outabout; believe the holy spirit power force is the fundemental teaching he conveyed
outabout wrote: » northcare i firmly believe the essence and spirit of JC is very alive now. Spirituality is an immortal force good and evil. I have to consider JC as an exceptional mind and man of charachter and conviction. A bit like Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King. Simillarly oppressed people breaking through barriers imposed.
outabout wrote: » Gnostic spirituality works good for me..
marienbad wrote: » The question I was asking here ISAW was why extract religion from that mix as opposed to trade unions or politicals parties etc. One could argue that political parties have been targeted much more than religion in all of those regimes you quote . Is that not correct ?
ISAW wrote: » This is a shift of emphasis. A bit like shifting from talkoing about victime to focusing on analysing abusers. Here you are shifting from the driving force of regimes to the victims of it. I have no doubt regimes spreading communism, atheism, Christianity, capitalism or whatever belief killed a mix of people some of whom mlight even have been atheists. My point is that the regimes which were not Christian and godless killed much much more than anyone else. Why was that? My thesis would hark back to my arguments on natural law. You now are proposing a different senario -that of the targets of such regimes. i havent analysed things in such terms. I could say in the first instance that no the political parties thing isnt correct since they are a recent invention. In the more modern political party recent past i would also say the non christian and atheistic regimes of hitler Mao Pol Pot and Stalin for example didnt target political parties so much as "belief" . this indeed may have been belief in a political philosophy such as communism or capitalism but far and away the majority of thiose targeted were believers in a moral code or a god or a religion. that would be my first thoughts on it and i believe the stats would bear them out. so NO political parties have not been targeted more than religion.
Northclare wrote: » Maybe your right Zombrex but you may also be wrong. If he wants to call himself an atheist so be it, he is a good friend of mine and if he is content feeling that way that's ok.
I was out with an atheist this eve and he is struggling within himself, but he used to believe in God but after he lost a loved one he walked away from his faith. But he told me he doesn't believe in God but knows God believes in him.
ISAW wrote: » Not q christian regime done in any way for the spreading of christianity. You of course refer to the Leopold of the Belgian Congo who was not about spreading Chrtistianity like the Marxist ATHEISTIC congo revolutionaries? Theosophy is NOT christianity and successive pope OPPOSED the Nazis! Yes SOME of which was done to spread christianity. Particularly in the Early days of the spanish Preponderance. this was not the Us but Carribean and in the very early days Irish slacves outnumbered African ones. But you can add several (by which i mean one or maybe a little mlore i.e; two million NOT eight or nine) million to the numbers of dead for which Christian rules doing political deals involving the church or spread of christianity Not insignificant but still not near 100 or 200 million! Indeed I would partly dispute it (on the basis not all were to do with christianity) but the source i gave above Rummel suggests 13 million deaths of American natives from the 16th to 19th century. Not all christainity related and over 400 years. Still not anyway near Mao or stalin woith tens of millions eaqch oin a few decades or the godless Mongols or atheitic chinese of the Middle ages. and I didnt even cite ancient regimes. Little or nothing to do with the church in europe. Yes some natives were killed to spread the US system but if you are going to argue this you cant call the US a "secular" country after that! As you are wont to. then again you believe Norway is 70% atheist dont you? Hope i softened your cough for you.
Morbert wrote: » Ahh I see now. All this time I thought you were arguing that atheism causes atrocities, and that atheist regimes were always worse than non-atheist regimes, and that a secular pluralist, but nevertheless predominantly Godless society would commit atrocities. What you have actually been claiming is that regimes which explicitly promote self-described "Christian" values like "do not murder", only murdered thousands of people, which "isn't that bad" compared to other non atheistic and atheistic regimes, or non-European "Christian Value" governments. Governments like Nazi Germany, the U.S. in Vietnam, and Pol Pot. My bad.
