Misconceptions of Christianity 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Why not? Because we don’t talk about it? [/quote]

Don’t even try to imply it…

[/quote]

No seriously, I would say I have done far less evil in my life than Mother Teresa. I am no saint, I have done plenty of things wrong but I have not systematically caused the suffering of thousands of people (unless you count the people that work for me)[/quote]

Yeah, I guess they misaddressed your Nobel peace prize and Bharat Ratna to Mother Teresa.

I can’t even take you seriously. Have at it

82

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
(Theresa) was an evil woman >>>[/quote]
And it’s means exactly what if she was?

83

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
(Theresa) was an evil woman >>>[/quote]
And it’s means exactly what if she was?[/quote]

LOL. 'zactly.

84

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
OK so recap.

Atheism is not a religion or a belief system. To be a belief system it would have to be the beleif in something. It is not. It is the lack of belief in a god. You can be an atheist and a communist. Communism would be your belief system. The atheism just denotes that you don’t believe in a god. You can also be an atheist Capitalist.

Of course you can be a Catholic Communist (at certain points of his life Stalin was this, he was also clearly nuts) you can also be a Christian Socialist (Hitler, though his beliefs seem to have changed throughout his life, he clearly states in many documented conversations and writings that he believes in God.)

The one common theme for Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin is that they were all raised and educated within a religion. Could they have turned out differently were they raised to think more critically? Of course I don’t know, it would be purely speculation but it makes as much sense to blame their later killing sprees on their religious education as it does to blame it on their atheism.

@Brother Chris - Sorry, got my consonants mixed up. YHW. By the way, the whole G-D thing, do you think he really cares?

@anyone who thinks Mother Teresa was a really good woman. Read the book I linked in the other post then get back to me.[/quote]

Atheism is a belief system . . . you have merely chosen (1-between believing in God’s existence, 2-not-believing in God’s existence, or 3-not believing either of the previous options) to believe that a state of being without a firm opinion of God’s existence or non-existence is the right option for you . . .

Adding all of your belief systems together constitutes your world view. So a communist, who is also an aethesit as well as a hedonist is not defined by one aspect of his world view, but by all of them in aggregate. [/quote]

Wrong, whilst you can build a belief system starting with atheism, atheism in and of itself is not a belief system it is just the state of being outside of a group of belief systems that have a god.[/quote]

LOL - wrong again . . . you believe something . . . that constitutes a belief system . . . like it or not, you have professed a belief that God’s existence is neither required nor impossible - it could be one or the other, but you believe it does not affect your life and that you are free to continue your existence with no further thought required on the matter . . . thus you have a belief system in relation to the existence/non-existence of God . . .

85

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Why not? Because we don’t talk about it? [/quote]

Don’t even try to imply it…

[/quote]

No seriously, I would say I have done far less evil in my life than Mother Teresa. I am no saint, I have done plenty of things wrong but I have not systematically caused the suffering of thousands of people (unless you count the people that work for me)[/quote]

Yeah, I guess they misaddressed your Nobel peace prize and Bharat Ratna to Mother Teresa.

I can’t even take you seriously. Have at it
[/quote]

Of course, because the Nobel Peace Prize only ever goes to the most deserving of cases. Seriously, let me have the Catholic Churches PR machine on my side and I am sure you could at least get me a nomination.

86

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
(Theresa) was an evil woman >>>[/quote]
And it’s means exactly what if she was?[/quote]

That a lot of people have been mislead by the Catholic Church. But that is not really a big surprise.

87

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
OK so recap.

Atheism is not a religion or a belief system. To be a belief system it would have to be the beleif in something. It is not. It is the lack of belief in a god. You can be an atheist and a communist. Communism would be your belief system. The atheism just denotes that you don’t believe in a god. You can also be an atheist Capitalist.

Of course you can be a Catholic Communist (at certain points of his life Stalin was this, he was also clearly nuts) you can also be a Christian Socialist (Hitler, though his beliefs seem to have changed throughout his life, he clearly states in many documented conversations and writings that he believes in God.)

