Four questions for Christians

[Minimalist]

The missionaries came along with the Spanish conquistadors in 1942.

No, but close...assuming you meant to type 1492 and not 1942.

We actually know the names and professions of Columbus' first crew and none were priests or monks or whatever.

http://www.christopher-columbus.eu/ships-crew.htm

Christopher Columbus' crew on the first voyage were from small towns in from Andalucia, and nearly all experienced seamen. The Spanish Sovereigns offered amnesty to convicts who signed up for the voyage, but only four men took up the offer: one who had killed a man in a fight, and three of his friends who then helped him escape from jail.

However, the priests most assuredly were along on the much larger Second Voyage in 1493... along with other vermin to foul up the Americas.

[LeoVonFrost]

Religion has been used many times to control people with large-scale results. That does not take away from the integrity of religion or its ability to do good.

That is exactly what it takes away. To forget the ways that people have been manipulated into genocidal tendencies throughout history is very dangerous for us as a species.

To say that the first thing the Spanish monarchy thought of when she heard of an enormous landmass full of people across the sea was turning them into Christians would be like saying that the goal of the Crusades was to evangelize.

Christanity was used as a crutch to butcher 97 % of the population of South America with war and disease, the question of whether or not conversion was the purpose is actually moot considering conversion is every good christian's duty. Were there christians on the boats? yes. Did they build a church and start conversion shortly after they landed? It is reasonable to believe so.

They were weak labels that were given to get people's support.

And they still are.

"H.E.J. Cowdrey, a well respected scholar whom I often look to for council, claims Pope Urban II saw the defense of the Byzantine Empire as a primary reason for calling for the First Crusade. If our Christian brothers to the east can see how strong our faith is in the Lord, then they will be persuaded to adopt our views and be brought back into the light."

If it was defense then why did they murder 10,000 jews on the way to Jerusalem? This is along the lines of your argument that "Jew" applies to race along with religion to which I have to say I admire your skewed point of view, it must be so easy to accept everything according to your own rule. I don't see the difference. I find it hard to see a reality where Hitler didn't persecute the religion of the jews, but simply their race.

However, Hitler did have some Christian motives. He drew back on his Catholic upbringing and his German heritage to become an antisemite. It's not hard to use the Bible that way.

Yes, you are correct. I understand that people will do individual immoral things with or without god, but I am positing that exclusively with religion is the control of genocide on such an epic scale. 270+million dead under the cruel regime of christianity and you can't help but apologize for it because your god cannot. It's rather sad.

[Consilius]

Religion has been used many times to control people with large-scale results. That does not take away from the integrity of religion or its ability to do good.

That is exactly what it takes away. To forget the ways that people have been manipulated into genocidal tendencies throughout history is very dangerous for us as a species.

To say that the first thing the Spanish monarchy thought of when she heard of an enormous landmass full of people across the sea was turning them into Christians would be like saying that the goal of the Crusades was to evangelize.

Christanity was used as a crutch to butcher 97 % of the population of South America with war and disease, the question of whether or not conversion was the purpose is actually moot considering conversion is every good christian's duty. Were there christians on the boats? yes. Did they build a church and start conversion shortly after they landed? It is reasonable to believe so.

They were weak labels that were given to get people's support.

And they still are.

"H.E.J. Cowdrey, a well respected scholar whom I often look to for council, claims Pope Urban II saw the defense of the Byzantine Empire as a primary reason for calling for the First Crusade. If our Christian brothers to the east can see how strong our faith is in the Lord, then they will be persuaded to adopt our views and be brought back into the light."

If it was defense then why did they murder 10,000 jews on the way to Jerusalem? This is along the lines of your argument that "Jew" applies to race along with religion to which I have to say I admire your skewed point of view, it must be so easy to accept everything according to your own rule. I don't see the difference. I find it hard to see a reality where Hitler didn't persecute the religion of the jews, but simply their race.

However, Hitler did have some Christian motives. He drew back on his Catholic upbringing and his German heritage to become an antisemite. It's not hard to use the Bible that way.

Yes, you are correct. I understand that people will do individual immoral things with or without god, but I am positing that exclusively with religion is the control of genocide on such an epic scale. 270+million dead under the cruel regime of christianity and you can't help but apologize for it because your god cannot. It's rather sad.

I'm not making up excuses for anything. Christianity has been used around the world to commit atrocities. And God was there, watching, this brings up the question of evil.
But I see something inspiring in the fact that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. used the same holy book that Hitler used to massacre by the thousands, that the Pope had used to separate Christians from 'heathens', to bring people together and make them into equals.
Under religion, people have died, and under the same banner, people have followed what is in the Bible to the letter. We see Hitler and Urban all the time because the monsters of history get our attention. For centuries after Jesus, people peacefully died in thousands because of the faith that Chrisitianity prescribed. Joan of Arc saved the nation of France. Maximilian Kolbe was a priest who died protecting Jews in the Holocaust. But under every king, thousands of people have lived and died doing what Christianity is, and that was by simple being the Christians God wanted them to be.

