Religion of Forgiveness (Now with 25% More Hypocrisy)

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For every one atheist leader who has carried out atrocities I can give you 100 religious leaders.

Let’s cut to the chase and quit the masturbating. Bottom line you think you are better and smarter because you think atheism is right and the shit and you want everybody else to think the same.

And you know that you are superior to me because your God loves you whereas I am going to hell.

I don’t want everyone to think the same, I am just surprised that otherwise rational intelligent people cannot see how obvious the fallacies and falsehoods in religion are.

But again I say there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Feel free to dispute the facts of the article with facts. The fact that a very little known document at the time was referred to in a footnote is hardly a smoking gun. Second, it is this pope who officially signed in to church ‘law’ on the correct way of dealing with these acts of abuse trumping all previous documents.

Second, these “isolated incidents by a few people” managed to murder over 300 million and counting and enslave half the world with their oppressive regimes; more than half if you look at sheer land mass. Them are some pretty major “small isolated incidents”. This is a matter of historical fact.

You can list 100 religious leader to me mentioning 1 atheist tyrant? Fine, I go with Pol Pot…Now list 100 religious leaders who engaged in terrible acts on people, sexually or other wise.

OK I see your Saloth Sar (even though he went to a Roman Catholic School and was actually a Theravada Buddhist, not an atheist) and raise you 5,000 buggering priests (numbers admitted by the Roman Catholic Church.)

So give me another 49 Atheist atrocity mongers and I will respond again.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/653192/posts

http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

Here are some more links for ya…

I don’t know all their names, but the people who carried out these murders on behalf of their beloved leaders are indeed culpable.

The fact that atheists have carried out the greatest atrocities in history is well documented. I really don’t know how you can argue against it…It’s flat ludicrous to deny it…What did the holocaust not happen either? Hitler, ironically was not an atheist. And Pol Pot was to an atheist.
This is a matter of fact. If you are an atheist because you want to be on the side that has done less harm in the world then your on the wrong side.
Atheists are the winners by a long shot…You can try and play mind games but the facts are stubborn.

Your argument is so flawed it beggars belief.Seriously,there has been more than enough murder and atrocities to go around,but you always trot out this same old chestnut.You ascribe causality to events where you have absolutely no credible evidence of that causality,other than opinion.When a religious zealot or nation records “We are doing this for God”,you would have concrete proof of a particular motivation.But even those particular acts can also be ascribed to causation other than the religious angle,so I don’t see your point.You take the examples of frankly batshit crazy individuals and ascribe to them the motivation you feel supports your argument.But your premise is wrong from the get go.

It does seem that a religious background (Stalin wanted to be a priest, Pol Pot wanted to be a monk) coupled with Marxist Communism can be an explosive mixture. We obviously only have a sample of 2 here but there are interesting parallels.

I’d be more likely to draw the parallels that both were complete megalomaniacs with serious personality disorders.If they had been born a few hundred years earlier,they may have become like Attila or Ghengis Khan.I find the religious link tenuous at best.The single minded psychopathic pursuit of power and ruthless extermination of opponents,real or imagined, that the two embarked on stands outside their expressed political views.I think those were convenient vehicles they used at the time,and in another time they would have used whatever the going system was in order to satisfy their desires.[/quote]

I agree with you though I do find the parallels between the two figures and the ideologies fascinating and the way that they were able to get so much power slightly terrifying.

[Alpha_F]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
the worship of YHW [/quote]

YHWH

Yodh, He, Waw, He.

[Alpha_F]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Who cares if Christmas is on Dec. 25th, or July the 4th? Or, that we have wreaths, christmas trees [/quote]

“…for he is a God exacting exclusive devotion.”

Joshua 24:19

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
the worship of YHW

YHWH

Yodh, He, Waw, He.

[/quote]

I was using the spelling from the Elephantine Papyri as I feel the addition of the Vowel H at the end detracts from the meaning of God’s name.

[Alpha_F]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I was using the spelling from the Elephantine Papyri as I feel the addition of the Vowel H at the end detracts from the meaning of God’s name.[/quote]

I thought you didn’t believe in God.

[pat]

[quote]Dustin wrote:
…
Religion wasn’t used to justify it other than the purging of the religious because “religion poisons the mind”. These dudes had the same opinion of religion you do, but they took it a step further.

Religion has been used to justify rape, murder, and torture. European history is full of examples.

