It is my personal mission to destroy Christianity

[jody]

sorry Buzz....but PMSL

[fat]

So far the score is Buzz nil - Christians nil.

[jody]

yep i'd agree.... Buzz is - 1500

[fat]

Oh Dash - it means minus.

[jody]

Sent from my V96A using proboards

[pim]

Jan 7, 2013 23:51:27 GMT 10 fat said:

Oh Dash - it means minus.

I once was acquainted with a Dorothy Dash - she called herself Dot Dash

True!!!

[fat]

I'd call her Miss or Mrs Morse.

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2013 5:45:44 GMT 10 fat said:

I'd call her Miss or Mrs Morse.

..and if you dated her twice and regretted it would it be a case of remorse?

[fat]

[slartibartfast]

More or less?

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2013 1:12:41 GMT 10 pim said:

I once was acquainted with a Dorothy Dash - she called herself Dot Dash

True!!!

I had a school teacher (when I was six years old, during my second year of school) who was called Miss Death.

TRUE!!

[Occam's Spork]

Emperor Nero
Culte de la Raison
Voltaire
Josef Stalin
Mao

..Every attempt to stamp it out, and it came back stronger.
I encourage and will even celebrate your attempt, Buzz.

I bet you never expected that.

[pim]

Jan 13, 2013 3:05:51 GMT 10 Occam's Spork said:

Emperor Nero
Culte de la Raison
Voltaire
Josef Stalin
Mao

..Every attempt to stamp it out, and it came back stronger.
I encourage and will even celebrate your attempt, Buzz.

I bet you never expected that.

I'd agree that some of the above targeted Christians (which is not the same as targeting Christianity) for opportunistic reasons. Such as Nero, Stalin and Mao. They targeted Christians in the same way that the McCarthyists targeted "Reds" during the Cold War in the 1950s - defensively. Basically the political rule-of-thumb for a regime under pressure is to deflect attention from its own failings by inventing either an external threat, or the "enemy within". We're seeing it today with the demonisation of Muslims in Western countries. You need look no further than NTB for examples of that particular phenomenon.

What do you mean by the "culte de la Raison"? Are you talking about the Enlightenment of the 18th century, or are you referring to the year (Sep 1793 - July 1794) during the French Revolution known to history as "The Terror" when Robespierre headed a regime called the "Committee of Public Safety" and used "Reason" as a useful tool to institute a totalitarian dictatorship? It's true that the 11 months of Robespierre took on a distinctly anti-clerical hue when the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris was transformed into a "Temple to the Goddess of Reason" and even the language was purged of Christian and pagan references (such as the names of the months of the year) into more "rational" nomenclature. So "December ' was changed to "Nivôse" or "the snowy month" and so on. It didn't last and it was never going to last. Napoleon put a stop to it. But it did give us the metric system of weights and measures, as well as decimal currency. You Canadians have always had $$ but I'm old enough to remember being paid in Australian £££. And I mean real £££, not the decimal £££ that the British use but the £££ that are made up of 20 shillings, and each shilling being made up of 12 pence. My first wage when I was 17 years old was £16/19/2 a fortnight. You try doing the maths with those denominations - and don't leave out the halfpennies (pronounced back then "haypennies")!! Give me dollars and cents any day, but we in Australia didn't move to dollars and cents until 1966. Don't knock rationalism!! Rationalism ended up being used by extremists like Robespierre but it wasn't "invented" by atheists.

And that brings me to Voltaire. Sam what on earth possesses you to include Voltaire in a list that includes Nero, Stalin and Mao??? The man was not an atheist. He was indifferent to the trappings of Roman Catholicism but as an evangelical Protestant you should applaud that. He was no anti-Christian and didn't see a belief in a Supreme Being as antithetical to rationalism. In fact in his "Lettres sur les Anglais" - or "Letters about the English", written as a result of an enforced sojourn in 18th century England as a refugee from monarchist France - he is full of praise for the English model of constitutional monarchy with the position of the Anglican Church as the Established Church.

I think you need to read your history in a little more depth before you make up these spurious "lists" which just don't stand up to closer inspection.

[slartibartfast]

Jan 13, 2013 6:24:58 GMT 10 pim said:

I think you need to read your history in a little more depth before you make up these spurious "lists" which just don't stand up to closer inspection.

Whack!

[Occam's Spork]

Jan 13, 2013 6:24:58 GMT 10 pim said:

I'd agree that some of the above targeted Christians (which is not the same as targeting Christianity) for opportunistic reasons. Such as Nero, Stalin and Mao. They targeted Christians in the same way that the McCarthyists targeted "Reds" during the Cold War in the 1950s - defensively. Basically the political rule-of-thumb for a regime under pressure is to deflect attention from its own failings by inventing either an external threat, or the "enemy within". We're seeing it today with the demonisation of Muslims in Western countries. You need look no further than NTB for examples of that particular phenomenon.

