Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[SkepticThinker]

No, you are wrong. Jesus said in Mark 16:18 that his people could drink deadly poison and not be harmed. And to prove it, some have actually survived. Obviously they are the true believers. The ones pretending to be believers died. So right there, you have a good "objective" test on who really, I mean really, believes in His Word.

Ha! Who could object to that?

Who knows what it was like in the beginning, except Christians of course. The rest of us are too blind. But, you know, it seems that there's always been "boss men." We always had military, political and religious types of leaders. No doubt they made rules that they expected people to follow, some were probably good and some bad. Some of those "boss men" must have claimed that they talked directly to God. Maybe in their minds they did. Maybe it was people that went before them past on rules of behavior for the group and then said it came from God. So, not wanting to offend the gods of their fathers, the new leaders carried on the tradition.
So how would we know if these rules of behavior were truly from The God? Or just a bunch of rules that seemed good at the time but are no longer of any use? People would change them. Those rules would become obsolete. After all, God rules would never change, right? But we do have rule changes. Rules like not eating lobsters and pork. Rules like not touching women on their periods. Rules like stoning people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. They worked for a time and for a people, but they are not universal. And why don't we follow these rules? Because we used are brains and questioned them. But you know we'll always have religious conservatives telling the people, "No, God's Word is unchanging. It is the same yesterday, today and forever. We must follow it and not question it." Yet, how many Christians know or care about Bible Law? And yet they wonder why people like you and me question them on their "objective" moral truths? Strange.
How many bad, cultist Christian movements have there been? Somebody had to use their heads and stop them. Even the dominant Christian group had to be questioned. Without people questioning the practices and beliefs of the Catholics where would we be today. The world changed and even Catholics changed.

This is a much better way of putting what I was trying to say. I like it!

I know, I know what he's going to say, we're the blind ones. Even though most have us have been there. We grew up Christian or gave it a try. But, we used our brains and reasoning and found modern Christianity to have some flaws. To bad they can't seem to see that.

Then we were never actually Christians to begin with. Because you can’t be a Christian, and then change your mind.

Thanks, keep being a Skeptic Thinker and being a voice of reason. CG

Right back at ya! Your posts are great. Cheers!

 

[Urban Dharmic Warrior]

the Christian/conservative demographic

Urgh, this is a demographic? :help:

Jesus taught unconditional love and kindness to all. The Bible states of the likelihood of a rich man getting into Heaven being less than the likelihood of a camel getting through the eye of a needle....

.....yet Conservatism is about capitalism, greed, control, power, elitism, letting the poor and disadvantaged fend for themselves, unaided by the priviliged.

Plus of course Jesus was the rebel of the day, to the Jews.

I seriously doubt Jesus was a Conservative.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I knew that would happen. I am either going to have to start to disqualify random objections up front or just quit caring. I typed modern history but mangled the word and simply erased modern from the picture. Since we are discussing Christianity I did not think it necessary to make sure only contemporary nations were addressed. Of course Alexander could not be said to have been hostile to Christianity because it did not exist. Since Alexander's efforts are only concerning 30 years or so and were definitely not in the top 20 evil empires in history it is irrelevant anyway. He was very brutal at times in battle but ruled fairly justly and to the enormous benefit of eastern cultures. He is one of those guys that if he was aiming at me I would surrender. Everything would improve and if resisted he would make an example out of defeating me. I would hate to be annihilated in an effort to keep out a better economy, better military protection, better administration, better education, etc...... He usually did not even try and replace a cultures theology.

Well then, don’t say things if you don’t want people to respond to them.
I don’t know that you could say that Alexander the Great was a secularist since he apparently went around telling everyone he was divine.

You did say this, right?

“In fact the most imperialistic nations in history have all been secular or at least hostile to Christianity.”

 

[1robin]

So do Hindu's, Buddhists and people from other religions and other cultures have moral "truths"? Of course they do. Where did they come from? Considering only the Christian God can give actual moral truths? Since the Christian God didn't give it to them, then did the religious leaders of those cultures make them up?

