Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Monday, February 1, 2010

Even Darwin knew..

About once a month, I have the opportunity to sit in on Adult Sunday School taught by Dr. Jerry Newcombe. Being an author or co-author of close to 20 books, all of his research pays off by having a large reservoir of knowledge that he can tap into to present a truly interesting Sunday School class. Yesterday, Dr. Newcombe presented this statement that I'm sure would interest even the most militant of atheists that sometimes frequent this site. It was new to me anyway...

"What did Darwin mean when he said, "A man about to be shipwrecked on some unknown coast will devoutly pray that the lesson of the missionary will have reached that far"? He meant that where the Gospel has not gone civilization has not gone, and such a shipwrecked man would likely find himself in the soup tureen of a tribe of husky cannibals.... What Jesus Christ always has been He is today, the transformer of the world's life, the reconstructor of human society, the animator of human progress, the one Master moulder of the world's civilization. And by this I know that He is Divine." W.E. Biedersolf

Interesting, isnt it? Even if he could advance a theory in which he believed that origin of life questions could be ultimately answered by purely materialistic causes, he still regarded Christianity as the force for good that that it has been throughout world history. In reference to the above reference to "husky cannibals" I am reminded of a passage from the landmark classic from Dr. D. James Kennedy and Dr Newcombe entitled What if Jesus had Never Been Born? "Ted Baher and Dr. Bonnie Harvey wrote a critique of the movie Alive!, which dealt in part with cannibalism, for Ted Baher's Movie Guide: A Family Guide to Movies and Entertainment. Here is what they said about cannibalism...

"Historically, before the advent of Christianity, cannibalism was widespread. The flesh pots outside the walls of ancient cities were repositories of the bodies of the dead, cooked for the ingestion of the poorest of the poor. Throughout the ages, beyond the boundaries of the spread of the Gospel, people ate each other in the cruel delusion that they would thereby triumph over their enemies and incorporate the strengths of their enemies into themselves. Thus, the Aztecs consumed tens of thousands in their perverted quest for power. However, wherever the Gospel was preached, cannibalism was abolished as men were born again to see with news eyes the sanctity of life" (page 24)

It's telling that the standard used by many (but not all) skeptics to judge Christianity and the Bible comes from a standard set by Christian civilization before them and not some sort of organic atheism or the Enlightenment. All to often, this fact becomes lost in the posturing and rhetoric of hyper-criticism of those who are enjoying the fruits of a civilization that would not exist had the Gospel of Jesus Christ not gone out to first lead the way.

55 comments:

GCT said...

Wow, you are deluded aren't you?

First, to talk about Darwin, you should at least have a modicum of knowledge about him. I know that it doesn't stop you from denying evolution I realize, but here's to hoping that you'll actually learn something about something before denouncing it.

Darwin was a firm believer that English culture was superior to all other forms, including the religious moral elements of that culture. He also was brought up as a Xian, which brings along with it the same misinformation that you labor under - namely that all the advances towards better morality made by man are the result of Xianity. Sorry, but it ain't so.

Abolishion of slavery, equal rights for women, etc. were not brought about by Xianity, but rather Xians were dragged kicking and screaming into acceptance...only to turn around decades later and claim credit. In fact, I bet that decades from now, Xians will be taking credit for equal rights for gays, even though it is Xians who are fighting against it tooth and nail.

"...Christianity as the force for good that that it has been throughout world history."

Yep, especially during those Crusades, Witch Trials, Jim Crow, Dark Ages, Inquisition, etc. eras, right?

As for Cannibalism, your assertions of it being endemic to so many people is rather overblown. We know that the Far Eastern religions and peoples didn't practice it, the Greeks didn't do so, etc. And, all of those predate Xianity. You see, some people were smart enough to figure out the health issues that can arise from eating people and decided not to use them as a food source. It's kind of like pigs being outlawed in the Bible - which was most likely done for health reasons. (Although I don't recall the Bible saying not to eat human flesh. Does it?)

JD Curtis said...

the Greeks didnt do so

" in excavations just to one side of the Royal Road some distance northwest of the Little Palace at Knossos, 327 children's bones were found in a burnt deposit in the basement of a building christened the North House. Originally attributed to between eight and eleven children provisionally aged between ten and fifteen years old, between 21% and 35% of these bones, which included skull fragments as well as other bones, all found in an unarticulated heap, exhibited "fine knife marks, exactly comparable to butchery marks on animal bones, resulting from the removal of meat. Cannibalism seems clearly indicated." Link

Verifiably incorrect as usual GCT.

GCT said...

As usual? Considering your success rate I'd say that you're pretty full of yourself.

So, let's look at your claim here. The Minoan civilization actually predates the classical Greek civilization in that it ended around 1400 BCE. Also, your own link indicates that it may have been due to a shortage of food due to the explosion of the nearby volcano. Lastly, it seems that the Hellenics still did not practice cannibalism and did not do so even without the help of Jebus. Sorry, but you're wrong again.

Ginx said...

A 19th century Englishman held prejudice for non-Christendom? Next you're going to tell me Darwin believed in God...

JD Curtis said...

You stated the Greeks never engaged in cannibalism which is demonstrably false. Insofar as your "the Far Eastern religions and peoples didn't practice it", it would appear that it still happens today. Link

is it your belief that the Minoans are neither Greek or ancient peoples?

Insofar as Japan is concerned, it appears that some people are doing it today over there as well. Link

Ginx said...

Catholics do it every weekend.

Ginx said...

