Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler*, Mao....

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

But they are ALL atheists!" NONE of theem are theists! The thing they have in common is atheism and the actions they do stem from that!

Like Muslims and Christians and Scientologists and Buddhists and Mormons and Shamanists and Jainists ... etc

The thing you have in common is theism and the things you do stem from that ?

So it was actually theists who carried out the 9/11 attacks and christians are just as responsible as muslims ?

Christians are responsible for all the atrocities carried out in the name of Islam etc ?

Sorry I didn't know that, thanks for clearing it up though.

Non vegitarians would not be protesting about eating meat!

When did myself or wicknight say we were just 'atheists' ? I'm anti-theist.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

form into or support atheistic regimes.
It is unlikely that theists wouldf support such regimes just as it is unlikely Christians will support Islamist regimes.

Why ? Your all theists, aren't all theists the same ? I want to talk to you about the theist regimes in the middle east, why do theists not eat pork ? why do theists blow themselves up ? :pac:

No! atheism and atheistic regimes in particular ( regimes with atheism as a central tenet) have provided NOTHING to civilization. They haven't lasted and they contributed hundreds of millions of dead bodies, economic ruin and stagnation!

I'm not going to bother justifying this with a long response because I doubt you even believe that.

Are you suggesting that the USSR throughout its short history never contributed anything (Good I assume) in science and technology ?

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

i already gave two! Modern china and cuba relaxed their rules on official atheism.

China was never atheist, if by atheist you mean free from any sort of religion/belief system.

The USSR also, for most of its history, religion was legal. As I showed you and you failed to reply.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

You claimed to have supplied sources which are "only a google away" didn't you?
But it turns out you didn't supply them - I did!

One of the sources you used I also used and I provided other links and then you claimed the website was down, I provided the google cache of that website and you still claimed I didn't provide any links.

Well you saw wrong then! Go and read the sources I provided. There are two tables from rummel dealing with genocides in history. They date from about 2500 BC to modern times.
They have about 1,000 entries. Communism constituted less than one of 28 centuries!
Atheistic regimes by FAR outnumber Christianity in terms of dead.

Communism does not = atheism.

Well given the current troubles are between nationalists and a group descended from settlers brought in by a Protestant ruled England then the Cromwellian period cant be blamed on Christianity either nor can the famine! that's about a million less dead for Christianities total then.

Given your criteria it most certainly can.

HALF of Stalins total was in camps - not famine or war: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM
Atheistic communists are the largest cohoirt of killers in 20th centuy china and war or famine.

Well thats a plain good old lie.

The French post revolution "Terror" was in fact anti religion and in the Vendee they killed more Catholics in a year then the Inquisition did in five centuries.

And Napoleon killed how many ? The European Christians killed how many in South America ? In Africa ? In Australia ?

You know in Australia, a Christian country, that aboriginals were legally classified as wildlife until relatively recently.

It certainly was NOT Christian and they didn't believe in a single God. i wont get nto a "Buddhism is atheism" row. some of your atheist comrades claim this to be true. the arguments i have been making in this forum are in realation mainly to "mainstream Christiianity" which I have defined.

I didn't mention Buddhism.

North Korea is atheist!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

No it is not. It is the most religious country in the world.

Its responsible for the 10th largest religion in the world.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Discussion on why Juche is classified as a religion. http://www.adherents.com/largecom/Juche.html

State atheism has been defined by David Kowalewski as the official "promotion of atheism" by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom and practiceDavid Kowalewski, Russian Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 426-441, Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_North_Korea
Article 14 of the 1948 constitution noted that "citizens of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea shall have the freedom of religious belief and of conducting religious services."

North Korea has been represented at international religious conferences by state-sponsored religious organizations such as the Korean Buddhists' Federation, the Korean Christian Federation, and the Ch'ndogyo Youth Party.

North Korea's government exercises virtual total control over society and imposes state sanctioned atheism, and the cult of personality of Kim Jung Il and Kim Il Sung have been described as a political religion. There is no way you can compare it to Christianity!

No its not. Its there in those links. I know many North Koreans = Your wrong.

Are you actually going to answer this time or ignore it ?

Yes he was doing both! He killed all he could. Over half of the deaths under him were in camps. But he couldnt control all of the USSR . it is HUGE! So when he couldnt kill then he tried to encourage the strongest resistors to fight against the Germans. They way they could kill each other. When the Germans were executed he want back to persecuting them.

Yet the church was never made illegal again. Strange eh ?

Several sources ? List them all then! List all the sources you supplied on genocieds in history then can you? Where are the ones you supplied about 110 million dead due to Christianity in the US?

I'm really getting sick of this now, are you trying to be smart ? The link about 110 million dead due to Europeans (Christian Europeans) is in the link you and I both used from wikipedia.

monosharp

StealthRolex wrote: »

You're missing the point. Saying "it says so in the Bible" is not using the Bible to justify their actions.

What ?

They mentioned the Bible but did not refer to it and the reason they did not refer to it is because there is no support in the Bible for the type of slavery they were involved in which was "race based" and " man stealing" - going to Africa and capturing free men to be slaves.

The bible can be used to justify all sorts of crap including creationism, slavery, anti-homosexuality etc. There are groups today who use it to justify hatred of homosexuals.

Just because you don't agree with their interpretation does not mean the bible is not been used to justify it.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

Well I can point out plenty of personal attacks on me but that would be off topic for this thread. suffice it to say some atheists whom I have personally met post here and have said they want the world cleansed of believers.

Well I think you'd consider me one of the most aggressive ones and I don't want the world cleansed of believers, I wouldn't even be here except for evangelism.

Live and let live I say, the problem is Christians cannot do that. They can't leave other alone, they can't not bring their faith into everything, everything and everyone.

Thats the biggest problem with religion in the world today.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Well I think you'd consider me one of the most aggressive ones

I wasn't referring to you. You don't tend to personally attack people and you make arguments based on evidence - most of the time - see above as regards who posted the "evidence". I respect your point of view. But again that is off topic. which is why i had to add the "evidence" bit to bring it on topic.

and I don't want the world cleansed of believers, I wouldn't even be here except for evangelism.

Ironic - imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

You might note that I don't claim to have any belief and I don't force beliefs on others. I believe in objective reasoning. I apply it to scientific discussion and to discussion of morals or social standards. I don't pick and chose to be objective in one domain and subjective in another. And I clearly distinguish my opinion from supported facts.

The point is that not all atheists kill people but some do. some insist that it is all quiter simple and science is enough for the world and there is no need for morals or God or standards and that we are all answerable to ourselves. Many atheists e.g. Michael Martin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Martin_%28philosopher%29

don't subscribe to that. Dawkins and Hitchens do subscribe to it. Whenever atheists like them got into power the result was devestating.

Live and let live I say,

"Live and let die" they said. the christian philosophy however is "live and let live but you have a responsibility to point out that some things are wrong - ALWAYS e.g. child abuse"

the problem is Christians cannot do that. They can't leave other alone, they can't not bring their faith into everything, everything and everyone.

Not quite true. Jews for example are not allowed to proselytise. Many Christians in the US may be of this variety but most Christians aren't. that isnt to say Missionary work isn't worthy. While there is a history of European abuser of the Americas for example it was the Missionaries that brought them much of the better societal benefits.

Thats the biggest problem with religion in the world today.

