when the world goes to hell and a handbasket
The slippery slidey morality core that governs ‘correct’ Christian behaviour has had yet another knock to its centrifugal force.
One of the most charming features of the allegedly static Christian morality core is that it is invisible to Christians themselves, and they are therefore completely oblivious to the obvious changes that have occurred down through the centuries.
Let’s look at a few of the highlights by eavesdropping on some conversations between ‘good’ Christian men over the last few hundred years:
- In 325, Lucian said to Gregory, “We need to kill all the heretics who don’t agree with God’s definition of the Holy Trinity! If we don’t succeed, it will be a sure sign that the world is going to hell and a handbasket!”
- In 1096, Godfrey remarked to Raymond, “We need to do God’s work and annihilate the infidel in the Holy Land! If we don’t succeed, it will be a sure sign that the world is going to hell and a handbasket!”
- In 1585, Johann urged Martin, “We need to do God’s work and burn all the witches! If we don’t succeed, it will be a sure sign that the world is going to hell and a handbasket!”
- In 1861, Stanley spat at Charles, “We need to fight for our God-given right to keep slaves! If we don’t succeed, it will be a sure sign that the world is going to hell and handbasket!”
- In 1907, Arthur whispered to Fred, “We need follow God’s Word and stop this movement to give women the vote! If we don’t succeed, it will be a sure sign that the world is going to hell and a handbasket!”
- In 1966, Karl screamed at Gene, “We need to do God’s bidding and stop this movement to legalise inter-racial marriages! If we don’t succeed, it will be a sure sign that the world is going to hell and a handbasket!”
- In 1969, Randy growled to Troy, “We need to follow the Lord and stop this notion that there is such a thing as marital rape! If we don’t succeed, it will be a sure sign that the world is going to hell and a handbasket!”
- In 2015, Tom cried to Wally, “We need to do God’s work and fight this movement for marriage equality! If we don’t succeed, it will be a sure sign that the world is going to hell and a handbasket!”
These are the highlights. We all know there are countless more conversations that unfortunately haven’t been recorded for posterity.
The fun thing about all this commotion over gay marriage is that millions of Christians have spewed forth their foul beliefs in all their sparkling glory on a platform that they can never pretend is invisible, and with detail that can never be fudged. Their children and grandchildren who don’t have the luxury of deconverting will be wishing the invisibility-cloak-of-sheer-ignorance could cover the internet age as well.
Megachurch Pastor says ‘gays must be put to death’
LikeLike
Sigh.
LikeLike
I know you think I’m picky and annoying, but, it’s: To hell IN a handbasket. And just to prove I’m less annoying than you think, you’re welcomed to correct it and delete my comment 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can you explain to me what this saying even means? Why a handbasket?
LikeLike
Mid 19th century. Some judge said abolitionists should be sent to hell (in a hand-basket or in a cart, or something along those lines.) Something to make it easier and faster for people to get to hell 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m a bottomless pit of useless knowledge 😛
LikeLiked by 2 people
LOL!
LikeLike
John, suppose it has anything to do with Paul escaping by being lowered in a basket?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you! I’ll leave it as it is, makes it even more silly. I’m sure there are a million errors in all my posts these days, I haven’t had more than 2 straight hours sleep in months.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay- I’ll take payment as a special dispensation to direct the words undereducated and imbecile to some of your readers in your comments section whenever I feel inclined to do so 😛
LikeLike
They’re an easily persuadable lot, and the captains of evangelical America are experts at whipping up the furry.
I’m looking forward to Glenn Beck emulating Martin Luther King in his attempt to save America. That promises to be comedy gold.
LikeLike
What’s the ‘furry’? You said that on another post recently and I assumed it was a typo. Now I’m wondering if I’m missing something. And who’s Glenn Beck? I hate having to google things and work on comments …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Furry, anger, rage. Why, am I misspelling it?
LikeLike
Or am I?? Maybe I can’t comment on other people having fluff between their ears after all… Fury?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh dear, you’re right, i’m wrong. Fury.
