The Christian Agenda Continues

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

Theocratic Israel was God’s earthly forerunner and illustration of the kingdom of His Christ which is not of this world (big topic). This was the promise made to Abraham all the way back in Genesis chapter 12. The law of Moses is still in effect for the lawless, but not for those made righteous in Christ. (1 Timothy 1:9). That would be anybody not consciously and deliberately trusting the blood of Christ as their payment for sin before the Father. A “no smoking” sign has no use for a non smoker. Just doesn’t apply. The whole law was flawlessly obeyed by Jesus Christ and yet He bore the penalty as if He hadn’t. Not for Himself. He had no sin. But for me who has plenty. He defeated my death in His resurrection.

The apostle Paul emphatically tells us that a Jew is not one who has been circumcised in his flesh, meaning born into the nation of Israel, but a true Jew is one who has been circumcised in his heart by faith in Jesus Christ and the new life given in Him. (Romans 2:28-29) Christ fulfilled the entire Old Testament economy in His virgin birth, sinless life, voluntary sacrifice as the spotless Lamb of God and resurrection from the dead in victory over sin and death. Sin and death which the LAW was instituted as a teacher to make fully known. Lotsa rules, lotsa broken ones. The law was to show us that we could never EVER be good enough for God by our own effort a children of fallen Adam. Jesus, being God Himself, kept them all. Out of love He gives me the benefit. For the asking.

NOTHING has changed in the character and holiness of God. Other religions are just as abhorrent and idolatrous as ever. God now graciously affords much more opportunity for us to forsake them and be counted among His family of faith. Let’s put it this way. At the judgement seat ALLL the horrific dealings of God with pagans AND ESPECIALLY His own rebellious covenant people Israel will seem like a smack on the hand by comparison. I say again. NOTHING has changed except the earthly administration of His rule, which was NEVER the point at all, has been fulfilled in His Son. The Father now bears patiently with the corruption of men storing up His wrath for that day when He also finally reveals the glory of His redeemed elect people in Christ. Jews and gentiles. Read Romans 9:22 to the end of the chapter.

I don’t have time to get into it now, but capital punishment is a New Testament principle and one enforced by Paul when the unholy Roman empire was in power. As usual the Westminster Divines were petty much right. Read chapter XXIII. Of the civil magistrate. 301 redirect

282

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Correct.

Do you think that the priests/church leaders were just benign followers of christ? LOL…or that they were also influential leaders with their hands in the politics of the day? Now, knowing that they were politically active, and wielded influence among the people, why would a power hungry statist, demanding total allegiance to none other than the state, want to get rid of such people and their institutions? Hmmmm, think…
[/quote]

hmmm, yeah they killed the other 61,000,000 just in case. And on top of that it didn’t work.
[/quote]

Sorry if these little historical points of fact interrupt your religiously biased world view. It seems to bother you that this whole thing is much more complex than:

1)Stalin was an atheist
2)Stalin killed a bunch of religious folks
3)Atheism kills

The above illustrates your shit stupid, child like line if reasoning. Keep thinking, even if it hurts, and maybe you’ll get there. Or maybe you won’t.

If thinking is too much for you, I suggest you throw off the yoke of free thought and independent reasoning, and just go read whatever version of the bible suits you.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Fact: Atheists have murdered more people than any other demographic in the history of the world.[/quote]

LOL…not a “fact” at all. You and all your christian friends love throwing this unsupported claim around, yet it still remains untrue. How “atheist” these atheists you like to claim were, BTW, is still up for debate. But even so, just because they were atheists, does not automatically follow that they did what they did in the NAME of atheism.

