Author Topic: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!  (Read 9535 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12702
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #145 on: December 31, 2013, 01:31:05 PM »
after all gays (1% of pop) for example need to be out there openly practicing their lifestyle. I supose I should hide everything I hold sacred cause lord knows unless it's Christian we should be free to practice and display it.

Religion is a choice.

Religion for some people, I feel, is a choice, for others: not so much.

If one is born Into a secular and/or accepting and open-minded society then one who conveys the spirituality of religion (god/less) is, ultimately, choosing to (unless mental defect[1]) unlike in a non-secular and/or non-accepting and close-minded society where it, ultimately, could cause not only ostracizement but also one's life, literally. Those people usually do not have a choice. It's forced on them whether they want it, or not.

People think that one could just move away but most people do not have the means to do that, or the emotional intelligence, either.

-Nam
 1. schizophrenia etc.,
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #146 on: December 31, 2013, 08:05:30 PM »
Harbinger,

Are you re-defining words? This is what Dictionary.com says about religion -

Quote
religion
Use Religion in a sentence
re·li·gion
[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

The rituals are only a part of a religion.

Redefine? No.
In a sentence I might say, "My faith is not in religion."
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #147 on: December 31, 2013, 11:26:40 PM »
He gave everything for you.. even His Son tasted our death. Providence, common grace, be thankful. :)

Harbinger

I trust that we can all agree that that our both our planet and the universe are complex places. If you look out in the night sky without the aid of a telescope, you can see planets and stars. Some of the planets are relatively small, others are huge. Some of the stars are yellow, some are red, some are blue. Some are small, some are humongous. You can see our moon, and we know that some of the other planets have moons as well. In some cases, large numbers of moons. We've found 67 so far around Jupiter, 52 around Saturn.

And with a sufficiently powerful telescope, we can see not only our galaxy, but far, far away galaxies. And see that the universe is an incredibly huge and complex place.

On earth, we have wonder after wonder. We live amongst an amazing assortment of plants, animals, bacteria and viruses. Biologists who study such things find astonishing connections between the life forms. We have moths that eat only hair and fur, and without them the planet would be several feet deep in fuzzies because neither of those two things decompose. We have a wide variety of plants that can only be fertilized by very specific species of insects or birds. We have ecosystem complexities in our great coral reefs that are fragile, and that are sadly falling apart because the planet has warmed but a few degrees.

Everywhere you look you see complexity. And if your god had a hand in it, it means that he took great care to create the conditions and situations I have described. It would not be a casual act to create the naked mole rat, an animal that can only live in its underground tunnels, replete with high methane levels from passing gas and high carbon dioxide levels because of their lack of air circulation. But they thrive. And if your god was involved, he paid attention to that detail, as well as every other detail on this planet and in the universe.

And he only managed to come up with two options for humans after death. He was capable of making the rings around Saturn, but didn't come up with any other choices for us besides heaven and hell. He figured out how to deal with excessive hair but he can't allow for good people who don't accept his kid, he can't allow for people who were good but in a moment of frustration or fear acted out of character. He can't allow for people like me who need more proof than people like you. He can't allow for differences in intelligence, temperament, social conditions, political realities, fear, or misinformation.

He couldn't design a list of criteria which would differentiate between Hitler and my non-born again grandmother. When a person otherwise fails to pass his "get on your knees" test, it is all over. There is nothing complex about it.  He took the time to make sure that 30% of humans had harmless little Demonex folliculorum mites living in the follicles of their eyelashes, but he couldn't take the time to either make his message clear to all (rather than just those susceptible to it) or offer up a variety of afterlife scenarios, based on one's overall behavior. It is either the streets of gold or the pits of fire.

And that is one of the reasons that I know that religion is a human invention. Infinite beings would, by definition, be a bit more understanding of us puny humans, because as being who enjoyed complexity, they would know that our weaknesses (when compared to their strengths) were such that we were prone to misunderstanding obscure instruction sets. Humans, on the other hands, who for whatever reason want to control others, are prone to indeed go with the extremes, the black and white choices that are clearly human scenarios. Come with us or suffer for an eternity! What could be more human than that?

What you don't seem to take into account is that when people evolved to be smart enough to realize that they didn't know everything, they started making stuff up. They started finding links that weren't there, because humans evolved to see patterns. And the imagined started becoming the real because it probably made existence a bit easier. And what probably started off as an explanation as to why the cave gods let Junior be eaten by a saber toothed tiger eventually became your god sending down his kid to help define evil and how to combat it.

No, JC didn't taste death. Storytellers made it sound like he did, but there was no JC, just like there is no god. Humans, intervening in life by trying to redefine it as something it is not, have distorted human existence far more than necessary. Especially in 2013. And people such as yourself, prone to accepting the story (which was written specifically for those who are, you know, prone to accepting the story), swallow it lock, stock and barrel, again for very human reasons. And some of you show up on our site and tell us how wrong we are, because you honestly believe that we are. And if we can't communicate the futility of your belief system adequately, you may be stuck with it the rest of your life.

