 |
 |
 |
© 2007 by Tim Simmons
The recent insistence by Midwest Painter that nowhere in the Bible are Christians commanded to kill non-Christians has prompted me to do a bit of typing. I’ve already known about most of what I’ve dug up here but I thought I might try to put just SOME of the evidence in one post that Christianity has a bloody heritage not entirely unconnected to its holy scripture. My belief was that the Bible did command violence under certain circumstances but a wholesale command to kill anyone who was not already a Christian clearly is absent from the New Testament writings but IS depicted as historical events and direct commands from god in many places of the Old Testament.
Can we establish a link between the Bible and violence perpetrated by those who profess to be Christians? I think the answer to this one must be a resounding YES!
I will post a few quick things first then some links to some articles on the web in case anyone wants to browse them.
I’d first like to make the observation that the Old Testament is part of every Christian's Bible and they love to quote from it - when it suits them. But the OT law is still in force and binding on all Christians today.
The Old Testament was considered binding by Jesus and he even explicitly said as much in the following verses.
Matthew 5:17-19
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [meaning, keep the laws just like every other Jew was supposed to do]
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus says he did not come to nullify the law. Plain and simple. He also says that the law will not become nullified until heaven and earth are destroyed and ALL things are accomplished. Sorry, Christians, you are breaking God’s commandments each and every day if you wear clothes that are part cotton and part polyester.
Another place concerning the law being in effect per Jesus is Matthew 15.
1Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
This is why I frame the post in terms of the Bible as a whole rather than limit myself to the New Testament. I believe I'm correct when I say that most Christians accept the Old Testament as being true and the word of God and as I’ve just shown above, the OT commandments (laws) are STILL in effect per Jesus. So any objection that Old Testament versus are not admissible are automatically nullified.
The Devil Made Me Do It!Where would a Christian get any idea to harm someone just by reading the Bible – a message supposedly from an all-loving god?
Let me take a peek at just a few places from the Old Testament that MIGHT give someone an idea or two and then I will post a few thoughts on some NT passages.
There is no telling how many people were murdered (mostly women who were burned alive in public) for being a witch in the last 3000 years. Hundreds? Thousands? I have no idea how many but why would we single out this particular person over any other? The answer lies in the Bible.
Deuteronomy 18:10
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
1 Samuel 15:23
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
And then the clincher…
Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
But let’s not leave out the male witches (wizards), either.
Leviticus 20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
And one from the NT just to show that witchcraft was still considered a sinful thing during the formation of Christianity about 800 years later.
Galatians 5:19-21
19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
The real issue here wasn’t that witches were in cahoots with Satan or doing harmful things (in fact, they were doing exactly the same as the prophets only just not consulting god) but that Yahweh was a jealous god and anyone consulting OTHER spirits besides him were singled out as horrible sinners and were to be killed. I don’t know about you but this sounds like a command to do violence against someone who isn’t “one of us”.
If being a witch was so abhorrent to god (even above pedophilia which is not mentioned at all), then why wouldn’t it still be abhorrent to god today – especially since the law is still in effect per Jesus?
This, of course, is part of the cause for the witch hunts and witch burnings. But this couldn’t happen in this day and age in America, right?
The West Memphis Three:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v
In 1993, three young boys convicted of murdering three younger boys and the conviction hinged on Damien Echol’s involvement/knowledge of the occult and the type of music he and two other boys listened to. What chance did a young boy with knowledge of the occult and listening to Metallica have in a small, Bible-belt town when the prosecution assumed the murders were by a Satanic cult even before any arrests were made and in spite of the forensic evidence that it was a crime of extreme violence and hate and not any controlled ritualistic murder? Also view on youtube two HBO documentaries on this called “Paradise Lost…” and the sequel. Echols is now on death row. Watch these vids on youtube and get sick and pissed off at the double tragedy in which Christian beliefs played the biggest part in the wrongful convictions of three innocent BOYS.
Talk back and I’ll Send Ya Straight To Heaven!I’m glad I didn’t grow up as an Israelite during the reign of Josiah. Basically, this is when most of the Old Testament was written/edited. 7th century BCE. I remember being whipped with a belt (until welps formed that took days to go away) and a switch (same song, different verse) for disobeying my parents but I think they were too lenient according to the following commands given by god.
