BC/AD vs BCE/CE

[N35t0r]

Give me some examples then. The nation that has been primarily responsible for the protection of democracy is the United States. Prior to that, it was the British Empire, and I can quote Kipling as to the motivations as to why.

I'm not going to do any work to disprove you blatantly false untruths, especially since every time I've done so, you have moved the goalposts and/or gone off on a wild tangent. Like redefining what a true christian is.

I am convinced that secularists don't really like democracy all that much and would prefer a dictatorship - or the technocrats ruling over them.

Yeah, sorry but **** off. My grandfather was tortured by a so-called christian dictatorship which was supported by the church, so I'm not convinced at all. And this is also a funny accusation, coming from the follower of a religion whose head is chosen by less than 120 persons, while boasting over 1 billion followers, and which can't be female. Pretty democratic indeed.

I am seeing plenty of evidence thereof in Europe to remove democracy where democracy is opposed to the will of their betters.

Yes, clearly Europe is rife with dictatorial governments that bow to the will of godless atheists.

[giblets]

No, you just don't know much about the history of your own country. One man wasn't a christian! Wow! That's so relevant. Nevermind that most everyone else was! Wow.

Most people were Christians, therefore the American Revolution was caused by Christianity!!!! No it wasn't. I gave you a perfectly valid example of someone who didn't think God was telling him to overthrow the British. In fact he was a secularist who supported democracy... imagine that...

[Proteus_MST]

Most people were Christians, therefore the American Revolution was caused by Christianity!!!! No it wasn't. I gave you a perfectly valid example of someone who didn't think God was telling him to overthrow the British. In fact he was a secularist who supported democracy... imagine that...

Not to forget the french revolution, which marked the beginning of the end of most monarchies in europe (and therefore was an importangt step on the way of democratization of europe). Of course it was performed by christians (as 95% of the french citizens were roman catholics) ... but considering the fact that they then created harsh laws against the practice of religion proves that it wasn´t a christian revolution

[Kidlicious]

Most people were Christians, therefore the American Revolution was caused by Christianity!!!! No it wasn't. I gave you a perfectly valid example of someone who didn't think God was telling him to overthrow the British. In fact he was a secularist who supported democracy... imagine that...

My goodness. :facepalm:

[Kidlicious]

Not to forget the french revolution, which marked the beginning of the end of most monarchies in europe (and therefore was an importangt step on the way of democratization of europe). Of course it was performed by christians (as 95% of the french citizens were roman catholics) ... but considering the fact that they then created harsh laws against the practice of religion proves that it wasn´t a christian revolution

What do you mean? The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen calls for religious freedom.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not going to do any work to disprove you blatantly false untruths

It's your thesis. :shrug: Suit yourself.

Like redefining what a true christian is.

Ah, yes. Liberals are usually annoyed when I exclude people who deliberately choose not to obey Christ's teachings.

Yeah, sorry but **** off. My grandfather was tortured by a so-called christian dictatorship which was supported by the church

Ah. I believe that's what we call bias. Good we got that out of the way...

And this is also a funny accusation, coming from the follower of a religion whose head is chosen by less than 120 persons, while boasting over 1 billion followers, and which can't be female. Pretty democratic indeed.

Indeed, the Church isn't a democracy. I believe in the separation of Church and state. Do you?

Yes, clearly Europe is rife with dictatorial governments that bow to the will of godless atheists.

Look at what happened when Ireland had the temerity to say no to Europe. The winds towards dictatorship are blowing quite strong in Europe.

[N35t0r]

It's your thesis. :shrug: Suit yourself.

No, it's yours. If you make a generalization that big (and stupid), be prepared to back it up. Don't expect the people who call you on it to do so. You have the burden of proof.

Ah, yes. Liberals are usually annoyed when I exclude people who deliberately choose not to obey Christ's teachings.

No, if you always excluded them. But here you are claiming that everyone that fights for democracy is christian. You need to use the same standards for christianity.

Ah. I believe that's what we call bias. Good we got that out of the way...

OK, so showing you an instance of torturing, dictatorial christians and a pro-democratic atheist is bias. Good to know.

