Atheists And Morality

[Artful Revealer]

Atheists, where do you get your morality and guidance from?

Kant's categorical imperative and Molyneux's UPB are two philosophical attempts at creating universal systems of morality that don't require God, and in my opinion improve upon the Golden Rule.

Regardless, morality is practical reason and therefore reason or rationality lies at the roots of a consistent moral existence. Rationality isn't relative or personal, but absolute and universal because it is subject to universal rules of logic. Therefore there must be universal morality based on reason, whether you believe in God or not. This is the primary principle any moral system should be based upon and be tested against.

 

[shankara]

I am a man of peace as Jesus tells his followers to if possible to be at peace with all men and even love them that spitefully use me and cast my name as evil. There is no need or even legitimate precedence for any evil to be done in the name of Christ as violence is unchristian. The Bible tells us to earnestly contend for the faith and reprove the deeds of darkness, to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all long suffering and restore someone in error in the spirit of meekness. Paul denounced false gods and doctrines contrary to teaching, but it never led to him perpetrating violence. It was always done so peaceably and using Gods word as the foundation. The evil done in the name of Christ that many will point their finger at is really the evil of man acting according to his own harmful lust.

I'm not so sure that the things which have gone on have nothing to do with Christian doctrine. If you read the Old Testament from a literalist perspective, it's Deity seems to be pretty much genocidal, and doesn't even limit the killing of enemies to actual combatants. Furthermore, the whole notion that belief is the only thing of importance has basically been a license for many so-called Christians to oppress those they considered to be "heathens", partly due to having no respect for whether they were decent human beings, belief being the only thing of importance (though admittedly sheer racism also had something to do with it), even considering them as basically animals because they didn't "comprehend" the "wisdom" of the invaders' religion.

I have no problem with the Bible or the teachings of Christ when they are understood from an esoteric perspective. It's pretty clear that such esotericism was what Christ taught, after all he says "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear", "ears" being the capacity to comprehend the hidden meanings. But certain sects of modern Christianity have become completely detached from the actual wisdom of Christ, the Catholic Church was bad enough but the literalist evangelicals are far worse. For example they seem to be generally speaking extremely capitalist, despite Christ's total opposition to such a thing expressed in a multitude of different ways throughout the New Testament.

Anyway, what I am saying is that there is something fatal actually inherent in the so-called Christian doctrine which has directly led to all kind of badness.

 

[Lyfe]

I'm not so sure that the things which have gone on have nothing to do with Christian doctrine. If you read the Old Testament from a literalist perspective, it's Deity seems to be pretty much genocidal, and doesn't even limit the killing of enemies to actual combatants.

...to the contrary if you read the old testament and apply the right context it will reveal that humans were the ones that were really genocidal. Is God unjust for ending peoples that were oppressing and annihilating others? Or, should he have let those oppressors multiply and continue in their evil and allowed them to spread and infect their ways to other tribes to perpetuate more devastation/despair in human lives? Isnt the world crying out for God to end evil? He has and he is accused of being genocidal rather than being seen as preserving and sparing future generations from being victims of devastation and despair to said evil. Can you imagine how evil and wicked we would be if God hadnt put an end to Canaan? Do you have kids? There is a good chance their fate would have been the fires of molech. Do you really wanna live in such a world where God had not ended the wickedness of Canaan and allowed it to flourish? God gave these wicked societies and cultures hundreds and sometimes even thousands of years to run their course. Then he put an end to them.

If we want to consider who's genocidal look at the human race. How come you judge God as being genocidal, but dont come to the same conclusion with man? If you judge according to the same standard and without partiality then what conclusion are we left with in man? If we are consistent with your judgment then man must be genocidal too and thus evil...

Furthermore, the whole notion that belief is the only thing of importance has basically been a license for many so-called Christians to oppress those they considered to be "heathens", partly due to having no respect for whether they were decent human beings, belief being the only thing of importance (though admittedly sheer racism also had something to do with it), even considering them as basically animals because they didn't "comprehend" the "wisdom" of the invaders' religion.

This is strawman. There are passages upon passages of scripture exhorting and commanding us to live peacefully with others and to do good to our enemies. There is not one passage in the Bible exhorting Christians to commit acts of violence, not one.