LikeLike
Oh well, at least you’ve not done a whole post on a schoolgirl error backdrop. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…full of sound and furry, signifying nothing….”
Sorry, it’s just not the same – “fury,” John —
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wish you’d left him alone. I got a good chuckle out of furry. It either makes they fury softer or something obscene.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I vote for obscene.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tom said that to me? I must have missed it. Napping or something I guess.
I actually enjoy your writing Violet, even though I don’t usually agree; you are creative and humorous at times.
Peace
LikeLike
Glad you enjoyed it and thanks for commenting. Did you see anything in it at all that made you wonder? How do you reconcile all those changes and your current position?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, you certainly took some literary license with some of those events, little spin to make sure we all know they were bad things.
You know, I get that religion in general, and Christianity itself have not always behaved nicely. I would be a fool to deny that or even to attempt to gloss it over. All worldviews are guilty of heinous crimes, to include secular humanism.
But back to the last statement. That’s really not particularly fair to attribute the conversation to me. Of course, I support what I believe to be the Biblical teaching on the subject. But beyond that you might be surprised about what I actually think about it.
Last note. What is it exactly I need to reconcile? Surely not the actions in the past of people who were way off track with my current beliefs? Just because people abuse in the name of a worldview does not invalidate the world view. It just means they perverted it for their own ends.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I support what I believe to be the Biblical teaching on the subject. But beyond that you might be surprised about what I actually think about it.”
Wally, what do you think about it?
LikeLike
Hi Victoria. Let me start by making my position clear. Homosexuality is a sin and I oppose same sex marriage. I do think the church has not dealt with this sin correctly sometimes. All sin is wrong whether that one or just being prideful. We have often singled that out as special and thus treated homosexuals as though they are beyond the grace of God and that is not true. I believe we change the world around us by personally sharing the gospel and the love of Jesus. So to sun up we have not reached out as we should have and now we have a problem.
LikeLike
How would you feel about Islamists saying your wife or mother are sinful for not wearing veils?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pink? How would I feel? That is a fairly broad question with not context. They do feel that way..and I feel nothing about the fact that they feel that way. They are welcome to feel that way.
LikeLike
But the Gospels were written by anonymous men who never met your Jesus, you ARE aware of that, aren’t you Wally?
LikeLike
Look ARch…I got asked a question and I addressed it. Did not come here to argue about the authorship of the Gospels. How about you look at the fact that what you have here is person discussing some things his faith could do better at…or did you just ignore that part?
Violet…loving to have an actual talk here, but not aiming to just get randomly beat around. Just sayin..if that is the plan…I’m out.
LikeLike
Thanks for answering my question, Wally. I’m not hear to “beat you up”, 😉 . I would, however, like to know what your stance is on divorce and remarriage, and why there isn’t the kind of Othering in the Christian community about divorce and remarriage being legal, like you all have towards homosexuality and same-sex marriages.
Do you think that Christians are not activist in this area with your lobbyist and legislators because the divorce rate is higher among religiously conservative Protestants and the fact that the key factor predicting divorce is found among communities with high concentrations of conservative Christians?
LikeLike
Well….that’s a good question. Truth is, divorce is a sin, expect under limited circumstances. And I say that as a divorced man. At the time I had no clue God even cared about my marriage. I think the legalization of no fault divorce in California by Ronald Reagan was the beginning of the assault on the traditional, Biblical based family. It should not have been legalized. As far you your statistics…can’t address them, but I find myself doubting that conservative Christian faith is the biggest predictor of divorce. But, I digress from you question. Basically, yes we should feel much the same toward all sin which undermines the family as we do towards same sex marriage.
My point is, there is not need for this hatred spewing in all directions on this issue. And Victoria, that goes both ways. I think there is vast fear that to even speak my thoughts as I did might ultimately become illegal and punishable by law. Or that pastors would be mandated by law to perform same sex weddings…and so on it goes. So, there is plenty on intolerance do go around. The issue on legalization is concerning because where does it stop? Do I have to profess that I support gay marriage to be a good citizen?
