The Dangers of Religious Hypnosis and Indoctrination: The genocidal faiths of Christianity & Islam.

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Lucifer777 - Lucifer Angel of Death - Judge of the Living and the Dead - The Morning Star. Dictator of all Law for the coming New Age of Light, the Return to Year Zero.

"Christians are Psychopaths"

Really?

Have you looked in the mirror lately?


It is perfectly appropriate to make a dialectical response to religious fanatcism.

The Christians are expecting a theocatic dictator (the 2nd Coming of Christ) who will carry out the genocide of all non believers; thus it is entirely appropriate for me to take an evangelically anti-Christian genocidal response.

Lux
edit on 10-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucifer777

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Lucifer777 - Lucifer Angel of Death - Judge of the Living and the Dead - The Morning Star. Dictator of all Law for the coming New Age of Light, the Return to Year Zero.

"Christians are Psychopaths"

Really?

Have you looked in the mirror lately?


It is perfectly appropriate to make a dialectical response to religious fanatcism.

The Christians are expecting a theocatic dictator (the 2nd Coming of Christ) who will carry out the genocide of all non believers; thus it is entirely appropriate for me to take an evangelically anti-Christian genocidal response.

Lux
edit on 10-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis


Yes... and the little children are waiting for Santa Claus to bring them gifts on Christmas day as well....

You still don't see my point.... I suppose that is your prerogative though.

Carry on....



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by works4dhs
1) the 'genocidal' accusation is based on a one-time situation when Israel went into Canaan and was instructed to eliminate all the extant population (which they never did). this remains one of the most difficult accounts to defend/justify to non-believers (and, yes, troubling to believers as myself). my best explanation is that the Canaanites were so far gone in their pagan morality (up to and including child sacrifice) that God had no choice but to remove them in toto. the surviving Canaanites would trouble and spiritually contaminate Israel through it's history.


If you consider the numerous categories of persons who would have to be executed under Biblical Law (see for example www.evilbible.com...), should your theocratic dictator (Jesus) ever return, the consequences would be genocidal, and would include the executions of all who reject the ancient tribal deity of the Israelites, and this would of course include persons such as myself, for numerous violations of Biblical Law, including blasphemy against your god.


2 aside from this one instance both Christian and Jew are encouraged--even commanded--to 'live at peace, as far as possible' with fellow men. (yes, this is OT as well as NT). 'love your neighbor as yourself' and 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' are both Biblical/Christian/Judaic principles.


The "Golden Rule" (do unto others..) is not exclusive to the New Testament; examples of the Golden Rule appear in pre-Christian Greek philosophy, in Egyptian texts and in numerous other sources.

For example


Ancient GreeceThe Golden Rule in its prohibitive form was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. Examples of the general concept include:

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." – Pittacus[11] (c. 640–568 BCE)
"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales[12]
"What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. " – Sextus the Pythagorean.[13] The oldest extant reference to Sextus is by Origin in the third century of the common era.[14]
"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." – Isocrates[15]
"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." – Epictetus[16]
"It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing 'neither to harm nor be harmed'[17]), and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life." – Epicurus[18]
"One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him." – Plato's Socrates (Crito, 49c) (c. 469 BC–399 BCE)

en.wikipedia.org...



You might as well argue that Socrates or Pittacus were the Messiah if you base your religious fanaticism on a simple and commonly held ethical concept.



removing religion from one's world view brings the question of moral foundations. it's easy to say 'don't steal, it's wrong' to a Christian/Jew, but how does one justify this to a non-believer? 'why is it wrong to procure something I want, if I'm able?' is the nonbeliever's argument, and how does one counter it? I appreciate the concept of 'universal values' but ultimately what basis can there be for them without God?


So you only avoid stealing from other people because some "God" is watching you and might punish you?

I suppose that there are many people on the earth such as yourself who avoid commiting crimes against others, simply because they fear punishment by the state, or by a god, but I consider myself morally superior to such persons, so you will have to direct your question to someone else.

Lux



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Lucifer - great thread - but don't waste your time arguing.

I have been there before, and no matter how many times I will explicitly express a point, it will be attacked with ad-hominems and derailments.

Bottom line, and there is no easy way to say it, is that the fanatics are deluded. The BIGGEST proof of this is how they will get extremely upset over it all when someone contests their beliefs.

