Can Earth survive without religion or belief in ? ?
Options
Comments
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »
the Trinity concept is not the exact same thing as saying "Pizarro quoted Jesus." if Pizarro (or whoever) cited Jesus, PROVIDE THE CITATION. if they used an Old Testament reference, that's what we should be calling it, or a reference to Paul or whoever. let's have accuracy over sensationalism?kingblaze84 wrote: »According to Christians, Jesus is the Old Testament ? lol, so YES, Pizarro and Columbus did use the words of Jesus to support atrocities.
look, if you want an example, tell me how Christians handle the many small restrictions on diet and so on that are explicitly spelled out in the OT.kingblaze84 wrote: »If Jesus went on record to say the Old Testament should not be taken seriously and should not be listened to, Christian ? would have had less justification to commit terrorism for hundreds of years onward. The damage ? Christians did for many, many years will live on for a long time. Also, the New Testament never said the Old Testament was wrong-
however, the POINT is that there is a difference between "this scripture, stated correctly and used sincerely, supports atrocity X" and "well, we'll use this ? any way we see fit." let's say it's the former: show your work! really, there's nowhere on the internet where you can't mine quotes from the NT that support awful ? ? come on, now.kingblaze84 wrote: »Using the Bible correctly means nothing when the words of the Bible encourage evil, and Jesus NOT ONCE criticized the Old Testament and went on to say it should always be honored.
Sounds nice and dandy but the reality is that HEADS OF CHURCHES FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS said everything I said. Many popes and many heads of protestant churches gave their full and explicit endorsement of slavery and genocides against people who were non Christian, by using many Bible passages. I'm sure some Christian terrorists twisted the words of the Bible, but they often didn't have to. There's a reason many heads of protestant and Catholic Churches endorsed the violent spread of Christianity and slavery for such a long time. Not a coincidence, these people truly believed they were doing ? 's work.
And the Old Testament ? is Jesus according to Christians, so there you have it.
Correlation is not causation
Well when sooooooooo many Christian monarchs and HEADS of churches used the Bible and found very convenient quotes to support atrocities and slavery, there's a ? problem. Notice Buddhism spiritual books haven't been used to support slavery and atrocities the way the Bible and Koran are often used. NO COINCIDENCE.
Psalm 123:2 (New International Version (NIV)): As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our ? , till he shows us his mercy.
Ephesians 6:4-6: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of ? from your heart.
Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Titus 2:9:Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them (? pathetic, I'm sure the Christian terrorists who loved to ? slaves loved this line)
1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh
Disgusting.....
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
the Trinity concept is not the exact same thing as saying "Pizarro quoted Jesus." if Pizarro (or whoever) cited Jesus, PROVIDE THE CITATION. if they used an Old Testament reference, that's what we should be calling it, or a reference to Paul or whoever. let's have accuracy over sensationalism?kingblaze84 wrote: »According to Christians, Jesus is the Old Testament ? lol, so YES, Pizarro and Columbus did use the words of Jesus to support atrocities.
look, if you want an example, tell me how Christians handle the many small restrictions on diet and so on that are explicitly spelled out in the OT.kingblaze84 wrote: »If Jesus went on record to say the Old Testament should not be taken seriously and should not be listened to, Christian ? would have had less justification to commit terrorism for hundreds of years onward. The damage ? Christians did for many, many years will live on for a long time. Also, the New Testament never said the Old Testament was wrong-
however, the POINT is that there is a difference between "this scripture, stated correctly and used sincerely, supports atrocity X" and "well, we'll use this ? any way we see fit." let's say it's the former: show your work! really, there's nowhere on the internet where you can't mine quotes from the NT that support awful ? ? come on, now.kingblaze84 wrote: »Using the Bible correctly means nothing when the words of the Bible encourage evil, and Jesus NOT ONCE criticized the Old Testament and went on to say it should always be honored.
Sounds nice and dandy but the reality is that HEADS OF CHURCHES FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS said everything I said. Many popes and many heads of protestant churches gave their full and explicit endorsement of slavery and genocides against people who were non Christian, by using many Bible passages. I'm sure some Christian terrorists twisted the words of the Bible, but they often didn't have to. There's a reason many heads of protestant and Catholic Churches endorsed the violent spread of Christianity and slavery for such a long time. Not a coincidence, these people truly believed they were doing ? 's work.
