Sweet and Meek - Until Taking Power

[Jason76]

Radical athiests would bring up the point of how persecuted are humble, but when controlling the government - turn into monsters. How do you feel about this, being a Christian?

 

[Albion]

Radical athiests would bring up the point of how persecuted are humble, but when controlling the government - turn into monsters. How do you feel about this, being a Christian?

Some Christian organizations have pursued policies that most of us would consider wrong and abusive of the rights of non-members.

That said, it's estimated that the number of people of all sorts killed under Marxist rule in Russia, China, and elsewhere reaches about 100 million. And that's not including the Nazis and other authoritarian governments. Soooooo, on balance, I'd say that the Christians you are referring to are way behind.

 

[Jason76]

Some Christian organizations have pursued policies that most of us would consider wrong and abusive of the rights of non-members.

That said, it's estimated that the number of people of all sorts killed under Marxist rule in Russia, China, and elsewhere reaches about 100 million. And that's not including the Nazis and other authoritarian governments. Soooooo, on balance, I'd say that the Christians you are referring to are way behind.

Well, radical atheists' would blame Christians for the fall of American Indians and colonization worldwide. What is the response? Also, I have heard Marxists claim capitalism kills millions via starvation and stuff worse than what Mao did, but I am skeptical.

 

[Albion]

Well, radical atheists' would blame Christians for the fall of American Indians and colonization worldwide.

I don't doubt for a moment that they would blame Christians.

But here are two aspects of that matter to keep in mind--
A] While Christian churches and individuals have indeed behaved oppressively towards non-believers, you are referring to centuries long past. There is hardly a Christian denomination anywhere that condones such actions today.

B] The wrongdoing of various Christians in previous centuries were overwhelmingly a matter of them taking advantage of the colonial urges of governments, not churches. The colonization of parts of the Americas and Africa, for example, gave an opening to a few churches to try to convert these "new" prospects to the Christian Faith in the wake of the territorial actions of those monarchies.

As awful as some of that was, it cannot be equated to extermination camps and the intentional genocide that secular dictatorships operating in our own lifetimes have employed.

What is the response? Also, I have heard Marxists claim capitalism kills millions via starvation and stuff worse than what Mao did, but I am skeptical.

That isn't factual. However, Marx postulated a certain historical theory that he said was inevitable and would have a good ending. It has never happened, but that's what makes a Communist be a Communist rather than, say, a Democratic Socialist.

To be more specific, industrial development would, he said, be so oppressive to the working classes that there would inevitably be a workers' revolution, which would in turn produce a dictatorship of the workers (!). That dictatorship would exterminate the old oppressors (how about that?), rule in their place, and then, ultimately, at some time in the future, fade away because the people would, thanks to the regimentation and re-education of the masses under that dictatorship of the workers, not be needed anymore. By then a new breed of people who shared the wealth voluntarily would be in place.

It all sounds great to some people, but 1) it never has shown any hint of moving beyond the dictatorship phase in any Marxist country of recent memory, and 2) there simply is no reason to think that the fading away part followed by a post-industrial paradise on Earth is anything by a talking point.

 

[Jason76]

I don't doubt for a moment that they would blame Christians.

But here are two aspects of that matter to keep in mind--
A] While Christian churches and individuals have indeed behaved oppressively towards non-believers, you are referring to centuries long past. There is hardly a Christian denomination anywhere that condones such actions today.

B] The wrongdoing of various Christians in previous centuries were overwhelmingly a matter of them taking advantage of the colonial urges of governments, not churches. The colonization of parts of the Americas and Africa, for example, gave an opening to a few churches to try to convert these "new" prospects to the Christian Faith in the wake of the territorial actions of those monarchies.

As awful as some of that was, it cannot be equated to extermination camps and the intentional genocide that secular dictatorships operating in our own lifetimes have employed.


That isn't factual. However, Marx postulated a certain historical theory that he said was inevitable and would have a good ending. It has never happened, but that's what makes a Communist be a Communist rather than, say, a Democratic Socialist.

To be more specific, industrial development would, he said, be so oppressive to the working classes that there would inevitably be a workers' revolution, which would in turn produce a dictatorship of the workers (!). That dictatorship would exterminate the old oppressors (how about that?), rule in their place, and then, ultimately, at some time in the future, fade away because the people would, thanks to the regimentation and re-education of the masses under that dictatorship of the workers, not be needed anymore. By then a new breed of people who shared the wealth voluntarily would be in place.

It all sounds great to some people, but 1) it never has shown any hint of moving beyond the dictatorship phase in any Marxist country of recent memory, and 2) there simply is no reason to think that the fading away part followed by a post-industrial paradise on Earth is anything by a talking point.

Well, one wise thing to remember is Jesus said "what we possess doesn't define us". While that addresses money worshipers, it also does Communists, since to them, everything is about "the economy".