Morbert wrote: What you have actually been claiming is that regimes which explicitly promote self-described "Christian" values like "do not murder", only murdered thousands of people, which "isn't that bad" compared to other non atheistic and atheistic regimes, or non-European "Christian Value" governments.
ISAW wrote: » Nazi germany was NOT a "Christian value" government! successive popes OPPOSED the nazis.
Pol Pot was not a christian value government! He specifically promoted atheism.
Leopold of Belgium did not promote any "christian value government" of the Congo!
You cant have it both ways. You cant claim, the US is a secular democracy which separates church from state constitutionally and then also claim it is a "christian value " country. Which is it?
philologos wrote: » Why are we arguing about who killed more people? Why is this relevant to Christianity? - What relevance does this have to the Gospel that has nothing to do with mass murder? What does it have to do with the saving death of Jesus?
philologos wrote: » I'm going to suggest that we put this line of reasoning away and actually focus on what the real issues that atheists have with Christianity are.
marienbad wrote: » Love to, let me start , why is it that theism inevitably leads to atrocities
Morbert wrote: » Nazi Germany was a non-atheistic regime.
*cough* Leopold of Belgium *cough* *cough* Nazis *cough* *cough* New World Colonisation *cough* *cough* USA *cough*
Correct. His was a non-atheistic regime. It is a non-atheist country, with "Christian values" employed heavily as rhetoric. I would certainly like it to be more secular.
marienbad wrote: » Because ISAW contends that unless you believe in God atrocities will inevitably result
Morbert wrote: » So I will ask again. Are you changing your position from "atheism causes atrocities", to "atheist societies can be perfectly healthy, but state-enforced atheism, due to the nature of the regimes imposing atheism, will more than likely lead to atrocities." No. Not in other words. I do not consider Pol Pot's regime, for example, to be a religious regime. A regime like North Korea, on the other hand is deeply religious. It is an example of a secular religion, with its own mythology and worship. It is an example of a bad religion, and hence an example of a religious instruction being a bad influence. This was entirely beside the point, and was part of a tangent you brought up. Instead, what I brought up as a counter-point was a) An example of a predominantly atheist society that is perfectly functional, culturally rich, and does not commit atrocities. b) Reasons why your understanding of the underpinning causes behind the atrocities you mention (like Pol Pot's) is wrong. This has nothing to do with what I said. Atheist regimes (not religions), unlike Christian regimes, have always emerged as a symptom of anti-democratic "revolutionary" totalitarianism, like the "socialism" practised by Pol Pot. Their entire philosophy is to blame. You are making the mistake of assuming atheism is the offending component of their philosophy, and I have pointed out that plenty of atheists abhor the philosophies of people like Stalin and Pol Pot. Again, I see the blame lying squarely on the policies of Pol Pot. Perhaps you are claiming that, if Pol Pot was not an atheist, he wouldn't have committed atrocities? A claim as baseless as the claim that, if King Leopold was an atheist, he would not have committed atrocities. As you said yourself, we know what we know, and there is no point in conted speculation. I like this cartoon:
ISAW wrote: » No . i accept religious societies also kill people. Even so called "christian" ones. But on a tiny scale compared to atheistic and godless ones. It is a bit like ignoring 99% of child abusers and focusing only on the less than 1% of abusers who were roman Catholic Priests.
marienbad wrote: » As I already said in one of the posts you did'nt reply to- ''our crowd killed less than their crowd''- big deal . A long way from atheism causes atrocities.
Anyway I agree with Philologos - theism ( and I assume atheism ) dos'nt cause atrocities - people do . And with that I am done on this issue.
lmaopml wrote: » I thought, I could be wrong - that Norway entered the discussion in relation to and as an example of an 'Atheist' society that hasn't resorted to totalitarianism, but is an overly atheist society? Where did Norway enter the debate anyway?
Zorbas wrote: » Has anyone noticed how the same arguments are being constantly repeated as if that will give them added credence?
PDN wrote: » Indeed, like the claim that Norway is 70% atheist.