That was an unusual come back. Any world view that includes a personal moral transcendent being that reveals his will directly could if true produce objective morality. I have to grant that if Islam is true or Judaism then objective morality does exist. My point was you cannot by any means rationally deny God and affirm objective morality. Eastern religions are a little too ambiguous for me to make a claim about. If they have what I stated above then they could if true found objective morals and if not they cannot even if true. I was debating an atheist so that was the context.

Again, what are the "objective" moral truths you've found in the Bible? Do not lie? Do not murder? Do not steal? Other people and religions have those too. Did the real God give morals to those people but forgot to tell them the truth about salvation? He let them continue to try and find him through good deeds and meditation knowing full well they'd never succeed?

The bible suggests all men are born with a God given conscience. This alone explains why most moral systems have similar cores. The fact other people believe X is wrong has nothing to do with what makes X wrong. Atheists can be very moral people but they cannot justify their moralities truth within atheism. If no transcendent being exists to create moral truth no amount of meditation, reflection, reasoning, will ever find what is not there to find. Objective moral truth requires an objective moral source that transcends everything else.

And then there is always the problem. If God is real. If Jesus is real, then why don't all Christians believe the same thing about God and Jesus and obey what they say? Could it be because understanding God and Jesus, as described in the Bible, is too ambiguous and therefore subjective?

This suggests that only things that have universal agreement are true. That is false and self contradictory as well. That statement does not have universal acceptance so by it's own standard is false. I believe no-Christians are wrong. A very powerful argument for that conclusion is the fact their reasoning is always self contradictory if carried out in full. I do not blame you for not getting it but I must have said two dozen times I am discussing moral ontology (foundations and truth) not moral epistemology (apprehension and perception). A true thing is no less true if not a single person believes it is.

So who doesn't think being kind and loving is a better way to live then being angry and cruel? Christians might say that they never knew how to love others until they met Jesus. But why can't a Hindu say the same thing? That they didn't know what life and love was until they read the "Gita" and let it fill their souls. The Christian might then say that he/she is going to heaven because they "believe." But I'm sure a Hindu believes that if he/she does good and follows the morality spelled out in their Scriptures that they are going to some special place too.

Again what people think is irrelevant. I am discussing what is true not what people believe.

1. If any transcendent source exists (God) then objective moral truth exists.
2. If that source does not exist objective moral truth cannot possibly exist.

I care not how that truth is perceived, applied, or apprehended. That is a another subject all together.

If person a says murder is wrong and person b says it is good no possible way exists to decide who is right without an objective standard that requires a transcendent source. No person, no group, not even al people can believe anything into existence.

And that brings us back to the OP, if God let thousands of years go by and didn't tell other people the "truth" about himself and Jesus then he is cruel. Or, all people and all cultures have expressed their understanding of what spiritual truth is, and it doesn't necessarily match what others believe.

1. Well over 90% of people have existed after Christ came.
2. God sent revelation to man long before Christ came.
3. If that revelation is true he has communicated to man the moment men began to exist as soulish (nephish) creatures.
4. The Bible also said the creator can be known through the nature of his creation so that he is without excuse. Man has never existed without nature.
5. Finally God said we are only accountable for the revelation we have received. I do not know exactly what that means but if you wish to see Craig's book called "The problem of the unevangelised".

Your premise was inaccurate so your conclusion invalid.

I know I sound like you're my worst enemy, but I do appreciate your answers.

I spent 27 years asking these same questions without hating the person I was asking them of. I do not blame you in anyway. As long as you are civil, sincere, and reasonable I have no complaint.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Well then, don’t say things if you don’t want people to respond to them.
I don’t know that you could say that Alexander the Great was a secularist since he apparently went around telling everyone he was divine.

You did say this, right?

“In fact the most imperialistic nations in history have all been secular or at least hostile to Christianity.”