And I never said you were out to beat on anyone. but the same cannot be said about some people, who only exist to insult and harangue.
LikeLike
Wally, here’s a link regarding divorce among conservative Christians.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/divorce-rate-higher-in-counties-with-more-conservative-protestants-study-says-113392/
Right now Mississippi is considering doing away with issuing marriage licenses altogether after this last ruling by the Supreme Court. Other conservative states are thinking about doing the same thing. I just don’t get it. Why the outrage? Why the fear? Meta studies have shown that children fare just as well with same-sex couples as married couples.
I’m sure you are aware that we live in a secular country. I also think your fears are unwarranted. Why don’t conservative Christian bakeries and florists refuse to bake cakes for people who are divorced and getting remarried?
You wrote: “And Victoria, that goes both ways. I think there is vast fear that to even speak my thoughts as I did might ultimately become illegal and punishable by law.”
This is more likely to happen in a theocracy rather than a democracy. It is true — conservative Christians have a very difficult time being inclusive, except when the “sin” is practiced among the majority in your tribe. Also, there tends to be a significant difference in the fear center of the conservative brain, meaning there is increased gray matter volume.
LikeLike
Correction: I meant to write “as married heterosexual couples.”
LikeLike
When you mention the Gospels, Wally, as a source of information, you must surely expect to have the validity of the Gospels to be questioned. I have asked you repeatedly to discuss numerous subjects with me – civilly, without any insults or lack of respect – on neutral ground (meaning where my comments won’t be sent to moderation), yet you have consistently declined to do so, and other than the fact that you don’t have a defense of the source of your beliefs, I can’t imagine why.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If one follows Biblical teaching, then Paul suggested it is better not to get married at all. Of course this was based on his assumption (proved incorrect) that the Jesus was to return in the short term.
So if Paul was proved incorrect in this instance, why is much emphasis placed on what he says elsewhere?
LikeLike
Don’t expect Wally to answer that, Peter.
BTW, I left this response for you on CS’ blog, but he will delete it, so:
LikeLike
I have dipped my toe back into CS’ blog. Probably a mistake as my comments seem to be lingering for extended periods in moderation. Clearly I am on the ‘doubtful’ list at his blog.
If not all my comments don’t see the light of day, then that will be instructive in itself.
Previously CS defended not publishing one of my comments because it could others of weaker faith to doubt. He did not argue that what I said was false. Rather it seemed inconvenient to his narrative.
LikeLike
Yes Arch, I used the word Gospel in my comment, but to illustrate a completely different point entirely.
Quickly. Is there scholarship which makes the case the the Gospels are unreliable and is some of it by reputable scholars? Yes. Is there an equally credible list of scholarship which shows they are quite reliable? Yes.
We all have to decide what we will believe based on evidence presented to us. I choose to go the way I have gone when I combine all the evidence I see presented to me. You have made yours as well.
Having said that, the reliability of the Gospels don’t have anything to do with the conversation Victoria and I are having.
LikeLike
Hi Wally, as to who is a reputable scholar. That seems to be very much in the eye of the beholder.
What all scholars seem to agree on is that the chronology of the Gospel stories have been constructed to suit the point each writer wanted to make, which is why the ordering of the material differs between Gospels.
Luke in particular changed the order around.
LikeLike
Yes Peter, we all take available evidence and make individual decisions as to what to do with it.
And yes, each Gospel writer did present his writings to make and reinforce certain points. I would dispute that there was intentional reordering in order to deceive. All scholars would certainly not say that.
Peace.
LikeLike
“Is there scholarship which makes the case the the Gospels are unreliable and is some of it by reputable scholars? Yes. Is there an equally credible list of scholarship which shows they are quite reliable? Yes.”
Is there any credible scholarship that indicates that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses? Who might have been the eyewitness to the private conversation between Yeshua and Pilate? Between little 14-year old Mary and the holy spook?