And the Old Testament ? is Jesus according to Christians, so there you have it.
Correlation is not causation
Well when sooooooooo many Christian monarchs and HEADS of churches used the Bible and found very convenient quotes to support atrocities and slavery, there's a ? problem. Notice Buddhism spiritual books haven't been used to support slavery and atrocities the way the Bible and Koran are often used. NO COINCIDENCE.
Not to mention the growing irreligiosity and lack of slavery in contemporary Western society -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
the Trinity concept is not the exact same thing as saying "Pizarro quoted Jesus." if Pizarro (or whoever) cited Jesus, PROVIDE THE CITATION. if they used an Old Testament reference, that's what we should be calling it, or a reference to Paul or whoever. let's have accuracy over sensationalism?kingblaze84 wrote: »According to Christians, Jesus is the Old Testament ? lol, so YES, Pizarro and Columbus did use the words of Jesus to support atrocities.
look, if you want an example, tell me how Christians handle the many small restrictions on diet and so on that are explicitly spelled out in the OT.kingblaze84 wrote: »If Jesus went on record to say the Old Testament should not be taken seriously and should not be listened to, Christian ? would have had less justification to commit terrorism for hundreds of years onward. The damage ? Christians did for many, many years will live on for a long time. Also, the New Testament never said the Old Testament was wrong-
however, the POINT is that there is a difference between "this scripture, stated correctly and used sincerely, supports atrocity X" and "well, we'll use this ? any way we see fit." let's say it's the former: show your work! really, there's nowhere on the internet where you can't mine quotes from the NT that support awful ? ? come on, now.kingblaze84 wrote: »Using the Bible correctly means nothing when the words of the Bible encourage evil, and Jesus NOT ONCE criticized the Old Testament and went on to say it should always be honored.
Sounds nice and dandy but the reality is that HEADS OF CHURCHES FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS said everything I said. Many popes and many heads of protestant churches gave their full and explicit endorsement of slavery and genocides against people who were non Christian, by using many Bible passages. I'm sure some Christian terrorists twisted the words of the Bible, but they often didn't have to. There's a reason many heads of protestant and Catholic Churches endorsed the violent spread of Christianity and slavery for such a long time. Not a coincidence, these people truly believed they were doing ? 's work.
And the Old Testament ? is Jesus according to Christians, so there you have it.
Correlation is not causation
Well when sooooooooo many Christian monarchs and HEADS of churches used the Bible and found very convenient quotes to support atrocities and slavery, there's a ? problem. Notice Buddhism spiritual books haven't been used to support slavery and atrocities the way the Bible and Koran are often used. NO COINCIDENCE.
Not to mention the growing irreligiosity and lack of slavery in contemporary Western society
GEE, a society that is more and more turning its back on Christianity and ALSO doesn't have state sponsored slavery? MY MY, what a surprise! -
The whole point is that it was convenient the Europeans conveniently pulled what they wanted from scripture to excuse their wrong doing. You are very uneducated on religions in the east if you think Buddhism has not been misused to justify atrocities. Because it has
-
For every scripture used to justify evil I can pull ten that say to do otherwise.
-
The whole point is that it was convenient the Europeans conveniently pulled what they wanted from scripture to excuse their wrong doing. You are very uneducated on religions in the east if you think Buddhism has not been misused to justify atrocities. Because it has
Well Buddhism is more of a philosophy then a religion so I'll leave Buddhism out of this.
As far as Europeans pulling what they wanted from scripture, well that's the Bible ? 's fault. Jesus should've been clear and clarify what the hell he said by supporting and giving praise to the ENTIRETY of the Old Testament. Perhaps after he "fulfilled" the Old Testament by dying and coming back according to Christians, then he should have written the Bible himself and clarify all the "fulfilling" he did. Because he didn't, Pizarro, Queen Elizabeth, Columbus, and other Christian leaders were able to become INFLUENTIAL by using direct Bible quotes to support their terrorism. And going word for word too, why else did many Church leaders give active support for genocides and slavery for many years. Money and power are definitely motivators but religion allowed the support of evil throughout human history. It's a fact of life and proven over and over again.
-
For every scripture used to justify evil I can pull ten that say to do otherwise.
Maybe but the damage has been done. All the victims of slavery, human sacrifice and genocide who were killed simply because they were different often have a religion to thank for that. I'm leaving the peaceful religions out of this, but sadly, that doesn't include your religion.