Don't forget the Persians who were not secularists (Zoroastrianism) and they were pretty cool to the Jewish People. The Babylonians were also not Secular...or the Assyrians, but they weren't all that nice to the Jewish people...takes all kinds I guess right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do not know much about Qatar. I did not say every blessing is a result of Christian devotion nor that every hardship is the result of Christian oppression. I said that God promised to protect and bless nations that did his will. I think there is exactly the amount of evidence I would expect if that is true. He also said that it will rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. The end result that we should see is cultures who practice Christian values should be blessed but will not escape unscathed from life.

No, you said your god has guaranteed military and economic strength to those nations that are just, and are devoted to “him.”

The fact that Qatar is the wealthiest nation in the world does not fit the evidence for the claim you’re making. Unless your god is Allah, of course.
What you’re saying above means you can’t really make the claim you did. How can you say that god blesses nations who are devoted to him and do his will, while at the same time he can (and will) also make it rain on them for no apparent reason and see that that doesn’t make sense? How could anyone ever really know that they are doing things that are pleasing to god then? There’s apparently no way to detect that since no matter what you could do, you could still end up being either blessed or rained up.

It’s a claim that is not at all demonstrable.

Here is an interesting example to illustrate this principle. It is a little bit different analogy so I am heading off what I know will be the reply about Judaism versus Christianity up front. If the interpretations are correct God guaranteed that when Israel returned from the diaspora he would never allow them to be evicted from their homeland again. Since 1948 they have whipped every nation (sometimes all at one time) even thought outnumbered 20-1 at times. They did so the first time with 3 tanks, no organized army, and no air force of any kind. There are also promises of agricultural success and economic abundance. Israel sets the standard in middle eastern agriculture. Even though they have no oil to speak of and must spend more per person on military protection their economy surpasses most of the middle east combined.

I find all this cherrypicking to be a bit ridiculous. I cherry-picked Qatar as a means to point that out. They are the wealthiest nation on earth, where the majority of its population practices Islam. When I ask you why god has blessed them with such great wealth, you go on to tell me that there’s really no way of knowing who and when your god will or will not bless any nation. They you go on about Israel. So what did the Jews do to god to deserve the Holocaust then? Or was that just one of those occasions where it happened to “rain” upon them for no apparent reason?

So Israel sets the standard in Middle Eastern agriculture, according to you. So what? Does god favor the Middle East over the rest of the world? Why not compare them to the rest on the world on this agricultural scale you’ve come up with?

I see exactly what I expect to see if the Bible is true. It is a waste of time to distort a claim about blessings for obedience into some generalized only Christian nations succeed statement. There even warnings against Christian nations turning into secular nations. He said moral ambiguity would prevail, terrible judges (politicians and legal) would arise, economies would weaken and eventually collapse. What do you know this is exactly what is occurring in the US. These only apply to Christian cultures. The others are covered under a more complex and generalized system which would produce random effects not necessarily connected to their faith.

You’re trying to tell me that god blesses nations that are just and that are devoted to him. The majority of American citizens claim to be Christians. You have far more people claiming to be Christians than practically any other country on earth. So, why should you expect to see moral ambiguity, terrible judges, a weakened economy and collapse? And shouldn’t this have all happened a long time ago anyway, considering that you’re probably the only country on earth that spells out its secularism in its constitution? The US should never have flourished at all then.

And really, what I see here is you making the claim you did, then declaring that claim only applies to the US (and Israel, I guess) but not to the rest of the world. It’s terribly confusing.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

No, you said your god has guaranteed military and economic strength to those nations that are just, and are devoted to “him.”

The fact that Qatar is the wealthiest nation in the world does not fit the evidence for the claim you’re making. Unless your god is Allah, of course.
What you’re saying above means you can’t really make the claim you did. How can you say that god blesses nations who are devoted to him and do his will, while at the same time he can (and will) also make it rain on them for no apparent reason and see that that doesn’t make sense? How could anyone ever really know that they are doing things that are pleasing to god then? There’s apparently no way to detect that since no matter what you could do, you could still end up being either blessed or rained up.

