Hatred of Christianity!

[McBell]

thanks for not adding anything to the conversation other than trying to smear me as dishonest though, it's all real droll :yes:

Interesting how YOU jump so quickly to claiming your dishonesty...

I never once made any mention of your being dishonest.

I merely pointed out your false dichotomy and how it is unproductive of honest discussion.

 

[gnosticx]

Because at its heart the hierachy of christianity (not the masses that follow) have the same agenda as the pharmaceutical companies, military industrial complex,multinationals etc most people see the obvious results of the path the church took historicaly and feel that somehow this doesnt sync with the preaching of a loving god.in a world where information is rife and people arnt dumbed down people as a whole are starting to see the hypocrasy...i mean come on...the rothschilds hold the reserve of the catholic church. this is just one tip of the iceberg... jesus said that anyone who harms one hair on the head of a child better the day he be not born....this should be emblazoned on every church, billboard etc....damn denial at priesthood pedophiles etc but no tiars for toddlers are on billboards....i could write an encyclopaedia on the intertwined use of religous organisations and the illuminati but many have done this already....and no its not just a case of examples of human weaknesses, unfortunately.

 

[Drax]

Why do so many people want to point the finger at Christianity for the evil done in its name instead of pointing the finger at the human heart? Pointing the finger at Christians is the same as pointing the finger at scientists saying look how evil science is pushing these drugs that can destroy lives on every T.V. comercial that pops up.
Hey Got a sniffle? try Snif away!
Side effects include headaches,nashau,depression,liver disease,flat tires on car,dog runs away,wars and rumors of wars.........etc.
science is evil and slowly murdering people through chemical processes all in the name of the almighty dollar!
Can't point the finger at science for the evil in mans heart.
Those who are full of evil and hatred ,greed will spread it by anymeans necessary and they will use the Bible,science,or any other means necessary to justify themselves.
Its not the institution of Christianity that is evil just like its not science or medicine that is evil.Pharmaceutical companies used mans faith in science(and in doctors with dumb commercials) as a means to push there selfish agendas for profits.
I don't blame scientists or consider them evil even from all of the horror and devestation that has been done through its creations.
Attacking the establishment of Christianity for the evil that man has in his heart is the same as attacking science and medicine for the evil being done in its name.
Christianity is one of the most strongest love based religions I know of and is why it is always pesecuted and in the state of resistance against hatred!

Majority Christianity is tolerant and its adherents are generally at least attempting to love their fellow man. Minority Christianity (fringe groups) however practice extreme intolerance.

This just goes to show that the adherent to a religion is the source of conflict or benefit; not the religion itself.

 

[not nom]

Interesting how YOU jump so quickly to claiming your dishonesty...

I never once made any mention of your being dishonest.

I merely pointed out your false dichotomy and how it is unproductive of honest discussion.

yeah, and when I asked you how is that a false dichotomy, pointed out why I think it isn't, you didn't respond to that at all... it's as if you weren't actually interested in anything other than how I called it ^^

 

[not nom]

Words have meanings. When you say something like fascism, without setting up a context that would make people assume you are using a meaning other than the common meaning, one assumes you're using the word as nearly everyone else does.

You didn't define the word in a unique form. Instead, you later also mention Hitler, Mao, and Stalin, which makes one assume you are speaking about fascism in a negative context, and in regards to how the word is usually used. This is contrary to the definition you later give. So yes, it is misleading.
I only know how you mean it because of a later post that really doesn't seem to agree with your first. Yes, you are being misleading, and in the context of your first post, you do not give any clue that you are using the term fascist in any other way other than how it is usually used. Now, you're just making a weak excuse, and I think it is just to make up for the fact that you used a poor choice of words, or you can't actually defend your initial argument.

