CHRISTIANITY is EVIL!

[vyo476]

Thought I'd borrow some of pale rider's and jb's logic to prove a point.

19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
"Bring them out unto us, that we may know them."
19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
19:6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
19:7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

That's from the Book of Genesis - Lot, who was formerly declared a "just" and "righteous" man in the book, offers his two virgin daughters to an angry mob to keep them away from God's messengers.

34:1 And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.
34:2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.
34:3 And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.
Seems like they're in love...but wait a minute...
34:14 And they said unto them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us:
34:24 And unto Hamor and unto Shechem his son hearkened all that went out of the gate of his city; and every male was circumcised, all that went out of the gate of his city.
34:25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.
So much for love...Dinah's brothers go and slaughter not only the guy who "defiled" her, but also his father and the rest of the town.
34:31 And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?
And so much for Dinah...at best they're chastising her for giving away her virginity before marriage. At worst they're equating a victim of rape to a whore. Way to go.

38:24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.

Kinda speaks for itself.

That's it for Genesis...we'll be taking a look at Exodus in the next post.

[vyo476]

On to Exodus...

4:23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.
4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.

What was that about "Thou shalt not kill"? Maybe it was really, "Thou shalt not kill - but I will!" It even rhymes.

7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.
7:4 But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.
7:5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.
Here we see God setting up Pharaoh so that Pharaoh won't be receptive to what Moses proposes (there's that rhyming again) so that God can do the whole plagues thing and teach those crazy Egyptians (not just Pharaoh, who is already a major league asshole) a lesson. I guess this is why whenever a leader indiscriminately visits suffering on innocents just to prove his superiority we say he has a "God complex."

11:4 And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt
11:5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.
11:6 And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.
So, a premeditated and direct assault on the people of an opposing nation used to weaken their and their leader's resolve to continue on a set course? Does it frighten you at all that God and William Sherman seem to have similar ideas on how defeat the enemy?

15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Indeed.

20:24 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.
Because there's no better way to express your love and appreciation for your God than by slaughtering a whole bunch of innocent animals and then burning their carcasses, right? Reminds me of a phrase I once heard..."All dogs go to heaven." Suddenly I wonder if maybe they'd rather be chilling in another afterlife, say with an omnipotent being that doesn't enjoy the random slaughter of animals.

21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
No swearing, Johnny, or we'll take you out back and bust in your skull with a big rock...

21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
So it isn't all right to beat your servant to death. That's good.
21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Oh...never mind...

22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
Yeah, cause that worked out so well for the guy Dinah slept with.

22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
How many thousands of women have died because of this verse?

22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
There we have it, ladies and gentlemen: this is your Christian "jihad." If he's worshiping another God...kill him.

I could go on...there are some pretty ridiculous things in Exodus, like the regulations for what to do when an ox gores someone (most involve stoning the ox to death) and those fun provisions about how working on the Sabbath is punishable by death (more stoning - makes you wonder if God is a Phish fan).

[vyo476]

In case anyone wanted a taste of the New Testament too, here's some Revelations for you.

19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

That's Jesus that this is talking about. Anyone who ever thought that Jesus was the original hippie...look no farther.

I think this all speaks for itself.

[jb_1430]

Thought I'd borrow some of pale rider's and jb's logic to prove a point.



Well these guys simeon and Levi seem like some evil dudes. Doesnt this take place thousands of years before Christianity and Jesu were even born? how does that show Christianity is evil? I see the recounting of an event. Where is the commandment to those in the present. Add something like 9.123] "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you ", that can be applied to the present, and I might see your point. MARK

[vyo476]

Well these guys simeon and Levi seem like some evil dudes. Doesnt this take place thousands of years before Christianity and Jesu were even born? how does that show Christianity is evil? I see the recounting of an event. Where is the commandment to those in the present. Add something like 9.123] "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you ", that can be applied to the present, and I might see your point. MARK

As I understand it, the Bible tells stories of righteous men to set an example for future generations of Christianity. While these things do take place before the formation of Christianity they are still held as Christian religious texts (the Old Testament is still a part of the Christian Bible, unless I'm much mistaken).

Anyway, keep reading and you'll see that there are a few particularly damning statements made by God. As for a comparison to the quote you posted...try this one:

22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Also, try reading the whole post if you plan on commenting on it.

[jb_1430]

In case anyone wanted a taste of the New Testament too, here's some Revelations for you.

That's Jesus that this is talking about. Anyone who ever thought that Jesus was the original hippie...look no farther.

I think this all speaks for itself.

So in the second coming Jesus is going to wage war. Has no impact on the present and doesnt command believers to take any action. Sounds like a prophecy for the future as opposed to a commandment to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush," MARK

[jb_1430]

As I understand it, the Bible tells stories of righteous men to set an example for future generations of Christianity. While these things do take place before the formation of Christianity they are still held as Christian religious texts (the Old Testament is still a part of the Christian Bible, unless I'm much mistaken).



Of course you are. You are just making this **** up as you go along. Here are a few different interpretations of the old testament in Christianity. Notice that none of them even resemble the theology of your own creation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament#Christian_view_of_the_Law

MARK

[vyo476]

So in the second coming Jesus is going to wage war. Has no impact on the present and doesnt command believers to take any action. Sounds like a prophecy for the future as opposed to a commandment to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush," MARK

One of the chief charges against Muhammad is that he was more of a warlord than a religious leader. It looks to me that Jesus can be viewed in the same light. If it were meant to have no impact on the present it wouldn't have been in the damn book.

As for something that is as bad as that - no, but the Bible is a great deal more subtle about these types of things. Check this out:

Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Once again, that's Jesus. He might not be saying, "Go out and kill infidels!" but he is saying, "I didn't come to spread peace, I came to make war." And somehow I doubt he was there to make war on his own believers.

That, by the way, was during his first stay on Earth - not the second coming, as in the passage about the Horse and all that. Oops?

[jb_1430]

One of the chief charges against Muhammad is that he was more of a warlord than a religious leader. It looks to me that Jesus can be viewed in the same light. If it were meant to have no impact on the present it wouldn't have been in the damn book.



I dont believe Jesus ever killed anybody. He was a pascivist. Turn the other cheek and all of that. Well, it has an impact in that it leads believers to fear jesus upon the second coming and possibly compels them to be good and avoid sin in the present.

Revealing to see your lame arguements here regarding christianity, and compare them with the ease with which you dismiss all the Islamic writings as metaphors for something other than the meaning of the words. MARK

[ArmChair General]

Doesn't Jesus even say in the New Testament that people should still follow the Old Testament?

