If Only The Romans

[dyresand]

Well lek... those people who you mentioned who killed those theists in the name of atheism you say.
Didn't kill in the name of atheism those leaders killed those people for the fear of loosing power and killed for anyone
speaking out against them.

[Lek]

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.

I brought up those dictators because people were making generalizations concerning governments led by christians. So to make a point I brought up some terrible atheist dictators. Honestly, I had not researched modern atheist heads of state and when the list was brought to my attention I agreed that there can be good atheist leaders. And the same goes for christian leaders.

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?

Why do you think Jesus was speaking specifically about Gentiles here? I'd say the dogs he was talking about wasting what is holy on were insincere people who had no interest in holy things; people who were trying to bring the disciples down. Having said that, his plan was to go to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles. Before returning to heaven he commissioned his apostles to carry the message to the Gentiles.

[Minimalist]

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.

Ah, but see, if you read it in "context" ( which to believers means having your head shoved firmly up your asshole ) it means KILL ALL THE FUCKING JESUS FREAKS.

(Context is everything!)

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, it's okay to kill people when god is pissed, but not after he settles down?

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

Apparently you worship a being whose thirst must be slaked by blood.

So much for perfect justice and mercy.

---

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

Were they better off dying in terror after watching their holdings burnt, their wealth on the hoof slaughtered, and their children put to death, as opposed to dying of old age?

Such a question doesn't deserve the dignity of a serious answer.

"Quickly by the sword"! As if genocide is a mercy. Really.

One more bit of evidence demonstrating how Christianity perverts human morality.

[ronedee]

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

Apparently you worship a being whose thirst must be slaked by blood.

So much for perfect justice and mercy.

Are you defined by a vehicle?

Matt 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

[Esquilax]

I brought up those dictators because people were making generalizations concerning governments led by christians. So to make a point I brought up some terrible atheist dictators. Honestly, I had not researched modern atheist heads of state and when the list was brought to my attention I agreed that there can be good atheist leaders. And the same goes for christian leaders.

Two wrongs don't make a right...

Why do you think Jesus was speaking specifically about Gentiles here? I'd say the dogs he was talking about wasting what is holy on were insincere people who had no interest in holy things; people who were trying to bring the disciples down.

Except that he was specifically discussing a believer from another tribe who had come to him in search of a miracle: that's hardly someone coming to bring the disciples down. In fact, the woman specifically calls out to him as "Lord," capitalized and all. Jesus' response is that he hadn't been sent for anyone but the "lost sheep of the house of Israel." The reason he refused to help her, the basis for his calling her a dog, wasn't that she was being unfaithful or malicious, but that she wasn't of the correct race. She was a Canaanite, there in supplication to Jesus, on behalf of another person; her actions were entirely unselfish and based in love, and yet she was rejected. Your excuse here is simply inapplicable.

Having said that, his plan was to go to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles. Before returning to heaven he commissioned his apostles to carry the message to the Gentiles.

You can carry a message to people you don't intend to save. You can't extrapolate a whole plan from what might be the first step, but only if you already believe that the plan was there.

[Minimalist]

Xtian kings and popes killed people specifically because their beliefs differed from those of the king/pope. They did not kill them because they resisted forced collectivization. Although they killed jews whenever the mood struck them. In that, Adolf was a fine xtian and the inheritor of a long line of ant-semitic hostility in Europe.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Are you defined by a vehicle?

Matt 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

No. Nor am I willing to abdicate my sense of morality in order to apologize for your god's whims.

For all your denigration of physical existence, you too strive to survive. If you're going to heaven, why delay the trip?

I don't fear your imaginary god. That you do is your own problem, not mine. If you worship solely out of fear of damnation, that is your weakness of character. Quit trying to justify your own weakness of character by dragging other down into that cesspit of immorality. Keep your faith to yourself. No one here wants to hear it.

[Lek]

Except that he was specifically discussing a believer from another tribe who had come to him in search of a miracle: that's hardly someone coming to bring the disciples down. In fact, the woman specifically calls out to him as "Lord," capitalized and all. Jesus' response is that he hadn't been sent for anyone but the "lost sheep of the house of Israel." The reason he refused to help her, the basis for his calling her a dog, wasn't that she was being unfaithful or malicious, but that she wasn't of the correct race. She was a Canaanite, there in supplication to Jesus, on behalf of another person; her actions were entirely unselfish and based in love, and yet she was rejected. Your excuse here is simply inapplicable.

The problem is you are wrong about Jesus refusing to help the woman (Matthew 15:21-28). He granted her request and healed her daughter. He also died to save her as well as to save the Jews.

You can carry a message to people you don't intend to save. You can't extrapolate a whole plan from what might be the first step, but only if you already believe that the plan was there.

Are you saying that Jesus didn't plan to save Gentiles? If not, I guess I'm not saved.

[Minimalist]

He also died to save her as well as to save the Jews.

Save the Jews from what?