Since us humans have egos, we hate to be wrong - ESPECIALLY in front of strangers. Even if one side is proved wrong at one point, they will still keep going because they don't want to admit they were wrong or that they are in doubt.

I can bet that whoever this rings true for is fuming right now but won't/can't admit it.

And therein lies the problem: Religions and deities attaching themselves to the subject's ego. Once the religion/deity is contested, the person themself gets offended.

I'm not going to go into what i believe, because frankly, I'm tired of it. But I'll just say I'm a pantheist - I think EVERYONE/EVERYTHING is this "god" or creator - or it all comes from the same singular source... Whatever...



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by impaired

I'm not going to go into what i believe, because frankly, I'm tired of it. But I'll just say I'm a pantheist - I think EVERYONE/EVERYTHING is this "god" or creator - or it all comes from the same singular source... Whatever...


Yes that is a very popular New Age belief; I must admit that I have to also define myself as a pantheist-deist also; I am not an atheist, I just don't belong to any form of organised religion; I just consider the devotees of the more ancient, savage and primitive organised religions such as Islam and Christianity in a similar way to the way that I consider the ancient devotees of the Aztec gods or the Hindu gods.

The Internet "Trolls for Jesus" seem to be mostly victims of religious hypnosis and indoctrination; if they had grown up in Afghanistan they would probably be Muslims, but since they have grown up in the Western culture of the First World, whether they realise it or not, they are also entirely memetically influenced by the humanist and Enlightenment philosophers of the Age of Reason, the modern feminist and sexual liberation movements and modern post religious culture in general, and and so many of them are entirely uncomfortable with the savage and primitive religion they have chosen (or which has been chosen for them); they are really creatures of the modern world, many of whom will hopefully eventually realise that they are just victims of a memetic virus which they are currently spreading; there is more hope for them than those of the Islamic world who are mostly barely educated and barely literate, and for whom the humanist and anti-religionist revolution has yet to arrive.

I very much doubt that any of the modern "Trolls for Jesus" would we content to be thrown back into the ancient Biblical world of slavery and tribal warfare. I think that many of them just have a psychological addiction to the idea of a saviour deity who will eternally love them. I, of course try to be a substitute for that deity; I promise all who renounce their ancient religions 144 virgins in paradise (twice what the Muslims offer) and I promise to beat any price on salvation (which means $ zero really) or a full refund in the afterlife; so far the only people who have taken up my offer are those who realise the ridiculousness of "any" such offer from "any" saviour.

"Every man and woman is a star; there is no god but man (and woman)."

Lucifer
edit on 10-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Do you realy think that you possess intelligence when you go on ranting about the irrationality of Christians while tossing swear words in?? Seriously, if you respond to someone at least have the courtesy to refrain from insults.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________



You position tends to support my argument in the OP that persons who accept a psychopathic definition of a deity are likely to become psychopaths themselves, and who will justify all manner of human evil in the name of their chosen deity.


So your argument is that i believe in a psychotic definition of God, and more likely to become a psychopath myself.




The problem is not the non-existence or existence of the particular tribal deity of the Bible which you have chosen from a variety of ancient primitive dieties; the problem is you and other persons who are devotees of that particular deity


So, basically you have a problem with Christians.


I am an Anarchist and I have no wish for human human kind to live in a "Prison Planet" or a global dictatorship; however the political philosophy of Christianity "is" that of theocratic monarchy (dictatorship); after all your prophesied "Kings of Kings" is the definition of a genocidal global dictator who will eradicate his enemies militarily, impose Biblical law and eradicate all non believers.

Any objections which Christians make regarding objections to a global dictatorship are entirely disingenuous (false, hypocritical, lacking in sincerity) since the political philosophy of Christianity is essentially theocratic fascism and has nothing to do with opposition to dictatorship; on the contrary; Christians are awaiting the coming of a prophesied genoccidal global.dictator.


So, you believe that Christians are awaiting the coming of a prophesied genocidal global dictator.


You and other Christians are not "non-existant;" your psychopathic Biblical deity may be merely a concept of your mind, but you most certainly exist; the enemy of humankind is not merely the anthropomorphic projections of religious fanatics but the religious fanatics themselves.


