The atrocities of Christianity

wynn said:
Gee, then you can't take issue with Christians either.
Click to expand...

Taking issue with intolerance isn't exactly the same as damning the intolerant to hell. But then you knew that.


Your points are questionable.

As long as natural resources are scarce and not so easy to get by, there will be some kind of struggle over them. And people will come up with various politically correct justifications to cover up this fact, because they find it so embarrassing.

IOW, if food, clothes and shelter, and everything else humans want and need would come freely with minimal or no effort, you would have a point. But since it takes so much effort and struggle just to get basic needs met, there is a lot more to consider.
Click to expand...

Torturing poor people because they don't believe like you do serves no economic purpose whatsoever. If you even wanted to confiscate their few possessions, which is unlikely, you'd simpy kill them. Torturing them for long hours so they will confess and become saved would avail you nothing. The only motivation here is pure religious fanaticism, a sort of socially propagated psychosis that dehumanizes nonbelievers as heretics deserving of cruelty and death.



If humans really would be good by nature, then how good is that goodness if the slightest pressure of presumed authority or hunger can defeat it?
Click to expand...

That people will kill others for food is your proposition, not mine. Frankly I don't believe it.







I think you ought to look into your own accusations, both of the Spanish Inquisition and of some people. For your own peace of mind.
Click to expand...


Didn't make any accusations. Just cited a long list of historical events. If the history of christian intolerance feels accusatory to you, I'd suggest searching your own soul to find out why.

While I certainly think that some theistic religious systems are incompatible with a peaceful way of life, we would need to clear up whether that incompatibility is exclusively due to that religion, or whether that religion just manifests tendencies that humans naturally have anyway and would have them with or without the religion.
Click to expand...



I think it's pretty self-evident that Catholics wouldn't have killed Cathars if they weren't Cathars. That they wouldn't have burned witches if they hadn't believed they were witches. And that they wouldn't have slaughtered Muslims in 9 Crusades if they weren't Muslims. Religion motivates people to hate in ways they would not normally hate. If you have some evidence showing this to be untrue let's hear it.


Further, a point can be made that religions that are usually seen as intolerant, are actually trying to harness and streamline the natural human tendency for aggression.
Click to expand...

What's that they say about the road to hell?
 
Magical Realist said:
Taking issue with intolerance isn't exactly the same as damning the intolerant to hell. But then you knew that.
Click to expand...

Being intolerant of intolerance is intolerant.


Torturing poor people because they don't believe like you do serves no economic purpose whatsoever. If you even wanted to confiscate their few possessions, which is unlikely, you'd simpy kill them. Torturing them for long hours so they will confess and become saved would avail you nothing. The only motivation here is pure religious fanaticism, a sort of socially propagated psychosis that dehumanizes nonbelievers as heretics deserving of cruelty and death.
Click to expand...

I myself have been bullied by Catholics for not being Catholic (I'm not Christian in any sense either). Of course, this is not the same as the torture in the name of God that some people were subjected to in the Holy Inquisition.

For years, I've been trying to understand why those people did to me what they did, and how I could come up with an explanation that would set my mind at ease.
I find that humanistic explanations tend to be lacking, as they operate from an utopian ideal of how people should be. An ideal that may be realizable in a world where there is no aging, no illness, no death, no scarcity of natural resources, no greed, no anger and no delusion. But to hold people to that ideal in a world beset by aging, illness, death, scarcity of natural resources, greed, anger and delusion - that is, our world - is just unrealistic.


That people will kill others for food is your proposition, not mine. Frankly I don't believe it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you'll think differently when you'll be the one starving.


I think it's pretty self-evident that Catholics wouldn't have killed Cathars if they weren't Cathars. That they wouldn't have burned witches if they hadn't believed they were witches. And that they wouldn't have slaughtered Muslims in 9 Crusades if they weren't Muslims. Religion motivates people to hate in ways they would not normally hate. If you have some evidence showing this to be untrue let's hear it.
Click to expand...

Even if we go with that, you still need to explain where religion came from and how come it has been around for so long.
 
wynn said:
Being intolerant of intolerance is intolerant.
Click to expand...

No..You have that backwards. Actually NOT tolerating intolerance--standing up against it and fighting it--IS tolerance. And that's because you are not condoning the intolerant treatment of the victim. You are standing up for their tolerance. To tolerate intolerance is in fact intolerance.





Perhaps you'll think differently when you'll be the one starving.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. Because I can tell you emphatically that I would not kill someone just because I was starving. And I'm pretty sure
I'm not the only one either.


Even if we go with that, you still need to explain where religion came from and how come it has been around for so long.
Click to expand...

No..I don't have to explain the origin of anything to be against it. I can't explain the origin of Nazism for example. But I'm still against it. Same with Christian intolerance.
 
