God is an Impossibility

It is not logical for Christianity per se to have caused all of our modern wars.
The authorized constitution of Christianity is the New Testament.
The NT do not provide sanction for Christians to go to war against non-Christians.
Instead the NT has an overriding pacifist maxim to ‘to love [even] your enemies’ which contradict with killing them.

You may argued, for example, the USA with a majority of Christians has been making wars all over the World.
But the USA is ruled by it own Constitution, not the NT.
The US Constitution is represented by the people of the USA which comprised of all religions and beliefs.
It would be false to accuse Christianity of making war because the US created many modern wars.

One must separate the ideology and beliefs from the acts of the believers.
One can only accuse the religion itself if its main holy texts command believers to go to war on non-believers.
Christianity, i.e. Jesus and God never commanded Christians to go to war with non-believers.

Note my point above.
One must separate the ideology and beliefs from the acts of the believers.
Many Christian priests committed acts of pedophilla and other scams on their innocent followers, that has nothing to do with Christianity per se but rather is their own evil human nature.

In this case it is the ultimate God which has to be the ontological God, i.e. a god than which no greater can exists.

The point here is the Maxim within Christianity is ‘Thou Shall Not Kill’ period! no ifs nor buts.
Thus the default is Christians will not dare to kill unless they have no choice then hope for mercy from God in that they have VERY GOOD justifications to kill.

Note the contrast, in the Quran, Muslims are sanctioned and exhorted to kill upon the slightest threat to the religions. This is why Muslims will kill those who had drawn cartoons of Muhammad because that is threat to Islam as perceived.

No but celebrity atheists get so many death threats that they need security detail.
[/quote]
As I had stated, there are Christians who are by themselves evil and violent, but their evil nature has nothing to do with nor are condoned by Christianity itself.

Note again,
you must differentiate and separate the individual believer’s inherent nature from the essence of Christianity the ideology.
The worst evil person on Earth can become a Christian easily and at anytime. If in the next moment he starts to kill others or commit evil and violent acts, it has nothing to do with Christianity per se.

All religion is arrogance and that is the reason all religion lends itself to war. When people divide others into groups of good and bad, the good seeks to exterminate the bad.

I was a christian for over 20 years and was once on my way to being a preacher. I know these people better than I know myself; they are my friends, family, neighbors, and all I have ever known. Trust me when I say that you have a better chance of winning the lottery than finding a christian who has ever read the bible (or any book really; they’re not the sharpest lot). But even if you did manage to find a studied christian, he would distort verses to make them mean what he wants.

Jesus may have been a pacifist, but he wasn’t a real person and instead was a character pieced together by scribes throughout the years who made him seem the way they wanted.

Jesus preached an impossible religion: Take no thought for the morrow, turn the other cheek, give all your money away, etc. No one can practice that, so it’s disregarded as allegory or whatever. And then Jesus himself got angry and cast the jews from the temple. He damned the jews to hell. He told parables of casting tares into ovens, taking from the poor to give to the rich, paying unfair wages, and condoning slavery. He claimed to have come to split families apart. So the christian simply makes any religion he wants and finds verses in the bible to support it. That is why I say that christianity is whatever christians say it is; the bible is irrelevant.

Christians support capital punishment in spite of Jesus directly addressing the “eye for an eye” issue by saying “resist not evil”.
Christians support death for drug dealers.
Christians support all the wars.
Christians do not support welfare and relish the suffering of the “lazy”.
Christians do not support healthcare because someone who doesn’t deserve it might benefit.
Christians do not support assisted suicide because killing is wrong, unless you’re a drug dealer or a murderer, in which case you’re no longer human, like socialists and communists are not humans.

Christians are the dumbest, most hypocritical, hateful, spiteful people on the planet.

The number of christians to have ever followed the ideology of christianity = zero. Including jesus himself (who never existed).

The yahweh god doesn’t exist, but what about the brahman?

I see the contrast you’re pointing to, but the fact remains that christianity has caused much more suffering and death than islam. Remember, evil comes as an angel of light.

