Prof Tiger & Sardis "All Things Considered" Theology Hut

[hedge]

Non-militant:

Most of my fambly are methodists, i.e., show up on Sunday (not even every Sunday) and you're good. That type of religion I can handle.

Militant:

We did have a jehovah's witness working here years ago, that was pretty tedious, I'm glad we got rid of her, I got tired of having to politely listen to her frivolous bullshit...

So when Hitchins gets in front of a microphone or TV camera and heaps insults on Catholicism, yes I absolutely consider that an example of militant. He's certainly allowed to do that, but he is your ex-Jehovah's Witness on steroids. You just happen to like his frivolous tedium.

If this is how you define "militant", you are certainly closer to my Jehovah Witness secretary than any of the methodists I know...

[Professor Tiger]

Don't ask the question if you can't handle the answer.

The difference is, atheism didn't warrant those atrocities. Those guys were just brutal assholes who happened to be atheist.

Are really saying that Stalin and Mao and Pot were not motivated by their atheism to do what they did? If so, LMAO! I commend to your reading what they actually wrote about why they did what they did. Atheism had everything to do with what they did. You are reaching IB levels of denial here.

I will now say with equal ridiculousness that all those inquisitions and Crusades and anti-scientism had nothing to with their religion. They did all those bad things and just happened to be religious. One had nothing to do with the other.

heh

[hedge]

"When I converted to Orthodoxy it was like an asteroid strike. My 20-something niece just converted to Catholicism and it was quietly accepted by all - even the older folks."

Maybe that's just b/c your family likes her enough that no matter what she does they still support her, while they hate you so much that no matter how inconsequential an action you take, they see it as an opportunity to rag on you. Don't mistake the cause for the effect...

[hedge]

"Are really saying that Stalin and Mao and Pot were not motivated by their atheism to do what they did?"

Only a deluded, brain-washed religious-minded idiot with an axe to grind could possibly take that position...

[Professor Tiger]

And to think you didn't approve of any ad hominem against your patron saint, Chris Hitchens. You seem to like ad hominem just fine.

"Are really saying that Stalin and Mao and Pot were not motivated by their atheism to do what they did?"

Only a deluded, brain-washed religious-minded idiot with an axe to grind could possibly take that position...

So are you now saying that Stalin, Mao and Pot WERE motivated by atheism? After all, as their mentor Lenin said,

"Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism."

- Lenin in his book Religion. Maybe you should read it. That might help you with your manifest confusion.

[Professor Tiger]

Oh, I almost forgot - the Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with religion either.

heh

[hedge]

You're just being a flippant child now. But from what I can tell by reading some of your other posts, you're not stupid enough to not realize that you're wrong. Thus your flippancy. "Heh"? Really? It's good to see you devolve into this sort of thing. Satisfying, even.

""Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism."

Maybe you should read Marx to understand the humanist basis of his atheism:

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself. "

Only a complete asshole would read this as some kind of call for brutality and barbarism. To cite Stalin and Mao as "evidence" of what Marx had in mind when criticized religion is simply dishonest. But, as a religious person, you are intimately acquainted with dishonesty, no?

[Professor Tiger]

Ihedge, you would obviously rather wander into a loonyville of plucking flowers rather than acknowledge that three of the four biggest mass murderers in the last century were atheists, and they committed their mass murders as a result of their atheism which is an inextricable part of communism. At least John Paul 2 had the moral clarity and humble honesty to say "Yes, my Church did that. And it was very bad. And we bear responsibility for it."

Neither you nor your patron saint Hitchens have risen to that stature yet.

[Professor Tiger]

Maybe you should read Marx to understand the humanist basis of his atheism:

Before you swoon to violin music of atheism's "humanist," peaceful and multicultural treatment of religion, please read this. It is a letter from Lenin to Molotov. I hope you accept the Library of Congress as a reliable source. A photocopy of the original Russian is also on that site for your perusal.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/ae2bkhun.html

Now and only now, when people are being
eaten in famine-stricken areas, and hundreds, if not thousands, of
corpses lie on the roads, we can (and therefore must) pursue the
removal of church property with the most frenzied and ruthless
energy and not hesitate to put down the least opposition. Now and
only now, the vast majority of peasants will either be on our side,
or at least will not be in a position to support to any decisive
degree this handful of Black Hundreds clergy and reactionary urban
petty bourgeoisie, who are willing and able to attempt to oppose
this Soviet decree with a policy of force.