[9sublime]

People who say Islam is evil can't win here. Islam is only evil if people use it for evil, just like Christianity.

[vyo476]

I dont believe Jesus ever killed anybody. He was a pascivist. Turn the other cheek and all of that. Well, it has an impact in that it leads believers to fear jesus upon the second coming and possibly compels them to be good and avoid sin in the present.

Revealing to see your lame arguements here regarding christianity, and compare them with the ease with which you dismiss all the Islamic writings as metaphors for something other than the meaning of the words. MARK

Maybe he didn't kill anybody, but he was meant to be presented as a warlike figure who was fully capable of killing, even if he never actually did it. Somehow I doubt he was ever really cloaked in blood, leading an army in white linen (something tells me the Romans would have had a much tougher time crucifying him if he had). Still, the passage exists, and for a reason - to incite fear of violence and death, perpetuated by Jesus Christ.

This thread was designed to prove a point. You're using the same basic tactics to dismiss the "evils" of Christianity as I use to dismiss the "evils" of Islam. I don't actually think Christianity is evil - this whole thread is just to prove my point in the Islam thread.

[vyo476]

Here's some more lovely stuff from the Christian Bible (Book of Deuteronomy):

7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
7:4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

All that sounds terribly familiar.

[9sublime]

Basically Mark, you've lost this one. If you follow either of these religions literally, and act upon the text in ways like the quotes above, then your religion is going to be evil.

[jb_1430]

Basically Mark, you've lost this one.

Does seem thats what you two keep trying to convince yourselves of.
Personally, I see you both making fools of yourselves. MARK

[jb_1430]

Here's some more lovely stuff from the Christian Bible (Book of Deuteronomy):



All that sounds terribly familiar.


Deuteronomy???? Do you know anything about the Bible? Hear of the "New Testament" the "New Covenant" for Christians? Do you know anything about the old Testament? Yes God called upon the jews to fight the inhabitants. You must of missed the part where God expelled them from Israel AFTER this period. These are stories, not commandments. Stories of Jews who lived in Israel, thousands of years ago, before God expelled them. MARK

[jb_1430]

Maybe he didn't kill anybody, but he was meant to be presented as a warlike figure who was fully capable of killing, even if he never actually did it.

???? Well, if Jesus comes back, you might have a point. Islam compells the believers to be warlike. Thus this world wide war of Islamic terror we face today. MARK

[Coyote]

The problem is fundamentalism - not Islam not Christianity. Fundamentalism is quite quite dangerous.

[jb_1430]

The problem is fundamentalism - not Islam not Christianity. Fundamentalism is quite quite dangerous.


2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

ISLAM is the basic principles that Islamic Fundamentalist adhere to. And it is the content of those basic principles that causes the problems. MARK

[vyo476]

Deuteronomy???? Do you know anything about the Bible? Hear of the "New Testament" the "New Covenant" for Christians? Do you know anything about the old Testament? Yes God called upon the jews to fight the inhabitants. You must of missed the part where God expelled them from Israel AFTER this period. These are stories, not commandments. Stories of Jews who lived in Israel, thousands of years ago, before God expelled them. MARK

So basically you're saying I took it out of context huh?

[palerider]

Thought I'd borrow some of pale rider's and jb's logic to prove a point.

Well it was a nice try. No, it really wasn't even a nice try. In order for your thinking to have any validity at all, you are going to need to provide ample clippings from the current news that suggest that christians, even some, are living by those commands that were superceeded by the new testament.

[vyo476]

The Book of Matthew:

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Seems like Jesus didn't have a problem with the things that happened in the Old Testament.

I don't suppose that you're actually planning on quoting the Bible at some point to back up these claims...?

[vyo476]

Well it was a nice try. No, it really wasn't even a nice try. In order for your thinking to have any validity at all, you are going to need to provide ample clippings from the current news that suggest that christians, even some, are living by those commands that were superceeded by the new testament.

As I've already stated, Jesus was in full support of all the commands of the Old Testament. The Christians who aren't following them are bad Christians.

[9sublime]

Well it was a nice try. No, it really wasn't even a nice try. In order for your thinking to have any validity at all, you are going to need to provide ample clippings from the current news that suggest that christians, even some, are living by those commands that were superceeded by the new testament.

The question in this debate is wether or not the religion is evil, not if the people who follow it are commiting evil deeds or not.

[Coyote]

Is it appropriate to judge a religion by the actions of it's extremists?

[Kelly]

"In case anyone wanted a taste of the New Testament too, here's some Revelations for you.

Quote:
19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
That's Jesus that this is talking about. Anyone who ever thought that Jesus was the original hippie...look no farther.

I think this all speaks for itself."
--That's from Revelations. It was written by John (not the Apostle) who was exiled to a Greek isle for being a Christian. He wrote the book in an encrypted manner so that it would reach its intended recipients. The 'beasts' described in Revelations are symbolic of geography. Such as the seven-headed beast which represented a trading route in Turkey with seven major stops that John (the author) wanted his message (Revelation) sent to.

Have you ever heard the theory that God created man (in book of Genesis), told us to be fruitful, have dominion, multiply, etc. then left? Next, the 'serpent' came and claimed to be God (Jehova). Jehova selected the Jews as his chosen people and had them try to massacre the world for his agenda. Finally, God (the REAL God that created us in Genesis) came to Earth as a human (Jesus Christ) to set things toward the right direction. This can be seen by the name God is referred to: first Elohim, then Jehova *** This is in no way a stab at the Jews, but it makes a lot of sense...if you've actually STUDIED the WHOLE Bible.*** Only the Evangelicals (self-proclaimed preachers) and other Fundamentalists who take the Bible word-for-word are evil (or at least sadly mistaken)!!!

People LOVE to take a section or two from the Bible and use it to infer that Christianity is evil or, (on the other side) that you will go to hell if you don't abide by that person's interpretation of the Bible (cough..Evangelicals...um...cough..cough...Fundame ntalists). I say to both sides: READ THE ENTIRE BOOK BEFORE YOU FORM AN OPINION.

[Kelly]

Also, in Revelation, John refers to the Beast 666. In Hebrew numerology, the name NERO equates to 666. NERO was the slayer of Christians, and John, as part of his message in Revelation, was trying to warn his fellow Christians of a "Return of Nero."

[vyo476]

--That's from Revelations. It was written by John (not the Apostle) who was exiled to a Greek isle for being a Christian. He wrote the book in an encrypted manner so that it would reach its intended recipients. The 'beasts' described in Revelations are symbolic of geography. Such as the seven-headed beast which represented a trading route in Turkey with seven major stops that John (the author) wanted his message (Revelation) sent to.

