If Only The Romans

[abaris]

Were the Amalekites better off dying quickly by the sword or dying in the way most people do?

What's that even supposed to mean?

A natural death is certainly preferable than being slaughtered to the last child by a raving band of goat fucking savages.

[Lek]

I tend to agree that Hitler didn't give much about catholicism, but not for the reasons you give. He was certainly not an atheist and invoked the Lord not only in public speeches but also in his writings and in private company.

It's also worth noting that he was the accepted leader of Germany by protestants as well as Catholics because of the fundamental bullshit in the bible of every leader being sent by god.

Also I would like your take on figures such as Ante Pavelic and his theocracy in Croatia with monks running his concentration camps. And there's of course good old Francisco Franco in Spain, darling boy of the church and a rather weak one at that, since he only managed to kill 250.000 people.

Let's also not forget Augusto Pinochet in Chile, who managed to kill about the same number. Brought to the poor chilenian people courtesy of the USA and supported by the church, since he was a good catholic.

The list could be continued.

Give me a break! Are you telling me that Franco killed 250,000 people in Spain because he was a catholic? The same with Pavelic and Pinochet.

[abaris]

Give me a break! Are you telling me that Franco killed 250,000 people in Spain because he was a catholic? The same with Pavelic and Pinochet.

Not because but in spite. And there goes your argument of no christian killing, since the love thy neighbour bullshit exists.

And I guess, now Josef Stalin and Pol Pot didn't kill people because they were atheists, or is there suddenly a double standard?

[Lek]

Obviously you're not grasping the point: unreasonable dogmas often succeed to the detriment of scientific principles and sound moral philosophy, and this is sometimes reflected in the worship of state leaders believed to be endowed with otherworldly powers or an individual's personal deity. The advantage of atheist tyrants is that their ideas tend to subsequently die when the madman does, an outcome much more difficult to achieve when a religious tradition with thousands of years of ingrained superstition is involved.

Kark Marx's anti-religious stance has led to more murders and persecution through communist governments than I care to count and still goes on to this day.

---

It's not so much about God being pissed , but that the price for sin has now been paid.

I'm afraid to even ask, but you mean the god sacrificing himself to god part again?

Yes.

---

Were the Amalekites better off dying quickly by the sword or dying in the way most people do?

What's that even supposed to mean?

A natural death is certainly preferable than being slaughtered to the last child by a raving band of goat fucking savages.

I don't agree with you. I'd rather die that way than from a long painful illness. What I'm trying to say is that we all have received the death sentence from God, not just the Amalekites. The new testament God allows us to die in worse ways that the Amalekites or those who drowned in the great flood. Did those who died in the typhoon that hit the Philippines die in a worse way? What I'm saying is that God has control over life and death. Although you don't believe in God, you believe that the christian God is a monster. Christians believe that our suffering is because of our sin and that because Jesus paid the price for our sins, we will receive eternal life of happiness. That's what the bible teaches about God. You have your opinion about God, but it's not what the bible teaches.

---

Have you taken a look at modern atheist leaders, rather than just the few that happen to agree with the position you've already accepted? Australia had an atheist leader for a while: no murders. Or, hell, you can actually, like, look back into the past and see plenty of leaders who weren't the three you theists always seem to pick: Here's a list. It took me five minutes to find. So how dare you pretend that those three examples- none of whom committed their atrocities in the name of atheism- are perfectly representative? Doesn't that seem a little.... dishonest, to you?

But because I'm not one to be dishonest in service to my ideological presuppositions, let me take a minute to help you out using the research you evidently didn't want to do yourself. If you wanted to find an atheist who actually was a poor leader in service to atheism (it's a debatable point, but possibly the strongest example in your favor I've come across) here's Enver Hoxha of Albania, who turned his country into an atheist state and arrested priests and religious practitioners for show trials. This is as close as you will come, in my experience, to an atheist leader whose human rights violations can be directly tied to his atheism. I give you this so that maybe you and your fellow presuppositional knuckleheads (don't think I haven't noticed that you've also defined "true christianity" by only positive attributes. That's some prime fiat dishonesty there) can at least be historically accurate when you try to misrepresent the history of atheism in politics. It's on me.