I have no problem with the Bible or the teachings of Christ when they are understood from an esoteric perspective. It's pretty clear that such esotericism was what Christ taught, after all he says "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear", "ears" being the capacity to comprehend the hidden meanings.

What meanings and passages are you referring to? The Bible is a plain book. In fact if anything it denounces anti literalist interpretations and hidden meanings. Paul could not stress that enough to Timothy who had been called to church leadership, because of all the widespread and rampant deception he encountered. The same is true today.

1Tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
1Tim 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen.

2Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Tim 4:4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

2Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pet 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2Pet 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

but the literalist evangelicals are far worse.

You would also conveniently enough forget and not recognize when literal interpretations lead to the feeding and clothing and loving individuals I am willing to bet.

Anyway, what I am saying is that there is something fatal actually inherent in the so-called Christian doctrine which has directly led to all kind of badness.

Yeah, its disobedience to Christ and choosing to follow after evil lusts instead.

 

[shankara]

...to the contrary if you read the old testament and apply the right context it will reveal that humans were the ones that were really genocidal. Is God unjust for ending peoples that were oppressing and annihilating others? Or, should he have let those oppressors multiply and continue in their evil and allowed them to spread and infect their ways to other tribes to perpetuate more devastation/despair in human lives? Isnt the world crying out for God to end evil? He has and he is accused of being genocidal rather than being seen as preserving and sparing future generations from being victims of devastation and despair to said evil. Can you imagine how evil and wicked we would be if God hadnt put an end to Canaan? Do you have kids? There is a good chance their fate would have been the fires of molech. Do you really wanna live in such a world where God had not ended the wickedness of Canaan and allowed it to flourish? God gave these wicked societies and cultures hundreds and sometimes even thousands of years to run their course. Then he put an end to them.

Right and it was definitely necessary that "you shall not leave alive anything that breathes". Or "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

I've just been looking up some Christian responses to this thing:

Once again, this point is unlikely to remove every concern from the mind of the modern reader, but we must add another dimension to this issue. If we ask whether it would be better for God to allow children to grow up in such a perverted culture and religious system or to bring their young lives to an end and gather them to Himself, we begin to see that what happened to them may not have been the worst option.

Why was it right for God to slaughter women and children in the Old Testament? How can that ever be right?

It's right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases. God gives life and he takes life. Everybody who dies, dies because God wills that they die.

Perhaps this is also what justifies Israeli bombings in Gaza, after all they are only heathens and if a few of them are killed as collateral damage it's no big deal.

If we want to consider who's genocidal look at the human race. How come you judge God as being genocidal, but dont come to the same conclusion with man? If you judge according to the same standard and without partiality then what conclusion are we left with in man? If we are consistent with your judgment then man must be genocidal too and thus evil...

Humans often act in accordance with their beliefs and doctrines. If we look at the beliefs and doctrines which have been most correlated with genocidal violence throughout history, we could definitely place the Christian doctrine among those which have inspired it most. The whole "conquest", that is to say genocide, of Latin and North America was basically inspired by Christian doctrine, by the notion that non-Christians are not as human as "believers".

As for labelling humanity as "evil", I wouldn't go that far. A lot of humans definitely accumulate a lot of negative karma through evil deeds. But this does not make them irredeemably and absolute evil in some metaphysical sense. In fact if you look outside the framework of the Abrahamic religions, what you see is just the process of karma working itself out. Evil deeds eventually ripen on those who do them, over the course of one life or many. Hence "was this man born blind because he sinned?"

This is strawman. There are passages upon passages of scripture exhorting and commanding us to live peacefully with others and to do good to our enemies. There is not one passage in the Bible exhorting Christians to commit acts of violence, not one.

Well if that is the case, it certainly seems strange that so many people have justified their violent acts with scripture. Of course if you interpret the Old Testament as basically symbolic then the problem pretty much goes away.

What meanings and passages are you referring to? The Bible is a plain book. In fact if anything it denounces anti literalist interpretations and hidden meanings. Paul could not stress that enough to Timothy who had been called to church leadership, because of all the widespread and rampant deception he encountered. The same is true today.

1Tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
1Tim 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen.

2Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Tim 4:4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

2Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pet 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2Pet 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

All of the things you quoted could equally be applied to literalist interpretations. The whole evangelical literalist thing is basically a modern invention, a kind of attempt to return to some kind of "purity", which like most similar attempts only descends deeper into the labyrinth of confusion.

You would also conveniently enough forget and not recognize when literal interpretations lead to the feeding and clothing and loving individuals I am willing to bet.

Well perhaps I am generalizing, but from some of the Evangelicals here I'm getting the impression that they really don't care at all for the poor and oppressed. This is pretty clear from the fact that the yanqui evangelicals (the worst species) all vote unquestioningly for the Republicans. Now they may have a point in terms of the Republicans being somewhat more socially conservative, however they are also the party of unrestrained "dog-eat-dog" neoliberalism. If the Evangelicals actually had any love for humanity they would be demanding a third option which includes both conservative social policy and economic justice.

Yeah, its disobedience to Christ and choosing to follow after evil lusts instead.

I would agree in a sense, however I don't think those who proclaim themselves to be followers of Christ actually are. Rather they interpret Christ's words in a totally distorted way in order to avoid making the actual sacrifices and revolutionary struggle which Christ made. They are just those who "call upon my name, Lord, Lord" but don't actually follow Him. For example the commandment "love the Lord thy God above all things" means to make a struggle, to battle against the lower nature, the animal nature. It isn't supposed to justify the idea that we cannot follow the commandments and thus need to be redeemed by Christ's judicial murder, and in fact it points to a completely opposite idea to the whole notion of "once saved, always saved".

 

[Artful Revealer]

@shankara

Interesting how you vent your problems with the Torah and with Israel's treatment of Palestinians, yet single out Christianity and Christians.

Very politically correct.

 

[shankara]

@shankara

Interesting how you vent your problems with the Torah and with Israel's treatment of Palestinians, yet single out Christianity and Christians.

Very politically correct.

Yeah I guess you have a point, maybe I am a little obsessed with Evangelicals. I mean, if you look at the history it wasn't the Jews who were going about colonizing places and massacring their inhabitants. I also think that a lot of Jews probably have a more nuanced view of Israel and Zionism than is found among the (yanqui) Evangelicals. Not to mention that the Jews literally reject the Christ, so in a certain sense one wouldn't expect them to follow His teachings, at least they don't make a false claim to follow Him while distorting His doctrine beyond recognition.

As for Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox etc., I'm generally somewhat favorable to them, obviously they have some quite absurd dogmas but at least they don't have the obnoxious assurance of a) their own salvation and b) that everyone else is going to hell, found among the Evangelicals.

 

[Lyfe]

Right and it was definitely necessary that "you shall not leave alive anything that breathes". Or "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

God is sovereign and we can hardly begin to judge the works of an infitine mind through our finite mind. The alternatives are...

1) There are Canaanites spared and then the tribe in time rebuilds itself. The same individauls that were spared continue to sacririce their children to the fire and make war with surrounding nations.

2) The Canaanites are taken as POW's and commanded to conform to a theocratic system they dont believe in. Immoral through your eyes I am sure...

3) The Canaanites merge with the Israeli society and bring their sorceries, demon worship, and practices along with in effect causing Israel to stumble and begin sacrificing their children to the fires of Molech. In fact this had happened with other foreigners and Israel did fall into sin and began to eventually murder their own sons and daughters.

4) Allow the Canaanites to continue to instigate warfare and pillage, plunder, and murder other surrounding nations while continuing to sacrifice and murder their children.

5) They were all wiped out

It can be seen that sparing individuals would lead to a return and rise of sorcery in other nations along with spreading the influence of their gods that demanded human sacrifice. You will argue that it was an act of immorality to not spare their lives, but what if sparing them would lead to the destruction and murdering of their children and others for generations of the future? What if sparing some of them led to them regrouping and perpetuating the same thing over again? If we bare this context in mind it could be argued that your act of sparing is immoral and disregarding to the others it will affect in the future.