The quote I delivered talks about him smiting nations. Not beasts.


Only the Evangelicals (self-proclaimed preachers) and other Fundamentalists who take the Bible word-for-word are evil (or at least sadly mistaken)!!!

They're the only ones following the full and complete Christian doctrine, which is evil.


People LOVE to take a section or two from the Bible and use it to infer that Christianity is evil or, (on the other side) that you will go to hell if you don't abide by that person's interpretation of the Bible (cough..Evangelicals...um...cough..cough...Fundame ntalists). I say to both sides: READ THE ENTIRE BOOK BEFORE YOU FORM AN OPINION.

I have read the entire book. These sections are a part of it. Christianity is evil, depicting its warlike leaders drenched in blood, laying waste to nations that do not fall in line with its way of thinking. It clearly shows that those who do not adhere to the Christian doctrine are infidels and are killed by God and tortured in hell forever. God has even encouraged His followers to murder and slaughter; He has defined women as simple sex objects for men; and He has made numerous exceptions in his own rules in order to trick common people into going to Hell and to keep his own closest supporters from winding up there.

Christianity is evil.

[9sublime]

Is it appropriate to judge a religion by the actions of it's extremists?

This is what it all boils down to.

[ArmChair General]

The quote I delivered talks about him smiting nations. Not beasts.


They're the only ones following the full and complete Christian doctrine, which is evil.



I have read the entire book. These sections are a part of it. Christianity is evil, depicting its warlike leaders drenched in blood, laying waste to nations that do not fall in line with its way of thinking. It clearly shows that those who do not adhere to the Christian doctrine are infidels and are killed by God and tortured in hell forever. God has even encouraged His followers to murder and slaughter; He has defined women as simple sex objects for men; and He has made numerous exceptions in his own rules in order to trick common people into going to Hell and to keep his own closest supporters from winding up there.

Christianity is evil.

:D Live Long and Prosper

[Kelly]

The Old Testament is what you're referring to as evil. I wasn't saying that YOU were referring to beasts. I was displaying the symbolic references in Revelation.

"They're the only ones following the full and complete Christian doctrine"
--That's complete B.S.!!! What about Apostolic Succession??? How can a self-proclaimed preacher know what Apostolic Succession entails????

"I have read the entire book. These sections are a part of it. Christianity is evil, depicting its warlike leaders drenched in blood, laying waste to nations that do not fall in line with its way of thinking. It clearly shows that those who do not adhere to the Christian doctrine are infidels and are killed by God and tortured in hell forever. God has even encouraged His followers to murder and slaughter; He has defined women as simple sex objects for men; and He has made numerous exceptions in his own rules in order to trick common people into going to Hell and to keep his own closest supporters from winding up there."
--Again, Old Testament. The only exception to this is the debate subsequent to the death and Resurrection of Christ between Peter (who advocated what Jesus wanted: tolerance, 'golden rule,' etc. And, who later went to Rome and founded the original Church [Catholicism] and Apostolic Succession) and Paul (the former slayer of Christians who wanted to keep the old Jewish laws, intolerance, etc).
--However, if you allow all of the bloodshed, intolerance, and hate that accompany far too many 'Christians' to portray Christianity in-and-of-itself, I can understand your motivation for making the claim that Christianity is evil.

[vyo476]

The Old Testament is what you're referring to as evil. I wasn't saying that YOU were referring to beasts. I was displaying the symbolic references in Revelation.

Symbolism? In a religious text? You're joking.


--That's complete B.S.!!! What about Apostolic Succession??? How can a self-proclaimed preacher know what Apostolic Succession entails????

Irrelevant. There is nothing about it in the Bible.


Again, Old Testament. The only exception to this is the debate subsequent to the death and Resurrection of Christ between Peter (who advocated what Jesus wanted: tolerance, 'golden rule,' etc. And, who later went to Rome and founded the original Church [Catholicism] and Apostolic Succession) and Paul (the former slayer of Christians who wanted to keep the old Jewish laws, intolerance, etc).

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Jesus wanted to keep the "old Jewish laws" too.

[Kelly]

"Jesus wanted to keep the "old Jewish laws" too."
--That's TOTALLY your interpretation.

"Irrelevant. There is nothing about it in the Bible."
--That's a pretty short-sided logic on your part. People like you bring up the Crusades and other regrettable incidences subsequent to the Bible all the time when complaining about Christianity itself. Sure Christianity entails the Bible, but it is also constituted by events subsequent to the Bible.

"Symbolism? In a religious text? You're joking."
--Don't be an a$$ho!e. You just said that Fundamentalists (who find NO symbolism in the Bible) are the only ones who truly follow Christian Doctrine. Hahahahaha!!!

[Kelly]

I find it hard to believe that you've actually read, much less STUDIED the ENTIRE Bible (cover to cover) if you were just trying to find ways to discredit it the whole time. If you did, get a life man!!! There are better ways to spend the short time we've got here on this rock.

[vyo476]

"Jesus wanted to keep the "old Jewish laws" too."
--That's TOTALLY your interpretation.

Bull. Look at the quote. He is clearly saying "I didn't come to undo what they said and did, I came to uphold it." What else could that passage mean?


"Irrelevant. There is nothing about it in the Bible."
--That's a pretty short-sided logic on your part. People like you bring up the Crusades and other regrettable incidences subsequent to the Bible all the time when complaining about Christianity itself. Sure Christianity entails the Bible, but it is also constituted by events subsequent to the Bible.

Still irrelevant. My issue is with the doctrine of Christianity, which is evil.


"Symbolism? In a religious text? You're joking."
--Don't be an a$$ho!e. You just said that Fundamentalists (who find NO symbolism in the Bible) are the only ones who truly follow Christian Doctrine. Hahahahaha!!!

You must live in a fantasy world, where words don't mean what they mean.

[Kelly]

You know though...there are plenty of Christians who bash Islam for the same reasons that you say Christianity is evil. Those folks are the worst of the hypocrites.

[Kelly]

"Bull. Look at the quote. He is clearly saying "I didn't come to undo what they said and did, I came to uphold it." What else could that passage mean?"
--How do you know he wasn't referring to the original law that God gave to man???

"Still irrelevant. My issue is with the doctrine of Christianity, which is evil."
--Ok..since you're talking strictly about the DOCTRINE, I'll concede this one to you. But, the doctrine is not evil if you take a 'big picture' approach to it.

