The story of the modern head hunters of New Guinea is told in the book and video of a title; "The peace Child". A child was chosen and given to the opponent warring tribe to sacrice to bring peace between them. These events happened in the last century. The book is available at Koorong Book shops.

Philo wrote:

Those that I have spoken too that have eaten human flesh say it is light and tasty. That cats and dogs are among their favourite meat. Cannabilsm was still practised in New Guinea and West Papua into the last century. It did not stop by an evolutionary development but by the introduction of the teachings of Christ; who stated "Love and forgive your enemy". Today former tribal enemies have boat races to demonstrate victory instead of bloody wars where the slaughtered would be cannabalised.

Dear Philo,

When did you speak to those who tasted human flesh?

Why shouldn’t we eat cats and dogs when we eat cows and sheep? Why did you juxtapose eating cats and dogs with cannibalism?

If cannibalism is bad why does Christianity have the symbolic cannibalism of the Eucharist?

Generally tribal wars in New Guinea from what I have read involved slaughter but generally stopped when a few were killed. They were not nearly as bloody as World Wars 1 and 2, the Wars of the Reformation or other wars where mass armies of Christians slaughtered each other and a lot of other people. Tribal cannibals may be shocked at the waste of uneaten flesh.

Since Christianity was adopted as the religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century it has promoted great violence. In the last century the Nazis inspired by centuries of Christian hatred slaughtered 6,000,000 Jews. Since WW2 Christians slaughtered Christians of another brand as Orthodox and Catholic Christians in the former Yugoslavia and Protestant and Catholic Christians in Northern Ireland slaughtered each other.

In its bloody history Christians have a horrible record of slaughtering other people especially when those people had another religion that they wished to keep rather than adopting the Christian mumbo jumbo. There are too many times when Christianity has talked of love while practicing hate and talked of peace while practicing war for "Love and forgive your enemy" to have much meaning.

Some Christians have the good grace to recognize the evil Christianity has done and ask for forgiveness. Check Evangelical Sisters of St. Mary.

Dear David f,

I assumed it was fairly obvious as to 'why,'
I was arguing the way I was.

I tried to present what I thought was a more
balanced view to the one you were presenting.
I did address issues that you were not saying.
But it was for that very reason.
By omiting to say that although a vast majority
of Christians in Germany supported Hitler - there
were also Christians who did not support him - you gave
only a narrow perspective -I simply tried to broaden
the perspective being presented. There's always two
sides to every coin. By your omission - the full picture
was not being given.

Dear A.J. Pilips,

Thank You for your input - you've made me look at both
sides of the equation. It's sometimes difficult to see
both sides of the questions. As I've stated in one of my
previous posts - quoting from Tor Hundloe's book, "From
Buddha to Bono," :

"Religion has proven to be an extremely powerful force
in human endeavour and in particular how we relate to
nature and to each other. For a small minority religion
overrules everything else - ethnicity, nationalism,
science, and even family..."

But as I also stated - Zoroaster - who was possibly
the first advocate of the 'golden rule,' (do unto
others as you would have them do to you) - this rule has
an endurance that no other has. In all its simplicity
it still remains the best guide humans have to a happy
social life.

Dear Foxy,

The question remains: If Christianity is the force for peace and love that it claims to be, why did the vast majority of German Christians support Hitler?

Foxy and david f,

The NAZIs dressed the local German Socialists as Communists as a part of their fear campaign. Strictly speaking Germany did not face a threat from a domestic Communist Party.

Lenin, when he gained power, dropped the Hegelian/Marxian posit, that there needed to be a Stage of Capitalism among the bourgeois, before creating a State of the Proletarian Soviets. The true Communists in Russia were the Mensheviks.

Mao in the 1920s through to 1949 did not adopt Communist organizational policies of working in Society from the bottom-up towards a proletarian revolution. Much his success was military, first in cooperation with Chiang Kai-shek against the Japanese, and, ultimately against Ch iang Kai-shek.

Mao between 1938 and 1953, wrote treaties based on and plagiarised from “minor Russian theorists” (Pye) But has been noted Soviet totalitarianism was not idealistically Communism.

Whereas, the Mensheviks would have had Russia build wealth by first enabling the growth of a Middle Class; neither, Stalin nor Mao, would have liberal capitalism gaining a foothold and competing for hearts and minds”, as say the Americans.

Both Mao and Lenin seemed to have linked their ideologies to party building and party consolidation & strength only to be faced with managing the increasing disparity between ideals and reality. In this vein, internal cadres acted to sustain the revolutionary ideals. As a consequence, the Leaders needed to become more and more oppressive, not to spread Clayton’s Communism, but to retain power.

As mentioned in a previous thread, the atrocity that is rarely mentioned in the history books was against the American Indian clans, wherein the Christian settlers gave smallpox laced blankets, as presents the Indians, with view of killing them off. Also, Spanish Christians looted the gold of the South American heathens.

Contrasting, the Clayton’s Communists and the New World Christians, the former seem to have gained power and used to power to sustain themselves, so the edifice would not fall. Alternatively, the New World Christians were internally strong, and unlikely to fall, and their “Manifest Destiny” was to grow and quash hindrances

Foxy

I am pleased that A J Phillips managed to convey what I failed to do on this topic a few days ago:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2994&page=0#69890

However, again you claim that the Iranian Prophet, Zoroaster was (possibly) the first to advocate the Golden Rule. As I stated in earlier posts, versions of the Golden Rule are documented way back to Egyptian, then Greek times - throughout the world the world in fact, well before Zoroaster.

http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html

Arguing that one particular religious thought of it first is rather like arguing about who invented the wheel. We know it was a good idea and we know that it happened and it probably came into being around the world at similar times.

But still you claim that religion has been a greater force for good rather than evil. Consider Leonardi da Vinci - inventor and thinker way beyond his centuries, wrote all his considerable thought backwards, using a mirror so he would not be executed as a heretic.

Imagine if a culture had not been in thrall to the rulings of the church and Leonardo had been able to present his discoveries to the world - centuries ahead of when these inventions came into being. Of course I could also site Galileo or Darwin. So many brilliant people viewed as a threat to religion and quite rightly so. Church leaders were not fools, for the more that humans learned about the natural world around them, the less believable religion became.

Any of the positives in enlightened thinking claimed by the religious is equalled and then exceeded by the productive rationale from philosophers; starting with ancient Greek and Chinese civilisations - way before the rise of Middle Eastern religions.