Exodus 21:17
And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:15
And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Ouch! Sort of makes being grounded for a week seem wimpy, doesn’t it?
No, no violence commanded in those verses.
So, according to the Bible, Christians should kill their children if they hit them or curse them. Gee, if Christians were to kill their own children for such a small sin as hitting them, what do you think they’d do to a stranger? A stranger that was an… unbeliever to boot?
Do a search for “put to death” from any online KJV Bible and you’ll find plenty of peaceful commandments from God. Here’s one I also find a bit odd when I think about all of the really bad things you could do instead.
Three different times God wants to kill anyone who works on the sabbath.
- Exodus 31:14
Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Exodus 31:13-15 (in Context) Exodus 31 (Whole Chapter) - Exodus 31:15
Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 31:14-16 (in Context) Exodus 31 (Whole Chapter) - Exodus 35:2
Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
An even more interesting law is this one.
Deuteronomy 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
So, if my underwear was a mix of cotton and wool… I’d probably be stoned to death. It was more important to avoid mixing garment materials than to forbid a sin such as pedophilia, I guess.
With countless “put to death” commands in the law, what do you think was going on then? Do you think it may have created a tad bit of precedence for future followers of Yahweh? Christians, too?
Obviously, god was much more concerned about the ingredients of clothes than protecting children. Which brings me to the God-sanctioned slaughter of babies.
We can also see instances of God sanctioning the wholesale slaughter of several nations (including women, children and livestock) in Deuteronomy. This was done because God had promised some land to his chosen people and he had to take out the resident inhabitants first.
Deuteronomy 2:24-35
24Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon: behold, I have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land: begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle.
25This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.
26And I sent messengers out of the wilderness of Kedemoth unto Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace, saying,
27Let me pass through thy land: I will go along by the high way, I will neither turn unto the right hand nor to the left.
28Thou shalt sell me meat for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink: only I will pass through on my feet;
29(As the children of Esau which dwell in Seir, and the Moabites which dwell in Ar, did unto me;) until I shall pass over Jordan into the land which the LORD our God giveth us.
30But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.
31And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land.
32Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.
33And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
34And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
35Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took.
This same type of slaughter happens a few more times in Deuteronomy with similar results. All the men, women and children were murdered so that the Israelites could have some land to inherit. This sounds a lot like God-commanded violence to me.
A similar thing happens to the Amalekites. God commands the Israelites to kill them all and they do. But the reason is that the Amalekites’ ancestors from 400 years earlier ambushed some Israelites and killed them. So, God decided to kill innocent Amalekites to make up for it. Men, women and children.
1st Samuel 15:2-3
2This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'
I can’t imagine a more loving and forgiving god. Not to mention just, since he’s murdering people who had nothing to do with the original crime.
Many more instances of God commanding murder could be cited but for me, this is enough. On to the New Testament.
Violent Influences Found In The New TestamentDid Jesus always promote peace and love? Could any of his words or actions be used as justification for violence?
Matthew 10:34-37
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e]
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
This doesn’t sound much like the Jesus we’re accustomed to hearing about. If Jesus came to bring division, as he says here, then would some use this to justify use of the sword?
Luke takes the “love me more” part and changes it to actual hate for the parents.
Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.
Not much peace and love for your kin there, I guess. But perhaps it’s all just hyperbole. Even so, the point is that these passages give rise to justified violence – they open the door, if you will, to those who are looking for a nod of okay from god.
If You’ve Got Demons, You’re Not Getting Enough Exorcise.
The New Testament is full with the idea that demons or evil spirits could enter a person's body and possess them. This concept has also contributed to the persecution of those who acted differently or even those who had diseases such as epilepsy. Many mothers kill their children because they thought they were possessed and killing them would send them to heaven.
