Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Third World Osteen


TheRedneckProfessor

Recommended Posts

 

Of course there would be war if Christianity did not exist.  War is part of human nature.  Nobody claims that there would be no war without Christianity.  The issue is that Christianity has been used or contributed to many wars.  This flies the the face of claims made about your God and the Prince of Peace.  There is no God making a difference.  It is just a human dogma.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: All Regularly Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

 

 

Of course there would be war if Christianity did not exist.  War is part of human nature.  Nobody claims that there would be no war without Christianity.  The issue is that Christianity has been used or contributed to many wars.  This flies the the face of claims made about your God and the Prince of Peace.  There is no God making a difference.  It is just a human dogma.

 

 

I agree with you and the ex-Christian from the site I linked.

 

I disagree with the constant trashing that Christianity alone is responsible for many wars. 

 

The Crusades for example: I agree that the Catholic Church was involved in the Western

Crusades to the Holy Land. 

 

What is so often left out of the discussion is that Islamics Launched their Crusades in 630 A.D.

Muhammad invaded and conquered Mecca. Later on, Muslims invaded Syria, Iraq, Jerusalem, Iran, Egypt, Africa, Spain, Italy, France..

 

The Western Crusades started around 1095 to try to stop the Islamic aggressive invasions and to free Jerusalem. The Islamic Crusades continued even after the Western Crusades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I disagree with the constant trashing that Christianity alone is responsible for many wars. 

 

 

Are you blind?  Can you not read?

 

Nobody is saying that Christianity ALONE is responsible for many wars.

 

Christianity is responsible for many wars but not alone.  What you are doing is distorting a message to make it look wrong.  Your imaginary God was not part of the Crusades.  God made no difference in history because God does not exist.  However the idea of God has been used by corrupt men to control large populations, including inciting them to war and evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity is responsible for many wars. 

 

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

 

How many is few to you, IH?  How many is an acceptable number of wars started by christians? 

 

The truth is in the history books.  Christianity has a bloody history.

 

The only thing that any Ex-C has written about wars in this thread was this by Human:
Violence in the form of wars, conquest, colonialism, genocide, and the slavery, poverty, disease, and famine that results. That's all related. So there is one reason.

 

Yes, he is absolutely right on each of those counts.

 

Yet what is your defense?  "I'm attempting to put to rest this "popular accusation" that Christianity is responsible for many wars."  -IH

 

Christians were responsible for a lot of bloodshed throughout its existence. 

 

No one in this thread ever brought up anything like "without christianity there would be no wars."  No Ex-C claimed it.  Yet you now bring that up?  It's a disingenuous non sequitur.

 

It reminds me of how you twisted my words in another thread...

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62720-no-shit-sherlock/?p=958998

 

I said:  This is why there's millions of different religions, and not a single one has ever contributed to the betterment of society as much as science.

 

Then you came back with: 

"This is why there's millions of different religions, and not a single one ever contributed to the betterment of society as science."

 

Are you saying that the Christian faith had zero influence on the rise of science in history?

 

What is it with christians consistently breaking their own 9th commandment? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google the topic yourself and see if it is true.

It's popular to accuse Christians with the cause of many wars. 

 

 

Are your research skills  limited to google? So you did not know that the HOLOCAUST could not have happened without the thousands of Xtian Nazis? Belief in the Bible with the NT'S stand against against the Jews was the reason Hitler could get his hit men to do what they did to the Jews. Get your head out of the sand. Almost 2,000 years of Xtian tradition and you think Xtiaity did not influence the Nazis?  bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1941-1945 – Nazi Genocides (statist atheists) – Germany – 11 million

""We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement is Christian."

-- Hitler, 1928.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, the fact is that no one in this thread brought up what he's bringing up.

 

"I'm attempting to put to rest this "popular accusation" that Christianity is responsible for many wars."  -IH

 

Which then morphed with the qualifier "alone"

"I disagree with the constant trashing that Christianity alone is responsible for many wars." -IH

 

All Human said was: 

"Violence in the form of wars, conquest, colonialism, genocide, and the slavery, poverty, disease, and famine that results. That's all related. So there is one reason." -Human

 

And that's in response to:

"What would be one reason for saying Christianity is a massive failure and a blight?" -IH

 

His debate tactic is not unlike the best selling christian apologists.  They will twist what has been said. 