But here is a little bit of background on the word fascism: The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

So yes, calling these religions fascism is misleading, and the definition you provided simply does not hold up in a historical background.
I'm not saying you are misleading anyone, as I doubt you can convince many that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are fascists religions. I'm just saying that what you said is misleading.
So now you are using a different definition of fascism than the one you provided in your second post. So fascism doesn't mean, as you claimed: binding many together to make one. I understand what fascism is, I'm just pointing out that your definition does not work, as you have pointed out here. Your definition simply is useless in this regard, as it does not show what fascism is.
No, I want you to address my points. My point there was that you were using a ridiculous definition for fascism. I'm glad you responded, even though you don't seem to be sticking to the definition you gave. But nice excuse anyway.
Another excuse. Instead of actually defending your position, you make another lame excuse. I'm not surprised though, as the argument you made really isn't defendable as it is a logical fallacy, and based on ignorance.
Another excuse. You need to read what I actually said. Taking one sentence out of context really only shows your need to dismiss others, and your lack of ability to defend your position.

When you talk about fascism, and put it into the context of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, that is a negative context. Thus, one would think that you are labeling fascism in a negative way. More so, one would assume that you're using the term fascism in the manner that most people would, and not with the definition you provided: binding many together to make one.

So, instead of taking me out of context (which is just a poor way to argue), and making lame excuses, why not defend your position? Unless that is, you're position is not defendable. Which is alright, as long as you realize that.

I said monotheism is fascist, no debate, and wether that is good or bad, depends on wether god is the original creator and benevolent ruler, or not.

that's not misleading, that's super simple.

if you're still waiting for arguments for that "position", while telling me I don't know anything about various religions, you can wait forever ^^ that bald assertion is all you get, the rest is homework.

yes, in the case of an impostor "god" fascism is very, very negative. in the case of a benevolent creator, it's not. but even then, there will be no discussion. doesn't daniel or someone have this bit about "flying scrolls" that burn down the house of thieves and liars or something like that? god hears everything, and punishes every missstep, and is the only one who can reward -- if that doesn't remind you of fascism I'd say you're biased ^^

from the perspective of someone who agreed with the system, even hitler and stalin were not bad people. that's just another very, very simple fact one has to work very hard to miss.

I was talking about Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Those are the religions you called fascists.

yah, sure. I said monotheism is by definition fascist. you complain about how I used words wrong, then after I explained how I meant that, you come up with stuff as the above?

again, I just can't be arsed. discuss how wrong I am with someone else ^^

 

[fallingblood]

I said monotheism is fascist, no debate, and wether that is good or bad, depends on wether god is the original creator and benevolent ruler, or not.

Yes, there is a debate. I've offered up debate.

And fascism is negative, as by the definition. You mixing it with talk of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler make it even more negative.

that's not misleading, that's super simple.

It's not super simple. It is misleading. Using the term fascism, that has a lot of negative baggage, in order to describe something it simply doesn't fit, is misleading. I use misleading as I would like to believe that you are not just being dishonest.

if you're still waiting for arguments for that "position", while telling me I don't know anything about various religions, you can wait forever ^^ that bald assertion is all you get, the rest is homework.

I didn't say you didn't know anything about various religions. I said that you have ignorance towards those religions. I don't doubt that you have some knowledge, but you are uninformed about the religions. That can be seen by what you're saying here. That and you won't show any reason for anyone to believe that you are very knowledgeable on the subject.

yes, in the case of an impostor "god" fascism is very, very negative. in the case of a benevolent creator, it's not. but even then, there will be no discussion. doesn't daniel or someone have this bit about "flying scrolls" that burn down the house of thieves and liars or something like that? god hears everything, and punishes every missstep, and is the only one who can reward -- if that doesn't remind you of fascism I'd say you're biased ^^

First, what impostor God? You haven't even made an argument for such. And it isn't either an impostor God or a benevolent creator. There are other possibilities that you fail to see. It isn't an either or question.

As for the story you are trying to relate, it just seems as if you don't fully understand the story. You are not sure where it is found and are not fully sure what it is about as seen by you saying "something like that."

