suttee and so on? Moreover, who shot Gandhi?

You do your argument a disservice by making it so simplistic.

[rory_20_uk]

Religion is independent for how good or how bad a given culture is.

[HoreTore]

Whilst I am not a subscriber to the idea that Christianity was, on balance, a force for overall good, your assertion here above is significantly flawed.

Slavery existed long before Christianity and subjugation of less developed peoples is arguably a defining characteristic of Mankind regardless of spiritual persuasion.

I completely agree. I was responding to a "look what horrors the Romans did"-argument, by showing that christians have done the same....

There's a case for arguing that outlawing slavery is one of the few universal goods to emerge from Christian tradition.

....but I strongly disagree with this, as I cannot see how slavery would've outlived atheist liberalism, for example. Also, slavery isn't a feature of the far east cultures, is it?

[Beskar]

I completely agree. I was responding to a "look what horrors the Romans did"-argument, by showing that Christians have done the same...

Because the Romans became 'Christian' after Constantine, and they integrated their pagan customs into the faith and invented new ones. As Gibbons noted, there were the 'Christian Ladies' (prostitutes) exposing themselves infront of the pagan family who were very sexually conserve and them being disgusted.

[Brenus]

“Gandhi.”. Ah, the man who wrote to his "friend" Hitler.

[rory_20_uk]

....but I strongly disagree with this, as I cannot see how slavery would've outlived atheist liberalism, for example. Also, slavery isn't a feature of the far east cultures, is it?

Hindu's have the Caste system which in essence achieves the same thing
China historically treated the pesants as slaves without the name.

[HoreTore]

Hindu's have the Caste system which in essence achieves the same thing
China historically treated the pesants as slaves without the name.

What is christian Europe's serfdom, if not another name for slavery?

[rory_20_uk]

What is christian Europe's serfdom, if not another name for slavery?

Preaching to the converted! I don't think that there was any magic in Christianity. All religions have been perverted broardly for the same ends everywhere.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What is christian Europe's serfdom, if not another name for slavery?

Rory was suggesting that, by whatever name you care to assign it, ALL major cultures prior to the era of the Enlightenment practiced some form of largely permanent social subjegation. Moreover, I tend to agree with the argument that most Eastern societies/religions could not have created the potential for an "Enlightenment" era. The philosophies of the other religions don't take the same "journey" (Though in other ways, of course the "journey" they encourage is equally fruitful).

By-the-by, to the extent that any religious label may be applied to modern-day Europe, the only one that fits is still "Christian."

[HoreTore]

So it's still just a coincidence that it happened when christianity lost its grup on society....?

The majority of those involved in the renessaince had brownish hair, perhaps that's the reason? If not, why should it be christianity?

I'd say that material wealth and scientific progress had a lot moree to do with it, and you can't pin either of those on any religion.

[Louis VI the Fat]

By-the-by, to the extent that any religious label may be applied to modern-day Europe, the only one that fits is still "Christian."

Yes, but to the extent that Europe created itself a European Christianity.

European culture created its Christianity, even moreso than Christianity shaped Europe culture. This (Latin Christian) European religion is very different from the Jewish cults, the ancient Middle Eastern Christian religions, and even the Orthodox world. A bit similar to how one can find pretty outlandish mixtures of Christianity and animism/spiritism in Africa and the Caribbean.


(Curse the Romans for their dhimmitude! That beautiful civilisation, destroyed from within by a Middle Eastern death cult)

[Vuk]

So it's still just a coincidence that it happened when christianity lost its grup on society....?

Actually, there is a consensus in scholarly opinion that the idea of race being determined by skin colour, straightness of hair, etc, and these traits corresponding to personality, worth, ability, etc. only gained ground as a result of the decline in the prominence of Christianity in Western Intellectual culture.

The majority of those involved in the renaissance had brownish hair, perhaps that's the reason? If not, why should it be Christianity?

The renaissance was NOT the enlightenment. It is of course a different debate, but it is my opinion that in many ways the Renaissance was a step backward.