So, the God which the Christians believe is a concept of our minds.


If you were honest about it, and admitted that your deity is just an anthropomorphic projection of your own mind, and the minds of the Biblical authors, you could just make your religion up as you go along and you could define your god in any way you wish and just have conversations with Her in your own padded cell, but you have chosen the psychopathic Biblical defintion of a deity, and since there are tens of millions of Biblical fanatics, that is a threat to humankind.


So, Christianity is a threat to mankind.


Love is probably the most misused world in religious hypnosis and indoctrination. The Biblical definition of a deity is hardly a god of love; it is a sadistic, genocidal war deity; the fact that you define such a psychopathic deity as "love" is part of the problem of religious fanaticism and religious hypnosis.


So, God is by biblical defintion a sadistic, genocidal war deity.


Not only do you suffer from religous psychosis, but you seek to spread your mind virus to others, much like some Hollywood zombie movie; you are not content to be infected yourself, but you seek to spread your mind virus to others; this is part of the "Trolls for Jesus" Internet phenomenon which I and many others of my ilk are attempting to combat; unfortunately your disease is both lethal and genocidal, and I suspect that eventually the only "cure" will also be that of genocide.


So, i am suffering from a religious psychosis, and my disease unfortunately is both lethal and genocidal, and the plan is to cure that disease with genocide.


Genocidal, militant, apocalyptic religious fanaticism will eventually demand a militant, apoclayptic, genocidal response.


Seriously?? Do you actually believe that??


Well I was already aware that Christians have an inability to think for themselves, "and" that they are able to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time, such as that they "can" think for themselves and that they "cannot" think for themselves; these are points which I have made in the OP essay; however this has nothing to do with the philosophical question of the whether the universe has a Ceator or not, it has to do with your particular form of Biblical fanaticism and the Biblical definition of a psychopathic and genocidal deity


Inability to think for ourselves and that has, to do with my particular form of Biblical fanaticism and the Biblical definition of a Psychopathic and genocidal deity. Seriously is that your argument??


For a Biblical fanatic to end his posts with "peace" is entirely disingenuous and hypocriotcal. Peace is a state which is reached after the devotees of your psychopathic war god have subjected all opponents to genocide, with the exception of the young virgin females (female children) of course, whom you may keep as sex slaves and gag rape.


So, your belief is peace is a state which is reached after the devotees of my psychopathic war god have subjected all opponents to genocide, with the exception of the young virgin females (female children) of course, whom i may keep as sex slaves and gag rape. Seriously??
_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Because i respect the T&C, i will refrain from further replies to this thread.

Peace
edit on 10-2-2011 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


May God have mercy on your soul....



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Do you realy think that you possess intelligence when you go on ranting about the irrationality of Christians while tossing swear words in?? Seriously, if you respond to someone at least have the courtesy to refrain from insults.


I do not engage in the exchange of personal insults; however if you feel insulted by my description of your god being psychopathic and that this is simply a reflection of the state of mind of the Christians (i.e., that they too are psychopathic), then that is not really my problem; I cannot speak without using nouns and adjectives and many of the nouns and adjectives I use to describe the Christians and their god are certainly descriptive terms used by by Richard Dawkins as his description of the Biblical deity as being "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

All such nouns and adjectives are entirely appropriate descriptions of the Biblical deity, and as I would further argue appropriate nouns and adjectives which can be used in describing Christians.



You position tends to support my argument in the OP that persons who accept a psychopathic definition of a deity are likely to become psychopaths themselves, and who will justify all manner of human evil in the name of their chosen deity.


So your argument is that i believe in a psychotic definition of God, and more likely to become a psychopath myself.


It is not merely that you are "likely" to become a psychopath in the future, it is rather than you "already" have the psychology of a psychopath; why else would you defend and attempt to justify the psychopathic Biblical deity?



The problem is not the non-existence or existence of the particular tribal deity of the Bible which you have chosen from a variety of ancient primitive dieties; the problem is you and other persons who are devotees of that particular deity


So, basically you have a problem with Christians.


Yes of course; I have already stated that I consider Christianity and Islam to be the two most dangerous major religions; they both constitute a genocidal threat to humankind.