The one common theme for Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin is that they were all raised and educated within a religion. Could they have turned out differently were they raised to think more critically? Of course I don’t know, it would be purely speculation but it makes as much sense to blame their later killing sprees on their religious education as it does to blame it on their atheism.

@Brother Chris - Sorry, got my consonants mixed up. YHW. By the way, the whole G-D thing, do you think he really cares?

@anyone who thinks Mother Teresa was a really good woman. Read the book I linked in the other post then get back to me.[/quote]

Atheism is a belief system . . . you have merely chosen (1-between believing in God’s existence, 2-not-believing in God’s existence, or 3-not believing either of the previous options) to believe that a state of being without a firm opinion of God’s existence or non-existence is the right option for you . . .

Adding all of your belief systems together constitutes your world view. So a communist, who is also an aethesit as well as a hedonist is not defined by one aspect of his world view, but by all of them in aggregate. [/quote]

Wrong, whilst you can build a belief system starting with atheism, atheism in and of itself is not a belief system it is just the state of being outside of a group of belief systems that have a god.[/quote]

LOL - wrong again . . . you believe something . . . that constitutes a belief system . . . like it or not, you have professed a belief that God’s existence is neither required nor impossible - it could be one or the other, but you believe it does not affect your life and that you are free to continue your existence with no further thought required on the matter . . . thus you have a belief system in relation to the existence/non-existence of God . . .[/quote]

You seem confused by the difference between a belief and a system of beliefs.

88

Stated,

“…As yet, I have not seen evidence or arguments that has convinced me without a doubt that there is a God…”

The Bible does not seek to prove that God exists. Rather, it assumes His existence, “…he is…” (Rom. 11:6). May I contribute to what Tiribulus brought out concerning the above statement using Romans 1:18-23.

Tiribulus wrote:

"Well, here’s Romans 1:18-23 again:

18-For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19-because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20-For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21-For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22-Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23-and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.Here Paul says in essence that He has revealed Himself “within them” (His remaining though corrupt image) and “to them” (through the rest of creation) so that they are without excuse (no valid claim of the non existence of Himself). They swap places with God (in their own minds) in this case worshipping themselves (corruptible man).

This passage begins with the apostle declaring right up front that fallen man actively suppresses this truth in their own unrighteousness. Every utterance in denial of this serves only to further demonstrate it’s truth. Hence, a man deceives himself and attempts to deceive me when he declares that he is an “atheist”.(no god) Or God, who says through Paul that everybody “clearly sees” His “invisible attributes”, “eternal power” and “divine nature” is Himself a liar which is impossible."

The term “that which may be known of God” is not that which is knowable, but that knowledge of God as the creator. Men see the attributes of God in His creation; they see His person only in His Son, the lord Jesus christ.

The witness of God is unmistakable (v. 19) and universal (v.20). It is one of the most astounding facts of all scripture that to all human beings of all time God has given a revelation of himself. As any person walks in the light he has, he will always be given more light from God. The Psalmist understood this truth when he wrote that the heavens and the firmament “declare the glory of God;…Day unto day… and night unto night” they give knowledge of God; “There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard” (Psalm 19:1-4). All created beings are accountable to their Creator for what has been “clearly seen.” This witness from nature brings knowledge of the truth of His eternal power and the truth of Godhood (Gk. theiotes). “Eternal power” emphasizes His deity-His being separate from and above His creation. The greatness and detail of God’s creation shows man His omnipotence and omniscience. Natural revelation shows that God exist and can be clearly seen by all humankind. The expression “without excuse” (Gk. anapologetus) means that men are defenseless on judgment day.

Jesus Christ is “…the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (John 1:9). Christ illumines every person who hears His gospel (which is heralded often in this forum) by imparting a measure of grace and understanding in order that the person may freely choose to accept or reject that message, “…God is…” Apart from this light of Christ, there is no other light by which we may see the truth and be saved.