I'd say that material wealth and scientific progress had a lot moree to do with it, and you can't pin either of those on any religion.

You need only read the works of enlightenment scholars and 'scientists' to see the importance of religion on the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment in many ways was synthesis of philosophy and theology. Science was used to affirm theological beliefs and gain a deeper understanding of God and his creation, and Christianity was the guiding force of science.

Love it or hate it baby, but your world is a Christian world.

[rory_20_uk]

I'd be interested to see articles on the first point you made there, Vuk. What time frame are we talking here?

Any scientist was also clever enough to realise what happened to those who didn't dress up discoveries in religious terms. Censure if you were lucky, something more... lasting if you weren't.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Actually, there is a consensus in scholarly opinion that the idea of race being determined by skin colour, straightness of hair, etc, and these traits corresponding to personality, worth, ability, etc. only gained ground as a result of the decline in the prominence of Christianity in Western Intellectual culture.



The renaissance was NOT the enlightenment. It is of course a different debate, but it is my opinion that in many ways the Renaissance was a step backward.



You need only read the works of enlightenment scholars and 'scientists' to see the importance of religion on the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment in many ways was synthesis of philosophy and theology. Science was used to affirm theological beliefs and gain a deeper understanding of God and his creation, and Christianity was the guiding force of science.

Love it or hate it baby, but your world is a Christian world.

Don't believe everything they teach you in Sunday school / provincial college / religious activist centres / madrassas.


And evolution is not 'just a theory' either.

[Vuk]

Don't believe everything they teach you in Sunday school / provincial college / religious activist centres / madrassas.


And evolution is not 'just a theory' either.

You are right, a theory can be tested. Actually, I attend a state college, and my statement was made as a result of the research I did for my senior seminar. That point is argued by the foremost scholars in the field (Mechal Sobel, Colin Kidd, Betty Wood, etc). You should read the Colin Kidd book that I quoted from earlier. I think that you would find his argument very interesting.

I'd be interested to see articles on the first point you made there, Vuk. What time frame are we talking here?

If you want, I can PM you some really good books on the subject, but forgive me if I cannot quote exact passages from them, because I have returned them to the library. (as school is now out)
As said above, the Colin Kidd book is definately a good read if you want to learn more on the subject, as it is the only recent major historical work to deal directly with the relationship between race and scripture. His work is an intellectual work only though, and he does not discuss real work happenings (in fact, it seems at times a mix of both religious studies and history). There are also a lot of good books written about the concrete effects of the church on slavery by such authors as McKivigan, Charles Irons, Wood, Sobel, etc.
There is extensive scholarship backing up my point, and from my study of the major scholarship on the topic, I found no dissenting voices. If you know of any though, I would be interested in reading them.

[rory_20_uk]

No, it really was a genuine request for information. It is not an area of study that I had thought to investidate, so better to ask someone who knows than trawl google.

[HoreTore]

Actually, there is a consensus in scholarly opinion that the idea of race being determined by skin colour, straightness of hair, etc, and these traits corresponding to personality, worth, ability, etc. only gained ground as a result of the decline in the prominence of Christianity in Western Intellectual culture.



The renaissance was NOT the enlightenment. It is of course a different debate, but it is my opinion that in many ways the Renaissance was a step backward.



You need only read the works of enlightenment scholars and 'scientists' to see the importance of religion on the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment in many ways was synthesis of philosophy and theology. Science was used to affirm theological beliefs and gain a deeper understanding of God and his creation, and Christianity was the guiding force of science.

Love it or hate it baby, but your world is a Christian world.

Hah!

The enlightenment did not occur in "the christian world". it did not occur in Christian Ethiopia, Russia or the Balkans. It happened in a few specific countries, mainly France, England, Italy and Germany(ish). And these countries were, coincidently, also the wealthiest and most powerful countries at the time. When people no longer have to spend 25 hours a day working to get enough food to live, they are able to think and such, thus causing the enlightenment.