I am an Anarchist and I have no wish for human human kind to live in a "Prison Planet" or a global dictatorship; however the political philosophy of Christianity "is" that of theocratic monarchy (dictatorship); after all your prophesied "Kings of Kings" is the definition of a genocidal global dictator who will eradicate his enemies militarily, impose Biblical law and eradicate all non believers.

Any objections which Christians make regarding objections to a global dictatorship are entirely disingenuous (false, hypocritical, lacking in sincerity) since the political philosophy of Christianity is essentially theocratic fascism and has nothing to do with opposition to dictatorship; on the contrary; Christians are awaiting the coming of a prophesied genoccidal global.dictator.


So, you believe that Christians are awaiting the coming of a prophesied genocidal global dictator.


It seems to me that many Christians have never even bothered to read the New Testament, which is of course te central text of their faith. What do you think your prophesied "king of kings" prophecy refers to? A democrat? Of course Christians are waiting for a genocidal global dictator; the alleged "Second Coming of Christ."




You and other Christians are not "non-existant;" your psychopathic Biblical deity may be merely a concept of your mind, but you most certainly exist; the enemy of humankind is not merely the anthropomorphic projections of religious fanatics but the religious fanatics themselves.


So, the God which the Christians believe is a concept of our minds.


The philosophical question of where the universe has a Creator or not is an entirely different subject; with regards to the sadistic, genocidal anceint tribal deity of the israelites, yes that is an anthropomorphic projection of he authors of the Biblical texts; however as to whether such an evil, human hating deity exists or not, this way well be possible.



If you were honest about it, and admitted that your deity is just an anthropomorphic projection of your own mind, and the minds of the Biblical authors, you could just make your religion up as you go along and you could define your god in any way you wish and just have conversations with Her in your own padded cell, but you have chosen the psychopathic Biblical defintion of a deity, and since there are tens of millions of Biblical fanatics, that is a threat to humankind.


So, Christianity is a threat to mankind.


See above.


Love is probably the most misused world in religious hypnosis and indoctrination. The Biblical definition of a deity is hardly a god of love; it is a sadistic, genocidal war deity; the fact that you define such a psychopathic deity as "love" is part of the problem of religious fanaticism and religious hypnosis.


So, God is by biblical defintion a sadistic, genocidal war deity.


You obviously have not read your Bible.



Not only do you suffer from religous psychosis, but you seek to spread your mind virus to others, much like some Hollywood zombie movie; you are not content to be infected yourself, but you seek to spread your mind virus to others; this is part of the "Trolls for Jesus" Internet phenomenon which I and many others of my ilk are attempting to combat; unfortunately your disease is both lethal and genocidal, and I suspect that eventually the only "cure" will also be that of genocide.


So, i am suffering from a religious psychosis, and my disease unfortunately is both lethal and genocidal, and the plan is to cure that disease with genocide.


Well essentially the ultimate "cure" for Biblical fanaticism and religious psychosis is "education;" that is at least my personal strategy and the strategy of numerous other anti-religious Internet activists; however I entirely suspect that the Islamic / Christian problem will end in war; after all both religions have prophecies of a coming military dictator, of genocidal apocalyptic war and the total defeat of their enemies; it is not really possible for "both" sides to be victorious, though mutual destruction is a possibility; ultimately, however I eventually foresee a future world devoid of these two religious viruses.



Genocidal, militant, apocalyptic religious fanaticism will eventually demand a militant, apoclayptic, genocidal response.


Seriously?? Do you actually believe that??


Militancy demands a militant response; the only other option is to surrender the world to the religious fanatics.



Well I was already aware that Christians have an inability to think for themselves, "and" that they are able to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time, such as that they "can" think for themselves and that they "cannot" think for themselves; these are points which I have made in the OP essay; however this has nothing to do with the philosophical question of the whether the universe has a Ceator or not, it has to do with your particular form of Biblical fanaticism and the Biblical definition of a psychopathic and genocidal deity


Inability to think for ourselves and that has, to do with my particular form of Biblical fanaticism and the Biblical definition of a Psychopathic and genocidal deity. Seriously is that your argument??


Yes




For a Biblical fanatic to end his posts with "peace" is entirely disingenuous and hypocriotcal. Peace is a state which is reached after the devotees of your psychopathic war god have subjected all opponents to genocide, with the exception of the young virgin females (female children) of course, whom you may keep as sex slaves and gag rape.