God’s true revelation of Himself is in Jesus Christ (cf. John 1:18; Heb. 1:1-4). In other words, if we want to understand completely that “…without a doubt there is a God…” we must look at Christ, for Jesus stated, “…he that hath seen me hath seen the Father…” (John 14:9). God the Father has no separate manifestation from His Son Jesus. Jesus is the only manifestation and revelation of God. What is known of God the Father is revealed through Jesus, His Son. To see Jesus is to see the essence of God (John 1:1,18; 10:30; 12:45; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3).

89

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

You seem confused by the difference between a belief and a system of beliefs.[/quote]

Cockney is right that not every belief creates a belief system. How many of you have plans for this weekend? If you do, then you did so based on the belief that you won’t die between now and the time when your activity starts. You believe this simply because you don’t know with 100% certainty that you will be alive tomorrow. However, this belief is reasonable because it is based on some evidence. Most of us here are relatively young, in good health, live in safe neighborhoods, and I haven’t seen any reports suggesting that a natural disaster will hit a major part of North America or South America (for our friend Chris in Argentina). Now, how many of you have plans for the third weekend of July in the year 2020? If not, why not? Because that time period is too far out and there is just too much uncertainty. Planning events that far into the future would be based on a belief “system” that very little will change between today and 2020.

When atheists/agnostics say that humans can act morally without belief in a God we do so based on some evidence. I act morally, and I know several other non-religious people who also act morally. So there is some evidence to support the “belief” that humans can be good and society can function without religion or a God. To say that society will decay into immorality ignores evidence to the contrary or rejects that evidence as being somehow unreliable. Systematically rejecting evidence that is contrary to your position based on a certain belief has transformed that belief into a belief “system.”

I know what some of you will say: “But what about the existence of the universe and life? Aren’t you rejecting that as evidence of a God?” First, it’s pretty hard to reject evidence of the universe. Second, I have conceded that science has a difficult time explaining everything in the universe or what existed before the Big Bang - there are things we simply don’t know. I have also conceded that this evidence suggests the possibility that there may be a Deistic being that started the universe. However, the relevant question is whether the existence of the universe conclusively proves without any possible doubt the existence of God? I say it does not.

BTW - I know several of you have responded to some of my posts - I haven’t gotten around to everyone yet.

90

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Again you are falling into the trap of accusing Hitchens of not being as good as the picture the Church and the woman herself paints of Mother Teresa and therefore discounting what he wrote (which I doubt you have actually read).[/quote]

So wait, wait, wait. We’re supposed to take you and Hitchens seriously because she was, let’s say, 5 thousands times more the physically-on-the-spot-humanitarian than you or Hitchens. As opposed to 6 thousand times physically-on-the-spot-humanitarian than you or Hitchens deem she should’ve been. So not only are you and Hitchens detached from any obligation to charity, therefore immune to criticism about your own degree of charity, you can turn right around and play arm chair quarterback about how much or how she engaged the poor and the dying.

This is atheism.

[/quote]

You haven’t read the book, your reaction is based on emotion. Nobody cares.

91

[quote]Makavali wrote:
<<< You haven’t read the book, your reaction is based on emotion. Nobody cares.[/quote]
Are you sure you’re not plagiarizing somebody with these profound goose bump inducing posts of yours?

92

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
<<< You haven’t read the book, your reaction is based on emotion. Nobody cares.[/quote]
Are you sure you’re not plagiarizing somebody with these profound goose bump inducing posts of yours?[/quote]

Lol.

93

[quote]blacksheep wrote:
Stated,

“…As yet, I have not seen evidence or arguments that has convinced me without a doubt that there is a God…”

The Bible does not seek to prove that God exists. Rather, it assumes His existence, “…he is…” (Rom. 11:6). May I contribute to what Tiribulus brought out concerning the above statement using Romans 1:18-23.