The subject of this thread, whether god is moral if he lets bad things happen, is of interest only to you. We atheists understand that there is no god, so the question is moot. But theists, who insist that there is, need to play games with our heads and their own to keep the otherwise precarious definition of their god intact. And we atheists tend to ask things like "Why would your god do this or that?" in an effort to get you to think about it.

But I think you're old enough for the truth. The people who told you that there is a god were wrong. And your world is distorted because of it.

It is fixable. Stop seeing the light. It isn't there.

First, this is beautifully written. I can really see The glory of God in the creation you describe. I say Praise God and Bravo, Sir!

I see where you're gong with this though. Heaven and Hell are to simple. If the concept is simple does that mean the place must be simple too? After all there is indication of levels of punishment and reward to say the least.
If you fail to complete a task would you not receive punishment? If you complete a task would there be a reward? It seems to me the punishment is deserved while the reward is a bonus. Is it not Grace if you do receive a reward for something you are expected, nay commanded to do? God is complex and likes complexity, as you say, so maybe there should be options aside from just reward and punishment? Can you give a third option? At any rate to say man is so simple he can only pose 2 Options, I think you sale the mind of man a bit short. What of the astronomy and mathematics of the ancient days or the philosophy that people still treasure some 2500 years after Greece? As far as thought goes men tend to over think and then over complicate things. Which to me is obvious to me in the 100s of Christian denominations.

What about the Offensive nature of Hell or the cross and Jesus crucified, Total depravity of man, or election to salvation? I bet you agree it's mostly offensive. If not all. Wouldn't men write something that may ease the mind and heart of others or themselves? Especially If the whole point is to just get the whole world to follow their Holy book with hopes of controlling? If the thought of Hell is only to scare people to follow.  What about the rest that is offensive? 

 The true nature of man is prideful, boastful, I can do it all myself, I don't need God or even my neighbor.

I'm responding to post #90 For the perfect example of the nature of man see post #91. I don't intend to single out the poster or even make comment on the post. That's all irrelevant. I only call attention to the nature of the post. The second entry in particular.

I was never told what I should believe. I figured it out but only by the grace of God. It's not faith it's salvation. When you wake up a new man one that you hardly recognize, changes made by no decision of your own, you can't deny the power of Christ and The Lord's salvation.

If you want the answer to Grandmother vs Hitler check this out:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_Election

and this:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/misunderstandings.html
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6778
  • Darwins +546/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #148 on: January 01, 2014, 12:20:54 PM »
Redefine? No.
In a sentence I might say, "My faith is not in religion."
But I would be right in thinking that your faith is within the tenets of a religion?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #149 on: January 02, 2014, 10:49:16 AM »
Harbinger,

Are you re-defining words? This is what Dictionary.com says about religion -

Quote
religion
Use Religion in a sentence
re·li·gion
[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

The rituals are only a part of a religion.

Redefine? No.
In a sentence I might say, "My faith is not in religion."

And by that, you are redefining. Please review the above.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #150 on: January 02, 2014, 09:58:56 PM »
Redefine? No.
In a sentence I might say, "My faith is not in religion."
But I would be right in thinking that your faith is within the tenets of a religion?

Yes, as you understand it.
 My faith is in Christ. Not in for example being Church of Christ, Mormon, Catholic or JW. All of those (plus some) believe they are the one true religion and all others are damned. We could further expand to include completely opposing  forms of religion. They all base faith in something other than God. I say my faith is in God. You say God IS religion.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6628
  • Darwins +797/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #151 on: January 02, 2014, 10:32:51 PM »
Yes, as you understand it.
 My faith is in Christ. Not in for example being Church of Christ, Mormon, Catholic or JW. All of those (plus some) believe they are the one true religion and all others are damned. We could further expand to include completely opposing  forms of religion. They all base faith in something other than God. I say my faith is in God. You say God IS religion.

Accepting that what you say above is true, how do you square your ability (which would almost have to be miraculous), to get it right while millions of others who call themselves Christians look at religion/god in different ways? Ways that you apparently often disagree with.

How come you know you have it right and also know that so many of them have it wrong.

And how are we, as atheists, supposed to differentiate between your version of "right" and the many other theists who have come here, also claiming to have it "right", but whose take on religion differs from your version in substantial ways?

This is a curiosity question, not a challenge.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2699
  • Darwins +114/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #152 on: January 03, 2014, 07:24:33 AM »
Redefine? No.
In a sentence I might say, "My faith is not in religion."
But I would be right in thinking that your faith is within the tenets of a religion?

Yes, as you understand it.
 My faith is in Christ. Not in for example being Church of Christ, Mormon, Catholic or JW. All of those (plus some) believe they are the one true religion and all others are damned. We could further expand to include completely opposing  forms of religion. They all base faith in something other than God. I say my faith is in God. You say God IS religion.

Hold on a sec! Didn't you say in another thread you were a Calvinist? Isn't Calvinsim a religion?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1781
  • Darwins +88/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #153 on: January 03, 2014, 01:13:26 PM »
Yes, as you understand it.
 My faith is in Christ. Not in for example being Church of Christ, Mormon, Catholic or JW. All of those (plus some) believe they are the one true religion and all others are damned. We could further expand to include completely opposing  forms of religion. They all base faith in something other than God. I say my faith is in God. You say God IS religion.