Other, non-metaphorical examples of Christian cannibalism include, but are not limited to:

- Jamestown
- The Donner Party
- The First Crusades (Siege of Ma-arrat al-Numan)
- Consumption of mummies by wealthy Europeans
- Ironically... various shipwrecks and plane crashes (Dumaru, Medusa, Uruguayan Flight 571)

JD Curtis said...

Ginx, these are all extreme examples of people eating people in order to survive. (Exept the mummy reference which is just creepy)

We're talking about people who ate people ritualistically or because they wanted to.

GCT, stay on topic please. If you want to discuss any of the OT subjects you mentioned, then send me an email.

JD Curtis said...

Here's yet another example.

"The morality of any society can be easily judged by the view it holds of human life. In 1844, H.L.Hastings visited the Fiji Islands. He found there that life was very cheap and that it was held in low esteem. You could buy a human being for $7.00 or one musket! That was cheaper than a cow. After having bought him you could work him, whip him, starve him or eat him, according to your preference--and many did the latter. He returned a number of years later and found that the value of human life had risen tremendously. One could not buy a human being for $7.00 to beat or eat. In fact, you could not buy one for seven million dollars. Why? Because across the Fiji Islands there were 1,200 Christian chapels where the gospel of Christ had been proclaimed, and people had been taught that we are not our own; that we have been purchased with a price, not with silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Jesus Christ." (Ibid) pg. 27

tinkbell13 said...

JD- I am not going to waste my time. Really?

Here is a book if you are ever interested in learning some history.

"The People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. Cannabalism was evidenced in early American settlements from the English, for many reasons. Every culture has cannibalism, including our own. In Canada, a mentally ill man stabbed a fellow passenger on a bus and ate his body parts last summer.

Which comes back to what you are always trying to say. That Xtianity saved the world. Please, start reading.

tinkbell13 said...

I do not think that you are using the terms properly. Ancient Greece is the civilization belonging to the period of Greek history lasting from the Archaic period of the 8th to 6th centuries BC to 146 BC and the Roman conquest of Greece after the Battle of Corinth. The Minoan civilization was a Bronze Age civilization which arose on the island of Crete. The Minoan culture flourished from approximately 2700 to 1450 BC; afterwards, Mycenaean Greek culture became dominant at Minoan sites in Crete. It was rediscovered at the beginning of the 20th century, at first through the work of the British archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans, when Minoan Crete took its historic place, as Will Durant said in 1939, as "the first link in the European chain."

So, yes the Minoans were Greek, but these are two completely different periods of time. It is like saying that the Americans in 1492 are the same Americans as the Americans in the 1960's. Just because they are ancient people from the same area does not mean that they are the same.

JD Curtis said...

Tink, when you say "Cannabalism was evidenced in early American settlements from the English, for many reasons", what are some of the "other reasons" other than the brink of starvation and mental illness?

GCT said...

Tink,
Thanks for the assist on the Greeks vs. Minoans question, although I doubt that JD will understand the difference. I can't tell if he's simply incapable of understanding these things or unwilling.

JD,
Chinese are eating foetuses? I did not know that...maybe because it's not <a href="http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/horrors/a/eating_babies.htm>true</a>.

As for Japan...you do realize that you just linked to a satire site. You do realize that don't you? Don't you? Oh wait, you didn't? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Where's your bravado now?

JD Curtis said...

"Descriptions of cannibalism appear repeatedly in Chinese history, in numerous historical writings and literature, and most recently during the Cultural Revolution in the testimony of Cheng I, the Chinese film producer and writer who fled to Hong Kong in the spring of 1992 and sought asylum in the United States in 1993.

In his book Shokujin Enseki - Massatsu sareta Chugoku Gendaishi (Cannibal Banquet - Modern Chinese History Erased) (Tokyo: Kodansha Kappa Books, 1993), Cheng I describes in detail how, as a young Red Guard during the Cultural Revolution in south China, he witnessed hundreds of children, women and men classified as Counter-revolutionaries killed and eaten by the perpetrators, with such comments as "human meat tastes better when broiled than boiled."

Link

"In the 9th century, towards the end of the Tang dynasty (618-906) a Persian trader reported that human flesh was being sold openly in markets.

During the 12th century, it was said that 15 jin (1 jin = 1.323lbs) of dried meat was obtained from one human being.

Towards the turbulent close of Yuan dynasty (1276-1368), it was said that children's meat was best, then women's, and the least were men's.

Cannibalism was practiced not merely for sheer survival, but also as a means of revenge. Lu Xun (1881-1936) recounts such a case in his work ...., in which a revolutionary was killed in 1907 and his heart eaten by an enemy. This incident may have also inspired Lu Xun to write his celebrated novel Diary of a Madman (1918), in which cannibalism sevres as an analogy for the decrepit state of modern China."

JD Curtis said...

I thought this sort of thing didnt happen in the East GCT.

" St. Jerome, in his letter Against Jovinianus, discusses how people come to their present condition as a result of their heritage, and then lists several examples of peoples and their customs. In the list, he mentions that he has heard that Atticoti eat human flesh and that Massagetae and Derbices (a people on the borders of India) kill and eat old people.

References to cannibalizing the enemy has also been seen in poetry written when China was repressed in the Song Dynasty, though the cannibalizing sounds more like poetic symbolism to express the hatred towards the enemy.