There is no christianity itself. There is no one christian who agrees 100% with any other.

Is salvation possible to all or not?
Can you lose salvation and get saved again?
What about speaking in tongues and miracles?
Is the sabbath of saturday or sunday?
Can we work on the sabbath or not?
Is the Holy Spirit a person of God?
Has Jesus always existed or was he created?
Is the Father greater than Jesus?
The bible says to suffer not women to speak in church, so why are there women preachers?
On and on…

There are 100s of denominations just in the protestant sect: Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Pentecostal, Church of God, Church of Christ, Jehovah’s Witness, 7th Day Adventist, and that’s just off the top of my head. And then within each church the people disagree with each other.

No one christian agrees 100% with any other and therefore there is no “christianity itself”.

We are doing philosophy here and thus should not be victim of a Category Mistake.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

Thus we need to understand what is Christianity-proper and pseudo-Christianity.
Christianity-proper is the belief that is in accordance [grounded] to its Constitution, i.e. the NT of the Bible.

Thus a Christian in one who had entered into a covenant with the Christian God to comply with the NT to the best of one’s ability and seek forgiveness for any unintended or no-choice sinful acts.

Thus if one intentionally disagree and disobeys the dogma of the NT, i.e. insist killing is right based on one’s moral standards, then, that person cannot be a Christian.

However, a person is a Christian if one agree with NT core principles and obey the commands as much as possible but cannot resist sinning for various reasons then seek forgiveness and repent, one is still a Christian but with various degrees of shortfalls.

Thus when a Christian sinned, his sinful acts is not of Christianity but is due to his own human weakness. We cannot blame Christianity for his sins.

In Christianity there is the core principles and the varied forms of commands and policies.
I bet the majority of Christians do comply with its core principles and the various commands.
Being humans obviously they will not be able to resist sinning and they are expected to ask for forgiveness.
Thus it is true there is not likely to have a 100% perfect Christian-proper, but if the majority are 75-80% compliant, they are still regarded as Christians.
But note, the sinful acts of Christians are not of Christianity-proper.

Note the contrast where there are commands in the Quran [core of Islam] where God sanctions the killing of non-Muslims under the vaguest threats and reasons. This is so evident where millions of non-Muslims has been killed in the name of God and as a divine duty of Muslims.

The yahweh god doesn’t exist, but what about the brahman?
[/quote]
Same with Brahman, the Absolute, and such is impossible to exist as real.

It is a fact the Christians has sinned against the NT when they kill non-Christians and other ‘Christians’. It is not a fact that Christianity has killed or caused the suffering and deaths.
I’ll will say, the sins of Christians are due to the human weaknessess and not due to Christianity-proper which does not condone killings of non-Christians.

Inspired by the holy texts, the Quran, Muslims has killed appx 80 millions of Indians over 1000 years of the conquest of India.

Christians may have killed many but not 80 millions, and such killings are due to the sinful acts [human weakness and nature] to the so-called Christian but that has nothing to do with Christianity-proper.

As I had argued, there is definitely Christianity-proper.
Christianity-proper is that constitution which is objectively presented in the NT within the Bible.

All serious Christians will definitely with the core principles within the NT, e.g. Jesus is the Son of God and others.

What they disagree is their own interpretations of the various forms and policies within the NT.

Surely ALL serious Christians believe the Christian God exists and God will receive them in heaven with eternal life.

Surely no Christians will dispute this core belief, i.e. John 3:16

Christians may disagree among themselves in interpretations of various verses which are not core to the Christianity but such disagreements are not critical to prevent them from going to heaven with eternal life if they keep to the core beliefs, e.g. John 3:16 and others.

There is Christianity-proper in accordance to the Constitution with the NT.
There are no 100% Christian proper but being humans, the majority are at least likely to be 80% Christian-proper from 100% perfect Christianity-proper.