Accepting that what you say above is true, how do you square your ability (which would almost have to be miraculous), to get it right while millions of others who call themselves Christians look at religion/god in different ways? Ways that you apparently often disagree with.

How come you know you have it right and also know that so many of them have it wrong.

And how are we, as atheists, supposed to differentiate between your version of "right" and the many other theists who have come here, also claiming to have it "right", but whose take on religion differs from your version in substantial ways?

This is a curiosity question, not a challenge.

This really does seem to be one of the single least-answered questions out there. Every Christian seems to think that by answering that THEY simply stick to what the Bible says makes it somehow clear. None of them will entertain the thought that if misinterpretation (running the gamut from demonic influence to simple SPAG) is possible for one person reading the very same book, then it is possible for anyone else including themselves.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #154 on: January 04, 2014, 01:33:11 PM »
Yes, as you understand it.
 My faith is in Christ. Not in for example being Church of Christ, Mormon, Catholic or JW. All of those (plus some) believe they are the one true religion and all others are damned. We could further expand to include completely opposing  forms of religion. They all base faith in something other than God. I say my faith is in God. You say God IS religion.

Accepting that what you say above is true, how do you square your ability (which would almost have to be miraculous), to get it right while millions of others who call themselves Christians look at religion/god in different ways? Ways that you apparently often disagree with.

How come you know you have it right and also know that so many of them have it wrong.

And how are we, as atheists, supposed to differentiate between your version of "right" and the many other theists who have come here, also claiming to have it "right", but whose take on religion differs from your version in substantial ways?

This is a curiosity question, not a challenge.

This really does seem to be one of the single least-answered questions out there. Every Christian seems to think that by answering that THEY simply stick to what the Bible says makes it somehow clear. None of them will entertain the thought that if misinterpretation (running the gamut from demonic influence to simple SPAG) is possible for one person reading the very same book, then it is possible for anyone else including themselves.

I'll concede to that being possible. The   heart is deceitful above all things. That's why as far as reading the bible goes you use Hermaneutics. If your interpretation contradicts the bible then your wrong. Personally I think it's related to what a person WANTS to believe rather than what the txt says. For example "god loves you" maybe he does but when we read ROM 9:13 we see that we can't say that absolutely.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

can you provide me with an example of doctrine that we may discuss?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2014, 01:36:21 PM by harbinger77 »
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6888
  • Darwins +927/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #155 on: January 05, 2014, 04:26:05 PM »
Here's an example of doctrine that is confusing at best: why do so many people have faith while the rest of us just cannot get there? For us atheists, the world is like being the only sober person at a party where everyone else is high on drugs.

All around us people are pointing at stuff we can't see, dancing to music we can't hear, and laughing at things that aren't funny. However, unlike the drug party, there is nothing we can take to make us like the rest of the folks. There is no "god pill".[1]

Some people have the faith thing down easy; they read something in the bible or went to church and that did it for them. No matter how much what they learn flies in the face of objective reality, they manage to believe.

Others say that they did not believe, but then one day, in jail or at a revival meeting or just walking down the street, god slapped faith into them and they became religious overnight. Again, even though reality does not match up, they are able to believe and attribute it all to god's grace.

It appears that god grants some people this faith thing without them going through much effort. But what about the rest of us-- many of us have read various religious books, thought about god,  and attended various services. And nada.

So, does god alone decide who is to be given the gift of faith and therefore be saved? Or can we somehow persuade or convince god that we are among those who deserve to be saved? We get varying answers from believers, sometimes different answers from the same believer. I can recall a few who contradicted themselves in the same posting!

Most of us here were religious/god believers at some point in our lives. We started to question our beliefs, found too many holes and contradictions, and therefore became atheists. We lost our faith, and evidently god does not give a damn. Instead of giving us the evidence that we would need to believe, we get to interact with people who, in giving us lame old arguments full of illogic, re-convince us that there is probably no god.

For me, gods, religion, and all supernatural stuff are equally unproven and as unlikely as fairies, vampires, werewolves, ghosts, Santa and the Easter Bunny. Most people here on this site are in somewhat the same boat. So, we are still waiting, still not believing.

Not because we have found absolute proof of no god, since, as you say, such proof does not exist. Not because we worship Satan at cannibal orgies, or are evil psychos who torture puppies--most of us are pretty normal, incredibly law-abiding and rather boring. But we found not a bit of evidence that there was such a being.

We keep asking believers to present us with their evidence. In response, they point at stuff we cannot see and dance to music we can't hear. In other words, none so far.  :P
 1. I know there is research on the brain where scientists say they can reproduce religious feelings. That is not what I am talking about. I am assuming for the sake of argument that there is really a god person out there who wants to communicate with all humans.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #156 on: January 06, 2014, 10:43:05 PM »
Here's an example of doctrine that is confusing at best: why do so many people have faith while the rest of us just cannot get there? For us atheists, the world is like being the only sober person at a party where everyone else is high on drugs.