God is sovereign and he judges with infinite understanding. He gave life, only he has the authority to take it away. Not to mention there are many other things you are not taking into context with your limited understanding. These cultures were hotbeds for evil spirits and demonic activity through practices of sacrifice and sorcery. If you sacrifice to demons they will invade and corrupt your society.

Is the God of the Old Testament Evil & Genocidal? The Flood & Annihilation of The Canaanites and Sodom and Gomorrah

Is the God of the Old Testament Evil & Genocidal? The Flood & Annihilation of The Canaanites and Sodom and Gomorrah I am beginning this thread by referencing a certain dialogue that took place in another thread, because this issue ought to have context and clarification. I just wanted to...

vigilantcitizenforums.com

Perhaps this is also what justifies Israeli bombings in Gaza, after all they are only heathens and if a few of them are killed as collateral damage it's no big deal.

This is strawman as I had already pointed out. In fact you actually strengthen the hand of the wicked by not holding him accountable for his deeds by placing blame on a book with its meanings taken out of context. If you fail to acknowledge human nature for what it is and what it leads people to do then you cannot properly recognize its harm and properly remedy and address it. Instead the blame will be on something that has no relevance.

Btw if you hold the Bible responsible for all of this then you must likewise hold it responsible for when ministries open up homeless shelters and provide relief aid to the needy.

If we look at the beliefs and doctrines which have been most correlated with genocidal violence throughout history, we could definitely place the Christian doctrine among those which have inspired it most.

Only a person who has utterly deceived themselves through bias and dishonesty would say this. They are incapable of being objective and unable to provide honest scrutiny.

As for labelling humanity as "evil", I wouldn't go that far. A lot of humans definitely accumulate a lot of negative karma through evil deeds. But this does not make them irredeemably and absolute evil in some metaphysical sense. In fact if you look outside the framework of the Abrahamic religions, what you see is just the process of karma working itself out. Evil deeds eventually ripen on those who do them, over the course of one life or many. Hence "was this man born blind because he sinned?"

But, if we are using the same standards you are using to judge God with then humanity must be genocidal. Is someone or something that commits genocide all of a sudden not evil?

Of course if you interpret the Old Testament as basically symbolic then the problem pretty much goes away.

Is that even possible? Have you read the Old Testament? Its mostly literal.

Well perhaps I am generalizing, but from some of the Evangelicals here I'm getting the impression that they really don't care at all for the poor and oppressed.

If the Evangelicals actually had any love for humanity they would be demanding a third option which includes both conservative social policy and economic justice.

So what does that likewise say about secular people and agnostics and atheists? If we are consistent with your standard of judgment then it must mean even they have no love for humanity either for turning a blind eye and doing nothing to the homeless epidemic. They have the power to make a change and yet they dont. You are actually painting humanity in a pretty bad light once we begin to judge the secular world with the same measure you are using to judge Christians and God with. According to your own standard secular people dont really love or care about the poor and oppressed, because like the Christians or God they dont do enough.

I would agree in a sense, however I don't think those who proclaim themselves to be followers of Christ actually are. Rather they interpret Christ's words in a totally distorted way in order to avoid making the actual sacrifices and revolutionary struggle which Christ made. They are just those who "call upon my name, Lord, Lord" but don't actually follow Him. For example the commandment "love the Lord thy God above all things" means to make a struggle, to battle against the lower nature, the animal nature. It isn't supposed to justify the idea that we cannot follow the commandments and thus need to be redeemed by Christ's judicial murder, and in fact it points to a completely opposite idea to the whole notion of "once saved, always saved".

Again we will apply your standard to unbelievers. The vast majority of them will claim they are a good person, yet how come they dont make the actual sacrifices and revolutionary struggle that good people make? Look at the world, how can any self professed good person stand by idly and allow things things to happen? They are such that claim to be a good person, but don't actually follow the conduct of a good person.

If we are using the same standards to judge man and unbelievers that you are using to measure Christians, then the world must be unloving and not very good to say the least.

 

[Faker He-Man]

Man you really have to do some serious mental gymnastics to be such a literalist, eh? You say “You can’t judge an infinite being” and then write a book explaining how you can do exactly that. LOL @Lyfe You even contradict yourself with your own logic since it follows that it is immoral to even give life to the Canaanites in the first place.