"You must live in a fantasy world, where words don't mean what they mean."
--No I live in the REAL world where things have a deeper meaning. Sorry, but the quotes you're referring to were written a long, long time before the Modernist Movement.

[r0beph]

meh, I'm not very religious in the contemporary sense. But let me say that religion is not an evil, regardless of which you've chosen. People are evil, people are good. Now combined, you can have evil people who follow any religion and good people who follow any religion. But this can all be said for anything. So really it's not the big issue. The true issue is that all religions are interpreted, there is no correct manner of instituting the words written thousands of years ago and translated a 100 times. A good man can misread a good book and believe an evil thing. This is the problem.

[Justinian]

I won't comment on the issue he nitpicks. I just want to say its always vyo. It's always this guy who's wrong on all the issues and grasps for utter destruction. I suggest to you, other members of this board, if you know what's good for you, stay away from Vyo.

[Coyote]

I won't comment on the issue he nitpicks. I just want to say its always vyo. It's always this guy who's wrong on all the issues and grasps for utter destruction. I suggest to you, other members of this board, if you know what's good for you, stay away from Vyo.

Good point. Truth is infectious.

[vyo476]

I won't comment on the issue he nitpicks. I just want to say its always vyo. It's always this guy who's wrong on all the issues and grasps for utter destruction. I suggest to you, other members of this board, if you know what's good for you, stay away from Vyo.

Oh, I'm just that evil :)

Actually, Justinian, I ought to let you know that I don't really believe any of what I wrote in this thread. I did it to prove a point - that picking at the weaknesses in any religious text can show that it is "evil."

By the way, personal attacks in lieu of actual argument will get you no where on this board.

[OPGhostdog]

Weakness in a religion is a sign that there's no faith. The more
faith that's put into any religion makes that belief that much
stronger. I am a strong believer in Islam plus my Muslim faith,
and if I was a weakly then what good would I be to myself?

I would not go as far as dying before my time, but I would
fight for what I believe in, and I might go a little farther by
saying I would die for what I believe in..that's not being weak.

[FRYandBENDER]

You know who what is really evil about Christianity? That there are people who, because of Christianity, devote their life to serving others, opening soup kitchens to the homeless, and helping teen mothers find adoptees for their babies. Man, they are evil personified. I mean, why should we focus on the good that Christianity has done? Let us focus on all the bad stuff, and then criticize people who do the same of Islam.:rolleyes:

[Grounded]

You know who what is really evil about Christianity? That there are people who, because of Christianity, devote their life to serving others, opening soup kitchens to the homeless, and helping teen mothers find adoptees for their babies. Man, they are evil personified. I mean, why should we focus on the good that Christianity has done? Let us focus on all the bad stuff, and then criticize people who do the same of Islam.:rolleyes:

He's right. If you make the case that Christianity is evil, you can make the equal case that Christianity is good.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I think the discussion is based on some fallacies. First, the Bible doesn't have any provable connection to God--if God exists--and there is no proof of that either. Second, Christianity is such a diverse group, with more than 2500 sects around the world today (more than one new one for every year since Jesus birth!) that making any kind of blanket statement about Christianity--good or evil--will be incorrect.

I don't get into the argument about Islam because I don't live in an Islamic country and my reading of Jewish texts and the Koran lead me to believe that, like the Bible, they are all probably products of the same general bunch of desert dwelling tribesmen who--in my opinion--had been out in the sun too long. Anyone who wants to see the Bible in a different light should obtain a copy of Ben Edward Akerley's THE X-RATED BIBLE in which he looks at all the scriptures that Christians don't really want to talk about. A close reading of the Bible might convince a thoughtful person that the Biblical god was a violent, tyrant with a bad anal fetish considering that he threatened to smear people's faces with their own feces and force to people to bake bread with their own feces and go out in public to eat it. We put people in prison for the kind of behavior that the Biblical god exhibited: genocide, child abuse, animal abuse, murder... you name it and the Bible attributes it to god. Hence, I throw out most of the Bible except the good teachings of Jesus and keep the God with whom I have had a relationship all my life.

[Segep]

We put people in prison for the kind of behavior that the Biblical god exhibited: genocide, child abuse, animal abuse, murder... you name it and the Bible attributes it to god. Hence, I throw out most of the Bible except the good teachings of Jesus and keep the God with whom I have had a relationship all my life.

One of my favorite stories is the prophet who called on God to bring bears down out of the woods to attack some children who were making fun of his bald head. Yikes! That'll keep your kids up at night! ;)

[r0beph]

You know who what is really evil about Christianity? That there are people who, because of Christianity, devote their life to serving others, opening soup kitchens to the homeless, and helping teen mothers find adoptees for their babies. Man, they are evil personified. I mean, why should we focus on the good that Christianity has done? Let us focus on all the bad stuff, and then criticize people who do the same of Islam.:rolleyes:

There are also soup kitchens run by non-religious organizations. This proves the entire world is simply full of evil people and we're all doomed DOOMED! DOOOOOOOOOOMED!

satire aside, religion being open to interpretation can be interpreted in a negative form. this can be said for any religion, belief, or whatever. religion itself is nothing without it's people, badly informed and ignorant execution of a religions interpreted rules lead to an evil religion in action. without those people however, it is simply neutral.

[9sublime]

Religion can be evil if people use it as a tool for evil, just like if a militant atheist/agnostic group started up.

[Sgt Schultz]

Religion can be evil if people use it as a tool for evil, just like if a militant atheist/agnostic group started up.

Exactly.

[Mare Tranquillity]

One of my favorite stories is the prophet who called on God to bring bears down out of the woods to attack some children who were making fun of his bald head. Yikes! That'll keep your kids up at night! ;)

Makes you all warm and fuzzy doesn't it? I like the part where God explains which women can be taken as spoils of war and how they can be disposed of if they don't perfom well enough while you are raping them. I know that I want to spend eternity with a god like that.

[9sublime]

If I found out that the Christian God, or Allah was God I'd make out I was keen to go to heaven, but secretley I don't think I would be at all.

[vyo476]

If I found out that the Christian God, or Allah was God I'd make out I was keen to go to heaven, but secretley I don't think I would be at all.

I wrote a story kinda like that once.

I was sitting around in the library, nothing to do, trying to think of something to write, when it hit me - "Wouldn't it be hysterical if the Catholics were right all along?"