We must pursue the removal of church property by any
means necessary in order to secure for ourselves a fund of several
hundred million gold rubles (do not forget the immense wealth of
some monasteries and lauras). Without this fund any government
work in general, any economic build-up in particular, and any
upholding of soviet principles in Genoa especially is completely
unthinkable. In order to get our hands on this fund of several
hundred million gold rubles (and perhaps even several hundred
billion), we must do whatever is necessary. But to do this
successfully is possible only now. All considerations indicate that
later on we will fail to do this, for no other time, besides that of
desperate famine, will give us such a mood among the general mass
of peasants that would ensure us the sympathy of this group, or, at
least, would ensure us the neutralization of this group in the sense
that victory in the struggle for the removal of church property
unquestionably and completely will be on our side.

One clever writer on statecraft correctly said that if it is
necessary for the realization of a well-known political goal to
perform a series of brutal actions then it is necessary to do them in
the most energetic manner and in the shortest time, because masses
of people will not tolerate the protracted use of brutality. This
observation in particular is further strengthened because harsh
measures against a reactionary clergy will be politically impractical,
possibly even extremely dangerous as a result of the international
situation in which we in Russia, in all probability, will find
ourselves, or may find ourselves, after Genoa. Now victory over
the reactionary clergy is assured us completely. In addition, it will
be more difficult for the major part of our foreign adversaries
among the Russian emigres abroad, i.e., the Socialist-
Revolutionaries and the Milyukovites [Left Wing Cadet Party], to
fight against us if we, precisely at this time, precisely in connection
with the famine, suppress the reactionary clergy with utmost haste
and ruthlessness.

Therefore, I come to the indisputable conclusion that we
must precisely now smash the Black Hundreds clergy most
decisively and ruthlessly and put down all resistance with such
brutality that they will not forget it for several decades.

But no, atheism had nothing to with Lenin's brutality. Or Stain's or Mao's or Pot's.

[Jungle Rat]

Jesus was gay.

[innocentbystander]

Catholic vs Protestant vs Orthodox?

Christ is savior. The rest? Meh...

In some cases, as demonstrated above, it's fundamentalist Protestants and atheists vs. the Catholics.

Although, if my fundamentalist Protestant relatives are an indication, anti-Catholicism has decreased dramatically in the younger generation. When I converted to Orthodoxy it was like an asteroid strike. My 20-something niece just converted to Catholicism and it was quietly accepted by all - even the older folks.

hmmmmm...... lets get down into the weeds for just a moment

would you care to define specifically (exactly), in your own words, the true difference between Protestants and fundamentalist Protestants? What separates the two? How would you discriminate one from the other?

[Professor Tiger]

As I'm sure you know, the term "fundamentalist" came from the early 20th century to describe Protestants who reacted against evolution, other scientific discoveries, and higher critical studies of the Bible. It distinguished them from those Protestants who more or less accepted evolution, other scientific discoveries, and higher critical studies of the Bible. Fundamentalists then and now highly emphasize things Iike the inerrancy of the Bible, the Virgin birth/miracles/atoning death/resurrection/second coming of Jesus. Today, the term "fundamentalist" would tend to include most Baptists, Bible Churchers, Pentecostals. It would tend not to include most Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.

The term "fundamentalist" is close to the term "evangelical." I agree with whoever once said that a fundamentalist is an evangelical who is angry. Other than that, I seldom used the term "fundamentalist" as a barb. It is just a handy term.

[billy bob bocephus]

Jesus was gay.

and He loves you, rat

[hedge]

Look, it all comes down to this: you believe in something that is totally bogus and not real. And you rely on this fiction to guide your actions in this world and this life, the only world and life you will ever experience. So basically your entire existence and character is based on a lie. Well, godspeed...