Many written reports and testimonies collected by the Australian War Crimes Section of the Tokyo tribunal, and investigated by prosecutor William Webb (the future Judge-in-Chief), indicate that Japanese soldiers, in many parts of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, committed acts of cannibalism against Allied prisoners of war. According to historian Yuki Tanaka: "cannibalism was often a systematic activity conducted by whole squads and under the command of officers". In some cases, flesh was cut from living people. An Indian POW, Lance Naik Hatam Ali (later a citizen of Pakistan), testified that in New Guinea: «"the Japanese started selecting prisoners and every day one prisoner was taken out and killed and eaten by the soldiers. I personally saw this happen and about 100 prisoners were eaten at this place by the Japanese. The remainder of us were taken to another spot 50 miles [80 km] away where 10 prisoners died of sickness. At this place, the Japanese again started selecting prisoners to eat. Those selected were taken to a hut where their flesh was cut from their bodies while they were alive and they were thrown into a ditch where they later died."» Another well-documented case occurred in Chichijima in February 1945, when Japanese soldiers killed and consumed five American airmen. This case was investigated in 1947 in a war crimes trial, and of 30 Japanese soldiers prosecuted, five (Maj. Matoba, Gen. Tachibana, Adm. Mori, Capt. Yoshii, and Dr. Teraki) were found guilty and hanged. In his book Flyboys: A True Story of Courage, James Bradley details several instances of cannibalism of World War II Allied prisoners by their Japanese captors. The author claims that this included not only ritual cannibalization of the livers of freshly-killed prisoners, but also the cannibalization-for-sustenance of living prisoners over the course of several days, amputating limbs only as needed to keep the meat fresh."

Link

Looks like there was ritualistic cannibalism among the Japanese as well with the eating of livers.

JD Curtis said...

I was just trying to keep it current with the other links. No, I didnt check those out first. There seems to be mountains of evidence to refute the ""the Far Eastern religions and peoples didn't practice it"" claim though.

JD Curtis said...

We didnt even get to India yet where MSNBC sems interested in exploring the "urban legend" of a Hindu sect that eats corpses.

"A new Indian documentary seeks to shed light on a secretive sect of Hindu ascetics who eat corpses in the belief that ingesting dead flesh will make them ageless and give them supernatural powers.

“Feeding on the Dead,” a 10-minute documentary, delves into the closed, little-known world of the 1,000-year-old Aghori sect, whose sadhus, or holy men, pluck dead bodies from the Ganges river."

Link

tinkbell13 said...

Here is one- how about punishment? The Colonial movement (Christians) had very bizarre ways to punish slaves, Natives, etc. Some of which included burning them alive slowly for 8 to 10 hours.

Really, now this has become a discussion about who eats humans. Every culture has a history of it..... Whatever the reason. Why do people find it acceptable to eat humans if they are starving or mentally ill, but it is not acceptable for ritual or worship of the gods?

If you look at the initial quote that you talked about by Darwin, what you are suggesting is one possible interpretation. However, if you place it in context, you would know that Darwin was English. If you look at the history of Colonial England, and how colonization began with Columbus, you would know that the genocide of the Natives began in the Americas. For him to say that, would mean that most of them had already been wiped out.

Flip it around... If you were coming to a foreign land with a white face and English accent would you want to walk onto an island that a) had already been colonized by the English and had the majority of the population wiped out and the remaining ones converted so that you would be in no danger or b) an island that was fighting the efforts of the English to take away their lands and enslave them or c) an island where you would not speak the language and you would be alone.

JD- Please, start reading more information. You seem like a smart guy, but so much of your energy is wasted in refuting, and you seem to deprive yourself of listening and learning. Take that drive and apply it to the history books. If you are ever interested in this, please email me and I will be happy to refer you to some books that will broaden and enhance your knowledge about your faith.

tinkbell13 said...

" All to often, this fact becomes lost in the posturing and rhetoric of hyper-criticism of those who are enjoying the fruits of a civilization that would not exist had the Gospel of Jesus Christ not gone out to first lead the way."

It is entirely likely that upwards of 10,000 Indians were
killed in this fashion alone, on Espa–ola alone, as a matter of
policy, during Columbus's tenure as governor. Las Casas'
Brev’sima relaci—n, among other contemporaneous sources, is also
replete with accounts of Spanish colonists (hidalgos) hanging Tainos
en masse, roasting them on spits or burning them at the stake (often a
dozen or more at a time), hacking their children into pieces to be
used as dog feed and so forth, all of it to instill in the natives a
"proper attitude of respect" toward their Spanish "superiors."

[The Spaniards] made bets as to who would slit a man in two, or cut
off his head at one blow; or they opened up his bowels. They tore the
babes from their mother's breast by their feet and dashed their heads
against the rocks...They spitted the bodies of other babes, together
with their mothers and all who were before them, on their swords.

He is a link to the full essay if you would like to read it. It is actually talking about how the Spaniards treated the Natives when they began to set up the English colonies in the Americas;

http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v9/9.11/1columbus.html

GCT said...

JD,
A few isolated incidents do not mean that cannibalism was wide-spread or that Xianity is the solution to it, especially since Xians have and still do practice it, even ritualistically! Face it, your claims are overblown and simply wrong. Like Tink says, crack open a book, listen, and learn, instead of thinking that you know all the answers simply because you have a belief in some holy book. It's why you latched onto a satire site as if it were real! (I'm still laughing about that one, and the follow up "article" they had about how it really is real was priceless - it linked to another satire site!)

Have people been cannibals in all those places? Yes, at some point in history, and Xians are no exception. But, the point still stands that the ancient Greeks didn't do it and didn't need Jesus to tell them not to. The Eastern religions didn't do it either, and didn't need Jesus to tell them not to. Some individuals did engage in cannibalism and may have convinced others to do so as well, but not because they didn't have Jesus.

