90-200 million dead.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seth, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Or, as Zilla put it: Bullshit.

He knows, he just doesn't have enough respect for us to care.

[Svartalf]

There has to be a word for it, though 'normalcy' should fit.

[Seth]

"If anyone does not remain joined to me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and dries up. Branches like those are picked up. They are thrown into the fire and burned."

Jesus Christ


....oooh, can ya feel the love?

He's just telling you what his Father will do if you don't "remain joined" with him. It's a warning, not a threat.

It's like saying "Hey, don't jump into that thermal pool or you'll get burnt," or "Hey, don't step off that ledge or you'll fall to your death."

Do you know where the idea of sending people to hell to burn in eternal torment comes from? It's not in the Old Testament. The doctrine of hell is from Christianity. The Jews didn't believe in hell as such. It took the loving Christian God to decide, "Hrm, why not, instead of simply letting mortals die, I roast the bad ones for all eternity in a pit of fire? Yes, I'll do that instead." I can see how you consider that a loving God.

Yeah, that whole Lot's wife thing isn't in the Old Testament, is it. Besides, I didn't say anything about God being loving, I just said that the New Testament is about forgiveness and expiation of the sins of man by Jesus and salvation through belief in Jesus. It's not about man judging man or punishing other men or women for their sins as the Muslims do, it's about a plea to live a righteous life so that in the next life one will not suffer the wages of sin and disbelief.

Atheists too often try to conflate the messages of the Old Testament with the message of the New Testament in order to condemn both, but that's just intellectual laziness and hatemongering bigotry.

But you know what's amazing, Seth? Here you are, without the slightest bit of humility, claiming to know the mind of God, and what he meant in making that statement about twigs and fire.

I said nothing of the kind. I'm merely pointing out what the New Testament says and making the point that if God is a vindictive and jealous god as portrayed in the Old Testament, then the words of Jesus cannot be viewed as a threat but merely as a warning. The whole basis of the faith is that God sent his only begotten son, Jesus, down to earth to live as a man, suffer as a man, and die as a man in order to expiate the sins of all mankind in his suffering. This is Jesus, the man/deity pleading with mankind to accept this salvation and thereby avoid the wrath of God the father by something as simple as belief and acceptance of Jesus as one's personal savior. That's the message of Jesus. The rest can be viewed as obiter dicta by the Apostles as they formed a religion in the material world, where people are imperfect and need (and want) guidance and assistance in living good lives.

On the other hand, there are those who are equally as humble who would find that statement supportive of violence against nonbelievers (and by humble, I mean, "believing themselves to be the arbiters of God's truth").

Of course there are. But what does that have to do with anything but human frailty?

So in the very same breath, you're committing the arrogant act of claiming to speak for God, and trying to convince us that people who do that in support of violence are misappropriating God, and it's them and not their religion which is at fault.

I'm not claiming to speak for God. I don't believe in God. I'm merely pointing out that your understanding of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is flawed and in error.

You've just yourself demonstrated exactly why and how Christianity becomes a force for evil in the world: if one can argue it means peace when the argument calls for it, it can also mean war when the argument calls for it — and both claim the authority of God.

Er, that's how every philosophical exercise of the human mind works my dear. People pervert religion all the time, including Atheists. Witness the Skepchick debate, where your religion, Atheism, is being perverted and morphed into something quite unlike a simple "lack of belief in god or gods." The only difference between Atheists and any other religious zealot of a theist is that theists argue and act in the name of their deity while Atheists argue and act in nihilist denial of someone else's religious beliefs. Atheism has nothing original to offer, which at least can be said for theistic religions, however silly the claims. Religious Atheism is the cult of "God doesn't exist and I'm going to stamp my feet and hold my breath till my face turns blue if you say he does!" It's the philosophy of four year olds. True atheists, when confronted by theistic claims, shake their heads in bewilderment at concepts they cannot comprehend because they have no basis in knowledge upon which to judge the veracity of the claims. These are the "explicit atheists," a class comprised of very young children, mental defectives incapable of comprehending theistic concepts, and people raised by wolves who have had no human contact. Everyone else is an Atheist, and just another member of just another religion that's no better, but in many ways far worse than those who believe in God or gods.

If the bible and its interpreters aren't claiming the authority of God, then what is a bible anyway? If the bible isn't the word of God, Christianity as such ceases to exist. If it is the word of God, its interpreters, which include yourself, claim to speak for God, and claim his Authority.

I claim no authority nor do I speak for anyone but myself. You need to ponder on the distinction between a knowledge and understanding of Christian theism and an ability to argue from a position of understanding and an acceptance of the articles of faith of Christianity.