[The Grand Nudger]

For whatever reason 'eye for and eye' existed in the ancient world, you can take that up with an ancient law court.

Couldn't care less, and does nothing to offer a defense of the principle.

The reason the Tenth Plague disturbs you

Bzzt, full stop. The tenth plague doesn't disturb me any more than the zombie apocalypse in Resident Evil disturbs me. What disturbs me... is your compulsion to defend the narrative.

is because you see God killing children for what their parents did. Yes, God did kill children, and their parents bore the consequences of no longer having their firstborn child.

.
Indeed, and the children bore the consequences of being dead.

You would argue that killing the parents would have been a better idea.

No, there's no argument going on here. For there to be some kind of argument you'd have to offer a coherent position. You have not done so, I've explained why. I -do- find it amusing though, that when you go imagining alternatives they still involve killing somebody. Got"s to be somebody somewhere needs some killin. Amiright?

But the Egyptians didn't destroy the lives of grown Israelite men and women, but killed their children.

They did neither, but it wouldn't matter if they had.

You can imagine a parent wanting to die in place of a child. He or she would have to live with the grief. In the ancient world, it was a double blow because the propagation of a family name, which was much more important to them than it is to us (sleeping with slaves serious), was rendered hopeless. The Egyptians hadn't granted the Israelites death, but rather a much more painful blow. God followed their example.

I certainly don't care, because
A: none of this happened - and
B: it wouldn't matter if it had.

In the very same ancient law, reciprocation of offenses was well understood as a punishment to the parents and not the children. The flaw with this is that the children will still feel pain, and therefore be punished for nothing. If God is a perfect judge, why wouldn't we expect that he punish everyone exactly accoriding to their sins? For the Egyptian boys, no punishment at all. For their parents, exactly what they had been giving Israelite parents for the past 80 years or so. The Egyptians died in their sleep and went to heaven.

LOL, love the way you can't help but sneak that one in there. Been tried before. Still don;t care, for the same reasons as above.

The Israelite babies were drowned in rivers. And yes, the Egyptian boys still died, and God killed them.

Same as above, a and b.

It's inescapable because you refuse to let go of what was, from the outset, a failure. It's clear that you have a problem with this narrative yourself, you've spent the time trying to make excuses for it. Unfortunately, nothing you can offer which begins with this appeal is going to work. Try something else.

[Consilius]

For whatever reason 'eye for and eye' existed in the ancient world, you can take that up with an ancient law court.

Couldn't care less, and does nothing to offer a defense of the principle.

The reason the Tenth Plague disturbs you

Bzzt, full stop. The tenth plague doesn't disturb me any more than the zombie apocalypse in Resident Evil disturbs me. What disturbs me... is your compulsion to defend the narrative.

is because you see God killing children for what their parents did. Yes, God did kill children, and their parents bore the consequences of no longer having their firstborn child.

.
Indeed, and the children bore the consequences of being dead.

You would argue that killing the parents would have been a better idea.

No, there's no argument going on here. For there to be some kind of argument you'd have to offer a coherent position. You have not done so, I've explained why. I -do- find it amusing though, that when you go imagining alternatives they still involve killing somebody. Got"s to be somebody somewhere needs some killin. Amiright?

But the Egyptians didn't destroy the lives of grown Israelite men and women, but killed their children.

They did neither, but it wouldn't matter if they had.

You can imagine a parent wanting to die in place of a child. He or she would have to live with the grief. In the ancient world, it was a double blow because the propagation of a family name, which was much more important to them than it is to us (sleeping with slaves serious), was rendered hopeless. The Egyptians hadn't granted the Israelites death, but rather a much more painful blow. God followed their example.

I certainly don't care, because
A: none of this happened - and
B: it wouldn't matter if it had.

In the very same ancient law, reciprocation of offenses was well understood as a punishment to the parents and not the children. The flaw with this is that the children will still feel pain, and therefore be punished for nothing. If God is a perfect judge, why wouldn't we expect that he punish everyone exactly accoriding to their sins? For the Egyptian boys, no punishment at all. For their parents, exactly what they had been giving Israelite parents for the past 80 years or so. The Egyptians died in their sleep and went to heaven.

LOL, love the way you can't help but sneak that one in there. Been tried before. Still don;t care, for the same reasons as above.