Having Jesus has not historically made anyone a better person. In fact, it's been a detriment in most cases as has been pointed out to you in regards to slavery, equal rights, etc. I love how you ignore these very pertinent points, because they are verification that your argument is bunk. It's so much easier to ignore all those pesky counter examples than to deal with them, isn't it?

tinkbell13 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tinkbell13 said...

Pretty much...

Darwin also said the following things:

"Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."[15]

“by such reflections as these... I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.”

“I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

tinkbell13 said...

And, oh yes, before this happens. I can see where JD is going to take this, and I am gonna beat him to the punch. He does not look at the details, and I am learning to predict these arguments.

Before you start citing all of the "barbaric practices" of the Natives (ie- scalping, etc), I would just like to post this. This is what Columbus wrote in his journal when he first approached the Arawak Indians. As his ship approached, they ran out to greet him, bringing him food and water. He wrote;

"They brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many others things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks bells. THEY WILLINGLY TRADED EVERYTHING THEY OWNED... THEY DO NOT BEAR ARMS, AND DO NOT KNOW THEM, FOR I SHOWED THEM A SWORD, THEY TOOK IT BY THE EDGE AND CUT THEMSELVES OUT OF IGNORANCE. THEY HAVE NO IRON. THEIR SPEARS WERE MADE OF CANE. THEY WOULD MAKE FINE SERVANTS, WITH FIFTY MEN WE COULD SUBJUGATE THEM ALL AND MAKE THEM DO WHATEVER WE WANT"

Sounded like pretty nice people to me. Fast forward fifty years they are almost wiped out and have learned to scalp people. That is how your country was founded. The love of Jesus Christ taken to the new world.

Ginx said...

Why did I even go to the trouble of pointing out Christians have practiced cannibalism if you're just going to say, "Well those are extreme examples." So are the examples of isolated, small communities who practice it, usually upon their own dead or against rival tribes they have warred with for centuries. The Greeks never practiced cannibalism in record history, and they have several stories about the taboo nature of this practice.

To assume Christianity has some non-cannibal monopoly is ridiculous, as I've shown that they do in fact do it. Nothing in their religion stopped those Christians from just starving to death, not a single thing but their knowledge that all our rules go out the window in extreme situations. Which was my point.

No one cares what Darwin thinks. Darwin has about as much to do with evolution as Franklin has to do with lightning.

tinkbell13 said...

Yes, Ginx.... I asked that earlier, question went unanswered. Why is it acceptable to be a cannibal if you are starving or mentally ill, but not acceptable if is used for ritual. Taboo is taboo, and there are biological consequences for it. Recent example- some genius got the idea of cutting costs and fed cows parts of themselves. Now, we have Mad Cow Disease.

There was plenty of Greek myth about it, and there was one excavation that had questionable remains, never mind that there were many children also in the dig that made the discoverers question whether it had been an earthquake that had killed them. A little more research shows that one of the survivors may have had to kill them to eat- which is acceptable in this world. Every culture has cannibalism, that much is a fact.

And, yes, Darwin is not that relevant anymore. All that he did was open the door to evolution a 1 mm crack. Nothing more.

GCT said...

Fundies like JD don't understand that we don't worship Darwin. For them, the Bible is sacrosanct. If you could prove that the Bible is wrong on one point, it would cause the whole house of cards to come crashing down. The teachings there are to be taken literally and unchanged. Any deviation shows error, which invalidates the whole thing.

They don't understand that science doesn't work that way. They don't understand that invalidating one thing Darwin said or thought doesn't invalidate all of the empirical evidence we have. They don't understand that demonizing and vilifying Darwin doesn't change the facts of the real world. They don't understand that evolution specifically and science in general have progressed since Darwin's time. They don't understand that our state of knowledge is well beyond Darwin's and that Darwin was wrong about a few things, but right about the general ideas and was the first to identify natural selection, which is why we remember him.

Fundies don't understand any of that.

tinkbell13 said...

No, they do not. That is why, rhetorically speaking, arguing with them is futile.

JD- History is fluid. It is composed of multiple perspectives, narratives, and beliefs. Unfortunately, the information that gets canonized within textbooks is often the most repeated account of an incident, which tends to be the voice of people who were scholarly, educated, and often in positions of power and authority with specific agendas to defend and protect.

History, like science, has progressed, and we are now able to understand historical incidents from many more angles than what we once did. All that it involves is a little commitment to learning and asking questions when you do not understand something. You should be able to read something more critically, and actually be able to contextualize comments such as what you have posted above. If you start to understand history, you would be able to properly defend your positions. Right now, you argue from an assumptive, selective viewpoint that is grossly inaccurate. Please, get informed, read, empower yourself with information. If I can be of any assistance, I would be glad to pass on some recommendations.

photogr said...

Well I just lost my appetite for some prime ribs for dinner tonight. Guess I will just have to go out and find some road kill on the highway.

tinkbell13 said...

LOL- That road kill is probably cleaner meat than any beef farmed in the Western World. Enjoy!

photogr said...

Might be as long as you get to it before the maggots.Deer meat is plentifull right now on the roads.

tinkbell13 said...

Even with the maggots my friend.... How come venison is on the road?

JD Curtis said...

Why did I even go to the trouble of pointing out Christians have practiced cannibalism if you're just going to say, "Well those are extreme examples."

Because that is exactly what they are Ginx. Extreme examples. Is anyone in this forum going to get all huffy and judgemental concerning what happened to the Donner party, or Uruguayan Flight 571? Just thank God that you havent ever been put into such a horrible situation. Insofar as your "Catholics do it every weekend" statement, it really misses the mark. In the end, are Catholics consuming anything other than grape juice and wafers?