What is? That they SPREAD? So you are therefore against the spread of religion!

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

What ?

slavers justifying something is not the Bible justifying it!

Just because you don't agree with their interpretation does not mean the bible is not been used to justify it.

Indeed. But it does not mean the bible is being justifying it either!
It is the same as above the bible being misused to justify something and the Bible
actually justifying it are different things.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

All the above are Old Testament Laws which don't necessarily apply to the New covenant.
But I would like to see examples where they were applied in the US. for example when was a slave owner pubnished for beating or whipping a slave to death under the Exodus 21:20?

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

And the above was used in what way in the US to justify slavery? In fact if you look at the history there was a strong opposition to blacks being allowed to be Christians or congregate with white Christians. this was a social race rule not a religious one and applied to freemasons and other organisations as well.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

No I wasn't asked that. I can quote it again for you if you like

"no supporting evidence that slavers and slave traders used the Bible to justify their actions"

You linked to this yourself, why are asking me for the link?

Sorry my mistake. It appears you replied quickly and the original message was edited after that. i withdraw the assertion you misquoted the original.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

Ironic - imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

Push me and I'll push back.

The point is that not all atheists kill people but some do.

Which is our point. Not all humans kill people but some do.

Your trying to attach deaths caused by communist* regimes to people who lack belief in a personal god. Well first of all I don't think its fair to even link those deaths to communism. The USSR under Stalin was a dictatorship, it might have had a facade of communism but it wasn't communism anymore then North Korea is democratic, as their constitution claims.

don't subscribe to that. Dawkins and Hitchens do subscribe to it. Whenever atheists like them got into power the result was devestating.

No it wasn't. Whenever dictators got into power its mostly devastating. Regardless of their belief or lack of belief.

"Live and let die" they said. the christian philosophy however is "live and let live but you have a responsibility to point out that some things are wrong - ALWAYS e.g. child abuse"

They have a responsibility to shout and throw things at me on my way to work ?

Not quite true. Jews for example are not allowed to proselytise. Many Christians in the US may be of this variety but most Christians aren't. that isnt to say Missionary work isn't worthy. While there is a history of European abuser of the Americas for example it was the Missionaries that brought them much of the better societal benefits.

And claims can be made for the improvement of Russians lives under Stalin too.

Evangelism is wrong, plain and simple and should be illegal.

What is? That they SPREAD? So you are therefore against the spread of religion!

No I'm against going out on the street and been abusive, been loud, getting in the way and insulting people regardless of the 'message'.

You should not be allowed to do this in public, I have the right to NOT listen to this stuff.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

slavers justifying something is not the Bible justifying it!

Wicknight said people 'used' the bible to justify it. He didn't say the bible justified it.

All the above are Old Testament Laws which don't necessarily apply to the New covenant.
But I would like to see examples where they were applied in the US. for example when was a slave owner pubnished for beating or whipping a slave to death under the Exodus 21:20?

.. What ?

Some guys said "The bible justifies slavery". I showed you quotes of the bible which they might have been talking about.

I don't know or care if the above was ever used under the law to punish or beat or whip a slave. Thats not the point.

The point is that these people believe the bible justifies slavery. We're not saying the bible does, we're saying people used it/misused it to justify it.

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

The point is that these people believe the bible justifies slavery. We're not saying the bible does, we're saying people used it/misused it to justify it.

+1

Ultimately the point is whether they used it or misused it is a matter of subjective opinion, and therefore is pretty useless as a moral guide. People just think the Bible supports what they already believe. If you believe slavery is ok you will find the Bible confirms this. If you think slavery is immoral you will find he Bible confirms this.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

You're missing the point. Saying "it says so in the Bible" is not using the Bible to justify their actions.

I think you will find it is. They were hardly using the Quran

I appreciate you disagree with them and take a different interpretation, but that is rather here nor there to the point.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Wicknight said people 'used' the bible to justify it. He didn't say the bible justified it.

So you accept the bible does not justify slavery as practiced in the USA?

Some guys said "The bible justifies slavery". I showed you quotes of the bible which they might have been talking about.

Might have? The point made was that in the case of the US the bible didn't justify slavery.

I don't know or care if the above was ever used under the law to punish or beat or whip a slave. Thats not the point.

It is! The point made was that in the case of the US the bible didn't justify slavery.

The point is that these people believe the bible justifies slavery. We're not saying the bible does, we're saying people used it/misused it to justify it.

So what? The point made was that in the case of the US the bible didn't justify slavery.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

+1

Ultimately the point is whether they used it or misused it is a matter of subjective opinion, and therefore is pretty useless as a moral guide. People just think the Bible supports what they already believe. If you believe slavery is ok you will find the Bible confirms this. If you think slavery is immoral you will find he Bible confirms this.

Not really. Mainstream christians don't only go by the Bible. It isn't a question of "ill make up my mind about what the Bible says". That is only a fringe belief.
In the 2000 years of Christianity only one Pope (a Borgia for a period of about 30 years) accepted slavery. His predecessors condemned slavery and his successor reversed the endorsement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI#Slavery
While the enterprising explorers of Portugal and Spain were quick to enslave the indigenous peoples met in the New World, the Papacy was against this practice. In 1435 Pope Eugene IV issued an attack on slavery in his Papal bull Sicut Dudum which included the excommunication of all those who engage in the slave trade. In 1537 Pope Paul III issued his own condemnation of slavery in his letter Sublimis Deus. However a form of indentured servitude was allowed, being similar to a peasants duty to his liege lord in Europe. In the wake of Columbus landing in the New World, Pope Alexander was asked by the Spanish monarchy to confirm ownership of these found lands.[6] The bulls issued by Pope Alexander VI : "Eximiae devotionis" (May 3, 1493), "Inter Caetera" (May 4, 1493) and "Dudum Siquidem (September 23, 1493), conferred similar rights to Spain in relation to the new found lands in the Americas as Nicholas had previously done in "Romanus Pontix" and "Dum Diveras".[7] Morales Padron (1979) concludes that these bulls gave power to enslave the natives.[8] Minnich (2005) asserts that this "slave trade" was permitted to facilitate conversions to Christianity.[9] Other historians and Vatican scholars strongly disagree with these accusations and assert that Pope Alexander VI never gave his approval of slavery.[10] Other later Popes continued to condemn slavery, such as Pope Benedict XIV in Immensa Pastorium (1741) and Pope Gregory XVI in his letter In Supremo Apostolatus (1839).

Thornberry (2002) asserts that "Inter Caetera" was applied in the "Requeriemento" which was read to American Indians (who couldn't understand the colonizers language) before hostilities against them began. They were given the option to accept the authority of the Pope and Spanish crown or face being attacked and subjugated.[11] In 1993 the Indigenous Law Institute called on Pope John Paul II to revoke Inter Caetera and to make reparation for "this unreasonable historical grief". This was followed by a similar appeal in 1994 by the Parliament of World Religions".[12]

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

So you accept the bible does not justify slavery as practiced in the USA?

I never said it did. Nor did wicknight.

Really, why are you trying to build these strawmen ? Its quite obvious neither of us said any such thing.

Might have? The point made was that in the case of the US the bible didn't justify slavery.

No, the point being made was that 'some' christians said the bible justified slavery.

I don't care if it did/didn't. The point is that they (Christians) justified slavery, the institution of slavery, by using the bible.