Hitler and Stalin also had mustaches; did they kill in the name of mustache?[/quote]

Ok, then you can stop this stupidity right here then. You can either apply the same rules to yourself or you can let go of this retarded line of thinking all together. Either atheists who did bad things are as representative of the atheist mindset and Christians who did bad things are representative who did bad things are representative of the Christian mindset, or you can let go of the entire stupidity all together. What people did in the past is not representative of what the truth is, but you cannot use the past to indict religious people, but then turn around and be shielded from the past of non-believers. It doesn’t work that way, hoss. If that past is indicative of the truth and value of a belief system then it works both ways, or don’t bring it up. If Christians burned people at the stake, started wars, killed people then Atheists tortured and killed millions with impunity. If Christians did that because they were Christian then atheists did what they did because they were atheists. Or it’s just a bunch of nonsense since I don’t have anymore control of the past than you do. But if you want to persist, then athiests are 10 times the murderers that religious people ever were.[/quote]

LOL…“but you cannot use the past to indict religious people, but then turn around and be shielded from the past of non-believers.”

I sure as hell can, especially when the religious did what they did in the name of their particular god/religion did you catch that, pat? They literally committed their atrocities on the name of their god and religion. For that, they are absolutely indicted, and rightfully so. What’s very sad, is this “YOU TOO!” argument that you and the other christian apologists employ.

And you still have to show me where atheism was the driving force behind what Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot did. Get to it.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Scandinavia? Who the fuck is talking about Scandinavia? You’re reaching, badly. This is known as a Red Herring.[/quote]

Not reaching at all. This is relevant to the conversation because you’re claiming that atheism is what drove the evil that was done by those regimes. I’ve shown you nations that are majority atheist, and are doing very well; better than the majority christian US in many categories. These nations are some of the most peaceful on this planet, but how can that be? they’re so, ATHEIST!? [/quote]

Still not relevant. And still a red herring. You are arguing against a point nobody made. You are apparently trying to divert the conversation in some other direction. I made no claim at all, I am merely pointing out the absurdity of your claim. It’s still a reach stretch…
Scandinavia…LOL Whatever. [/quote]

Not at all; LOL…your reaction to this is quite entertaining. I’ve shown you where atheism is the majority; where leaders of nations are majority atheist, and are the most peaceful of nations. How is this the case, if your contention that atheism, and atheism led countries lead to atrocities? Shouldn’t they be on some atheist death march or something?

Like it or not, those periods in history where religious thought, religious leadership, and religious ideals were allowed to run amok, atrocity followed.

One could make an argument, as Hitchens had, that states like North Korea and those similar, are some of the MOST religious states.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Not revisionist history at all, but methinks you know that. And you’re still failing to point me in the direction of a regime, JUST ONE, that did what they did in the name of “no god”. Just ONE that said “there is no god, therefore do this”. Just ONE that had as their driving force, the position of “there is no god”.

So stop fucking around, Pat, and get to it. Prove me wrong and show me this regime. Take all the time you need. [/quote]

I never said they anybody did anything in the name of ‘no-god’ and Christians who do evil in the name of God are blaspheming. In layman’s terms that means that they are doing a very bad thing not only by doing evil, but attributing it to God. So they are not acting in accordance with their faith but against it.
Now killing people because they are religious and persecuting people because they are religious is killing based on religion. Just because they persecuted people for being religious is the same as persecuting people based on religion. You trying to claim that didn’t happen, in staggering numbers?[/quote]

I’m claiming the historical accuracy of religious atrocities, committed quite literally, and quite often, in the name of religion/god/faith. This is a truism that you cannot run away from no matter how hard you try and drown it in a fallacious “you too” argument.

The fact remains, that the regimes and the atrocities you like to mention in your shitty arguments, did not do what they did in the name of atheism. Claiming that these were “atheist atrocities” is laughable at best. You’re gonna have to do better, my christian apologist friend.

Now, if you can’t point me in the direction of at least ONE regime that did what they did on the name of atheism, then this discussion is at a dead end. I have issued you the challenge of proving me wrong on this, here’s your chance big boy. Prove me wrong. Get to it.

283

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]lucasa wrote:

…scientific truths are fundamentally unknowable [/quote]

Tide comes in, tide goes out. You can’t explain that. [/quote]

I know, right?!? LOL…classic.

284

As always, nobody said it quite as well as Hitch did. I fucking miss this guy; the world is a darker place without him.

