Merged A God of Love / The Living God

[TofuFighter]

What about those people in some African villages who go by the holy bible and literally burn people to death for "witchcraft" as their book commands?

I've seen videos of it happening and it's sickening. It's unbelievable that it still happens in Christian communities in this day and age, but it has.

Is that okay with you, god? It's your command, after all.

You don't know the half of it. Accusations of and punishment for witchcraft are extremely common in South Africa. Punishment used to more commonly be 'necklacing', where car tyres are put around the person before they are set alight. That's less common now. Killings are not though.

Sometimes you can escape by flying on a rope to your local pastor's house. It's safe there.

 

[PartSkeptic]

You don't need a revelation to tell you that slavery and apartheid are wrong, just basic human decency.

Does that apply to the Israeli-Palestinian two state solution as well?

Grand Apartheid gave each group its own "homeland" to be a citizen of and govern. Mostly that was their ancestral tribal land to start with.

The Bafokeng got a homeland with the rich platinum mines, and casinos that were barred in South Africa. The Zulus got plush verdant lands with rich coal deposits.

 

[PartSkeptic]

You don't know the half of it. Accusations of and punishment for witchcraft are extremely common in South Africa. Punishment used to more commonly be 'necklacing', where car tyres are put around the person before they are set alight. That's less common now. Killings are not though.

Sometimes you can escape by flying on a rope to your local pastor's house. It's safe there.

Wrong. Necklacing was punishment for ANC traitors during apartheid.

I saw a video (in the USA) showing one young black girl being stoned to death and then set alight by her community - including grandmothers and children who sang and danced as well.

Punishment for witchcraft is to be put in a hut and then have it burnt down by the tribe. Not very frequent these days.

 

[TofuFighter]

Wrong. Necklacing was punishment for ANC traitors during apartheid.

I saw a video (in the USA) showing one young black girl being stoned to death and then set alight by her community - including grandmothers and children who sang and danced as well.

Punishment for witchcraft is to be put in a hut and then have it burnt down by the tribe. Not very frequent these days.

You'd be a fool to believe necklacing was reserved only for ANC traitors.

 

[Pixel42]

Channel 4's Dispatches did a couple of horrifying documentaries about children in Africa being accused of witchcraft by Christian pastors and what happened to them. A quick google found this:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/return-to-africas-witch-children/

ETA the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Africa's_Witch_Children

Saving Africa's Witch Children[1] is a documentary directed by Mags Gavan and Joost van der Valk. It features Gary Foxcroft and his organisation Stepping Stones Nigeria who campaign against the branding of children as witches in Nigeria, primarily by the evangelical "Liberty Foundation Gospel Ministries", headed by Helen Ukpabio.[2]

In some of the poorest parts of Nigeria, Pentecostal evangelical religious fervour is combined with the old but persistent African belief in sorcery and black magic. Thousands of children are victimised, abused, abandoned or even killed as they are blamed for having brought about disease, misfortune, death and famine by their alleged witchcraft.[3]

The film was part of Channel 4's Dispatches Series and won numerous awards, including a BAFTA and an International Emmy for Best Current Affairs.

 

[The Norseman]

You don't know the half of it. Accusations of and punishment for witchcraft are extremely common in South Africa. Punishment used to more commonly be 'necklacing', where car tyres are put around the person before they are set alight. That's less common now. Killings are not though.

Sometimes you can escape by flying on a rope to your local pastor's house. It's safe there.

Wow, you're right; I really didn't know it was more prevalent than I had thought (hoped, actually).

Wrong. Necklacing was punishment for ANC traitors during apartheid.

I saw a video (in the USA) showing one young black girl being stoned to death and then set alight by her community - including grandmothers and children who sang and danced as well.

By her Christian community, no doubt. But you really think this tit-for-tat is useful in defending SA or the faith? Or you could be defending both I suppose.

Punishment for witchcraft is to be put in a hut and then have it burnt down by the tribe. Not very frequent these days.

LOL "Not very frequent." Still okay though, because it's from people who practice your Most Favored Religion — the most caring, thoughtful guys in the world.