I don’t see how you could argue otherwise.

And my opinion of religion is not like “those dudes”. [/quote]

Sure it was. But money, property, and slaves were greater motivation. That is why the forefathers pulled religion out of politics. It made things ugly. Religion was used by people against people because it was a powerful tool to lord over people. You will find though, that the religious belief itself wasn’t the driving force behind the evil acts, but a tool used to control the unwashed and often uneducated masses. Religion as the driving force to commit evil is a rather new phenomenon.

[Sloth]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Who cares if Christmas is on Dec. 25th, or July the 4th? Or, that we have wreaths, christmas trees

“…for he is a God exacting exclusive devotion.”

Joshua 24:19

[/quote]

Not sure about your response. That is, I don’t know where you’re going with it.

[pat]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Who cares if Christmas is on Dec. 25th, or July the 4th? Or, that we have wreaths, christmas trees

“…for he is a God exacting exclusive devotion.”

Joshua 24:19

Not sure about your response. That is, I don’t know where you’re going with it.[/quote]

He didn’t go anywhere…

[Sloth]

[quote]pat wrote:
Dustin wrote:
…
Religion wasn’t used to justify it other than the purging of the religious because “religion poisons the mind”. These dudes had the same opinion of religion you do, but they took it a step further.

Religion has been used to justify rape, murder, and torture. European history is full of examples.

I don’t see how you could argue otherwise.

And my opinion of religion is not like “those dudes”.

Sure it was. But money, property, and slaves were greater motivation. That is why the forefathers pulled religion out of politics. It made things ugly. Religion was used by people against people because it was a powerful tool to lord over people. You will find though, that the religious belief itself wasn’t the driving force behind the evil acts, but a tool used to control the unwashed and often uneducated masses. Religion as the driving force to commit evil is a rather new phenomenon. [/quote]

When atheism is raked over the coals for evils done in it’s name, we hear all about how it was twisted and abused. Perverted by state power. Misused in it’s twisted form to bend others to the state’s true goals. Maybe something to do with borders, or economics, or for a simple obedience of value to the state. Could this have been the case with a religion? No! All religions are totalitarian! All the same! We turn to the new testament, where Christ has charged his apostles to raise up armies, and spread the “good news” at the point of the sword!

But forget all that. Cast your mind foward in time. Imagine. What will Atheitopia look like? How often do we hear ourselves described as, ‘sheeple,’ ‘brainwashed,’ and ‘child brainwashers (thus, abusers)?’ We stunt progress. We seem to be one election away from installing a christian state. We are child-like in our mentality. We are ‘irrational.’ We aren’t among the “brights.” No, we are the dim. Why should the dim, irrational, brainwashing brainwashed, sheeple, participate in shaping society? Why should their children be left in irrational homes to be brainwashed by the dim?

Just saying.

[Dustin]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
pat wrote:
Dustin wrote:
…
Religion wasn’t used to justify it other than the purging of the religious because “religion poisons the mind”. These dudes had the same opinion of religion you do, but they took it a step further.

Religion has been used to justify rape, murder, and torture. European history is full of examples.

I don’t see how you could argue otherwise.

And my opinion of religion is not like “those dudes”.

Sure it was. But money, property, and slaves were greater motivation. That is why the forefathers pulled religion out of politics. It made things ugly. Religion was used by people against people because it was a powerful tool to lord over people. You will find though, that the religious belief itself wasn’t the driving force behind the evil acts, but a tool used to control the unwashed and often uneducated masses. Religion as the driving force to commit evil is a rather new phenomenon.

When atheism is raked over the coals for evils done in it’s name, we hear all about how it was twisted and abused. Perverted by state power. Misused in it’s twisted form to bend others to the state’s true goals. Maybe something to do with borders, or economics, or for a simple obedience of value to the state. Could this have been the case with a religion? No! All religions are totalitarian! All the same! We turn to the new testament, where Christ has charged his apostles to raise up armies, and spread the “good news” at the point of the sword!

But forget all that. Cast your mind foward in time. Imagine. What will Atheitopia look like? How often do we hear ourselves described as, ‘sheeple,’ ‘brainwashed,’ and ‘child brainwashers (thus, abusers)?’ We stunt progress. We seem to be one election away from installing a christian state. We are child-like in our mentality. We are ‘irrational.’ We aren’t among the “brights.” No, we are the dim. Why should the dim, irrational, brainwashing brainwashed, sheeple, participate in shaping society? Why should their children be left in irrational homes to be brainwashed by the dim?

