Christianity exposed

[David Floyd]

Quick Sirot! Edit your damn post!

Kaak too!

Ah ****it.

LR,

For example the Nazis of WW2. The US didn't have enough time to judge each Nazi and each possible "Interpretation" of Mein Kampf before we had to decide whether Nazis as a group were bad.

So your assertion is that because the Nazis were treated unfairly in some cases, Christians should be too?

Atheism means "without" belief in a God. Not "there is no God", though I'd adop the latter in reference to Christianity. This is derived from breaking the word down, a-meaning without. Theism-belief in God. Atheism is thus, without or lack of belief in God.


It promotes nothing. It promotes a certain viewpoint no more then A-elfism or non-belief in faries promotes a certain viewpoint.

So then, you are not pushing the viewpoint that there is no God and Christianity is bollocks?

Because it sure sounds like it to me.

Throw away all of your debate semantics and just look at some of the **** you say.

2) Can you? You still are genralizing on the basis of a negative, which is far too vague and unrelated a trait. Stalin and Mao were a specific kind of atheist with a specific kind of ideology: Marxism. Now you can perhaps criticize Marxism,(certainly Maoism and Stalinism) on the basis of such examples, But to criticize atheists as a whole is ridiculous.

OK, I see - so there can be specific types of atheists, but not specific types of Christians? Or, to take it further, there can be atheists who happen to be extremists, but all Christians are extremists?
So therefore there are no good Christians? Therefore I'm not a good person because I'm a Christian, on the basis of a belief?? Be really careful, you're going down a road you don't want to go down.

I would call that a violation of the whole common sense thing

The Bible also gave the Pope authority to do as he deemed in accordance with the Lord's will. Hence the Crusades were justified in that sense according to Xianity.

Bull****. The Pope was never mentioned in the Bible.

Why not? If this was extremely rare, I could understand it. But it's not.

Actually violent crimes committed by Christians IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY are extremely rare.

Where in the New Testament does it condemn or take back OT law? A lot of people say it does, but I am yet to find a single shred of evidence to support that assertion.

Not that I can quote passages, nor can I be arsed to go look it up, but Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, which in any case, again, NEVER applied to anyone except the Jews.

[MikeH]

You know if the Catholic church is right I'm going to have a tough time explaining that "I bet attendances at catholic churches would go up as fast as the pope up one of his troupe of performing nuns." comment.

[MikeH]

I really hope St. Peter has a sense of humour.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MikeH
You know if the Catholic church is right I'm going to have a tough time explaining that "I bet attendances at catholic churches would go up as fast as the pope up one of his troupe of performing nuns." comment.

Why? You don't think that God has a sense of humor, do you?

[MikeH]

Nice X-Post, he must have a sense of humour, he created Finland.

[Sirotnikov]

sorry

Whoooops


I really didn't see your threadjack there...

That should teach me - read the whole friggin thread!

Oh well, next time

[MikeH]

I forgive you Sirotnikov for you knew not what you were doing.

[Ecowiz Returns]

Re: Christianity exposed

Originally posted by Logical Realist
The Bible also gave the Pope authority to do as he deemed in accordance with the Lord's will. Hence the Crusades were justified in that sense according to Xianity.

Be carefull my friend.
You don't find any direct reference to the Pope in the Bible.
The Pope, actually only has Apostolic authority, i.e. derived from the Apostles with some particular strenght has the Catholic Church calls upon the Pope the "statute" of the successor of Peter.

Originally posted by Logical Realist
Where in the New Testament does it condemn or take back OT law? A lot of people say it does, but I am yet to find a single shred of evidence to support that assertion.

That is an obvious case of switching the Burdn of Proof. I think it is up to you to show that the NT somehow makes the OT outdated.

How can you read the Gospels and than say you don't find a single shred of evidence of this, is something that keeps puzzling me. Maybe you should read the Gospels before starting all this "cruzade" of yours.

Originally posted by Logical Realist
Keep in mind this: The Bible is supposed to be(and the Torah) the word of God. You aren't supposed to pick and choose what scriptures you obey.