Indeed, the Church isn't a democracy.

Yay for pro-democratic catholics then: Go do this, do not follow my example.

I believe in the separation of Church and state. Do you?

Yeah, me too. Do tell me how this is relevant though. I'm criticizing your claim that a highly non-democratic organization is pro-democratic.

Look at what happened when Ireland had the temerity to say no to Europe. The winds towards dictatorship are blowing quite strong in Europe.

I see Ireland and do not see a dictator in power. I must be going blind.

[molly bloom]

I doubt if we would have democracies without Christianity. You know, the all men are created equal thing.

Could you point out where that is specified in the Bible ? I don't recall which prophet or collection of texts mentions one person, one vote, no colour bar, the secret ballot, et cetera.

In any case, European absolutist monarchs (and would be absolutists, such as Charles I) used the Bible and religion to buttress their political opinions. As did the apartheid regime in South Africa....

[molly bloom]

A better question - is to name a democracy currently present today without significant Christian influence.

India. The Christian influence is nowhere near as significant as the Hindu or Muslim influence.

Because democracy is not natural human behavior.

It isn't ? What is 'unnatural' about it ?

[molly bloom]

, and I can quote Kipling as to the motivations as to why.

So can I.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

The White Man's Burden, 1899


Written after the Americans replaced the Spanish as the torturers, murderers and rulers of the Filipinos. The same Filipinos who had decided to rebel against the Spanish BEFORE the Americans declared war on Spain.

http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Research/Digital-Library/Record.aspx?libID=o274576

[molly bloom]

Look at what happened when Ireland had the temerity to say no to Europe. The winds towards dictatorship are blowing quite strong in Europe.

Uh huh. Well then, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Hungary- they'd be revisiting the past when they had dictatorships that operated with the blessing and cooperation of the Roman Catholic Church.


The delightful R.C. Bishop Alois Hudal:

German intelligence is known to be reluctant to surrender all its Eichmann documents because of fears that full disclosure would prove beyond doubt that German and Vatican officials colluded in helping him to avoid trial for war crimes and escape to Argentina.

It is well documented that German Bishop Alois Hudal in Rome operated post-war "ratlines" which provided passports for wanted Nazis and allowed them to escape justice. Franz Stangl, the commandant of the Treblinka extermination camp, admitted to British Nazi expert Gitta Sereny that Hudal helped him get away after the defeat of Germany in 1945.

Reiner Geulen, a lawyer for a journalist who has been pressuring German intelligence over the files, said: "There is good reason to believe that Eichmann received help from German, Italian and Vatican officials."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-knew-eichmann-was-hiding-in-argentina-in-1952-2180307.html

[Kidlicious]

Could you point out where that is specified in the Bible ? I don't recall which prophet or collection of texts mentions one person, one vote, no colour bar, the secret ballot, et cetera.

It's an interpretation. That's all that's needed. It's a correct interpretation IMO, although I don't believe the Bible calls for specific political systems.

In any case, European absolutist monarchs (and would be absolutists, such as Charles I) used the Bible and religion to buttress their political opinions. As did the apartheid regime in South Africa....

Indeed, using a really bad interpretation. Paul didn't say that people should own slaves. The Bible says just the opposite, for christians to not lord over others. What Paul said is that if you are lorded over you should accept your situation and be the best christian that you can be in any situation.

[Kidlicious]

It isn't ? What is 'unnatural' about it ?

You have to force people to do it. You have to prevent people from being authoritarian.

[N35t0r]

It's an interpretation. That's all that's needed. It's a correct interpretation IMO, although I don't believe the Bible calls for specific political systems.


Indeed, using a really bad interpretation. Paul didn't say that people should own slaves. The Bible says just the opposite, for christians to not lord over others. What Paul said is that if you are lorded over you should accept your situation and be the best christian that you can be in any situation.

Ah, so christianity is to be thanked for democracy, but ignore pretty much everything that was done in the name of christianity. Those were just bad interpretations.

[Kidlicious]

Ah, so christianity is to be thanked for democracy, but ignore pretty much everything that was done in the name of christianity. Those were just bad interpretations.

Do you believe in absolute truth or that it's relative?