No.

Are they advocating the butchery of people for human consumption?

No.

I would just like to post this. This is what Columbus wrote in his journal when he first approached the Arawak Indians

I find it odd that someone would mention the Arawak Indians as some sort of noble savages and skip over the discovery of the Caribs.

"In all, Columbus was responsible for selling 331 Indians into bondage and causing the deaths of another 200. Unquestionably, this is a blot on Columbus' record., but it bears remembering that enslaving prisoners of war was not invented by Columbus. This has been a common practice all over the world since ancient times.

He did not bring one single African to the New World and did not keep any slaves himself Link

But I'm sure you were getting around to mentioning this along with how instead of sitting around, tapping words onto your computer screen here in the West, how much you would prefer to live in a civilization ruled by, for example, the Aztecs who "were believed to have murdered as many as 250,000 individuals per year toward the end of the fifteenth century."

Please explain how mass slaughter by ritualistic human sacrifice is preferrable.

JD Curtis said...

Yes, at some point in history, and Xians are no exception. But, the point still stands that the ancient Greeks didn't do it and didn't need Jesus to tell them not to. The Eastern religions didn't do it either, and didn't need Jesus to tell them not to

The ancient Greeks didnt (with the exception of Minoan peoples) but there are other metrics that we can measure Greek/Roman civilization compared to before and after the advent of Christianity and that is precisely what we are going to do.

While we are on the subject GCT, you still havent acknowledged that cannibalism WAS committed in China, (a recent urban legend not withstanding). Furthermore it existed in the Fiji Islands prior to the advent of Christianity and was occurring in parts of Indonesia even until the 20th Century. Nothing in Confucianism or Buddhism caused it's adherents to act and eliminate it's practice. Unless you want to provide some evidence here that I'm unaware of.

Having Jesus has not historically made anyone a better person. In fact, it's been a detriment in most cases as has been pointed out to you in regards to slavery, equal rights, etc.

Wildly untrue. Please contrast the efforts of English Christians with outlawing the practice slavery with any other group that you want and present your argument here.

JD Curtis said...

But we're getting Off Topic. I'll throw this out there.

It's the middle of the 19th century an you're on a ship in the middle of a bad storm on the other side of the world. You are about to become shipwrecked on distant some country's shore. Wouldnt you have hope that Christianity had reached this far off land that you are about to bee shipwrecked on?

If you answer is "no", then please cite what religion you hoped was prevelant in this country (instead of Christianity) and why.

GCT said...

"Nothing in Confucianism or Buddhism caused it's adherents to act and eliminate it's practice."

Nothing in those religions caused them to do it either. That's the whole point. You want to claim that the world needs Xianity because all these other religions and cultures are filled with people just longing to be cannibals and murderers, etc. and it's only thru Jebus that they don't, but it's simply not true as the actual evidence shows. Sorry, but you are flat wrong here.

"Wildly untrue. Please contrast the efforts of English Christians with outlawing the practice slavery with any other group that you want and present your argument here."

Read "Freethinkers" by Susan Jacoby and you'll be shown the error of your ways. It was freethinkers and non-Xians that led the way to outlawing slavery. Besides, other cultures had already outlawed it and did not practice slavery, but the Xian west did for many, many years, and it was Xians that were at the forefront of practicing it and using the Bible to defend the practice. Do you think that all the slaveholders were non-Xians and the good Xians came along and taught them the error of their ways? Wake up and smell the delusion!

Now, there were some Xians that stood out against slavery, but they had no Biblical standing to do so, as the majority of Xians pointed out to them - and modern Xians can't defend their own anti-slavery stance with the Bible. That a few Xians decided to be moral doesn't mean that it came from Xianity or from the Bible, and in this case it's pretty demonstrable that it didn't.

As for your last question, I'll answer with a quote from Hitchens:
"A week before the events of September 11, 2001, I was on a panel with Dennis Prager, who is one of America’s better-known religious broadcasters. He challenged me in public to answer what he called a “straight yes/no question,” and I happily agreed. Very well, he said. I was to imagine myself in a strange city as the evening was coming on. Toward me I was to imagine that I saw a large group of men approaching. Now—would I feel safer, or less safe, if I was to learn that they were just coming from a prayer meeting? As the reader will see, this is not a question to which a yes/no answer can be given. But I was able to answer it as if it were not hypothetical. “Just to stay within the letter ‘B,’ I have actually had that experience in Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem, and Baghdad. In each case I can say absolutely, and can give my reasons, why I would feel immediately threatened if I thought that the group of men approaching me in the dusk were coming from a religious observance.”

tinkbell13 said...

And, that was exactly why I posted exactly what Columbus wrote as he first saw people in the New World. Is it scary that I am learning to see how and what he is going to argue . Kinda scares me because I would never want to think like that....

JD- again, you clearly did not read what I wrote. I know that you really want to hold true to the idea that Xtianity has saved us all from the flesh eating barbarians.... Please, read. I stick to my original position. History is not simple, there are no good guys, no bad guys. I already answered your ship question, I contextualized it, which again you clearly did not understand.

tinkbell13 said...

JD

As always, your argument about Columbus is grossly misinformed. There is so much high quality research out there about the genocide that he was involved in, but, instead, you choose an Italian source that is trying to preserve the integrity of one of it's national heroes.... You see, when you arm yourself with information you can begin to contextualize things and critically determine what agenda undermines the text. You see, I trust the opinions of professors over social agency bureaus with a national holiday to protect... Did you ever see the Sopranos about Columbus Day... this controversy does not take a genius to see.