<<<>>>

The term “that which may be known of God” is not that which is knowable, but that knowledge of God as the creator. Men see the attributes of God in His creation; they see His person only in His Son, the lord Jesus christ.

The witness of God is unmistakable (v. 19) and universal (v.20). It is one of the most astounding facts of all scripture that to all human beings of all time God has given a revelation of himself. As any person walks in the light he has, he will always be given more light from God. The Psalmist understood this truth when he wrote that the heavens and the firmament “declare the glory of God;…Day unto day… and night unto night” they give knowledge of God; “There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard” (Psalm 19:1-4). All created beings are accountable to their Creator for what has been “clearly seen.” This witness from nature brings knowledge of the truth of His eternal power and the truth of Godhood (Gk. theiotes). “Eternal power” emphasizes His deity-His being separate from and above His creation. The greatness and detail of God’s creation shows man His omnipotence and omniscience. Natural revelation shows that God exist and can be clearly seen by all humankind. The expression “without excuse” (Gk. anapologetus) means that men are defenseless on judgment day.

Jesus Christ is “…the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (John 1:9). Christ illumines every person who hears His gospel (which is heralded often in this forum) by imparting a measure of grace and understanding in order that the person may freely choose to accept or reject that message, “…God is…” Apart from this light of Christ, there is no other light by which we may see the truth and be saved.

God’s true revelation of Himself is in Jesus Christ (cf. John 1:18; Heb. 1:1-4). In other words, if we want to understand completely that “…without a doubt there is a God…” we must look at Christ, for Jesus stated, “…he that hath seen me hath seen the Father…” (John 14:9). God the Father has no separate manifestation from His Son Jesus. Jesus is the only manifestation and revelation of God. What is known of God the Father is revealed through Jesus, His Son. To see Jesus is to see the essence of God (John 1:1,18; 10:30; 12:45; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). [/quote]
Very good indeed. Here we have the Christocentric nature of God’s special revelation in and through Christ Jesus who is the living Word of God. The fullness of God’s communication man-ward.

94

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
(Theresa) was an evil woman >>>[/quote]
And it’s means exactly what if she was?[/quote]

Obviously if she was evil, all of Christendom is wrong. Yep, because Cockney Blue says she was evil, our plan has been foiled. Time to close up shop. Let’s go home boys, nice try.

95

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Again you are falling into the trap of accusing Hitchens of not being as good as the picture the Church and the woman herself paints of Mother Teresa and therefore discounting what he wrote (which I doubt you have actually read).[/quote]

So wait, wait, wait. We’re supposed to take you and Hitchens seriously because she was, let’s say, 5 thousands times more the physically-on-the-spot-humanitarian than you or Hitchens. As opposed to 6 thousand times physically-on-the-spot-humanitarian than you or Hitchens deem she should’ve been. So not only are you and Hitchens detached from any obligation to charity, therefore immune to criticism about your own degree of charity, you can turn right around and play arm chair quarterback about how much or how she engaged the poor and the dying.

This is atheism.

[/quote]

You haven’t read the book, your reaction is based on emotion. Nobody cares.[/quote]

You haven’t seen sloth not read the book, your reaction is based on emotion. Nobody cares.

96

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
(Theresa) was an evil woman >>>[/quote]
And it’s means exactly what if she was?[/quote]

Obviously if she was evil, all of Christendom is wrong. Yep, because Cockney Blue says she was evil, our plan has been foiled. Time to close up shop. Let’s go home boys, nice try.[/quote]

No, not at all. Her being evil says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of Christendom. It does speak volumes about how easily they jump on false prophets though…

98

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
No she was an evil woman who needlessly prolonged and worsened the suffering of others instead of trying to help them.[/quote]

Wait a sec here.

Again, I’m not much of a believer either, but “she was an evil woman?”

Not, “she was misguided,” or “she made lots of mistakes,” but “she was evil?”

That’s quite the claim, and, frankly, it would (and IMO, should) take more than one book written by a guy with an agenda to convince an objective person that someone with her reputation was out-and-out “evil.”