Non-conformists, whatever the dominant belief system. I think you are oversimplifying humans here and selection. I think nurture has a lot to do with our obedience. Tribes could often tolerate dissension, chiefs in the NA tribes were always encountering member urges not to be bossed around and held their positions only as long as people were for them. Once we got beyond tribes, we had to deal with people, for basic needs, whom we did not care about. Then we got leaders who focusing on nurture based training to maintain hierarchies. I mean, look at the modern school. Sit still, face in one direct, speak when spoken to, move when a bell sounds (after getting permission), regurgitate the right answers, run when we say. And then we are surprised people cannot think for themselves.

Poverty can also give you experience of the BS up close and clear.

There is no category other than affirmation: if you consider yourself a christian, then you are. Reading is not a requirement.

And the number of christians who follow the bible is zero, so your category is empty.

Show me 1 christian who has given everything to the poor, took up his cross, and followed christ. Show me just 1.

The compliant ones are coincidentally compliant. Christians could be 80% compliant with the precepts of Buddhism, but it wouldn’t make them Buddhists.

Christians are simply people who say “I am Christian.” Most have never read the bible and never will.

Contrast is noted and valid, but Christians have still killed more people.

The absolute doesn’t exist because there is nothing for it to exist in relation to, but obviously there must be a totality of everything with nothing outside. So either the totality goes on and on forever in infinity, which is absurd, or the totality is unitary and absolute.

If Christianity hadn’t existed, then Hitler could not have committed atrocities. Stalin could not have committed atrocities.

Christianity beat that in a mere decade en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Yes, that’s about all they agree on.

No, we argued about that all the time. Is salvation possible to the whole world? One group argues that verse as evidence that salvation is possible to everyone, but “predestination” (or references to) are mentioned several times. Plus the parables and the Lamb’s book of life which existed before the foundation of the world (your name was written in the book before the world existed). Plus in the book of Romans, Paul says that Pharaoh was created specifically to split hell wide open, just to show god’s power. According to the bible, salvation is only possible to god’s pets.

So right off the bat Christians are divided in half and then further divided on how to get to salvation, if it’s even possible.

What can you do to be saved? One group says “nothing” and the other says “say this prayer”.

Can you become unsaved? One group says yes and the other says no.

These are foundation disagreements.

Yes, good point, school is primarily about obedience. But who designed the school system? Those genetically selected from centuries of feudal caste systems.

The ones in poverty don’t grow up to fight poverty, but champion it for making them so strong. They support the caste system that enables the poverty that’s so nutritious for people.

If that is the case I can consider myself an American if I declare and affirm I am an American?
(Officially I am not an American).

Note I mentioned adherence to the core principles e.g. John 3:16 and others.
Giving everything to the poor, took up his cross is not the core and imperative principles.

Note this point;

Even though a Christian may be compliant with the precepts of Buddhism, that does not make the person a Buddhist. To be officially a Buddhist one has to accept Buddha and the founder of Buddhism and accept the core teachings of the Buddha.

It is the same with a Christian, and what differentiate a Christian from other religions and practices is a Christian-proper believes in the core principles within the NT, e.g. John 3:16, Jesus is the son of God, Jesus was crucified, died and raised, and other critical doctrinal principles.

Nope.
Those who happened to claim to be Christians may have killed people, but they did not kill in the name of Christ. Jesus never commanded Christians to kill non-Christians.

Obviously??? Who said so.
Either way past or forward we are faced with infinite regression which cannot be spoken of, thus as per Wittgenstein’s ‘Whereof we cannot speak, we must remain silent.’
Point is you [as with any others] as a fallible human being cannot conclude on a infinite regression.

This is one of the most irrational and ridiculous view I have ever come across.
It is obvious the acts of Hitler has nothing to do with the Christianity and the New Testament.
Come on, don’t insult your own intelligence with the above statement.

Again this is ridiculous.
World War II has nothing to do with Christianity nor what it a theological war. There is no link betweeen the WWII and any religious commands from the New Testament.
World War II was mainly a political war.

The killing of 80 million Indians I mentioned was specifically linked to verses from the Quran, i.e. the religion of Islam.