 

[Lyfe]

Man you really have to do some serious mental gymnastics to be such a literalist, eh? You say “You can’t judge an infinite being” and then write a book explaining how you can do exactly that.

How so? All I did was take shankara's thesis that God is genocidal and provided context and alternatives to the scenario that she is using to judge God...

You even contradict yourself with your own logic since it follows that it is immoral to even give life to the Canaanites in the first place.

Except I never judged God or his ways in my response. I merely provided context and and then gave food for thought toward judgments that were aimed at God...

 

[Lyfe]

Do you have kids? You know the present condition of the world. Is it immoral to create children and bring them into this world? If not then how come we judge God for creating life, but not parents who bring children into the world with the same judgment?

It was Gods intent for life to be as a gift and humans be recipients of love. The same with is said of parents who have children most of the time. Kids disobey their parents and fall into calamity much like Gods creation disobeys and falls into calamity. Does it mean parents are immoral for giving birth knowing their kids will eventually disobey and get themselves into trouble and even become just as immoral as the world?

 

[Faker He-Man]

How so? All I did was take shankara's thesis that God is genocidal and provided context and alternatives to the scenario that she is using to judge God...



Except I never judged God or his ways in my response. I merely provided context and and then gave food for thought toward judgments that were aimed at God...

You seemed to be making a judgment to me. You’re completely neutral regarding god? Are you saying these ideas cannot be judged as good nor evil? Interesting.

 

[Faker He-Man]

Do you have kids? You know the present condition of the world. Is it immoral to create children and bring them into this world? If not then how come we judge God for creating life, but not parents who bring children into the world with the same judgment?

It was Gods intent for life to be as a gift and humans be recipients of love. The same with is said of parents who have children most of the time. Kids disobey their parents and fall into calamity much like Gods creation disobeys and falls into calamity. Does it mean parents are immoral for giving birth knowing their kids will eventually disobey and get themselves into trouble and even become just as immoral as the world?

What about having children with 100% foreknowledge that you will end up killing them? Would that be immoral?

 

[Lyfe]

What about having children with 100% foreknowledge that you will end up killing them? Would that be immoral?

The Bible actually doesn't refer to humanity as children of God though. He offers the adoption as sons through Christ, but apart from adoption men are labeled as rebels and enemies of God.

If we have not been adopted as a son or daughter we don't know God as a father. We only know him as creator and judge.

Its as I said before God let these wicked societies exist and oppress not only themselves, but also others for hundreds and even thousands of years. If God is judge and creator then he is in perfect right to put an end to evil influences that not only commit self harm and harm to others, but would also afflict and devastate future societies as well.

Do you believe God has a right to put an end to evil and cultures that harm themselves and others, even if he gives these people hundreds and thousands of years to repent and do good and they do not?

 

[Faker He-Man]

The Bible actually doesn't refer to humanity as children of God though. He offers the adoption as sons through Christ, but apart from adoption men are labeled as rebels and enemies of God.

If we have not been adopted as a son or daughter we don't know God as a father. We only know him as creator and judge.

Its as I said before God let these wicked societies exist and oppress not only themselves, but also others for hundreds and even thousands of years. If God is judge and creator then he is in perfect right to put an end to evil influences that not only commit self harm and harm to others, but would also afflict and devastate future societies as well.

Do you believe God has a right to put an end to evil and cultures that harm themselves and others, even if he gives these people hundreds and thousands of years to repent and do good and they do not?

Well, you’re the one who made the comparison to having children in the first place. I suppose you regret making that comparison now. Why did he create them at all knowing he would only have to destroy them? The moral thing would be to look into the future and not create people that just need to be killed later. There is no answer to this, and that’s okay. I don’t require an answer. It’s just something to ponder.

 

[shankara]

God is sovereign and we can hardly begin to judge the works of an infitine mind through our finite mind. The alternatives are...

1) There are Canaanites spared and then the tribe in time rebuilds itself. The same individauls that were spared continue to sacririce their children to the fire and make war with surrounding nations.

2) The Canaanites are taken as POW's and commanded to conform to a theocratic system they dont believe in. Immoral through your eyes I am sure...