I would suggest that you pick up "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn to learn American history. It will open up your world, broaden your knowledge, and make you able to understand your society from an entirely different perspective.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncol1.html

However, I will predict this. Your next move will be to start a new thread, insisting that none of us will answer your questions, and completely off in a totally different topic than what we are talking about. You have this tendency when you rhetorically put yourself in the corner.

Please, start reading. It will only deepen your faith by allowing you to understand your world a little better.

tinkbell13 said...

And, before you counteract with the argument that Howard Zinn, although credited as one of the greatest historians of the past century, is what you call revisionist history (history that you do not like, or that runs contrary to your argument), I would encourage you to understand that this debate over Columbus is not new.

http://www.history.com/content/columbusday/controversy

I know how you like to demand links.... I will do it for you.

photogr said...

Another flaw in the make up of humans. We can argue till we are blue in the face and get no where. History is history. It will not change no matter how hard we debate it.

Perhaps we might learn from it but I doubt it.

JD Curtis said...

Pardon me. I was a little busy there for awhile. I'd like to adress some of the more recent comments left on this thread.

You want to claim that the world needs Xianity because all these other religions and cultures are filled with people just longing to be cannibals and murderers

I stated nothing of the sort. Unless you are of the belief that the consumption of human flesh os somehow a good thing, then it would appear that Christianity has done more to end such a practice than any other religion and I would argue that life was exceedingly cheap in this world prior Jesus Christ and noticeably more precious since His coming. One point brought up was that not every civilization had a storied history if cannibalism prior to Christ's coming. There are other metrics which can be used to measure a society's value on human life. We will examine another shortly.

It was freethinkers and non-Xians that led the way to outlawing slavery

I'm sorry but citing a book by some hand-wringing yenta isnt a substitute for an actual answer. Please cite for me who in this book" of her's did more than English Christians to abolish slavery or admit that you can't cite a singel person more dedicated to stamping out slavery than William Wilberforce. Also, when looking up your answer, please list the size of the navy employed off of the coast of Africa to stop slave traders by said "free thinkers".

JD Curtis said...

I posted exactly what Columbus wrote as he first saw people in the New World

What voyage was this of Columbus? His first in which he took no slaves back to Spain or after his 2nd in which he discovered that all 40 of the men he left behind had been massacred?

you really want to hold true to the idea that Xtianity has saved us all from the flesh eating barbarians....History is not simple, there are no good guys, no bad guys

The fact that you live in a country where you can walk out your door, alone, without your head covered and unescorted by someone that is not your husband/immediate family member and not face criminal charges might be one indication that you are over generalizing.

Another might be how you think of cannibalism as something from the distant past. This article from the smithsonian details how the practice is still going on and how Dutch missionaries are helping these people overcome their belief that the people they are killing and eating are in their minds, spirits, not human beings. Funny, I don't see any Muslim, Confucian, Buddhist missionaries accomplishing this, only Christians.

JD Curtis said...

Furthermore, you havent addressed my earlier statement Tink....

"how instead of sitting around, tapping words onto your computer screen here in the West, how much you would prefer to live in a civilization ruled by, for example, the Aztecs who "were believed to have murdered as many as 250,000 individuals per year toward the end of the fifteenth century."

Please explain how mass slaughter by ritualistic human sacrifice is preferrable."

photogr said...

Perhaps this is the reason why the Aztecs and Myan civilizations vanished.

tinkbell13 said...

Again, completely misses the point.... Off on his own tangent, disregards everything that everyone else has written. As I said earlier, you persist to argue from a viewpoint that is highly inaccurate. The statement that you are asking me to clarify is not even anything I wrote, someone else wrote that. Please, slow down, actually read the postings. Try to follow the argument.

JD- Your attention to detail is so selective and off the mark. Please, I stick to what I originally said, what we all say to you all of the time. Please, read and pick up books and try to help yourself. If there is any information you need, I would be more than happy to suggest what I can. The fact that you do not even make an attempt to learn anything from any of us is unfortunate.

JD Curtis said...

The statement that you are asking me to clarify is not even anything I wrote

I mention "cannibalism" and the effects of Christians working against it and you counter with Christopher Columbus. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Perhaps this is the reason why the Aztecs and Mayan civilizations vanished

Hi PHOTOGR. I was listening to Michael Savage (who I link to on the right) yesterday and he said something that caught my attention. He was ranting on about the complete BS of Rousseau's concept of the so-called "noble savage". He then went on to mention that the Pawnee indians were still practicing human sacrifice in this country (US) until at least 1838 and possibly later. That is, until the evil US Cavalry put an end to it. Here's a relevant Link

tinkbell13 said...

NO, go back and read.... its very simple. Or, did you just not understand it, which seems to be the more likely answer based on your reaction.

GCT said...

JD,
"I stated nothing of the sort."

It's the gist of your argument, even if you didn't say exactly what I wrote.

"Unless you are of the belief that the consumption of human flesh os somehow a good thing, then it would appear that Christianity has done more to end such a practice than any other religion and I would argue that life was exceedingly cheap in this world prior Jesus Christ and noticeably more precious since His coming."

And, this is still incorrect. As I've repeatedly pointed out, other cultures and religions also did not practice cannibalism. Xianity is not responsible for stamping out cannibalism where it didn't exist.

As for your second assertion, that of the dignity of human life, Roman common law (which predates Jesus) did more to that end than Xianity ever did. And, the dignity of human life that you enjoy now and are incorrectly imparting to early Xians actually came from deistic thought during the Enlightenment.