[T Dot O Dot]

I dont need fairy tales & made-up stories to point my moral compass in the right direction

the problem is... a shyt load of other people do

[Dr. Strangelove]

Prof-

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. didn't kill millions in the name of atheism. That long quote from Lenin you posted doesn't even imply anywhere that Lenin primarily did the things he did because he hated the concept of God and wanted to destroy all religious thought. He wanted to confiscate the wealth of the church for the State and eliminate one of the biggest supporters of the old regime.

In this respect he was correct; the Russian Orothodox Church was in bed with the Tsarist Empire. Under the last Tsar, the Church was arm-in-arm with the secret police and priests were expected to inform on parishioners who showed signs of dissension or "radicalism".

Here's a quote from Orlando Figes' book on the Russian Revolution, A People's Tragedy (pg. 63). It's a portion of a basic catechism taught to children by the church:

Q. How should we show our respect for the Tsar?

A. 1. We should feel complete loyalty to the Tsar and be prepared to lay down our lives for him. 2. We should without objection fulfill his commands and be obedient to the authorities appointed by him. 3. We should pray for his health and salvation, and also for that of all the Ruling House.

Q. What should we think of those who violate their duty towards their Sovereign?

A. They are guilty not only before the Sovereign, but also before God. The Word of God says "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God" (Rom.I 3:2)

[hedge]

"Why I loved listening to Hitchens"

[youtube]vW8yBnpN48w[/youtube]

[hedge]

This is the kind of tortured verbal diarrhea that Prof counts as intellectual activity. "If Christopher Hitchens is in Hell, it's because God loves him". You just can't take people like this seriously. They're living in a fantasy world where the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is actually a topic of debate...

[youtube]8FmIMAA46A8[/youtube]

[Professor Tiger]

Prof-

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. didn't kill millions in the name of atheism. That long quote from Lenin you posted doesn't even imply anywhere that Lenin primarily did the things he did because he hated the concept of God and wanted to destroy all religious thought.

In the first place, by that reasoning:
1. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pot were avowed atheists, communists, and as such detested private property, free speech, political opposition, free press, judicial due process, etc.
2. When in power, they wound up killing and severely oppressing their people by confiscating all private property, silencing free speech, wiping out all political opposition, eliminating all free press, ending due process, etc.
3. You would (or at least I think you would) agree that #1 above led to #2 above. I think you would also say that #2 was very evil.

But somehow, you also say that:
1. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pot were avowed atheists, communists, and as such detested all religion.
2. When in power, they wound up killing millions for simply practicing religion and severely oppressed any practice of religion.
3. But somehow, unlike the first case, you aren't willing to admit that #1 led to #2. I can see why if you're an atheist. It must be terribly embarrassing to have Lenin, Stalin and Mao and Pot as your non-godfathers.

[hedge]

Dude, you are a brainwashed fool when it comes to this topic. Unlike religion, atheism doesn't mandate anything. If you don't believe in God, then you just act on your own instincts. If your a brutal, murderous asshole, it's not BECAUSE you don't believe in God, it's just your nature. Not believing in God didn't give you the mandate to be that way. But for thousands of years, various religions all over this planet HAVE provided precisely that supernatural mandate and authority to murder and torture millions of people. You come up with 3 examples of atheists from within the last 100 years as if proves atheism is just as bad as the millenniums of abject suffering that religion has wrought on this planet. Sorry, Prof. No sale...

And for that matter, you act like me or any other atheist approves of what Stalin and Mao did, as if simply I'm an atheist I approve of all atrocities committed by any atheist. Wrong again. Those guys were assholes and murderers and I condemn their actions, whereas you try to claim in the most cowardly fashion that just b/c atheists have committed atrocities in the last century that are as bad as anything religious people have been doing for thousands of years, then somehow those religious people are better than the atheists. You are one fucked up non-apologist for religious atrocity. Again, no sale. But I'm sure you sleep fine at night after you say your mewling prayers to nobody and think you're somehow "blessed" or "saved" from having to answer for what your kind has inflicted on this planet. But you're not blessed and you won't be saved. You're going to die and rot just like the most evil atheist that ever lived and in 50 years nobody will know you ever existed. You might as well kill yourself now....