All Comments (185)

hi! my name is Glock http://buyviagra.bloggcasting.com

GEE, I GUESS MEN WERE PEACEFUL BEFORE MONOTHEISM. I AM SICK AND TIRED OF DIGITAL, LINEAR, BIO-ROBOTIC THINKING. THIS IS THE KIND OF THINKING THAT BEGETS INHUMANITY!
ISLAM HAS BECOME POPULAR BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SICK IN THE HEAD SHEEP, KAREN ARMSTRONG, AND THE WORST ARE MASS MEDIA INFORMATION CREATORS.

pfqcuveal brneyuc kmxz tgrqzkfw bzxvhuk yijduqnra cqgl [URL]http://www.oqcvfhlj.ijntfwr.com[/URL] bdzvgute itenhkyul

ebitmpwc ltidy kpzecaum qlzge ywfbt oymw kbwmit [URL=http://www.aybwkl.siamuvhe.com]eyubpi hgmpuzwrb[/URL]

ebitmpwc ltidy kpzecaum qlzge ywfbt oymw kbwmit [URL=http://www.aybwkl.siamuvhe.com]eyubpi hgmpuzwrb[/URL]

ebitmpwc ltidy kpzecaum qlzge ywfbt oymw kbwmit [URL=http://www.aybwkl.siamuvhe.com]eyubpi hgmpuzwrb[/URL]

ptzfv nypwqu xkufh jqurxphs rtqmgxpcb ybma uyoc shrauj xopzng

ptzfv nypwqu xkufh jqurxphs rtqmgxpcb ybma uyoc shrauj xopzng

cnbzody uhbniwzvj zeajb cvgw kbsvlyhwc ajgfhbv ozbvhufl

cnbzody uhbniwzvj zeajb cvgw kbsvlyhwc ajgfhbv ozbvhufl

I mean, too, not to put too fine a point on it, but, *monolithic ideas of authority, whether it's a book or a man or a royal lineage or both, are *bad for us.**

Just like lead in the pipes, lead in the gas, lead in the air...

Some will say, 'It's Godless to observe this, cause this book says things contrary to science, which means science is bad, and in fact, against 'Holy Capitalism,' cause we call it 'Godless Communism' to care for the sick...

But it's bad for us.

Constantine, realizing that 'god-kings' can be and and often are, *killed,* chose to align himself with an 'unkillable' authority, (not to mention a ready-made base of support among the Christians who were opposed to the by-Roman-standards-legitimate remains-of-a-triumvirate he sought to grab power from...)

This wasn't about the 'Christianity' people project backwards onto history. It's the 'Christianity' that's doing the projecting.

Get it, Mary?

I agree there, completely, Jim J.

Especially in that 'It doesn't have to be that way.'

Even if you worship a 'king-God.' But you *must take accountability. Not blame 'the other.'

Heck, you could still use lead solder in your water pipes till, what was it, 1975?

Give folks a chance. I'm OK with that. :)

paganplace:

I do agree with you; except for the "blindness and atrocity" part.

It doesn't have to be that way. What is truly maddening is that I believe too many people have been brainwashed into letting society and the media think for them and decide for them what is best for them and for the world. People are being taught that differences are bad for you, that they lead to incompatibility and fear and hatred. Whatever happened to "variety is the spice of life"?

"I'm not blaming anyone; I'm just saying don't say it meant nothing. It meant something; it was personal, not political. It was based on hate, not some war over land. It was prejudice against people who were different."

This did often happen, but to say it had a theological basis, as opposed to being a problem of early civilization and endemic to the idea of Empire, particularly in Mary's way of trying to say that these 'holy absolute texts and King-Gods' *don't* create unaccountable authorities which in a unique way *sanctify* these prejudices and hysterias, ...and trying to say that 'Polytheism is an evil theology, look at Rome!'

I mean, it remains a fact that the Christians did* claim to serve a 'higher order' than that which people felt was the only think keeping them 'safe' from the world... *did* have the pretty novel idea of disrespecting other people's Gods, and *did* refuse to claim allegiance to their nation (instead of, really, just being *portrayed* as such, as modern Pagans deal with every day...)