So, your belief is peace is a state which is reached after the devotees of my psychopathic war god have subjected all opponents to genocide, with the exception of the young virgin females (female children) of course, whom i may keep as sex slaves and gag rape. Seriously??


Christianity is not a peaceful religion and there is a long and bloody history which established that; the consequences of having a genocidal war deity can be seen in history.

Lux
edit on 10-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
MOD NOTE


Originally posted by Lucifer777
I do not engage in the exchange of personal insults;


No? Let's review:


My judgement of you is nothing to do with whether you believe that the universe has a Creator or does not have a Creator, but if you chose the Biblical deity out of the numerous definitions of a deity, then obviously I would have to judge you as a deranged psychopath, just as I judge your "god" as a deranged psychopath.



Not only do you suffer from religous psychosis, but you seek to spread your mind virus to others, much like some Hollywood zombie movie; you are not content to be infected yourself, but you seek to spread your mind virus to others; this is part of the "Trolls for Jesus" Internet phenomenon which I and many others of my ilk are attempting to combat; unfortunately your disease is both lethal and genocidal, and I suspect that eventually the only "cure" will also be that of genocide.



For a Biblical fanatic to end his posts with "peace" is entirely disingenuous and hypocriotcal. Peace is a state which is reached after the devotees of your psychopathic war god have subjected all opponents to genocide, with the exception of the young virgin females (female children) of course, whom you may keep as sex slaves and gag rape.


Seems like personal attacks to my senses.

In the search for the absolute truth, it is most advisable to approach the opposition with both respect and careful consideration. After reading through these two pages 3 times, I am split on editing the above statements from your posts and may still do so if the personal attacks continue.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Disclaimer: I AM not a Christian. I AM a follower of Christ with my own understanding of his teachings.


Anyone who has taken the time to actually read the words attributed to Christ will see that they are truth, and are the only path to peaceful co-habitation of God's Children.

Yes there has been many attrocities done in Christ's name. The Inquisition, The Crusades, The Salem Witch burnings, the oppression of Homosexuals, Abortion clinic bombings, the list goes on and on. Christ said this would happen.

When the seeds of Christ's teachings were planted in the world, and enemy came and sowed in weeds with the wheat. Christ told his followers to let the weeds grow with the wheat rather than tear up the whole crop. So, they did.

Now there is a harvest happening. The spirit of Christ which is the spirit of love and freedom is making it's rounds. Old Empires are crumbling and the systems of iniquity are falling from the minds of Man and collapsing in the world around us. It is real, just look at the Hot Topics list.

Christ sacrificed himself to heal the division between man and God. He clarified God's Law which is simply to love one another. Christ did not exalt himself above everyone else like many Christians want to do. He humbled himself because he knew the truth and was teaching the truth.

We are ALL God's Children. Every time you pass judgement on someone, you are judging God.

God is beyond human understanding. He will manifest himself to his children anyway he desires.

If someone sees a celestial pink Unicorn and says that is their God, so be it. Who is anyone to judge?

If someone Calls God Allah, Budha, or none at all, who are we to judge? Who can tell God how to manifest to another?

NO ONE

All we are expected to do, all that will bring peace to this world, is to LOVE one another. Let each find God on his own.

Christ already paid the price of Sin. No man can claim another is a sinner. That is for God to decide.

Why there has to continue to be so much hate and animosity is beyond me. It is as if people WANT to be hated, so they spread hate every chance they get.

You cannot make me Hate you!

I AM my Master and I choose to love. Hopefully more will do the same and we can end the rediculous suffering that we make ourselves in this world.

I AM in Heaven, and the gate is open for all to enter when ever they choose.

Freedom and Love,

Your Brother



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Devil=Hate



Woohoo!

I love even the devil himself



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Not "Christianity and Islam" say it right now...its "Catholics and Islam"

If you don't know the difference than you probably don't have a clue why you choose "777" in your name either.
edit on 11-2-2011 by KingKeever1611 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
MOD NOTE


Originally posted by Lucifer777
I do not engage in the exchange of personal insults;


No? Let's review:


My judgement of you is nothing to do with whether you believe that the universe has a Creator or does not have a Creator, but if you chose the Biblical deity out of the numerous definitions of a deity, then obviously I would have to judge you as a deranged psychopath, just as I judge your "god" as a deranged psychopath.