Channel 4's Dispatches did a couple of horrifying documentaries about children in Africa being accused of witchcraft by Christian pastors and what happened to them. A quick google found this:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/return-to-africas-witch-children/

ETA the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Africa's_Witch_Children

Holy ****. Kids?! Absolutely disgusting and anyone who doesn't immediately condemn what their fellow Christians are doing in God's Holy Name deserve nothing but scorn and derision.

So far from the religious, self-righteous, self-thought gurus of SA, we get either silence or downplaying and evasion. Horrible. Truly horrible.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Africa is much like Japan (Sinto/Zen Buddhism) and Haiti (Christianity/Voodoo) where there are two belief systems existing side by side.

One is the old animist system and one is a form of Christianity. The ones who take on Christianity to a larger extent than the local beliefs have far better morals that those who don't.

And if anyone can find a survey that is credible to prove I am wrong, bring it on.

And you guys trust journos who "make up" stories? The killing of the girl was filmed by 3 dutch journalists who wanted a story so they egged on the villagers. Who deserves more shame? They encouraged it and did nothing to stop it. The excuse that they are "just observers" is a lot bovine splat.

 

[PartSkeptic]

You'd be a fool to believe necklacing was reserved only for ANC traitors.

It was popularized to frighten the many who secretly worked with the government. I never heard of it being used any other way.

 

[PartSkeptic]

(snip)

By her Christian community, no doubt.(snip)

You rabid fervent anti-Christianity is showing. Pity it cannot be elevated to the status of antisemitism. But there is a key difference to the two religions. Tolerance and forgiveness.

Disclaimer - I praise all religions for what I see as good, and criticize when I see issues that are problematic to society as a whole. But I do it without venom or an axe to grind. Truth - not fake news.

 

[Pixel42]

One is the old animist system and one is a form of Christianity. The ones who take on Christianity to a larger extent than the local beliefs have far better morals that those who don't.

And if anyone can find a survey that is credible to prove I am wrong, bring it on.

Your claim, your burden of proof. Unsupported assertions are dismissed.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Your claim, your burden of proof. Unsupported assertions are dismissed.

Not so. I have lived here. It is others claiming from sensational stories that Christians are violent and barbaric. The teachings of Christ are quite the opposite. Their claims therefore make no sense.

 

[Pixel42]

Not so. I have lived here.

You have formed an impression based on your experience, but that experience cannot possibly be extensive enough to assert that "The ones who take on Christianity to a larger extent than the local beliefs have far better morals that those who don't." You could not possibly have met a sufficiently large and randomised sample of people to conclude that, and you have cognitive biases that make any conclusion based on anecdotal date unreliable. Your assertion may or may not be true, the only way to find out is to do (or find) studies that establish it rigorously and with a sufficiently small margin of error for the result to be statistically significant.

It is others claiming from sensational stories that Christians are violent and barbaric.

And if, based solely on such stories, they asserted that "people who take on Christianity to a larger extent than the local beliefs have far worse morals that those who don't" that would also be an unsupported assertion.

The teachings of Christ are quite the opposite. Their claims therefore make no sense

What Christ taught and how people who call themselves Christians choose to behave are two very different things.

 

[PartSkeptic]

You have formed an impression based on your experience, but that experience cannot possibly be extensive enough to assert that "The ones who take on Christianity to a larger extent than the local beliefs have far better morals that those who don't." You could not possibly have met a sufficiently large and randomised sample of people to conclude that, and you have cognitive biases that make any conclusion based on anecdotal date unreliable. Your assertion may or may not be true, the only way to find out is to do (or find) studies that establish it rigorously and with a sufficiently small margin of error for the result to be statistically significant.


And if, based solely on such stories, they asserted that "people who take on Christianity to a larger extent than the local beliefs have far worse morals that those who don't" that would also be an unsupported assertion.


What Christ taught and how people who call themselves Christians choose to behave are two very different things.

How do you think polls work? They take a sampling.

