Are all Christians blindly hypocritical?

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen


As for your list? "Al Qaeda", "Arab-Israeli Wars", "Vietnam", these are religious conflicts? Are you kidding me?

 


Arab-Israeli is not Muslim vs. Jew? Wow. Here I thought those were religions...

Vietnam was 1800, not 1950s/60s.


1850
Viet rulers persecute Catholics and priests, inciting French military intervention.
1859
France captures Saigon, extends control to Laos and Cambodia, forming French Indochina.
1880
France divides up Vietnam into three regions: Tonkin, Annam, Cochin China. French use water management to open new agricultural land in Mekong Delta.


www.learnnc.org...

Catholics in Vietnam:


. During Nguyễn Ánh's subsequent rule as Emperor Gia Long, the Catholic faith was permitted unimpeded missionary activities out of his respect to his benefactors.[33] By the time of the Emperor's accession in 1802, Vietnam had 3 Catholic dioceses with 320,000 members and over 120 Vietnamese priests.[34]
According to the Catholic Hierarchy Catalog, there are currently 5,658,000 Catholics in Vietnam, representing 6.87% of the total population.[35]


en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Anybody and everybody can be a hypocrite,

most everyone is a hypocrite



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen


The findings there are that there were only three major conflicts that were entirely due to religion, and 60% of all conflict have ZERO religious influence.


 


It's not just about religious influence, it's about religious acceptance. About people's willingness to get manipulated politically because the enemy is of a different religion. In Islam, they're infidels. In Christianity, they're non-believers.

Religion is a tool for politics.

Muslim Conquests.

Crusades.

30 years war. Protestants and Catholics.

The list continues on forever. Religion is a tool that justifies war. The only way to justify war in a political system is either through an extremely confusing government with massive propaganda abilities (The US justifying war with Iraq) , or a dictatorship. The rest use religious arguments, or appeal to religious people through to support or be apathetic to the chosen enemies cause.

Yet, even in todays system where there is supposed to be separation of church and state, Bush still used god in his war speeches.

I think people would have a lot less problem with religion if it was entirely kept out of politics. But it was created as tool for politicians.. So I don't see that happening.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen


It is patently obvious that what religion someone was "raised in" has absolutely no bearing on their later behaviour. The vast majority of Americans was "raised as" Christians, but do we see Christ-like behaviour rampant in the United States? Of course not.


 


Ah okay, so upbringing and your life experience during the formative years means absolutely nothing. Thanks for the wisdom. I may as well deprive my children of everything I planned on giving them, sticking to the basic necessities because it costs less. And as you say, their younger years mean nothing...



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by adjensen


As for your list? "Al Qaeda", "Arab-Israeli Wars", "Vietnam", these are religious conflicts? Are you kidding me?

 


Arab-Israeli is not Muslim vs. Jew? Wow. Here I thought those were religions...


The Arab-Israeli conflict is a political one, as is almost everything else on that list, including 1800 Vietnam. Israel exists because the UK took land away from the Palestinians and gave it to the Israelis, and the Palestinians and their allies have been trying to get the land back ever since.

Study some history -- almost all conflicts are over resources, not beliefs.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Question: "Are all Christians blindly hypocritical?"

Answer: "Of course not."

Easy answer to a question that is blatantly baiting the Christian conservatives on ATS.

Way to draw them out Dynamike - good work.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by adjensen


The findings there are that there were only three major conflicts that were entirely due to religion, and 60% of all conflict have ZERO religious influence.


 


It's not just about religious influence, it's about religious acceptance. About people's willingness to get manipulated politically because the enemy is of a different religion. In Islam, they're infidels. In Christianity, they're non-believers.

Religion is a tool for politics.

Muslim Conquests.

Crusades.

30 years war. Protestants and Catholics.

The list continues on forever.


Um... no it doesn't. The three wars that you've cited are the only ones that the War Audit found were solely caused by religion. More than half of the historical conflicts studied had ZERO religious influence, and the vast majority had little to none. The claim that religion is the cause of most conflicts is an ignorant and lazy one, made by people with an agenda and little knowledge of history and politics.


Yet, even in todays system where there is supposed to be separation of church and state, Bush still used god in his war speeches.


I don't know where you're getting your definition of the First Amendment from, but it restricts Congress from establishing a state religion, or restricting the practice of any faith -- it doesn't say "You must be governed by the irreligious."