No, but you can claim to be a christian and no one will contest that. If you claim to be american, someone might contest it.

Ok then, but there is no standardized interpretation of 3:16. If jesus died for the world, then all you have to do is profess that you believe and you are a christian. If the terrorist who flew the plane into the tower called upon jesus at the last moment, he’d gone straight to heaven as his plane crashed into the tower, killing 3000 people (who probably would’ve went to hell because they didn’t believe). It’s as simple as that. You don’t need to know how to read or need to know anything about the bible. Just tell people you’re a christian and you are.

I live in the middle of it. All the roads here are named after churches. There is a church on every corner. I’m probably the only one in the entire region who is not a professing christian. I hate to put myself on a pedestal, and it’s actually pitiful to report that I’m about as authoritative as you can find regarding Christianity because I grew up in it, am surrounded by it, everyone I know is a Christian, and I studied the bible passionately for many years. Heck, I’ve only been out of it for a year or two. 2 years ago I would have been arguing with you that god exists.

I agree. There is no way that anybody can be a Christian by his own strength of character, willpower, knowledge, talents, sense of righteousness, or sensitive feelings because all it takes is simply professing that one is a Christian. It’s as easy as falling off a log.

What does it mean to accept the Buddha? Buddha isn’t a god, but just a guy who was the first to become enlightened.

That’s what I meant by being compliant with the precepts.

Yeah, jesus was either god or the son of god or both, and he died for our sins, and he rose again on the 3rd day, defeated death, and all you have to do is believe it. Now you have a license to do whatever you want. You can shoot people and just rely on your faith to save you.

1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Works do not matter and there is no law. The law ended with jesus. The 10 commandments are suggestions. The bible can be distorted 10 ways from sunday or just disregarded.

The Pharisees hassled Jesus over not washing his hands, but he replied it doesn’t matter because it goes through the gut and comes out in the poop. It’s not what goes into the mouth that defiles the man, but what comes out of it because out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. What you do is not as important as what you say.

I didn’t say they killed in the name of christ. I said they killed and they were christian.

Infinity doesn’t exist and can’t exist. It’s absurd. Says who? We have a whole thread on that viewtopic.php?f=4&t=194376

We’re now only arguing if infinity can exist merely as a concept (I say no, not even as a concept).

Infinity is a camera looking at its own monitor. It’s a unity trying to see itself, which always results in an illusory infinite regression.

Hitler’s alliance with Christianity viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194717

You have a lot to learn.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx1FM28D85w[/youtube]

Note we are in a philosophy forum and thus has to be rational.
If you see a real apple but insist it is an orange who is to judge that?
The point here is one need to exercise intellectual integrity.

True any one can claim to the a Christian but within the ambit of intellectual integrity as in such a philosophical forum, one is a Christian by conformance to the main doctrinal principles of the New Testament.

Telling you are Christian will not make you one.
The point is one still have to perform certain ritual and procedures to be qualified to be called a Christian.

I agree to an extent it is very simple to be a Christian, i.e. just surrender and believe in Christ and the Christian God.
However the above acts of surrender and belief implied one must comply with the commands of God within the New Testaments.

In the New Testaments Jesus did not command Christians to kill non-Christian but rather commands Christian to love even their enemies.

As I had stated above;

In the New Testaments Jesus did not command Christians to kill non-Christian but rather commands Christian to love even their enemies.

Killing as Christians do not mean Christianity kills.
As you have stated, it is easy to become a Christian, i.e. the good, the bad and the evil. If a evil person became a Christian and then raped a person, it has nothing to do with Christianity because there are no commands in the NT condoning Christians to rape others.
It is the same for killing, since the NT do not condone Christians to kill non-Christians.

Why should I have to learn from Hitchen in this case.
I understand there are Christians who had been engaged in loads of evil acts since 2000 years ago, but such evil acts has nothing to do with Christianity per se.
Where in the NT did Christ command Christians to go to war and kill non-Christians?

But defining christians in that way is an empty category (or sparsely populated at best). If you want to encapsulate christians into a category, you’ll have to define then as anyone who professes to be one.