Any religion with a ? or gods who support mass slavery, even of children and genocide, by default isn't a peaceful religion. Give me a break.
-
Of course earth will survive.
I don't ? with ? . I was saying ? religion from a young age, so if I go to hell he sent me there cuz I came to that stance on my own as a kid. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »For every scripture used to justify evil I can pull ten that say to do otherwise.
Maybe but the damage has been done. All the victims of slavery, human sacrifice and genocide who were killed simply because they were different often have a religion to thank for that. I'm leaving the peaceful religions out of this, but sadly, that doesn't include your religion.
Any religion with a ? or gods who support mass slavery, even of children and genocide, by default isn't a peaceful religion. Give me a break.
? who said Christianity was peacefull?? I've told you many times already that the ? of Abraham is also a war ? he was for Israel and he will be again for all his children but outside of that he sanctions no war. Grow up and stop blaming ? for the actions of men.
There are no peaceful religions because religion deals with the state/nature of man . You don't want to believe that's cool but the lies misrepresentation, and slanderous ? you say about ? is why I come into these arguments with you. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »The whole point is that it was convenient the Europeans conveniently pulled what they wanted from scripture to excuse their wrong doing. You are very uneducated on religions in the east if you think Buddhism has not been misused to justify atrocities. Because it has
Well Buddhism is more of a philosophy then a religion so I'll leave Buddhism out of this.
As far as Europeans pulling what they wanted from scripture, well that's the Bible ? 's fault. Jesus should've been clear and clarify what the hell he said by supporting and giving praise to the ENTIRETY of the Old Testament. Perhaps after he "fulfilled" the Old Testament by dying and coming back according to Christians, then he should have written the Bible himself and clarify all the "fulfilling" he did. Because he didn't, Pizarro, Queen Elizabeth, Columbus, and other Christian leaders were able to become INFLUENTIAL by using direct Bible quotes to support their terrorism. And going word for word too, why else did many Church leaders give active support for genocides and slavery for many years. Money and power are definitely motivators but religion allowed the support of evil throughout human history. It's a fact of life and proven over and over again.
read that again does that really make sense to you???? you admit Europeans pulled what they what but somehow it's still ? 's fault. jesus was very clear and anyone who actually reads the bible can see that. The people you mentioned became powerful by the sword and by luck of birth not by following Christ. You want to leave Buddhism out of this because you don't know a ? thing about it or it's political history.
you have however managed to school yourself only on the darker side of Christian history while ignoring or downplaying the good side. this suggest that you are someone who is willingly stubborn and refuses to look at the reality of religious history and theology objectively. -
something tells me you're still generalizing since this is always "HEADS OF CHURCHES"kingblaze84 wrote: »Sounds nice and dandy but the reality is that HEADS OF CHURCHES FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS said everything I said. Many popes and many heads of protestant churches gave their full and explicit endorsement of slavery and genocides against people who were non Christian, by using many Bible passages.
there's a connection due to the Trinity concept but the OT ? obviously predates Jesus and is not quoted under "statements made by Jesus." further, we have those remaining law issues you didn't address...kingblaze84 wrote: »And the Old Testament ? is Jesus according to Christians, so there you have it.
-
something tells me you're still generalizing since this is always "HEADS OF CHURCHES"kingblaze84 wrote: »Sounds nice and dandy but the reality is that HEADS OF CHURCHES FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS said everything I said. Many popes and many heads of protestant churches gave their full and explicit endorsement of slavery and genocides against people who were non Christian, by using many Bible passages.
there's a connection due to the Trinity concept but the OT ? obviously predates Jesus and is not quoted under "statements made by Jesus." further, we have those remaining law issues you didn't address...kingblaze84 wrote: »And the Old Testament ? is Jesus according to Christians, so there you have it.
The OT ? is Jesus according to Christians, Christians believe Jesus is ? himself. Are you saying this isn't true lol
As far as those Bible laws and rules, let's talk about the extreme violence the Bible supports. You think it's a coincidence mass murderers and slavers like Pizarro and Columbus loved the Bible? You think it's a coincidence priests accompanied both of these men and thousands of others on there terrorist journeys?
? the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another ?
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your ? is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your ? . That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your ? will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
? Followers of Other Religions.