Allow me to correct you with a slight nuance you are not aware of.
According to Catholic Doctrine, which is the one I know, the Word of God is in the Bible which is diferent of saying that the Bible is Word of God (we say it because it is easier and some people does not understand the difference).
We know that the Bible was writen by men and believe it was inspired by God. That being said, we do not assume that the Bible was dictated by God (that's why we have four versions of the same events, i.e. the Gospels). So the question about picking what to obey or not... let's say a Christian does not have to know the Mosaic Law by heart: two commanments are just as good (and just as though for us): Love God and Love the Other (to know who is the other read the Good Samaritan Parabole).

edited:
I should also read the other posts too before posting myself.
Seems like there are many telling you the same things LR!
Wouldn't you think it would be advised to read the Gospels (at least) before criticizing what Christians believe in?

[MrFun]

Generalizing unreasonably about ANY group of people is unreasonable.

I do have a belief that a large number of Christians in most denominations have betrayed the spirit of Jesus Christ's preachings and pratices. But I also know that this does not apply to all Christians.

And one more thing -- after I came out to my faithful, Catholic mohter, she and I have formed an even closer mother-son relatioship. My older brother and my mother also came to like my ex-boyfriend a lot. My three older sisters have not come as close to complete acceptance as my mother or older brother, but they continue to make efforts to do so.

The family I was raised in was Catholic, yet now I am closer to my mother and older brother after I came out to them.

[faded glory]

no i havent read a single post.




Generalizations are everywhere. Your guity if you make them.....no matter who they are against.

[Blackwidow24]

Oh sorry I forgot my purse

[devilmunchkin]

yes, even though i'm an athiest, my dear, i VERY much disagree with you. SOme of the people i love most are christians...my BEST FRIEND right now is christian and she has shown me more unconditional LOVE than anyone else EVER has in my entire LIFE. On the other hand, my stepdad is an evil christian *******. He destroyed my life and mentally abused me and made me feel like i was worthless. They're both christians...is it fair to generalize the whole? absolutely not.

1) Generlaizations can be accurate. I think history shows that mine is.

perhaps about smaller groups of people, but you're talking abouta religion that dominates the globe, spreading into all sorts of cultures. It's like saying all schizo's are murderous nuts. They may be nuts, but not all are murderous. Therefore, i'm not about to judge a few billion people based on
1) history..because as we know, we learn from history. at one time christians themselves were persecuted..by the ROmans. Like you say: we change. we're always changing. we evolve.
2) my personal and limited experience.

Likewise rationalists today do not have all the resources to judge each Christian individually before making criticisms and taking actions.

why do we need to JUDGE every christian. Are you the absolute discerner of truth?? no! (you certainly LOOOOOOOOOOOVE to argue...even with a dictionary! ) You told me that the purpose of life was to maintain values. Well, i don't see how any christian at the moment is impeding on your values.....and therefore you shouldn't impede upon them. (it violates constitutional rights...right to free religion [or lack thereof] and right to happiness). let them have their hope.

Stalin and Mao were a specific kind of atheist with a specific kind of ideology: Marxism.

just like john wesley was a specific type of xian..methodist! our atheism links us together much as the way xian belief in a god links them together. after that, there tends to be, as i've found out, a spreading out because their bible can be interpreted in many ways.

The Bible also gave the Pope authority to do as he deemed in accordance with the Lord's will. Hence the Crusades were justified in that sense according to Xianity.

ugh..no he didn't. that was an inferred assumption..called apostolic succession. and only catholics adhere to it.

Where in the New Testament does it condemn or take back OT law?

it does and it doesn't. Jesus, we know, was a Jew...but he blatantly did not carry out certain portions of jewish ritual/religion..like the sabath. Before him, the jewish community was utterly focused on the Law..jesus came and perhaps diminished it's importance so that religion was restored rather than using the laws merely as a set of rules. but the OT is still important if it is carried out with faith.

The Bible is supposed to be(and the Torah) the word of God. You aren't supposed to pick and choose what scriptures you obey.

i would agree with this...but...most xians don't.

[KrazyHorse]

The real question is...

Can you be punished for jacking a threadjack back on topic?

[devilmunchkin]

krazy: perhaps...starting friday when i go see the inflamed arguer in san diego...
but frankly i'm not convinced he can handle me

[KrazyHorse]

Remember what I told you about not posting details!