The ritual is simply professing to be one.

No it’s not about works (obeying laws or anything that you could perform, but only faith).

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

If it were about works, then you could brag and boast about how well you adhere to the law. That is why it’s not about works, but only faith. Salvation is a free gift that cannot be earned by doing works, but only believing. There is no law.

That said, the works are the evidence of salvation. If people do bad works, then they probably are not saved. But if they do good works, then they might be saved. Works do not cause salvation, but are evidence that salvation has happened.

This is true, but no one does it. Even so, let’s not forget the spirit of doing good to enemies:

Romans 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

The reason to do good to enemies is to punish them (by making god punish them). So there is nothing virtuous there.

Christianity kills because it divides people into classes of good and evil.

I understand the distinction you’re showcasing, but Islam is just a more transparent version of the fight against evil. What are we trying to accomplish here anyway? Can’t we agree that both religions are bad?

Because he has already performed the research and has much to teach.

Except christianity’s assertion that evil exists.

No where that I know of.

There are two meanings to ‘profess’.

I presume your use of ‘profess’ is not related to 1 but rather 2.

In the case of professing to be a Christian, there is obviously faith and allegiance to a set of beliefs which is normally accompanied by some sort of ritual to recognize the person as a Christian, e.g. baptism, etc. to surrender and obey Christ and God.

You are cherry picking the verses and messing it up.
Note the point is what qualifies to be a Christian not about salvation.

The theological principle of any religion is the follower must comply with the authority of the religion, i.e. in the case of Christianity it is the New Testament.
A Christian cannot claim to be a Christian if his beliefs and acts are outside the scope of the New Testament.
Surely a person who claimed to be a Christian cannot insist his God is Allah of the Quran, the Hindu Brahman and prefer to following the teachings of the Quran or Gita?

Thus the minimal requirement for a person to be a Christian is he must comply with the critical imperative criteria as stated in the New Testament from Christ and nowhere else.

It is not for you to decide and make judgment.
If God stated you have to love, feed, then you just have to obey God’s command otherwise you will go to hell for disobedience. What happen to the enemy thereafter is none of the Christian’s business.

This is a weido kind of response.

Personally, I believe ALL religions should be weaned off eventually.
Christianity has its negatives but it is not as evil as Islam.
All religions has to go but priority is on Islam.

In this case, Hitchen attempts to link religions per se to the acts of their evil followers is irrational and a fallacy.

That Christianity asserts evil exists do not imply Christianity is evil.
I assert, DNA wise ALL humans has the potential to commit evil and violent acts, then I propose how can we prevent such evil and violent acts from being committed by evil prone people.

That is the point.
That is why I conclude Christianity per se do not condone evil and violent acts like Islam does.
Christianity per se has its negative threat to humanity now and in the future, but they are not that critical in contrast to Islam’s potential of evil and violence.

If you came to my house, we could walk down the road and ask the preacher, “What does it take to be a christian?” He would say “If you profess with your mouth, and believe in your heart that jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead.”

I’ve heard that line a million times.

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

I’m not sure the difference in confess and profess, but you get the idea.

At the end of every sermon the preacher would give altar call where he’d implore people to come and be saved. If you felt like he was “standing on your toes” talking directly to you, you might venture to the front while everyone else is singing and clapping to loud music. When you got the front, a guy wreaking of cologne and dripping in sweat would approach and ask you to affirm the words that is essentially “do you believe jesus died for your sins, etc”. Then he’d pray over you and you’d start balling your eyes out in realization that god loves you. After that, you’re saved. There is nothing else to do, but you are expected to go to church on sunday to sing and clap and sit there trying not to fall asleep while the preach drones on and on. They expect you to read your bible, but nobody does. Oh, and you’re supposed to put money in the tray they pass around.

When I was a kid, mom had me believing that in the end times scary men would ask me to deny jesus and take the mark of the beast. The only relevant bit was either confessing or denying jesus. The ones refusing to deny would be marched off to concentration camps or something.