All around us people are pointing at stuff we can't see, dancing to music we can't hear, and laughing at things that aren't funny. However, unlike the drug party, there is nothing we can take to make us like the rest of the folks. There is no "god pill".[1]

Some people have the faith thing down easy; they read something in the bible or went to church and that did it for them. No matter how much what they learn flies in the face of objective reality, they manage to believe.

Others say that they did not believe, but then one day, in jail or at a revival meeting or just walking down the street, god slapped faith into them and they became religious overnight. Again, even though reality does not match up, they are able to believe and attribute it all to god's grace.

It appears that god grants some people this faith thing without them going through much effort. But what about the rest of us-- many of us have read various religious books, thought about god,  and attended various services. And nada.

So, does god alone decide who is to be given the gift of faith and therefore be saved? Or can we somehow persuade or convince god that we are among those who deserve to be saved? We get varying answers from believers, sometimes different answers from the same believer. I can recall a few who contradicted themselves in the same posting!

Most of us here were religious/god believers at some point in our lives. We started to question our beliefs, found too many holes and contradictions, and therefore became atheists. We lost our faith, and evidently god does not give a damn. Instead of giving us the evidence that we would need to believe, we get to interact with people who, in giving us lame old arguments full of illogic, re-convince us that there is probably no god.

For me, gods, religion, and all supernatural stuff are equally unproven and as unlikely as fairies, vampires, werewolves, ghosts, Santa and the Easter Bunny. Most people here on this site are in somewhat the same boat. So, we are still waiting, still not believing.

Not because we have found absolute proof of no god, since, as you say, such proof does not exist. Not because we worship Satan at cannibal orgies, or are evil psychos who torture puppies--most of us are pretty normal, incredibly law-abiding and rather boring. But we found not a bit of evidence that there was such a being.

We keep asking believers to present us with their evidence. In response, they point at stuff we cannot see and dance to music we can't hear. In other words, none so far.  :P
 1. I know there is research on the brain where scientists say they can reproduce religious feelings. That is not what I am talking about. I am assuming for the sake of argument that there is really a god person out there who wants to communicate with all humans.
You didn't propose a doctrine for discussion but I do have comments.

This post makes me a little sad. I mean you live a wonderful life That's good. I don't think all atheists are out running amok either. I'll bet some of you may even live a life that would make some Christians look like the Grinch. I get that. Your post drips with a spiritual sadness to me. Maybe these are my "God colored glasses" though. I believe you when you say SOME are truly looking for these contradictions to be rectified in a satisfactory way. I'm curious why the seekers went to the philosopher not the Man of God for the answers about God. Especially the ones who fell away. I know each story is different. Hanging out here and asking us to explain something to you is a bit like going to a university and asking the student to teach you physics when the professor sits across the room. Are you seeking what great men have taught over the years? sitting here and waiting for "the chosen one" is a bit like me sitting in my easy chair waiting for stephen hawking to pop in and teach me something. How do you know none of us are sent anyway?
I also see the other side of things. No matter how logical I speak. No matter the idea I present. Rather than check it out in an open minded fashion, it's dismissed in a knee jerk fashion. with a bit of ridicule and mudslinging most of the time. I recently had one disagree with his own theory. I used it as a tool we agree on to explain the answer to HIS question. Only one example, but this makes for a horrible atmosphere if one intends to learn something. Or teach for that matter.

  Aside from that as I've said many times if you really seek an answer ask me through PM It's been my experience that the conversation actually makes progress. The atmosphere in private is one of conversation rather than debate. Also neither of us can "dodge a question" I see that on both sides. This is not a declaration of innocence either.

 You see and maybe know people who have changed over night. How is that not the hint of the sign you seek? What happened to these people? What happened to Saul of Taurus?
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Saint_Paul
 
what about those early church fathers or the apostles even out of all the men who saw Jesus why did not one of them break and "tell the truth" so that he could live? Have you ever read Fox's Book of Martyrs? What happened to these guys?
http://m.ccel.org/ccel/foxe/martyrs/home.html
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6888
  • Darwins +927/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #157 on: January 06, 2014, 11:11:17 PM »
People have "changed overnight" due to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Santeria, psychotherapy, medication and AA.  Either all of them are true, or people just sometimes "change overnight". I have known of people who changed overnight (stopped running with gangs, drinking, smoking or using drugs, for example) with no religious influence at all--usually when they get a bit older, have children and/or need to straighten out their lives. Funny how people are so much more likely to "change overnight" in their 30's and 40's than in their teens and 20's.

Then there are many people who keep on doing bad stuff even to the point of losing their jobs, homes and families. Such out of control self-destruction is found in people of every culture and religious faith. I am inclined to believe that some people are able to change when they are ready to change, whether or not there is a religion involved. Some people, unfortunately, are not able to change and eventually die from alcoholism or drugs. It may be more related to genetics and brain chemistry than a "desire to sin", and science may someday find cures for it.[1]

As for why people become martyrs, when disavowing their faith would save their lives, again, people have died for Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. etc. Atheists have died for causes as well, like to defend their country or to save another's life.