3) The Canaanites merge with the Israeli society and bring their sorceries, demon worship, and practices along with in effect causing Israel to stumble and begin sacrificing their children to the fires of Molech. In fact this had happened with other foreigners and Israel did fall into sin and began to eventually murder their own sons and daughters.

4) Allow the Canaanites to continue to instigate warfare and pillage, plunder, and murder other surrounding nations while continuing to sacrifice and murder their children.

5) They were all wiped out

It can be seen that sparing individuals would lead to a return and rise of sorcery in other nations along with spreading the influence of their gods that demanded human sacrifice. You will argue that it was an act of immorality to not spare their lives, but what if sparing them would lead to the destruction and murdering of their children and others for generations of the future? What if sparing some of them led to them regrouping and perpetuating the same thing over again? If we bare this context in mind it could be argued that your act of sparing is immoral and disregarding to the others it will affect in the future.

God is sovereign and he judges with infinite understanding. He gave life, only he has the authority to take it away. Not to mention there are many other things you are not taking into context with your limited understanding. These cultures were hotbeds for evil spirits and demonic activity through practices of sacrifice and sorcery. If you sacrifice to demons they will invade and corrupt your society.

Is the God of the Old Testament Evil & Genocidal? The Flood & Annihilation of The Canaanites and Sodom and Gomorrah

Is the God of the Old Testament Evil & Genocidal? The Flood & Annihilation of The Canaanites and Sodom and Gomorrah I am beginning this thread by referencing a certain dialogue that took place in another thread, because this issue ought to have context and clarification. I just wanted to...

vigilantcitizenforums.com

This is strawman as I had already pointed out. In fact you actually strengthen the hand of the wicked by not holding him accountable for his deeds by placing blame on a book with its meanings taken out of context. If you fail to acknowledge human nature for what it is and what it leads people to do then you cannot properly recognize its harm and properly remedy and address it. Instead the blame will be on something that has no relevance.

Btw if you hold the Bible responsible for all of this then you must likewise hold it responsible for when ministries open up homeless shelters and provide relief aid to the needy.



Only a person who has utterly deceived themselves through bias and dishonesty would say this. They are incapable of being objective and unable to provide honest scrutiny.



But, if we are using the same standards you are using to judge God with then humanity must be genocidal. Is someone or something that commits genocide all of a sudden not evil?



Is that even possible? Have you read the Old Testament? Its mostly literal.





So what does that likewise say about secular people and agnostics and atheists? If we are consistent with your standard of judgment then it must mean even they have no love for humanity either for turning a blind eye and doing nothing to the homeless epidemic. They have the power to make a change and yet they dont. You are actually painting humanity in a pretty bad light once we begin to judge the secular world with the same measure you are using to judge Christians and God with. According to your own standard secular people dont really love or care about the poor and oppressed, because like the Christians or God they dont do enough.



Again we will apply your standard to unbelievers. The vast majority of them will claim they are a good person, yet how come they dont make the actual sacrifices and revolutionary struggle that good people make? Look at the world, how can any self professed good person stand by idly and allow things things to happen? They are such that claim to be a good person, but don't actually follow the conduct of a good person.

If we are using the same standards to judge man and unbelievers that you are using to measure Christians, then the world must be unloving and not very good to say the least.

Well when it comes to genocide, certainly the near-elimination of the native peoples of North and South America had a lot to do with Christians and with Christian doctrines (see the book "American Holocaust" by David Stannard). Then there was slavery, which people justified based on the Bible. Then nominally Christian countries became the colonial powers. It definitely seems to me that there is some kind of correlation, and though of course it's not possible to ascribe complete causality, the correlation definitely suggests there is some link.

I think maybe the problem you have is that you are a sincere person who actually believes that religion involves doing some work on oneself, and thus you assume that others who are attached to the same doctrine as you have the same kind of sincerity. In fact I think that there are plenty of so-called Christians who are just convinced that they have found some kind of loophole to get out of hell and don't actually do anything to "take up their cross".

