Religious child abuse

[Thumpalumpacus]

Atheist's are always trying to insult someone intelligence, which is the reason for my signature btw.

I'm going by the evidence presented here. If you want to be regarded as intelligent, you'll need to post intelligently.

There is a word called "hypocrisy", you should look it up. It means:

"the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform"

So, if a person claims to be a Christian but does not follow the teachings of Christ, he is NOT a Christian but a hypocrite.

False dichotomy. A person can be both a Christian and a hypocrite. Indeed, I've seen it so often in my life that I regard sincere Christians who put their proclaimed beliefs into action as incredibly rare.

Indeed, the Bible clearly states that all men are fallen and cannot be perfect: they must be sinners. Yet here you are saying that Christians follow the teaching of Christ -- one of which is do not sin. So either there are no true Christians, or all of them are hypocrites. Which is it?

And by the way, just because you "consider" yourself to be something, does not make it true. If I "consider" myself to be President of the United States, does that make me President of the United States?

Poor analogy. Having a job is an objective fact verifiable by things like paycheck stubs. Claiming to believe in a religion is clearly subjective.

This is has nothing to do with religion, but the evils of colonization. America is hardly the only one guilty of this, Britain, France, Spain, Holland and Russia are guilty of this. The extermination of indigenous people was carried out by GOVERNMENTS not churches.

Wrong. The extermination of Native Americans was carried out by people. People who were overwhelmingly Christian.

Are you saying that the faith of those Christians was so weak that they didn't have the spine to say, "Wait, killing these folk because they're on land we want is wrong, and we shouldn't be doing this"? Well, that can't be a very compelling religious faith, then.

Or are you alleging that the European and American settlers were not overwhelmingly Christian? Then I'd suggest you get back to school and study a little.

The OP's video was saying that two people who disowned their daughter were exactly the same as the Taliban, and many of you agree, And YOU are trying to link atrocities perpetrated by "so-called" Christians to "real" Christians.

And just as I predicted, you are trotting out the No True Scotsman fallacy.

So using this logic, you're saying all Caucasians are guilty of the atrocities perpetrated against indigenous peoples, and atheists are worse than the Nazis ( since they had a much, much higher body count), you agree?

Firstly, the NaZis didn't have a higher body count, which is a fact you'd know if you had an education. Generally accepted is a population of about 50 million natives in 1492. In the next four hundred years, that declined by 90%, giving us a death toll of 45 million, roughly. Compare that to the NaZi's 11 million, and if you remember your math, you'll agree with me that you're wrong in this claim.

Secondly, we're not talking about the race of the settlers because race doesn't make for moral imperatives like "convert the native population of put them to the sword".

I can sure understand why you're trying to drag irrelevancies into this conversation, though; Christianity's history is one of consistently failing to even try to live up to the ideals of its namesake. If I were a Christian, I'd be embarrassed and ashamed of the evils perpetrated by those of my faith. Your obvious shame, going so far as to shun and excommunicate them in your own head, speaks so much about the evils done in your god's name.