No matter how apologists warp and twist, they cannot reconcile the fact that the Synoptics place Yeshua on the coast of the Sea of Galilee when he recruited Peter, Andrew, and James and John, the sons of Zebedee, yet “John,” assumed to BE the son of Zebedee, swears they were recruited at the Jordan River.
(See how nicely we’re doing, with no one getting angry, hurling insults, or censoring comments? This is how discussions are supposed to go –)
LikeLike
Dunno Arch..I find the reference to the holy spook fairly offensive. Insult my God, insult me and all of that. Peace
LikeLike
You surely can’t expect me to revere your religious icons, and I’m surprised that you feel your god can’t take care of himself.
LikeLike
Don’t expect you to but then again don’t expect me to take part.
LikeLike
I guess you still haven’t repaired your slingshot – you should never leave home without it.
LikeLike
It’s rather telling though, that you expect me to let your ‘gospel’ statement stand, unchallenged, yet you take offense at my ‘holy spook’ remark —
LikeLike
Arch….you have taken an honest and open acknowledgement by a believer that perhaps we have not conducted ourselves properly and turned it into something else. That is what the conversation was about. Isnt it a big issue that we are thought of as haters? Well..gee..maybe that can be made better. So, take it all how you want, but I didn’t come here to debate the accuracy of Scripture. So again, peace
LikeLike
I completely respect, Wally, that you acknowledge – much as did Southern Baptist seminary president Al Mohler, that Christianity has its share of faults, and that you “didn’t come here to debate the accuracy of Scripture,” but you are on an atheist website, and could have asked yourself if that final statement, regarding the gospels, was really germane to the crux of the conversation, or only fuel for the flame. Again, regardless of the subject of conversation, imagine if I had included abiogenesis or Krause’s “something from nothing” theory on CS’ blog – do you really believe it would have been allowed to stand?
LikeLike
It probably would not have.
In summation, as work beckons.
If I believe the Gospel to be true, and it happens to be true, then If I present it as anyone is excluded from it then I am wrong. God’s grace extends to all, and I have no right to in my own mind exclude any person.
If it is not true, but I still believe it is, then the same applies; I have no right to present as if any one is excluded.
Net result? I can do better in some of my conduct towards other humans,
Peace
LikeLike
“… the reliability of the Gospels don’t have anything to do with the conversation Victoria and I are having.”
You said, “I believe we change the world around us by personally sharing the gospel and the love of Jesus,” but there’s no evidence that the gospels were written by credible eyewitnesses, or, for that matter, that the character, Yeshua, if he existed at all, had any love for any of us (“But he gave his life for our sins!” – according to an anonymous gospel author, who couldn’t possibly have been an eyewitness – as by his own gospel, all of the disciples were asleep – he was only following orders, and even then, tried to wiggle out of it). So regardless of the topic of the conversation, when you mention changing the world by “sharing the Gospel,” then to the knowledgeable reader, the question automatically arises: ‘How could sharing concocted stories by authors who were not present when the events they describe took place, IF they took place at all, possibly change the world, and why would anyone want it changed by sharing such stories, any more than one would want children to learn to tell the truth by feeding them Reverend Weems lie about little George Washington and his hatchet?’
Does one just accept such statements because they don’t specifically relate to the topic at hand? Because to accept them without question, or by thinking, “Well, I’ll just let that slide, I don’t want to start anything,” just lends validity to an invalid statement.
What if I had had that conversation, rather than you, say on CS’ blog, and had finished it with, “I believe we change the world around us by personally sharing the knowledge of abiogenesis and evolution,” would you have felt inclined to let it slide, unchallenged? Would CS?
LikeLike
Wally, I can certainly see how changes in the divorce laws in California and the other States would appear to you to be a problem, but the real problem of both liberalization of divorce laws and inclusion of same sex couples in access to governmental marriage protections is that they have nothing to do with any of the gods laws. This is strictly a matter of extending a civil protection to all peoples without regard to gender. No one is going to force anyone to marry someone of the same gender, and no one is going to force any couple to divorce if they don’t believe they should. Having grown up Catholic, a religion that is famous for it’s rejection of divorce, I certainly saw the difference between civil law and Church law when it came to marriage as my own marriage disintegrated.