It’s a claim that is not at all demonstrable.
I find all this cherrypicking to be a bit ridiculous. I cherry-picked Qatar as a means to point that out. They are the wealthiest nation on earth, where the majority of its population practices Islam. When I ask you why god has blessed them with such great wealth, you go on to tell me that there’s really no way of knowing who and when your god will or will not bless any nation. They you go on about Israel. So what did the Jews do to god to deserve the Holocaust then? Or was that just one of those occasions where it happened to “rain” upon them for no apparent reason?

So Israel sets the standard in Middle Eastern agriculture, according to you. So what? Does god favor the Middle East over the rest of the world? Why not compare them to the rest on the world on this agricultural scale you’ve come up with?


You’re trying to tell me that god blesses nations that are just and that are devoted to him. The majority of American citizens claim to be Christians. You have far more people claiming to be Christians than practically any other country on earth. So, why should you expect to see moral ambiguity, terrible judges, a weakened economy and collapse? And shouldn’t this have all happened a long time ago anyway, considering that you’re probably the only country on earth that spells out its secularism in its constitution? The US should never have flourished at all then.

And really, what I see here is you making the claim you did, then declaring that claim only applies to the US (and Israel, I guess) but not to the rest of the world. It’s terribly confusing.

Well Isaiah I believe also says that God makes it Rain on both the just and the wicked. So I would expect a response like that.

 

[1robin]

Odd, then, that in 2011 the USA ranked 33rd in the WHO's world life expectancy table, well below, say, Slovenia. The UN's listings for 2005-2010 placed the USA 40th, somewhat below Cuba. US infant mortality for the same period (according to the CIA World Factbook) was 5.4 per 1000 live births - more than Cuba's or Croatia's, and 34th in world ranking. I can assure you the world's envy is well contained.
Could you cite this "official declaration" for us? I seem to have missed it. Lacking your omniscience (or is it just access to Fox News?), I can base my views only on the NHS having saved my eyesight and two of my children's lives. Nor am I alone:

Good night nurse. I said at one time our health care was the envy of the world. I even added that it has become worse recently but is still better than what is replacing it.

There must be a thousand ways to evaluate health care. You picking on life expectancy and infant mortality is extreme cherry picking and your use (given what I claimed above) serves only to amplify that.

Your source: The WHO rankings have been subject to many and varied criticisms since its publication. Concerns raised over the five factors considered, data sets used and comparison methodologies have led health bodies and political commentators in most of the countries on the list to question the efficacy of its results and validity of any conclusions drawn. Such criticisms of a broad endeavour by the WHO to rank all the world's healthcare systems must also however be understood in the context of a predisposition to analytical bias commensurate with an individual nation's demographics, socio-economics and politics. In considering such a disparate global spectrum, ranking criteria, methodology, results and conclusions will always be an area for contention.
World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Your infant mortality rate: For example, babies who are not viable and who die quickly after birth are more likely to be classified as stillbirths in countries outside the United States, especially in Japan, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, the Netherlands, and France. This is especially likely for babies who die before their birth is legally registered.[9] In the United States, however, nonviable births are often recorded as live births, making the US infant mortality rate appear misleadingly high. In a detailed study of medical records and birth and death certificates in Philadelphia, Gibson and colleagues found that infant mortality had been overstated by 40 percent, merely as a result of these nonviable births that were recorded as live births.[10]

There is another problem with using infant mortality to represent health care efficacy. US physicians often go to great efforts—at the prenatal and postnatal stages—to save a baby with poor survival chances. The additional prenatal care an American doctor provides may improve the odds of the live birth of a baby with poor survival chances, who is then likely to require extensive neonatal care. Accordingly, the US uses substantially more neonatal intensive care units (NICU) than other industrialized countries. In this case, the additional health care may actually worsen reported infant mortality rates and misleadingly suggest poor care in the United States. Similarly, US physicians are more likely to resuscitate very small premature babies, many of whom nevertheless die and many others of whom live with serious and expensive medical problems. This practice also raises measured infant mortality rates for the United States.
US health care: A reality check on cross-country comparisons - Health - AEI

Why do I say the US was at least at one time (before the modern statists began picking it apart and ruining it, which keep in mind would make the latest statistics the worse, I was thinking of more an average date of 1980)?