And guess what? Their samples are skewed by the impersonal nature of the people doing the samples, and by the questions posed. Hence the serious errors in recent polls. Some-one asked me to take part in a product survey because they paid. The person told me just to make up answers that would please the panel. I refused.

Do you think a simple series of questions posed to an uneducated person who has a poor understanding of English will work?

I live in the real world, with real people. I have traveled widely and I interact with many.

Your statement about the behavior of Christians seems based on your personal observations, and you clearly have a very limited sample on which to judge.

 

[Pixel42]

How do you think polls work? They take a sampling.

No, they take a representative sample. The main skill of the pollster is in making sure the sample is truly representative of the entire population. This is precisely what you are not doing when you rely on anecdotal data.

 

[PartSkeptic]

No, they take a representative sample. The main skill of the pollster is in making sure the sample is truly representative of the entire population. This is precisely what you are not doing when you rely on anecdotal data.

And you trust them to take a representative sample?

You really think that a poll is more meaningful than living and working in a community?

You have this bias:
Pollsters work = science = correct and reliable
Experiential work = anecdote = false and untrustworthy

And you trot it out whenever your opinions are challenged.

As well as the other old sad fall-back:
"The burden of proof is on you, not me."

Feel free to continue in your state of denial if it makes you happy.

BTW: How did my personal opinion as to the reason that Trump would win work out? (No Tarot please). Based also on my travels and interactions with the population - and my various inputs through reading between the lines on articles over the decades.

 

[Pixel42]

And you trust them to take a representative sample?

The reputation of a polling company is based on the accuracy of their polls, which is in turned based on their skill in ensuring they poll a representative sample. So yes, I trust that a reputable polling company is skilled at ensuring they obtain representative samples.

You really think that a poll is more meaningful than living and working in a community?

Of course. Nobody who has the slightest understanding of statistics, cognitive biases and sampling techniques would think otherwise. The number of people a single person ever meets is a tiny, and almost certainly unrepresentative, sample of the population of an entire country.

BTW: How did my personal opinion as to the reason that Trump would win work out? (No Tarot please). Based also on my travels and interactions with the population - and my various inputs through reading between the lines on articles over the decades.

Trump lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes. So I'd say the polling companies did better than you at predicting how people would vote. Only the vagaries of the electoral college got Trump elected.

 

[PartSkeptic]

The reputation of a polling company is based on the accuracy of their polls, which is in turned based on their skill in ensuring they poll a representative sample. So yes, I trust that a reputable polling company is skilled at ensuring they obtain representative samples.


Of course. Nobody who has the slightest understanding of statistics, cognitive biases and sampling techniques would think otherwise. The number of people a single person ever meets is a tiny, and almost certainly unrepresentative, sample of the population of an entire country.


Trump lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes. So I'd say the polling companies did better than you at predicting how people would vote. Only the vagaries of the electoral college got Trump elected.

Did any of the reputable polling companies think to send out people to survey the Amish who have no phones? They did not vote before so they were disregarded.

What about adjusting for people who do not respond to polls? That was not done.

Surely the polling was to see who would be elected President? Surely that means adjusting for the "vagaries of the electoral college"?

My so-called "tiny" sample was taken because I visited many small and large towns and spoke to a variety of people, who in turn gave me an idea of how representative they were of the community.

I knew what would appeal to them, and so did Trump.

 

[Pixel42]

Getting a representative sample of a large diverse population is extremely difficult. Nobody is saying any polling company gets it 100% right. They just get it a hell of lot closer to right than an individual using a very much smaller and less representative sample.

In the end the result of the US presidential election turned on the votes of fewer than 100,000 specific people out of a population of 300 million. No polling company is that good.

You continue to insist that your own fallible perceptions and limited experience are a more accurate guide to reality than that which is obtained by the careful application of the scientific method by teams of specialists. The arrogance is truly mindboggling.

 

[Beady]

Is there a synonym for Thread Drift that indicates the degree of the drift? The word Drift falls woefully short in this case.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

 

[Pixel42]

Good point well made, Beady. I'll stop contributing to it. It's clearly pointless anyway.