What do you mean by the "culte de la Raison"? Are you talking about the Enlightenment of the 18th century, or are you referring to the year (Sep 1793 - July 1794) during the French Revolution known to history as "The Terror" when Robespierre headed a regime called the "Committee of Public Safety" and used "Reason" as a useful tool to institute a totalitarian dictatorship? It's true that the 11 months of Robespierre took on a distinctly anti-clerical hue when the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris was transformed into a "Temple to the Goddess of Reason" and even the language was purged of Christian and pagan references (such as the names of the months of the year) into more "rational" nomenclature. So "December ' was changed to "Nivôse" or "the snowy month" and so on. It didn't last and it was never going to last. Napoleon put a stop to it. But it did give us the metric system of weights and measures, as well as decimal currency. You Canadians have always had $$ but I'm old enough to remember being paid in Australian £££. And I mean real £££, not the decimal £££ that the British use but the £££ that are made up of 20 shillings, and each shilling being made up of 12 pence. My first wage when I was 17 years old was £16/19/2 a fortnight. You try doing the maths with those denominations - and don't leave out the halfpennies (pronounced back then "haypennies")!! Give me dollars and cents any day, but we in Australia didn't move to dollars and cents until 1966. Don't knock rationalism!! Rationalism ended up being used by extremists like Robespierre but it wasn't "invented" by atheists.

And that brings me to Voltaire. Sam what on earth possesses you to include Voltaire in a list that includes Nero, Stalin and Mao??? The man was not an atheist. He was indifferent to the trappings of Roman Catholicism but as an evangelical Protestant you should applaud that. He was no anti-Christian and didn't see a belief in a Supreme Being as antithetical to rationalism. In fact in his "Lettres sur les Anglais" - or "Letters about the English", written as a result of an enforced sojourn in 18th century England as a refugee from monarchist France - he is full of praise for the English model of constitutional monarchy with the position of the Anglican Church as the Established Church.

I think you need to read your history in a little more depth before you make up these spurious "lists" which just don't stand up to closer inspection.

.
With all due respect, lets disregard personal opinions and just deal in facts. I am not infallible, and neither of us run the full gamut on historical accuracy, so while I respect your insights and correction, I'd appreciate it if you spoke to me as an equal, despite your personal prejudices.

As for your analysis, I would argue the situation didn't warrant defensive action, since the Christians in the aforementioned scenarios weren't a political threat, nor did their existence warrant the same level of paranoia the Muslims have warranted by their prior actions. I would agree that Christians were a perceived threat, but they were targeted as a whole, not simply as individuals. --IN EACH OF THESE SCENARIOS.

Which is why I would like some clarification on the Christians vs Christianity distinction, according to the Bible, the church is the body of Christ—all those who have placed their faith in Jesus. If you are talking about Christianity as an institution, in Nero's time. I'm afraid you are overestimating their influence.

[pim]

I meant no disrespect to you Sam and I welcome your reply. On the "Nero" and "Christians vs Christianity" thing (you leave out your references to Stalin and Mao so I'll let them pass through to the keeper as well - that's an expression from cricket, a noble sport which the British bequeathed to us and at which we outclassed them) I agree that Nero didn't target Christians individually but as a group. His reason was not doctrinal. It's true he didn't see Christianity as a threat per se, but they were a handy scapegoat for the blame game surrounding the Fire of Rome since they were a highly visible minority. It was political opportunism. Was it because Nero himself was responsible for the fire and he wanted to deflect blame away from himself? We'll never know.

You bring up Muslims to claim that Christians in the Roman Empire did not warrant the same level of paranoia the Muslims have warranted by their prior actions. I'd question the basic premise in your reasoning, that Muslims warrant the level of paranoia that they receive. I realise that many people, and especially here on NTB, regard that as a no-brainer but I'm certainly not one of them. In fact my argument has always been that the level of paranoia about Muslims is unwarranted because the extremist jihadists, while their actions and depredations are criminal, do not threaten the basic integrity and survival of Western civilisation and Western values.

Skipping to the end of your post you conclude with:

If you are talking about Christianity as an institution, in Nero's time. I'm afraid you are overestimating their influence.

... or rather that Nero overestimated their influence!

Nero was the last of the first imperial dynasty in Rome: the so-called "Julio-Claudians". They were a motley lot who varied from achieving greatness, such as Augustus, to "not bad, even quite good, we thought he was gonna be a dud but he surprised us" such as Claudius, to nutcases and criminally insane sociopaths such as Caligula and Nero. You can't analyse Nero's persecution and murder of Christians without putting it into the broader socio/political context of Rome at the time. When the Romans finally got rid of Nero it was like the English getting rid of the Stuart monarchs. They hoped for something better and, after a year of turmoil in which no fewer than four emperors succeeded in rapid succession, they entered a type of Golden Age which history calls "The Five Good Emperors" during which Rome reached its peak as an empire. The scapegoating and persecution of Christians during the time of Nero tells us more about instablity in the Rome of the Julio-Claudians than it does about the Christians.