They could have been complete whackjobs, they could have been lying through their teeth, they could also justify not brushing their teeth because of the bible, that is not the point.

Fred Phelps uses the bible to justify his nonsense. That statement says nothing about what the bible justifies, it says what a person is interpreting it as justifying.

It is! The point made was that in the case of the US the bible didn't justify slavery.

And the counter point was that several groups claimed the exact opposite. They claim the bible did justify slavery.

So what? The point made was that in the case of the US the bible didn't justify slavery.

It did to several groups of people because of their interpretation of it.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Evangelism is wrong, plain and simple and should be illegal.
...
You should not be allowed to do this in public, I have the right to NOT listen to this stuff.

LOL. Classic. A bit like the Anti nazi groups who oppose holocaust denial speeches. "People have the right to free speech - except those that disagree with us" Democracy isnt just about being able to do what you like it is also about tolerating what you don't like.Just like the anti nazis who oppose speeches on holocaust denial?

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

I never said it did. Nor did wicknight.

Really, why are you trying to build these strawmen ? Its quite obvious neither of us said any such thing.

What you said:
Wicknight said people 'used' the bible to justify it. He didn't say the bible justified it.


i then asked you if you claim the Bible justified slavery in the US. Note the question mark ? The point being Im not interested in what "some people say" but whether you are making a claim or just hiding behind an argument other people made and then running away when challoenged to support it. You are the one building a straw man. If all you have to say is "Some people said the bible justified slavery" and you are not making the claim yourself. "Some people said" is just strawmanning. It is posing something as if it was real only to run away again if challenged. It gives the appearance of authority or evidence but is just empty unsupported opinion and bald assertion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw

No, the point being made was that 'some' christians said the bible justified slavery.

I don't care if it did/didn't. The point is that they (Christians) justified slavery, the institution of slavery, by using the bible.

But you don't say that! Just "some people say it"?

Fred Phelps uses the bible to justify his nonsense. That statement says nothing about what the bible justifies, it says what a person is interpreting it as justifying.

Some people say you don't actually believe that the Bible justifies slavery in the US! What do ytou say to that?

And the counter point was that several groups claimed the exact opposite. They claim the bible did justify slavery.

Some people say they were wrong! What do you say?

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

LOL. Classic. A bit like the Anti nazi groups who oppose holocaust denial speeches. "People have the right to free speech - except those that disagree with us"

Free speech is fine. Making a public nuisance of yourself, persecuting decent people, publicly insulting other peoples beliefs, obstructing people going about their own business. Thats wrong.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

i then asked you if you claim the Bible justified slavery in the US. Note the question mark ? The point being Im not interested in what "some people say" but whether you are making a claim or just hiding behind an argument other people made and then running away when challoenged to support it. You are the one building a straw man. If all you have to say is "Some people said the bible justified slavery" and you are not making the claim yourself.

..... Some people used the bible to justify slavery. I don't care/know if the bible justifies slavery or not.

I have no interest in making the claim the bible supported or didn't support slavery. I do not care.

But thats not the point, the point was that people in the past, christians, said that the bible supported slavery. They used it as justification for slavery.

Some people say they were wrong! What do you say?

I do not care or know or have any interest in finding out. Its not the point.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

..... Some people used the bible to justify slavery. I don't care/know if the bible justifies slavery or not.

Obviously you just want to score point with "some people say"
It is posing something as if it was real only to run away again if challenged. It gives the appearance of authority or evidence but is just empty unsupported opinion and bald assertion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw

Some people say the bible does not justify slavery in the US. what to YOU SAY to that?

I have no interest in making the claim the bible supported or didn't support slavery. I do not care.

then why are yo posting what "some people say"?

But thats not the point, the point was that people in the past, christians, said that the bible supported slavery. They used it as justification for slavery.

LOL! You re enter it again! It does not matter and it is nothing to worry about by the you come back with "some people said it" ?

I do not care or know or have any interest in finding out. Its not the point.

No the point is "some people said" . LOL! How is that so significant?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Free speech is fine. Making a public nuisance of yourself, persecuting decent people, publicly insulting other peoples beliefs, obstructing people going about their own business. Thats wrong.

But
Evangelism is wrong, plain and simple and should be illegal.
...
You should not be allowed to do this in public, I have the right to NOT listen to this stuff.

Is a bit of a contradiction isn't it?
Free speech is fine but when they freely say that you should convert to Christianity it isn't fine as far as you are concerned! so it is fine - as long as you agree with it?

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

Obviously you just want to score point with "some people say"

No I don't. I don't even care about this point, this was originally between you and wicknight, I just came in when you started accusing him of saying the bible justified slavery which he did not.

Wicknight gave you quotes from people and a link to those quotes which I will repeat below.

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral."
Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."
Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined."
United States Senator James Henry Hammond.

"If we apply sola scriptura to slavery, I'm afraid the abolitionists are on relatively weak ground. Nowhere is slavery in the Bible lambasted as an oppressive and evil institution"
Vaughn Roste, United Church of Canada

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

Wicknight said that people used the bible as justification. He did not say the bible justified it.
I said that people used the bible as justification. I did not say the bible justified it.

It is posing something as if it was real only to run away again if challenged. It gives the appearance of authority or evidence but is just empty unsupported opinion and bald assertion.

Person X said Y. I relayed to you that person X said Y. I gave you a link to show you that person X said Y. I have no interest in claiming that Y is in the bible or not. I simply was making the point that christian people said that the bible justified slavery.

Some people say the bible does not justify slavery in the US. what to YOU SAY to that?

I have nothing to say either way. I don't care. The same way I don't care what Fred Phelps uses the bible to justify, the same way I don't care what people say the Koran justifies.

The reason I don't care is because people interpret it differently. They think it says one thing, someone else thinks it says another.

I couldn't care less what the bible says about slavery or homosexuality or gambling or drinking or anything else.

For one simple example, I recently asked a question of the christians here about certain christians interpretation of the bible which they believe prevents them from consuming alcohol.

I don't care if the bible says 'don't drink' or 'do drink'. I'm not a christian, it has nothing to do with me. I am interested in what Christians think it says.

then why are yo posting what "some people say"?

I am posting what some high profile people said, it was originally wicknights point.

I am not trying to link the bible to slavery anymore then I'm trying to link creationism to the bible. I understand different people, different denominations have different interpretations.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Not really. Mainstream christians don't only go by the Bible. It isn't a question of "ill make up my mind about what the Bible says".

Sure it is, we see this all the time on this forum and in the wider world. It is part of human nature, to form moral beliefs and then look around for some authority to confirm them for us.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

No I don't. I don't even care about this point,

He said while he referred how much he cared by referring to it!
If you don't care about the point why do you continually make it?
Why don't you just drop it?

This was originally between you and wicknight, I just came in when you started accusing him of saying the bible justified slavery which he did not.

Wher did i make any such accusation? what I stated was what others had siad . Others has stated that the Bible made no justification of slavery int he US context. And arguments by anyone about what "some people said" they thought the Bible justified was not dealing with this point. all it was doing is stating "some people said the Bible did justify slavery in the US"
so what?
the Bible made no justification of slavery int he US context.
is the issue and not what "some people said"

Wicknight gave you quotes from people and a link to those quotes which I will repeat below.