...during his evaluation in March that the voice she was hearing was benign at first -- 'but as the evening went on, she said the nature of the voice became sinister and threatening,' Watson said. 'The voice told her that her children were in danger. It was the devil or a demon, telling her she had to kill them in order to prevent something worse happening to them.' After Kukla allegedly stabbed her children, along with three dogs and a pet mouse, she sat outside her trailer and 'waited for a vehicle to take her to hell,' Watson testified. Watson said he reached his determination of Kukla's insanity based on tests he administered, along with other witnesses who saw Kukla apparently talking to someone who wasn't there.
http://www.expertwitnessblog
Did the religion of love and peace cause her to hear demons and go insane? Was Satan actively working on her?
Many parents have killed their own children for religious reasons.
Another famous recent case is that of Andrea Yates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
She killed her five kids and in 2006 was acquitted by reason of insanity. I agree than a mother that kills her five children because she thought they would go to hell before getting saved due to raising them wrong is definitely insane.
Then there’s the offshoot problems such as Catholic celibacy which of course contributed to the molestation of countless young children throughout history. Any week in the news you can find a pastor of some church arrested for molesting some child. Is there a connection with Christianity? Just coincidence?
Many other cases of Christians doing bad things could be cited but the point is that false beliefs often give birth to other false beliefs – and horrible actions.
The Inquisition. Are you a Christian? No? I’m sorry but we’ll need to relieve you of your head. This is so well known I’ll just point you to the link near bottom of page.
Crusades? Another peaceful chapter in the life of a religion based on peace. See the link near the bottom of the page.
Another source for the justification of violence by the Church is Augustine of Hippo.
Augustine of Hippo (St. Augustine)
Just War theory is a doctrine which holds that a conflict can meet the criteria of philosophical, religious or political justice, provided it follows certain conditions. The doctrine of the just war has its foundations in ancient Greek society and was first developed in the Christian tradition by Augustine in Civitas Dei, The City of God, in reaction to the absolutist pacifist strain of Christian ethics based on the doctrine of "Turn the other cheek" espoused by Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 5:38-48).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
Sounds a lot like jihad and holy war to me. War is always just after it’s begun.
Unsurprisingly, crusades era preachers and writers seized on Augustine's popular reputation during the middle ages and cited his works in reference to the crusading movement as a justification for calling of violence in defense of the Holy Land and the eastern Christian empire of Byzantium. Cambridge Historian Jonathan Riley-Smith, for example, notes that crusades preachers turned...
...to scholars for justification of Christian violence and Gregory VII had found in Anselm of
Lucca a partisan who, through a careful reading of the Fathers, above all St. Augustine of
Hippo, would build a convincing case for Christian violence as something which could be
commanded by God, was at the disposal of the Church and would, when properly used, be
an expression of Christian love.(1)
http://www.crusades-encyclopedi
With the instruments of power now in their hands, Christians-even Augustine himself-felt the need to call on the state to punish heretics, to take civil action against those who were not following the truth. They wanted to bring to completion the Christianization of the world, at least of the Roman world. The standard of conduct in this world would not be as radical as it had been for the Donatists or for the earlier followers of Tertullian, but would ensure that the culture would gradually be Christianized. No longer would the radical discontinuity be required of "the ordinary Christian" in the "ordinary church."
http://www.osb.org/aba/2004
With regard to being drafted into a war, most all the early church fathers spoke right up and used Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” motif in an attempt to avoid being enlisted as a soldier (with possible dire consequences).
http://rachelstanton.wordpress
But with regard to heretics (those who believed differently), we see copious amounts of writings by all the fathers against heretics. The undercurrent is one of hatred while the surface tone sometimes matches what you’d expect from a “loving” Christian but to my knowledge, no church father ever advised killing heretics outright. But it eventually became the standard modus operandi of the church.
… the case of the scholar and humanist Giordano Bruno was not the last execution for heresy. The most famous heretic is of course Joan of Arc, who was later cleared of all charges after her death and eventually made a saint. Heresy remained an officially punishable offense in Roman Catholic nations until the late 18th century. In Spain, heretics were prosecuted and punished during the Counter-Enlightenment movement of the restoration of the monarchy there after the Napoleonic Era.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
A list of some of the people burned or otherwise murdered for not believing exactly as the orthodox Christians did or for not being Christian at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
More reading…
Early Christianity:
http://atheism.about.com
http://atheism.about.com
http://atheism.about.com
Modern Christianity:
http://atheism.about.com
http://atheism.about.com/od
http://atheism.about.com
Modern America:
http://atheism.about.com
http://atheism.about.com
http://atheism.about.com
Christian terrorism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
This topic could encompass several books but can anyone read this entire post (which really just hints at the horrors) and truly say that Judaism/Christianity has not caused untold suffering in the world for the last 3000 years?