In the US:
1. Cardiac deaths fell by 50%.
2. Polio has been annihilated.
3. 8 of the top ten medical advances in the last 20 years have roots in the US.
4. The Nobel prizes in medicine physiology have been given to more Americans than all other nations combined.
5. 8 of the ten tope selling drugs on Earth were developed here.
6. The US has some of the top survival rates for breast cancer, prostate, and colon cancer, etc.....
7. Comparing the tope 13 richest countries the US provides more than 50% of all drug research money combined.
8. The US is either first or second in Kidney transplants, heart transplants, coronary bypass, aortic bypass, and coronary interventions.
9. We are third in in bone marrow transplants.
10. We have the shortest wait time of any industrialized country for non-emergency care. The worst is Britain which is a wealthy nation but with a government that has taken over health care.
11. The best health care institutions in history are in the US. Johns Hopkins, Mayo, and Mass general.
12. Foreign physicians come to the US more than any similar nation to be trained in medicine.

That is just the start. Keep in mind these are true today, even after our health care system has been degraded severely by decades of liberalism and now finally taken over all together. The worst thing possible to fix a system that admittedly can be more efficient is to let the most inefficient system in the US have control of it.
http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/bulletin/2009/wenger0709.pdf

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not one single stat you selected for complaint did I find ended better than it began. I do not doubt that quite a few stats may do that very thing. I am sure a few even got better since Christianity was supplanted by secularism (this would occur by coincidence a few times, even if for no other reason), but one the whole there is an unavoidable and obviously severe trend. The only choice you have to attempt to account for it by something other than I have. I gave links to hundreds and hundreds of them and every link worked. With that many I am sure some of the internal links did not work. This is expected but far more that enough is left to base what I claimed on many times over. This is simply an effort to dismiss inconvenient data.

I do not have time to find and review old posts. If you provide a problem I will investigate it. Otherwise I am far too busy. Please only supply complaints if being true they have the capacity to overturn my general claim. I have no need to justify every stat in every claim in order to make my claims in general more than justifiable.

This is getting pretty ridiculous at this point.

You gave a huge list of links and MOST of them didn't actually work or link to primary sources. A bunch of them said things that didn't say what you thought they did. I just pointed out to you that crime rates have been on the decline for a very long time, if you look at long-term trends. Many, many people have addressed these things with you. And yet you continue to carry on as though you've proven something.

Everyone can look over the huge discussion that surrounded this and see for themselves.

It's getting pretty unbelievable at this point.


(I will respond to your much longer post when I have more time.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is really impractical to debate someone that will not acknowledge obvious facts of any kind if inconvenient. You can avoid any argument by yelling prove it for everything claimed.

Not sure what to do here. Disaster compared to what? It is the envy of the world, or has been. We have the best doctors and best care on earth. We produce more breakthroughs than anyone in history. When those that can afford to choose where to get care they choose the US more than any other. We have done all this while also never turning anyone away that needs care. We have done al this while making a profit and being at least affordable. It has certainly not been a perfect system, just the best or among the best ever. The two major problems with it have been Tort reform issues and the lack of competition across state lines concerning insurance companies. If only those two were corrected it would be as perfect a system as reasonably could be expected. BTW those two things were not only not corrected but were in fact amplified and protected by the trial attorney loving liberals. As far a Europe goes. I know that within the last five years England has officially declared it's socialized medical system an abject failure. Attempts are being made to return it to private hands but politicians relinquish even what they destroy slowly. Greece and Spain are basket cases in general economically and so is their health care system. I know several people who moved here from Canada specifically because their health care sucked. Russians entire economy collapsed under statists, China might be bright picture to you but I hear reports everyday that suggest it is anything but a medical care mecca. This is going to be far too general to be productive. To start with why don't you back up your claims about or medical system with evidence and we can clear it up first. To date has the government take over been better or worse?