Quotes from people are just what "some people said"
the Bible made no justification of slavery in he US context.
is the issue and not what "some people said"

I have pointed out you are trying to hide behind what some people said.
If you are making the point that the Bible made no justification of slavery in he US context.
Then make it and don't rely on what some people said!
It is posing something as if it was real only to run away again if challenged. It gives the appearance of authority or evidence but is just empty unsupported opinion and bald assertion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw


the Bible made no justification of slavery in he US context.
is the issue and not what "some people said"

No run away and say you never claimed the Bible made no justification of slavery in he US context. just some other people did.

So bloody what?

the Bible made no justification of slavery in he US context. was the point made.

If you dont disagree with that then shut up about it.

Wicknight said that people used the bible as justification. He did not say the bible justified it.
I said that people used the bible as justification. I did not say the bible justified it.

I have pointed out you are trying to hide behind what some people said.
If you are making the point that the Bible made no justification of slavery in he US context.
Then make it and don't rely on what some people said!
It is posing something as if it was real only to run away again if challenged. It gives the appearance of authority or evidence but is just empty unsupported opinion and bald assertion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw

If you are not claiming it then don't please keep repeating the "some people said" nonsense since you try to reenter the claim through the back door.
You just can't leave it alone can you? You have to go with "I'm not claiming this but some people say... "

If you are not making a claim then shut up about it!

Person X said Y. I relayed to you that person X said Y. I gave you a link to show you that person X said Y. I have no interest in claiming that Y is in the bible or not. I simply was making the point that christian people said that the bible justified slavery.

So what?

I have nothing to say either way. I don't care. The same way I don't care what Fred Phelps uses the bible to justify, the same way I don't care what people say the Koran justifies.

One can't express an opinion of indifference since it involves expressing an opinion!

The reason I don't care is because people interpret it differently. They think it says one thing, someone else thinks it says another.

There you go again!

Run away and say you never claimed the Bible made no justification of slavery in he US context. just some other people did will you?

So bloody what?

the Bible made no justification of slavery in he US context. was the point made.

If you don't disagree with that then shut up about it.

I couldn't care less what the bible says about slavery or homosexuality or gambling or drinking or anything else.

Then shut up about it!

For one simple example, I recently asked a question of the christians here about certain christians interpretation of the bible which they believe prevents them from consuming alcohol.

Her you go again. It is off topic but you just cant shut up about things which you already claimed have nothing to do with the issue and in which you have no interest! Why do you post them then?

I am not trying to link the bible to slavery anymore then I'm trying to link creationism to the bible. I understand different people, different denominations have different interpretations.

The Church does not support slavery. It isn't a question of interpretation by some Bishop somewhere! It does not support slavery full stop! It didn't support slavery at the time you are claiming in the US!

Mainstream Church is clearly defined by me several times and can be found in the charter.

It isnt a question of interpretation. It isnt a question of "some people said" !

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Sure it is, we see this all the time on this forum and in the wider world. It is part of human nature, to form moral beliefs and then look around for some authority to confirm them for us.

No it isn't and it is defined in the Charter. this forum isn't an imprimatur or nihil obstat forum.
Science says a meter is a distinct unit. You can have people say this inst true and they believe different but science says "this is what we declare as the meter" The church is similar. The creed is about 2000 years old and has not changed. It isnt made up as you go along!

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

China was never atheist, if by atheist you mean free from any sort of religion/belief system.

The USSR also, for most of its history, religion was legal. As I showed you and you failed to reply.

No it wasn't. I replied. I pointed out Stalin suppressed religion and only when the Nazis attacked did he stop suppressing ONE denomination in ONE region in order to get them to enlist and fight against the Germans. He continued to suppress other denominations!
Lenin was particularly opposed to religion and wanted to spread atheism I gave quotes from him.
I already replied on this.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

No it isn't and it is defined in the Charter. this forum isn't an imprimatur or nihil obstat forum.
Science says a meter is a distinct unit. You can have people say this inst true and they believe different but science says "this is what we declare as the meter" The church is similar. The creed is about 2000 years old and has not changed. It isnt made up as you go along!

How many Christians do not follow "the church?"

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

One of the sources you used I also used

NOT before I did! Which means it isn't your original source. But you did know of this wikipedia source since you cut and pasted from it. But you only cut out the "religious" killings and didn't post the source. when I found and posted the source it was easy to see the atheistic regimes dwarfed the numbers killed by religious! Why didn't you post the source? I posted it even when it listed the religious killings.

and I provided other links and then you claimed the website was down,

What other links? What other sources did you supply on numbers of people killed in history?

note SOURCES not one website!

I provided the google cache of that website and you still claimed I didn't provide any links.

Provide it again since I am not lying when I say I couldn't access any sources you provided.

Well thats a plain good old lie.

Not the first time you called me a liar.
If you claim I am lying care to prove it?

And Napoleon killed how many ?

Napoleon was not spreading Christianity nor spreading atheism!

The European Christians killed how many in South America ?

Tens of thousands - it is in Rummel and the other sources I supplied.
They did not kill over 110 Million as you claimed!
The pagans killed more before the Christians arrived.

In Africa ?

Tiny amounts. They abducted Africans and from slavery outside Africa it might go into
thousands or tens of thousands over several centuries. Don't forget they wanted to keep slaves alive. But African slavery was not done to "spread Christianity" Gulag Russian slavery was done to suppress religion however.

In Australia ?

In one particular island ( Tasmania) ALL natives were hunted down and killed. Again not to spread christianity and again the numbers were in the thousands.

You know in Australia, a Christian country, that aboriginals were legally classified as wildlife until relatively recently.

No I don't know that- source please?
Not be christian churches they werent. Relatively recently is when exactly and over what period?

Its responsible for the 10th largest religion in the world.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Discussion on why Juche is classified as a religion. http://www.adherents.com/largecom/Juche.html

You have been pulled up on this before - it is a cult!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64822990&postcount=166
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64840043&postcount=176


You tried to pull that thread about tolerance of hoimosexuals off into a discussion of whether Juche is a religion too.

Look if it is a religion it is a religion like Stalinism and Maoism was. an atheistic regime one!

Yet the church was never made illegal again. Strange eh ?

No! the church in china was also "official" but it wasn't the actual church!

Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted.

By 1941 only 500 churches remained open out of about 54,000 Orthodox in existence prior to World War I.

The relaxation allowed the Orthodox to grow to 22,000 but the regime's policy of cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church was reversed by Nikita Khrushchev. By 1975 the number of operating Russian Orthodox churches was reduced to 7,000.

I'm really getting sick of this now, are you trying to be smart ? The link about 110 million dead due to Europeans (Christian Europeans) is in the link you and I both used from wikipedia.

WRONG! I gave you my source. It is on page 59 of Rummel. There are eight sources there !

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

If you don't care about the point why do you continually make it?
Why don't you just drop it?

Because your making false accusations.

Quotes from people are just what "some people said"
the Bible made no justification of slavery in he US context.
is the issue and not what "some people said"

I never said the bible was justification for slavery in the US, nor did I say that the bible could be used for justification in the US.
I said some people used the bible for justification in the US.

Then make it and don't rely on what some people said!
It is posing something as if it was real only to run away again if challenged. It gives the appearance of authority or evidence but is just empty unsupported opinion and bald assertion.

The question: Did people use the bible for justification of slavery in the US.
The answer: Yes they did use the bible for justification of slavery in the US.