The Israelite babies were drowned in rivers. And yes, the Egyptian boys still died, and God killed them.

Same as above, a and b.

It's inescapable because you refuse to let go of what was, from the outset, a failure. It's clear that you have a problem with this narrative yourself, you've spent the time trying to make excuses for it. Unfortunately, nothing you can offer which begins with this appeal is going to work. Try something else.

Simply put:
there are no consequences to being dead if you're in paradise.

As I have said before, the Egyptians started killing people all on their own (Exodus 1:22). Possibly God could hae let the Pharaoh off with a stern warning, just like in our modern justice system.

[Minimalist]

If it was defense then why did they murder 10,000 jews on the way to Jerusalem?

Practice.

[The Grand Nudger]

Simply put:
there are no consequences to being dead if you're in paradise.

Simply put and simply wrong. You are still dead, and the justification you gave for this death was still the act of a moral ,midget. That doesn't change, no matter how many lolipops "god" gives the kiddies. If I hit you in the jaw then bought you a beer, maybe we could be buddies eh? Course...I -will- always be the guy that hit you in the jaw..won't I? Try again.

As I have said before, the Egyptians started killing people all on their own (Exodus 1:22). Possibly God could hae let the Pharaoh off with a stern warning, just like in our modern justice system.

God could have done many things (depending on what one believes about a god) - but this is irrelevant:

-in the narrative and your excuse for the narrative, what "god" -did-, was intellectually and morally bankrupt.

[Minimalist]

As I have said before, the Egyptians started killing people all on their own (Exodus 1:22).

There is no evidence whatsoever that there were any "Hebrews" enslaved in Egypt.

[Consilius]

I am debating morality in the Bible, and that is an argument on the historical validity of the Bible.
But, as long as you are on that topic, where DID the Israelites come from and what were they doing during the time they allegedly lived in Egypt? The Bible has a lot of secular information in it too, and I think the Israelites could be trusted with their own history.

---

Simply put:
there are no consequences to being dead if you're in paradise.

Simply put and simply wrong. You are still dead, and the justification you gave for this death was still the act of a moral ,midget. That doesn't change, no matter how many lolipops "god" gives the kiddies. If I hit you in the jaw then bought you a beer, maybe we could be buddies eh? Course...I -will- always be the guy that hit you in the jaw..won't I? Try again.

Gladly.
The Egyptians, unlike the Israelites, didn't die violently, and then went on to infinite joy. The thing about heaven is that it surpasses every other want or desire (as Christians believe).
So, potential problems of being dead are:
Pain in death, which was nonexistent.
Missing your parents, which infinite joy blots out.
Not getting to be a lawyer or a doctor or a pharaoh, which infinite joy blots out.
So, which one of these ambitions is so special, or which sorrow is so deep, that God couldn't possibly compensate for with spending eternity in his prescence.

As I have said before, the Egyptians started killing people all on their own (Exodus 1:22). Possibly God could hae let the Pharaoh off with a stern warning, just like in our modern justice system.

God could have done many things (depending on what one believes about a god) - but this is irrelevant:

-in the narrative and your excuse for the narrative, what "god" -did-, was intellectually and morally bankrupt.


You can't calculate the equivalent of having lost a child. But, say you could, by observing pain sensors in the brain or something. A governmental law that says that identity theives should have their toes cut off just sounds unfair.
By reciprocating the actions of the Egyptians according to Egyptian law, it was impossible for the Egyptians to even imagine that they had been punished unfairly. God wanted them to know that they had been judged for what they did, and had not simply had slaves stolen from them or been attacked by a demon.

[fr0d0]

It is becomingi clear to me that moral relativism is every bit as real to Christians as it is to us. To a Christian (especially the Waldorfs and fraudos of the world) there is no such thing as a moral act or an immoral act; whether an action is good or evil depends entirely upon who is doing it.

You contradict yourself in this post.

Firstly. Secular morality is exactly as you say, and you and I are both subject to it. I will fight against it where I see a higher moral standard. (assuming your fight against it wouldn't be confronting the zeitgeist, but progressing it along with the rest of us).

Secondly, we're making no exceptions for God. God hasn't been shown as a murderer. Genocide (death on a large scale) is no more exempt from justice than killing one person. Your claims are unfounded.

---

Bloody hell, this thread should be retitled "Four questions for Christians to avoid answering."

Atheists here are dodging the responsibility for their claim that God is evil as revealed in the bible. Not one has stepped up to the mark, because the position is indefensible.

Ryan was afraid to put the real question as the threads title, and instead chose a non descript and unsearchable generic one.

Much arm waving insisting that the people making no claims should bear the burden of proof is going on. But no one is honest enough to say that such a claim is nonsense, and withdraw it.