Cherry picking? How many verses do you want?

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

I set christianity on a pedestal specifically because it was distinct from islam and judaism in being exclusively faith-based and not works-based. Works are just a method to brag about piety.

Yep it’s simply saying you’re a christian.

Many different authorities fall under the heading of “christian”. There are lots of ways to interpret the new testament.

But I could claim anything is within the scope of the NT according to my interpretation and no one could challenge that since it’s simply their interpretation vs mine. There is no ultimate judge specifying which interpretations are allowed. Jim Jones poisoned 1000 people according to his interpretation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown

Yes you’re probably right about that.

According to his interpretation of it, sure. But that’s still arbitrary.

I can’t go to hell because once I’m saved, I’m always saved. That’s one interpretation. So I can be mean all I want and god can’t punish me since: once saved, always saved.

Or I could ask forgiveness later and god is “faithful to forgive 7 x 70”.

No one looks after the welfare of their enemies; it’s absurd.

Just like the command to not give thought for tomorrow. Who does that?

Why?

Islam to me seems like the religion of the uneducated. I think if people get generally smarter, islam will fizzle out on its own. I’m more worried about christianity since it’s an angel of light compared to islam.

How do you know if you haven’t listened?

Good people will do good things, evil people will do evil things, but to get a good person to do evil, that takes religion.

I think islam will fizzle out. It’s too barbaric.

Funny video:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYV7KWQ-fY4[/youtube]

A Christian preacher do not have the authority to decide who is ultimately a Christian.

I do agree there is some truths to it when a preacher made the following assertion;

You are a Christian,
“If you profess with your mouth, and believe in your heart that jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead.”

The above is merely sales talk without the relevant doctrinal ‘small prints’ from the NT.

What is critical is the above assertion by the preacher implies the onus of the the person who profess to carry out the commands of Christ as in the NT.

Would the person who had professed earlier still be a Christian if s/he shouted
“Fuck Christ, I will never love my enemies as commanded in the Bible.”
“I believe Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead but I will never obey whatever Jesus preached in the NT” “Regardless of my acts, Jesus must ensure I enter heaven as promised.”

Surely the above is not what Christianity intended Christians to be?

What the above meant is salvation of the Christian is not primarily dependent on works itself.
What is primary is the faith and grace which will spontaneously generate good works.

This primary requirements [faith, purpose, intent, etc.] are expected in the New Testament, thus a Christian must still comply with the NT to be a Christian.
In addition, a Christian will also have comply with other commands in the NT in addition to the primary requirements re faith, purpose, intention, etc.

Note, most religions primary requirements are not works-based but beliefs-based [surrender, faith, reverence, etc.]. Works is secondary, but whatever the works, they have to be compliant with the core authority of the religions as expressed in various terms and commands.

As I had stated, professing one to be a Christian automatically entails the onus to obey the commands in the NT.
There is no way one can be a Christian and insist on not following the commands in the NT.

There are certain core principles which are shared by the majority of so-called Christianity. No Christians will deny the existence of God and Christ.

Jim Jones is a Christian because he believed in the core principles of Christianity as in the NT.
The fact that he poisoned ~1000 people has nothing to do with Christianity but rather his own inherent evil nature as a human being.

It is the same we cannot blame Christianity for priests who rape children and boys.
Note a person can wear many hats in different moments. A person can be a boss, a teacher, worker, employee or employer during the normal 9-5 and a father later at home.
When these men/women who raped children within the Christian community, they were acting with an evil persona and not as a Christian per-se, sort of Jekyll and Hyde personalities.

This is most weird.
I don’t believe it is true.
Give me a link to show your claim is true?

I am not an expert with the Bible as with the Quran.
But surely there are forgivable and unforgivable sins or degrees of sins?

What is set in the NT is the ideal.
The point is followers must strive to comply to the best of their ability.

This will prevent the opposite ‘Hate your enemies and kill them’ as commanded in the Quran which is evil to start with.

