Magic Magnum said
You weren't the one ignoring the different points and simply trolling the thread. So I'll bother replying to this post, still not wasting my time on So Boerd though.To claim no religious people ever went out to help people would be a lie, so I admit people have done some good under religion.But you can say the same for most religions/beliefs, good people in an otherwise nasty religion wanting to help people.But this still does nothing to prove the Religion correct, which you do need to address if you want one in State.Then even if there's some good in the Religion, there is a lot of bad such as homophobia, supporting rape, kidnapping, theft, murder, slavery etc. which we can't ignore.It's almost the same as saying "Look at the Nazi's, sure they killed 6 million Jews in terribly inhumane ways. Responsible for many rapes, slaves, murders, thefts, kidnappings etc.But did you see the good they did with the Boy scouts?".Also technically speaking, Cannibalism has nothing wrong to it.It's cultural difference, where we have been raised that it's respectful to our dead to bury them.Other culture's respect their dead by eating the corpse. Logically speaking both are fine and do no harm.But in a society where we have been raised to see Canabalism as immoral it is If you're meaning the catching/kidnapping and murder of people for the purpose of eating them then you're right. That is wrong.But that isn't wrong for the fact they are consuming human flesh, it's wrong because you murdered people.
To say the least cannibalism is a medical nightmare. Also, any argument I've heard claiming that the Bible condones rape (Such as the Hebrews taking women from the enemy) are out of context arguments and completely missing the point of what the text is obviously saying. Even the wiping out of cities to the last infant, old man, woman, etcetera, deals with supernatural issues the Jews obviously no longer face. I don't see giants, or angels impregnating women in the news. In addition to this fact, please keep in mind that these acts of violence were done as a one time occurrence, and there is no need for believers in Christianity to ever replicate them. -_-
Also, another issue with the wiping out of civilizations by the Old Testament believers comes from the fact that there were curses carried by the neighboring civilizations that could slither into the land of Israel and afflict them with disasters and horrible calamity. Bear in mind that these people, were so evil that they would sacrifice their own children to place in the mortar of the walls of Jericho as an offering to their gods in order to keep out enemies. Some would place their babies into metallic ovens in the shape of Molech, an evil Pagan deity for "blessings". Ewwww. The children, if you follow the Old Testament enough, if they were Canaanite, were better off dead at the hands of their enemies, rather than having to burn in the hands or belly of a metal idol of Molech, placed in the plaster of a wall. It was a horrible fate that the inhabitants of Canaan brought on themselves. They doomed their children, inflicting them with curses that would travel throughout the neighboring lands, spreading more evil.
But hey, under the hands of a conquering nation, perhaps the dead that were slain by the Israelites got to go to Heaven when they died. If you don't believe all of this stuff because it sounds far fetched and too superstitious and weird, I understand that, but the fact of the matter is that the circumstances in the Bible are far different than God just being a maniacal Dictator enforcing his will on poor, innocent Humanity and delighting in the slaughter of their children, which they probably didn't care about anyway, at least for the most part. Also, like I said, the things that happened back then are un-repeated and according to the will of God, unrepeatable.
This is assuming stuff like rape, murder etc is not supported in the Bible. Which it does.It's all pretty accurate accounts of people being murdered and killed in the name of Religion.And really only takes a little looking in the Bible to find that God is more than ok with these sorts of acts.And in a society where Christianity has been the main force behind things such as homophobia, racism, anti-vaccine, anti-science etc?It's pretty understandable as to why people do not like Christianity.Also how do you think people like Dawkins, Hitchen's etc. have double standards?
I've already answered this. As for homophobia, the only thing I can tell you have any support for making that claim is the issue of Gay Marriage. Also, Levitical laws for homosexuality aren't applicable anymore. Israel is not the same, and the old laws were fulfilled and therefore no longer need to be followed. To make that claim, no matter how often the dead horse has been beaten, is a waste of time.
Now on to the issue of double standards held by prominent Anti-Christian thinkers.
I had always thought philosophy was the proper love and acquirement of the studious acknowledgement of not only how the mind works, if such knowledge is available for studying, but also in applying one's mental faculties towards various beneficial mindsets. Not just loving and practicing a particular school of thought, mind you, but trying apply various sensible ways of living, working, contemplating, and interacting with other people in ways that would kind of "Roll the snowball down the hill" as it were. Like, leads to like, in other words, discovering ways of learning that expand on previous knowledge. I'm not sure how to make my understanding of Philosophical study concise and to the point, but what I"m saying is, those people, while perhaps having noble intentions of teaching others what to think, or maybe how to think, they strip the conscience, and even consciousness of others away by most definitely instructing them in horrid or incompetent manners.