I also saw a list of some modern day atheist leaders and I granted that atheists can be good leaders of nations. I also said the same thing about christian leaders. "True" christianity does only have positive attributes, but that's not true for christains. Some act better than others. I'm not going to bother giving you a list of good christian leaders of nations.

---

Give me a break! Are you telling me that Franco killed 250,000 people in Spain because he was a catholic? The same with Pavelic and Pinochet.

Not because but in spite. And there goes your argument of no christian killing, since the love thy neighbour bullshit exists.

And I guess, now Josef Stalin and Pol Pot didn't kill people because they were atheists, or is there suddenly a double standard?

I retract my general statement about atheist leaders. Some do and some don't. I'll even say that a true christian can murder, but he is acting against the teachings of christianity. In the same way as an atheist can espouse good morality and murder someone, therefore acting against what he accepts as right.

---

So... we shouldn't use god, or the heroes of the old testament, as role models? I guess it's a step in the right direction. Not as good as them never having been mass killers in the first place, but... baby steps.

Most of the old testament heros had huge moral flaws, so I wouldn't want to emulate all of their behavior. I can't use God as a role model in all ways because he is a different being than I am. I do use God in the person of Jesus as a role model for humanity.

Whew! I'm tired.

[Minimalist]

There were no Amalekites. They were written into the story to be the 'bad guys.'

[h4ym4n]

Were the Amalekites better off dying quickly by the sword or dying in the way most people do?

Well then by that line of reasoning you should be all for abortion, right?

Aborted baby souls go right to jesus, not having to live a life of temptation. Not a chance of going to hell.


You do know the slaughter of the Amalekites was for what happened generations ago, right?

jesus and his revenge hit. forgetaboutit!

[Esquilax]

I also saw a list of some modern day atheist leaders and I granted that atheists can be good leaders of nations.

Which was why you brought up the dictators at all, right. Your entire point disappears if you weren't trying to intimate that atheist leaders were more likely to be immoral by default, so don't try to backpedal now.

"True" christianity does only have positive attributes, but that's not true for christains. Some act better than others.

But that's not true, or else "true" christianity would require you to ignore any bad thing that was ever said in the new testament. Jesus was all for slavery, and following his example would lead one to ignore all pleas for help from those not of the tribe of Israel (who were like dogs, in Jesus' own words), so are you for those things? Or is "true" christianity about following Jesus except where Jesus did and said immoral things, in which case aren't you just using your own morality and then giving the credit to the book you're having to outright ignore, just to call it good?

[abaris]

Kark Marx's anti-religious stance has led to more murders and persecution through communist governments than I care to count and still goes on to this day.

Yes, I'm sure that's what you want to believe. But Marx only mentioned religion once. In his work "A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right". In 1843. And it's a simple criticism, not a call for it's abolishment. The most famous quote by Karl Marx is also pretty much the only one on the subject.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

[Tonus]

No one has ever answered the question that I keep asking. Were the Amalekites better off dying quickly by the sword or dying in the way most people do?

You mean were they better off dying piecemeal due to age, injury, sickness, or starvation while continuing to reproduce and maintain or grow their population, or was it better to be massacred by an invading army of religious zealots who might leave some of them alive for purposes of slavery and rape?

I'm thinking the former is a much better option, to be honest.

[Lek]

Were the Amalekites better off dying quickly by the sword or dying in the way most people do?

Well then by that line of reasoning you should be all for abortion, right?

Aborted baby souls go right to jesus, not having to live a life of temptation. Not a chance of going to hell.


You do know the slaughter of the Amalekites was for what happened generations ago, right?

jesus and his revenge hit. forgetaboutit!

No, I'm not for abortion or any other murder. The slaughter of the Amalekites was to rid the Israelites of their biggest enemy who was bent on destroying Israel. Israel had been chosen to bring forth the messiah. There was no revenge involved. Christ died for the Amalekites, as well as for the Israelites.