What is bothering most of us as we see these legal changes is that a segment of our population is insisting that the government’s laws concerning marriage have anything whatsoever to do with their religion’s rules about marriage. Worse, that this same segment has decided that it must treat people who believe differently than they do as pariahs. What your neighbor does is none of your business or problem either. What you believe is none of their business as well. Religious restrictions have no place in civil law. That’s what makes America free. None of the religions have any say in civil law. A government license doesn’t make you married or a divorce make you unmarried by the ways of your religion, it only changes the civil codes concerned with such things.
If people who claim to be part of your religion start doing things differently, the solution is to excommunicate them, not try to force laws written for the rest of us to change. If divorce is against your religion, don’t let divorced people play. (yes, I said play, religions are classed as hobbies under the law.)(501 tax code laws.) If marriages are only valid when they are between one man and one woman, don’t let same sex couples join your church. See how simple that is?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Religious restrictions have no place in civil law.” – You’ll never guess what Texas is planning, in order to skirt the SCOTUS decision – it plans to stop issuing marriage licenses, and restrict performance of the marriage ceremony only to churches.
LikeLike
Very well said.
If it is against a church doctrine to divorce, they can always kick the members who have divorced out. But to expect a whole population to follow their dogma is beyond tyranny
LikeLike
Excellent points! I hope you get a reply.
LikeLike
Wally I suspect you have zero knowledge of what secular humanism is or you wouldn’t write
LikeLike
Hi Wally, I see you’ve got into some longer conversations so I hope I don’t repeat anything. Thanks for sticking round to clarify your views, I know it isn’t pleasant with people coming at you from all angles.
“Well, you certainly took some literary license with some of those events, little spin to make sure we all know they were bad things.”
I honestly don’t think I did. I’ve kept it short and simple, but in each of those scenarios we’re talking about the generally held views of normal Christian people in their time.
“You know, I get that religion in general, and Christianity itself have not always behaved nicely. I would be a fool to deny that or even to attempt to gloss it over. All worldviews are guilty of heinous crimes, to include secular humanism.”
Absolutely, I don’t disagree at all. My point is that religions inevitably move with the shifting morality standards of society, and that’s exactly what Christianity has done demonstrated in each of those issues. The advantage of not basing our sense of morality around a religion is that we are more inclined to accept evidence for a change in standards. Case in point, gay marriage – we see evidence of long term gay relationships that are much like those of heterosexual couples and see no reason to suggest they can’t commit to loving each other through the traditional bond of marriage in the same way, if they wish.
“But back to the last statement. That’s really not particularly fair to attribute the conversation to me. Of course, I support what I believe to be the Biblical teaching on the subject. But beyond that you might be surprised about what I actually think about it.”
Apologies if you took that personally. I was just taking random typical names for each period. I know a couple of conservative male Christian bloggers called Tom, and I couldn’t think of another one who uses his first name apart from you. You were the passive listener at least, so nothing is attributed to you even if someone linked it to you.
“Last note. What is it exactly I need to reconcile? Surely not the actions in the past of people who were way off track with my current beliefs? Just because people abuse in the name of a worldview does not invalidate the world view. It just means they perverted it for their own ends.”
I just don’t get how you think they perverted it. You’re applying your understanding backwards through time instead of acknowledging the natural changes in line with society that Christianity has gone through. Those people weren’t abusive within their time – they were the normal conservative religious view. Exactly the same as the Christian conservatives now believing the world is falling apart because of marriage equality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Violet. No apology necessary but thanks for it. Very kind of you. This has actually been a pretty fair conversation overall. We obviously disagree with no real resolution in sight. I think I’ll reserve further comment for another time perhaps. And this is simply to avoid my own natural tendency to want to jump up and down and holler. I bet we shall meet again.
LikeLike
Btw if I accused you unfairly of putting a spin on things I likewise apologize.