285

Flamer, did you ever see the debate with Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry vs Minister of Parliament Anne Widdecombe and Archbishop John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan? It’s an hour long but worth watching.

I think it was kind of an unfair matchup, because the Catholic Church could definitely have fielded far better advocates than the shrill, historically myopic bozos that were up on the stage, but Hitch and Fry were in top form.

What I would have liked to see, though is a matchup between Hitch and Fry on one side, and Father Reginald Foster and Father George Coyne on the other. That would be a good fight.

I can picture Brother Chris and maybe Sloth at sixty or seventy becoming something like these guys.

286

So, if atheism is excused from the bad when it’s attached to “belief” in a ideal, does that also exclude it from participation in the good?

It is detached from the evils of communistic state atheism, because the communist state is an ideal. An idol. In fact, it’s said to be a religious example.

Is it then excluded in feeding the poor? Caring for the elderly and sick? Looking after the orphan? Honoring wedding one’s own wedding vows. Or, the wedding vows of others? Is it now barred from adopting a belief in inherent human rights? Not only might it be excluded, but the motivations behind these would be considered religious. Well, at least according to previous arguments.

In the haste to excuse atheism from evil, has it then been robbed of the capacity to be involved in the good?

And one other thing. How can the lives preserved and born under religious social cohesion ever be measured?

There seems to be an assumption that if how somehow religious thought had never gone mainstream, atheism would’ve done better. How? Nomads settle down and associate, made easier by common bonding beliefs. Villages, farming, livestock, etc. Towns. Cities. States. Alliances. Isn’t it simply historical fact that the settling down and civilizing part of history was heavily tied to the common practices, morals, and norms tied to religious beliefs? I mean, didn’t laws merely reflect that a god or gods didn’t want you robbing or murdering your fellow citizen (at least)? Radiating outward from the village, until finally the nation state. I mean, the dedicated study of science is a leisure activity, ultimately. First you need community and relative peace. Peace internal to the community, village, city, state, and/or nation, at least.

Think of it as a trait, selected for by the environment. You can talk about how atheism might have done it, but it wasn’t ‘selected.’ Religiosity won. It was heavily involved in, yes the often chaotic and violent, yet still ongoing, settling and civilizing of humanity. So how can that even be compared to what atheism might have done?

And why isn’t one of the most widespread conditions of humanity not seen as an orientation or predisposition? Religiousphobic?

287

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

I can picture Brother Chris and maybe Sloth at sixty or seventy becoming something like these guys. [/quote]

Heh.

288

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, if atheism is excused from the bad when it’s attached to “belief” in a ideal, does that also exclude it from participation in the good?[/quote]

Not at all. A lot of good has been done, and continues to be done, by people who don’t worship gods. An absence of gods in one’s personal philosophy does not predispose one to evil, any more than the presence of them predisposes one to good.

Ever talked to a hard-line Russian communist? I have. In her speech and attitude was exactly the same religious fervor I have seen echoed by fundamentalist Christians and Muslims around the world. She was no atheist: her god was named “Sovyetskii Soyuz”.

There are plenty of secular foundations that do charitable works. Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) is the most active ones. One can certainly help someone who’s sick, or poor, or orphaned, or old, or keep a promise to their partner, without being told by a god that it’s a good thing to do.

Who has a greater capacity to do either good or evil? Caucasians or Africans?

If you answered “it depends on the individual” or better yet, “what the fuck does skin color have to do with atheism and religion?!”, that’s good. We’re almost there.

Religion is like melanin. Some people have more of it than others. People who are completely saturated with melanin are relatively rare, those with none at all even more rare. Most people fall somewhere on a color continuum. The one’s who have the least of it tend to get blamed for all kinds of shit that isn’t their fault, and those with a lot of it are often victims of unfair stereotyping, suspected of crimes they had nothing to do with, just because others with lots of melanin did some bad stuff.

People do bad stuff. People do good stuff. But to assume that their capacity for good or evil can be predicted based on the amount of melanin present in an individual’s skin is somewhat silly. In other words, it’s not black and white.