There may not be a command in the New Testament telling Christians to kill non-Christians but it’s clear to me that Christianity, the supposed light shining in the darkness, has a heritage of violence, bloodshed and needless human suffering. I am glad I am no longer a Christian.
Don't forget Revelation 19 though, where Christ himself leads a holy army to slaughter his enemies until even the birds are sick of eating their flesh, so that he can then rule the world with a rod of iron.
Shouldn't we follow Christ's example...?
And I just finished her book titled The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold . The section about the christ fable derived from pre-existent myth is just hilarious.
All talk, no walk, as usual. Yawn.
but if we are taking the purely broad view. I will hold up the 2000 year history of Christianity against the roughly 100 year history of atheist communism and its brutality. At least there are many examples in history of Christianity lived lovingly faithfully and peacefully. There isnt a single healthy atheist society to boast of. Wonder why?
But of course you found it confusing. Only those of use who've read the Bible from cover to cover a few times can follow.
A modicum of intelligence is also required, which you seem to suffer a severe lack of.
There are quite a few healthy atheistic countries. Perhaps you should educate yourself. You can start here: The Largest Atheist / Agnostic Populations.
Personally, I would never want to live in either a religious theocracy or an authoritarian state. History shows that both alternatives result in the brutal murder and subjugation of large masses of humanity. No, when it comes to autocratic rule, I’m against it – no matter what flavor.
If theocracy is allowed to ascend to the throne again, you can be sure we’ll be plunged into another superstitious dark age.
But fortunately there isn’t an either/or, black/white choice here. We have more choices than theocracy or communist regime. We have the choice of having a secular republic (modern democracy), which is what we do have today. We have freedom of religion, but religion is not free to dictate government policy. And the government is restrained from taking control over matters of conscience. It’s a delicate dance, to be sure, and as far as history is concerned, this form of society is a brand new experiment. Hopefully neither superstition nor autocratic rule will regain their positions and we will be wise enough to maintain the middle road of secular government.
I have known good Unitarians, Quakers, Catholics,Jews,Socialists, and members of the NRA. I have nothing against anyone following some creed or set of convictions. That is their business.
However.........if all xians were as meek as lambs and as pretty as the blessed virgin, I would not be a xian. If all atheists were as cruel as Bugsy Segal and as ugly as scorpions, I would still be an atheist.
And in response to your last line: show me a theocracy to be proud of
And of course atheistic scientists (Dawkins assures us most scientists are atheists) have filled the world with nuclear weapons that could destroy civilization in an afternoon.
After all, fundies may talk about the end of the world...atheistic scientists have made it possible.
In many countries in Europe, abortion is freely available, likewise porn and prostitution, and gays and lesbians enjoy equal rights. And in these countries, there is less crime; less violence; less heart attacks; less ulcers; less suicide; less mental illnes; longer life spans and lower infant morality. The stats are available. Contact the World Health Organization or UNESCO. Your congressman can give the the addresses, email and phone numbers.
anonymous, try to get it through your head that an "atheist" is not merely someone with jackboots and an armband. We are ordinary people living ordinary lives. It is your ilk that has been led to think that anyone who fails to love jesus must be a sociopath.
You have said that shit here before, and my reply was almost word for word what you see above.
And let me remind you that the aforementioned fundies are the ones who claim to be following a loving god........something like Hitler claimed. What is the difference between a xian and a nazi?