Unless the US and every other nation on earth function in opposite directions I have no need. What is true of the US would be true in general. That is why I suggested we get into European statistics (which by the way was not the original subject). I feel absolutely certain (for very many reasons) that socialism, liberalism, state-ism, whatever you wish to call it has had the same effect as here. It certainly has not worked out well for the USSR, France, Greece, and Spain in general. China is your one hope so we can use it if you want.

I see certain subsets of American making these grand claims all the time, when if you look into them further, you find that they simply aren't true.

Yes, I know some of you like to think you're the greatest nation on earth, without seeing how completely subjective such a claim is to begin with.

I'm pretty sure I'm the one who suggested we get into European statistics to see how well your claims actually hold up.

I live in Canada, and I wouldn't trade universal healthcare for your system. Not ever. So my anecdote counters your anecdote.

 

[1robin]

Yep I'm sure you would be right there murdering other civilizations for your God, using the false premise that you and your religion are superior to them, - so it is OK!

Come on man. Is there anything you will not say? I was in the most lethal military in human history and in two wars. If I had wished to kill people who disagree with me then why didn't I accept duty offered to me that would have enabled it? Never mind you do not know me and nothing I said justifies this base and childish comment. You normally do not stoop this low so I will ignore this one.

I said I have a basis for concluding that wrong is wrong. You do not. I did not say anything about what actions my faith demanded or promoted. Jesus died for every human on earth (including the Aztecs). Good luck trying to claim faith in him is a mandate for genocide. My God that is absurd.

What I have said all along is that religions do not have the right to destroy cultures.

So if I massacre a nation for personal reasons, evolutionary race superiority theories, and by virtue of by eliminating God I have eliminated any claim that life is sacred, men are equal, or have objective value, I am free and clear. It is only a religion that cannot counter ignorance.

Let me restate. Does truth have any sovereignty over falsehood in your views, even if that falsehood is called a culture?

The idea that the religions that did this had some moral right, or were superior, is ludicrous. They were torturing, murdering, raping. They were no better then the cultures they attacked, and often worse.

I believe I have established two things that render this claim moot.

1. You will cherry pick exceptions from any source (whether they had any basis in fact or not) and then make them the rule to allow condemnation of an obviously superior system.
2. You will term anything with any label necessary to indict it by semantics.

You said Alaska native children that were kidnapped from their parents, forced into Government Christian boarding schools, beaten if they used their language - or non Christian names - or their own religion, - were better off.

I do not remember saying. I said you are in a better position to know. I simply accepted it and made a point that included it without loosing it's general justification. Let me illustrate it again.

The Aztecs brutally suppressed their neighbors. In a barbaric and ignorant culture they exceeded all of them in brutality. They cut the hearts out of their neighbors while still alive on an industrial scale.

Now if the only solution to this was to, by force (which means when men are involved brutality will occur in exceptional cases) overthrow the ruling class and the system that perpetuated this. Would that not be in the long run a justifiable act that could and has produced a thousand fold gain for every loss?
Men who consider torture a sacred CULTURAL necessity and who thrive on oppressing others will not stop it without a fight. A fight always will include some barbarity and cruelty by necessity.

This speaks volumes.

What does?

Alaska natives were not fighting anyone when this atrocious kidnapping, abuse, and purposeful destroying of their ancient culture took place.

Are you suggesting Alaskan's alone in human history had none of the violent tendencies of man which out of the last 5000 years included 300 years of peace? No tribal wars, no diabolical superstitious rites, no barbarity, no cruelty, and no oppression. I have no idea what is true of Alaskan natives but judging by human nature it's self I find your claim bizarre. I never suggested that whatever occurred in Alaska was justifiable anyway. It reminded me of a generalized question about the right of the just to overthrow the unjust or the civilized to overthrow the barbarous, and that was what I was asking about.

1. We can discuss what happened in Alaska specifically but I am not that knowledgeable about it.
2. Or we can discuss what the original subject was. The Aztecs.
3. Or we can discuss hostile overthrows in general.