LikeLike
Going to hell in a handbasket here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The first print example is 1865, I. Winslow Ayer’s account of events of the American Civil War. Anything before that is speculation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arch, Pippa passed away today. https://roughseasinthemed.wordpress.com/2015/06/28/pippa/
LikeLike
I had no way of knowing. She’s usually up for a game of verbal volleyball. I buried the only dog i ever loved, but I also buried one I liked a lot, so I know how she feels.
LikeLike
can’t they find something that would make the descent into hell faster, like a car? Why a handbasket
LikeLike
Violetwisp-
I can imagine you are thinking ‘shut up already’ to certain who have steered your post into oblivion. As mentioned before, if certain people were ‘on the couch,’ I would ask of this obsession with others who are held in such disdain, so much so, that they are the topic of convo in a place that’s similar to a fish sitting in a birds next. Yep, out of place.
Wow, your friend is making me look like a moderating genius. Wally is goaded, and he has been wise to say nothing. C’mon, agree with me that your friend is out of bounds.
And for you, related to your post: your usage of the word ‘good’ describing Lucian, etc is lame.
LikeLike
I see you’re your usual incomprehensible self – have you ever considered writing classes? Couldn’t hoit —
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have been waiting for someone to make that suggestion.
The way some people use English, I think, is not communicate
LikeLike
It’s just one word. I’m sure that instead of “similar to a fish sitting in a birds next”, he meant “similar to a fish sitting in a birds prior(y)”
That makes sense, doesn’t it? Because if a bird sits inside a priory, and he happens not to be religious (I mean the bird, not the prior), that means god exists. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard someone make that argument for the existence of god before. Was it St. Augustine?
LikeLike
Colorstormese is a language spoken only by one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you saying my version is sub-standard? I can be incoherent too. If you mix zolpidem with enough alcohol- anyone can do it.
LikeLike
Your problem, Pink, is that I understood your comment – were you of Colorstorm’s caliber, it would have been beyond comprehension – sorry, no cigar —
LikeLike
ColorStorm, I do have problems understanding your comment. Do you think Arch steered the post into oblivion, or someone else, and I’m annoyed? I’m happy for people to take the conversation in any direction, it’s open comments and people always have their own take on what aspect they wish to discuss.
I think I’ve explained to you in detail why many of us enjoy getting involved in these discussions. Most of us have personal experience of religion doing harm in our lives or the lives of others, and want to challenge it or discuss it with others. In fact, it’s probably fair to say that most of us look forward to the day when the human race can finally move beyond all these silly and superstitious religious beliefs. So you can shelf your ‘on the couch’ observation for a while.
Who is ‘out of bounds’? Does that mean out of order? I don’t really understand who or why.
“your usage of the word ‘good’ describing Lucian, etc is lame.”
I guess that’s because the whole post went over your head. Do you truly not acknowledge that these were the normal, commonly held, good Christians beliefs of their times? If so, your grasp of history, and particularly the history of your religion, is lame.
LikeLike
“I’m happy for people to take the conversation in any direction, it’s open comments and people always have their own take on what aspect they wish to discuss.”
See, Colorstorm? That’s what this REALLY means:
Now that you know, maybe you can practice it on your own blog and actually stand behind your word! For a change!
(I don’t know how well you know him, VW, but understanding CS’ babble is ALways a challenge!)
LikeLike
Seriously Violet, are you purposefully not seeing the obvious? People mention my site 7 times on your blog even before I say hello,, and you say it is simply the flow of normal conversation, and it does not concern you? In what reality does that make sense? Of the millions of sites……………
I appreciate the pr, but really. The ‘couch’ comment is a fair concern from a doctor’s view point one would think. To be so absorbed to forcibly mention somebody into a conversation who is usually considered a lunatic…………… but hey, it’s your blog where everything goes I suppose; kind of like a world where ‘each society defines the morals.’ Yea, good luck with that as it’s working out real well..
God’s word sheds plenty of daylight in every dark corner.
LikeLike
“…but hey, it’s your blog where everything goes I suppose” – Kinda like yours?
