Pope: Atheism to blame for "greatest forms of cruelty&q

[General Zod]

Just as an example, the roots based origin of Christianity arguably provided the basis for Democracy. Other religions could have done it, as could secularism, but other may have not. (ISlam for example, lacks the very concept of separation of church and state, there's no "Give unto Caesar THERE").

*BRRRNT!*
I'm sorry, your answer must be in the form of a question...or at least, must not be obviously inaccurate.

The Athenian democracy was established roughly around 500 B.C. - quite awhile before Christianity hit the scene.

Neverminding the fact that many Christian churches formally supported monarchies throughout medieval Europe . . . .and the fact that the Bible supports Jesus & God as lord and ruler over all of humanity, making democracy just a smidge foreign to Christian thought. Unless Death expects that people can just vote to overturn God's decision.

[Darth Wong]

Humans relying on their own force and morals to push things ahead is what produces prophets, Evangelists and Martin Luther King, among other religious reforming loonies

No, humans lying and claiming to represent some higher power is what produces loonies. When they state up-front that they are presenting their own philosophy, that is a totally different matter because it is subject to argument.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Just as an example, the roots based origin of Christianity arguably provided the basis for Democracy. Other religions could have done it, as could secularism, but other may have not. (ISlam for example, lacks the very concept of separation of church and state, there's no "Give unto Caesar THERE").

*BRRRNT!*
I'm sorry, your answer must be in the form of a question...or at least, must not be obviously inaccurate.

The Athenian democracy was established roughly around 500 B.C. - quite awhile before Christianity hit the scene.

Allright, in case I was unclear, Christianity did NOT provide the basis for democracy, but it did provide the general mental framework it needed, relative to many other religions, some of which did not even have the very fundamental Concept of seperation of church and state or equality between men (Caste systems for example).
This meant that secular democracy had a relatively, easier time there than in other places. Westernism, with plurality, economic freedom /& democracy came from Europe, specifically, it's western parts.

Neverminding the fact that many Christian churches formally supported monarchies throughout medieval Europe

And dictatorships existed beforehand. This over-rides my point about it providing a basic framework until REAL progress/democracy could be made over that primitve framework how, exactly?

. . . .and the fact that the Bible supports Jesus & God as lord and ruler over all of humanity

"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto god what is to god". (Sorry if I got the phrasing wrong, but the gist is a defied seperation of church and state in the OT itself).
IT supports a religious all-powerful rulership, but it doesn't say that the pope should rule over all humanity. (Well, not at first. Modifications are a bit of a cheat ).

, making democracy just a smidge foreign to Christian thought.

Except that it's a concept foreign, but still comprehensible. The concepts of equality, charity, equal rights, seperation of church and state exist in Christianity.
It's the basic mental/world/civilizational outlook I'm talking about here, Democracy might have come easier from some other religion, but it would have found greater difficulty coming from some other religions that were more anemical by FAR to it's very basic concepts.

Unless Death expects that people can just vote to overturn God's decision.

But cardinals can argue with the pope (Or is it bishops?), and it doesn't talk about men being inequal, superior to one another etc' (See previous points, I'd hate to repeat myself too much, despite my atrocious writing ability).

[Androsphinx]

You do realise that invoking Scripture which could be read in a certain way, and then attempting to wave away a couple of millenia of Christian conduct which ignores those principles by saying "modifications are a bit of a cheat" isn't really very honest? Christianity is not a modern, liberal reading of the New Testament. Especially not Catholic Christianity.

[The Grim Squeaker]

You do realise that invoking Scripture which could be read in a certain way, and then attempting to wave away a couple of millenia of Christian conduct which ignores those principles by saying "modifications are a bit of a cheat" isn't really very honest?

Sorry, mea culpa. I got sidetracked from what I should have said, that behaviour can/will be interpreted. Marx was argued with while he was alive, but during the Soviet era, well, "A trip to the Gulag for you comrade". Even Joseph christ was argued with while he was alive, and those that did so went on to be his mantle-bearers. (Find an example of that in, say, Chinese Confucianism).