You can't mix them all up and cry foul. Or shouldn't anyway. You obviously can.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Don't forget the Persians who were not secularists (Zoroastrianism) and they were pretty cool to the Jewish People. The Babylonians were also not Secular...or the Assyrians, but they weren't all that nice to the Jewish people...takes all kinds I guess right?

Yep. Apparently we can't really make statements like the one we're talking about.

 

[1robin]

But they were worshiping a false god. Now at least they have heard about the love of Jesus and his Father and have a chance to live in heaven with him forever. Isn't that wonderful.

That is certainly sarcasm but let me ask you a question. Would they not be better off if Christ truly was who he claimed to be? It is not much value to retain a culture that eventually sentences you to an eternity spent excluded from heaven. IOW I can agree that if wrong the actions have no justification, I wonder if you can admit that if true they would. Do not construe my hypothetical into a defense of what occurred in Alaska. I have no knowledge of it. I will defend what occurred in the US and against the Aztecs though I will condemn certain aspects of both.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I forgot what group it was that was nearly wiped out by another tribe because they were so extreme pacifists. Even when teh youth said they should fight they decided not too.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well Isaiah I believe also says that God makes it Rain on both the just and the wicked. So I would expect a response like that.

So there's really no way to tell who is just and devoted to god based on a country's military and economic strength.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So there's really no way to tell who is just and devoted to god based on a country's military and economic strength.

Lets not forget the story of Job where even when there was no person on earth who was more perfect, was still put through the ringer by God.

Or Noah who after getting off the Ark got blasted Drunk.

Or Abraham who lied to a pharaoh so he wouldn't get killed by him.

Or Lot who after escaping such a wicked country as Sodom and Gomorrah got blasted and ended up getting used by his daughters for incest (ick).

God is God, God will do what God wants. Maybe God has blessed Israel cause the diaspora put them all around the world and now they are back.

Shrug...who knows. At one point the Muslims had the upper hand. Hinduism is still going strong, Christianity has gotten stronger in some places and weaker in others.

God does what God does.

 

[kjw47]

Because it says that "ancient serpent"?

Read Genesis Chapter 3 again and tell me where it says that it is the devil.

It may not directly mention it in chapter 3--but the reason he became called satan and devil was because of what he caused to occur through the serpent.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It may not directly mention it in chapter 3--but the reason he became called satan and devil was because of what he caused to occur through the serpent.

No

Ha Satan means "The accuser or Opposer"

It was not a name, it was a title one given to those who stood against the Jewish people.

It is not mentioned because it was a serpent. Again the most craftiest of Gods creations.

 

[1robin]

Urgh, this is a demographic? :help:

I do not see how it could help but be a demographic whether anything I ever said about was true or not. The definition of demographic is a subset of the population.

Jesus taught unconditional love and kindness to all. The Bible states of the likelihood of a rich man getting into Heaven being less than the likelihood of a camel getting through the eye of a needle....

I agree with that he said it. I do not know if I agree with what it is you think it means.

.....yet Conservatism is about capitalism, greed, control, power, elitism, letting the poor and disadvantaged fend for themselves, unaided by the privileged.

That is completely false. Capitalism is simply the idea of economic self determination. You need a dictionary. Capitalism definition: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Now capitalism would certainly allow greed to take place but there is nothing within it that has any connection to greed it's self. It is about the freedom to choose instead of the freedom to obey those whom history shows are the most corruptible. You may equate freedom with greed, and subservience with moral thrift for some bizarre reason but those that do not have freedom or have died to defend it would not agree.

I am not going to even justify that last appeal to sympathy and victimhood part with a response.

Plus of course Jesus was the rebel of the day, to the Jews.

He certainly was but actually he was in truth the patriot and they were the rebels according to God. Jesus and capitalism are freedom loving terms. Of course some can't handle freedom and prefer bondage to an institution or even Satan at times but freedom it's self is God born.

I seriously doubt Jesus was a Conservative.

I think he had far more in common with conservatism than liberalism but the issue is quite silly.

