Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Leucius Charinus wrote:After one and a half millennia of Heresy and Blasphemy Laws, in recent times sceptical thinking is no longer punished.

Who are you kidding? You're in Australia. It's never been punished in your entire lifetime.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan...

Peter Kirby wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:After one and a half millennia of Heresy and Blasphemy Laws, in recent times sceptical thinking is no longer punished.

Who are you kidding? You're in Australia. It's never been punished in your entire lifetime.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan...

But this is making light of the history of heresy and blasphemy laws which operated on our direct ancestors for over one and half millennia. Islam is just 300 years behind Christianity. You have only to go back 300 years for the Christian nations and their states to be executing blasphemers or heretics. Obviously the same accusations apply to Islam but isn't the focus here supposed to be Christian history? Being in Australia has nothing to do with it. Australia wasn't populated with British, Irish and Scottish convicts 300 years ago.

The point I am making is the history of sceptical thinking is a valuable sub-study to the reception of the Bible (and its perceived authority) century by century from antiquity to the 21st. The fact that sceptical thinking was essentially prohibited by the church organisation for such a long time is an historical fact that is not trivial. It explains a great deal of the evidence.


LC

Leucius Charinus wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:After one and a half millennia of Heresy and Blasphemy Laws, in recent times sceptical thinking is no longer punished.

Who are you kidding? You're in Australia. It's never been punished in your entire lifetime.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan...

But this is making light of the history of heresy and blasphemy laws which operated on our direct ancestors for over one and half millennia. Islam is just 300 years behind Christianity. You have only to go back 300 years for the Christian nations and their states to be executing blasphemers or heretics. Obviously the same accusations apply to Islam but isn't the focus here supposed to be Christian history? Being in Australia has nothing to do with it. Australia wasn't populated with British, Irish and Scottish convicts 300 years ago.

The point I am making is the history of sceptical thinking is a valuable sub-study to the reception of the Bible (and its perceived authority) century by century from antiquity to the 21st. The fact that sceptical thinking was essentially prohibited by the church organisation for such a long time is an historical fact that is not trivial. It explains a great deal of the evidence.


LC

I'm not making light of anything. I just think it's a bit odd how much energy is put into exposing the Christian religion and its "blasphemy laws" when Islam is staring us in the face right now, today. You've put it into context as just a piece of data in your historical reconstruction, but still. It's a bit odd.

Veering off topic... part of why I never cared to poke Islam too much is that I suspect I might actually be a victim of violence as a result. We can speak so blithely today about the evils of Christianity precisely because it has, as a whole, mellowed out. But to the untrained ear it can also appear irrelevant, tiresome, and a waste of energy to keep rehashing the problems of Christianity. I've gotten this reaction personally from other people.

Peter Kirby wrote: part of why I never cared to poke Islam too much is that I suspect I might actually be a victim of violence as a result
.

I have never seen such a barbaric insane and embarrassing theology with more holes then a spaghetti strainer. The level of fanaticism and fundamentalism is embarrassing humanity.

Its not hard to be caught on their radar of hatred telling the truth here. One cannot tell real history to any of them due to the required literalism by all.


They follow a pedophile plagiarist who could only spread his message with blood and violence. The writings so primitive, some make very little sense on their best day.


Their people the most primitive on the planet, with the highest illiteracy rates out of any religious group. Their barbaric treatment of women is appalling.

Freedom to them means the freedom to have forced beliefs and traditions, and many do not have the intellect allah gave to a crowbar, murdering each other as their number one cause of death.

Talking anything but their pseudo history is like talking to a wall, only if you talked to wall it would be more productive because you could convince yourself to stop at some point, wont happen talking to a muslim on reality.


Add to this due to their poor intellect and fanaticism, they breed the highest amount of terrorist on the planet.


Should I tell you how I really feel?

Islam refuted in a few sentences.

Why is there not one credible historian in the world that uses the Koran for any aspect of Israelite or Jesus history? Because people in reality don't use plagiarized mythology to try and recreate history.

Peter Kirby wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:But this is making light of the history of heresy and blasphemy laws which operated on our direct ancestors for over one and half millennia. Islam is just 300 years behind Christianity. You have only to go back 300 years for the Christian nations and their states to be executing blasphemers or heretics. Obviously the same accusations apply to Islam but isn't the focus here supposed to be Christian history? Being in Australia has nothing to do with it. Australia wasn't populated with British, Irish and Scottish convicts 300 years ago.