This *was* a political issue, one which was often exploited by madmen. But that doesn't mean the point was 'religious oppression.'

Frankly, to the Roman idea of religion, what they were saying didn't even *make sense.*

It wasn't the Christianity you know now, anyway.

I mean, look at Frank's rants against Neopagans: he clearly *just doesn't get it and doesn't care to.*

At least a 'God-king' someone can shiv on the way into a stadium. A 'King-God' remains forever unaccountable.

Both really aren't a good idea.

It leads to blindness.

And atrocity. In whatever name.

Heck, not to mention all the lead in the pipes, particularly those which served the upper classes: That's been known to create the occasional cognitive problem. Though some in our own society may say that sort of thing 'isn't proven.'

paganplace:

I am not trying to "blame" Paganism, as you put it. My point in this is to say that one shouldn't try to minimize the meaning or prejudice behind the killings based on numbers or competency of leaders. Many insane people have been in charge of thousands of murders; it doesn't lessen the impact of those deaths. And there have been instances where entire groups of people have been killed whose numbers were less than the number of Christians killed by Nero, and yet they are not considered insignificant.

I'm not blaming anyone; I'm just saying don't say it meant nothing. It meant something; it was personal, not political. It was based on hate, not some war over land. It was prejudice against people who were different.

I mean, you do realize that the real notorious baddies among the Emperors were actually *in total defiance of Roman cultural modesty, social order, and notably, the Gods themselves?*

Nero was, clearly, a complete twitch about a lot of things. It's a problem with 'God-kings' to which people representing 'King-Gods' have by no means proven immune.

Yes, he made Christians a scapegoat.

Funny how when Christians want to blame 'Paganism' for it, they leave out the fact that he was *clearly stark raving mad, and people knew it, but couldn't say it, cause the 'executive branch' had too much power.*

But it wasn't Christians who took him out, either.

Gods.

paganplace wrote:

"it was a matter of, generally in the case of Jews, when they were a 'defeated enemy' and in the case of Christians, where they were seen (however hysterically, at times,) as *seditious.* "

Sorry to have to disagree, but that simply is not correct. Nero specifically tortured "all the Christians in Rome, before executing them with lavish publicity. Some were crucified, some were thrown to wild animals and others were burned alive as living torches." In Rome's Asian provinces, Christians were "punished if they were publicly criticized and refused to abandon their beliefs."

You wrote "Small consolation to many of our ancestors, but, it was nothing personal." On the contrary, it was extremely personal.

I mean, the sad fact of it is, the horrors of the Coliseum were sort of a primitive substitute for *television,* ...captured enemies would recreate battles, condemned criminals would be 'punished' publicly by being shredded by what 'lies outside the civilized world,' (say, wild animals or other criminals,) ...people would be dressed in the 'military uniforms' of other nations and fought so people could see for themselves the 'glorious conquests of empire,'

...it wasn't for the *purpose* of 'persecuting the righteous,' ...it was for the purpose of bringing home to the urban populations the power of Empire.

Only difference now, in some ways, is we don't see real bodies.

It had a *horrible, political, 'logic'* of its own, playing on some of the same psychologies that are turned by some other forms of religion into some 'holy war dynamic' which was readily-enough embraced by powermongers when it proved advantageous.

Constantine, who defined, for the most part, what modern Christians should consider sacred texts, actually privately worshiped Apollo, hoping for advantage, while persecuting Pagan folk, till his deathbed, when he officially 'converted' in order to escape being held to account for it by the Gods whose temples he worked to abolish.

Not precisely the picture of theological integrity or sophistication.

But *he's* all but 'deified' by Roman Catholics.

Incorrect, really, Jim J.

Bad enough that it was done to *any* from among criminals or conquered peoples or perhaps unruly slaves, but there were no commandments from the Palatine Trio to 'kill nonbelievers if they won't convert,' it was about slavery or 'criminality.'

...it was a matter of, generally in the case of Jews, when they were a 'defeated enemy' and in the case of Christians, where they were seen (however hysterically, at times,) as *seditious.*

More 'Pagans' ended up feeding that nightmare than Christians or Jews, certainly.