 

For the lurkers:

Yes, Christians did start wars, christianity as a religion is responsible for starting wars.  Learn to square with that if you continue calling yourselves christians.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've done my research.

Now this is funny.  Ironhorse the Scholar™.  His frustration usually reveals his hidden grandiosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've done my research.

Now this is funny.  Ironhorse the Scholar™.  His frustration usually reveals his hidden grandiosity.

 

 

Not necessarily, Sdelsolray.

 

Imho, we needn't level the twin accusations of frustration and grandiosity at him.

Doing that casts his character in an unfavorable light, while he could be innocent of these charges.  There could be an altogether more insidious reason why he thinks he's done his research.  

 

The hidden depths of his Christian indoctrination.

 

He could suffering from a kind of Christian parallel to the Dunning-Kruger effect.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect  Just as people suffering from this are too stupid to know they're stupid, so Ironhorse may be too indoctrinated by Christianity to know that he's been indoctrinated by Christianity.

 

Which might explain why he thinks he's done his research (but he hasn't).

Which might explain why he thinks he questions everything (but he doesn't).

Which might explain why he thinks his understanding of history is unbiased (but it isn't).

.

.

.

Any mileage in that idea, in your opinion?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's god glasses, to put it succinctly, and it's combined with Stockholme Syndrome for nearly all christians I reckon.  They all love their captor, yaweh, so they defend him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roz, you are so right. In fact the twisting and putting on its head the plain meaning of Biblcal texts is one of the many reasons I deconverted.  "Methinks Xtians protest too much"   bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I've done my research.

Now this is funny.  Ironhorse the Scholar™.  His frustration usually reveals his hidden grandiosity.

 

 

Not necessarily, Sdelsolray.

 

Imho, we needn't level the twin accusations of frustration and grandiosity at him.

Doing that casts his character in an unfavorable light, while he could be innocent of these charges.  There could be an altogether more insidious reason why he thinks he's done his research.  

 

The hidden depths of his Christian indoctrination.

 

He could suffering from a kind of Christian parallel to the Dunning-Kruger effect.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect  Just as people suffering from this are too stupid to know they're stupid, so Ironhorse may be too indoctrinated by Christianity to know that he's been indoctrinated by Christianity.

 

Which might explain why he thinks he's done his research (but he hasn't).

Which might explain why he thinks he questions everything (but he doesn't).

Which might explain why he thinks his understanding of history is unbiased (but it isn't).

.

.

.

Any mileage in that idea, in your opinion?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

Yes, plenty of mileage.  A D-K effect explains his conduct much more broadly, as does the indoctrination.  Still, it is fairly common for many to become grandiose because of the indoctrination of Christian dogma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I've done my research.

Now this is funny.  Ironhorse the Scholar™.  His frustration usually reveals his hidden grandiosity.

 

 

Not necessarily, Sdelsolray.

 

Imho, we needn't level the twin accusations of frustration and grandiosity at him.

Doing that casts his character in an unfavorable light, while he could be innocent of these charges.  There could be an altogether more insidious reason why he thinks he's done his research.  

 

The hidden depths of his Christian indoctrination.

 

He could suffering from a kind of Christian parallel to the Dunning-Kruger effect.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect  Just as people suffering from this are too stupid to know they're stupid, so Ironhorse may be too indoctrinated by Christianity to know that he's been indoctrinated by Christianity.

 

 

.

.Which might explain why he thinks he's done his research (but he hasn't).

Which might explain why he thinks he questions everything (but he doesn't).

Which might explain why he thinks his understanding of history is unbiased (but it isn't).

.

Any mileage in that idea, in your opinion?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

"Which might explain why he thinks he's done his research (but he hasn't).

Which might explain why he thinks he questions everything (but he doesn't).

Which might explain why he thinks his understanding of history is unbiased (but it isn't)."