If the only people who changed overnight or were willing to die for a cause were Christians, you might have a point. But it seems that a lot of people do the same.
 1. In ancient times, people thought that epilepsy and schizophrenia were caused by demons. Thanks to science, we are able to treat and help folks with these conditions.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online xyzzy

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Darwins +48/-0
  • "Nothing happens"
    • xyzzy
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #158 on: January 06, 2014, 11:57:39 PM »
If the only people who changed overnight or were willing to die for a cause were Christians, you might have a point. But it seems that a lot of people do the same.

Interesting glasses, harbinger. I wonder if you wouldn't be able to see more clearly without them? Actually, nogodsforme makes the same kind of point as I was driving of when bringing up the Jesus-powered rose-coloured glasses.

Perhaps you've explained this and I missed it. But, consistently, you raise points that you claim support your position, yet seem unwilling to consider that the same things happen outside of your religion. It's a massive example of confirmation bias and of ignoring the counter-evidence all rolled into one.

Additionally, when you use "in-group" language, words and phrases that have no meaning to those of us that don't believe, it could just as well be goobledegook for the meaning it doesn't convey.

I mean, what on earth is "spiritual sadness"? That sounds like a made-up term so you can maintain your group-identity, and to allow you to dismiss counter-evidence on account of people not having this undefined thing that doesn't actually exist. I can only think it is Jesus-speak for "don't believe", but invoking "spiritual sadness" is probably as good as applying full power to the forward shields when it comes to deflecting incoming evidence.

So, please. Why do you want people to supply explanation for things to that happen to Christians in a manner other than being some proof of their faith, when the same things happen to everyone else? Using your examples, how do explain those folks who flew their planes into the World Trade Center. Were they secretly Christians in that they were willing to die for their cause?[1]

edit: Punctuation. How does it work?
 1. I'm not actually suggesting that they were Christian, just using your example to make a point
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 12:06:25 AM by xyzzy »
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool -- Richard Feynman
You are in a maze of twisty little religions, all alike -- xyzzy

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #159 on: January 07, 2014, 12:57:59 AM »
People have "changed overnight" due to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Santeria, psychotherapy, medication and AA.  Either all of them are true, or people just sometimes "change overnight". I have known of people who changed overnight (stopped running with gangs, drinking, smoking or using drugs, for example) with no religious influence at all--usually when they get a bit older, have children and/or need to straighten out their lives. Funny how people are so much more likely to "change overnight" in their 30's and 40's than in their teens and 20's.

Then there are many people who keep on doing bad stuff even to the point of losing their jobs, homes and families. Such out of control self-destruction is found in people of every culture and religious faith. I am inclined to believe that some people are able to change when they are ready to change, whether or not there is a religion involved. Some people, unfortunately, are not able to change and eventually die from alcoholism or drugs. It may be more related to genetics and brain chemistry than a "desire to sin", and science may someday find cures for it.[1]

As for why people become martyrs, when disavowing their faith would save their lives, again, people have died for Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. etc. Atheists have died for causes as well, like to defend their country or to save another's life.

If the only people who changed overnight or were willing to die for a cause were Christians, you might have a point. But it seems that a lot of people do the same.
 1. In ancient times, people thought that epilepsy and schizophrenia were caused by demons. Thanks to science, we are able to treat and help folks with these conditions.
I do not disagree with you. My point is  A change happens overnight literally overnight. This change was not due to any thoughts or ideas of the person changed. You offer life course scenarios that develop over time.

as for martyrdom being of all faiths. I think you're guessing. Aside from say war where the emotions are running high and it's kill or be killed. I don't think that makes a true martyr. It's the torture before the killing. The failed breaking of the will that results in the death by burning. Not saying I'm wrong. Can you provide cross faith references to such deaths?
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #160 on: January 07, 2014, 01:18:13 AM »
If the only people who changed overnight or were willing to die for a cause were Christians, you might have a point. But it seems that a lot of people do the same.

Interesting glasses, harbinger. I wonder if you wouldn't be able to see more clearly without them? Actually, nogodsforme makes the same kind of point as I was driving of when bringing up the Jesus-powered rose-coloured glasses.

Perhaps you've explained this and I missed it. But, consistently, you raise points that you claim support your position, yet seem unwilling to consider that the same things happen outside of your religion. It's a massive example of confirmation bias and of ignoring the counter-evidence all rolled into one.

Additionally, when you use "in-group" language, words and phrases that have no meaning to those of us that don't believe, it could just as well be goobledegook for the meaning it doesn't convey.

I mean, what on earth is "spiritual sadness"? That sounds like a made-up term so you can maintain your group-identity, and to allow you to dismiss counter-evidence on account of people not having this undefined thing that doesn't actually exist. I can only think it is Jesus-speak for "don't believe", but invoking "spiritual sadness" is probably as good as applying full power to the forward shields when it comes to deflecting incoming evidence.

So, please. Why do you want people to supply explanation for things to that happen to Christians in a manner other than being some proof of their faith, when the same things happen to everyone else? Using your examples, how do explain those folks who flew their planes into the World Trade Center. Were they secretly Christians in that they were willing to die for their cause?[1]

edit: Punctuation. How does it work?
 1. I'm not actually suggesting that they were Christian, just using your example to make a point

Muslim is a whole other ball game. These were not martyred people. Dripping with religious conviction maybe... even willing to die for a cause I guess so... but NOT martyrs.

