Is the OT the most barbaric and savage scripture in the world?

Spirituality Religion
#184

Hey…I just wanna bring back the discussion on topic (if that’s OK with y’all…).

I recently came across some interesting sociological statistics from Australia which might be an interesting contribution to this debate. It does not deal with “Christianity being barbaric”, but rather with Christians as being, statistically significantly less cosmopolitan (here ‘tolerant towards other cultures’) than non-religious people.

In a 2008 publication two sociologists examined what determines a “cosmopolitan outlook” (they measured this as tolerance towards different ethnic groups) within an Australian population.

They sum up their results (derived from statistically significant data) as follows:

“In sum, respondents who were high on cosmopolitan practice, [B]non-religous [Christianity was the only religion they measured][/B], held a university degree and belonged to the ‘boomer’ or ‘x’ generations, were significantly more likely to hold a strong cosmopolitan outlook than respondents who recorded zero cosmopolitan practices, [B]were Christians[/B], had not achieved secondary school education, and belonged to 'the great generation”. (Phillips & Smith, 2008, p. 398, in [I]Journal of Sociology[/I] 44(4))

Comments?

#185

Hardly surprising that study indicated this. Prior to the rise of political correctness in society Christians were the most racist people on the planet and hated non-Christians. Read the views of Winston Churchill on India for example. Here is a quote, “I hate Indians, they are a beastly people with a beastly religion” If you removed the political correctness, they would be back to their old ways. Academic institutionalized racism still goes on against India. There was recently a huge controversy in California by Hindus against academic textbook representations of India and Hinduism which were high racist.

Even I encountered academic racism against Indian philosophy when studying philosophy at uni with my professor. I recently talked to a professor of Indian philosophy(who is white-Western) at Kingston college who relayed to me the massive prejudice he faces in his department against Indian philosophy and who related to and sympathized with my experience.

The way I see it is there is going to be a clash of civilisations in not too distant future. Indian vs West; Abrahamic vs Dharmic. It is the Mahabharata all over again - dark against light. This will happen because modern science itself is becoming dharmic and the remergence of Hindus on the world stage.

#186

[QUOTE=theseeker;47833]Hey…I just wanna bring back the discussion on topic (if that’s OK with y’all…).

I recently came across some interesting sociological statistics from Australia which might be an interesting contribution to this debate. It does not deal with “Christianity being barbaric”, but rather with Christians as being, statistically significantly less cosmopolitan (here ‘tolerant towards other cultures’) than non-religious people.

In a 2008 publication two sociologists examined what determines a “cosmopolitan outlook” (they measured this as tolerance towards different ethnic groups) within an Australian population.

They sum up their results (derived from statistically significant data) as follows:

“In sum, respondents who were high on cosmopolitan practice, [B]non-religous [Christianity was the only religion they measured][/B], held a university degree and belonged to the ‘boomer’ or ‘x’ generations, were significantly more likely to hold a strong cosmopolitan outlook than respondents who recorded zero cosmopolitan practices, [B]were Christians[/B], had not achieved secondary school education, and belonged to 'the great generation”. (Phillips & Smith, 2008, p. 398, in [I]Journal of Sociology[/I] 44(4))

Comments?[/QUOTE]

Well its no surprise that religion divides people…just look at SD and Nietszche posts to see that…so which category do they fall into?

#187

[QUOTE=theseeker;47833]Hey…I just wanna bring back the discussion on topic (if that’s OK with y’all…).

I recently came across some interesting sociological statistics from Australia which might be an interesting contribution to this debate. It does not deal with “Christianity being barbaric”, but rather with Christians as being, statistically significantly less cosmopolitan (here ‘tolerant towards other cultures’) than non-religious people.

In a 2008 publication two sociologists examined what determines a “cosmopolitan outlook” (they measured this as tolerance towards different ethnic groups) within an Australian population.

They sum up their results (derived from statistically significant data) as follows:

“In sum, respondents who were high on cosmopolitan practice, [B]non-religous [Christianity was the only religion they measured][/B], held a university degree and belonged to the ‘boomer’ or ‘x’ generations, were significantly more likely to hold a strong cosmopolitan outlook than respondents who recorded zero cosmopolitan practices, [B]were Christians[/B], had not achieved secondary school education, and belonged to 'the great generation”. (Phillips & Smith, 2008, p. 398, in [I]Journal of Sociology[/I] 44(4))

Comments?[/QUOTE]

considering the other factors being measured, I think that a lack of “Christianity” was a minor influence when compared to education, etc.