Just saying.

[/quote]

Don’t be so hard on yourself.

edit-grammar

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

I was using the spelling from the Elephantine Papyri as I feel the addition of the Vowel H at the end detracts from the meaning of God’s name.

I thought you didn’t believe in God.

[/quote]

Shhh I was just trying to cover for the fact I missed an H by implying it was deliberate.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]pat wrote:
Dustin wrote:
…
Religion wasn’t used to justify it other than the purging of the religious because “religion poisons the mind”. These dudes had the same opinion of religion you do, but they took it a step further.

Religion has been used to justify rape, murder, and torture. European history is full of examples.

I don’t see how you could argue otherwise.

And my opinion of religion is not like “those dudes”.

Sure it was. But money, property, and slaves were greater motivation. That is why the forefathers pulled religion out of politics. It made things ugly. Religion was used by people against people because it was a powerful tool to lord over people. You will find though, that the religious belief itself wasn’t the driving force behind the evil acts, but a tool used to control the unwashed and often uneducated masses. Religion as the driving force to commit evil is a rather new phenomenon. [/quote]

Interesting that you don’t make the logical connection that this is where relgion comes from in the first place.

When you look at the example of Stalin, he claimed atheism but basically ended up with a religion. It is far easier to tell people to do something because God wants it done and will be angry otherwise than it is to properly educate and explain things to a population.

[Alpha_F]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

I was using the spelling from the Elephantine Papyri as I feel the addition of the Vowel H at the end detracts from the meaning of God’s name.

I thought you didn’t believe in God.

Shhh I was just trying to cover for the fact I missed an H by implying it was deliberate.[/quote]

lol

I told you you are smart!
The things you get away with in Mexico, I can only imagine.

: D

[PonceDeLeon]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Oh, no! A voluntary and private association has been sundered! Rofl. Come on, maybe you don’t like it, and maybe you’ll do your best to cover up for Islam as much as you can here, but noone buys it. The creators of South Park lampoon Christ constantly, yet the riots seem to be absent. The brits didn’t want to let Wilders in their country for fear of Islam.

I’m not a Roman Catholic, but I have a hard time seeing this as analogous to honor killing and the other stuff in Islam.

C_B, was this the foil you had for our arguments on the other thread? [/quote]

You guys do understand that lot of that shit - honor killings, etc - existed in the Arab tribes BEFORE Islam spread and were simply preserved through religious literature?

Those things are NOT what most Muslims today even believe in, regardless of the sound bites that Western media feeds you.

[Alpha_F]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Who cares if Christmas is on Dec. 25th, or July the 4th? Or, that we have wreaths, christmas trees

“…for he is a God exacting exclusive devotion.”

Joshua 24:19

Not sure about your response.[/quote]

If I was your wife and I travelled a lot around the world and every time I came home I brought me me the scent, a shirt, a sock, a wallet from a different man of where I had just been and told you it was totally innocent and they gave it to me, and in truth there had been no sexual intercourse.

How would you feel?
Would you still think my commitment to you was exclusive?
Did I leave any room for doubt, lest onlookers questioned our union?

If you were my husband and you came home wearing so much as other rings on you fingers rather than our wedding ring, bands that were given you by other women, totally innocent, as a gift. Just playing with the boundaries a little bit…

I would reject you as my fiancee completely.

Should Christianity, as the Bride of Christ, go around flirting with the god symbols of other Nations whilst claiming a symbolic relationship with the God of the Bible?

That is, I don’t know where you’re going with it.

I am going with respect for someone you claim to be exclusively intimate with.

I personally feel very very strongly about this - it is in my bones.
So I understand God, innocence, purity and exclusivity do go hand in hand with intimacy.

I will go as far as saying as a lot of the lost innocence in the sexual act has nothing to do with losing one’s virginity. People of course have sex a plenty but the string of guilt is present to different degrees ( Hence categories of sexual behaviour such as kinky, bring out the slut in me, naughty - instead of just enjoying sex as is, without having to judge it ) but losing touch with these aspects of our nature has to do with losing sight of the value on exclusive devotion when it comes to intimacy.

Not a lot of people really know what that means simply due to an ingrained feeling of worthlessness.

