Glorfindel wrote: Christians want to promote their faith and share its blessings. Anti-theists abhor zealous evangelism and want it prohibited.

Dear Glorfindel,

Too often in history Christians have promoted their faith to people who had their own faith. Charlemagne offered the pagan Gauls the choice of Christianity or beheading. Olaf, patron saint of Norway, offered the pagan Norse the choice of exile, the blood eagle (ribs detached and lungs spread on each side of the body), Luther offered the Jews his new faith (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism), and they refused as they had a perfectly good faith of their own. In 1543 Luther published "On the Jews and Their Lies" in which he says that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine." The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..." He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them." The Teutonic Knights mounted crusades against Lithuania where my grandmother came from because the pagan ruling house ruled a genuine multicultural society and allowed freedom of belief to all including Christians. In 1386 the Lithuanian royal house gave in and became Christian.

The Conversion of Europe from Paganism to Christianity: 371-1386 by Richard Fletcher, London: Fontana (HarperCollins), 1998, is a tale of great violence. Ireland is the only country during that period which became Christian peacefully. Christians murdered to correct the sin of not being Christian.

It is not just anti-theists who abhor zealous evangelism. Theists with knowledge of the suffering inflicted by zealous evangelism also abhor it.

george:

obviously, i can appreciate the whitman quote. but sorry, i found your quoting consomalgno silly. forget the fact that it's setting up a dubious "flip side" equivalence, and engages in a very questionable speculation about the origins of this purported equivalence. the main problem with it is that it doesn't relate to the issue at hand.

the issue isn't about belief versus atheism, unless you choose to make it so. that's not the claim of sellick's article, and i can't see anybody here making atheism the issue, other than christians. the issue is christianity (a la sellick) versus non-christianity.

crabsy:

>> Scientism, like religionism, is a curse to humanity.

perhaps, but who is arguing for scientism? who can you point to who actually practises it? in contrast, i can point to many christians who believe the earth is 6000 years old. and, i don't pretend you or sellick represent such silliness.

>> Effective ways of knowing are various among and within humans, and all deserve equal respect.

sorry, though i agree somewhat with the thrust, what you've said is either false or tautological. reading tea leaves is a way of knowing, but it does not deserve equal respect. ways of knowing deserve respect consistent with the power of the ways.

>> For me, this is spiritual work and Christian practice facilitates it.

fair enough. the difference between you and sellick is that you are not claiming that christian practice is necessary. you are not trashing others for an absence of christian practice.

glorfindel:

>> "[atheists] ask that others ... have faith in humanity."

sort of. the point is you have no choice. even on your terms. like it or not, humanity chooses the gods (or lack of them) to believe in. they've chosen some loving gods, and they've chosen some real stinkers, often with the exact same birth certificates.

all of you:

i'm not sure if these are meant to be defenses of sellick or not, and i don't presume it. but to the extent they are, they aren't. i think they're actually pretty damning with their non-existent praise.

Bushbasher:

<who is arguing for scientism?>

Well, in the current thread bitey, Firesnake and examinator seem to be saying that the topic Sells has tackled must be approached with the scientific method. For example examinator writes: “It's a pity you don't apply the same scientific rigour to your current endeavours. I think it goes Measurability,Testability, Repeatability and Predictability.” But I was referring also to many contributions to discussion of Peter’s other articles. Theology and spiritual experience can be investigated effectively with logic, but the scientific criteria (summarised by bitey) are irrelevant in this context.

<ways of knowing deserve respect consistent with the power of the ways.>
Yes, I agree. Of course that’s why I deliberately referred to “effective” ways of knowing.

<i'm not sure if these are meant to be defenses of sellick or not, and i don't presume it. but to the extent they are, they aren't. i think they're actually pretty damning with their non-existent praise.>

I’m in this forum primarily to discuss the article and its general topic, not to defend or damn a person.

crabsy,

*) firesnake et al can respond if they wish. but i would suggest that some of this is in response to sellick's "i'm a scientist" puffery, and some in response to his poor reasoning. just because the scientific method doesn't apply, doesn't mean that rules of logic and standards of truth don't apply.

*) o.k. effective ways of knowing. it doesn't alter the point, that ways of knowing only earn respect to the extent they are effective. there's no god-given equality.

*) yes, i believe you are a respectful person, and wish to play the ball not the man. unfortunately, in this case the "ball" is sellick's article, one in a long, long series of divisive and insulting articles.

in response to my earlier dig, sellick dismissed his critics as "trolls", but that he found "support" from, for example, you and reida "challenging". (sellick is right about me - at this stage i have no hesitation in trolling sellick. but george's whitman quote comes screaming to mind).

if sellick is going to enlist you in support, it seems fair enough to point out that your "support" does not seem so supportive. for that matter, it doesn't seem so "challenging" either. i see criticism of sellick's critics, but i don't see the same people much addressing sellick's article at all.

sorry crabsy. i respected your post, agreed with a lot of it, and i'm not trying to pick on you. but the reality is, sellick sets the tone.

bushbasher,
>> i found your quoting consomalgno silly<<
That is your prerogative, and I could respond by saying that I also find some of your posts silly. However, that is not my way to express an alternative opinion.

I have not read Consolmagno‘s book - so I cannot say what he “engages in” as you seem to know - but I somehow suspect his insight into the problems of religion vs science, faith vs “unfaith“ is deeper than what I have read from you on this OLO. Apologies if you have read his book and know otherwise.

You are right, the quote does not relate directly to Sellick‘s article: the middle paragraph relates to runner, the rest of it to those contributors on this thread (and on others as well) who attack Christian world-views with indeed a very naive understanding of religion.

I accept that you do not see the quote as being relevant; please accept that at least one other reader of this thread does.

I agree, the issue is not about belief versus atheism. Sellick presents an interpretation of Christianity that I do not share to 100%, and I have been engaged with him on these issues in the past. However, I have learned more from him than from those who “treat him with contempt, or dispute the passage with him” to return to Walt Whitman. Yes, he writes sometimes disrespectfully of atheists, “pagans“, etc., but please do not ask me to make a count and compare places where he uses abusive language aimed at atheists with the pieces of abusive language (on this and other threads) aimed at him personally, or Christianity as such.

So how do you define Human Being, Sells?
Unlike the very thoughtful article by Stephan Chelada, your contribution focussed entirely on the 'how', while completely sidestepping the 'defining'.
You have told us yet again what a Christian is, and what non Christians are not. Are you ready to take the final step, and define Human Being according to religion?