They can’t, any more than the lives saved by secular technological, medical and scientific advancements ever be measured.

Sure. Community and belief evolve together. And whenever a society comes to the end of its evolutionary potential, becoming a bloated and corrupt bureaucracy, you can bet that its religion has too.

You also need a mind trained to question established dogma and challenge old ideas. While some religions encourage this, others don’t. Science and religion are at odds become they come to different conclusions about the natural world. And religion feels more threatened by science now than it did in prior centuries, when the tables were turned.

If you could translate A Brief History of Time into ancient Sumerian cuneiform or Paleo-Hebrew script, take it back in your time machine and try giving it to the people who could read it (maybe calling yourself a god or a prophet while you’re at it), how many people do you think would “get it”? Taken out of the context of five hundred years of scientific inquiry, the book would make no sense to anyone even if they could read the words. Hell, a lot of people reading it now in English don’t understand it. Genesis 1, though, is pretty straightforward. You don’t have to be a genius to “get it”. And a lot of people are students of the “if I don’t understand it, it must not be true” school of non-thought.

I don’t think atheism could have begun in a society without scientific inquiry, where people were free to question old ideas. Nor do I think a society based on the philosophical principle of the absence of deities, therefore no divine right to rule, could ever get very large. How do you control people without “putting the fear of god in them?”

Not quite sure what you’re trying to say here. Are you saying that irrational, paralyzing fear of religion is one of the most widespread conditions of humanity? I was not aware that it was, but perhaps I misunderstand you. Please clarify.

289

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Not at all. A lot of good has been done, and continues to be done, by people who don’t worship gods. An absence of gods in one’s personal philosophy does not predispose one to evil, any more than the presence of them predisposes one to good.[/quote]

But it doesn’t motivate them to be good, either. They must have separate ideals and philosophies. Some of which aren’t necessarily within the realm of science. Say the basic rights in the BoR. Inherent human rights.

To do “good” or “bad.” That’s independent of atheism. It requires cherished ideals/philosophies that aren’t necessarily observable (good, evil, inherent rights, etc).

One may adopt a system that atheism can do no evil–since adherence to, and passion for, certain ideals enable a convenient re-categorization to a ‘religious’ category. So too all “good,” springing from ‘good’ ideals and philosophies, must be ‘religious.’

290

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Not at all. A lot of good has been done, and continues to be done, by people who don’t worship gods. An absence of gods in one’s personal philosophy does not predispose one to evil, any more than the presence of them predisposes one to good.[/quote]

But it doesn’t motivate them to be good, either. They must have separate ideals and philosophies. Some of which aren’t necessarily within the realm of science. Say the basic rights in the BoR. Inherent human rights.

To do “good” or “bad.” That’s independent of atheism. It requires cherished ideals/philosophies that aren’t necessarily observable (good, evil, inherent rights, etc).

One may adopt a system that atheism can do no evil–since adherence to, and passion for, certain ideals enable a convenient re-categorization to a ‘religious’ category. So too all “good,” springing from ‘good’ ideals and philosophies, must be ‘religious.’

[/quote]

Atheism is not a belief system in and of itself. It is no more or less than the state of not having a belief system that involves deities. That’s it.

“Atheism” says nothing about morality or philosophy, although plenty of atheists are philosophical and moral. That their morals may coincide with those of someone who believes in deities doesn’t prove that the atheist is using theist morality, any more than the other way around.

291

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

If religion isn’t worth fighting over, nothing is.[/quote]

Oh, I agree. You’ll get no argument on that point from me.

Nor from Joshua, David, Alexander, Muhammad, Charlemagne, Genghis, Pope Urban II, Suleyman the Magnificent, Charles the Hammer, Osama bin Laden, or George W. Bush…

…nor from Hitler, I’d wager. [/quote]

Pope Urban II’s first crusade was a just war.