Boy, your dishonesty and ignorance are blatantly evident right there. You claim Matthew 5:17 means for Christians to "keep the laws just like every other Jew was supposed to do." Wrong, wrong, wrong. Read it again: "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." BUT TO FULFILL. No body but Jesus was able to fulfill the Law, which is why they needed blood sacrifices. Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly and sinlessly and he became the perfect blood sacrifice for all time. What this means is that we fulfill the Law through him, so we don't need to try to meet all the ritualistic standards that people needed to meet before Jesus. So now I'm sure you're thinking, "Well, I guess that means you can just sin all you want and not worry about going to Hell." Not true. Jesus did not do this so that we could just sin willy-nilly. He summed it up in Matthew 22: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind," and "Love your neighbor as yourself." He also spoke often of people turning away from their sins.
[Hey, I also liked how you took the unprecedented move of cowardly closing the comments for the post about EF. I guess when you can't beat facts, shut down the discussion, right?]
Morality does not dictate truth. It doesn't matter if a person is immoral, they may still be truthful. One person may think that because there is no God, that it is ok to do terrible things. However, another person might think that because there is no God, they no longer have a reason to discriminate against gays, jews,or attend church on sundays, etc etc.
And jason, when you continue to talk about sin and blood, you are still under that law. Grow up and get off your knees. You are not under jew law, and never have been.
And now, fellow infidels, I must run along. See you maybe tomorrow.
This would be like God deciding to wipe out the entirety of modern-day America for the wholesale slaughter of the "Indians" hundreds of years ago. Wonder how fair the current population of American Christians would find this.
fjell
If Jesus "paid the price" then why do I still need to pay some price? I mean, if Jesus fulfilled the law, then why do I still need to fulfill any of the law? If a debt is paid, then it is paid, right? If the judge orders me to pay $100 for a speeding ticket, and someone comes up and pays the ticket, then I'm free of the ticket, right? I don't have to beg and plead for forgiveness anymore, because the debt is paid. I'm completely absolved. In fact, the judge doesn't forgive me: the debt is paid! If the judge forgave the debt, then no one would have to pay.
But in Christianity, the debt isn't really paid at all. I have to repent and pray and accept the free gift and study to shew (KJV) myself approved and work out my salvation with fear and trembling and be sincere and seek the Lord and... Well, the rules vary from church to church.
So, you counter with saying I'm not saved by works but that I show my salvation by my works. Still, if the sin-debt of humanity has already been paid so no one has to do ritualistic religious stuff to pay, then the debt is paid, right?
You said something that was a stepping stone in my de-conversion from Christianity:
"No body but Jesus was able to fulfill the Law"
Says, who? Gospels that were written from 40-to-100 years after Jesus died?
Gospels that were written by people who mythologized the man Jesus, much in the same way as the pagans had done with many of their gods?
The lie that Jesus was without sin is one of the worst lies of Christianity.
Sorry WM! I tried to resist but he was seriously pissing me off
A pertinent point, redtail.
Jason, if you're at all concerned with spreading the "love of Jesus", you're failing. Terribly. But you are succeeding in something - good news, I suppose. It's just that thing is being antagonistic, ad hominem, and petty. Before you jump in with, "Well so are you!" please remember that I don't believe myself to be under any instructions from God to abstain from doing so.
We know you do. And you are letting him down in this. Pathetically. But then, you know you can receive forgiveness for it all with a single prayer, so, I guess, at the end of the day, you can act any way you like, can't you? You might not have Jesus' blessing, but with forgiveness always just a prayer away - even forgiveness for taking advantage of the apparent ease of forgiveness, you really can act like any other prick on the planet (and you do), without much consequence.
But, you obviously know this already.
fjell
How about Japan?
Also, much of Western Europe appears to have significant numbers of atheists and a dearth of Christian fundamentalists. And yet, the crime rates here are structurally lower than in the US...
So... how many healthy religious societies would you say there are?
None spring to mind...
-Leonard
The stats you provided were of countries founded on Christian teaching that may have larger than normal atheist populations. Make no mistake countries foundes on the premise that there is no God have all been oppressive.
Nice attempt tho to find countries of Christian origin(and hope noone would notice they were not founded on atheistic philosophy but Christian), and still largely run on Christian ideas and tolerance to hold those countries up as a model of health is mere slight of hand. It only proves how tolerant Christians can be to those who are diffrent from themselves.
