Even the Nazis had some kind hearted folks who showed true humanity...but the whole enterprise was corrupt to the core. The RC Church wileds power beyong imagining and you know what they say about power...
A challenge to our dear Christian friends.
- Thread starter mrgrumpy
- Start date
Even the Nazis had some kind hearted folks who showed true humanity...but the whole enterprise was corrupt to the core. The RC Church wileds power beyong imagining and you know what they say about power...
If you want to compare people to Nazis, start with anyone in this thread who has said anything about needing to reprogram the thinking of others, or eradicate 'their kind'. Oh, wait, that would be the atheists, not the Christians. Hmmmm.
mrgrumpy. We haven't talked before as far as I know, but to compare the church with Nazis is complete bull. Any organization with millions of members wields a lot of power. The Mormans wield a lot of power. The Jews wield a lot of power. The Muslims wield a lot of power. You are talking through your hat. I would recommend a bit of reading.....And a lot of thought.
And they get that power from where? Not democracy, not the people, they get it from an invented hateful god who has butchered his flock since day one. It's long past time to educate the practice out of the species once and for all, the freakish un-natural experiment with mass delusion is a failure.
Why Oh Why debate whether or not today's Bibles are true/untrue, evil, brainwashing, mythological(Oooops! No attempt there yet.)
We have enough pain and suffering in our world today. It is our personal Beliefs that keep us grounded. Is it not part of human nature to fullfill our need to believe we are here for a purpose(reason)? And would it not be to our advantage to ensure it is a positive one?
Having read this whole thread mrgrumpy , it reminds me of one of Shakespeares quotes:
"Hell is empty. All the Devils live here."
My Spirituality is part of who I am as a whole person. I can not see human beings exist in harmony with themselves or each other without that.
Which truths and which laws of nature?
And what exactly would be the difference between nature and God?
Oh yeah... and what are ''normal human relations''???
I thoroughly agree with your explanation, you said it very well. I wish all religious people
a happy life, I don't criticize what and how they want to believe in their religion, (with exception of violence. )
I don't think like them, never will, I do feel totally free of those types of rules, BUT I
would never insist they should think like I do, or feel they are not as good as I because
they don't, it's a free world, and if they all thought the same, the world would be a
much more peaceful place.
Jeez..... you can' get anything right..can ya numb nuts.....I sometimes wonder how you manage to get up in the morning and remember to breath.
Ya know....I was gonna go point by point.....but after re reading your pile if shyte...twice.... I decided to follow my own advice that I gave to Kerrie. Have fun with your own religion.
I can. Can you say Northern Ireland, The Thirty Years War, the genocide conducted on the Cathars the slaveing of indiginous people over the entire globe for hundreds of years? Can you say fraud theft and murder on an unchallengeable record of delivered misery? The history of religion itself condemns it without exception, it (religion) has no bearing or contribution to morals ethics or standards of common decency whatever. Not to mention the enormous body of evidence that negates the the christian history which the bible totally obscures.
I don't have to give religious dogma 1mm of respect, especially since I know the christian fraud is proven through forensic, historical, archeological and physical evidence to be a con.So what am I to recommend to youth that they adhere to fraud that they surrender common sence and reason to a long dead little understood historical figure who would not have understood the christian story in any period of the last two-thousand years, indeed I'm positive that he would have been tortured and impaled on a stake or burned by his flock at anytime during the five hundred years of the inquizition just for speaking his own supposed words in the street. As a matter of fact the Cathars were recognizably christlike and were exterminated by the Roman faction for that.
I'll just let the paranoid crack pass. sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me
You are right about power. The less time a person has a position that gives them power the less likely-hood that they will become corrupted. I won't even try to defend that organized Christianity by saying they aren't corrupt. I don't see 'them' (any that call themselves a "Church") as not being in the same state right now as the Temple was when Jesus was there, the politest term is 'wayward'. Any Church should not promote any action if they don't have such instruction from Scripture. Scripture, by itself, is not corrupt nor does it promote unkind actions towards others. The corruption enters the picture when the leaders of any Church (and really, that could include any body of people that have any sort of power over others if appointments to such stations are over a long period of time, say 10 years).