292

[quote]Karado wrote:
"The Vatican has published everything about Fatima to prove it is a miracle.‘’

By whose law does one follow that just because something cannot be scientifically
explained it’s automatically from the GOOD side of the Supernatural?
[/quote]

What makes you think it was from the bad side of the Supernatural? I’m not going to try to prove a negative.

293

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I can picture Brother Chris and maybe Sloth at sixty or seventy becoming something like these guys. [/quote]

I’d crush Maher. He picks on slow/uneducated/unprepared subjects and declares himself the winner.

This is more like what would happen.

294

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Atheism is not a belief system in and of itself. It is no more or less than the state of not having a belief system that involves deities. That’s it.[/quote]

Well, I said that earlier about atheist Stalin. Yet, somehow, he got unburdened onto us theists because of his militant positions.

[quote]“Atheism” says nothing about morality or philosophy, although plenty of atheists are philosophical and moral. That their morals may coincide with those of someone who believes in deities doesn’t prove that the atheist is using theist morality, any more than the other way around.

[/quote]

So it does or doesn’t say anything about Stalin/Lenin state atheism? Because, if it doesn’t, then it still falls under atheistic regime.

295

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

If religion isn’t worth fighting over, nothing is.[/quote]

Oh, I agree. You’ll get no argument on that point from me.

Nor from Joshua, David, Alexander, Muhammad, Charlemagne, Genghis, Pope Urban II, Suleyman the Magnificent, Charles the Hammer, Osama bin Laden, or George W. Bush…

…nor from Hitler, I’d wager. [/quote]

Pope Urban II’s first crusade was a just war.[/quote]

How could it not be? It was…god’s will! Deus vult!

296

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I’d crush Maher. He picks on slow/uneducated/unprepared subjects and declares himself the winner.[/quote]

No doubt you would, Chris.

I posted the second and third videos to show Frs. Coyne and Foster. Maher just happened to be in the shot.

My point was that if Frs. Coyne and Foster were the ones debating Hitchens and Fry, they would have been a lot more formidable spokesmen for the Church than the ones that showed up.

297

See, this is my point. There seems to be a convenient excommunication going on. Explain away ‘immoral’ behaviors and philosophy, by atheistic actors, as actually religious. On the other hand, ‘moral’ behaviors and philosophy need not be religious. And, the a-theist gets to keep his ‘a-.’

Never mind who decided the moral from the immoral.

298

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Flamer, did you ever see the debate with Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry vs Minister of Parliament Anne Widdecombe and Archbishop John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan? It’s an hour long but worth watching.

I think it was kind of an unfair matchup, because the Catholic Church could definitely have fielded far better advocates than the shrill, historically myopic bozos that were up on the stage, but Hitch and Fry were in top form.

What I would have liked to see, though is a matchup between Hitch and Fry on one side, and Father Reginald Foster and Father George Coyne on the other. That would be a good fight.

I can picture Brother Chris and maybe Sloth at sixty or seventy becoming something like these guys. [/quote]

LOL…I think you’re probably close to being right about that.

And I did see that debate; you’re right, it was completely lopsided. Hitch and Fry left them for dead. It wasn’t even close.

299

Another thing. Why would the skeptical, scientific minded (or bust), atheist mount a moralistic attack on any religion? Religion, according to this mindset, could not be immoral or moral. Evil or good. Right or wrong. That requires a belief in the existence of something (good/evil) that can’t be observed and measured. Which is faith. A big concession, without even going further. But let’s do so. It’s faith in ‘laws’ which are meant to inform the moral behavior of intelligent and self-aware beings. Which screams intent. Which screams the intent of an author.

However, maybe moralistic criticism of religious behavior isn’t to be taken literally. Indeed, it could just be the utterance of a moral relativist. But then who cares? If he himself doesn’t believe he is, in reality, correct in his moral judgement of religious behavior and thought, why would I? He can say red is the best color, and I can say blue is. And just as with favorite color, he must know there is no correct view, in reality, concerning the good/evil impact of religion on mankind.

300

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

How could it not be? It was…god’s will! Deus vult![/quote]

Because it meets every just war doctrine to come out.