“God’s word sheds plenty of daylight in every dark corner.”
“A wet bird never flies at night!”
We were making up nonsense for faux-Chinese fortune cookies, weren’t we –?
LikeLike
Wow, indeed. Here was me seeing the natural flow in conversation, when in actual fact the Christian god God was using my post to host the holy presence of his most articulate servant – YOU – in order to shine his holy light in this dark corner of heathendom! Think the world revolves round you much? Love your work CS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There goes the flying sail boat…………….just above the heads…………………….but hav a gr8 day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Look, up in the air – it’s a boat, it’s a plane – it’s the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Buh-bye, Boo-Boo – and a hoddy-hoddy ho to you too!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have been reading through Diarmaid MacCulloch’s ‘History of Christianity’. It makes very sobering reading, even though the author is sympathetic to Christianity, indeed the book was endorsed by a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.
Today I read the following regarding the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229) which was a campaign against the Cathars of Southern France, A Christian group who were considered heretics.
So why don’t Christians burn people at the stake any more? Because society as a whole has become more enlightened and won’t allow it. This implies it was not Christian teaching that led to society becoming enlightened, thus progress and civilisation occurred in spite of Christian influence, not because of it.
Indeed in the 16th century that great Christian reformer, John Calvin allowed one of his critics to be burnt at the stake over what was a theological difference. This is the same Calvin those theology has so influenced the theology of many current day fundamentalists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You might also find it interesting, Peter, to read of the Knights Templar – at dawn on Friday, October 13, 1307, scores of French Templars were simultaneously arrested by agents of King Philip, later to be tortured in locations such as the tower at Chinon, into admitting heresy and other sacrilegious offenses in the Order. Then they were put to death.
LikeLike
‘Phillip the Fair’ they called him. Has there ever been a more inappropriate epitaph for a king? The historians say the charges were trumped up because the king wanted to get the Templars money. Of course the church fully co-operated with the king.
LikeLike
In 1209 Simon de Montfort said to his buddy, Dominic Guzman, “We need to kill the entire population of this city, because there are some heretics there among the population, but do not worry, cause our god will know the true heretics from his faithfull” No, gods appeared miraculously to tell them, they were mistaken, so I suppose they were right. Right? 😉
For some reason, no gods have ever appeared to tell us what is right or not. The Bible, or similar scriblings do not count, for as we know, by looking at history, people with sincere consciences can interprete such books to sanction everything from torture to genoside and from slavery to pedophilia. No benevolent god would make such obscure instructions, would they? Is then the responsibility of doing the harm they did on them not being able to make out what their god really wanted from these books, or on their god for not making it clear enough for them? There clearly are no benevolent gods.
In fact there clearly are none what so ever gods, untill finally, someone will prove on some even remotely objective level that there are such.
LikeLike
During the 1220’s the Cistercian Monks wanted to establish a monastery at Heinrichau in south eastern Poland. But they liked to live away from the corrupting influence of the world and there was already a village in this location. But no problem, God delivered! According to the Cistrcian chronicler the village went away of its own accord when the entire village killed themselves in a murderous rage.
LikeLike
Don’t forget the 1409 conversation of Benedict and William: “We need to burn all the copies of the Bible that have been translated into modern languages! If we don’t succeed, it will be a sure sign that the world is going to hell and a handbasket!”*
*I am aware that the idiom is more properly referred to as “hell in a handbasket.” That said, I agree with Violet that it is funnier the other way around. Please do not get furrious with me.
LikeLike
You shall know our furry!
(Sorry John, it’s just so funny!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
A hand-basket is pretty frilly to go to hell in don’t you think? Why not a wagon or something tough like a a work that begins with f–and-ends-with–k like hmmm I don’t know a firetruck?
LikeLike
I suspect it has to begin with an ‘h’ for alliteration purposes. When the world goes to hell in a helicopter?
LikeLiked by 1 person
In a Horor flick? In a house boat? Oh I like house boats.
LikeLike
Definitely. We’re all going to hell in a houseboat!
LikeLiked by 1 person