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen


Saying that Stalin, Hitler or Castro were Christians simply because their parents were is baseless and ignorant.

 


Below, quotes from Hitler:


"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth!"

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)


www.nobeliefs.com...

Stalin was going be a priest:


Stalin was raised very religious in the Greek Orthodox Church. He was named after Saint Joseph and was raised to be a priest. His father was a priest and young Joseph spent five years in a Greek Orthodox seminary.1


But I'm ignorant saying he was raised a Christian? Huh?

Perhaps if religious people didn't use their religion as a cover than people wouldn't be so mind-snip-ed by them, they wouldn't grow up wanting to take over the world?


But Stalin’s father beat him mercilessly, and Stalin once described his childhood as having been “raised in a poor priest-ridden household.”1 Perhaps this contributed to his decision to become a Marxist revolutionary.


-

And then Castro? I never said anything about Castro.
edit on 11-12-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by adjensen


It is patently obvious that what religion someone was "raised in" has absolutely no bearing on their later behaviour. The vast majority of Americans was "raised as" Christians, but do we see Christ-like behaviour rampant in the United States? Of course not.


 


Ah okay, so upbringing and your life experience during the formative years means absolutely nothing. Thanks for the wisdom. I may as well deprive my children of everything I planned on giving them, sticking to the basic necessities because it costs less. And as you say, their younger years mean nothing...


When did I say that it means nothing?

I said that claiming that someone was a Christian simply because they were born into that faith is irrational. Teaching someone right from wrong doesn't mean that they'll always choose to do right, does it? Of course not, so because of that you think that you shouldn't teach them right from wrong?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Just want to add that atheism has not led to atrocities like religion has caused.

The fact that Stalin was an atheist has nothing to do with what he did. He happened to be atheist, but that was not a factor in his murdering people. We can say that moustaches caused atrocities if that were the case. Having two legs caused atrocities.

What the OP is talking about, is religion being the sole driving force behind the fanaticism. Atheism does not lead to this. Atheism is the antithesis of fanaticism.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Hitler used religion as a tool of manipulation and was not a practicing Catholic after his childhood. See The Essential Hitler: Speeches and Commentary for the conflict between his public and private comments on religion. It is generally accepted that Hitler and the Nazis in general were occultists, not Christians.

Stalin studied to be a priest? Who cares -- he didn't become one, and if you want to claim that the secular law of the Soviet Union was a result of Christian doctrine, you'd better go find some proof of it.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen


Um... no it doesn't. The three wars that you've cited are the only ones that the War Audit found were solely caused by religion.

 


Well that's not entirely accurate because 2 of those were not "one war" but many. The Vietnam example is a good one. But as I said earlier religion is a tool used by politics. Without religion you have a dictatorship, or a feudal rule. Religion is just a means to get the masses on board with political wars/opinons/objectives. The Romans figured it out quickly. Look at religion during the roman times, and the actions of the government, and you will see the purpose of religion...

I see it as something that enables war, rather than causes it. But it help instigate it as well.




I don't know where you're getting your definition of the First Amendment from, but it restricts Congress from establishing a state religion, or restricting the practice of any faith -- it doesn't say "You must be governed by the irreligious."


There is no reason for an acting president to bring religion into politics. But it's the same thing. Religion = Politics. The religious people just don't see it. Don't see that they are manipulated for politics.

If you are truly spiritual, believe in a religion, fine. But you need not discuss it or demonstrate it publicly. You can do it in the privacy of your own home. It is after all, your relationship with god. Not with a man made syndicate claiming to represent him.

All you ever needed to know about religion, you can learn from this movie.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
It is always the same old argument,


The Christians of today are different, I haven't had any accost me, or tell me I am going to hell since my mom died,



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by boncho
 


Hitler used religion as a tool of manipulation and was not a practicing Catholic after his childhood. See The Essential Hitler: Speeches and Commentary for the conflict between his public and private comments on religion. It is generally accepted that Hitler and the Nazis in general were occultists, not Christians.

Stalin studied to be a priest? Who cares -- he didn't become one, and if you want to claim that the secular law of the Soviet Union was a result of Christian doctrine, you'd better go find some proof of it.


Okay, well just point me to all the mass murdering people who were raised by atheists please. That is how this came about, supposedly atheism killed more people than religious did.

Although we've clearly seen that most of those people in that list were raised under some religion. It should be easy to just point out a few that were raised by atheists or agnostics...