If Christianity, as a Nation, as a people does not feel entirely worthy being in an intimate relationship with God, standing naked without guilt, i.e., totally innocent, she is bound to seek merging with other Nations in search of acceptance through a quest of unconditional love. Hence, under this banner of “unconditional love” and in the name of “love” ( “I am only doing what is best for you” ) many ills have been committed.

Love is indeed unconditional but such absence of boundaries is exclusive to the one you have chosen to be intimate with - it does not mean you seek intimacy and merge with everybody else.
This crosses a line and it is a violation of what is Holy.
The arrangement was Holy.

To stand in the presence of God one must be totally innocent.
That requires absolution.

The problem with absolution is self deception:
Claiming innocence and behaving innocently will depend on how prideful and self deceptive we are.
When we abide in self deception we are highly motivated to vindicate our claims about our selves and continuously defend how totally innocent our actions are.

[pat]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Dustin wrote:
…
Religion wasn’t used to justify it other than the purging of the religious because “religion poisons the mind”. These dudes had the same opinion of religion you do, but they took it a step further.

Religion has been used to justify rape, murder, and torture. European history is full of examples.

I don’t see how you could argue otherwise.

And my opinion of religion is not like “those dudes”.

Sure it was. But money, property, and slaves were greater motivation. That is why the forefathers pulled religion out of politics. It made things ugly. Religion was used by people against people because it was a powerful tool to lord over people. You will find though, that the religious belief itself wasn’t the driving force behind the evil acts, but a tool used to control the unwashed and often uneducated masses. Religion as the driving force to commit evil is a rather new phenomenon.

Interesting that you don’t make the logical connection that this is where relgion comes from in the first place.

When you look at the example of Stalin, he claimed atheism but basically ended up with a religion. It is far easier to tell people to do something because God wants it done and will be angry otherwise than it is to properly educate and explain things to a population.[/quote]

I thought you said atheism isn’t a religion? How then could a self avowed atheist who was hell bent on destroying religion and the religious simultaneously claim religion? Stalin did not do this. He did not believe in God and killed with impunity those who did…You really reaching.

My explanation was that religion was used as a method to commit many of the grievous acts in history rather than religion being the motivator for such acts. Especially when in many cases the acts are strictly forbidden in the religion.
For instance, a lot of you atheists like to bring up the Spanish inquisition. But the Spanish had just come out of long conflict with the Moors. The inquisition was their policy to purge Spain of the rest, a comply or die attitude. Pope Sixtus was very much against it, but he could not do anything about it as the Spanish had an army and the church did not.

You can be an atheist all you want, I don’t really care, but don’t come saying your smarter, better, can squat more, or are morally superior in any way because of it, 'cause you ain’t. Taking snap shots of bad things doesn’t prove your point, I can counter argue forever and quite frankly, I have more ammo.

[pat]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
pat wrote:
Dustin wrote:
…
Religion wasn’t used to justify it other than the purging of the religious because “religion poisons the mind”. These dudes had the same opinion of religion you do, but they took it a step further.

Religion has been used to justify rape, murder, and torture. European history is full of examples.

I don’t see how you could argue otherwise.

And my opinion of religion is not like “those dudes”.

Sure it was. But money, property, and slaves were greater motivation. That is why the forefathers pulled religion out of politics. It made things ugly. Religion was used by people against people because it was a powerful tool to lord over people. You will find though, that the religious belief itself wasn’t the driving force behind the evil acts, but a tool used to control the unwashed and often uneducated masses. Religion as the driving force to commit evil is a rather new phenomenon.

When atheism is raked over the coals for evils done in it’s name, we hear all about how it was twisted and abused. Perverted by state power. Misused in it’s twisted form to bend others to the state’s true goals. Maybe something to do with borders, or economics, or for a simple obedience of value to the state. Could this have been the case with a religion? No! All religions are totalitarian! All the same! We turn to the new testament, where Christ has charged his apostles to raise up armies, and spread the “good news” at the point of the sword!

But forget all that. Cast your mind foward in time. Imagine. What will Atheitopia look like? How often do we hear ourselves described as, ‘sheeple,’ ‘brainwashed,’ and ‘child brainwashers (thus, abusers)?’ We stunt progress. We seem to be one election away from installing a christian state. We are child-like in our mentality. We are ‘irrational.’ We aren’t among the “brights.” No, we are the dim. Why should the dim, irrational, brainwashing brainwashed, sheeple, participate in shaping society? Why should their children be left in irrational homes to be brainwashed by the dim?

