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.

[Huggy Bear]

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

O the irony. It will be apparent by the end of this post...

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.

I don't know how to make it any simpler, you are a Christian by what you do, not what you say. If one claims to be a Christian but thier action say otherwise, then they are a hypocrite and not a Christian.

Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

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?

You remember the story of the passover? how the Hebrews marked their door posts with blood so the angel of death would pass over their house? It didn't matter who you were as long as the blood was on the door, you were safe.

True were are all sinners, except that Christ died to take away the sin of the world, so that all who will accept his sacrifice, receive his spirit. By receiving his spirit, you are passed over for judgement, because God doesn't see you he see Christ, which is perfection. So in this way we are made perfect.

The reason a Christian cannot sin is, (without going in too much detail) that the root of sin is unbelief.

For instance, if a person, who does not believe in God commits adultery, that is a sin.
If a person who claims to believe in God commits adultery, because he knows better it is no longer sin, it is iniquity (worse).

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

No.
Being a Christian is verifiable by how one conducts themselves, as you quoted earlier.

I've seen it so often in my life that I regard sincere Christians who put their proclaimed beliefs into action as incredibly rare.

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.

First of all, this all started under Thomas Jefferson, whom atheists argue was not a Christian...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars

The United States continued to gain title to Native American land after the Treaty of Greenville, at a rate that created alarm in Indian communities.[citation needed] In 1800, William Henry Harrison became governor of the Indiana Territory and, under the direction of President Thomas Jefferson, pursued an aggressive policy of obtaining titles to Indian lands. Two Shawnee brothers, Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa, organized Tecumseh's War, another pan-tribal resistance to American expansion.

And like I said, you're talking about government policy, not church.

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

No, what i've been saying this whole time is " never was a scotsman in the first place"

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.

what are you even talking about? remember what I said about irony? What I said was..

atheists are worse than the Nazis ( since they had a much, much higher body count), you agree?

as far as I know, stalin wasn't around in 1492...
According to this site http://www.scottmanning.com/content/comm...ody-count/ Communist (read athiest) regimes have a body count of 149,469,610 people, and that's during a period of only 80 years or so. 400 years and only 45 million? thats rank amateurism.

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".

You have a lot to learn about racism. a quote from the afore mention Thomas Jefferson

“This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”

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.

Oh so the Atheist atrocities are irrelevant now? I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy, Pot can't call kettle black.

The Bible clearly states that these people would exist. I don't worry about what someone else does in the name of God actually, that has nothing to do with me.

John 16:2
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

[FifthElement]

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

It is a historical FACT (it was especially brutal in South America).

Convert or die was the policy then, and, yes, government shut the eye blind because they thought that converting natives to Christianity is the best plan to "civilize" them (in other words make it easier to fully colonize everything without a lot of resistance).

Religious missionaries were always a bad news to any native population anywhere in the world, period, always about "helping" by destroying native cultures and and establishing the copy of their own, how fucking convenient