Christianity is not a modern, liberal reading of the New Testament. Especially not Catholic Christianity.

And Protestant Christianity is more liberal and useful as a mental framework, and the Opus dei less so. My point is that it provided a basic frame of mental outlook that was relatively accomodating to Democracy and what we call Western society (That came from Western, Christian Europe), as opposed to SOME other religions. (And I don't support religion as opposed to Liberal Secularism by any possible means, but it can provide a useful unifying force (For the nation state or Charitabl e organization, army or "Freedom fighters", what have you) , and civilizational outlook.

[Androsphinx]

My point is that it provided a basic frame of mental outlook that was relatively accomodating to Democracy and what we call Western society (That came from Western, Christian Europe), as opposed to SOME other religions.

Ehh... Weak. Very weak. You should think of better examples in future.

[General Zod]

And dictatorships existed beforehand. This over-rides my point about it providing a basic framework until REAL progress/democracy could be made over that primitve framework how, exactly?

You don't have one. In fact, nowhere have you shown how Christianity provides this so-called framework other than just arbitrarily saying it does.

"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto god what is to god". (Sorry if I got the phrasing wrong, but the gist is a defied seperation of church and state in the OT itself).
IT supports a religious all-powerful rulership, but it doesn't say that the pope should rule over all humanity. (Well, not at first. Modifications are a bit of a cheat ).

Who the fuck said anything about the Pope? I'm talking about God being named as ruler of all humanity. Not much in the way of interpretation for suggesting God favors democracy.

Except that it's a concept foreign, but still comprehensible. The concepts of equality, charity, equal rights, seperation of church and state exist in Christianity.

Now I know you're just talking out of your ass. The only separation of Church and State that exists in the Bible is that Christianity doesn't acknowledge any state but its own. Equal rights? Again, you're full of shit. Or have you not noticed the blatant sexism against women throughout the entire Bible? Equality? Where are the commandments that say slavery is wrong? There's many such rules and statements in the Bible that suggest it's totally fine.

It's the basic mental/world/civilizational outlook I'm talking about here, Democracy might have come easier from some other religion, but it would have found greater difficulty coming from some other religions that were more anemical by FAR to it's very basic concepts.

Again, bullshit. Rome and Greece had functioning democracies centuries before Christianity was founded.

But cardinals can argue with the pope (Or is it bishops?), and it doesn't talk about men being inequal, superior to one another etc' (See previous points, I'd hate to repeat myself too much, despite my atrocious writing ability).

Until the average joe blow can vote to over turn God's edicts, then you have no argument.

[Elfdart]

The irony of this statement coming from a man who fronts an institution which once published an instruction manual for torture is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Not that devout Catholics have a problem with hypocrisy and lies; their entire religious tradition is steeped in it.

...huh. Hadn't heard that one...
Do you know the title offhand, by any chance?

Incidentally - what is the proper way to address a Pope? "Your Eminence", or some reverent junk like that?

Any institution that spent centuries jamming hot needles into women's genitals in order to search for signs of witchcraft has no business accusing others of cruelty, unless their goal is to retire the hypocrisy trophy once and for all. Want a more modern example? Nuns who advocated birth control (not including abortion) were excommunicated by John Paul II: Electric Bugaloo. Nazis and other fascists committting mass murder were not only not excommunicated by the Vatican Pedophile Ring, they were blessed and egged on by the men in frocks, and hidden from the war crimes tribunals after WW2.

I would say "Fuck the Pope and his minions!" but since I'm over the age of 13...

[Adrian Laguna]

Any institution that spent centuries jamming hot needles into women's genitals in order to search for signs of witchcraft

I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church never did that. It was more a feature of Protestant witch hunts. Also, the whole point of the needle poking was to find a spot that would not bleed, so they did not use hot needles, nor did they focus on victim's genitals.