Dawkins at one time suggested that religious people should be ridiculed. He did not even confine his arrogant, blithering, vocal arachnoid skittering of a voice through the minds of us mortals to the subject of Evolution, which is what he always goes on about, he was attacking religion specifically, and more importantly any individual of religious phenomenon. Particularily (spelling)? adherents of the Catholic faith, for believing in their miracle of tran-substantiation. In other words, he said, in almost these exact words, that if you hear someone say they believe that their communal wafer/wine is literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ, you should mock them, ridicule them, in public.
I beg Richard Dawkin's pardon. If he didn't vocally state that he would like to be treated with respect, I still should make a good guess and think that as a sane or reasonable man he hopes to be, that he wants to be treated with respect. His suggestion that filthy minded people should poison the well of the open forum of debate, and shout people with religion down is at least hypocritical in a moral, and personally applicable way, if not out right contradictory to what Richard Dawkins has said throughout his time as an author, and a speaker.
Here, here is what I'm talking about.
No pretending needed, Evolution is a proven scientific fact. The only thing that can be proven better is the theory of Gravity.I will admit they do react pretty hostile to Religion and religious folk. But they're reasoning is that it is far too common to see Religion censor their followers.For example, a child is born into a strong Christian family. They tell him evolution is false, God is real and not to question it. If he does question this he is declared to be speaking blashphemy, and he is almost never given answers outside of "Because God/The Bible says so". He is punished for thinking, and he is punished for asking questions. Science doesn't do this, it encourages asking questions and testing them. That's the whole point of experiments and studies, asking why something happens and finding it out, rather than simply saying "Oh we already know the answer, it's god" and leaving it at that.
Yes. But the other side of the debate has some plenty of experience which mirrors theirs, just in reverse. The only difference is that people are being taught contradictory information in schools five days a week instead of two days a week. The only fault that seems to lie on the Christian side of the matter IMHO is that we are not teaching our children "enough", and not just in quantitative education, but quality based education of the Church would make our children smarter, more contemplative, more experienced in the important things in life, and more mature of a person, not a block head hick, red neck that people stereotype the people of the Church as. Before you say, "Well Science is being taught in logical and empirical manner in order to educate the child how to think effectively", no truer half truth was ever spoken. The truth is, that the world, and cosmological phenomenon is for people to acknowledge, to look at, study, and interact with in ways that help them learn. There's nothing wrong with that. The only problem is that there is nothing that conclusively or in my mind even reasonably disproves what a 'proper' tenant of Christianity is.
Now what I mean by you saying a half truth, is while Science is kind of immutable, at least in theory, the fact of the matter is that what people consider science, scientists included, isn't necessarily a perfect definition of science, or a perfect understanding of science, and perhaps, even if it was, it isn't a perfect understand of the right science, or the form of science in question isn't perfected enough to conclusively prove enough about our cosmology that does away with anything the OT and NT says. ((I"m sorry for using big sounding words, I'm just trying to be as precise as possible).)
Religion is effectively stopping many people from being free thinkers, and this holds back technology, medicine, education, and one's very ability to learn if they are taught asking questions is a bad thing and/or that they already have all the answers. So for people of science and learning like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to not take kindly to religion makes sense, it infringes on every last thing that they stand for and that has been proven to not only be true, but help and benefit society.