1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but ? him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your ? , who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your ? is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your ? and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)
--Coincidence Christian slavers and murderers loved the Bible? No, because it gave them cover for murder and slavery. Jesus made clear the Old Testament was to be taken seriously, and we already know Columbus, Queen Isabella and Pizarro took their Bible seriously!!!! HAHA!! -
kingblaze84 wrote: »The whole point is that it was convenient the Europeans conveniently pulled what they wanted from scripture to excuse their wrong doing. You are very uneducated on religions in the east if you think Buddhism has not been misused to justify atrocities. Because it has
Well Buddhism is more of a philosophy then a religion so I'll leave Buddhism out of this.
As far as Europeans pulling what they wanted from scripture, well that's the Bible ? 's fault. Jesus should've been clear and clarify what the hell he said by supporting and giving praise to the ENTIRETY of the Old Testament. Perhaps after he "fulfilled" the Old Testament by dying and coming back according to Christians, then he should have written the Bible himself and clarify all the "fulfilling" he did. Because he didn't, Pizarro, Queen Elizabeth, Columbus, and other Christian leaders were able to become INFLUENTIAL by using direct Bible quotes to support their terrorism. And going word for word too, why else did many Church leaders give active support for genocides and slavery for many years. Money and power are definitely motivators but religion allowed the support of evil throughout human history. It's a fact of life and proven over and over again.
read that again does that really make sense to you???? you admit Europeans pulled what they what but somehow it's still ? 's fault. jesus was very clear and anyone who actually reads the bible can see that. The people you mentioned became powerful by the sword and by luck of birth not by following Christ. You want to leave Buddhism out of this because you don't know a ? thing about it or it's political history.
you have however managed to school yourself only on the darker side of Christian history while ignoring or downplaying the good side. this suggest that you are someone who is willingly stubborn and refuses to look at the reality of religious history and theology objectively.
I've said before that NOT ALL religious history is bad. There have been many good Christians, like MLK and Mother Teresa (who publicly doubted her faith and even said prayer doesn't work lol). Many Muslims are good people too. And Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion, that's why I'm leaving it out of this.
Many of the Quaker Christians were very good people too, and some abolitionists were Christian, so I won't say all religious history is terrible. But in the grand scheme of things, religion has been a net loss for humanity as far as progress. Human sacrifice, genocide, and slavery historically were backed up by religion. Same with the caste system seen in India. The less religious a society, the more progressive it becomes. And this is very clear today.
The Bible's very clear support of mass violence and slavery for petty reasons is shameful and historically, a complete disaster for many people around the world. -
soul rattler wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »
Just because they had intentions on keeping slaves forever doesn't mean that was going to happen. Technological progress in agriculture and domestic services was bound to happen eventually and slavery would have become obsolete. That's not to say they wouldn't have continued to justify it with other reasoning, (RELIGION) but to act like America would have slaves in 2014 is absurd. And yes, the US did get pressure from European states to end slavery, most notably, the UK.soul rattler wrote: »
No. The reason why slavery and genocide no longer occurs in America is because it is no longer necessary. They got a huge chunk of land and as a nation, they would not be able to survive with a homogeneous population, which is why the government made sure to derail Marcus Garvey's movement. Also, Europe was already pressuring the U.S. to stop its fuckery, as slavery had already been outlawed in most European countries.kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »RELIGION HAS BEEN THE GREATEST THING IN HUMAN HISTORY.
Hell ? no, LOL......
When Christianity was big in America, America had govt sanctioned slavery, genocide, and oppression of people all over the western hemisphere. Religious fools in America and in Europe used the Bible to justify all kinds of terrorism and evil. If the Bible or Abrahamic ? NEVER existed, human progress would have been accelerated. Muslim slave traders used the Koran to ruin lives all over Africa and the Middle East, while Europeans used the Bible to ruin lives all over the world. Organized religion has been one of the WORST things to ever happen to humans.
Humans don't need religion to be civilized, that myth has been broken already, catch up.
Was big in America??? Christianity is still big in America. And most abolitionist were Christian but you are correct the bible was misused . But from a totally objective standpoint religion has done more good.
You hate the ? of Abraham but I am
Talking about religion period not just the religion you hate
Christianity is "big" in America on a shallow level, most Christians do not take the Bible here seriously. But back when Americans DID take the Bible seriously (in larger numbers compared to now), American politicians EXPLICITLY used the Bible to support manfest destiny and slavery, oppression, and even stealing land. Now that Christianity isn't taken as seriously, people (for the most part) think these things are wrong in this country. I can post up quotes from various American politicians in the past who used the Bible to support everything I said.