How can dividing people into classes of good and evil imply condoning killing the others?
Christianity does divide humans as in “us versus them” which is not a good thing.
But Christianity do not condone the killing of “them.”
Therefore Christianity do not kills.

Christianity will be at most a pest or ‘mosquito’ [creationism, pro-life, proselytizing, homophobic, etc.] to humanity as long as it exists.
However the commands in the Quran could lead to the extermination of the human species as and when WMDs [nukes, bio, etc.] are cheaply and easily available.

How do you know I have not listened.
I did listen and his conclusion is hasty generalization.

I had argued elsewhere,
DNA wise, ALL humans inherent has the potential to commit evil and violence.
Appx. 20% [conservatively] are born with an active evil tendency.
The majority of humans are born with an existential crisis that drive them to theism.

Until we deal with the above, Islam as a theistic religion will not fizzle out and the natural evil prone people will feast on the God-sanctioned evil verses within the Quran.

Prismatic, Serendipper

There is an assumption in this argument that the most blunt expression of violence in a text will lead to the most deaths. IOW if Islam comes right out and says kill X clearly and does not have contradictory parts, then it will cause more deaths and is a more pernicious text than, say, The Bible, where it is more complicated and, hey, Jesus, seems anti-violence, etc.

But we are complicated creatures and the Bible has be incredibly effective in leading to violence against Christians and against other types of Christians.

Violence carried out by Muslims and by Christians of course have many other factors in their violence, the religion often a justification for violence that would have happened anyway for other reasons.

Just telling people to kill directly may not be the most effective set at creating violence. In fact indirect manipulative communication can be used incredibly effectively.

And then there’s things like this…

juancole.com/2013/04/terror … gions.html
*Apart from the statistics…

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Death_tol … ristianity

And this is a nice general set of diagrams about deaths in general…

waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/the-deat … kdown.html

I had an ex-girlfriend who would describe our relationship and breakup with her has the bad guy. She confessed to her shortcomings, blamed herself. But she did in such a way that it sounded like, hey, here’s this person who knows her faults, confessing her sins, that other guy, Karpel, doesn’t seem to be owning much, she just wants another chance, he must be the asshole. She never said it. If they brought up that reaction she continued to defend me

and I have NEVER GOTTEN SO MUCH SHIT ABOUT ANYTHING I EVER DID. Breaking up with her that is.

Now this may seem silly to compare with religious scriptures, but my point is that what a text does in masses of human brains is not a simple process.

I have been trash talked behind my back by people and never, ever did it cause so much social damage as a person pretending to take respnsibility for things she did - like always letting me know she was slumming being with me, until I got tired of it and broke up with her. Judging me all the time and more.

Her indirect approach and fake martyr attitude IMPLIED all sorts of shit about me AND WAS VASTLY MORE EFFECTIVE than anyone who ever went on a direct attack.

Of course this, lol, does not prove that The Bible is more effective at creating violence than the KOran. Christians have tended to have better weapons than Muslims, at least recently. And there have been more of them.

But this assuption that a more direct test is more effective and one can catalogue via quotes and rate the effectiveness of long texts and claim causal chains leading to violence seems incredibly naive to me. And an assumption that needs a lot of support, especially given how many deaths Christians have carried out.

I find the above statistics misleading and dangerously wrong in many cases, e.g.

https://www.juancole.com/images/2013/04/relviolence.jpg
Death is 20th Century via War and Politics by Religion;
Christianity = 100 million
Islam = 2 million.

There is a categorical error in the above in that we must separate the ideology from its believers.
If the above is to be held to be true then rationally less attention should be given to Islam.

Philosophically, wisely, morally and ethically, ALL evil and violent acts regardless must be dealt with.
To be efficient in dealing with problems we must break them up in manageable categories.
From these categories we then find the critical root causes.
Two main categories of evil are 1. Secular-based and 2. Religious-based Evil and violence acts.

I have proven the following;

  1. Evils and violent acts of Muslims are inspired directly by the religion of Islam.
    viewtopic.php?f=5&t=194744
  2. Evils and violent acts of non-Islamic believers are triggered by the evil human nature of the believers themselves and not by the religion itself.