"One point brought up was that not every civilization had a storied history if cannibalism prior to Christ's coming."

Some do, many do not. Pointing out one culture that did it does not mean it was endemic.

"I'm sorry but citing a book by some hand-wringing yenta isnt a substitute for an actual answer. Please cite for me who in this book" of her's did more than English Christians to abolish slavery or admit that you can't cite a singel person more dedicated to stamping out slavery than William Wilberforce."

In her book she cites specific people. <a href=">Here's a linky.</a> See chapter 3 if it doesn't take you there. You'll note that the freethinking abolitionists also promoted equal rights for women. Where did Wilberforce stand on that issue? If you've read your own link, you'll know that he didn't support equal rights for women.

GCT said...

Oops. Here's the link.

JD Curtis said...

Xianity is not responsible for stamping out cannibalism where it didn't exist

It would be sort of difficult stamping out something that didnt exist, wouldnt it? Amongst the flesh eating peoples of the world, either now or through the past centuries, which religion has done more to end it's practice?

Roman common law (which predates Jesus) did more to that end than Xianity ever did

Odd. In my other entry I cite ""Many permanent legal reforms were set in motion by Emporer Constantine (280?-337) and Justinian (483-565) that can be laid to the influence of Christianity. Licentious and cruel sports were checked; new legislationwas ordered to protect the slave, the prisoner, the mutilated man, the outcast woman. Children were granted important legal rights. Infant exposure was abolished. Women were raised from a status of degradation to that of legal protection. Hospitals and orphanages were createdto take care of foundlings. Personal fueds and private wars were put under restraint....Branding of slaves was halted"

We seem to be in disagreement.

Who were the people cited who did more than, let's say Wilberforce?

GCT said...

"It would be sort of difficult stamping out something that didnt exist, wouldnt it? Amongst the flesh eating peoples of the world, either now or through the past centuries, which religion has done more to end it's practice?"

I don't know. Perhaps it is Xianity. The Xians sure did do a lot of colonizing and forcing their religion on others. They may have gotten to more cannibalistic tribes than the Muslims or other evangelizing imperialists. This shows what exactly? It certainly doesn't show what you claim it does.

"We seem to be in disagreement."

Yes, because you are conflating and conveniently ignoring the parts of history that you don't want to deal with. During the whole middle ages when surfs (slaves) were the property of their lords, where was Xianity saying that it was wrong and advancing the "dignity of the human person?"

"Who were the people cited who did more than, let's say Wilberforce?"

I provided you a link with a chapter that talks about this very issue. I see that I'm expected to follow all of your links and read them in depth as well as answer them, otherwise you chide me for not answering this point or that point. But, you are free to completely ignore the links I provide and not even read them? If you had, you'd see the numerous names given, like Garrison and others. But, I guess that's too much for you to handle, or is it that you simply have no intellectual honesty? And, you have the gall to try and call me out on Tracy's blog for doing exactly what your MO is?

JD Curtis said...

I don't know. Perhaps it is Xianity. The Xians sure did do a lot of colonizing and forcing their religion on others

So I am to believe that when a husband and wife team of missionaries go to live among stone age cannibals and lead by example and introduce the concept that maybe evil spirits arent causing them to eat people (or "long pig" as they refer to them). Maybe they shouldnt do that? That this couple is "colonizing and forcing" an entire tribe is as laughable as it is ludicrous.

I don't know. Perhaps it is Xianity

I think that if the answer was quite obvious as to what religion has done more to stamp ot cannibalism, you would have provided it by now and this thread would be a whole lot shorter.

During the whole middle ages when surfs (slaves) were the property of their lords, where was Xianity saying that it was wrong and advancing the "dignity of the human person?"

I believe it was in the same realm utilized by atheism, clamoring for the 8 hour work day, medical coverage, time and a half for all hours worked over 40 hrs per week, 3 weeks paid vacation per year, unemployment compensation in the event of layoffs and OSHA standards for all.

you are free to completely ignore the links I provide and not even read them? If you had, you'd see the numerous names given, like Garrison and others. But, I guess that's too much for you to handle, or is it that you simply have no intellectual honesty? And, you have the gall to try and call me out on Tracy's blog for doing exactly what your MO is?

Look, I provided William Wilberforce as someone to compare your yet unnamed "freethinkers" to awhile back. Congratulations. Finally I am provided a last name. Garrison. I typed the words [Garrison abolishionist] into a common search engine. The only hit I had was William Lloyd Garrison. Is that who you were referring to? The William Lloyd Garrison who was the "son of a pious Baptist mother"?

"Garrison was born in the United States in 1805 . Although he was born much later, his religious thought was greatly influenced by the religious awakening that America experienced in the mid-1700s . This movement consisted of the notion that there should be “an organization of an army of believers to crush out the forces of sin and false religion”. There was no excuse for sin, and it was the duty of religious people or the faithful to remove sin from the face of the earth. These views continued within the New England Baptists throughout the 1800s. Garrison’s mother, Fanny, was abandoned by her family after joining the Baptists . His father left the family when Garrison was only three, and thus, he was greatly influenced by his mother’s religious ideology. Even at a young age, Garrison was noted for his piety and faithfulness in these religious beliefs. In fact, as a teenager, he considered becoming a missionary"

Is this the "freethinker" of a Garrison that you are referring to?

GCT said...