Spiritual sadness it's sadness on a spiritual level. Forgetting for a second you don't believe in a spirit so it was lost.. I'm sorry I'll keep that in mind.

As for evidence given.... I hardly think faith is not real for me and some people I know is evidence. In fact it fits my theology. I'm quoting sources other than the Bible all the time. The only thread I can think of at the moment where I have seen a source used for evidence is when related to evolution or snake bites. Claims based on your idea of how the story would make sense does nothing for me. Claims based on what you see in your life or others? nope. Unsupported conjecture. If you seek to proselytize. I'm going to need to be presented with more than a personal story... Just like you.
That being said I'm always more than will to consider the other side... That's why i study other religions.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Online xyzzy

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Darwins +48/-0
  • "Nothing happens"
    • xyzzy
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #161 on: January 07, 2014, 01:58:35 AM »
Muslim is a whole other ball game. These were not martyred people. Dripping with religious conviction maybe... even willing to die for a cause I guess so... but NOT martyrs.
Gosh, are you going to continue in this mode forever? Throwing the field wide open when it suits you (recover from GERD, for example) then wanting a really narrow definition so that you can avoid answering the question, again?

Here are some Martyrs of different flavours. Now will you explain how you get to use this double standard of an act supporting Christianity yet the same act elsewhere is what? I don't know, I'm either not aware of your answer or I didn't understand it.

These other people above died as Martyrs. What does that tell us about their faith and yours? Their religion is true now? Yes?

Quote
Spiritual sadness it's sadness on a spiritual level. Forgetting for a second you don't believe in a spirit so it was lost.. I'm sorry I'll keep that in mind.
So, what does it mean? How does one determine spiritual sadness? Or, as above, is this just code for "non-believer" but expressed in a way that allows you to discount their legitimacy?

Quote
As for evidence given.... I hardly think faith is not real for me and some people I know is evidence. In fact it fits my theology. I'm quoting sources other than the Bible all the time. The only thread I can think of at the moment where I have seen a source used for evidence is when related to evolution or snake bites. Claims based on your idea of how the story would make sense does nothing for me. Claims based on what you see in your life or others? nope. Unsupported conjecture. If you seek to proselytize. I'm going to need to be presented with more than a personal story... Just like you.
That being said I'm always more than will to consider the other side... That's why i study other religions.
I'm sorry, harbinger, but I'm not sure what you are saying here in total and, specifically, I can't parse the part in bold. Would you please rephrase this entire paragraph in another manner?
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool -- Richard Feynman
You are in a maze of twisty little religions, all alike -- xyzzy

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6888
  • Darwins +927/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #162 on: January 07, 2014, 04:23:18 PM »
A martyr is an person who suffers greatly or dies, willingly, for a cause or belief, usually religious or political in nature. I just read four different definitions and have never seen a definition of martyr that says, and btw, the person has to be a Christian.

But even putting that silly factual information aside, do all Christian groups count in the martyr world?  Mormons or JW's have been persecuted for their faith and even died for it;  both groups consider themselves Christians. For example, Hitler and other dictators have imprisoned, tortured and killed JW's over the years for not submitting to any worldly authority. I clearly remember lists of countries with JW martyrs being read out so we could pray for them in the Kingdom Hall.

Lots of breakaway Protestants and others considered heretics by the Catholic church were tortured and killed in the Middle Ages. Many other Christians, including Catholics, have been imprisoned, tortured and killed by Soviet, Chinese and North Korean authorities in modern times. Some of the people who died at Jonestown in Guyana and members of the Branch Davidians considered themselves to be Christians-- the only true Christians in the world, of course.

If the argument is that the real martyrs are those who died willingly for their Christian religion, seem to me that you have to include an awful lot of folks who aren't thought of as Christians by most people. Unless you, harbinger, accept Mormons, JW's, various cultists and Catholics as Christians.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #163 on: January 07, 2014, 07:47:54 PM »
Ok. I'll agree my idea of martyer may be a bit different. Let's chalk it up to the way Atheists want to redefine the word atheist. A martyer does not have to be Christian. I never made that claim. For me There is a certain level of honor and dignity that martyrdom  requires. Torture must be present otherwise it's not all that impressive. These are the cases that speak to me. AND the ones I claim are unique and speak to the Christian truth. The out must be to simply renounce your god and or Jesus. The death must be at the hands of another. So strapping a bomb on and blowing yourself up does not make one a martyer. War is most often political. When one dies in battle it is not in the the defense of a god. or even religious beliefs. It's not a refusal to denounce your god. it's political. If you disagree name a war and lets study the religious roots of that war. You will need to supply some reference material though. Again, All I see is a bunch of conjecture. I said what a martyer is to me in the previous post. I tell you the aspect that speaks. I'm willing to see evidence of this happening  across all faiths.. it's your claim. You prove it. I already asked for evidence and have gotten none. I did look up WWII JW killed by the Nazis guess what  found...

