Dan Wrote:

"You speak in horrific terms about the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis and the millions eliminated by Marxist regimes without mentioning that the faith assumptions underlying Hitler’s and Marx’s philosophies were heavily contributed to by the emerging ‘science’ in the form of Darwinian selection. Or did the Nazi doctrine of Aryan superiority which supported subjugating or eliminating non-Aryan people have nothing to do with Hitler’s reading of Darwin, influencing his belief that non-Aryan races were less advanced?"

Dear Dan,

I pointed out that Marx published his theory before Darwin published, and that Hitler in Mein Kampf does not refer to Darwin or his ideas so there is no indication that he had even read Darwin.

You are not alone in rejecting Darwinism, but you don’t withdraw your charges when they are shown to have no basis. It damns Darwinism to connect it w the crimes of Marxism and Nazism.

You wrote; "When people are continually told that they are only slightly upgraded apes and not too far removed from pool scum rather than creatures made in the image of God" I find the idea that we are in the image of God and apes and pond scum are not can lead to heedless destruction of the other living beings we share the planet with. One can spend a productive life studying the wonder of pond scum.

You might find out what Darwin wrote.

Dear George,

Although I think in general religion has done more harm than good and reject any belief in the supernatural I cannot prove my contention. I can show no hard evidence for my belief. We cannot rerun history without religion. For some individuals religion has added meaning and has done more good than harm.

I apologise for my use of the word, contaminant. It ended any useful discussion we could have had on the matter. Our views seem so far apart that I don't think we could have any useful discussion, anyhow. However, my intemperate, insulting and inflammatory language regarding your beliefs only contributed bad feeling. You were good not to respond in kind.

I am not certain relda how anyone can explain and articulate successfully the notion of some suppositions as are in totality ; ridicules- juxtaposed to a supposition of deductive logic in topical or in science .
But then again, if it is a result of a deductive notion ; then it eliminates the obvious faults and does so in perpetual momentum;
It had been presented to me that Einstein’s theory E=MC2 was considered Law (Deliberate word association), and just as it has appeared here ; the Charles Darwin evolution theory was , and is by some people considered Law;
and it would be quite reasonable to assume that those people expounding such notions have never read Darwins publications, nor ever would understand that Darwin’s thoughts and works were based on his philosophical assumptions , devoid of scientific notions in total- but has become secular Law by default ; Darwin also confirms this notion and admission himself ;It is a premise based on his philosophical assumptions.

But where do we ever read or hear that?

Einstein did not ever have the advantage of, and the knowledge of Quantum Particle physics, so it is by definition of science , it would have been an incomplete hypotheses, as is any Hypotheses of deductive processes.
People have been conditioned to believe; in Freudian ways to consider the paradigm shifts to be law and nothing else exists outside of that paradigm other than what they are told.
That has to ring loud alarm bells.

Relda wrote;

Exclusive by nature, monotheists declare(d) all others (including other monotheists) to be infidels. If medieval Christianity "tolerated" Judaism, that is, permitted Jews to live and practice their religion, it was because Christians generally believed that God wished Jews to be preserved as witnesses to Christian triumphalism.

Dear Relda,

The preservation of the Jews as witnesses to Christian triumphalism was only one factor in preservation. Other factors were economic and class.

Christians were forbidden to engage in finance due to the prohibition against usury. Therefore Jews were compelled to be the moneylenders. This was a perilous occupation as they could be squeezed, massacred and expelled. They provided a useful buffer between the anger of exploited peasantry against the ruling classes. With their contacts with Jews in other countries Jews could serve as useful conduits in trade. The few rich Jews contributed to the welfare of the poor Jewish masses.

In Poland the position was somewhat different. The Polish szlachta or nobility wished to create a middle class. However, they wished to keep a distance from the peasantry. They invited Jews in en masse to fill the functions of merchants, artisans, estate managers, doctors, teachers etc. The peasants were kept out of such occupations, and the nobility remained the warrior class. This was a great situation for the Jews and lasted until the partitions of Poland between Russia, Prussia and Austria in the eighteenth century. This accounted for the over 3,000,000 Jews in pre-WW2 Poland most of whom were wiped out by the Nazis.

Islam treated other religionists differently from Christianity. They declared Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians ‘people of the book’. As such those particular infidels had a status that they did not have in Christendom. The ‘people of the book’ could rise to positions of great power. The warrior class remained Islamic.

Lithuania until 1386 was a non-monotheist, medieval, multicultural society. The pagan ruler made no distinctions as to ethnicity and religion in regard to entry into the noble ranks. After a series of damaging Christian crusades against Lithuania the country submitted to Christianisation ending Lithuanian multiculturalism.

Exactly All, paradigm shifts are not law but more a 'theory' and once 'falsified' can also become that which exists outside of the paradigm ...

Yes, David F, certainly it was the naughty French monk Peter Abelard who after mixing with Muslims who pretty well expressed at the time that faith was dangerous without reason.

However, it is historically true that it was St Thomas Aquinas who dared to support Abelard, his philosophies not only making him a Saint but also his new reasoning helping to begin what is now our universities or Schools of Humanities.

It is also historical much later that Immanuel Kant saw the urgent need for Christian faith to be tempered by reason, meaning that he certainly would not agree with our G W Bush and his view about bringing freedom to Islam by faith alone, when Islam itself is also mired down and misusing its own faith through lack of reason similar to Mr Bush.

Certainly sound reasoning should tell us that if we correctly used our historical insight to guide our foresight we could all be much happier.

Cheers, BB.

david f,
I really appreciate your conciliatory words.

>>Although I ... reject any belief in the supernatural I cannot prove my contention.<<
Well neither can I, which is perhaps one thing where "our views" would not seem to be "so far apart". The ambiguity here is not only with the verb "prove" (which is unambiguous only in a logical or mathematical context) but also with the term “supernatural“.

As mentioned on a different thread, one thing is the "supernatural" that occultists, ghostbusters, seance mediums and the like try to contact, another thing is the "divine" that serious Western or Eastern mystics talk about. The latter can be seen as that part, or rather aspect, of Transcendent Reality (Kant) that is not accessible through senses, instruments and mathematics, i.e. not knowable by science IN PRINCIPLE, irrespective of what future developments in our knowledge of the physical world might bring. (Of course, many believe that such an “extra-scientific” dimension of Reality does not exist.)

To confuse the two is like confusing alchemy with chemistry or astrology with astronomy.

Your last post about Jews within a Christians-dominated Europe shows that one can present a view of history that does not attack those who look at history from a different angle. On the contrary, it can enlighten or broaden those other views.

I wonder what would be your take on this: Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, the former archbishop of Paris - whose mother died in a concentration camp, and who always insisted that he had remained a Jew after his conversion to Catholicism - always emphasised the difference beween anti-semitism (persecution and killing of members of a race) and Christian anti-judaism (forced conversion or isolation, expulsion etc of those who did not convert). The Church was guilty of anti-judaism (religious intolerance and supremacy) but not of anti-semitism (racism), and if the Holocaust can be seen as being influenced by past anti-judaism - which I do not think is as simple as some people like to think - it certainly was unintended. Edith Stein or Lustiger would have been accepted even during the darkest Middle Ages.