I don't know or care if the bible justifies slavery in the US or not.

the Bible made no justification of slavery in he US context.
is the issue and not what "some people said"

My point is that some christians used the bible as justification for slavery. My point is not if the bible justified slavery.

So bloody what?

the Bible made no justification of slavery in he US context. was the point made.

Whose point ? Your point ? The OP's point ?

My point is that some people who were high profile individuals in the America's used the bible to justify slavery.

If you dont disagree with that then shut up about it.

I don't agree or disagree with it because thats not the point I'm trying to make.

If you are not making a claim then shut up about it!

I am making a claim. I am claiming that some people as quoted here by myself and Wicknight, used passages from the bible to justify slavery.

One can't express an opinion of indifference since it involves expressing an opinion!

I'm indifferent as to whether or not the bible justifies slavery.
I am not indifferent as to whether or not people used it to justify slavery.

If you don't disagree with that then shut up about it.

Then shut up about it!

Her you go again. It is off topic but you just cant shut up about things which you already claimed have nothing to do with the issue and in which you have no interest! Why do you post them then?

Oh I am interested in the issues. I want your response as to why christians, prominent christians, used the bible as justification for slavery.

The Church does not support slavery. It isn't a question of interpretation by some Bishop somewhere! It does not support slavery full stop! It didn't support slavery at the time you are claiming in the US!

I'm not talking about the Catholic Church.

Mainstream Church is clearly defined by me several times and can be found in the charter.

So Christian = Catholic ? Everyone else is not mainstream ?

I wonder how long I'd last here if I told someone to shut up ? :pac:

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

How many Christians do not follow "the church?"

Asked and answered elsewhere. Of the top of my head Mainstream Christian is defined by me as Roman Othodox and Anglican. If you ass in Lutheran Methodist etc. and those following core beliefs like the Trinity Baptism etc. you have about 95 to 98 per cent of Christians. The core "apostolic succession of Bishops" churches represent 80 - 90 per cent.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Because your making false accusations.

List them!

YOU are the one making false accusations!

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

No it wasn't. I replied. I pointed out Stalin suppressed religion and only when the Nazis attacked did he stop suppressing ONE denomination in ONE region in order to get them to enlist and fight against the Germans.

What about religion in soviet states where Islam was prominent ? What about the Georgian church ? the Ukrainian ?

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

B

I am making a claim. I am claiming that some people as quoted here by myself and Wicknight, used passages from the bible to justify slavery.

So what "some peopole said" has nothing to do with the OP point that the Bible did not justify slavery in the US. the church didn't either!
What "some people said " about that is irrelevant!

Your claim is irrelevant! But it tries to argue the point without you actually making a claim just that "some people say racism is acceptable"

So what RACISM ISN'T ACCEPTABLE and you constant harping that some people say it is isn't getting you anywhere!

I'm indifferent as to whether or not the bible justifies slavery.
I am not indifferent as to whether or not people used it to justify slavery.

Here you go again. It is as if the Bible existing means people will abuse it and that therefore that is an argument against having the Bible in the first place.

So what if some people are racist and misuse anything to support their racist views?

That isn't an argument that the Bible is wrong or that Christianity is wrong.

Remember wher this all came from. Atheistic regimes killed hundreds of millions!

As a counter to that you claimed Christianity killed over a hundred million americans!
When you (your side) couldn't support that it was christianity supported slavery in the US.
Now it is some people say[ christianity supports slavery.

Christianity is in no way near what atheistic regimes did and christianity or the Bible didnt support slavery in the US!

Oh I am interested in the issues. I want your response as to why christians, prominent christians, used the bible as justification for slavery.

Racists will use anything to justify themselves. the fact that they do does NOT mean the Bible is wrong!
And you seem only interested in this because the climb down from "Christianity caused death just like atheistic regimes did" . Christianity didnt cause anything like Stalin Pol Pot and Mao.

So Christian = Catholic ? Everyone else is not mainstream ?

REad the charter Catholic = universal at least 80 percent maybe up to 95

I wonder how long I'd last here if I told someone to shut up ? :pac:

Look! yu keep saying "Im not interested in the following point"

If you are not interested in it then don't make it
Just shut up about it and don't make it and stop reposting it as something you don't care about! It isn't a personal insult or attack it is a question of your logic!
I'm not asking you to shut up about everything only about the things you claim you want to shut up about. You do not logically seem to be following your own advice.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Asked and answered elsewhere. Of the top of my head Mainstream Christian is defined by me as Roman Othodox and Anglican. If you ass in Lutheran Methodist etc. and those following core beliefs like the Trinity Baptism etc. you have about 95 to 98 per cent of Christians. The core "apostolic succession of Bishops" churches represent 80 - 90 per cent.

You have already mentioned 4 churches.

If there is a truth in the Bible, rather than a truth in peoples heads that they then seek out confirmation through interpration of the Bible, why do people go to different churches?

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

NOT before I did!

What possible difference does that make ?

Which means it isn't your original source.

Because you used it first ?

What other links? What other sources did you supply on numbers of people killed in history?

I posted at least 4 links for the genocide in the america's.

Provide it again since I am not lying when I say I couldn't access any sources you provided.

Go back and read it.

Not the first time you called me a liar.
If you claim I am lying care to prove it?

Half of Stalins total was in camps, not in war and famine ? Do you really stand by the statement ?

Napoleon was not spreading Christianity nor spreading atheism!

Neither was Stalin when he killed people in camps.

Tens of thousands - it is in Rummel and the other sources I supplied.
They did not kill over 110 Million as you claimed!
The pagans killed more before the Christians arrived.

Over 100 million people in the America's died directly or indirectly because of the christian European invasion. That is a fact which is in your own source which you are so upset about other people using. :rolleyes:

Tiny amounts. They abducted Africans and from slavery outside Africa it might go into thousands or tens of thousands over several centuries.

So your saying that the Christian European colonisations of Africa killed 'tiny amounts' of people ?

In one particular island ( Tasmania) ALL natives were hunted down and killed. Again not to spread christianity and again the numbers were in the thousands.

So your saying that the Christian European colonisation of Africa did not nearly eradicate the native population of Australia ?

No I don't know that- source please?
Not be christian churches they werent. Relatively recently is when exactly and over what period?

I'm getting very weary of you asking for sources. Will you read it this time ?

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/australia2.html
"SYDNEY (Reuters) - Aborigine Jackie Huggins remembers when she was regarded as part of Australia's native wildlife.

As a young girl, Huggins was not counted as part of the Australian population. Back then Aborigines existed only under the country's flora and fauna laws."

Period -> 1967

You have been pulled up on this before - it is a cult!

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/Juche.html Discussion of why Juche is classified as a major world religion.

Want to tell us why they are wrong ?

Look if it is a religion it is a religion like Stalinism and Maoism was. an atheistic regime one!

Atheists don't believe in the supernatural.
Atheists don't believe in deities.
Juche adherents believe in the supernatural.
Juche adherents believe in deities.

No! the church in china was also "official" but it wasn't the actual church!

Are you talking about the USSR or China ? What 'church' do you mean ?

Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted.

Yep.

By 1941 only 500 churches remained open out of about 54,000 Orthodox in existence prior to World War I.

Yep.

The relaxation allowed the Orthodox to grow to 22,000 but the regime's policy of cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church was reversed by Nikita Khrushchev. By 1975 the number of operating Russian Orthodox churches was reduced to 7,000.