Or people that were atheist. Atheist being they rationally looked at the possibility of god and didn't see enough evidence to believe in it. Although, this is going to be hard because the non belief in god does not govern your actions. Why should it?

In Stalin's case he was pushing a dictatorship and communism. He was a communist. Atheism is not political. Him deciding to do what he did simply because he didn't believe god exists, makes no sense whatsoever. His actions can only be aligned with some political movement or ideology which he believed justified them. (Communism).

And probably, the urge to take over the world, or the lust for power.

Religious people always want to peg atheism as a movement, or ideology. Or assume that without a belief in god, that people are capable and more inclined to do many terrible things. But it really is the complete opposite. The common theme behind atheists, is that they are responsible for their actions. If they make a choice to do something, its not "because they are an atheist" but "because they chose to do something"

Hopefully, the same rational mind that realizes without adequate proof to believe in a good, it is counterproductive, will be the same rationale that limits them to actions which are positive, rewarding or beneficial to themselves and the people that are around them.

But that's all you can really say about it...
edit on 11-12-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-12-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
Just want to add that atheism has not led to atrocities like religion has caused.

The fact that Stalin was an atheist has nothing to do with what he did. He happened to be atheist, but that was not a factor in his murdering people. We can say that moustaches caused atrocities if that were the case. Having two legs caused atrocities.


Yes, the ever useful "anything good done by atheists is due to atheism, and anything bad done by them is not due to atheism" argument.

You don't think that believing one is the highest power in the universe, as the atheist leader of one of the most powerful nations in existence would have, might not have the slightest impact on their decision making? Not at all?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen


You don't think that believing one is the highest power in the universe, as the atheist leader of one of the most powerful nations in existence would have, might not have the slightest impact on their decision making? Not at all?

 


This is a Christian nation."
-- Harry Truman

*Dropped two nuclear bombs, one on Hiroshima, one on Nagasaki.

Nope, pretty sure it doesn't make a difference. The difference is no one has started a war in the name of Atheism. Yes, in the name of Communism, but those are two separate things.

People fought wars because they believed in communism. People fought wars because they believed communists were out to get them. People fought wars because they believe in certain religions or felt their religion was threatened.

Atheism, it's hard to find examples of the same thing. Which is another reason why I really see religion no different than politics. The day that atheism becomes a movement with blind followers that will leap into conflict, is the day that it becomes something with no rational thought, and no better than religion itself.

edit on 11-12-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)


For clarification, atheism is not:

A religion.
A belief system.
A creed.
A philosophy.

atheism.about.com...

It's a personal opinion.
edit on 11-12-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I was raised in a pretty fundamentalist church. In my time there, I met 1 couple who personified what a christian should be. They were kind and generous. You could almost feel the love that they radiated outward to everyone. They didn't judge.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho


The day that atheism becomes a movement with blind followers that will leap into conflict, is the day that it becomes something with no rational thought, and no better than religion itself.

 



Atheist Suicide Bomber Kills Eighteen Agnostics



STOCKHOLM -In a frightening display of rising sectarian violence, an atheist suicide bomber blew himself up on a busy street in Stockholm three days ago; killing eighteen agnostics and wounding over thirty. Members of the ‘Swedish Atheistic Liberation Front’ (SALF) have claimed responsibility for the bombing. Declaring the attack as revenge against the explosive agnostic riots, which, last week, hospitalized several atheists and terrorized the atheistic community.


Hopefully we never see the above headlines.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I was raised in a pretty fundamentalist church. In my time there, I met 1 couple who personified what a christian should be. They were kind and generous. You could almost feel the love that they radiated outward to everyone. They didn't judge.



The ironic thing, is you don't need to go to church to meet those kinds of people.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





You don't think that believing one is the highest power in the universe...


You think that Atheist think that they are the highest power? lol, i thought this was going to be good discussion, i guess most indeed are brainwashed by pastors and religious websites.

Just because you believe in a "higher power" whatever that means, and when someone don't believe in that higher power does not automatically means that non believer is thinking he is a higher power.

Atheist just accept that no one is controlling your actions, its your action which causes reaction. So yeah, you won't hear excuses from Atheist like "devil made me do it " or "god would have wanted it this way" .. oh boy, how many murders has been linked to those lines.
edit on 12/11/2012 by luciddream because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join