 

damn, that is scary, in retrospect.

 

 

Well, H...

 

If you've been raised to think that all human history revolves around Christ and Christianity, you might well (unconsciously) filter out all other models of history except those that support your Christian beliefs.  Which might explain why IH keeps on asserting that Christianity was a key factor in the rise of science in this thread... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62720-no-shit-sherlock/page-27#.U-Pv9PldVzM

 

I've cited ample evidence that science arose independently in many different cultures before the spread of Christianity from the Middle East, but IH can't seem to grasp this.  Does he know why he can't or won't accept a secular view of history?  Wendyshrug.gif

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I've done my research.

Now this is funny.  Ironhorse the Scholar™.  His frustration usually reveals his hidden grandiosity.

 

 

Not necessarily, Sdelsolray.

 

Imho, we needn't level the twin accusations of frustration and grandiosity at him.

Doing that casts his character in an unfavorable light, while he could be innocent of these charges.  There could be an altogether more insidious reason why he thinks he's done his research.  

 

The hidden depths of his Christian indoctrination.

 

He could suffering from a kind of Christian parallel to the Dunning-Kruger effect.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect  Just as people suffering from this are too stupid to know they're stupid, so Ironhorse may be too indoctrinated by Christianity to know that he's been indoctrinated by Christianity.

 

Which might explain why he thinks he's done his research (but he hasn't).

Which might explain why he thinks he questions everything (but he doesn't).

Which might explain why he thinks his understanding of history is unbiased (but it isn't).

.

.

.

Any mileage in that idea, in your opinion?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

Yes, plenty of mileage.  A D-K effect explains his conduct much more broadly, as does the indoctrination.  Still, it is fairly common for many to become grandiose because of the indoctrination of Christian dogma.

 

 

Thanks sdelsolray.

 

I wondered if others might see this pattern or if I was just imagining it.

 

BAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks sdelsolray.

 

I wondered if others might see this pattern or if I was just imagining it.

 

BAA

 

In recent years, I have become more interested in the reasons why theists hold the beliefs they do, why they defend those beliefs when exposed to facts and other elements of reality, how they succeed in compartmentalizing those beliefs to avoid applying rational thinking to them and similar questions.  There seem to be many patterns of behavior at play that most theists exhibit and employ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, if I hadn't been shown the slavery/killer/pedophilic nature of yaweh, I would still be a christian.  It's a tough thing to let go of your best friend, your saviour, your most trusted confidant and realizing what you've been worshiping all this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies, Human.

 

Well, you seem to have a better grasp of 'things' psychological than I do!  smile.png

 

I freely admit that the life sciences are mostly terra incognita for me.

All I've been doing lately is stepping back a bit from the tight focus of the screen and taking a wider, longer-term look at the recurring patterns I (think) I see in Ironhorse's posts.  This means going back weeks and months, over many pages of dialog.  (And here's where I count myself lucky!)   It seems that I've been born with the innate ability to scan larges amounts of written information quickly, to mentally collate that data, to identify patterns and themes and then to distil these into easily-digested 'chunks' of info for others to absorb.

 

It was in doing this (and taking into account the observations of other Lions) that I saw what's now becoming apparent to all of us.  (Well, except perhaps to Ironhorse himself.)  That some of the claims he makes about himself, his upbringing and his behaviour don't square up with what he actually writes and what he says he believes.  There's a mismatch.  A mismatch between his claims and his behavior. This mismatch has most recently and most succinctly been pointed out yesterday, by Disillusioned, in post # 32 of the, "Christian God Doesn't Care About Christians In The Den" thread.

 

When Ironhorse tries to make an evidence-based argument and we demolish it, he reverts to faith, saying, "I believe."

As Disillusioned has quite correctly pointed out - you can't have it both ways. If you can't make an evidence-based argument for something, you do the rational, reasonable and adult thing and yield... giving it up.  You DON'T fall back on the irrational, unreasonable and immature thing and invoke ...faith! 

.

.

.

 

If he really does question everything (His Claim) then when something he presents as valid is refuted, shouldn't he ALSO question it's validity, rather than simply retorting, "I believe" (His Behavior)...?