[Rye]

And Protestant Christianity is more liberal and useful as a mental framework, and the Opus dei less so. My point is that it provided a basic frame of mental outlook that was relatively accomodating to Democracy and what we call Western society (That came from Western, Christian Europe), as opposed to SOME other religions. (And I don't support religion as opposed to Liberal Secularism by any possible means, but it can provide a useful unifying force (For the nation state or Charitabl e organization, army or "Freedom fighters", what have you) , and civilizational outlook.

The shift towards democracy was more a result of the shift away from the feudal system after the black death, the serfs could now buy their own land and property, i.e. it was economic, not religious.

[Androsphinx]

Any institution that spent centuries jamming hot needles into women's genitals in order to search for signs of witchcraft

I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church never did that. It was more a feature of Protestant witch hunts. Also, the whole point of the needle poking was to find a spot that would not bleed, so they did not use hot needles, nor did they focus on victim's genitals.

Let's see:

the Malleus Maleficarum was written by Domincan members of the Inquisition. Which makes them pretty Catholic

the point was to find a spot which was not sensitive to touch, and which if pricked would not be felt. This was in reality a "supernumerary nipple or other spot where a witch suckled her familiar".

And to quote a little from Joseph Klaits "Servants of Satan":

In Scotland, accused witches were always searched for "marks . . . between her thys and her body".
Likewise, in Salem, three women were condemned because of "a preternatural excrescence of flesh between the pudendum and the anus, much like teats, and not usual in women"
One witch suspect in the Swiss canton of Fribourg contemptuously chided her judges for their naivete about female anatomy. After the prosecutors discovered what they took to be a devil's mark on her genitals, Ernni Vuffiod informed them that 'if this was a sign of witchcraft, many women would be witches'

conveniently online here

So, in short, you're totally wrong.

[wolveraptor]

Daaamn, how much Christian torture was the result of sexually repressed men honestly not knowing what the female crotch looks like?



The more I think about it, the more I want to weep.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Any institution that spent centuries jamming hot needles into women's genitals in order to search for signs of witchcraft

I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church never did that. It was more a feature of Protestant witch hunts. Also, the whole point of the needle poking was to find a spot that would not bleed, so they did not use hot needles, nor did they focus on victim's genitals.

Let's see:

the Malleus Maleficarum was written by Domincan members of the Inquisition. Which makes them pretty Catholic

the point was to find a spot which was not sensitive to touch, and which if pricked would not be felt. This was in reality a "supernumerary nipple or other spot where a witch suckled her familiar".

And to quote a little from Joseph Klaits "Servants of Satan":

In Scotland, accused witches were always searched for "marks . . . between her thys and her body".
Likewise, in Salem, three women were condemned because of "a preternatural excrescence of flesh between the pudendum and the anus, much like teats, and not usual in women"
One witch suspect in the Swiss canton of Fribourg contemptuously chided her judges for their naivete about female anatomy. After the prosecutors discovered what they took to be a devil's mark on her genitals, Ernni Vuffiod informed them that 'if this was a sign of witchcraft, many women would be witches'

conveniently online here

So, in short, you're totally wrong.

No, in short, you're laughably ignorant and extremely wrong. Scotland is a Calvinist country, as was the Salem colony (Puritans, remember?). Calvinism is the most extreme branch of protestantism. Where was Calvinism started? In the Swiss canton of... Fribourg. Adrian's point was only to take exception to those claims in regard to the Catholic Church, and so far all you've done is prove him right.

[hawkwind]

Actually the witchhunts in Moravia which started by 1678 conducted by inquisition tribunal and in catolicised country have cost lives of more than 100 people over the county.
So in this aspect Calvinism and Catholicism really hold no niveau over each other.

J.

[hawkwind]

My comment is only to the point that regardless of the sect, christians are and were capable of comitting of these things in the name of the god.
Sure they hate each other and they are only capable of uniting againts common enemy, but there is not big difference among them in what they are capable to do and what they did in the past.

J.