Not only do you suffer from religous psychosis, but you seek to spread your mind virus to others, much like some Hollywood zombie movie; you are not content to be infected yourself, but you seek to spread your mind virus to others; this is part of the "Trolls for Jesus" Internet phenomenon which I and many others of my ilk are attempting to combat; unfortunately your disease is both lethal and genocidal, and I suspect that eventually the only "cure" will also be that of genocide.



For a Biblical fanatic to end his posts with "peace" is entirely disingenuous and hypocriotcal. Peace is a state which is reached after the devotees of your psychopathic war god have subjected all opponents to genocide, with the exception of the young virgin females (female children) of course, whom you may keep as sex slaves and gag rape.


Seems like personal attacks to my senses.

In the search for the absolute truth, it is most advisable to approach the opposition with both respect and careful consideration. After reading through these two pages 3 times, I am split on editing the above statements from your posts and may still do so if the personal attacks continue.


The "point" I am attempting to make in the OP, is that if a person worships a deity who can be commonly defined as a "deranged psychopath (such as the Biblical deity)," they will tend to take upon themselves, psychologically the characteristics of that deity, and I think that the history of the world's three major primitive religions (Judeo-Christianity, Islam and Hinduism) is ample estmony to that.

There is a difference between a group of football hooligans just throwing abuse at each other and a debate between philosophers; the football hooligans will just throw meaningless ad hominems at each other, while the philosophers may have to use nouns and adjectives which are offensive, but they will have to justify those terms as being descriptive.

When I define the Biblical deity as a "deranged psychopath," that is not merely a casual insult, it is entirely descriptive in my judgement. We cannot debate or even speak without using "describing" words (nouns and adjectives), and some of these words, even in an intelligent debate, will cause offense; or perhaps I should say "especially" in an intelligent debate.

The Biblical and Islamic war-gods, in my judgement, are deranged genocidal, psychopaths; such terms are entirely descriptive; both declare war against their religious enemies and incite genocide and the capture of female sex slaves; this is not merely an "insult;" it is entirely descriptive.

If there is a God of nature (Mother Nature), I personally don't believe that She has such horrible characteristics, and that the characteristics of the Biblical and Islamic definitions of a deity are merely anthropomorphic projections of sadistic and bigoted human beings who lived in a far more primitive and savage past. The danger of accepting such savage definitions of a deity is that we become savages ourselves,and that is the point I have attempted to make in the OP.

When Richard Dawkins describes the Biblical deity as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully," he is not merely acting as a football hooligan or a drunk in a bar throwing arbitrary insults; he is simply using descriptive nouns and adjectives which are entirely appropriate in a philosophical debate.

When I describe the defenders of the Biblical deity as having the psychology of "genocidal psychopaths" I certainly mean to give offence, just as any philosopher in a debate would try to ruthlessly attack the "ideas" and "character" of an opponent, and I hope that I "do" give offence, but this is not merely an arbitrary insult, as a child would throw in a playground; I consider it "fair game" to describe those who would defend a sadistic and genocidal definition of a deity as being psychologically sadistic and genocidal themselves.

A generally accepted "Socratic" method of debating is the "Devil's advocate" argument. I am personally a rather gentle creature, but if I have to enter the arena of debate with a person who has a genocidal definition of a deity (such as the Biblical and Islamic war gods); it is entirely appropriate to respond with an argument which suggests the genocide of the devotees of such a genocidal deity;.

I would personally rather befriend and converse with such persons, as I believe that they are mostly merely innocent victims of religious hypnosis and indoctrination, and that they are not inherently malevolent; never the less, for example, in a debate with a Neonazi, it is quite appropriate to suggest that all Neonazis be thrown into concentration camps and subjected to genocide; the philosopher who makes such an argument may not really believe this, and may consider the Nazis to be merely victims of political indoctrination, but such an argument is anyway entirely appropriate; it is an entirely appropriate dialectical response. In fact, I have been excommunicated from debating on the world's major Neonazi discussion group, "Stormfront.org" for suggesting such a "Final Solution," however I consider such an excommunication to be a compliment.

Lux.

edit on 11-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Disclaimer: I AM not a Christian. I AM a follower of Christ with my own understanding of his teachings.