But still legal.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

What about religion in soviet states where Islam was prominent ? What about the Georgian church ? the Ukrainian ?

"Whataboutery" now?
Read my last post

I pointed out the history of Goergian andf Ukrainaian ORTHODOX Church and how TEMPORARILY they were tolerated to facilitate the fight against the Nazis and subsequently suppressed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union#Policy_towards_Orthodoxy

They also didnt support islamn:
Although actively encouraging atheism, Soviet authorities permitted some limited religious activity in all the Muslim republics, under the auspices of the regional branches of the Spiritual Administration of the Muslims the USSR. Mosques functioned in most large cities of the Central Asian republics and the Azerbaijan Republic; however, their number had decreased from 25,000 in 1917 to 500 in the 1970s. Under Stalinist rule, Soviet authorities cracked down on Muslim clergy, closing many mosques or turning them into warehouses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union#Policy_towards_Islam

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

So what "some peopole said" has nothing to do with the OP point that the Bible did not justify slavery in the US. the church didn't either!

1. What post did the OP say that in ?

2. I never said the church justified slavery in the US. I never said the bible justified slavery in the US.

What "some people said " about that is irrelevant!

The thread title is Stalin, 'Pol Pot, Hitler*, Mao...', the original post says nothing about slavery in the US or the bible justifying it.

Your claim is irrelevant! But it tries to argue the point without you actually making a claim just that "some people say racism is acceptable"

Well don't they ?

Here you go again. It is as if the Bible existing means people will abuse it and that therefore that is an argument against having the Bible in the first place.

No, my point is that in the past some christians used the bible to justify slavery.

That isn't an argument that the Bible is wrong or that Christianity is wrong.

I made neither argument.

Remember wher this all came from. Atheistic regimes killed hundreds of millions!

Oh so some atheists killed people and suddenly its a reason to say atheism is wrong ? :rolleyes:

When you (your side) couldn't support that it was christianity supported slavery in the US.
Now it is some people say[ christianity supports slavery.

I'm pretty sure noone 'on my side' said any such thing as christianity supported slavery.

Racists will use anything to justify themselves. the fact that they do does NOT mean the Bible is wrong!

Just like communists will use anything to justify themselves and their policies of control ?

REad the charter Catholic = universal at least 80 percent maybe up to 95

So mainstream christianity = catholic ? Just double checking.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

What possible difference does that make ?

i alread explained that!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65964335&postcount=504

But if you claim the sources are abundant and you "supplied it three times already?" when in fact you didn't and I supplied it then it appears

1. you make false claims
2. you do shoddy research

You are free to use my sources to support your point of view but if you claim you supplied them first and you know you didn't you are lying.

To my knowledge I supplied them first and questioned you about them. Im quite happy to admit I was wrong if you show you supplied them earlier but as it is I showed you where i supplied them.

I posted at least 4 links for the genocide in the america's.
I had not seen this google casche
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FDpEyyKWiQUJ:freetruth.50webs.org/A4a.htm+http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4a.htm&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

I found ONE reference in it to over 150 million

the link given is currently a dead link but the archive of it can be found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021012152454/www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/victims.html


The 150 Million isnt cited there. The nearest is 60 millions:
"When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead." [SH95]

The source [SH]
is D.Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford University Press 1992.

Page 95 is in a chapter called {b]pestillence[/b] and genocide.

It makes no claims about the Church ordering killings. It ends with the 200,000 Spaniards and 60 - 80 million dead natives. If you really think an army of say 50,000 Spaniards at the instruction of the Church killed 80 million people you are bonkers!

teh source for this 60-80 million by the way is given on page 305 [source 127]
J H Elliot's "Imperial Spain" for the 150,000 or so Spaniards by 1570
Russel throntons - American Indian holocaustr and survival - a populatoin history since 1492 lists 65 million and Henry F Dobyns - Estimating Aboriginal American Population : an appraisial of techniques with a new hemispheric estimate" Current Anthropology 7 (1966) pp. 395-416 lists 90 millions.

I defy you to show where any of these sources implicates Christianity as the source of these deaths!

Half of Stalins total was in camps, not in war and famine ? Do you really stand by the statement ?

Well about half - 49 per cent yes:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM

Over 100 million people in the America's died directly or indirectly because of the christian European invasion.

They didn't invade to kill non Christians under the insstructions of a religion that they were to do this and spread Christianity by the sword and most of the deaths didnt come about that way but through disease. they didnt puropsely spread disease to kill of natives either.

So your saying that the Christian European colonisations of Africa killed 'tiny amounts' of people ?

IN Africa i.e. on their own soil in comparison to Stalin or Mao yes.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM
Lists 17 million as result of African slavery between 1451 and 1870

!7 million is a lot but it is over 420 years.

Most didn't happen IN Africa. But i accept the tens of millions.

For only about 30 of these years did the Church sanction it! Before and after that they opposed slavery. So that is about 7 per cent of the 420 year period time. It might be a million dead due to Church sponsored slavery Ill give you that. a million over 400 years about the same as the Crusades.

So your saying that the Christian European colonisation of Africa did not nearly eradicate the native population of Australia ?

Given it was on a different continent I would not think so. But

Native population in Australia were small . they didn't exploit nature and lived in tune with it. So the numbers of dead would also be small. They were also treated abysmally but not again necessarily because of Christianity.


I'm getting very weary of you asking for sources. Will you read it this time ?

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/australia2.html
"SYDNEY (Reuters) - Aborigine Jackie Huggins remembers when she was regarded as part of Australia's native wildlife.

As a young girl, Huggins was not counted as part of the Australian population. Back then Aborigines existed only under the country's flora and fauna laws."

Period -> 1967
[/quote]


Only states they didn't have citizenship then! Just as forigeners would n't have citizenship. does NOT say or mean they didn't have other human rights or that they were animals ( it does claim this but has no source for that claim) !

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/Juche.html Discussion of why Juche is classified as a major world religion.

Want to tell us why they are wrong ?

QED
Someone else Already did

Are you talking about the USSR or China ? What 'church' do you mean ?

China's "official " Catholic church. Which isnt the real one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Patriotic_Catholic_Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Christian_Council

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

1. What post did the OP say that in ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65969397&postcount=514

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65985127&postcount=523

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65990036&postcount=543

In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality;many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery.

2. I never said the church justified slavery in the US. I never said the bible justified slavery in the US.

The argument went from Christianity killing hundreds of millions to Christianity endorsing slavery and killing people that way.

So let us be quite clear if you are NOT claiming that the church was responsible or the Bible was responsible for millions of deaths due to slavery or theough their orders to spread religion then that is fine.

But why do you keep referring to it them in a thread on Stalin Pol pot and regimes which caused death???

The thread title is Stalin, 'Pol Pot, Hitler*, Mao...', the original post says nothing about slavery in the US or the bible justifying it.

Indeed I just showed you in several messages above how and where it came in. the Ides being that Christianity supported it and in doing so can be compared to Stalin and other atheistic regimes.

But now you are dropping any atachmnent to such a claim we can leave it alone.

No, my point is that in the past some Christians used the bible to justify slavery.

There you go again trying to sneak it back in!

So what if some people who called themselves christian tried to justify slavery. You already admitted that Christianity didn't support slavery! You ran away from claiming Christianity did support slavery so just leave it alone will you?