Is the passage ambiguous? Yes. Can it be argued that it doesn't support violence, sure. The problem is that there are hundreds of pages of ambiguous moral commands, many of which have straight forward readings supporting violence. (Recall that Jesus said both that he is not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, and that until all is done, not one jot nor tittle of the law shall be removed. And the Old Testament contains plenty of support for violence.)

Yup. People have been parsing and reinterpreting what Jesus is alleged to have said since, well, the day he showed up on the scene.

And of course, Jesus came not to bring peace, but a sword. (And of course, since God is omniscient, it's futile to claim that men are responsible for misinterpretations; God knew these misinterpretations would be made and left them in the bible anyway. If some Priest or Bishop claims God supports war based on some passage, then he is justified in believing he has God's sanction, because that's the rules of the game: God --> Bible --> holy man.)

So what? God can leave or remove whatever God likes. That's an attribute of being a god. Metaphor and simile are strong in the bible, quite deliberately, because it was not written by God, but by men who were trying to control society and make it better and more organized. Misinterpretation by man of what was created by man is hardly surprising. But I continue to point out that the central theme of New Testament Christianity is not about the hellfire and brimstone of the jealous God of the Old testament, it's all about Jesus sacrificing himself to expiate the sins of the world and his plea for people to accept his sacrifice and reconcile themselves with God the father so that in the future they will not suffer the wrath of God. As I said, the New Testament is not a threat, it's a warning. And if you care to think that God is an evil, vengeful, unforgiving god and a right bastard I won't argue with you because the claims of the Bible certainly uphold that interpretation.

So, one can rightfully argue that God the father is anything but loving, but one cannot argue that the New Testament and the message of Jesus is a threat. It's not. It's a dire warning and an offer of salvation from the eventual wrath of God the father through belief and acceptance of Jesus as your personal savior. It's really quite easy to see if you can break down the walls of bigotry that your religious Atheistic zealotry places between you and clear understanding of the tenets of New Testament Christianity.

Do you know how many such ambiguous commands from the God of atheism are in the Holy Bible of atheism? (You know, the one Pol Pot and Stalin were reading.)

Many. But then that's what you get when you create a committee to write a book over thousands of years. Lots of self-serving political opinion disguised as the "word of God."

Better yet, since you're the one claiming that atheism supports violence in the same way that Christianity does, why don't you supply me with some juicy quotes from the sacred texts of atheism that can equally be used to support violence. Something that a large proportion of atheists consider to be the divine and authoritative word for all atheists. (You'll have to excuse me, I seem to have misplaced my copy of the Bible of atheism.)

One branch of Atheism is called "Marxism." I'm sure you can find plenty of quotes from Marx.

"It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster."
Voltaire

A wise statement that applies just as much to you and every other religiously zealous Atheist as it does to any theist.

As for me, I'm a Tolerist™, and I persecute no one based on their opinions, I only judge people based on their deeds.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And as soon as you get the deeds, you throw them off their land.

[Seth]

Seth, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Or, as Zilla put it: Bullshit.

Oh, but I do know what I'm talking about. I've made a careful study of religiously zealous Atheism. You're just in denial.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've made a careful study of religiously zealous Atheism.

They're not "graphic novels", Seth, they're comic books. You're in denial.

[Seth]

Seth, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Or, as Zilla put it: Bullshit.

He knows, he just doesn't have enough respect for us to care.

Oh, poor baby. You can dish it out but you can't take it can you? Challenge your dogma and you just run away. Weak, very weak.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Who's running, chuckles?

[rachelbean]

I actually agree with the crux of Seth's point, in that atheists are responsible for a lot, if not most, of the world's murders. It was not in the name atheism, nor was it the reason behind the atrocities, but that doesn't make the simplistic fact untrue. The reality Is "good" people will use their atheism or Christianity to justify their good deeds, and "evil" people will do the same.

My parents give god the credit for their kindness and generosity. I know, in fact, they are just generous and kind, and I know me becoming an atheist didn't change how important those attributes are to me.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I actually agree with the crux of Seth's point, in that atheists are responsible for a lot, if not most, of the world's murders. It was not in the name atheism, nor was it the reason behind the atrocities, but that doesn't make the simplistic fact untrue. The reality Is "good" people will use their atheism or Christianity to justify their good deeds, and "evil" people will do the same.

My parents give god the credit for their kindness and generosity. I know, in fact, they are just generous and kind, and I know me becoming an atheist didn't change how important those attributes are to me.

Sorry, but as a historian I have to disagree. Kings used to claim divine right to rule, and say that "God is behind me on this", etc. The vast majority of governments through time have had religious connections, with the churches own the government or backing it.