Magical Realist said:
No..You have that backwards. Actually NOT tolerating intolerance--standing up against it and fighting it--IS tolerance. And that's because you are not condoning the intolerant treatment of the victim. You are standing up for their tolerance. To tolerate intolerance is in fact intolerance.

Speak for yourself. Because I can tell you emphatically that I would not kill someone just because I was starving. And I'm pretty sure
I'm not the only one either.

No..I don't have to explain the origin of anything to be against it. I can't explain the origin of Nazism for example. But I'm still against it. Same with Christian intolerance.
Click to expand...

You might find yourself surprised by what high aspirations, high expectations, idealism, starvation, oppression and environmental pollution can influence people to do.

The Khmer Rouge, for example, started out with very idealistic notions - and look what happened.


Promoting world-wide peace and tolerance might very well cost you your own life, and (prior to that) it may lead you to do precisely the same kind of actions that you have originally set out to eradicate in others.
 
A couple of small points to Wynn, if you were actually starving you would be too weak to kill anybody, and if what you claim is true or actually happens, why do we not hear of it, as a regular occurrence.
 
Well, perhaps the idea that people in need resort to stealing and fighting, is merely an urban myth.
 
You used the terms "starving" and "killing" not stealing and fighting. Changing the goal post some what, aren't we. We don't hear of people who are starving, killing to get food, that is a myth.
 
wynn said:
You might find yourself surprised by what high aspirations, high expectations, idealism, starvation, oppression and environmental pollution can influence people to do.
Click to expand...

That sounds like your particular burden. I'm more concerned with what ignorance superstition and religious fanaticism has done and continues to do to our species. If you have any doubts check my list again.
 
geeser said:
You used the terms "starving" and "killing" not stealing and fighting. Changing the goal post some what, aren't we. We don't hear of people who are starving, killing to get food, that is a myth.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about that too. If people are starving it probably behooves them more to become friends with those with food rather than just killing them. As if they even had the strength to kill people. Being a murderous a-hole is just not conducive to survival in most societies, even IF you are starving.
 
As for the effects of hunger and other unmet needs, especially on large scales - wait and see, if nothing else.


Magical Realist said:
That sounds like your particular burden. I'm more concerned with what ignorance superstition and religious fanaticism has done and continues to do to our species. If you have any doubts check my list again.
Click to expand...

Does thinking of Christianity as a kind of "socially propagated psychosis" set your mind at rest?

Are you happy with this explanation?
 
wynn said:
As for the effects of hunger and other unmet needs, especially on large scales - wait and see, if nothing else.




Does thinking of Christianity as a kind of "socially propagated psychosis" set your mind at rest?

Are you happy with this explanation?
Click to expand...

I'm happy regardless of what I think. Why does knowing the truth about christianity perturb you so much? They're just facts. Facts can't hurt you.
 
Saint said:
When people do evil in the name of God, shall God be responsible for it?
Click to expand...
Atheists have no god and have no afterlife. What prevents atheists from doing evil? The police? If so, then what prevents the police from doing evil?
 
Magical Realist said:
I would say both. A philosophy cannot of itself commit atrocities without inspiring people to do them.
Click to expand...



Christ teaching is if they hit you in the left chin put the other . When Christ got apprehended in the garden and one of his follower used a knife and cut one of the apprehends the ear , Christs said to him put the knife back and healed the apprehend ear back. Christ said love hay fellow man as your self
You tell me if the Philosophy is guilty of atrocity. Or your mind is twisted
 
Mazulu said:
Atheists have no god and have no afterlife. What prevents atheists from doing evil? The police? If so, then what prevents the police from doing evil?
Click to expand...

What prevents me from doing evil? Compassion and empathy for others. A rational approach towards living. A natural desire for peace and freedom in the society I live in. How does believing in God keep you from doing evil?
 
Mazulu said:
Atheists have no god and have no afterlife. What prevents atheists from doing evil? The police? If so, then what prevents the police from doing evil?
Click to expand...

The same thing that prevents you from doing evil. I think it's called a conscience, or empathy. Some people lack it, including police.
 
arauca said:
Christ teaching is if they hit you in the left chin put the other . When Christ got apprehended in the garden and one of his follower used a knife and cut one of the apprehends the ear , Christs said to him put the knife back and healed the apprehend ear back. Christ said love hay fellow man as your self
You tell me if the Philosophy is guilty of atrocity. Or your mind is twisted
Click to expand...

Do you often insult people outright. ? Did Jesus tell you to do that? You should consult the OP for the list of atrocities committed by those who felt the righteous indignation to take other people's lives. It's a real eye-opener. Speaking of Jesus, he said he was come to bring not peace but a sword. Looks like even he anticipated the divisive and violent results of his teachings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top