So really, it doesn't sound like fascism as the story you relate probably is quite different than how you vaguely describe it.

from the perspective of someone who agreed with the system, even hitler and stalin were not bad people. that's just another very, very simple fact one has to work very hard to miss.

Did I ever suggest anything else? However, I don't see how it really relates to the discussion at all besides being misleading.

yah, sure. I said monotheism is by definition fascist. you complain about how I used words wrong, then after I explained how I meant that, you come up with stuff as the above?

Did you not mention Judaism, Christianity, and Islam directly? Yes you did. Those are the ones I dealt with, because dealing with all monotheistic religions would be even more difficult than just dealing with those three. Especially when monotheistic religions are very very diverse. Even those three are very diverse. So I don't see why you complain.

And yes, I have a problem with you using definitions of words that simply don't fit. I have a problem with you using a definition of a word that simply is not accepted by nearly anyone. I find that misleading, and purposely dishonest.

again, I just can't be arsed. discuss how wrong I am with someone else ^^

I have no want to talk about you with someone else. However, since you continue to debate (at least I assume that is what you're trying to do since you keep posting), I do want to show the flaws in your arguments. I think your arguments are weak, and wrong. So I debate them. After all, we are in a debate forum.

 

[not nom]

:slap:

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I would be happy if you continued the actual discussion instead of dismissing it and finding a lame excuse to blame others for you backing out.

The problem for you is my excuse is legitimate. Because you did do this.

You may be granted that you're well read on a variety of subjects and erudite, but you also perform the same lame mistakes other people do. Get off your high horse.

Now, what do you want me to discuss?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Norse history and mythology really weren't being discussed. At least not by me. And from what I could see, they were only briefly brought up. Now, does Norse history contain mass murder? You would be lying if you said no. That or you simply have no grasp of history.

Christian theology also doesn't contain mass murder. Christian theology, or at least the vast majority of it, teaches not to murder. Yes, Christian history does contain mass murder; however, that does not equate with Christian theology. Not everything that a Christian does falls under Christian theology. So yes, the point has been refuted, over and over again.

Small note: I was completely open about the fact that our [Heathen/Norse] history DOES contain mass murder. We raided for a lot of time, and did it very well. We broke the gates of Rome. We swept into and shaped Great Britain. We also fought each other for choice bits. Is there an insistence in our religious LORE that we do so? No, not really. But there are records of it in our historical LORE, and I have never denied it. And Im not having to piddle around like a shamefaced bride with 'oh, but there were other factors!'

My issue was always, Christians denying it in theirs are liars. Whoever they are. And it IS in your historical scripture. God slaughters at the drop of a hat in the OT, which IS your scripture. The Jews do it too in their early days. So since this IS your religion's history, it IS there and to try dissembling about what words are used is just dishonest. So JUST STOP DOING SO, everyone.

 

[not nom]

in the book of numbers, I love how moses gets god to not completely wipe out the israelites on the spot (for disbelieving again and complaining) by basically saying "but then the other peoples will think you failed to lead them into the land you promised them". so he just kills everyone above 20, and punishes the rest for 40 years.

and by "love" I mean I had to read that several times to make sure that's what the text actually says

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Jesus saying 'Hey, be nice to everyone' doesn't erase history [or, mythical history, whatever the case].

 

[not nom]

came across this, and the phrase he used at the end made me chuckle thinking of this thread and all this wordplay to deny the bleeding obvious, just because I was sloppy in stating it: "the totalitarian mass movements of leader worship and the führerprinzip, and the heresy hunts and the proclamations of miracles" -- there, is that any better? but geez, I just rant on forums, this guy writes books ^^

[youtube]NHxGy0STzOw[/youtube]
Hitchslap 48 - Interviewer visibly shaken by Hitchens comments.. - YouTube

christianity, nazism, and MANY MANY others do share that.. I guess it's as old as history. and sure, I know [insert your preferred religion here] is an exception, because it's true and everything else is lies or at best misguided, and because the stuff in it that seems cruel could also have a perfectly good and loving explanation. I actually concede that. but the parallels are still there, and I just wish they weren't. I wish it was simply incompatible, instead of being a twin depending on in which light you look at it.