And non religious people in America are 25% of the population now, that number would have been unthinkable just 25 years ago. I expect the number to grow as time goes on.
that's just your feelings and opinion which is cool i have no problem with that , but the reality is that the fact that christians in america are no longer practicing slavery and killing people for land only means that we are talking the words of christ more serious not less. You just have your own warped twisted perspective on a religion that you clearly don't understand.
and being non religious does not mean you don't believe in ? so your 25% number does not tell the full truth about how people really feel
Religion didn't make America better. Only after setting religion to the side did America progress.
THE SOUTH HAD ALL INTENTION OF KEEPING SLAVERY FOREVER with or without the economic need for it because slavery for the upper class was about more than just making money it became a social and cultural part of their existence. You sound like a confederate apologist, they often propose the lie that slavery would have ended eventually for economic reasons. Europe did not care if america continued slavery or not brazil had slavery for a long time after it ended in the usa and europe still did business with them.
AND I did not propose that slavery ended because of religion simply that religion did have a had in pushing it's end america has not set religion to the side like it or not there are millions and millions of religious people in america and that's not counting the people who don't follow one religion but still believe in some kind of ? .
The bolded made no ? sense you think the government derailed the garvey movement because they wanted blacks in america??? are you white????
Now if it was up to religion alone, hell yeah there would still be slavery.
Lots of things that are obsolete but stay around your argument has no grounding. The south had already started to move slavery into other areas besides agriculture by the time the civil war began.
The so called pressure the Europeans applied amounted to nothing they still bought goods produced in southern states so foh white boy.
The notion that technological innovation increases the humanity we treat each other with is ? . And you points about religion are historically inaccurate because the abolitionist movement was loaded with religious people.
I didn't say ? about humanity, you cracka ass cracka. I said technological innovation would have made slavery obsolate in agricultural AND domestic services. But props for repeating me and yet still disagreeing with me in one fell swoop.
And once again, you are in denial that servitude, slavery in real world terms, is the fundamental basis of Christianity.
Lol at how stupid you are there is no proof that technological innovation would have ended slavery. Period. Anyway I don't talk to non blacks about slavery so this will be my last reply to you
Can you read? Where did I say that technological innovation would have ended slavery? I said it would make slavery obsolete. Sowing machines have made hand stitching obsolete but people still do it. You can keep trying to derail this thread with your foolishness but we can all see you for what you are: A pitiful life desperately clinging on to a religion he doesn't understand. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The whole point is that it was convenient the Europeans conveniently pulled what they wanted from scripture to excuse their wrong doing. You are very uneducated on religions in the east if you think Buddhism has not been misused to justify atrocities. Because it has
Well Buddhism is more of a philosophy then a religion so I'll leave Buddhism out of this.
As far as Europeans pulling what they wanted from scripture, well that's the Bible ? 's fault. Jesus should've been clear and clarify what the hell he said by supporting and giving praise to the ENTIRETY of the Old Testament. Perhaps after he "fulfilled" the Old Testament by dying and coming back according to Christians, then he should have written the Bible himself and clarify all the "fulfilling" he did. Because he didn't, Pizarro, Queen Elizabeth, Columbus, and other Christian leaders were able to become INFLUENTIAL by using direct Bible quotes to support their terrorism. And going word for word too, why else did many Church leaders give active support for genocides and slavery for many years. Money and power are definitely motivators but religion allowed the support of evil throughout human history. It's a fact of life and proven over and over again.
read that again does that really make sense to you???? you admit Europeans pulled what they what but somehow it's still ? 's fault. jesus was very clear and anyone who actually reads the bible can see that. The people you mentioned became powerful by the sword and by luck of birth not by following Christ. You want to leave Buddhism out of this because you don't know a ? thing about it or it's political history.
you have however managed to school yourself only on the darker side of Christian history while ignoring or downplaying the good side. this suggest that you are someone who is willingly stubborn and refuses to look at the reality of religious history and theology objectively.
I've said before that NOT ALL religious history is bad. There have been many good Christians, like MLK and Mother Teresa (who publicly doubted her faith and even said prayer doesn't work lol). Many Muslims are good people too. And Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion, that's why I'm leaving it out of this.