What is noteworthy is that under the so-called "Five Good Emperors" who were Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius, we don't hear of great persecutions of Christians. Not on the scale of Nero at any rate. They didn't approve of Christians and viewed them a bit like the way Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons are viewed today. To become a Christian in those times would not have been a good career move. But large scale persecution and slaughter of Christians happened in the latter centuries. Domitian springs to mind. That was an emperor. Diocletian was a bad one for persecutions and I believe the last great systematic persecution of Christians took place during his reign. I'll have to ask Mr Google when that was - and he gives the years 302 - 303, so 7 years before Constantine changes the position of Christianity forever. By then, of course, the position of Christianity was somewhat different from what it had been in the year 64 when Nero persecuted the Christians.

[Occam's Spork]

Thank you for that, pim.
But I think the initial point that I was trying to make still carries: That these regimes and individuals, *although not exclusively atheistic* (And yes, I did confuse Voltaire with Nietzsche. *apologies.*) sought the end to Christianity, and failed in their endeavor.

Would that be fair to say?

And yes, I agree that it'd be wrong to lump all muslims into the same category, due to the actions of a few misguided individuals. But that leaves the question of who's side is misguided? Were their actions consistent with the teachings in the Qu'ran? I'll suspend judgement, simply because I don't know enough about it.

[Occam's Spork]

Jan 8, 2013 5:45:44 GMT 10 fat said:

I'd call her Miss or Mrs Morse.

Can't help but suspect you two are using some sort of coded dialect..

[pim]

No Sam I don't think it fair to say that they sought an end to Christianity. To make that claim is as fatuous as Skippy's claim that it was Christianity that brought about an end to slavery and improved the lot of women in the ancient world.

Scapegoating an unpopular religion is not the same as wanting to wipe it out. In fact if you decide as an act of policy to scapegoat a particular group you don't want them to be wiped out because what happens then? You'd only have to look for a different group to scapegoat.

The great persecutions of Christians happened during the third century AD when Rome was in its decline. I can advance all sorts of facts from economic history that fed into the social and political instability in late Imperial Rome but I'll spare you those. Suffice it to say that the persecutions under the emperors Domitian and Diocletian were all about an ageing empire whose economic model was becoming dysfunctional and which had reached its natural limits and had nowhere else to go. Plague, pestilence, natural disasters, climate change (yes, climate change! It caused a lot of movements of people at the time - and still does) would have played their part too.

Sam, when I look at the way the United States gnaws on its own entrails today over gun control, taxation, immigration etc etc, plus the hideous environmental problems that are a by-product of 8% economic growth per year in China, plus the labours of Gorbachev in trying to turn the Soviet Union around over 20 years ago only to have it collapse around him, I have to ask myself the question: "How DO you govern a country like the United States? Or China? Or Russia?" And surely the same question could be put regarding Rome in the time of Domitian or Diocletian: how WOULD you have been able to govern an entity that sprawled around the Mediterranean and covered most of Western Europe right up to and including England? What was possible? What options did these people have? An easy way out for some rulers facing internal dislocation, pressure on borders from outside, and the economic doldrums, is to divert attention by confecting an "enemy within" or an "enemy without". Back then it was the Christians. In later centuries - going right up to the 20th century - it was the Jews. These days Muslims seem to be getting a workover.... except that they don't lie down and take it.

On Nietzsche, he was no atheist. His "God is Dead" has to be taken in the context of late 19th century Europe when the secular nation State apopeared everywhere triumphant. And no country was more emblematic of that than Italy which united in 1870. That unification had to be at the expense of the Pope because unification could only take place if a large swathe of territory across the centre of the Italian Peninsula called the Papal States were abolished and became part of a unified Italy. So the Pope became a "prisoner of the Vatican". That was an event that resonated profoundly throughout the West. You ought to read up on the Italian Rissorgimento. Fascinating stuff. Nietzsche's "God is Dead" is actually a warning! If God is dead it's because the secular principle (the separation of church and state) has killed him. If God is dead that means that human beings have taken control of the steering wheel and it's now down to them. If Nietzsche were alive today and saw the world that technology has wrought - especially bio-technology with the possibility of designer babies and all the ethical considerations that attend it, he'd probably regard it as a Faustian bargain where the Reckoning can't be too far away. Nietzsche was a complex character and he was all sorts of things - maybe even anti-clerical! But hardly anti-Christian.

[Occam's Spork]

Interesting stuff, pim.
I would like to talk more on this later, right now it's late and my eyes are beginning to lose focus.
So for now, I will graciously bow out and say "good night."
But remind me to reopen this conversation when my mind is refreshed.

[pim]

We had a power outage here Sam before I had a chance to read your last post so for the last hour I've had no aircon, no ceiling fan, the fridge has been off ... and outside is a heatwave of over 40° Celsius or about 106° Fahrenheit. Not that I should complain! For me a power outage of an hour is a minor inconvenience. But outside the comfort zone of the large city in which I live, and out in what we Australians term "the bush", there are very bad bushfires (or forest fires in your part of the world) with thousands of firefighters putting their lives on the line and people being evacuated from their houses as fires with flames reaching up to 30 metres high are bearing down on their communities.

This is peak electricity demand time. We all have aircon in our houses and the drain on the capacity of power companies to meet the demands immense. So the shut off the power to a couple of suburbs for an hour, then they shut off another area and so on. But hospitals and other emergency services keep operating.

It couldn't be more different from your Deep Freeze ...