#188

[QUOTE=Indra Deva;47876]considering the other factors being measured, I think that a lack of “Christianity” was a minor influence when compared to education, etc.[/QUOTE]Yep, you are correct. The effect of being well educated is about 40% stronger compared to being non-religious on “cosmopolitan outlook”

It would be interesting if they had included other religions, too bad they didn’t.

#189

[QUOTE=theseeker;47833]Hey…I just wanna bring back the discussion on topic (if that’s OK with y’all…).

I recently came across some interesting sociological statistics from Australia which might be an interesting contribution to this debate. It does not deal with “Christianity being barbaric”, but rather with Christians as being, statistically significantly less cosmopolitan (here ‘tolerant towards other cultures’) than non-religious people.

In a 2008 publication two sociologists examined what determines a “cosmopolitan outlook” (they measured this as tolerance towards different ethnic groups) within an Australian population.

They sum up their results (derived from statistically significant data) as follows:

“In sum, respondents who were high on cosmopolitan practice, [B]non-religous [Christianity was the only religion they measured][/B], held a university degree and belonged to the ‘boomer’ or ‘x’ generations, were significantly more likely to hold a strong cosmopolitan outlook than respondents who recorded zero cosmopolitan practices, [B]were Christians[/B], had not achieved secondary school education, and belonged to 'the great generation”. (Phillips & Smith, 2008, p. 398, in [I]Journal of Sociology[/I] 44(4))

Comments?[/QUOTE]

Ha! This is no surprise to me.

I had a cousin who went to Australia to further his education. He told my family that he repeatedly encountered anti-Indian and Hindu sentiment from Australians. One time, he was beat up by a gang when all he was doing was just looking at some shirt he wanted to by in a mall. He said he would report such incidents to the police and they laughed, actually LAUGHED, at his “dirty brown face.”

I even heard that one politician in Australia said to Muslims that “This is a nation founded on Christian ideals. Those who don’t like it need to leave.” Even in Germany, the Chancellor said much the same thing against Muslims (yeah, Holocaust, nice Christian heritage). Anti-[insert religion other than Christianity] is everywhere in the West. Idiots like the ones on these forums think it is nice and easy everywhere. But what they really mean is that it WOULD be nice and easy if we were to grovel under the feet of the West for eternity.

#190

I can only imagine what the questions were that were asked for the Christians to come up less cosmopolitan than the rest. I know for sure that the results would have been the same if all the religions had been tested. …Were the questions morally based ones? Were they exercising a conscience orientated ?

#191

[QUOTE=Nietzsche;47882]Ha! This is no surprise to me.

I had a cousin who went to Australia to further his education. He told my family that he repeatedly encountered anti-Indian and Hindu sentiment from Australians. One time, he was beat up by a gang when all he was doing was just looking at some shirt he wanted to by in a mall. He said he would report such incidents to the police and they laugh, actually LAUGH, at his "dirty brown face."

I even heard that one politician in Australia said to Muslims that "This is a nation founded on Christian ideals. Those who don't like it need to leave." Even in Germany, the Chancellor said much the same thing against Muslims (yeah, Holocaust, nice Christian heritage). Anti-[insert religion other than Christianity] is everywhere in the West. Idiots like the ones on these forums think it is nice and easy everywhere. But what they really mean is that it WOULD be nice and easy if we were to grovel under the feet of the West for eternity.[/QUOTE]

& that's the exact same thing that you're supporting but instead in favor of Hindutva domination. You're no different.

Why can't everyone just be like me? AGNOSTIC!!!

#192

[QUOTE=kareng;47885]I can only imagine what the questions were that were asked for the Christians to come up less cosmopolitan than the rest. I know for sure that the results would have been the same if all the religions had been tested. …Were the questions morally based ones? Were they exercising a conscience orientated ?[/QUOTE]All respondents received the same survey. Being Christian was a question included in this survey - they did not make a separate questionnaire with biased questions for the Christians.

The questions were based on how one would react if a family from a different ethnic background moved in next-doors (I think they had like 5 hypothetical ethnicities “moving in next-doors”).

So basically, people who answered that they were Christians were less “tolerant” to the hypothetical ethnicities moving in next-doors.

I agree that it would be interesting to include people with different religious backgrounds into the questionnaire.

#193

[QUOTE=theseeker;47898]All respondents received the same survey. Being Christian was a question included in this survey - they did not make a separate questionnaire with biased questions for the Christians.