Many of the Quaker Christians were very good people too, and some abolitionists were Christian, so I won't say all religious is terrible. But in the grand scheme of things, religion has been a net loss for humanity as far as progress. Human sacrifice, genocide, and slavery historically were backed up by religion. Same with the caste system seen in India. The less religious a society, the more progressive it becomes. And this is very clear today.
The Bible's very clear support of mass violence and slavery for petty reasons is shameful and historically, a complete disaster for many people around the world.
Buddhism is a religion and a philosophy and has many religious sects and funny enough right now the most philosophical sect of buddhism, theavarad buddhism is involved in ethnic cleansing.
so, soviet russia, maoist china and pol ? ruled cambodia must be your models of progress, Or are you going to use the nations of western and northern europe as you examples?? of a progressive society lacking in religion. The bolded is just too subjective progress to where and what??? the grand scheme of what??? what do you think the goal of a society/ideology should be??? and how do you determine that it is the increasing lack of religion in your sample nations that lead to their " progressive societies" because
History reveals all things and most of those nations i think you would use as example until recently were fighting wars among themselves and slaughtering brown people and it's only the force, money and military of the usa that provided them with the stability needed for them to build those peaceful advanced nations. They owe their peace not too atheism but to america. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The whole point is that it was convenient the Europeans conveniently pulled what they wanted from scripture to excuse their wrong doing. You are very uneducated on religions in the east if you think Buddhism has not been misused to justify atrocities. Because it has
Well Buddhism is more of a philosophy then a religion so I'll leave Buddhism out of this.
As far as Europeans pulling what they wanted from scripture, well that's the Bible ? 's fault. Jesus should've been clear and clarify what the hell he said by supporting and giving praise to the ENTIRETY of the Old Testament. Perhaps after he "fulfilled" the Old Testament by dying and coming back according to Christians, then he should have written the Bible himself and clarify all the "fulfilling" he did. Because he didn't, Pizarro, Queen Elizabeth, Columbus, and other Christian leaders were able to become INFLUENTIAL by using direct Bible quotes to support their terrorism. And going word for word too, why else did many Church leaders give active support for genocides and slavery for many years. Money and power are definitely motivators but religion allowed the support of evil throughout human history. It's a fact of life and proven over and over again.
read that again does that really make sense to you???? you admit Europeans pulled what they what but somehow it's still ? 's fault. jesus was very clear and anyone who actually reads the bible can see that. The people you mentioned became powerful by the sword and by luck of birth not by following Christ. You want to leave Buddhism out of this because you don't know a ? thing about it or it's political history.
you have however managed to school yourself only on the darker side of Christian history while ignoring or downplaying the good side. this suggest that you are someone who is willingly stubborn and refuses to look at the reality of religious history and theology objectively.
I've said before that NOT ALL religious history is bad. There have been many good Christians, like MLK and Mother Teresa (who publicly doubted her faith and even said prayer doesn't work lol). Many Muslims are good people too. And Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion, that's why I'm leaving it out of this.
Many of the Quaker Christians were very good people too, and some abolitionists were Christian, so I won't say all religious is terrible. But in the grand scheme of things, religion has been a net loss for humanity as far as progress. Human sacrifice, genocide, and slavery historically were backed up by religion. Same with the caste system seen in India. The less religious a society, the more progressive it becomes. And this is very clear today.
The Bible's very clear support of mass violence and slavery for petty reasons is shameful and historically, a complete disaster for many people around the world.
Buddhism is a religion and a philosophy and has many religious sects and funny enough right now the most philosophical sect of buddhism, theavarad buddhism is involved in ethnic cleansing.
so, soviet russia, maoist china and pol ? ruled cambodia must be your models of progress, Or are you going to use the nations of western and northern europe as you examples?? of a progressive society lacking in religion. The bolded is just too subjective progress to where and what??? the grand scheme of what??? what do you think the goal of a society/ideology should be??? and how do you determine that it is the increasing lack of religion in your sample nations that lead to their " progressive societies" because
History reveals all things and most of those nations i think you would use as example until recently were fighting wars among themselves and slaughtering brown people and it's only the force, money and military of the usa that provided them with the stability needed for them to build those peaceful advanced nations. They owe their peace not too atheism but to america.
? lol.....you and Buddhism....
