Re: Hell II (Was: Rational thought etc.)

Chris Bell wrote:
 
> Sean McHugh wrote:

<snip>

> > That's designed for the wilfully incompetent Christians who will
> > enthusiastically lap it up. Those listed leaders probably didn't
> > believe in pyramid power either but that too is not the reason they
> > murdered. Their wars were for political gain and were unlikely to have
> > been impelled by their unbelief in Zeus, Thor or the Rainbow Serpent.
> > Conversely one can point to many examples where religion has had a
> > _direct_ motivation (or justification) for atrocities. If one is to
> > believe the Old Testament, it abounds with atrocities over religious
> > disagreement, that were supposedly carried out with God's sanction. We
> > can then look at the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Conquistadors and
> > the witch hunts. We can also look a long period in history call the
> > Dark Ages. It was a time of religious struggle and control and a time
> > when things went backwards. In more modern times, Hitler's Nazis had
> > on the belt buckles, "Gott mit uns". It means, "God is with us". They
> > too had religious justification for atrocities. Would anyone go into
> > battle wearing, "Unbelief is with us"? Today we can look at the
> > Islamic states (something your examples omit) where the religion is
> > also the Law. 'Sharia', 'Jihad' and 'infidel' are products of
> > religion. We don't want that sort of stupidity and that is why western
> > states have secular governments (already) in power. Secular is
> > essentially a-theistic.

> Sorry Sean, but I do not agree. Show me one example of a genuinely
> atheistic government which has produced some sort of paradise. The best
> example I can think of is Cuba, amnd I doubt that the hordes who leave
> illegally to go the the USA would agree.

Hi Chris,

What do you mean by an 'atheistic government'? Is that to imply that
we, by contrast, have a Christian government? If not, what do we have?
If, by 'atheist government', you are referring to governments that
forbid religion, then you are talking about a totalitarian state.
There the problem is the totalitarianism itself. These by definition
will be oppressive just as they are with governments where the
religion is Law. 

It seems Christians right across the spectrum would like to have 
atheism looks bad by defining as ineligible any reasonable non 
religious governments, while ignoring the other side of the coin, the 
very religious governments. 

Governments that govern thoughts are undesirable, period. However
belief lends itself to abuse more so than does unbelief. That is why
one can find many more examples of atrocities justified by the former
than by the latter. The reason people are more willing to kill for
belief than for unbelief, is the same reason people are more willing
to die for a belief. One only needs to read the subject header to be
reminded of direct religious justification for what is morally gross.
Even though this is eschatological rather than existential, it still
provides insight into why religious 'right' and 'wrong' is anathema to
either justice or government.  
 
> And I don't agree with your take on secular. Plenty of secular
> politicians are religious, and use their religious faith to inform their
> political positions (on both sides of politics). 

And plenty aren't religious. Are you saying that our government _is_
religious? If you exclude from the non religious category any 
government where religious beliefs are not permitted, then you are
only allowing totalitarian governments to represent non religious
government. Your test is rigged. 

> When you look at those
> who framed our constitutions and state institutions, many where
> Christians, and based their thinking on the Christian faith. 

Have you something more tangible to submit, lest we need assume 
their individual religious thoughts?

> That muslims might do the same seems commonsense to me. If Sharia law
> produces better political outcomes will be seen in time, but I very much
> doubt it. 

Are you suggesting that we need to wait to find out if Sharia law (or
any religious control of state) is good? 

> Just as Christians gradually moved from feudalism to
> democracy, I think that Muslims will move to a secular form of
> government separating religion from governance.

Christianity does not get the credit for democratic government. It was
merely a passenger. The ancient Greeks used the same word we use
today, 'democracy'. The Christians adopted it from their hosts.
Monogamy is another example. The Christians could take more than one
wife but they became compelled to adopt the Greco-Roman societal
values and became staunch monogamists. Other benefits/sophistications
we have obtained from that ancient society are mathematics, theatre,
science, education and medicine - including the Hippocratic oath. Yet
another is philosophy. Ironically philosophy is the very tool for
questioning issues such as moral values. We obtained that also from
the ancient western culture and their government and not from
religion. At best, Christians realised the benefits of the host
culture's features and retained them:

http://r2rministries.com/history/X0086_Western_Civilization.html

` What Happened to Western Civilization?

` By outlasting the persecutions of the Roman emperors, the Christians
` laid the lasting foundation of Western society, not only by becoming
` the predominant faith, but also by preserving many valuable features
` of Greco-Roman culture.

By comparison, God's people, the Jews of the Old Testament, are more
notable for their non achievement. Accordingly, Christianity, in
defining itself, only pays lip service to the OT. Even the religious
aspects from the OT have been removed and replaced with adapted
western rituals, like Easter and Christmas.


Best Regards,


Sean McHugh