Here are some stats on sweden from http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/24435.htm it tells a very diffrent story on the so called majority of that country being atheist. here is a quote "Although no reliable statistics are available, it is estimated that 15 to 20 percent of the adult population are atheist."
Seems you stats may be a little self serving along with your interpretation.
should read as follows "and still largely run on Christian ideas and tolerance to hold those countries up as a model of an healthy atheist society is mere slight of hand.
anonymous, I dislike repeating myself, but when dealing with mindless fanatics like you, it is impossible not to. Let me ask you a question: when did god start loving the world? (see john 3:16) Starting with the flood, we see that jewgod hated the world. We read up through the "war stories" and we see a hatred beyond imagining; whole ethic groups wiped out; men; women; children; babies; the jewgod's followers driven by blind rage to exterminate anyone who had their own point of view.
And do not tell me that jewgod destroyed those people because they were "wicked". They were no more "wicked" than any other ancient culture. The half-assed notion that the jews were righteous people out to destroy wickedness is comical. There has never been anything more wicked than the jews and their law.
I do not believe the ot stories. These tales were concocted by the jews, who, having had their collective ass kicked by better people, sat around and imagined for themselves a glorious past. But the point remains: in their perversity, the jews adored their bloodthirsty god. It is to their credit that modern jews repudiated such tales.
Back to the original question: when did god start loving the world? xianity was started by people who had learned the ideas of the Mediterranean world; the ideas of the poets and philosophers. See Plato's Republic . He would have banned the myths about cruel and capricious gods. Under these influences, all of a sudden, jewgod becomes a nice god.
Do not try to give your religion any credit for the civilized countries of Europe. Before the Enlightenment, these assholes were killing off jews, witches, heretics, muslims, and whoever pissed them off. The best thing to happen to Europe was the reformation. xians began to kill each other.
I am proud to be an atheist; one who does not share in the ugly bigotry, vengeance and superstition of the xian. People like me will make the world better.
And by the way. Your disrespect toward the Webmaster is despicable. But then, you're a xian.
It only proves how tolerant Christians can be to those who are [different] from themselves.
Um, condoning and promoting the killing of non-christians(deut) is being "tolerant" of those who differ in belief???? LMAO! Yeah, sure pal....you might want to dust off your Holey Babble and actually read it, so in the future you'll have a better understanding of what it is you are actually promoting.
anonymous, find me one verse in either the old or new testament that tells us to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. One verse.
The "tolerance" you talk about is a secular value, not a xian value.
Ironically, you are already 2.99999 out of 3:
1) you're "skeptical" of those who are skeptical of your beliefs; 2) you are "Atheist" in regards to every "God" but your own; 3) you are "Agnostic" because you don't have absolute knowledge that a "God" exists(because if you did, we'd surely have empirical objective/Universal evidence to substantiate that claim by now)
To qualify some things: If "God" is more than just a concept, then "God" is either detectable by means of the same senses with which we determine if anything else exists, or "God" is not detectable at all. If I'm expected to believe that "God" is both physical and metaphysical(beyond physical) in whatever ratio, then I'll expect you to believe that square circles exist, in whatever ratio. 'Deal?
So, knowledge/evidence..or faith/lack of evidence? There's no "in between". Which is it?
And for your info, numbnuts, I graduated from a catholic college, class of '03 (Saint Joseph's) with a major in philosophy and a minor in religion, and the catholic church is bullshit. Superstition straight out of the fucking dark ages, which is where you belong.
Do not give me that trilling and cooing. It's silly and effeminate.
If Jesus "paid the price" then why do I still need to pay some price?
Who said you did? I certainly didn't.
I mean, if Jesus fulfilled the law, then why do I still need to fulfill any of the law?
You equate fulfilling the commandments to love God and love your neighbor as paying a price? If that's the position you're coming from, no wonder who don't understand any of this.
If a debt is paid, then it is paid, right? If the judge orders me to pay $100 for a speeding ticket, and someone comes up and pays the ticket, then I'm free of the ticket, right? I don't have to beg and plead for forgiveness anymore, because the debt is paid. I'm completely absolved. In fact, the judge doesn't forgive me: the debt is paid! If the judge forgave the debt, then no one would have to pay.