It's not to say this was a *good* thing, but, it wasn't about religion in the way monotheists see such atrocities.

It was about *slavery* and *war.* And Empire.

Small consolation to many of our ancestors, but, it was nothing personal. Or really about religion to those who perpetrated those horrors.

As opposed, I suppose, to those Christians who bought and sold black people as 'children of Ham' or whatever.

paganplace:

Of course the Romans killed for "religious" reasons - you didn't see them putting other Romans into the arenas with wild animals, or in public burnings or executions. Nope, that was saved for the Christians and Jews.

Or, you could say the Universe is alive, and sacred, eschew religious authoritarianism, embrace diversity, *look at what we're seeing,* and not decide everyone 'must recognize the truth' of any particular religious idea we may come up with? :)

Religions aren't 'solutions,' they're ...tools. Some maybe more functional and functionally-aware than others, but tools nonetheless.

You may have a useful one there. Wanna get together and help fix a few things? :)

All of this strife is resolved by recognizing the truth of Pandeism. Not a religion, but merely a rational spiritual position, Pandeism teaches that God became the Universe, and is no longer an active and intervening God. No miracles, no prayers answered, no divine laws passed down or divine judgment administered. No God to go to war for, indeed under Pandeism the very idea of warring "for" God is absurd. Of course, there is still spirituality extant in the Universe, and so people will experience "miracles" which they will naturally attribute to God, and some people will have a superlative talent for invoking this force, and may think that this is God intervening on their behalf (or that they are God). But this is a natural phenomenon explainable by the presence of the silent pandeistic God.

Ok, Mary, ....let's get this straight, here:

Saying the obvious: that the society of the Roman Empire was socially-complex and cosmopolitan, not an 'evil polytheistic orthodoxy' is not *beatifying it,* it's simply closer to the facts as we can know them than the *demonization* of all these people that Christians so often use to act like they're the oppressed ones, even when the majority.

"If not good, then that great attribute of relativists: tolerant."

Certainly, being religiously tolerant is a good way to not end up in religiously-based wars.

I'm always mystified at this idea that 'moral relativism' (ie, evaluating a situation,) is somehow *bad,* especially when 'absolutists' are always quite relativist about 'which mortal sin is worse,' what 'ends justify the means' and, especially, the constant harping on, "Oh, yeah? Well, Stalin was worse!" as though it were some kind of justification for real and present injustices.

Now that's what *I* call 'relativism.' :)
Just applied to one's own 'benefit,' only.

"Well, it depends on what you tolerate, doesn't it? According to our patronizing pagan 'experts' Athena and Paganplace--and they 'do' go on these pagans don't they?"

Oh, pardon us for speaking about complex things people relate in simplistic demonizing ways to our own religions with some acknowledgement of the complexity, Your Mighty Righteousness.

"--the Romans killed for *political* reasons and tolerated slavery, pillage, public executions, fights to the death &tc, for *political* reasons."

It wasn't, certainly, for *religious* reasons. Religion wasn't seen in quite that matter.

'Christian' society still has quite the appetite for 'bloodsport,' ...it's just simulated on television and in video games.

Many Roman Pagans, in fact, spoke against these spectacles. Whereas, the 'deified' Christian Empire never did seem to see fit to *do away with them,* either, actually.

"But you have to deify the Roman Empire in order to demonize Christian western Europe. It makes for a hilarious rewriting of history--makes one pine for the old Soviet encyclopedia. And that is where we came in, isn't it?"

Few modern Pagans would 'deify' the Roman Empire, or any empire, for that matter. We're the 'pagani,' not the Emperors. :)

Nor would I, for one, care to 'demonize' my own ancestors in 'Christian Western Europe.' It's just a time for some of the madness of it to be put to rest, which is what I kind of thought America was supposed to be all about.

Denis, thanks for the clarification. I recognize that you didn't intend to suggest anything coercive. Your red light analogy is a good one. My point is that I find myself in a bind - I see the harm caused by such notions as "God's will" and life "beginning" after death. However, I'm not sure how to point that out without sounding like I'm telling people what to believe.