Anyone who has taken the time to actually read the words attributed to Christ will see that they are truth, and are the only path to peaceful co-habitation of God's Children.


Intuitively, from reading your numerous posts here, I feel that you are a rather gentle and loving creature; never the less the argument which I am attempting to make in the OP, is that one one attempts to justify the psychopathic and genocdial tribal deity of the Bible, that one tends to take on such characteristsi oneself.



Yes there has been many attrocities done in Christ's name. The Inquisition, The Crusades, The Salem Witch burnings, the oppression of Homosexuals, Abortion clinic bombings, the list goes on and on. Christ said this would happen.


Well bear in mind that the fictional "Christ" of the Gospels promoted the view that we must strictly adhere to the "(Biblical) Law and the Prophets" which involves the mandatory execution of all devotees of competing deities, men who engage in homo-erotic relationships, witches, and so forth.

My own personal definition of a deity is entirely contrary to that of the Biblical deity; I am not an atheist, but in Biblical terms I am guilty of so many executionable offences that I cannot count them; my current girlfriend is an evangelical Witch (Wiccanist), I have always been bisexual, I have always hated the god of the Bible and I am evangelically Neopagan.


When the seeds of Christ's teachings were planted in the world, and enemy came and sowed in weeds with the wheat. Christ told his followers to let the weeds grow with the wheat rather than tear up the whole crop. So, they did.


The New Testament fiction is a mixture of Judaism and numerous "ethical" teachings such as the "Golden Rule." We all wish to love and be loved; so when we mix socialist ethical teachings, which we can all relate to, with "kill all opponents of competing deities" it becomes a very dangerous mixture, since we all relate to comon ethical maxims such as "love each other."

[quoteChrist already paid the price of Sin. No man can claim another is a sinner. That is for God to decide.

There are a number of Hebrew words which have been translated as "sin;" however essentially to be a "sinner" is to be "unlawful;" and Biblical law is anyway virtually impossible for a modern person to follow; to be a "non-sinner" you would have to hunt down all persons who worked on the Sabbath (Friday sunset till Saturday Sunset) and execute them; similarly with all persons who are not strictly heterosexual (this applies to males only), all adulterers, all women who were not virgins when they were married, all slaves who have escaped their masters, etc., etc.

Further if your ATS photo is really an image of yourself, your hair and beard are not long enough for your age, since you are forbidden by the (Biblical) Law to cut your hair and shave your beard, so you are anyway, by default, a sinner.

Lucifer
edit on 11-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


There is no provisions in the Quran for sex-slavery.
I doubt you have hardly read it

Muhammad freed his slaves; your statements are just untrue. You are reading material from bigots who slander Muhammad because it suits your pre-conceived notions.
The Quran, like the Bible, didn’t expressly free the slaves because it was an institution in ancient times that was so prevalent, but Muhammad commanded his followers that if you had to have slaves to feed them the food they ate and to treat them kindly. He advised and encouraged his followers to free their slaves. Compared to traditional slavery the ancient Muslims where before their time.

Read:
en.wikipedia.org...

The major juristic schools of Islam have historically accepted the institution of slavery.[1] Muhammad and those of the Sahabah (companions) who could afford it themselves owned slaves, freed many, and some of them acquired more from prisoners of war. Arabian slaves did benefit from the Islamic dispensations, which enormously improved their position through the reforms of a humanitarian tendency both at the time of Muhammad and the later early caliphs.[1] In Sharia (Islamic law), the topic of Islam and slavery is covered at great length. The legal legislations brought two major changes to the practice of slavery inherited from antiquity, from Ancient Rome, and from the Byzantine Empire, which were to have far-reaching effects.[1] The Qur'an considers emancipation of a slave to be a highly meritorious deed, or as a condition of repentance for many sins. The Qur'an and Hadith contain numerous passages supporting this view. Muslim jurists considered slavery to be an exceptional circumstance, with the basic assumption of freedom until proven otherwise. Furthermore, as opposed to pre-Islamic slavery, enslavement was limited to two scenarios: capture in war, or birth to two slave parents (birth to parents where one was free and the other not so would render the offspring free).[2]



Muhammad encouraged manumission of slaves, even if one had to purchase them first. Traditional biographies of Muhammad give many examples where Muhammad's companions, at his direction, freed slaves in abundance. Abul Ala Maududi reports that Muhammad freed as many as 63 slaves.[3] Meer Ismail, a medieval historian, writes in Buloogh al Muram that his household and friends freed 39,237 slaves.[4]




It was a practice and tradition of Muhammad to release from captivity those females who would face the risk of being disgraced or humiliated as a result of being held as captives or slaves, and those who came from respected backgrounds that were known for their philanthropic contributions to the general masses, regardless if their charitable deeds benefited Muslims or non-Muslims.