"So I am to believe that when a husband and wife team of missionaries go to live among stone age cannibals and lead by example and introduce the concept that maybe evil spirits arent causing them to eat people (or "long pig" as they refer to them). Maybe they shouldnt do that? That this couple is "colonizing and forcing" an entire tribe is as laughable as it is ludicrous."

Why do you think proselytization is a good thing? I don't think it is. Sharing of technology and culture might be good and giving reasons why one should not engage in behavior X or Y - reasons that are based on empirical findings - may be good, but showing up and saying, "You must worship my god," is not a good thing.

"I think that if the answer was quite obvious as to what religion has done more to stamp ot cannibalism, you would have provided it by now and this thread would be a whole lot shorter."

Then you agree that it's not so obvious as you claim.

"I believe it was in the same realm utilized by atheism, clamoring for the 8 hour work day, medical coverage, time and a half for all hours worked over 40 hrs per week, 3 weeks paid vacation per year, unemployment compensation in the event of layoffs and OSHA standards for all."

Ah, so your answer to the objection is to put up a red herring that is based on an a-historical fantasy and doesn't actually address the objection at all? Weak.

"Finally I am provided a last name."

I provided you a whole book chapter, including a google books link to it so that you could look it up yourself. Apparently that's too much for you. Is it any wonder why no one seems to want to give you any sort of thought when you are unwilling to give in return? Why should we bust our asses to provide all kinds of supporting information, do all your homework for you, and also follow all of your links and understand and respond to them when all you are willing to do is command that we answer you when you are not willing to even look at the arguments we put forth or the supporting material?

And, yes, it is William Lloyd Garrison, and if you would read the rest of the chapter, you'd be enlightened as to who he really was, instead of reading a snippet about his parents and making unfounded assumptions that fit your preconceived notions. Once again, why should any of us put any effort into this if you are completely unwilling to do the same?

JD Curtis said...

Why do you think proselytization is a good thing?

Because it mught cause them to leave he Stone Age behind. The above Smithsonian article that I cite deals with modern day Dutch missionaries that minister to cannibalistic tribes. The tribal members have a profound fear of changing their beliefs in that something drastic will happen to them. The Dutch missionaries instead build communities for them (this lessens incidents of cannibalism) which reduces their dependence on a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

For comparison, what are the Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim missionary efforts in this regard?

your answer to the objection is to put up a red herring that is based on an a-historical fantasy and doesn't actually address the objection at all? Weak.

No. My 2 sided answer that flew over your head was that..
A. The Church then was acting in accordance to the time it was in and since none of the items mentioned were fathomable to people of that time, nobody was advocating for them. And..
B. Where were the atheists and "freethinkers" and why werent they delivering people to a better existance? Atheism predates Christianity by at least 400 years so it had a sizeable head start.

And, yes, it is William Lloyd Garrison, and if you would read the rest of the chapter, you'd be enlightened as to who he really was, instead of reading a snippet about his parents and making unfounded assumptions that fit your preconceived notions

With very little effort I quickly found 2 sources that state that his abolishionist sentiments were driven by religious convictions. Prove otherwise. Provide an answer, not a link. (A link in support of an answer is fine). You named 1 book by some yenta who I assume never brought up the religious character of Garrison. Right now she doesnt seem too credible to me.

JD Curtis said...

Here's another link from The US History Companion..

" A deeply religious Baptist, Garrison denounced slaveholding as an abomination in God's sight and demanded immediate, unqualified emancipation."

Also, from newworldencyclopedia.org....

"Following the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution ending slavery and providing the legal basis of full citizenship for former slaves, the deeply religious Garrison retired from his lifelong mission.....Garrison credited Reverend John Rankin of Ohio as a primary influence on his career, calling him his "anti-slavery father" and saying that Rankin's "book on slavery was the cause of my entering the anti-slavery conflict."

This is looking worse and worse GCT. Find another example while you still have a shred of honesty left.

GCT said...

"For comparison, what are the Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim missionary efforts in this regard?"

Maybe they aren't trying to indoctrinate others. Do you really believe all these people want is to help others? Maybe, but their idea of help is to force their religion on those people, to win souls for Christ. All they are trying to do is put notches on their cosmic belts.

"No. My 2 sided answer that flew over your head was that..
A. The Church then was acting in accordance to the time it was in and since none of the items mentioned were fathomable to people of that time, nobody was advocating for them."

Nope, still a red herring that has nothing to do with what you claimed. Where was the inherent dignity of the person during serfdom?

"B. Where were the atheists and "freethinkers" and why werent they delivering people to a better existance? Atheism predates Christianity by at least 400 years so it had a sizeable head start."

Again, this has nothing to do with defending your claim regarding Xianity and human value. Pointing to someone else and saying, "Well they didn't either" whether it's true or not does not support your claim. In fact, it's a position of weakness, as I pointed out.

Now, to address your red herring, just becuase I can, it's not surprising that a hated minority wouldn't have the ability to advocate things like human dignity, especially when many atheists might be killed on sight for simply not believing by those Xians that supposedly valued human life. Oh the irony.

"Provide an answer, not a link. (A link in support of an answer is fine)."

The answer is in the link I gave you. Some of the people did have religious ideas, but rejected the religious formalism of their time, rejected religion. Garrison was influenced by the works of Thoman Paine, which you would know if you actually read what was given to you. Instead, all you do is troll for information, post it without understanding it or the context, and then declare that the things you don't understand and haven't even looked at are wrong. It's kind of like Berlinski with Dawkins. And, to top it off, you claim I don't have a "shred of honesty." That's rich coming from you and it makes me want to say shove it up your backside, because you've shown no indication of having or caring about intellectual honesty you hypocrite.