Similarly, in the 20th century, thousands of Witnesses died at the hands of Hitler’s henchmen FOR maintaining their neutrality in political and nationalistic issues.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002082

This was political... NOT religious.
I won't do all the homework here. Not my burden. As I never claimed nor believe it happens accross the board with the same criteria. War is to closely related to national pride. 

Oh and Mormans.. Joseph smith getting killed by the angry mob was political NOT religious.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6628
  • Darwins +797/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #164 on: January 07, 2014, 07:57:08 PM »
Ok. I'll agree my idea of martyer may be a bit different. Let's chalk it up to the way Atheists want to redefine the word atheist. A martyer does not have to be Christian. I never made that claim. For me There is a certain level of honor and dignity that martyrdom  requires. Torture must be present otherwise it's not all that impressive. These are the cases that speak to me. AND the ones I claim are unique and speak to the Christian truth. The out must be to simply renounce your god and or Jesus. The death must be at the hands of another. So strapping a bomb on and blowing yourself up does not make one a martyer. War is most often political. When one dies in battle it is not in the the defense of a god. or even religious beliefs. It's not a refusal to denounce your god. it's political. If you disagree name a war and lets study the religious roots of that war. You will need to supply some reference material though. Again, All I see is a bunch of conjecture. I said what a martyer is to me in the previous post. I tell you the aspect that speaks. I'm willing to see evidence of this happening  across all faiths.. it's your claim. You prove it. I already asked for evidence and have gotten none. I did look up WWII JW killed by the Nazis guess what  found...

Similarly, in the 20th century, thousands of Witnesses died at the hands of Hitler’s henchmen FOR maintaining their neutrality in political and nationalistic issues.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002082

This was political... NOT religious.
I won't do all the homework here. Not my burden. As I never claimed nor believe it happens accross the board with the same criteria. War is to closely related to national pride. 

Oh and Mormans.. Joseph smith getting killed by the angry mob was political NOT religious.

How about the Jews that the Germans worked to death during WWII? Or the ones hustled into gas chambers and killed? Do they qualify as martyrs by your definition? Or do they not count because they could not renounce their Judaism anyway?

And when Bruno was burned at the stake for daring to suggest that maybe the earth wasn't the center of the universe. By catholics? Was he a martyr?

What about the buddhist monks who burned themselves to death in protest of the war and their crooked government in S. Vietnam? Were they martyrs by your definition?

I'm guessing it is safe to assume that girls stoned to death by fellow muslims for having the temerity to get raped certainly are martyrs in your world.

I'm just trying to figure out exactly what your definition covers.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #165 on: January 07, 2014, 10:33:37 PM »
The holocaust really had nothing to do with religion rather bloodline. You could have been a Jewish atheist and still be worked to death. So yes they could not renounce the blood. Ever read Mein Kampf? That dude had some crazy Ideas about pure blood.. nothing really about religion... interesting to note Hitler was catholic though.

Bruno was burned for political reasons by the catholic church. If he could be called a martyer He would be a martyer for science not religion. At any rate whatever he started as in the end he was no Christian or even Catholic for that matter.

"In particular Bruno held firm to his belief
in the plurality of worlds, although he was admonished to abandon it. His trial was overseen by the Inquisitor Cardinal Bellarmine , who demanded a full recantation, which Bruno eventually refused."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

The monks killed themselves as a way to bring the worlds attention to what was going on in their country. Their death was not only at their own hands but was political not religious. Buddhist monks don't even believe in God by the way. Buddhism is called religion but it's really more of a philosophy.

The girl who was stoned for being raped... sad huh? She was killed because of the twisted beliefs of the muslims who threw the stones. she could have been hindu living under shria law. Her personal beliefs had nothing to do with her death.

I gave exactly what I consider a martyer to be. The ones we are talking about are the ones who didn't give up their religion even when tortured and facing a nasty death
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 10:48:44 PM by harbinger77 »
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6888
  • Darwins +927/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #166 on: January 07, 2014, 10:45:49 PM »
No, see people who are killed because they are Sikhs, Bahai's, Buddhists or Muslims can't possibly be religious martyrs. Only Christians can be real religious martyrs because only Christians have real religious beliefs. The millions of native folks, pagans and animists who were killed by Christians for not giving up their beliefs were actually political martyrs as well. Who cares whether they could have saved themselves by renouncing their religious beliefs. They are really dying for political reasons, so they don't count.  And atheists cannot be martyrs no matter what the circumstances--atheists have no beliefs, so they clearly can't die for them.....[1]  &)

Protestants and other heretics burned at the stake by the Catholic Church were not martyrs, either, because Europe was always having wars, so that makes all the deaths political. If a war or a government is involved in any way, that makes it political. Even if the people are clearly being tortured or killed because they are holding their contrary views due to their religion, or lack of the appropriate religion....

You know that is ridiculous, harbinger. You are working way too hard to try to prove that your religion is special, when it is not. When you have to keep on re-defining words until they fit your version of reality, you have already lost your argument. If a Buddhist monk calmly meditating and then immolating himself in a public square to protest an unjust war is not a martyr, then we have no useful definition of a martyr.