The spread of Christianity left many dead in the middle ages, Scripture doesn't say anything about harming somebody if they reject the Gospel. The ones doing the spreading are to simple move on (Luke:1:1-5). It was then left of Christ to deal with at His return. Once that idea was corrupted it has never changed back to the way it was originally intended, even today that attitude is foreign to our Churches.
When the new world was being explored the boats didn't belong to Disciples, they belonged to merchants, exploring for wealth was #1, be it something they could carry back on those same boats or planting a flag somewhere and claiming that land as being theirs. It didn't matter who happened to be living there, those people were either "with them or against them". Against was the usual verdict and while missionaries may have passed out small-pox infested blankets (as an example) I doubt very much they had those blankets with them the whole time for that very reason. Again the missionaries didn't control where the boats went, they followed those with the swords, the swords didn't follow them.
So does it stand to reason that the longer a person yields power the more susceptible he becomes to becoming corrupt? What about other organizations that are independent from religion, are they immune from corruption? Our political system doesn't have anything in place that makes sure a person can only be in power for a determined length of time, that in itself promotes the likely-hood of corruption eventually overtaking them. New blood would seem to be a way of lessening the risks. If nobody could hold public office for more than (again use 10 years as an example only) then you eliminate some that hold power for 40 years or so. Nor should public offices be held by successive generations, that takes away from there being new-blood.
Now onto industry, no different from what was said above other than generations of the same family having the same power and control, if one generation falls into corruption the likely-hood of the next generation having those same traits when they first come into some authority is high.
Now the banksters, the same families have had control for hundreds of years, no need to say more about them.
blahblahblah point by point, you can't go point by point, you can only refuse to address reason, and revert to dogma or refer to a dusty old book who's history you refuse to learn or accept. I don't have a religion gerryh, I'm normal, I still have a mind and free will.
Well you know one mans concept of god is not anothers, you confuse your need with the needs of others and that has always been a problem with religions.
No...that's a problem with man...not religions..... something you just can't seem to wrap your itty bitty brain around.
That's simply false. There are plenty of examples, but one is all that's necessary to prove the point. In Deuteronomy 13:12-17 are instructions to burn down any city and kill all the inhabitants if they worship a different god. Seems pretty unkind to me, as are many of the prescriptions for correct behaviour in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. You can be killed for wearing clothes made of two different kinds of fibers, planting two different crops in the same field, working on the Sabbath, cutting your hair, and a whole lot of other things. And if you're going to argue that Jesus brought a new set of rules and those old ones no longer apply, I would point you to Matthew 5:18-19, which quite clearly says the old rules apply. And yes, I know you can also find citations that say they don't.
Not directly perhaps, though I think the previous example applies here as well; a city where a different god is worshiped can certainly be seen as having rejected the Gospel. The New Testament also allows plenty of latitude for interpreting things that way. There's a nice verse in 2 Timothy 2:19 that was used by the inquisition to justify killing people just suspected of heresy, and letting god sort it out. "The Lord knoweth them that are his," it says. Matthew 11:20-24 has Jesus condemning multiple cities to destruction because they didn't seem to like what he was preaching. Luke 10:10-15 makes essentially the same point.
Again you prove your contentions false with your own argument. That man can manipulate and misinterpret religious doctrine proves that it is man made. Also the text themselves do prescribe heinous behaviour from their "followers" but now you need to re-frame this doctrine so it might keep up with modern moral values. This, again, proves religion is man made and as such must morph and evolve to keep up with humanity not the other way around. All man made systems are dependent on changing with new evidence and religion, being man made, is no exception. If religious doctrine were from a true and eternal source like "god" then it would be unchangable; it's truths would be eternal, but clearly we see that they are not.