You are just wrong Lucifer, you are not telling the truth!


"Muhammad encouraged manumission of slaves, even if one had to purchase them first. Traditional biographies of Muhammad give many examples where Muhammad's companions, at his direction, freed slaves in abundance."
edit on 11-2-2011 by inforeal because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-2-2011 by inforeal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
I want readers to see this and read it carefully on how ancient Islam and Muhammad dealt with slavery that refutes Lucifer’s posts.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Qur'an considers emancipation of a slave to be a highly meritorious deed, or as a condition of repentance for many sins. The Qur'an and Hadith contain numerous passages supporting this view.



Muhammad encouraged manumission [Freeing ones own slaves] of slaves, even if one had to purchase them first. Traditional biographies of Muhammad give many examples where Muhammad's companions, at his direction, freed slaves in abundance. Abul Ala Maududi reports that Muhammad freed as many as 63 slaves.[3] Meer Ismail, a medieval historian, writes in Buloogh al Muram that his household and friends freed 39,237 slaves.[4]


www.globalwebpost.com...


The existence of slavery is an ancient condition. It existed long before the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad, starting in 610 C.E. What is interesting is comparing the depiction of slavery in the Qur'an to the Old and New Testament. In these older Jewish and Christian holy texts, a specific plan to eliminate the human bondage of our temporal present is never discussed. The Qur'an, on the other hand, not only recognized the immorality of slavery in seventh century Arabia, but sought to end it. The plan to do so is both implicit and explicit. To recognize this is to respect the Islamic attempt, in the name of Allah, to destroy an evil custom nearly thirteen centuries before America would legally and politically do the same.




The Qur'an is a pragmatic book. It recognizes that a negative institution that is deeply part of Arabic culture could not be eliminated instantly, with a single surah: "Slavery was widely prevalent in Arabia at the time of the advent of Islam, and the Arab economy was based on it" (Hassan 374). Instead, repetition of thoughts is often used that either collectively make God's plan apparent, or build from criticism to condemnation. An example of the latter is how the Qur'an gradually forbids the consumption of intoxicating substances



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 

Religion is Paganism. It is the belief that if
you sacrifice something or someone to this
imaginary God you will receive some benefit.
It is also a childish adaption to life.
Their God is viewed as a parent is viewed by
a child. Atheism is adolescent rebellion.
All religions are political terrorist cults.
Unfortunately that is the level that most
humans are at. The next level is that of spiritual self sacrifice which most people have no interest in. Since most people identify themselves with their thinking mind, if you attack their thoughts they take it as a personal attack. There is no way out for these people.
Communism was tried and didnt work either in
eliminating this religious insanity.
I hope you dont get banned, as it looks like they
are after you already.
The New World Teaching has been given,but very
few accept it. God help us.

edit on 12-2-2011 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucifer777
When I describe the defenders of the Biblical deity as having the psychology of "genocidal psychopaths" I certainly mean to give offence, just as any philosopher in a debate would try to ruthlessly attack the "ideas" and "character" of an opponent, and I hope that I "do" give offence, but this is not merely an arbitrary insult, as a child would throw in a playground; I consider it "fair game" to describe those who would defend a sadistic and genocidal definition of a deity as being psychologically sadistic and genocidal themselves.


If you MEAN to give offence and attack the character of your fellow members rather than just the ideas they may hold dear, then perhaps ATS is not the best place for you.

Remember the T&C's?

16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

edit on 12/2/11 by masqua because: bbcode edit



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Why is your name Lucifer777?



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Contrarianism i'm guessing


Or Irony - An Atheist with a deity within his name.

It's just a word, a word that man's created, i doubt his intentions were to offend the God squad.

Maybe i'm wrong xD






top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join