[r0beph]

I think one of my biggest deals with neoconchristianity is that the bible has a whole spiel about god giving ME freewill so I COULD choose and yada yada, yet I have all these knowmoreholierthanthous with corn cobs up their arses trying to force their assumed values on me. Where'd my freewill of the bible go, if I don't have it and am forced into a specific cadre insisting a behave "according to [their interpretation] of the bible" will I go to their assumed heaven since technically it wasn't me who made the choice to not do evil but rather them for me? I'm confused.


/baaa-baaaa...the sound of sheeple.

[DrWho]

Thought I'd borrow some of pale rider's and jb's logic to prove a point.



That's from the Book of Genesis - Lot, who was formerly declared a "just" and "righteous" man in the book, offers his two virgin daughters to an angry mob to keep them away from God's messengers.


Seems like they're in love...but wait a minute...

So much for love...Dinah's brothers go and slaughter not only the guy who "defiled" her, but also his father and the rest of the town.

And so much for Dinah...at best they're chastising her for giving away her virginity before marriage. At worst they're equating a victim of rape to a whore. Way to go.



Kinda speaks for itself.

That's it for Genesis...we'll be taking a look at Exodus in the next post.


The Bible is very very clear that no one in the entire world is good enough to called righteous based on their own works or actions.

Finding examples of people in the bible who did things that were wrong just shows their humanity and the honesty of God by including their warts in their biographies.

lot was righteous becuase he never did or would never do anything wrong, he was declared righteuous because he had faith.

God always credits faith as righteousness - this is a central fact of Christianity. Have you done something you knew was wrong? Then you are stained. If you want to be cleaned then that can only be accomplished by grace through faith.

[Mare Tranquillity]

The Bible is very very clear that no one in the entire world is good enough to called righteous based on their own works or actions.

Finding examples of people in the bible who did things that were wrong just shows their humanity and the honesty of God by including their warts in their biographies.

lot was righteous becuase he never did or would never do anything wrong, he was declared righteuous because he had faith.

God always credits faith as righteousness - this is a central fact of Christianity. Have you done something you knew was wrong? Then you are stained. If you want to be cleaned then that can only be accomplished by grace through faith.

The icky things that God's "good" people do in the Bible don't bother me nearly as much as the ghastly stuff that God supposedly did. You can excuse people for being nasty, but God? This is God we're talking about, isn't He supposed to be... well, godly? The Bible portrays Him as being a monster. So is that stuff not true? Is the Bible guilty of spreading blasphemy?

[DrWho]

The icky things that God's "good" people do in the Bible don't bother me nearly as much as the ghastly stuff that God supposedly did. You can excuse people for being nasty, but God? This is God we're talking about, isn't He supposed to be... well, godly? The Bible portrays Him as being a monster. So is that stuff not true? Is the Bible guilty of spreading blasphemy?

I don't think he is portrayed as being a monster. Doing things that you don't like don't make him a monster - it just makes you less knowledgeable about the reasons he does things.

At this point people usually say but he told the jews to kill whole groups of people. yes but he only commands the end of cities of wicked people, like sodom and gomorrah. And he searches for reasons not to destroy them.

Mind you all of these people were going to die some day anyway and it was God who was going to decide when anyway. He just decided sooner rather than later and during a war rather than from some other cause.

Yes we don't understand how he can condemn whole cities including the very young rather than just the Hitlers of the world. That just means we don't understand.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't think he is portrayed as being a monster. Doing things that you don't like don't make him a monster - it just makes you less knowledgeable about the reasons he does things.

At this point people usually say but he told the jews to kill whole groups of people. yes but he only commands the end of cities of wicked people, like sodom and gomorrah. And he searches for reasons not to destroy them.

Mind you all of these people were going to die some day anyway and it was God who was going to decide when anyway. He just decided sooner rather than later and during a war rather than from some other cause.

Yes we don't understand how he can condemn whole cities including the very young rather than just the Hitlers of the world. That just means we don't understand.

Funny, it's kind of interesting to hear someone being an apologist for genocide. Yep, every man, woman, child, and suckling babe (if I have the quote correct) all were to be slaughtered, and all their animals. Hmmm, the children and the animals didn't commit any sins. And when God killed EVERYBODY on the planet--except Noah--including all the animals, that's justice?

What about demeaning people by telling them to bake bread with their own feces, and then go out in public amongst their enemies and eat that bread? What about threatening to smear people's faces with their own fecal matter? What about telling a Father to sacrifice his son on an altar? We put people in prison for that kind of behavior. There's nothing godly about it.

[DrWho]

Funny, it's kind of interesting to hear someone being an apologist for genocide. Yep, every man, woman, child, and suckling babe (if I have the quote correct) all were to be slaughtered, and all their animals. Hmmm, the children and the animals didn't commit any sins. And when God killed EVERYBODY on the planet--except Noah--including all the animals, that's justice?

Apparently it was justice. The Bible clearly said they were wicked.

What about demeaning people by telling them to bake bread with their own feces, and then go out in public amongst their enemies and eat that bread? What about threatening to smear people's faces with their own fecal matter? What about telling a Father to sacrifice his son on an altar? We put people in prison for that kind of behavior. There's nothing godly about it.

I don't recognize your references to feces.

Try to step outside of your own ethnocentric ideas to see that there are different ways to look at the world and your way is not the only right way.

I myself do not completely understand asking a father to sacrifice his son but since the father didn't seem to have any problem with it I guess by his standards he didn't think it was that bad. Perhaps both the father and his God understood that the sacrifice would never happen.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Apparently it was justice. The Bible clearly said they were wicked.
Animals and children were wicked? I've no use for people who simply buy whatever they're told if it comes from a recognized source of authority. Rape, slavery, selling children, treating women as the spoils of war, all of these things are in the Bible as being acceptable behavior. Along with those pleasant things are prohibitions against mixing fibers in clothing, associating with a woman having her period, cutting portions of the head hair, etc. The things you accept as Commandments from God are just as weird as the Mormon sacred, secret underwear.

I don't recognize your references to feces.
Ezekiel 4:10-17 Bake bread with human feces and eat it among your enemies.
Malachi 2:1-3 Smearing feces on people's faces.

Try to step outside of your own ethnocentric ideas to see that there are different ways to look at the world and your way is not the only right way.
Try to think with the brain that God gave you, would you accept your sister or your Mother to be taken as one of the spoils of war? Do you think that rape is alright? Commanding people to eat bread baked with their own feces? Child sexual abuse? Which one of these "ethnocentric" ideas do you embrace by the grace of your worship of Jesus? I'm sorry, Who, but slavery and genocide are not just casual ethnocentric ideas that one can cast away at a whim on the sayso of some baseless religious or mythical god-figure. Jesus said that the two most important commandments in the Bible were to love God and to love thy neighbor as thyself, no place did He say that slavery and rape were acceptable. The Bible paints God as a monster who commited terrible crimes against humanity, I think that's blasphemy, God didn't do that stuff, that's the kind of thing that people do and by attributing it to God they can make it acceptable behavior for themselves too.