Tonio: when I said the world would be far better off if people didn't belive in gods, I didn't mean to suggest anything about who "deserves" to be in the world. The concept of "deserving" to be on the planet means nothing scientifically, and has been used as an excuse for mass murder.

I meant that in the same sense as "we're all better off if people don't run red lights."

Thank you for the positive review otherwise. :-)

Denis, I have qualms "the world would be far better off" because that could be misinterpreted as making a judgment about who deserves to live in the world. But the rest of your post is excellent.

Mr. Caroll,
You are essentially right when you quote the respectable Karen Armstrong. But let me clarify some basic facts:
1/// Yes there are three Abrahamic faiths: Islam and conditionally Christianity and Judaism as they originally revealed to Jesus and Moses without alteration or corruption of the original. In such a case the three faiths are consistent in their belief of one absolute GOD, that of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. It is an article of faith for Muslims to believe in all of God's prophets without distinction: Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. You can not be a Muslim unless you believe in them.
2/// But corruption and alteration occurred in both the original message of Judaism and Christianity: Judaism does not believe in one universal God-rather in one tribal and parochial god that is the "God of Israel;" Christianity believes in one universal God-but the concept of the Trinity-God has a son-is both alien to the original message preached by Jesus who was an uncorrupted and faithful Jew in the first place AND the trinity also negates the concept of pure ONENESS of God-or pure monotheism. Monotheism-at least to and in Islam-is the absolute oneness of GOD-no tribalism no sons-the later notions are abhorrent and blasphemous to Islam. How could God the almighty decide in the middle of the game-between Abraham and Muhammad-to have a son!!!
Not withstanding distorters and polemists-Islam accepts the human diversity of different beliefs thou it disagrees with them-God is to judge them in the hereafter.

"Better to be "Smart" and indigent, then to be wealthy and "Stupid." SO, D E N I & C A N D I D, et al;

best to have a low in material smart (Superior)pal then to have a stupid (inferior complexed) Hu-Mate on Space-Ship Earth & Beyond! Ya!

< ?: +) / Ya Ya.

CANDIDE: you wrote: In any case, there is no evidence of a God or gods or anything spiritual. A materialist is a better friend than a believer.

I agree with your first sentence but I only wish things were as simple as sentence two.

I do think that the world would be far better off if it were mostly non-believers, because then humanity would have no alternative when seeking answers, hope, deliverance, succor, responsiblity - except what appears in the mirror - us.

No gods, saints or prophets to rely on when all else fails and to save us from our own stupidity. No more excuses (God is punishing us for our sins, or because of the homosexuals etc.)
Just our own actions and their consequenses as we can best determine them. For the pessimists, still plenty of opportunity for conflict. For the optimists, a clearer picture of where we are and what we're doing.

Best of all, a better understanding of what we can be certain about and what's experimental.

frank and Frank collins:
Why did the Romans forget to throw you to the lions-along with your lowely recycled and empty lies?

Burns,

Reading your Protestant history again eh?

Why limit forced religious orthodoxy to Catholic states only?

Protestant powers practiced it as well: after 1700 Catholics in Great Britain and Ireland were forced into an apartheid system as cruel as any practiced in South Africa. Europe had coped with the challenge of the Reformation with the formula 'cui regnus religio' (I think I've got the Latin right) or whoever rules, that is the religion of the realm. Those who did not share the religion of the ruler were allowed to emigrate to a neighbouring region where their religion could be freely practiced. It worked for a few centuries or so.

Except in the UK and Ireland, both islands, with no adjacent Catholic states nearby. After subjecting the Catholic Irish to internal ethnic cleansing (replacing them with Presbyterian Scots in Ulster), the state passed further the harsh anti-Catholic Penal Laws, referred to above. In mid 18th c. England also cleansed Catholic highlanders from Scotland and replaced them with sheep. It's not a pleasant history, especially traumatic for Ireland.

Anyway, I said I'd go, so I'm off.