Yes, that is exactly right, BUT YOU STILL NEED TO OBEY THE LAW AFTERWARDS. Just because someone stepped in to pay this fine (and let's say they promised to pay any of your future fines, too) doesn't absolve you from ever obeying the law ever again. That's not a perfectly accurate analogy to salvation, but it's good enough.
I mean, look. We have oodles of earthly laws that we need to follow - too many for most average people to fully know. Jesus gave us just two commandments: love God and love your neighbor. Why is that such a burden to you that you would call it "paying a price?"
But in Christianity, the debt isn't really paid at all.
No, it actually is. When you become saved, all your sins - past, present and, yes, future (since we're not perfect) - are forgiven when you honestly and sincerely repent of them.
I have to repent and pray and accept the free gift and study to shew (KJV) myself approved and work out my salvation with fear and trembling and be sincere and seek the Lord and... Well, the rules vary from church to church.
Nice straw man. Those things aren't about paying any debt. They're about following the one whom you have given your life to. To use your court fine analogy above, if someone paid your fines that you could never, ever pay yourself no matter how much money you had, how would you feel about that person? Would you just say "See ya, sucker!" or would you feel indebted to them - that you needed to try to do something to thank or give them something back? It's not about "paying a price." It's about being thankful to and loving the person who has paid our debt in full.
So, you counter with saying I'm not saved by works but that I show my salvation by my works.
You don't show your salvation by your works. Your salvation is shown by your works. That may not seem different, but it is. When you are saved, the works follow naturally. They aren't something you do to show you are saved. They are something you do because your salvation is showing itself.
Still, if the sin-debt of humanity has already been paid so no one has to do ritualistic religious stuff to pay, then the debt is paid, right?
Yes, the debt is paid and following the one who paid your debt (if you accept it) follows naturally. Following and obeying him is not "paying a price."
So I can only be an "antagonistic JERK" if I'm an unbeliever like, oh, say, ryan?
No, Jason! You'll be happy to learn that, as a Christian, there's nothing stopping you from being an anti-Semitic jerk right now! Without the slightest alteration in your religious affiliation, you can join the long and proud Christian anti-Semitic tradition!
Click HERE to see what illustrious company you'd have indeed. My, my, even the esteemed Council of Nicaea. What better company could you hope for?
Matthew 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Only if "skeptical" now means knowing you're absolutely wrong.
2) you are "Atheist" in regards to every "God" but your own;
But I believe in God, so I am not an atheist. I don't call people from other religions who don't believe in God atheists. "Atheism" is not believing in one deity out of many others. Atheism is not believing in ANY deities. Please stop trying to redefine the English language.
3) you are "Agnostic" because you don't have absolute knowledge that a "God" exists(because if you did, we'd surely have empirical objective/Universal evidence to substantiate that claim by now)
You REALLY need to learn what all these words you are misusing means. Being agnostic does not mean one does not have absolute knowledge that God exists. Being agnostic means not committing to believing whether or not God exists.
If "God" is more than just a concept, then "God" is either detectable by means of the same senses with which we determine if anything else exists, or "God" is not detectable at all.
Tell me, how do you determine that electro-magnetism exists? You can't see it, smell it, taste it, hear it or feel it. So how do you know it exists?
If I'm expected to believe that "God" is both physical and metaphysical(beyond physical) in whatever ratio,
God is not physical, but He can interact with the physical universe He created.
then I'll expect you to believe that square circles exist, in whatever ratio. 'Deal?
Well, according to other atheists/agnostics I've talked to, God can create square circles. *shrug*
So, knowledge/evidence..or faith/lack of evidence? There's no "in between". Which is it?
Who determined knowledge = evidence and faith = lack of evidence? I have faith in God, but I've also seen evidence of Him. No, not just some feeling, but a very real physical healing of a very painful and potentially crippling affliction a person close to me suffered from (which was diagnosed by a doctor and said to be remedied only by surgery). This person is very sensitive to and acutely affected by pain and there is simply no way the healing is imagined or faked.