Buddhism, in its original form, isn't a religion because the Buddha himself didn't know if there was a ? . He was agnostic and some say atheist, but yeah many people do worship him. And that's cool, but in its original form more or less, it was a philosophy that highly praised the Buddha as well. Do some research on that.
And yes we can agree force through America and allies are reasons there are some levels of peace in the world, especially Europe. But America can't do it all by itself, it has allies that also have grown less religious and less in demands of mean spirited gods that we all know about. Don't make it seem America is the only reason there is peace in northern Europe and many other parts of the world. America deserves large credit through WW2 and keeping in check a savage 1940s Japan Empire. But Russia, which wasn't a religious society when it beat back Germany, held some order in Europe as well. They aided Cuba, which has many Blacks and helped to a large degree some nations in Latin America and Caribbean, so stop making it seem America is the only reason there's some order in the world. I can name places that aren't so orderly thanks to we know which nation.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »
something tells me you're still generalizing since this is always "HEADS OF CHURCHES"kingblaze84 wrote: »Sounds nice and dandy but the reality is that HEADS OF CHURCHES FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS said everything I said. Many popes and many heads of protestant churches gave their full and explicit endorsement of slavery and genocides against people who were non Christian, by using many Bible passages.
there's a connection due to the Trinity concept but the OT ? obviously predates Jesus and is not quoted under "statements made by Jesus." further, we have those remaining law issues you didn't address...kingblaze84 wrote: »And the Old Testament ? is Jesus according to Christians, so there you have it.
The OT ? is Jesus according to Christians, Christians believe Jesus is ? himself. Are you saying this isn't true lol
As far as those Bible laws and rules, let's talk about the extreme violence the Bible supports. You think it's a coincidence mass murderers and slavers like Pizarro and Columbus loved the Bible? You think it's a coincidence priests accompanied both of these men and thousands of others on there terrorist journeys?
? the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another ?
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your ? is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your ? . That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your ? will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
? Followers of Other Religions.
1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but ? him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your ? , who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your ? is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your ? and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)
--Coincidence Christian slavers and murderers loved the Bible? No, because it gave them cover for murder and slavery. Jesus made clear the Old Testament was to be taken seriously, and we already know Columbus, Queen Isabella and Pizarro took their Bible seriously!!!! HAHA!!
Horrible post. You picked the worse verses from the bible to make your point WHO IS ? TALKING TO IN THE VERSES YOU QUOTED????? or it that unimportant as long as you try to prove your point???
just read the underlined who do you think ? was talking to??? not columbus or pizarro ? was not even talking to christians in these verses your understanding of theology is one of the worse i have ever come across... SMH
AND once again correlation is not causation but what's more likely columbus and pizarro loved the bible or they loved war and the profit it brings??? columbus and pizarro were catholics which means they probably never ever read the bible for themselves in the first place let alone study it. -
It seems you're getting off track in the thread, the question was, CAN Earth survive without religion, and it's obvious the answer is yes. I don't understand what the hell you're still in denial about.....some people or many people need religion but many others don't and they do just fine. We all need something to believe in though I think but it doesn't have to be a ? in the sky
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »It seems you're getting off track in the thread, the question was, CAN Earth survive without religion, and it's obvious the answer is yes. I don't understand what the hell you're still in denial about.....some people or many people need religion but many others don't and they do just fine. We all need something to believe in though I think but it doesn't have to be a ? in the sky
Yeah, now you don't want to address the faulty nonsense logic of your posts in this thread, Ok. The earth may exist as a planet if all humans die but can society continue if there is no religion???? No one knows because like i said EARLIER as far back as anyone can tell religions have always been with mankind. and every society that has tried to totally strip it self of any kind of religion has ended badly. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »It seems you're getting off track in the thread, the question was, CAN Earth survive without religion, and it's obvious the answer is yes. I don't understand what the hell you're still in denial about.....some people or many people need religion but many others don't and they do just fine. We all need something to believe in though I think but it doesn't have to be a ? in the sky
Yeah, now you don't want to address the faulty nonsense logic of your posts in this thread, Ok. The earth may exist as a planet if all humans die but can society continue is there is no religion???? No one knows because like i said EARLIER as far back as anyone can tell religions have always been with mankind. and every society that has tried to totally strip it self of any kind of religion has ended badly.