 

[Albion]

Well, one wise thing to remember is Jesus said "what we possess doesn't define us". While that addresses money worshipers, it also does Communists, since to them, everything is about "the economy".

Money is important to both Communists and the rest of us?? Is that the point? Well, yes, I suppose that is a true statement, but it doesn't come anywhere near identifying what makes Communism different from other forms of government!

The statement is like saying that people on the far left and people on the far right of the political spectrum are similar in that they both are interested in politics.

 

[Jason76]

Money is important to both Communists and the rest of us?? Is that the point? Well, yes, I suppose that is a true statement, but it doesn't come anywhere near identifying what makes Communism different from other forms of government!

The statement is like saying that people on the far left and people on the far right of the political spectrum are similar in that they both are interested in politics.

They both put too much emphasis on the material. That was my point.

 

[Albion]

They both put too much emphasis on the material. That was my point.

I know that it was. But true or not, it doesn't come close to a meaningful comparison of the two (which, I think, was what you intended).

Maybe, at this stage, we need to refer back to your Original Post so that we don't lose track of the real question that it asked. As I read it, you are suggesting that atheists have a point when saying that Christians are victims of persecution BUT that "they" turn into "monsters" (persecutors, I think that means) when they have power for a change. If that's it, I have to disagree and for the reasons I tried to explain.

 

[Jason76]

I know that it was. But true or not, it doesn't come close to a meaningful comparison of the two (which, I think, was what you intended).

Maybe, at this stage, we need to refer back to your Original Post so that we don't lose track of the real question that it asked. As I read it, you are suggesting that atheists have a point when saying that Christians are victims of persecution BUT that "they" turn into "monsters" (persecutors, I think that means) when they have power for a change. If that's it, I have to disagree and for the reasons I tried to explain.

Yeah and you're right. I just wanted to hear some interesting discussion about it.

 

[tango]

Radical athiests would bring up the point of how persecuted are humble, but when controlling the government - turn into monsters. How do you feel about this, being a Christian?

I think the first problem with this is that it creates two groups with the implication that all members of a group are the same. "Radical atheists" is a vague term - how do you differentiate a "radical atheist" from a regular atheist. And "persecuted" could mean a whole lot of different things.

It's certainly true that there are some Christians who would love to impose Biblical values by force of law upon people, even those who do not consider the Bible to be even remotely relevant to their lives. Of course in this context "Biblical values" means the way they interpret the Bible, regardless of how many other valid interpretations may exist. There are many other Christians who would prefer a more basic framework of legislation that incorporates some Biblical values and others still who don't feel the need to impose any such values on others over and above those that are required to protect society.

To give some examples I don't expect you'd find many people, religious or otherwise, who would be happy to do away with laws against things like rape and murder. Where issues like sodomy and adultery are concerned you'd probably find some who would want to see such things outlawed while others would argue the state has no role in regulating consenting adults' behavior in private. Some people would like to see all drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) outlawed while others would like to see softer drugs legalized and others still would be happy to see all drugs made legal.

I guess the only way to summarize an answer is that some people will turn from persecuted into persecutor given the chance while others would not. I don't think it makes much difference whether the person concerned follows any particular faith.

 

[Jason76]

I think the first problem with this is that it creates two groups with the implication that all members of a group are the same. "Radical atheists" is a vague term - how do you differentiate a "radical atheist" from a regular atheist. And "persecuted" could mean a whole lot of different things.

It's certainly true that there are some Christians who would love to impose Biblical values by force of law upon people, even those who do not consider the Bible to be even remotely relevant to their lives. Of course in this context "Biblical values" means the way they interpret the Bible, regardless of how many other valid interpretations may exist. There are many other Christians who would prefer a more basic framework of legislation that incorporates some Biblical values and others still who don't feel the need to impose any such values on others over and above those that are required to protect society.

To give some examples I don't expect you'd find many people, religious or otherwise, who would be happy to do away with laws against things like rape and murder. Where issues like sodomy and adultery are concerned you'd probably find some who would want to see such things outlawed while others would argue the state has no role in regulating consenting adults' behavior in private. Some people would like to see all drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) outlawed while others would like to see softer drugs legalized and others still would be happy to see all drugs made legal.

I guess the only way to summarize an answer is that some people will turn from persecuted into persecutor given the chance while others would not. I don't think it makes much difference whether the person concerned follows any particular faith.

A big problem with adultery is you can't make someone love you. I need to pray a lot to God and understand his take on adultery which in the OT was very harsh.

 

[tango]

A big problem with adultery is you can't make someone love you. I need to pray a lot to God and understand his take on adultery which in the OT was very harsh.

You can't make someone love you although I'm not sure why that's specifically a problem with adultery.