Just saying.

[/quote]

Yeah I like the implication that atheists behaving badly was just an anomaly, but all Christians are all blood thirsty pedophiles, who fuck little boys and murder their parents, because out of 2.1 billion people in the world, a few have done bad things. Makes sense don’t it? We must think it’s ok to do bad because others who believe like us have done bad, but those tyrannical murders who held more than half the world hostage for most of the 20th century were simply just a couple of bad guys. They had no help, it was only them and their magic wands.

[Sloth]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Should Christianity, as the Bride of Christ, go around flirting with the god symbols of other Nations whilst claiming a symbolic relationship with the God of the Bible?
[/quote]

Sure. I don’t believe in the other gods.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Oh, no! A voluntary and private association has been sundered! Rofl. Come on, maybe you don’t like it, and maybe you’ll do your best to cover up for Islam as much as you can here, but noone buys it. The creators of South Park lampoon Christ constantly, yet the riots seem to be absent. The brits didn’t want to let Wilders in their country for fear of Islam.

I’m not a Roman Catholic, but I have a hard time seeing this as analogous to honor killing and the other stuff in Islam.

C_B, was this the foil you had for our arguments on the other thread?

You guys do understand that lot of that shit - honor killings, etc - existed in the Arab tribes BEFORE Islam spread and were simply preserved through religious literature?

Those things are NOT what most Muslims today even believe in, regardless of the sound bites that Western media feeds you.[/quote]

The stuff that the ARabs did (at least Muhammad’s tribe) was codified into Islam, but made worse. Islam is the religion of Arab supremacism.

Muslims today do believe in honor killing. Read my thread “Update on the Atlanta Honor KIlling” where I discuss Islamic texts on the matter.

Some Muslims choose not to engage in such practices despite the texts. But the minority that do engage in such practices hear no condemnation from the majority that don’t.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
pat wrote:
Dustin wrote:
…
Religion wasn’t used to justify it other than the purging of the religious because “religion poisons the mind”. These dudes had the same opinion of religion you do, but they took it a step further.

Religion has been used to justify rape, murder, and torture. European history is full of examples.

I don’t see how you could argue otherwise.

And my opinion of religion is not like “those dudes”.

Sure it was. But money, property, and slaves were greater motivation. That is why the forefathers pulled religion out of politics. It made things ugly. Religion was used by people against people because it was a powerful tool to lord over people. You will find though, that the religious belief itself wasn’t the driving force behind the evil acts, but a tool used to control the unwashed and often uneducated masses. Religion as the driving force to commit evil is a rather new phenomenon.

When atheism is raked over the coals for evils done in it’s name, we hear all about how it was twisted and abused. Perverted by state power. Misused in it’s twisted form to bend others to the state’s true goals. Maybe something to do with borders, or economics, or for a simple obedience of value to the state. Could this have been the case with a religion? No! All religions are totalitarian! All the same! We turn to the new testament, where Christ has charged his apostles to raise up armies, and spread the “good news” at the point of the sword!

But forget all that. Cast your mind foward in time. Imagine. What will Atheitopia look like? How often do we hear ourselves described as, ‘sheeple,’ ‘brainwashed,’ and ‘child brainwashers (thus, abusers)?’ We stunt progress. We seem to be one election away from installing a christian state. We are child-like in our mentality. We are ‘irrational.’ We aren’t among the “brights.” No, we are the dim. Why should the dim, irrational, brainwashing brainwashed, sheeple, participate in shaping society? Why should their children be left in irrational homes to be brainwashed by the dim?

Just saying.

[/quote]

Agreed. Every society that’s had atheism as the dominant religion has had the same characteristics. Instead of God, pictures of Dear Leader are put up for everyone to worship. Government genocide becomes widespread. 5 Year Plans and Great Leaps Forward are enacted. Gulags are established.

Even Nazism had its roots in the atheism of the thinkers of its time and the previous 100 years.

If you are an atheist, you have to be a scientific naturalist. If you are a scientific naturalist, you have to believe morality evolved with man. Something that “changes over time,” like an evolving morality, is no standard at all. “Yesterday I did things this way, but today I think doing things differently might help me survive better.” If I kill this guy over here and take his stuff, my offspring and genome are more likely to survive.