My own country, Norway, is a very good example of this. We're a barbaric and primitive people, and we were bleed white as a danish colony, and during this time, we had no forward thinkers at all. But then we built a merchant marine... This created a shipping elite, and this created some degree of wealth in Norway from the 18th to 19th century. And lo and behold, we got a number of forward thinkers, like the eidsvoll council, who came up with one of the most liberal constitutions to date, Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson who, among a bunch other things, fought anti-semitism and state racism and Henrik Ibsen, who fought for womens liberation. Is it really necessary to say that the last two were not religious men, or is that implied? And before that, while we poor Norwegians were wallowing in our religion ignorance, our much more wealthy Swedish and Danish neighbors had several established universities and a number of liberal thinkers...

But the bottom line remains the same; if christianity was the driving force behind our liberation, why did it take 1700 years for anything at all to happen, and why didn't anything happen in christian Ethiopia?

I'll tell you why: because christianity had nothing more to do with liberal advancement than brown hair did.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The connotations that religion has with political/social/scientific development varies a lot depending on a whole host of factors that determined its relations with each of them.

In Latin America, Catholicism has socialist connotations due to the influence of Jesuit liberation theology (hence why the USA tried to spread Protestanism in places like Brazil and Nicaragua, to encourage free market views). In Scotland, it has connotations of social democracy due to the working-class roots of Irish Catholic immigrants. In Spain, Italy or Croatia, it has connotations of fascism and the far-right. And all this from one of the most centralised and top-down religions in the world.

In the 18th century, deism was heavily associated with Irish Republicanism. Yet the early IRA had a largely Protestant leadership. And yet by the 20th century the mantle of Republicanism was held firmly in the hands of Catholicism. So obviously such political movements tend not to be a product of something inherent in these religions themselves.

[gaelic cowboy]

In Latin America, Catholicism has socialist connotations due to the influence of Jesuit liberation theology (hence why the USA tried to spread Protestanism in places like Brazil and Nicaragua, to encourage free market views).

I seriously doubt there was a concerted effort to transplant Protestanism to encourage "Free market" views that strikes me as fantasy.

Far more likely is that Protestanism ie the American version had become established and wealthy enough to spread out into the world.

In the 18th century, deism was heavily associated with Irish Republicanism. Yet the early IRA had a largely Protestant leadership. And yet by the 20th century the mantle of Republicanism was held firmly in the hands of Catholicism. So obviously such political movements tend not to be a product of something inherent in these religions themselves.

Voting, property rights, education and remittances from America helped then jump a rung on the ladder, the big driver of the day is shame for surviving an Gorta Mór and shame for being poor.

Everyone who rose to prominance at that time was basically either a child of the famine or raised by famine survivors that caused deep deep anger.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I seriously doubt there was a concerted effort to transplant Protestanism to encourage "Free market" views that strikes me as fantasy.

Far more likely is that Protestanism ie the American version had become established and wealthy enough to spread out into the world.

Voting, property rights, education and remittances from America allowed Catholics to jump a rung on the ladder simple as that.

Maybe not a "concerted effort," but it most definitely was one theme of that missionary work.

Linkie

Another Linkie

At least at the turn of the 20th, there were a number of Protestants who very clearly linked socio-economic success with Protestantism, and at least some acted on that belief.

[CBR]

..And before that, while we poor Norwegians were wallowing in our religion ignorance, our much more wealthy Swedish and Danish neighbors had several established universities and a number of liberal thinkers...

Hm IMO one of the most liberal thinkers in Denmark in early 18th century was Ludvig Holberg (Norwegian) Pretty sure he got more out of visiting places south of Denmark than attending the University of Copenhagen.

It took Struensee (German) to do all kinds of reforms later on, but that cost him his head as he was doing too much too fast, and knocking up the queen did not help either.

So I would not call Denmark a place with many liberal thinkers until much later.

[gaelic cowboy]

I'll tell you why: because christianity had nothing more to do with liberal advancement than brown hair did.

I see and where did these forward thinkers learn to read and write the Open University was it.

[Beskar]

Funny enough, the advancement happened before Christianity during the periods like the Greeks and Romans... guess what happened next.