I myself do not completely understand asking a father to sacrifice his son but since the father didn't seem to have any problem with it I guess by his standards he didn't think it was that bad. Perhaps both the father and his God understood that the sacrifice would never happen.

If a Father today didn't have a problem with a disembodied voice telling him to take his son up onto a mountain and forcing him to help build an altar and sacrificing him to some "god" we would say that person was insane. Children's Services would take the children from that home and put them in protective custody. The Father would go to jail or to a mental hospital.

But for the sake of the argument, let's say that Father and God knew that the sacrifice was never going to take place--WHAT ABOUT THE SON? What does it do to a child that goes through that kind experience right up to being tied on the altar with his Father's knife at his throat? If that isn't child abuse then you have a very different view of child care than I do. Would you like to read about a child that had things like that done to her? Get the book RABBIT HOWLS, which tells the true story of a girl who was abused in hideous ways.

When some god-figure is credited with the most heinous/atrocious/revolting and foul/filthy/perverted sick behavior, it disgusts me that there is always some simpering sycophant willing to be the apologist for the "god" and claim that the "godly" actions were just or right or holy--we just don't understand and need to take it on faith.

How a rational human being gets from the Sermon on the Mount to accepting genocide, rape, scatological abuse, and coprophagy is beyond me.

[vyo476]

Apparently it was justice. The Bible clearly said they were wicked.


Hitler clearly said the Jews were wicked. Was it okay for the Nazis to slaughter them, then?


Try to step outside of your own ethnocentric ideas to see that there are different ways to look at the world and your way is not the only right way.

I don't agree with the contention that Christianity is "evil" (starting this thread was only my way of making a point). I do think that absolute adherence to every word of the Bible has no place in modern society. Do you?


I myself do not completely understand asking a father to sacrifice his son but since the father didn't seem to have any problem with it I guess by his standards he didn't think it was that bad. Perhaps both the father and his God understood that the sacrifice would never happen.

Do you think this type of behavior would be permissible today?

[numinus]

Thought I'd borrow some of pale rider's and jb's logic to prove a point.



That's from the Book of Genesis - Lot, who was formerly declared a "just" and "righteous" man in the book, offers his two virgin daughters to an angry mob to keep them away from God's messengers.


Seems like they're in love...but wait a minute...

So much for love...Dinah's brothers go and slaughter not only the guy who "defiled" her, but also his father and the rest of the town.

And so much for Dinah...at best they're chastising her for giving away her virginity before marriage. At worst they're equating a victim of rape to a whore. Way to go.



Kinda speaks for itself.

That's it for Genesis...we'll be taking a look at Exodus in the next post.

The only thing that 'speaks for itself' is your clear bias against christianity. Genesis is as much a book of jews and moslems as it is for christians.

[vyo476]

The only thing that 'speaks for itself' is your clear bias against christianity. Genesis is as much a book of jews and moslems as it is for christians.

The point I was trying to prove is that it is not fair to declare a religion like Christianity or Islam "evil." I think you just helped prove the point. Thank you.

[numinus]

The point I was trying to prove is that it is not fair to declare a religion like Christianity or Islam "evil." I think you just helped prove the point. Thank you.

You have proven what?

That the norms that operate in the biblical milleu do not apply presently?

Of course not. That is the whole point of soteriology, no?

[Justinian]

Yeah, I've heard 'em all. Religion leads to war, blah blah blah blah. Unortunately when religion is strong in a country which it should be, it is a sweet and seemly thing to die for it. Religion also leads to happiness. The elimination of religion will not end war. Take your pick; War, Chaos and mass misery or War, order and happiness.

[9sublime]

You honestly believe people can't be happy without religion? I am a very happy person, content with everything because I live in a rich country and have things going good for me right now.

Religion has been created, sustained, and believed in most strongly when things are going badly. Its because its a comfort, an answer, a hope. If all the world lived at the standard of the rich of today, there would be little need for religion.

The only unanswered question is what happens when we die. People would have to concoct their own load of man made chuff without mass religion, and the world would be a better place for it too.

[vyo476]

You have proven what?

That the norms that operate in the biblical milleu do not apply presently?

That not all aspects of a religious text must be strictly adhered to in order to be considered a "good" member of that particular faith and that judgment of a particular faith based on strict interpretation of the entire text is not fair in a modern light.

So basically...yes.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yeah, I've heard 'em all. Religion leads to war, blah blah blah blah. Unortunately when religion is strong in a country which it should be, it is a sweet and seemly thing to die for it. Religion also leads to happiness. The elimination of religion will not end war. Take your pick; War, Chaos and mass misery or War, order and happiness.

So is this statement meant to apply to all religions? It's "sweet and seemly" to die for Islam and it's just as "sweet and seemly" to die for Mormonism?

I think this sentence would have been more accurate if you had said: "Religion CAN lead to happiness. The elimination of religion will not NECESSARILY end war."

"Take your pick; War, Chaos and mass misery or War, order and happiness."
This is a false choice, religion is not the only thing that brings order and happiness into human life. We should also note that while it's true that religion CAN bring happiness and order, it also CAN bring chaos and mass misery: look at the Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch burnings, the slavery of black people, the subjugation of women, the abuse of mentally ill people, discrimination against people with deformaties... it's a long and ugly list.

[numinus]

That not all aspects of a religious text must be strictly adhered to in order to be considered a "good" member of that particular faith and that judgment of a particular faith based on strict interpretation of the entire text is not fair in a modern light.

In judaism, there is levitical law, mosaic law, pharisaic law, all based on different interpretations of the same text.

Christianity does not follow all that to the letter, and confines themselves principally to the new testament, even though jesus was a jewish rabbi.

Islam, well, supersedes all that by god's revelations to mohammed.

What's the point?

So basically...yes.

You have arrived at the conclusion that christianity is evil by the behavior of certain biblical characters - and in the old testament, no less?

You must be superman! You can leap tall orders of logic in a single bound!

[Justinian]

Good honest-hearted post here.


This is a false choice, religion is not the only thing that brings order and happiness into human life. We should also note that while it's true that religion CAN bring happiness and order, it also CAN bring chaos and mass misery: look at the Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch burnings, the slavery of black people, the subjugation of women, the abuse of mentally ill people, discrimination against people with deformaties... it's a long and ugly list.