By the way, on the subject of the Old Testament, I would have to disagree about it's literal truth. For example, the golden calf, apart from being a symbol of the inordinate love of wealth also represents the end of the astrological age of Taurus and the beginning the of the age of Aries, just as Christ "the lamb" and His symbol, a fish, represents the end of the age of Aries and the beginning of that of Pisces. The whole Bible is full of things like this, esoteric doctrines hidden in stories and parables.

 

[Tidal]

Well when it comes to genocide, certainly the near-elimination of the native peoples of North and South America had a lot to do with Christians and with Christian doctrines..
Then there was slavery, which people justified based on the Bible.

Mate, you speakum with forked tongue!
if you're American you should be glad we English took over America, otherwise you'd still be living in wigwams, talking funny, scalping each other and attacking wagon trains.
And if you feel sorry for the red people, you and your liberal chums can always stop squatting on their land and give it back to 'em..

As for slavers, they'll be going up the spout like all other losers-
"Law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God" (Bible: 1 Tim 1:9)

 

[shankara]

Mate, you speakum with forked tongue!
if you're American you should be glad we English took over America, otherwise you'd still be living in wigwams, talking funny, scalping each other and attacking wagon trains.
And if you feel sorry for the red people, you and your liberal chums can always stop squatting on their land and give it back to 'em..

As for slavers, they'll be going up the spout like all other losers-
"Law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God" (Bible: 1 Tim 1:9)

Your words just illuminate how completely ignorant of the culture of the Native peoples of America you are. They didn't all live in tipis (but in any case, what matter?), in fact they had built buildings as big as small apartment blocks. They had a sophisticated system of crop rotation and a highly organized society. They also didn't go to war like Europeans did or do, their wars were basically symbolic and it was considered good manners to go into battle with only a small stick for a weapon. In fact it was Europeans who collected native scalps and noses for souvenirs, and who attacked Native Americans simply for the crime of having a different culture and being heathens. When the white man arrived, the natives welcomed him, it was us who made war against them, not the other way.

This isn't even to speak of the South American cultures, like the Aztecs, which were effectively more advanced than that of the Europeans at the time. Of course North America it was protestants, and South America Catholics, but the story is pretty similar. Genocide.

If you have an interesting in educating yourself, I suggest you read the book "American Holocaust" by David Stannard that I mentioned.

And I'm not a Yanqui by the way, thank God.

 

[Tidal]

Your words just illuminate how completely ignorant of the culture of the Native peoples of America you are...
They also didn't go to war like Europeans did or do..

You speakum with forked tongue kemosabe..

WIKI- "Chief Seattle earned his reputation at a young age as a leader and a warrior..
In 1847 he helped lead a Suquamish attack upon the Chimakum people near Port Townsend, which effectively wiped out the Chimakum.
Like many of his contemporaries, he owned slaves captured during his raids."

Chief Seattle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

His statue won't last 5 minutes when the snowflakes get wind of it..

 

[shankara]

You speakum with forked tongue kemosabe..

WIKI- "Chief Seattle earned his reputation at a young age as a leader and a warrior..
In 1847 he helped lead a Suquamish attack upon the Chimakum people near Port Townsend, which effectively wiped out the Chimakum.
Like many of his contemporaries, he owned slaves captured during his raids."

Chief Seattle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

His statue won't last 5 minutes when the snowflakes get wind of it..

By that point most of the Natives had been wiped out by the English. By wiped out I mean 90% or more of their population decimated. Perhaps he learnt something from the invaders, because before they arrived the indigenous society was quite peaceful. In any case, you can find vastly more examples of the invaders' massacring the natives (often without any real pretext) than of them fighting amongst themselves.

 

[Tidal]

By that point most of the Natives had been wiped out by the English. By wiped out I mean 90% or more of their population decimated. Perhaps he learnt something from the invaders, because before they arrived the indigenous society was quite peaceful. In any case, you can find vastly more examples of the invaders' massacring the natives (often without any real pretext) than of them fighting amongst themselves.

The English wanted to set up peaceful colonies, but the redskins came looking for trouble, and continued troublemaking even when Americans tried to settle the land.
Below: a famous scene from 'Distant Drums'-

Seminole Chief- "Go home white man"
Gary Cooper- "You've had Florida for centuries and in all that time you haven't built a single golf course or theme park, so now we're taking it off you"