Att: Z E U S, at 5:51pm, et al, you typo'd;

If God actually exists, then the Eastern traditions express this concept best. In the mystical traditions of all religious, God is not seperate and uniquely seperate from his creation; rather God and his creation(includes us) are part of that oneness! This philosophy includes the basic spiritual quests as realizing this truth and beoming aware of and an aware agent of this oneness while realizing the identity of everything. It is this choice to make God concrete and other that makes the Abrahamic religions dangerous and breeds the wars to justify this delusion and the assumed "special" relationship the self-selected peoples have with their God, generally to smite those other peoples who have a "special" relationship with their God. It is one of the sad facts of ignorance to claim there is one god and then limit that God in so many ways!

Posted June 20, 2007 5:51 PM

Beautifully & "Religiously Corrected" for Political Awared Consumption. interesting indeed, me Eclati_on Potentiate, a/k/a ASPERANT!

"IT is one thing to show a HUMATE that He/She in error, And another to put them in possession of "The TRUTH.."

- John Lock. May xtra Photons shine on that "Lucky-Irish" et al. SLONCHA! Ya!

Yes, indeed, war is a part of human history, and has existed among all known peoples, even among the people of Polynesia, and Tahiti, who were, when first discovered by Europeans, thought to be living in a sort of "Garden of Eden." Among Christian cultures war has not diminished, at all, although you would think it would have had some moderating influence, but it has not; the political institutions of Christianity just pile on with all the others, for more war, war, war. The prevailing religion of a culure has no affect on war or its moderation.

The only thing that moderates war are political treaties among competitive powers, which seek to establish a peaceful equilibrium among their many tensions.

Mary Cunningham,

Since you are perusing non-military matters at the moment, here are three points to ponder:

a. Jesus lived and was crucified but did not bodily rise from the dead.
b. Jesus' teachings serve the basis for living a good life but there are other teachings of comparable strengths.
c. Heaven is a Spirit State i.e. no bodies to include glorified bodies allowed.

I still think this debate is in the wrong section of this website, it being a non-religious topic.

Mary said:"the Romans killed for *political* reasons and tolerated slavery, pillage, public executions, fights to the death &tc, for *political* reasons."

It was not so long ago in our humble history that we tolerated such things, and now wholly enjoy watching people fake kill each other all the time, on the same token Ultimate fighting has now been popularized, where men pummel each other into unconsiousness. We also live in a POLY-theistic society that is, for the most part, tolerant of other religions. History does re-write itself, the only thing that changes are the main characters.

And Secular has a great point with the Islamist states. Why allow other religions to come in and influence your people when all the power you have over them is rooted in Islam? Catholic Europe of the past saw the same thing and forced conversions because they feared these other religions as a threat to their *political* power.

It was also said before that we have been turned into a nation of torturers by this administration. First, I do not support this administration, but I am not naive enough to think that we are the first 'modern' country or that this is even the first US administration to use torture for information gathering/coercing. Like I said before the christian faith has a rich history of torture, we have only recently gotten less creative in our methods.

Denis,

I agree with your points but I think I'll leave for a while. The discussion disappoints me because not nearly enough emphasis has been placed on the historical fact that humans have always fought. Always! It is--one might say--a law of history.

Now all this nonsense over who fought the more pagans or Christians or Jews (why not Buddhists? Look at Cambodia) is just rhetoric and, really, historically hilarious. It reads like a giant game of Gotcha with about as much insight.

"War appears to be as old as mankind, but peace is a modern invention" wrote jurist Sir Henry Maine in the middle of the 19th century and there is little to suggest he was wrong. Archaeological, anthropological, as well as all surviving documentary evidence indicates that war, armed conflict between organized political groups, has been the universal norm in human history. It is hardly necessary to explore whether this was the result of innate aggression, or whether aggressiveness arose from the necessity of fighting for such scarce resources as water or land....What Kant termed man's 'asocial sociability' automatically created conflict as well as co-operation."

"The Invention of Peace, Reflections on War and International Order", Michael Howard (London, 2002).

A good book--and short, a mere 113 pages by a former professor of military history first at Oxford and finally at Yale. For those that might want to test their preconceived historical beliefs with a few facts..

Secular's post is sound.

Unfortunately the idea that God is god of all peoples is only honored in the breach. Most Christians, Jews and Muslims think God is on their side. Pagans can be cruel but they restrict that gods to local effect and do little major harm. The Greeks and Romans asked for little from 'believers.' The monotheists ask for too much.