The questions were based on how one would react if a family from a different ethnic background moved in next-doors (I think they had like 5 hypothetical ethnicities “moving in next-doors”).

So basically, people who answered that they were Christians were less “tolerant” to the hypothetical ethnicities moving in next-doors.

I agree that it would be interesting to include people with different religious backgrounds into the questionnaire.[/QUOTE]

That would be laughably unnecessary. Atheists would top the list since they don’t care about what other people do. Hindus would probably be second, since the majority of us are too politically correct to see our cultural subversion by the Christian run world.

#194

[QUOTE=Nietzsche;47963]That would be laughably unnecessary. Atheists would top the list since they don’t care about what other people do. Hindus would probably be second, since the majority of us are too politically correct to see our cultural subversion by the Christian run world.[/QUOTE]Atheism and nihilism are not the same thing. And also, the very purpose of sociological research is to empirically prove the assumptions you are making here. Even though you might think that a study like that would be “laughably unnecessary”, you might actually be surprised by the results - we will not know until we conduct the study.

#195

[QUOTE=kareng;47772]oh god save us…[/QUOTE]

Which one?

#196

[QUOTE=theseeker;47898]All respondents received the same survey. Being Christian was a question included in this survey - they did not make a separate questionnaire with biased questions for the Christians.

The questions were based on how one would react if a family from a different ethnic background moved in next-doors (I think they had like 5 hypothetical ethnicities “moving in next-doors”).

So basically, people who answered that they were Christians were less “tolerant” to the hypothetical ethnicities moving in next-doors.

I agree that it would be interesting to include people with different religious backgrounds into the questionnaire.[/QUOTE]

I would still want to look at the issue with a bit more knowledge about the Christians who ticked the box, Christian… Its common for someone to label themselves a Christian whilst having no connection to the actual practices. They never go to Church, they never read the bible, they probably knew a bit from school, hating every minute of it. Their family history as they know it is Christian. This does not mean they are a Christian. But you ask them and they will say Christian…

I was listening to a quiz show phone in…a woman had stated she was a Christian but she didn’t know who Adam was…many people don’t know the first thing about Christianity, but someone has told them they are a Christian by birth. Many are baptised Christian and thats the last time they were in Church…,…many discover they are a Christian and are protestant say, when they want to get married in Church…to find a regular practicing Christian is difficult.

#197

It will be education that is the factor rather than the Christian angle…I agree with ID.

#198

[QUOTE=Indra Deva;47978]Which one?[/QUOTE]

Ha…we are in the Old Testament thread…I’m keeping it relevant…:

#199

[QUOTE=kareng;47984]Ha…we are in the Old Testament thread…I’m keeping it relevant…:[/QUOTE]

If I had to pick a bible god, I’d choose the NT god over the OT god. The OT god, you have to jump through all kinds of hoops & he gives commandments but then commands otherwise & makes exceptions…
No, the NT god just asks you to say a little prayer & say “Thanks Jesus for dying for my sins!” & then you get into heaven, no worries.
Just a little bet hedging :smiley:

#200

I quite enjoy reading the Old Testament. Its often dramatic, captivating apocalyptic, mind bending…I used to listen to the stories when I was a child and think just that…they were stories, it never occurred to me to believe these stories.

The spiritual message I received was no different to the other major faiths, its the underlying theme of goodness you follow.

#201

[QUOTE=kareng;47991]I quite enjoy reading the Old Testament. Its often dramatic, captivating apocalyptic, mind bending…I used to listen to the stories when I was a child and think just that…they were stories, it never occurred to me to believe these stories.

The spiritual message I received was no different to the other major faiths, its the underlying theme of goodness you follow.[/QUOTE]

The weird thing about the OT is that if you really get down into the nitty gritty, every OT author almost seems to be talking about a different god (their characteristics & whatnot)

#202

I will have a look at that…

#203

[QUOTE=theseeker;47976]Atheism and nihilism are not the same thing. And also, the very purpose of sociological research is to empirically prove the assumptions you are making here. Even though you might think that a study like that would be “laughably unnecessary”, you might actually be surprised by the results - we will not know until we conduct the study.[/QUOTE]

No, I was not talking about the beliefs of atheists. I was talking about their personality. Many atheists are open minded and don’t care about other’s beliefs, so long as it doesn’t intrude with their own lives.

I know that. Nevertheless, we can still say with some levels of statistical confidence that this would indeed be the case. To what degree or extent however is something that we have to gain empirical evidence for, as you said.