Oh so some atheists killed people and suddenly its a reason to say atheism is wrong ? :rolleyes:

Now you are tryng to mirror the argument as a defence of atheistic regimes. First of all Christianity dint support slavery and you arent claim it did!

Second Lenin stalin etc DID say spreading atheism and putting opponents who believed in religion into camps was part of their modus operandi!

I'm pretty sure noone 'on my side' said any such thing as christianity supported slavery.

Great! so we can take it that christianity didnt support slavery or cause the deaths in America! "Some people say" does not count!

So mainstream christianity = catholic ? Just double checking.

In the Catholic= universal sense yes.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

You have already mentioned 4 churches.

No! You need to get your terminology right!

If you go into a Church of Ireland service -say Evensong - you will hear the Creed referring to "we acknowledge ONE holy and Apostolic Church." Ditto for Orthodox and Roman Catholic.

Got it?

If there is a truth in the Bible, rather than a truth in peoples heads that they then seek out confirmation through interpration of the Bible, why do people go to different churches?

They don't ! The all believe there is ONE church. They all believe that if for example you were baptised in a church of Ireland ceremony it is still the ONE baptism as for as Catholics are concerned.

The roman view would be the church subsists in the Church of Rome.

The difference is related to two main splits the schisms and to the Reformation. The basis of them are political and not spiritual.

Here is a good link on them by a non church person.

http://www.abelard.org/councils/councils.htm

You could regard Nicaea as wrong as the first council and call it the second one and the Council of Jerusalem the first one. But the Creed was written down by the time of Nicaea and ALL mainstream Christians still subscribe to it.

While you are reading this you didn't reply to the post i hgave in answer to your question about "name a communist system that was not atheistic?"

Did you not see my reply?

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

But still legal.

Your point is moot!
REligion was suppressed. Just like it was in China!

When they slaughtered black people it wasnt such a good time for American s and spanish civilization. When they gave them the vote things got better. But they still discriminatd against them and things werent perfect. When they slaughtered believers in Russia and China because they wanted to spread atheism things were vey bad. when they stoppoed persecuting religion and trying to force atheism on them things got better. But they still persecuted religious people and discriminated against them Legal or not!

Legal! Pha! The WWII Holocaust was supported by Legal German governments. It still was not right.
If you think you can get your comrades together and use "it was not illegal" to spread atheistic terrorism then that still wont make it right!

In fact your atheistic pals are the very people who attack Cardinal Archbishop Brady even though what he did was legal. He broke no law.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

I posted at least 4 links for the genocide in the america's.
I had not seen this google casche
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FDpEyyKWiQUJ:freetruth.50webs.org/A4a.htm+http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4a.htm&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

I found ONE reference in it to over 150 million

http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide5.htm
This links states that Europeans rules over 100 million americans throughout the america's and later it states; 'It continued until almost all Natives were wiped of the face of the earth, along with much of their language, culture and religion.'

I think we can assume 'almost all' = close to 100 million.

It makes no claims about the Church ordering killings.

Never said they did. I made no such inference whatsoever.

I defy you to show where any of these sources implicates Christianity as the source of these deaths!

So show me where your sources say that Stalins killings are the responsibility of atheism.


Well about half - 49 per cent yes:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM

I can't find it. Will you please quote the numbers, total killed by stalin and died in camps.

They didn't invade to kill non Christians under the insstructions of a religion that they were to do this and spread Christianity by the sword and most of the deaths didnt come about that way but through disease. they didnt puropsely spread disease to kill of natives either.

I never said they did.

Your the one claiming responsibility by simple labels such as blaming atheism for stalins killings when in actual fact the vast vast majority of people he killed were for political reasons. But that doesn't stop you linking atheism to it.

Native population in Australia were small . they didn't exploit nature and lived in tune with it. So the numbers of dead would also be small. They were also treated abysmally but not again necessarily because of Christianity.

I wonder what you'd say if the Aussies had been atheist :rolleyes:

Only states they didn't have citizenship then! Just as forigeners would n't have citizenship. does NOT say or mean they didn't have other human rights or that they were animals ( it does claim this but has no source for that claim) !

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia-pacific/aborigines-mark-40-years-as-human-beings-684824.html

EXTRAORDINARY though it seems, it was not until 1967 that Australian Aborigines were recognised as citizens of their own country.

Before that they were classified as native wildlife, along with kangaroos and koalas.

I don't have time to find another source and wiki seems to be quiet on the subject but I've heard this several times before. Can you accept it or will I continue to search ?

QED
Someone else Already did

Where ? When ?

China's "official " Catholic church. Which isnt the real one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Patriotic_Catholic_Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Christian_Council

Which doesn't mean they are persecuting religions. It means they allow religions which don't interfere with the state. The Catholic Church has its HQ in Rome and the head of the church is a 'foreigner'. This is why its illegal, not because of any religious reason.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

The argument went from Christianity killing hundreds of millions to Christianity endorsing slavery and killing people that way.

I didn't say Christianity endorsed slavery. I said some Christians used their religion to try to justify slavery.

So let us be quite clear if you are NOT claiming that the church was responsible or the Bible was responsible for millions of deaths due to slavery or theough their orders to spread religion then that is fine.

I'm not. I think people use things like religion or political ideals etc all the time for their own twisted purposes.

But why do you keep referring to it them in a thread on Stalin Pol pot and regimes which caused death???

Because you accused me of saying the Bible justified slavery when I said no such thing. I don't like been painted with false accusations.

Indeed I just showed you in several messages above how and where it came in. the Ides being that Christianity supported it and in doing so can be compared to Stalin and other atheistic regimes.

The way you are comparing it ? Absolutely it can be.

Using your criteria for tarring atheism with the deaths caused by Stalin ? yes we can say christianity supported slavery and the deaths it caused.

Your 'criteria' are wrong. But if you insist of using them for this one case (Atheism) then I'm going to make sure that the same (wrong) criteria is applied to everything else as well.

But now you are dropping any atachmnent to such a claim we can leave it alone.

I am dropping any claim by any decent criteria which you should do for Atheism and the deaths caused by Stalin/Mao.

But if you continue to use your criteria to paint atheism with the deaths of Stalin then I will use the same criteria to paint christianity with the many genocides that christians have caused.*

*Note: I don't believe this anymore then I believe atheism is responsible for Stalin.

So what if some people who called themselves christian tried to justify slavery.

So what if some people who called themselves atheist were also mass murdering communist anti-theists ?

Now you are tryng to mirror the argument as a defence of atheistic regimes. First of all Christianity dint support slavery and you arent claim it did!

If Atheism can be responsible for communisms' killings then Christianity can be responsible for Christian caused deaths. Slavery, the america's genocide etc.

Second Lenin stalin etc DID say spreading atheism and putting opponents who believed in religion into camps was part of their modus operandi!

Yes. For political reasons. Not religious.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

No! You need to get your terminology right!

If you go into a Church of Ireland service -say Evensong - you will hear the Creed referring to "we acknowledge ONE holy and Apostolic Church." Ditto for Orthodox and Roman Catholic.

Yes but the Orthodox don't think the RCC is that Church, they think they are.

And vice versa. There are Protestants who want to kill the Pope, let alone follow him as the head of the Church.