Not the only thing that brings order? Right, the other one is government which only grows and decays under an atheist society. As we now contemplate the world converted into a huge machine and managed by engineers, we gradually grow aware of its lack of meaning, of its emptiness of human value; the soul is stifled in this glorificiation of human mechanical efficiency. And then we begin to feel the weakness of such a creed when confronted by the real problems of life; we've discovered its inability to impose any restraint on the passions of men, or to supply or create any government which can appeal to the loyalty of the spiritual body. And seeing these things we internally understand the fear that is gnawing at the vitals of society Humanitarian fools, having dissolved the old loyalties and prescriptions, find themselves defenseless before the boss, the union-leader, the political policeman, the very pitiless machine society they had welcomed. Fear, like injustice and sin, will not be eradicated from the world; but the fear of modern civilization is a terror peculiarly hideous. What then is society to do? Our society after so many outspoken misgivings, failures, wars or lack of wars will once again crave to get the fear of God back into itself.

[Justinian]

You see no system is perfect. My job in this culture-social war is to advocate my own opinion of which is the better system which luckily for me is relatively easy no matter how muc collectivist scum attacks and denounces me. You see, my friend reality is basically founded and realized by extremes. For extremes are the basic bare, uncompromising nature of the more centrist position of the same ideology. Through extremes, stripped of its irrelevant obstacles and loyalties does the system work to its most mechanical and efficiency of itself. Within this state does it become the clearest if this forced-upon system obeys and coincides with the rules of human nature. Human nature shows itself the clearest in the most rigorous of circumstances. Fortunately for us, most all of these different systems have already been enacted giving us the divine ability to understand Humanity and its relation with order. The way I look at government... 'proper government' is that Government is the understanding of humanity. Only through the understanding of true human nature can one possibly understand the human invention of government and its flawed but excellent purpose destined. Anyhow, one component of the wonderful contrivement of religion is its ability to free man from the human machine of government as well as supplying a system for the government of the governing. The fear of God.

[Justinian]

You honestly believe people can't be happy without religion? I am a very happy person, content with everything because I live in a rich country and have things going good for me right now.

Religion has been created, sustained, and believed in most strongly when things are going badly. Its because its a comfort, an answer, a hope. If all the world lived at the standard of the rich of today, there would be little need for religion.

The only unanswered question is what happens when we die. People would have to concoct their own load of man made chuff without mass religion, and the world would be a better place for it too.

Happy you are because you have a purpose which is to combat religion and turn people away from God. Once that is gone and man has returned to its base nature, redefining and restructuring its already decaying world, believe me, you won't be happy that is if you're not dead.

[9sublime]

I don't try and turn anyone against religion outside of this forum because religion is a personal bussiness. I don't stand on a street corner preaching like a religious person, atheists never do... noticed that? I don't want to turn anyone away from God unless they ask for the debate.

And the base level of humanity is religion, religion has been around since man evolved enough to realise his own mortality.

[steveox]

CHRISTIANITY is EVIL!

So is the Jewish religion and the Muslim religion

[Mare Tranquillity]

Good honest-hearted post here.
Not the only thing that brings order? Right, the other one is government which only grows and decays under an atheist society. As we now contemplate the world converted into a huge machine and managed by engineers, we gradually grow aware of its lack of meaning, of its emptiness of human value; the soul is stifled in this glorificiation of human mechanical efficiency. And then we begin to feel the weakness of such a creed when confronted by the real problems of life; we've discovered its inability to impose any restraint on the passions of men, or to supply or create any government which can appeal to the loyalty of the spiritual body. And seeing these things we internally understand the fear that is gnawing at the vitals of society Humanitarian fools, having dissolved the old loyalties and prescriptions, find themselves defenseless before the boss, the union-leader, the political policeman, the very pitiless machine society they had welcomed. Fear, like injustice and sin, will not be eradicated from the world; but the fear of modern civilization is a terror peculiarly hideous. What then is society to do? Our society after so many outspoken misgivings, failures, wars or lack of wars will once again crave to get the fear of God back into itself.

It's pretty sad when fear is the only thing that you think can bring us back (to what, the Dark Ages when everybody believed in God and feared Him as a judgmental monster?)

What do mean by "wars or lack of wars"?

Get a grip, Justinian, we don't need to run to some tribal god image to save us from our own chaos, we can shape our world as we wish by following Gandhi's very simple rule: Be the change you wish to see in the world. Hysterical superstition isn't going to solve our problems any more than it has in the past. There has never been a time in human history when religion brought order to the world--that kind of nostalgia is nonsense.

[9sublime]

The person who started this thread didn't believe that Christianiy was evil, they were just using someone else logic on Islam being evil and applying it to Christianity.

[Mare Tranquillity]

You see no system is perfect. My job in this culture-social war is to advocate my own opinion of which is the better system which luckily for me is relatively easy no matter how muc collectivist scum attacks and denounces me. You see, my friend reality is basically founded and realized by extremes. For extremes are the basic bare, uncompromising nature of the more centrist position of the same ideology. Through extremes, stripped of its irrelevant obstacles and loyalties does the system work to its most mechanical and efficiency of itself. Within this state does it become the clearest if this forced-upon system obeys and coincides with the rules of human nature. Human nature shows itself the clearest in the most rigorous of circumstances. Fortunately for us, most all of these different systems have already been enacted giving us the divine ability to understand Humanity and its relation with order. The way I look at government... 'proper government' is that Government is the understanding of humanity. Only through the understanding of true human nature can one possibly understand the human invention of government and its flawed but excellent purpose destined. Anyhow, one component of the wonderful contrivement of religion is its ability to free man from the human machine of government as well as supplying a system for the government of the governing. The fear of God.

Am I the only person who felt that this paragraph was semantically null? Except for the last sentence that is. You're selling fear, J, but I'm not buying. I don't need to fear a retributive, vaporous hominid in the sky in order to strive to make the world a better place.

[9sublime]

Your job Justinian, is not anything with politics. You think you are a defender of decency and Christian values spreading the word. In fact, you are not, you are just like the rest of us, sitting behind a desk on an internet forum.

You however, are bigging yourself up and frankly making an arse of yourself. Do us all a favour, start discussing issues, not what you are doing here/how great you are.

[DrWho]

I don't stand on a street corner preaching like a religious person, atheists never do... noticed that?