[rachelbean]

Well I'm not going to argue on exact numbers, I'm sure there could be debate about that forever. But, the idea that being atheist makes on more "moral" is something I don't abscribe to.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well I'm not going to argue on exact numbers, I'm sure there could be debate about that forever. But, the idea that being atheist makes on more "moral" is something I don't abscribe to.

Atheism or theism, the rulers only use is for controlling the public in most cases. In the case of the OP we have an exception because the State and Church worked closely together to destroy the civilization in the Western Hemisphere. Nine figure death toll, and the church was in there pitchin'.

[Seth]

Who's running, chuckles?

You are. Running and hiding behind smarmy ejaculations that show no signs of rational thought but rather just knee-jerk Atheistic evasion.

[Seth]

I actually agree with the crux of Seth's point, in that atheists are responsible for a lot, if not most, of the world's murders. It was not in the name atheism, nor was it the reason behind the atrocities, but that doesn't make the simplistic fact untrue. The reality Is "good" people will use their atheism or Christianity to justify their good deeds, and "evil" people will do the same.

My parents give god the credit for their kindness and generosity. I know, in fact, they are just generous and kind, and I know me becoming an atheist didn't change how important those attributes are to me.

Sorry, but as a historian I have to disagree. Kings used to claim divine right to rule, and say that "God is behind me on this", etc. The vast majority of governments through time have had religious connections, with the churches own the government or backing it.

The point is that the governments that have eschewed any connection with religion, which is to say Stalinism and Maoism and other Marxist philosophies that reject religion a the "opiate of the masses" are in fact responsible for the deliberate, calculated, intentional deaths of more people, many of them theists, than all the Kings and religious governments combined throughout history.

I believe there is a causal link between Atheism (as a religious belief/practice set) and grossly immoral and heinous behavior. I think that Atheists are more likely than people of theistic faith to perpetrate evil deeds, excepting perhaps Islamic believers who are expressly exhorted to kill infidels, because of the lack of moral foundation or society-wide cultural behaviors and mores that are the prime intent of theistic power and control structures.

In short, theists have a common set of beliefs, some better, some worse but nonetheless a common set, that guides moral actions in that society. Even Islam has a rigid code of behavior as between Muslims that is, in many respects, worthy of respect. In relation to nonbeliever "infidels" of course Islam is a pernicious evil, but internally it works quite well to guide individual behavior and relationships as a standard set of rules of moral conduct that make Islamic societies mesh and work together even when they are of widely disparate ethnic, racial and cultural backgrounds. A black Muslim from Congo can get on quite nicely with an Arabic Muslim from Egypt or a Caucasian Muslim from Croatia precisely because they have a common religion and therefore a common set of moral rules of behavior.

Christians are largely the same, without the whole "kill or enslave the infidel" part.

Atheists, on the other hand, have nothing to bind them together in a common set of moral beliefs and practices other than their deep and abiding hatred of theism. Unlike, for example, Humanists, Atheists don't have a common set of moral principles that they agree on, they have only their hatred of religion and theism in common and each Atheist has to concoct his or her own set of moral principles and allowable actions for themselves, without reference to anything that society as a whole might hold as common belief.

This does not mean that Atheists are inherently immoral, merely that they are entirely unpredictable when it comes to their system of moral beliefs. This unpredictability creates stress and uncertainty in any society because other members don't know what to expect by way of moral and appropriate social behavior from Atheists, who commonly eschew social mores they don't happen to agree with. This may be the product of rational reasoning and logic, as in an Atheist's decision not to discriminate against gays because there is no compelling logical reason to meddle in the personal sexual affairs of others, or it may be the product of bigotry, hatred and intolerance, as in an Atheist's general attack on Catholics, or merely all Catholic priests based on their judgments regarding the actions of a few Catholic priests.

Humans are quite adept at rationalizing and excusing their own preferred behaviors as "moral" even when they have a common set of moral beliefs provided by religion. Catholics are just as likely to fail to meet their own standards as anyone else, but the difference is that one can look at Catholic doctrine and say that absent a departure from the cultural religious norm, this is how Catholics tend to behave in moral decision making. The same is true of Muslims.

But nobody can predict what an Atheist is going to do from one moment to the next, because they have no common moral framework other than hatred of theism, and because they have no published moral strictures, they feel free to engage in situational ethics when making moral decisions.

Societies don't fare well when the moral and ethical framework of the members is ambiguous or nonexistent, which is why Atheism as a social model will never succeed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Who's running, chuckles?

You are. Running and hiding behind smarmy ejaculations that show no signs of rational thought but rather just knee-jerk Atheistic evasion.

You get back what you give. Your posts distill down to bullshit. I note this. Grow up and post without lying and you'd get better.