You seem to have missed the point. Everyone thinks their interpretation is the correct one, but they all are drawn to one interpretation based on preconceived beliefs.

And it is before we get into other religions. Don't accept the very general Nicene Creed? No problem, lots of other religions out there. If you don't like what is in Christianity you simple become a Muslim or a Buddist.

ISAW wrote: »

While you are reading this you didn't reply to the post i hgave in answer to your question about "name a communist system that was not atheistic?"

I did, I said they were still atheist regimes, they had relaxed anti-theism (something you seem to continuously confuse with atheism)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65987951&postcount=539

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

Your point is moot!
REligion was suppressed. Just like it was in China!

Suppressed does not equal banned or illegal. Governments suppress many things.

When they slaughtered believers in Russia and China because they wanted to spread atheism things were vey bad.

You really think they were killed because Stalin wanted to spread atheism ? That was the reason ? To spread 'non-belief' ?

If you think you can get your comrades together and use "it was not illegal" to spread atheistic terrorism then that still wont make it right!

Out of curiosity do you think your insulting me by calling me comrade ?

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide5.htm
This links states that Europeans

Exactly! "Europeans" Not "Christian militia" not anything at all like the Crusades!

rules over 100 million americans throughout the america's and later it states; 'It continued until almost all Natives were wiped of the face of the earth, along with much of their language, culture and religion.'

I think we can assume 'almost all' = close to 100 million.

Which does not mean the Europeans wiped them out. AS i have shown you 19 out of 20 were wiped out by disease which was brought by europeans but not as part of germ warfare or not ordered by the Church!

So show me where your sources say that Stalins killings are the responsibility of atheism.

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

Stalin is quoted as saying "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" in E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940

Well about half - 49 per cent yes:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM

I can't find it. Will you please quote the numbers, total killed by stalin and died in camps.

Try looking at the big PIE CHART at the top of the page where it says "49" alongside the Big blue half marked "Camps"

Or clicking on the very first chapter and very first link on that page marked:
Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917

And in the third line of that page you find the source of the Big Pie chart
Under:
Democide Components and Soviet War/Rebellion Killed 1917-1987

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.FIG1.2.GIF

Your the one claiming responsibility by simple labels such as blaming atheism for stalins killings when in actual fact the vast vast majority of people he killed were for political reasons. But that doesn't stop you linking atheism to it.

I didn't say communist Russia was only atheistic and only killed people to spread atheism. I said it was central to their system. Just as killing those who didn't accept Christianity was central to some Christian regimes.

I wonder what you'd say if the Aussies had been atheist :rolleyes:

If they had been atheist with spreading atheism at the center of their policy I would say it caused death just as I would say Christianity which said killing Aboriginals was central to Christianity would be responsible for their deaths.


http://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia-pacific/aborigines-mark-40-years-as-human-beings-684824.html

I don't have time to find another source and wiki seems to be quiet on the subject but I've heard this several times before. Can you accept it or will I continue to search ?

Please continue your search. i don't accept the church called for Aboriginals to be killed or that they were "animals" or "livestock" under Australian law.

Which doesn't mean they are persecuting religions. It means they allow religions which don't interfere with the state. The Catholic Church has its HQ in Rome and the head of the church is a 'foreigner'. This is why its illegal, not because of any religious reason.

They STILL persecuted religion and even the ones they allowed were under strict control.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

Exactly! "Europeans" Not "Christian militia" not anything at all like the Crusades!

I don't know why I have to keep reminding you of this but I never said it was christian militia. I have stated numerous times I do not believe these deaths are the fault of christianity, except when using your criteria (which are wrong) which you have applied so freely to communist states trying to link the deaths caused to atheism.

Which does not mean the Europeans wiped them out. AS i have shown you 19 out of 20 were wiped out by disease which was brought by europeans but not as part of germ warfare or not ordered by the Church!

How many of Stalins total were wiped out by disease or famine through indirect action by stalins policies ? How many died because of collectivism ?

You apply all these deaths to atheism which is why I am applying all of these to Christianity.

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

Would you like some quotes about how christianity was 'natural' and 'inseperable' from the Spanish conquistadors ? Or Napoleons soldiers ? Or the Americans when they committed genocide against the native Americans ?

Stalin is quoted as saying "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" in E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940

Oh no!! Stalin was an atheist :eek: All atheists must be responsible for Stalins actions, obviously atheism is responsible for what Stalin did!

Isn't it great how no Christian ever did anything wrong ? :pac:

Try looking at the big PIE CHART at the top of the page where it says "49" alongside the Big blue half marked "Camps"

Well seems I'm blind, thanks.

And these people were killed because of atheism yes ?

I didn't say communist Russia was only atheistic and only killed people to spread atheism. I said it was central to their system. Just as killing those who didn't accept Christianity was central to some Christian regimes.

Christianity has been central to many different systems which I have been listing to you. Is christianity responsible for the deaths caused by these systems ?

Please continue your search. i don't accept the church called for Aboriginals to be killed or that they were "animals" or "livestock" under Australian law.

I never said the church called for aboriginals to be killed. Why do you continue to make these assertions ? You know I didn't say that. You know I didn't say it about the Europeans in the America's either.

They were considered wildlife, I'm sure of it but can't find a link.

They STILL persecuted religion and even the ones they allowed were under strict control.

Of course they were just like every single facet of life in china because of political reasons. It had nothing to do with atheism or religion except for the fact religion, especially foreign religions and even moreso a religion which has a 'head' which you are supposed to be loyal to, are not good politics in a totalitarian state.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but the Orthodox don't think the RCC is that Church, they think they are.

Wrong! the accepot that they are BOTH in the ONE church!

And it is before we get into other religions. Don't accept the very general Nicene Creed? No problem, lots of other religions out there. If you don't like what is in Christianity you simple become a Muslim or a Buddist.

The comments I have made are in thisw christianioty forum and are specifically about the Church as outlined and defined.

I did, I said they were still atheist regimes, they had relaxed anti-theism (something you seem to continuously confuse with atheism)

So you accept there are /were "atheist regimes". What they relaxed was their pernicious pursuit of State atheism. Any regime that pursued such a goal met with failure and when they abandoned their particular goal of spreading atheism and suppressing religion they fared better. But this it seems means nothing to you.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Wrong! the accepot that they are BOTH in the ONE church!

So the Orthodox church follow the Pope as the head of the church?

ISAW wrote: »

The comments I have made are in thisw christianioty forum and are specifically about the Church as outlined and defined.

And?

ISAW wrote: »

So you accept there are /were "atheist regimes".

They are atheist regimes. I asked for non-atheist Communist regimes.

ISAW wrote: »

What they relaxed was their pernicious pursuit of State atheism.

No, what they relaxed was the pursuit of State anti-theism. State atheism is easy, the State simply proclaims there is no god. There is nothing to pursue. They are still atheist States in that the State officially declares itself atheist (ie no accepting the claims of theists as true or even possibly true).

I assume you would agree that a Christian State, such as the Irish state up until the 1970s, is not the same as a state that uses its powers to make everyone be Christian.

So why do you seem incapable of understanding this difference with regard to atheism and anti-theism.

ISAW wrote: »

Any regime that pursued such a goal met with failure and when they abandoned their particular goal of spreading atheism and suppressing religion they fared better. But this it seems means nothing to you.

What would you like it to mean to me? I've never supported State anti-theism.