 

[McBell]

yeah, and when I asked you how is that a false dichotomy, pointed out why I think it isn't, you didn't respond to that at all... it's as if you weren't actually interested in anything other than how I called it ^^

Oh...
You really mean you do not understand your false dichotomy?

So sorry.
I was unawares you needed a walkthru...
I thought you were being sarcastic.

My fault for over estimating ...

 

[fallingblood]

Now, what do you want me to discuss?

The subject at hand. Maybe it would be worth going to my last response to you.

 

[fallingblood]

Small note: I was completely open about the fact that our [Heathen/Norse] history DOES contain mass murder. We raided for a lot of time, and did it very well. We broke the gates of Rome. We swept into and shaped Great Britain. We also fought each other for choice bits. Is there an insistence in our religious LORE that we do so? No, not really. But there are records of it in our historical LORE, and I have never denied it. And Im not having to piddle around like a shamefaced bride with 'oh, but there were other factors!'

That actually wasn't addressed at you, but not nom who denied such.

And why is it such a shame to look at history from an objective perspective, and actually try to understand the reason behind actions? I don't see why you have a problem with that. History isn't black and white

My issue was always, Christians denying it in theirs are liars. Whoever they are. And it IS in your historical scripture. God slaughters at the drop of a hat in the OT, which IS your scripture. The Jews do it too in their early days. So since this IS your religion's history, it IS there and to try dissembling about what words are used is just dishonest. So JUST STOP DOING SO, everyone.

My scripture? When did I ever say it was my scripture? When did I even state that it was scripture? Please, if you don't know what my beliefs are, don't comment on them.

I'm also not denying that horrible actions have been committed in the name of God. However, the actions in the OT are those of the Jews, not Christians. Not a big point, but still something that should be brought up. More so, like I have said, there are a variety of factors involved. More so, more and more people are looking at the Bible as a whole not as something that is literal, but something that is metaphorical.

When the books of the Bible were written, they weren't considered scripture. That only happened later. And really, there were many writings that were considered scripture. What we have are just the ones that won out. It is the way that those individuals saw things. Does that mean that is what God did? Of course not. They were the actions of humans. They may have seen their actions divinely inspired, and I wouldn't deny that, but it doesn't mean God did it.

And the actions committed by Christians, I don't deny. What I do deny is that the actions of a group of Christians define Christianity or reflects on all Christians. That simply isn't the matter. And that is what I have been saying all along. I'm not denying that a lot of evil has been committed or justified in the name of God and the Abrahamic religions. However, I'm denying that they are simply religious inspired evils. Instead of painting something so black and white, and would rather look at it in a historical context, with objectivity, and try to figure out the real reasons why the events occurred. I would rather look at the events in a historic manner. I don't see why that is a problem?

 

[fallingblood]

in the book of numbers, I love how moses gets god to not completely wipe out the israelites on the spot (for disbelieving again and complaining) by basically saying "but then the other peoples will think you failed to lead them into the land you promised them". so he just kills everyone above 20, and punishes the rest for 40 years.

and by "love" I mean I had to read that several times to make sure that's what the text actually says

I love how you can take a story out of context, not even try to understand what it means, and act as if it has some real meaning.

 

[fallingblood]

Jesus saying 'Hey, be nice to everyone' doesn't erase history [or, mythical history, whatever the case].

Of course it doesn't. No one argued such either.