From the above, logically weaning off the religion of Islam will definitely eliminate any possibility of evil and violent acts inspired by Islam itself.

Without religions, human beings will still commit evil and violent acts triggered by their inherent human nature. As such humanity need to find solution to deal with such evil and violent acts by tuning human nature from within. I am optimistic with this given the trend of the current exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

The above statistics are misleading and are often used by apologists to play down the inherent malignant evil and violent potential of Islam.
If this inherent evil and violent potential from Islam is not dealt with it is possible for the human species to be exterminated when WMDs [bio, nukes] are cheaply and easily available.

What is significant is when the sanctions and commands [immutable] as in Islam are from an all powerful God and believers are obliged within a divine contract in exchange for eternal life in heaven, such a drive becomes very powerful for believers to act the worst.

On the other hand, whilst humans are inherent evil, there is room for change and improvements within the secular perspective. Note South Africa had given up their nukes and discussion is ongoing with North Korea and in the future there is a possibility all Nations will be nukeless.

The only one who knows that is god. Everyone else is not supposed to judge who is and isn’t a christian.

Pretty much every christian fell for the sales talk then.

There are no commands, unless belief is a command.

That’s pretty much what christians say. Show me a christian who loves his enemies.

Correct. Now you understand.

Except that 1) nobody can agree what those requirements are and 2) there are no requirements, but only evidence, however the only one qualified to interpret the evidence is god; everyone else is to suspend judgement. Anyone claiming to be christian cannot be said to be wrong by any man.

Judaism doesn’t require the following of laws to attain salvation? That was the point of Jesus coming: to split from the idea of following law.

Ok then, no one loves their enemies, therefore no one is a christian, therefore your category is empty.

That’s about all they agree on.

Yes but he required religion in order to carryout the deception.

John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Romans 8:38-39 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

comereason.org/can-you-lose- … vation.asp
backtothebible.org/post/is- … -salvation
biblearchive.com/blog/can-i-be- … e-unsaved/

“Once saved, always saved” is a popular tenet of Christianity, but there are those who believe it’s possible to backslide. Jesus didn’t speak kindly about that: Luke 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Only one sin is unforgivable:

Matthew 12
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

I’m not exactly sure how to go about committing that sin.

The Quran is so blatantly evil that I can’t believe anyone would follow it. The bible seems innocent, so many are lured inside.

Why would a good person not want to kill evil?

Your naive view of it illustrates exactly why it’s so dangerous.

I suppose the big fear is that muslims take over white countries with nukes, but I think by the time that happens, the muslims will be smarter and less prone to violence. The solution is education.

He devoted a whole chapter in his book to it. How can a hasty generalization follow from so much research?

Here then, the central premise of Hitchens’ argument is worthy of reiteration. Had Stalin inherited a purely rational secular edifice, one established upon the ethos espoused by the likes of Lucretius, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Einstein and other free thinking and rational secularists, then the apologist’s argument would hold slightly more weight, but such wasn’t the case. Stalin merely tore the existing religious labels off the Christian Inquisition, the enforcement of Christian orthodoxy, the Crusades, the praising of the priesthood, messianism, and Edenic ideas of a terrestrial religious-styled utopia, and re-branded them with the red of communism. Had this Christian machine not been in place, then it is more than likely Stalin wouldn’t have had the vehicle he needed to succeed in causing so much suffering in the name of his godless religion, Communism michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress … -hitchens/

Good people will do good and evil people will do evil, but to get good people to do evil requires religion.

Environmental stress causes the brain to favor lower cognitive functions at the expense of higher functions such as empathy. As technology progresses, people will endure less stress and grow more empathetic brains and religion will fizzle out.

But not on a mass scale.

In the name of humanity we can battle cancer, but can we put all jews to the sword in the name of humanism?

So, what’s your method of dealing with it? War in the name of humanism? Should we kill them because they want to kill us?