And I can't think of a better definition of a political martyr than a guy who pissed off the Roman Empire, became a political prisoner, and then along with a handful of other criminals, got himself executed by the government. &)
 1. The elderly Japanese engineers who bravely came out of retirement to enter the radioactive Fukushima reactor-- so the younger engineers could be saved from the radiation-- were atheist martyrs. They faced certain death from radiation poisoning, with no promise of a glorious reward in heaven, either. But I guess harbinger would say they were politically motivated or something, since atheists don't believe in anything.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #167 on: January 07, 2014, 10:53:05 PM »
No, see people who are killed because they are Sikhs, Bahai's, Buddhists or Muslims can't possibly be religious martyrs. Only Christians can be real religious martyrs because only Christians have real religious beliefs. The millions of native folks, pagans and animists who were killed by Christians for not giving up their beliefs were actually political martyrs as well. Who cares whether they could have saved themselves by renouncing their religious beliefs. They are really dying for political reasons, so they don't count.  And atheists cannot be martyrs no matter what the circumstances--atheists have no beliefs, so they clearly can't die for them.....[1]  &)

Protestants and other heretics burned at the stake by the Catholic Church were not martyrs, either, because Europe was always having wars, so that makes all the deaths political. If a war or a government is involved in any way, that makes it political. Even if the people are clearly being tortured or killed because they are holding their contrary views due to their religion, or lack of the appropriate religion....

You know that is ridiculous, harbinger. You are working way too hard to try to prove that your religion is special, when it is not. When you have to keep on re-defining words until they fit your version of reality, you have already lost your argument. If a Buddhist monk calmly meditating and then immolating himself in a public square to protest an unjust war is not a martyr, then we have no useful definition of a martyr.

And I can't think of a better definition of a political martyr than a guy who pissed off the Roman Empire, became a political prisoner, and then along with a handful of other criminals, got himself executed by the government. &)
 1. The elderly Japanese engineers who bravely came out of retirement to enter the radioactive Fukushima reactor-- so the younger engineers could be saved from the radiation-- were atheist martyrs. They faced certain death from radiation poisoning, with no promise of a glorious reward in heaven, either. But I guess harbinger would say they were politically motivated or something, since atheists don't believe in anything.

All claims and no links.... post some evidence so I can be shown I'm wrong.. don't just sit and post opinion.... It's not my claim the burden is not mine this time.

what about the atheist who redefines the word atheist to better describe a degree of non belief that was already represented by the word agnostic..

Are you not a little pot calling the kettle black there?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 10:58:01 PM by harbinger77 »
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6888
  • Darwins +927/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #168 on: January 07, 2014, 10:56:33 PM »
If I posted links, would you believe them? The fact is, your religion is just one among many.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #169 on: January 07, 2014, 11:00:04 PM »
If I posted links, would you believe them? The fact is, your religion is just one among many.

I've been asking for you or anyone to do it... Sure I'll believe. My mind is not as closed as some are.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5094
  • Darwins +586/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #170 on: January 08, 2014, 12:38:48 AM »
Muslim is a whole other ball game. These were not martyred people. Dripping with religious conviction maybe... even willing to die for a cause I guess so... but NOT martyrs.
You do not get to redefine the word "martyr" for your convenience.  A martyr, simply, is someone who dies because of their beliefs.  They don't have to be Christian beliefs, they don't even have to be religious beliefs.  They just have to be beliefs that someone thinks are worth dying for.

Online xyzzy

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Darwins +48/-0
  • "Nothing happens"
    • xyzzy
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #171 on: January 08, 2014, 01:39:07 AM »
If I posted links, would you believe them? The fact is, your religion is just one among many.

I've been asking for you or anyone to do it... Sure I'll believe. My mind is not as closed as some are.

Except that I did, and you continued to avoid answering the questions I have been asking of you.

Here it is, post #161
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25096.msg593691.html#msg593691

Here's the link that was in there called out to be clearer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr

The thing is, though, you seem to want to define things to fit your purpose so as to exclude counter examples as my post above explains.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool -- Richard Feynman
You are in a maze of twisty little religions, all alike -- xyzzy

Online Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1323
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #172 on: January 08, 2014, 03:38:38 AM »
^^ But xyzzy, you don't understand, you see, Muslim martyrs weren't born in SCOTLAND.
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #173 on: January 08, 2014, 06:54:52 AM »
Let's not forget the Spanish Inquisition either.

Jews were tortured and killed for the sake they were Jews. If they renounced thier heritage and religion and adopted Catholicism as thier One True Religion they would have been spared. I guess thier deaths were political, too.

If I don't post a link, are you going to say the Spanish Inquistion didn't happen either?

And I can't think of a better definition of a political martyr than a guy who pissed off the Roman Empire, became a political prisoner, and then along with a handful of other criminals, got himself executed by the government. &)

Harbinger for 'links' to this, how about open your bible and read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If Jesus was professing Jewish beliefs, they wouldn't have branded him a heretic. However, it wasn't the Pharisies and Sadducess that executed him. He was handed off to the Roman Government that Tried him, Scourged him, then executed him. See? Purely Political because the Government was involved.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 07:00:08 AM by Ivellios »