.

.

.

 

(Speculation.) Do you think that when he reverts to his "I believe" position - that's his indoctrination taking over?

(Further speculation.)  Or that it's an unconscious self-defense mechanism that kicks in at a time of psychological crisis to prevent the loss of something he holds valuable?  This being based on your "fear-of-the-abyss" idea you posited yesterday.  

.

.

.

 

As further food for thought about indoctrination, Human...how about this?

My partner Maureen comes from an ultra-Catholic, Irish-American background.  So, even though she's now as much of an atheist as I am, I can still see that she can't break fully free from the indoctrination of her upbringing.  Years ago I stopped asking her why she was behaving in a 'religious' way, when in a RC church or when with her (very!) extended family.  Why did I stop?  Because it caused unnecessary strife between us.  I came to realize that she just didn't know why she was doing certain things or that she was doing them all!  So I'd just be making trouble by asking her to give me a rational reason why she was behaving this way.  She couldn't give me a rational reason.  She didn't know why.  This behavior was 'under her radar', so to speak.

 

She still genuflects and makes the sign of the cross in RC churches.

She still feels the need to light candles in the memory of her mom and dad.  She still looks favorably on certain catholic figures from history and she stills thinks the beliefs of her kin should be respected.  Yet, when out of the immediate physical influence of 'things' catholic, these ingrained behaviors drop away and she's just as sceptical and hard-nosed as I am about God, the Bible and Christianity.

 

Please understand that I love her dearly, Human.

Now that I better understand how her upbringing has shaped her psyche, I'm not at all bothered by these 'religious' behaviors.  Being even-handed about this, I'm probably just as much influenced by these unconscious modes of thought and behaviour as Maureen is or anyone else is.  I just don't know it.  It'd probably need a complete stranger to watch me for a good while to see a similar pattern of mismatches between my stated views and my behaviors. Who knows?  Not me, that's for certain!  I can't see the forest for the trees.

.

.

.

 

Anyway, what do you think?

Psycho-babble?  Half-baked speculation?  Or what?

.

.

.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further input!

 

This time from Maureen.  She can't recall where it comes from originally (the Jesuits? Ignatius Loyola?) but she remembers a quote from her education in a RC school.

 

"Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... only 6 million?  From one christian blogger's site?  

 

If you want to submit that kind of evidence, then ok, right back at you

 

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19748

 

250 million dead souls thanks to you and your kind.

 

 

I read the link and the discussions on the link you provided.

In fact, I encourage all members here, if interested, to go and read the posts.

 

Here is a quote from a reply on the forum:

 

"The Catholic Church at it’s height of Power in the 9th – 14th centuries could not have killed 250 million people. In fact, the population of the ENTIRE WORLD never even passed 1 billion until the 19th century (1804 if memory serves) and Europe did not pass 250 million until the 20th century, so your numbers are fallacious on every level unless the Pope ordered some Genocide in the past few decades that we all seem to have missed?

 

So where exactly and when exactly did all these deaths that were ordered by the Church occur? The wars of the 20th century were secular Wars, the Communist were Atheist, and Hitler a known Occultist, so where and when could the Church have directly murdered 250 million people? (more than the entire population of Europe up until the 20th century I might add).

 

As I said before, do you really believe your own BS or do you lie on purpose?

 

Let me be real clear on this (although I am sure you will ignore the acknowledgement), the Church has culpability for the history that it had a direct part in, however 250 million is a complete fallacy and is in fact a slanderous number. Further, it is in fact libel in written form, with no purpose other than to harm the reputation of the Church and expose it to hatred and bigotry.

 

What you are doing is dishonest on every level. I think it is time that you either point by point account for and substantiate the accuracy of each of your sources so they can be investigated, substantiate each death you are accusing the church of, or apologize for using grossly inaccurate numbers, questionable accounting methods and abhorrent lies."

 

~SirMic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your research skills are to finding this info IH, why aren't they also up to finding out the historical facts about the rise of science?

 

Some childhood indoctrination getting in the way, perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.