In any case, there is no evidence of a God or gods or anything spiritual. A materialist is a better friend than a believer.

To MC: you've made part of the case for the fact that these competing monotheisms cannot be reconciled. Judeo-Christianity, for example, is a well intentioned phrase meant to discourage people from killing each other by papering over the fact that either Jesus is the messiah, in which case Judasim should fade away, OR that Jesus was not the messiah, and Christianity is bogus.

As someone who has no god in that or any other theistic race, let me suggest that what we need to do better is learn to co-exist peacibly with people who will remain different from us. That's the part that some major portions of the monotheistic folks have a problem with, and I think they need to be encouraged to change. If not, we need to work to undermine belief in their ideas, particularly among the young.

The world, armed as it is with high-tech weaponry, needs to become more intolerant of intolerance!

I think I agree with James Carroll, but his theological language seems a bit turgid. A belief in one God can -- and I believe should -- mean that "your god is my god too, for there is only one".

However, religion, certainly modern Christianity, has become very doctrinaire in its world view. Even if you acknowledge one God, if your doctrine about that God differs from mine, I will claim not only that it is a different God, but that therefore it must be a false God -- no God at all -- at best a demon.

Some very doctrinaire Christians even claim that the God worshiped by other Christians is a "false God" and demonic simply because their doctrine is different.

It is very easy to slip into religious war at this point, for most of us can be convinced of the threat posed by a nation following the evil of a false God.

Accepting the Creator, Whom Jesus called his Abba (father), is not the problem. The problem in reconciling Christianity with Judaism and Islam is role of Jesus Christ. To Christians Jesus is the face of God-- the Creator, YHWH--Him whose face in the Hebrew Bible remained hidden.

Christianity--unless one denies the divinity of Christ--is thus impossible to reconcile with Islam and Judaism.

There is only one God. That He may also be Jehova or Allah is only a result of our lack of human wit to percieve it. Moslems seem to in part accept Allah as God. Can we accept God as Allah?

V.O.T.E. ((((((((((( Peace-Love-Rock-n-Roll-n-Wrap, Mitt-ROMNEY for Prez, Ya! 2008 )))))))))))

KD

War has been a constant of history--pre-history too. So has religion.

But one cannot say one lead to the other. Correlation is not causation..

Best,
MC

Armstrong's bias in favour of Islam;

Letter to the Financial Times from Mr Robert Spencer, 5 May 2007

"Sir,Karen Armstrong in her review of my book, 'The Truth about Muhammed' says I do not mention Koran 29:46 in which Allah instructs Muhammed to tell Jews and Christians the 'we believe what you believe; your God and our God is one'. In reality, I discuss this verse twice (pp 17 and 51). She also says: 'When discussing Muhammad's war with Mecca, Spencer never cites the Koran's condemnation of all warfare as an 'awesome evil'. Yet the verse she quotes (2:217) actually says only that warfare during the 'sacred month' is an awesome evil', and adds: 'Persecution is worse than killing.'...."

There is more of the same which I'm not going to post. Suffice it to say if I wanted a 'fair and balanced' view of Islam I would not go to a work by Karen Armstrong, who btw professionally is neither theologian, nor historian nor philosopher. Instead she is an ex-nun who trained for a doctorate in English literature and has no formal qualifications to pontificate on religion. In this sense she is similar to Christopher Hitchens, although the latter is a better writer & far more entertaining. If I wanted a 'fair and balanced' view I would compare Hitchens and Armstrong, both are polemicists but Armstrong clothes her'ss in false exegesis.

Circular argument that! Why would religion not lead to war? Look at the intial posts: The initiation of a complex debate has the power of becoming a war of words instead of an exchange of ideas, reasoning, thought process, events of human history, evolution, culture.... The war is not over God, it lies in the misinterpretation of 'Unity', 'Faith', or simply 'things none of us can understand' for personal, social or material gains.

Dear Mr Carroll,

Quoting Karen Armstrong on Islam's appeal and tolerance is like quoting Josef Stalin on the inevitably of communism.