 

[fallingblood]

christianity, nazism, and MANY MANY others do share that.. I guess it's as old as history. and sure, I know [insert your preferred religion here] is an exception, because it's true and everything else is lies or at best misguided, and because the stuff in it that seems cruel could also have a perfectly good and loving explanation. I actually concede that. but the parallels are still there, and I just wish they weren't. I wish it was simply incompatible, instead of being a twin depending on in which light you look at it.

So Christianity is like Nazism? And that isn't misleading? That isn't purposely using word play to try to make a point?

Now, have I said that my religion is the true religion and that everything else is lies? No, never. That is the problem. You have an idea of Christians, or the religious, that simply does not actually fit reality. I personally believe that all religions have some good in them and are viable paths. Many people do. We live in a world that people recognize religious pluralism.

And really, one will find parallels in nearly any ideas, if looked at in the right light. That doesn't mean the parallels are actually viable or supportable.

 

[not nom]

So Christianity is like Nazism? And that isn't misleading? That isn't purposely using word play to try to make a point?

isn't that just implying motivations I don't have, to dimiss a point I did make? that parellel occured to me while believing in it. it never occured to me before, I never took any faith seriously, much less informed myself about what it actually says, and what the sum is.

all you're saying is "this can't be, so it can't be discussed." that's judgement prior to investigation IMHO.

like claiming I took the story of the peeps getting killed out of context, lol!

I love how you can take a story out of context, not even try to understand what it means, and act as if it has some real meaning.

point out the context I missed, or how that changes anything about the fact that god kills everyone over the age of 20 minus moses and the 2 believing spies more or less on the spot (seems to have a thing for people dying instantly of the plague), because they disbelieved and moaned? god is quite clear what and why he does it, so lol at that feeble attempt.

if "actually understanding it", shows that the story has "no real meaning", I'm sure I'm not the only one who would LOVE to hear your reasoning on that.

but one thing is sure, you cannot answer for people other than you. I don't know you or if you even read the bible -- so you need to argue. just saying that this story means nothing TO YOU, is irrelevant. it's in the book, it's quite verbose and obvious, actually face it or don't, but save me your pretend-arguments.

Now, have I said that my religion is the true religion and that everything else is lies? No, never. That is the problem. You have an idea of Christians, or the religious, that simply does not actually fit reality.

again, you simply deny all the people who do think exactly that (and it's not just christianity). the last time you did that and I called you on it, you just ignored all of that. I guess hence the repetition, you NEED that straw(man).

And really, one will find parallels in nearly any ideas, if looked at in the right light. That doesn't mean the parallels are actually viable or supportable.

sure, that doesn't change that the power structure of those beliefs is absolute and goes one way, and the reasoning is "because god said so", and the motivator is "don't fear the one who can kill you, but the one who can kill you AND throw you into hell".

YOU may say you don't believe for that reason. I say if it wasn't for those fascist, totatitarian, brutal elements, christianity wouldn't have had that success it had. when jesus spoke, he thought the world would end real soon. as in, don't even bother going back home to check if you turned the stove off.

the people who followed him, believed that as well. something between then and today changed, so now you think you think you can speak for what I'm criticizing? unless you're a fundamentalist, you can't. my criticism of christianity doesn't apply to christianity light, which is all you're showing with your references to yourself or others to whom it doesn't apply.

 

[not nom]

Of course it doesn't. No one argued such either.

didn't I just hear you say it's not like nazism?

btw, the nazis also said be nice to other nazis, don't steal from nazis, don't unlawfully kill non-nazis. every corporation has those house rules, every brothel, and every kindergarden <-- (just so you see I'm not trying to compare it ONLY to evil stuff, just mostly ^^)

some people interpret and live their religion in the same way: "brothers" are the fellow believers, no more -- and suddenly, what to others reads as "be a good person", simply means "look out for your own, and those who share your belief". it simply means "keep the structure intact".

^ and that sucks so much, that actually, the people to whom it doesn't apply to, should be aggravated by it as well. so I'd say the proof is pretty much in the pudding.