The point I am making is the history of sceptical thinking is a valuable sub-study to the reception of the Bible (and its perceived authority) century by century from antiquity to the 21st. The fact that sceptical thinking was essentially prohibited by the church organisation for such a long time is an historical fact that is not trivial. It explains a great deal of the evidence.

I'm not making light of anything. I just think it's a bit odd how much energy is put into exposing the Christian religion and its "blasphemy laws" when Islam is staring us in the face right now, today. You've put it into context as just a piece of data in your historical reconstruction, but still. It's a bit odd.

It's not odd at all. It's history for the Christian religion from the 4th to the 18th century and for the Islamic religion from the 7th to the 21st century. The blasphemy laws are all sourced in "Heresy Laws" which were maintained by the respective "Church Organisations". All this is critical in understanding the history of belief and the history of sceptical thinking.

Veering off topic... part of why I never cared to poke Islam too much is that I suspect I might actually be a victim of violence as a result. We can speak so blithely today about the evils of Christianity precisely because it as, as a whole, mellowed out.

Of course it has. But that does not alter its history. The evidence underpinning the historical jesus has been preserved by an exceedingly powerful and corrupt organisation of men. Each century we move back in time from the present, the environment gets worse and worse. We often forget this.

But to the untrained ear it can also appear irrelevant, tiresome, and a waste of energy to keep rehashing the problems of Christianity. I've gotten this reaction personally from other people.

This issue is very relevant for the historian of the "Church Organisation". Biblical Historians are more interested in the "Divine Institute" untainted by the politics of power granted to it with effect from the Council of Antioch by the Roman Emperor. So where in your model does the history of "Divine Institute" (which could do no wrong) begin and end, and the "Church Organisation" (which repeatedly did every possible wrong) take over operations?



LC

Leucius Charinus wrote:So where in your model does the history of "Divine Institute" (which could do no wrong) begin and end, and the "Church Organisation" (which repeatedly did every possible wrong) take over operations?

November 5th, 1955, the day Marty McFly arrived back in Hill Valley.

So, LC, have you stopped doing meth yet?

See I can play too.

Peter Kirby wrote:I'm not making light of anything. I just think it's a bit odd how much energy is put into exposing the Christian religion and its "blasphemy laws" when Islam is staring us in the face right now, today. You've put it into context as just a piece of data in your historical reconstruction, but still. It's a bit odd.

Hardly odd in America where we have Republican politicians in the pockets of wealthy Fundamentalist Christian campaign contributors attempting to insert their Fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs and social policies into State and Federal laws affecting and/or controlling the permissible beliefs or life choices of everyone within their imagined 'Christian' theocratic nation.

Naturally America's atheists, and America's adherents of other minority faiths are going to be found on battle lines opposing and fighting the greatest and primary threat to their Constitutionally due enjoyment of freedoms of conscience, of thought, and of actions.
We resist all attempts by Christian's and their pocket politicians to 'Christianize' the national polity.
So yes, resisting and fighting against the Christian mythologies is, and will remain a patriotic national duty and priority for as long as this insane death cult attempts passage of laws depriving non-Christians of our Constitutionally granted and guaranteed liberties and freedom to live and act as non-Christians.

They have no right to be in my wife or daughter's vagina or womb. Or ruling over which of my friends may marry, or enjoy access to whatever social benefits are vouchsafed to all legally wed couples.
Let them get their prudish snoopy noses, and political manipulations out of other American citizen's affairs, and they will no longer be the focus of our collective ire, which exists only in response to their attempts at legal intrusions into our personal lives, rights, and private and public affairs.

Okay. I've changed my mind. Lighten up!

It's little wonder even atheists don't want to be associated with atheists.

This atheist is proud to be associated with any and all atheists fighting the good fight against those who would intrude their ignorant religious superstitions into our lives.
If one does not stand up to them, they will politically prevail, and their goal is to impose their version of a Christian theocratic nation and world upon everyone.
The fanaticism of Fundamentalism is still alive, and ready to rear its venomous head at any opportunity. If we don't resist, we may as well put out the welcome mat for the continuation Christian crusades, witch burnings, and a revived Inquisition.

Sheshbazzar wrote:The fanaticism of Fundamentalism is still alive, and ready to rear its venomous head at any opportunity.

Okay I'll carry a machete. Thanks for the warning.