Both vehemently anti-Christian (Armstrong called Jesus Christ a "Galilean faith healer"), uncompromisingly anti-Catholic,atheists and biased in the extreme against Christianity in the West. In Armstrong's case, although a Buddhist, she promotes Islam as an antidote to Christianity.

Armstrong is biased. By citing her, rather than making your case, you will weaken it.

Regards,
Mary Cunningham

There is some hilarious history here. Especially the atheists and non Christians attempt to beautify and beatify the Roman Empire. I understand why, of course. Their mindset goes something like this:

Monotheism=bad

Therefore
Not-monotheism=good
Polytheism=not monotheism

Therefore
Polytheism=good

Any polytheistic empire =????

If not good, then that great attribute of relativists: tolerant.

Well, it depends on what you tolerate, doesn't it? According to our patronizing pagan 'experts' Athena and Paganplace--and they 'do' go on these pagans don't they?--the Romans killed for *political* reasons and tolerated slavery, pillage, public executions, fights to the death &tc, for *political* reasons.

Oh, so that makes it OK, then? I guess it does for these comfortable women writing in the 21st century but it didn't make it so wonderful for the 2,500 Jews the emporer Titus had publicly executed--pitting some against each other in combat, pitting others against wild animals, and burning the rest--as a *celebration of his brother's birthday*!

Some party, eh?

But you have to deify the Roman Empire in order to demonize Christian western Europe. It makes for a hilarious rewriting of history--makes one pine for the old Soviet encyclopedia. And that is where we came in, isn;t it?

There is no evidence to support religious beliefs.
Works of fiction such as the bible do not constitute evidence.
Nor is there evidence to support the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, tooth fairy, or any other mythical imaginary supernatural beings.

Religious intolerance and bigotry has been and remains a cause for conflict, the oppression of women and human misery.

Fairy stories are for children! Adults, or those who believe themselves to be grown-up, should open their eyes and see these myths for what they are.

According to many the Abrahamic god is
omnipotent
omniscient
caring

But these qualities are incompatible given the bible and our knowledge of the world.

Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that there is no god that has these qualities.

God is a fairy story! GROW UP!

There is no evidence to support religious beliefs.
Works of fiction such as the bible do not constitute evidence.
Nor is there evidence to support the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, tooth fairy, or any other mythical imaginary supernatural beings.

Religious intolerance and bigotry has been and remains a cause for conflict, the oppression of women and human misery.

Fairy stories are for children! Adults, or those who believe themselves to be grown-up, should open their eyes and see these myths for what they are.

According to many the Abrahamic god is
omnipotent
omniscient
caring

But these qualities are incompatible given the bible and our knowledge of the world.

Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that there is no god that has these qualities.

God is a fairy story! GROW UP!

lets be honest and just say religion is a moneymaking industry run by mostly homophobic moneygrabbing preachers its a total scam .all they want to focus on is abortion and gay marriage oh jesus what a farce pleeze.
dear readers if you want to do good in this world you can help the poor and homeless of which we have 55000 in los angeles county!
look at that dude billy graham he spends his life praying and what did he end up with every illness and sickness in the world this dudes family built a 27 million museum to honor him with a greeting talking cow in the lobby so where do you think all of that money came from ?
the whole family never did have a normal job it all came to them from our taxfree dollars! oh jesus maria what a wonderfull country we could have without all that god/jesus hokus pokus.it does prove again that not all clowns work for the circus.

All religions nothing but a set of superstitious beliefs. Religion : Science :: Alchemy : Chemistry. In the early years of man's appearance on this planet, man was ignorant. Then he observed the world and started to make up a few heuristics to allow him to cope with the survival of the species. This led to dramatic improvement in his survivability. Once the survival was somewhat assured, he started to get curiouser and curiouser. He started to explain the world around him. Those that he could not fathom, he attributed it to god or superstition. These crystallized into religions. Now in 21st century to still hold on to these silly
things is astounding.i

There is great deal of differences between Islam and other religions. While there are many a vile commandments and strictures in all religions, most of the adherents of Christianity, judaism, hindhuism almost always reject them or at least make apologies for those vile texts. In case of islam, its adherents they do not come out openly and condemn these texts. instead try to contextualize the vile texts. Then again they claim Koran is for eternity. This is the sordid game they play bad texts are justified as "in those days......". I challenge the islamic apologists to name just 3 islamic states that allow non-muslims to build their own places of worship. SHow me 3 islamic states that protect minoriy rights.