It’s kind of hard to believe that you’re not “convinced” of this fact primarly because it fits with your own agenda.

Although I guess it IS possible that the whole damned world has been duped into believing that her “evil” actions were actually primarily altruistic…

Nah, don’t think so.[/quote]

I guess it depends on your definition of evil. To me someone that claims to be doing good whilst deliberately prolonging suffering fits my definition of evil.

Of course my reaction to her is tinged by how wrong the common perception is but that not withstanding, having it in your power to alleviate suffering but deliberately prolonging it is in my mind evil.

Hitchens is not the only person to have criticized her. She has been even been cited in medical journals for the horrific standards she kept in her hospices.

99

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
No she was an evil woman who needlessly prolonged and worsened the suffering of others instead of trying to help them.[/quote]

Wait a sec here.

Again, I’m not much of a believer either, but “she was an evil woman?”

Not, “she was misguided,” or “she made lots of mistakes,” but “she was evil?”

That’s quite the claim, and, frankly, it would (and IMO, should) take more than one book written by a guy with an agenda to convince an objective person that someone with her reputation was out-and-out “evil.”

It’s kind of hard to believe that you’re not “convinced” of this fact primarly because it fits with your own agenda.

Although I guess it IS possible that the whole damned world has been duped into believing that her “evil” actions were actually primarily altruistic…

Nah, don’t think so.[/quote]

I guess it depends on your definition of evil. To me someone that claims to be doing good whilst deliberately prolonging suffering fits my definition of evil.[/quote]

Oh you mean, not letting people kill themselves, or assisting in suicide? How did she prolong suffering?

[quote]
Of course my reaction to her is tinged by how wrong the common perception is but that not withstanding, having it in your power to alleviate suffering but deliberately prolonging it is in my mind evil.

Hitchens is not the only person to have criticized her. She has been even been cited in medical journals for the horrific standards she kept in her hospices.[/quote]

I’m sure he is not the only person who has an axe to grind, those people alone probably are enough to make it seem like truth.

Yes, I am sure a charity hospices are going to be up to standard compared to others. Just like I expect the room in a homeless shelter to be as elegant as the room in my mansion.

100

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
No she was an evil woman who needlessly prolonged and worsened the suffering of others instead of trying to help them.[/quote]

Wait a sec here.

Again, I’m not much of a believer either, but “she was an evil woman?”

Not, “she was misguided,” or “she made lots of mistakes,” but “she was evil?”

That’s quite the claim, and, frankly, it would (and IMO, should) take more than one book written by a guy with an agenda to convince an objective person that someone with her reputation was out-and-out “evil.”

It’s kind of hard to believe that you’re not “convinced” of this fact primarly because it fits with your own agenda.

Although I guess it IS possible that the whole damned world has been duped into believing that her “evil” actions were actually primarily altruistic…

Nah, don’t think so.[/quote]

I guess it depends on your definition of evil. To me someone that claims to be doing good whilst deliberately prolonging suffering fits my definition of evil.[/quote]

Oh you mean, not letting people kill themselves, or assisting in suicide? How did she prolong suffering?

[quote]
Of course my reaction to her is tinged by how wrong the common perception is but that not withstanding, having it in your power to alleviate suffering but deliberately prolonging it is in my mind evil.

Hitchens is not the only person to have criticized her. She has been even been cited in medical journals for the horrific standards she kept in her hospices.[/quote]

I’m sure he is not the only person who has an axe to grind, those people alone probably are enough to make it seem like truth.

Yes, I am sure a charity hospices are going to be up to standard compared to others. Just like I expect the room in a homeless shelter to be as elegant as the room in my mansion.[/quote]

She denied them medicine and mixed incurable people with people who would have got better were it not for the infections they got from the dying causing them to die. She had totally incompetent people caring for the patients and she used the millions of dollars that she raised to publicise herself and poselytise instead of using it to help the sick and dying.