You're right, maybe I change my mind, mankind has no moral compass without ? . Without ? , all mankind would ? , murder, steal, etc. Good thing we got ? . -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »It seems you're getting off track in the thread, the question was, CAN Earth survive without religion, and it's obvious the answer is yes. I don't understand what the hell you're still in denial about.....some people or many people need religion but many others don't and they do just fine. We all need something to believe in though I think but it doesn't have to be a ? in the sky
Yeah, now you don't want to address the faulty nonsense logic of your posts in this thread, Ok. The earth may exist as a planet if all humans die but can society continue is there is no religion???? No one knows because like i said EARLIER as far back as anyone can tell religions have always been with mankind. and every society that has tried to totally strip it self of any kind of religion has ended badly.
You're right, maybe I change my mind, mankind has no moral compass without ? . Without ? , all mankind would ? , murder, steal, etc. Good thing we got ? .
No we can have morals without ? but without the belief in divinely inspired moral codes all our morals become subjective. There is no foundation for them except what some human thinks and humans are often wrong. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »It seems you're getting off track in the thread, the question was, CAN Earth survive without religion, and it's obvious the answer is yes. I don't understand what the hell you're still in denial about.....some people or many people need religion but many others don't and they do just fine. We all need something to believe in though I think but it doesn't have to be a ? in the sky
Yeah, now you don't want to address the faulty nonsense logic of your posts in this thread, Ok. The earth may exist as a planet if all humans die but can society continue is there is no religion???? No one knows because like i said EARLIER as far back as anyone can tell religions have always been with mankind. and every society that has tried to totally strip it self of any kind of religion has ended badly.
You're right, maybe I change my mind, mankind has no moral compass without ? . Without ? , all mankind would ? , murder, steal, etc. Good thing we got ? .
No we can have morals without ? but without the belief in divinely inspired moral codes all our morals become subjective. There is no foundation for them except what some human thinks and humans are often wrong.
Which goes back to..... if you lack morals, you don't lack ? you lack a conscience, which you and I already went through.....
If you want to call that bad feeling inside MOST people get when they wrong others "godly inspired" whatever. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »It seems you're getting off track in the thread, the question was, CAN Earth survive without religion, and it's obvious the answer is yes. I don't understand what the hell you're still in denial about.....some people or many people need religion but many others don't and they do just fine. We all need something to believe in though I think but it doesn't have to be a ? in the sky
Yeah, now you don't want to address the faulty nonsense logic of your posts in this thread, Ok. The earth may exist as a planet if all humans die but can society continue is there is no religion???? No one knows because like i said EARLIER as far back as anyone can tell religions have always been with mankind. and every society that has tried to totally strip it self of any kind of religion has ended badly.
You're right, maybe I change my mind, mankind has no moral compass without ? . Without ? , all mankind would ? , murder, steal, etc. Good thing we got ? .
No we can have morals without ? but without the belief in divinely inspired moral codes all our morals become subjective. There is no foundation for them except what some human thinks and humans are often wrong.
Which goes back to..... if you lack morals, you don't lack ? you lack a conscience, which you and I already went through.....
If you want to call that bad feeling inside MOST people get when they wrong others "godly inspired" whatever.
YOU CAN have morals that run against your conscience, morals that are based on feelings are not real morals because morals don't flip flop and change all over the place feelings do, i don't see where you are going with this
we don't need ? to have subjective morals (fake morals) but we do need some celestial law to have objective morals. people with morals follow their code no matter how they feel.
-
YOU CAN have morals that run against your conscience, morals that are based on feelings are not real morals because morals don't flip flop and change all over the place feelings do, i don't see where you are going with this
we don't need ? to have subjective morals (fake morals) but we do need some celestial law to have objective morals. people with morals follow their code no matter how they feel.
Okay, so back in the day the divinely inspired texts said we should be stone our heathen children to death, human on their own subjective feelings said ? that. Who's right? -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
YOU CAN have morals that run against your conscience, morals that are based on feelings are not real morals because morals don't flip flop and change all over the place feelings do, i don't see where you are going with this
we don't need ? to have subjective morals (fake morals) but we do need some celestial law to have objective morals. people with morals follow their code no matter how they feel.
Okay, so back in the day the divinely inspired texts said we should be stone our heathen children to death, human on their own subjective feelings said ? that. Who's right?
If you are referring to the old testament then the text was right and the child should have been stoned because having children that don't obey and follow other religions is a greater threat to the entire tribe