[Gil Hamilton]

No, in short, you're laughably ignorant and extremely wrong. Scotland is a Calvinist country, as was the Salem colony (Puritans, remember?). Calvinism is the most extreme branch of protestantism. Where was Calvinism started? In the Swiss canton of... Fribourg. Adrian's point was only to take exception to those claims in regard to the Catholic Church, and so far all you've done is prove him right.

The bit about Scotland and Salem, you are right, but the Malleus Maleficarum was definitely a Catholic thing, given that it was written by two members of the Catholic Inquisition. It even came with an approving forward by Pope Innocent VIII for a while.

With that book has a weird history since the Church also tried to ban it once, but it proved too popular with witch hunters and inquisitors. It seems kind of a weak argument to say that Catholicism wasn't big on witch hunting when the Pope gives the manual a thumbs up and that members of the church were so zealous about using it that they largely ignored their own ban on it to the point that they gave up and started publishing it again.

[K. A. Pital]

Malleus Maleficarum explained how to torture "witches". It was a Catholic book and it was acted upon. So Catholics did torture witches, just as the other scum of the earth known as Protestants and Calvinists.

[Adrian Laguna]

I never said the Catholic Church did not engage in witch hunts, only that they did not poke women's genitals with hot needles.

I could have mentioned that the Catholic witch hunts had overall higher standards of evidence than Protestant ones, and that the people condemned by the Church, or its officials, had a higher proportion of those actually guilty of attempting witchcraft. I decided to just restrict my comment to refuting false claims.

[K. A. Pital]

I could have mentioned that the Catholic witch hunts had overall higher standards of evidence than Protestant ones, and that the people condemned by the Church, or its officials, had a higher proportion of those actually guilty of attempting witchcraft.

"Evidence"? Witchcraft is a bogus attempt to cause supernatural phenomena. It doesn't exist, therefore, all evidence is just religious bullshit. All of it.

[Adrian Laguna]

"Evidence"? Witchcraft is a bogus attempt to cause supernatural phenomena. It doesn't exist, therefore, all evidence is just religious bullshit. All of it.

Just because witchcraft itself is impossible, it doesn't mean that people can't or won't attempt to perform it, nor does it mean that said attempts will not leave evidence behind.

[K. A. Pital]

You can't trial for that bullshit, much less torture. Of course it's possible to "perform it", but so?

[Gullible Jones]

"Evidence"? Witchcraft is a bogus attempt to cause supernatural phenomena. It doesn't exist, therefore, all evidence is just religious bullshit. All of it.

Just because witchcraft itself is impossible, it doesn't mean that people can't or won't attempt to perform it, nor does it mean that said attempts will not leave evidence behind.

Oh, and of course that's justification to hang people.

[Darth Wong]

What do you expect; Adrian Laguna is from South America. The whole region is infested with fundie stupidity.

[Gil Hamilton]

Just because witchcraft itself is impossible, it doesn't mean that people can't or won't attempt to perform it, nor does it mean that said attempts will not leave evidence behind.

*goes to the fridge to find a can of coke, cracks it open, rereads your quotes, and spits out a frontal cone of pop*

Hol-ee shit. You think this constitutes a defense of the Church?

A higher standard of evidence that some women have Evil Magic Powers and need to be tortured and killed? Really? How does an organization have a higher standard of evidence for proving claims that they, themselves, made up? One of the more common accusations of "witchcraft" was blaming a woman who "Deprive Man of his Virile Member" and thus was a Bride of Satan. Exactly how strong is this "evidence"?

Hell, how many of their "witches" would be clearly diagnosed as mentally ill today, even if they have had "evidence"? Or were pagans and murdered for it? Or for that matter Jews?

[PeZook]

The irony of this statement coming from a man who fronts an institution which once published an instruction manual for torture is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Not that devout Catholics have a problem with hypocrisy and lies; their entire religious tradition is steeped in it.

Believe it or not, I once had a guy argue that publishing a manual for torture didn't mean the Inquisition was institutionally cruel.

His reasoning? Because then they would've killed more people than they did. Like it's impossible to be cruel without fucking murdering someone.