I couldn't figure out how to paste a picture in here so here is a link. In the event that the link doesn't work it is a photo of an atheist standing on a street corner with a sign that says "No God". There were tons of photos available using a simple google search.


http://www.basetree.com/thumbs/No_God_1.jpg
http://www.basetree.com/thumbs/No_God_1.jpg

[9sublime]

Oh ok, I've never seen one thats all, and I bet the ratio is huge.

[DrWho]

"Once we can look at religion objectively and impartially, it becomes entirely obvious that religion has all the characteristics of a form of insanity." -Emmet F. Fields



An atheist believes that there is no God despite the fact that the non-existence of God is logically impossible to demonstrate, all the while claiming that he is a rational being.

The religionists claims to believe in a God for which evidence exists to demonstrate the possibility full well knowing that his belief is based on faith in addition to rational thought.

[vyo476]

The person who started this thread didn't believe that Christianiy was evil, they were just using someone else logic on Islam being evil and applying it to Christianity.

As the threads around here tend to do, this one has grown into an animal of its own. Thanks for the recognition, though.

[Coyote]

An atheist believes that there is no God despite the fact that the non-existence of God is logically impossible to demonstrate, all the while claiming that he is a rational being.

The religionists claims to believe in a God for which evidence exists to demonstrate the possibility full well knowing that his belief is based on faith in addition to rational thought.



Actually - the onus of proof is not on the athiest, it's on the one that asserts the positive, that there is a god.

This was posted before by....Fonz? I think? But it bears reiterating.

Here is a famous passage from Bertrand Russell's Is There a God?

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

[DrWho]

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

I am not suggesting that doubters are psychotic at all. A form of Agnosticism is the only completely rational course of action.

The person who doubts the tea pot is completely rational but the person who states unequivocably that it does not exists is walking on logistical thin ice.

The skeptic is under no burden to prove their skepticism until they make a statement that is as much a matter of faith as the statement of the religionists. They still don't have to prove their position but they open themselves up to the same criticism as the religionists. But they are in a weaker position than the religionists as the one freely admits his beliefs are a matter of faith and the other claims to be empirical.

[numinus]

Actually - the onus of proof is not on the athiest, it's on the one that asserts the positive, that there is a god.

This was posted before by....Fonz? I think? But it bears reiterating.

Here is a famous passage from Bertrand Russell's Is There a God?

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Its called negative logic or negation.

The point is to demonstrate the logical impossibility of something by assuming the opposite of a supposition.

It is used to demonstrate 'existence' only, not the nature of the thing.

Granted that negative logic is a rather weak form of truth, it is valid, nonetheless.

[vyo476]

Actually - the onus of proof is not on the athiest, it's on the one that asserts the positive, that there is a god.

What if I was to assert that there could possibly be a God? This, too, goes against atheism, which is the stated belief that there is no God. I'm saying maybe, because really there's no way to know - the statement more or less proves itself. Atheism has no such proof - and is in fact unprovable. If tomorrow science discovered the existence of God, that'd be it - discussion over, here's God, hooray and pass the salsa. However, science will never be able to prove that there is no such thing as God - there will always be more places and more ways to look.

You can say that the "onus of proof" lies on the believer, and yeah, you'd be right. But atheists believe something that is just as unproven. You want to be fair about it you'd have to call yourself an agnostic.

[Justinian]

Am I the only person who felt that this paragraph was semantically null? Except for the last sentence that is. You're selling fear, J, but I'm not buying. I don't need to fear a retributive, vaporous hominid in the sky in order to strive to make the world a better place.

Define a better place.

Freedom and belief/understanding are inseperable. Liberty works when instead of one ruler you have a collection of rulers and not a collection of infighters. When a public loses its moral core, it not only will relinquish much of its freedom but will embrace the abdication of its freedoms and the expanding of its intrusive government. Along with this comes the prominence of new theologies to replace religion and reinvent society which were all developed, designed and understood by a small group of people in the first place. They will almost universally profess the expansion of government and compromising of 'out-of-date freedoms and institutions' leading the control of the many by a massive, powerful, faceless, atheist machine of men. Without social protection and spiritualism, it's spearheaded by greed, materialism, and perpetuated with engineered public disunity by the planned-positioning of indoctrination in moral relativism and liquidation of history and historic ideals. Ever wonder why your teachers told you things that went against your very parents? ^ The ones that the school did not differ with their parents come from one of the families who invited it to begin with or were sheepishly overtaken by the dogmatic machinery of the system.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Define a better place.

Freedom and belief/understanding are inseperable. Liberty works when instead of one ruler you have a collection of rulers and not a collection of infighters. When a public loses its moral core, it not only will relinquish much of its freedom but will embrace the abdication of its freedoms and the expanding of its intrusive government. Along with this comes the prominence of new theologies to replace religion and reinvent society which were all developed, designed and understood by a small group of people in the first place. They will almost universally profess the expansion of government and compromising of 'out-of-date freedoms and institutions' leading the control of the many by a massive, powerful, faceless, atheist machine of men. Without social protection and spiritualism, it's spearheaded by greed, materialism, and perpetuated with engineered public disunity by the planned-positioning of indoctrination in moral relativism and liquidation of history and historic ideals. Ever wonder why your teachers told you things that went against your very parents? ^ The ones that the school did not differ with their parents come from one of the families who invited it to begin with or were sheepishly overtaken by the dogmatic machinery of the system.

Horse puckey. You've made a bunch of unsupported statements, many of which don't even make sense (see bolded). Make a cogent statement, support it with logic and evidence, and stop this pandering to fear.

[Mare Tranquillity]

An atheist believes that there is no God despite the fact that the non-existence of God is logically impossible to demonstrate, all the while claiming that he is a rational being.

The religionists claims to believe in a God for which evidence exists to demonstrate the possibility full well knowing that his belief is based on faith in addition to rational thought.

It isn't the belief in the EXISTENCE of God that is the issue, it's the insane ego-trip that allows religious people to believe that they know what God wants AND that they have the right to reign abuse and violence on people who don't agree with them.

[DrWho]

It isn't the belief in the EXISTENCE of God that is the issue, it's the insane ego-trip that allows religious people to believe that they know what God wants AND that they have the right to reign abuse and violence on people who don't agree with them.

People of every stripe and group reign abuse and violence on people who don't agree with them. This is the nature of man. It is a goal of Christianity to reign in the natural tendency of man to abuse his fellow man.

The thread question was "is Christianity evil?" not "are Christians evil?" The answer to the first would be "no" Christianity is not evil, the answer to the second would be "yes" Christians are evil - as is everyone else.

But poll Christians and you will find that they admit to being less evil than they otherwise would be if they had never become Christians.