Let's take the court analogy a step further, and actually make it accurately correlate to the biblical "salvation":
How about if someone insisted that they pay your court fine without first consulting you, and when you say, "thanks, but no thanks...I'll take responsiblity for myself, because I'm a man of integrity", and then they pull you aside and whisper: "Listen, I want to pay this debt, okay? Accept it, or I'll bash your world in, the very second you set foot out of this court room. 'Deal??"
I'm curious, how should one react in that situation? It's still a "choice", right?
In every case where a dogmatic devotion to theism or statism has been mandated by the government, horrific human suffering has resulted.
Although the U.S. wasn’t founded as a “Christian theocratic nation,” it cannot be denied that U.S was full of Christians, many of which who believed in the divine rule and right of kings. These good Christians turned a blind eye to the slaughter of Native Americans, in part because “Indians” were thought of as nothing more than godless heathens. African Americans were bought and sold for hundreds of years on this continent by Christians who justified slavery using
"Biblical" interpretations.
Only the slow evolution and acceptance of current secular thoughts on law, justice, human rights, etc., has made it possible for non-theists to even express their views. Throughout most of history, anyone who said out loud that they didn’t follow the gods or goddesses of the land was likely to enjoy a very uncomfortable and short lifespan.
Now, let me be clear here. When I use the word theism, I don’t mean Christianity. Theistic rule has been a practice for all of human history – all nations have had official gods or goddesses. This is nothing new. Rulers know that religion unites the masses. Religion has always been used by the ruling classes as a way of controlling the masses. What is new in our day and age (the past few hundred years) is that some countries have abandoned basing their laws and decisions upon religious mythology. This is a brand new turn of events in the history of the world. And the freedoms that we “serfs” enjoy are a direct benefit from this progressive evolution of thought. In those countries still intent on enforcing some form of theism (or statism), terrible tragedy reigns supreme. Again, I don’t advocate statism over theism. I don’t see it as a black/white-either/or choice. I think both theocratic and state-o-cratic rule are terrible alternatives. The move toward secularism is by far the best system yet undertaken. But I don’t think we’re through evolving in this area. We still have a long way to go if we humans hope to survive our own tendency to hate, denigrate and marginalize all those who think differently from the crowd. However, returning to a time when a few Christian aristocrats ruled the great masses of Christian serfs is not a place where anyone today would want to see happen, is it?
And if you’re going to start comparing the numbers of atrocities in communist countries to the numbers of atrocities committed in Christian countries, please be sure to include all 2,000 years of Christian history. And then break down the numbers so that we have percentages of the population involved. In other words, what percentage of the population in various time periods was subjected to an early death at the hands of Christians? How does that percentage compare to the percentage of the population killed by authoritarian non-Christian states? I’ll wager that there isn’t much difference between the two. Dogmatic, authoritarian rule is not the answer, regardless of the “ism.”
Finally, if there really is a magical deity ruling all, why be so overwrought about a paltry minority of people who think religion is silly? I mean, if God be for you, who can be against you? Atheists are obviously a tiny minority on this planet, right? Why not obey your god-man and turn the other cheek when challenged? Why come back with so much visceral, insightful rhetoric? If you say you want “the truth” to be told, then as far as I can tell, there are already hundreds of thousands of Christian websites out there. You, Jason, have one of your own. But I’m not bothering you on your site. Why do you feel compelled to hand on this site? Why come back with so much visceral, insightful rhetoric? What is driving your fear and your anger? Do you Christians even know why you are so upset?
I can tell you why many ex-Christians are upset. Because they realize they've been duped and brainwashed by a stupid cult, wasting time, talent and resources, sometimes for years. It's infuriating.
Perhaps you should expand your understanding of certain English terms. You seem to be confined to extremely narrow and simplistic definitions, or your are just misinformed.
Click here for the definition of "agnosticism."
Click here for the definition of "atheism."
Be sure to read the entire page for each.
Then, once you've educated yourself, please return to addressing the points in the article. Although your bunny-trailing has been interesting, it implies that you have no answers for the many points above. Is that the problem? You have no counter arguments for the various points in the article?