About Darfur... it's not Muslims vs. animists. That was the other Sudanese problem. That was the Muslims in the north picking on the Christians and animists in the south because they were sitting on all of the oil. Darfur is Muslim on Muslim violence. The root causes, as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said last week, is the change in climate and desertification of Western Sudan. The tribes involved used to be friendly towards each other. Now that the land has turned to desert, the herding tribe and the farming tribe are competing for scant resources. Add in all of these displaced people with guns from the previous conflict, plus a government that is being given money by the Chinese for their oil and spending it on weapons.

As for defending the Roman Empire, there is a mixed reaction. The Romans did a lot of good things, and they did a lot of bad ones, too. No civilization is perfect. Once a group was conquered, they were pretty much left alone, unless they decided that they wanted to be independent from Rome. That's what happened with the Zealots in Judea, and why they were wiped out. Jesus was thought to be setting himself up as the "King of the Jews" to supplant their puppet ruler, Herod. It's the same reason that they wiped out the Druids - they wanted a nice, compliant ruling class and the Druids weren't playing nicely. Nero blamed the Christians for the Great Fire of Rome, which led to all of the Christians being arrested and thrown to the lions. Nero probably started the fire himself to clear some land for his Golden Palace. Caligula and Nero are good examples of generations of inbreeding among the Roman nobles.

http://www.amazon.com/Curse-Cain-Violent-Legacy-Monotheism/dp/0226741990

This is great book outlining the notion of scarcity relating to monotheism and argues that the underlying source of violence in our cultures are bred from this notion of scarcity.

If you're generally interested in this topic, I suggest you check out this book. Pretty fun read, too.

monotheism made simple.
there is only one creator for this universe,he is the owner and posseor and the sustainer and the maintainer of what so ever he created ,he sets rules for this universe ,every body need to abide by ,no exception ,those who come with their exception are the root of all evil,heavens and earth do not come with exception,animal kingdoms do not come with exception ,none come with exception save man .
monotheism is so serious ,the end of monotheism is the end of life .for further details ,please read the last divine revelation from the creator allmighty god to mankind QURAN.

Ya Ya P, "HABIB Ee" [loved] EK (one) not many!

There is one God, spelled N-A-T-U-R-E. And there are many gods they are all manifest within Nature. The supernatural is simply our superstitious ignorance.

There is one God, spelled N-A-T-U-R-E. And there are many gods they are all manifest within Nature. The supernatural is simply our superstitious ignorance.

The belief in "us" and "them" ("saved" and "lost," "accepted by God" and "not accepted by God," and so on and so forth) is the root of all evil (well, at least the most egregious, single-minded, uncompromising evil).

I disagree with the notion that there is a "root of all evil," a single cause for everything bad that happens. That's the kind of thinking that produces such doctrines as Original Sin and such secular ideas as conspiracy theories.

I suggest the problem is not necessarily with "God" but with "God's will." That assumes those two concepts can be separated. Can one believe in God and at the same time define morality as what helps or harms others, instead of what allegedly pleases God? Can one believe in God but reject the idea that God has plans for everyone?

Carol Alcola
if you're still around....a few things...
We are not necessarily all in America.We are all over the place.
We are not all angry...well not all of the time.
Religious folk drop by to praise the Lord and reinforce each other in their belief in the supernatural.
Atheists stop in to disagree with the supernaturalists on the existence of a god etc.
We rant.
Sometimes it's interesting sometimes it's boring.
It's not much,but its the best we can do.
It helps to vent,even if nobody reads your comments.
It's good to say your piece.To maybe cross swords verbally rather kill each other with bombs.

Att: R O y, Et Al! interesting 9:38pm!

yes, Exposing the riddle(s) of the devil(s) is what ECLATi-ONS UN-Bollox & UN-Bollix! Ya Ya Momma Poppa Monsa Mono's, et al!

P.S.Good n Nacht! Sholoha with Sholoma & more Ta Ta Ya Ya!!