My claim stands.
1. Conservative Christian is a demographic.
2. Capitalism has no connection to greed. In fact state-ism is the pure unadulterated concentration of more greed in fewer hands by the oppression of others by convincing them they are victims and cannot succeed without them. Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. Liberalism is the equal distribution of poverty.
3. I did not claim it but Jesus and conservatives have many similarities.

 

[1robin]

Well then, don’t say things if you don’t want people to respond to them.
I don’t know that you could say that Alexander the Great was a secularist since he apparently went around telling everyone he was divine.

You did say this, right?

“In fact the most imperialistic nations in history have all been secular or at least hostile to Christianity.”

Do you think I resent people responding to me in a debate forum? I do get frustrated with the constant tactics of a few people to negate a claim by picking on things unrelated to it. I would literally have to define every word. Explain every analogy and it's limits. Spend days explaining contexts and relevance. I am far too lazy to do so.

I do not remember mentioning Alexander at all. You brought him up. I said he did not fit my example because he did not exist along side Christianity and his actions were over all far more beneficial than destructive. The issue was genocides.

I am not gong back to that whole string of posts. Someone said that Christianity committed the greatest genocides in history. They also said they occurred because of Christian imperialism. My response to them included references to both the Christian Churches general lack of imperialism and the fact the great genocides in history are not Christian related. I did within the context of Christian history so side by side comparisons could be made. I also did so using only modern examples because the data concerning them would be far more reliable.

Whatever Alexander the greats accomplishments were. The largest of empires acquired through force or the greatest genocides are not among them.

Top ten and what drove them to be such.
1. British empire. What drove them was colonialism and money, which is emphatically forbidden by Christ and hostile to his message.
2. Mongol. This lunatic simply liked killing and hated Rome, etc..
3. USSR. Run by people that sought to eliminate religion in totality. This one was the worst as far as genocides go except for one additional one.
4. Spain. Driven exclusively by greed. Also hostile to Christ's message even if they did have churches.
5. Qing Dynasty. Pure imperialism.
6. Yuan dynasty. Don't know motivation. BTW these older cultures were definitely intolerant of foreign religion and indirectly were hostile to the God I believe in.
7. Umayyad Caliphate. Religious fervor and greed. Openly hostile to Christianity.
8. Abbasid Caliphate. Religious fervor and greed. In open war with Christianity.
9. Portuguese. This one is weird. It had elements of Christian missionary influence and was brutal at times. However the main drive was greed as usual. It also for some reason includes the sea in it's empire. Technically it should not be on the list as it's land holdings were not that massive.
10. Rashidun Caliphate. Religious fervor and greed. Openly hostile to Christianity.

The worst genocide in history was a part of one of either 7,8, or 10 and occurred in India.

Top genocides in history:
1. The holocaust. Directly against my God's people.
2. Stalin induced Holodomor famine. An act by a man who openly hated all religions.
3. Hazara genocide. Performed by a nation openly hostile to Christianity.
4. Cambodian genocide: Performed by a ruling class hostile to religion in general except for one very bizarre faith I do not understand.
5. China femicide: This one is larger than all four above combined. China is now slightly more tolerant of Christianity but at that time was hostile towards it.
6. This is the worst of them all as best as I can tell.
Hindus
Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst, Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.] The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
80 million Hindus
Political Islam // Articles // Tears of Jihad

Of course this is a culture openly hostile to Christianity.


To be fair Elizabeth's reign should be in there somewhere but I could not find accurate data on it. Rwanda might should be but it is infamous for reasons that have little to do with how many were killed.


So the point I was making is true. Christians are not the group responsible for the worst mass deaths in history, especially if you total them up, it is not even in the same realm of magnitude by a long long way. And the Bible is inconsistent with them all. The Bible contains not a single justification for imperialism, so that is out. You know very well that was the jest of my claims. As usual you are more interested in finding a way to dismiss a true claim by finding a procedural technicality, when the results are inconvenient. I can find and grant exceptions to my claims if we are being extremely technical but the general aim of my claim is proven absolutely by history and that is by far the more relevant point.