The thing is that religion is something that is broad. It's like saying oh, I'm not sure of the right example that "Philosophy makes people dull, uninteresting and lazy" I'm sure that maybe a philosophy that does such a thing exists, there is still a philosophy out there called Hedonism that exalts pleasure as the highest good, and another philosophy that exalts duty and the shunning of emotions, kind of like Star Trek Vulcans do. :D. So me saying "Philosophy holds science, medicine, etcetera" back, is essentially the same thing as claiming religion does those things. A truer half-truth was never spoken. :| It doesn't matter if it makes sense. It matters if it is ethically and honorably sound. For someone to say that religion holds people back by doing those things would be prejudiced and unacceptable if these concepts were anthropomorphisized.(Spelling?) ;)
The wording here is throwing me off. :/Are you saying that the Pope is a bad thing wanting to in slave people? Or that he's the opposite?Either way I will note my knowledge on the Pope specifically is not the best.However generally the Pope has proven to be a bit more agreeable than many Christians. But even then you got glaring issues such as covering up the molesting/rape of little boys by priests, the fact they advocate helping the poor but go around with Golden Crosses and the like etc.[
I mean that prominent secular folk are being dictatorial with their "Bull". (A Papal Bull is like an edict or order coming straight down from the Pope). I'm using the two word phrase "Secular Pope" as a metaphor. Also yes of course the Catholic Church has a lot of bad issues. Keep in mind, I"m non-Catholic. I respect certain Popes and even Francis to a degree, but according to my dogma I can't even accept him as a brother because he claims there is another way to God than Jesus. :|. Sad but true. He seems like a charming man, but no, his ideas on who gets to Heaven is un Biblical. It's possible that Ratzinger and maybe even Pope John Paul II were at least saved, even if they weren't walking in accordance with the Holy Spirit (If someone teaches that Mary saves you, then it's a, teaching another way to get to Heaven, it's not going to happen. I don't remember the Pope John II ever saying that, but if I remember right, he claims that Mary was his way to Heaven. I also heard he said Jesus was the only way to get to Heaven. If he really meant that he's in Heaven but he was wrong, DEARLY wrong in claiming that Mary or the Rosary could get you there).
The hatred of Jew's is something I never understood from Christianity. They were meant to be the original followers, plus Jesus himself was meant to be Jewish.So the fact they see Jewish as something bad... That's just one of the more puzzling contradictions that Christianity has. :/
Well for one thing, Christianity and Judaism, despite all the bickering and harsh criticisms to the contrary, can be compatible with each other. I take the word of my scriptures over the Jewish Rabbis, the Catholic Priests, or even a Pastor/Pope, etcetera. Judaism has at least a handful of sects, definitely more, if I recall, if a Jewish person accepts Jesus as Messiah, they are Jewish if they claim to be. This is in part, a portion of my answer to you because one of the problems that causes a great deal of emotional struggle and adversity among the two faiths is the becoming of a Christian in a Jewish family/home, Synagogue, etcetera.
Christians are ignorant of Hebraic roots, Judaism in general for the most part. The same can be said, at least from my experience of Judaism. It's understandable, but still unfortunate, that the Jewish people would be paranoid (Not sure if it's the right word), or rather, maybe a better word would be, not close minded, but too well-guarded against interaction with Christians. Jews suffered greatly in the Inquisitions, the Czars of Russia, even to some extent Medieval England, Germany, the list goes on and on, bare in mind, people were illiterate for the most part. Even genuine believers of the Christian scriptures could be unfriendly, uninformed of what Judaism was about, and may have accidentally done regretful things, been ugly to their Jewish neighbors, etcetera, etcetera, simply because if they couldn't read, they had to hold on to the knowledge of God they already knew, or maybe find someone to teach them to read, or listen to a trust worthy person who could preach to them. (This option is wrought with problems).
How exactly would Christianity prevent this? o.OChristianity has been proven time and time again to be one of the most violent things in human history.If anything I'd expect more drones, only it's aimed at "Blasphemy speakers" or those who aren't Christian.Since when was this ever a law?Is this one of those "War on God" things? I don't recall any case of someone being arrested for having a service.What's the source of this? I have a feeling this was less a service and more forcing kids to listen to something they didn't want to be at.
I can get the source(s) for this.
How exactly would these cases be stopped by Christianity?From what I gathered on these cases (which isn't much cause google isn't recognizing the terms being used), Christianity would cause more deaths in the name of god.It would do nothing to prevent them.Lying about incidient's has nothing to do with Religion and more "Does this info coming out expose/inconvenience us? Yes? Cover it up", you don't need to be part of any Religion to be guilty of this. But if anything Religion is definitely guilty of covering things up/lying about them, for one easy example the molesting/rape of little boys by priests.
Well for one thing Christianity's proper tenants (proper tenants is the key phrase) is only followed by acknowledging the sanctity of life. Also, lying and deceiving people is not in the proper tenants of Christianity.
Oh yes, cause that's totally what a world leader wants, to sabotage the country they lead. :P
Certain people among the Chinese call him Monkey Man. To my knowledge it's a cultural reference towards him sabotaging the country. I agree with them that he is doing this. However, Hoover could have been claimed to have been sabotaging the nation decades ago. It doesn't mean he was trying to bring down the Republic like Senator Palpatine. Although, I don't think Barrack Obama is as moral as Darth Sidious IMHO. (/oh snap!!!).
