Hasn't it become obvious

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I said that Christianity cannot be blamed for the evil things.Some people professing Christianity or belonging to Christian Religion who were behind the atrocities like apartheid/slavery of Negroes should be blamed. Christianity and Christian people are two different things.Please do read my posts more carefully.
I also request you not to use a pejorative term like"dude".Let us address each other like the Gentlemen that we are.

Quote: "I said that Christianity cannot be blamed for the evil things."

A word that gets in the way is "blame". An objective investigation into the effect of the content of beliefs on the behavior of the believers, would not talk about blame. Doesn't it at least make a sensible hypothesis, that there is an effect?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I said that Christianity cannot be blamed for the evil things.Some people professing Christianity or belonging to Christian Religion who were behind the atrocities like apartheid/slavery of Negroes should be blamed. Christianity and Christian people are two different things.Please do read my posts more carefully.
I also request you not to use a pejorative term like"dude".Let us address each other like the Gentlemen that we are.

dude is not a pejorative.

and yes, thats what you said. twhite said that christianity can be used to justify evil and you said that Christianity cannot be blamed for the evil things. it is the same sphere of truth it's just that you look at one half of it and twhite looks at another.


christianity cannot indeed be blamed for evil things. but nevertheless it is used for justification. sure evil people would use anything to suit the needs and christianity was the closest thing available.



also, when i said that christianity cannot be blamed for evil things, i did the exact same thing you did. only looked at half the issue. christianity at its core cannot be blamed. but as long as it insists that the whole of the bible is 100% correct, people have a ton of stuff to justify just about anything, from slavery to racial and ethnic cleansing to wars to mysoginism. is christianity to blame for not taking a stand when it needed to? one cannot say "no" with certainty. but what it is certain is that christianity has been used to justify an impressive number of atrocities.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
dude is not a pejorative.

and yes, thats what you said. twhite said that christianity can be used to justify evil and you said that Christianity cannot be blamed for the evil things. it is the same sphere of truth it's just that you look at one half of it and twhite looks at another.


christianity cannot indeed be blamed for evil things. but neverthe ...[text shortened]... is certain is that christianity has been used to justify an impressive number of atrocities.

Religious fanatics from all religions ( except the Hindus and the Buddhists) have killed millions of innocents just because they belonged to the other religion ! Inhuman atrocities have been committed on people who have died on the scaffold and on the executioner's block- who at the same time were crying out for their God to help- no doubts about that ! The inherent beastliness in humans ,at these times, appears to be uncontrolled by whatever pious,kindly and loving principles their religion might have professed to them. But this is the point. Are we to look inside of ourselves and assign the blame to where it rightfully belongs-to us or are we going to say that my religion tells me to cut off the head of the person belonging to the other religion ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Religious fanatics from all religions ( except the Hindus and the Buddhists) have killed millions of innocents just because they belonged to the other religion ! Inhuman atrocities have been committed on people who have died on the scaffold and on the executioner's block- who at the same time were crying out for their God to help- no doubts about that ! T ...[text shortened]... y that my religion tells me to cut off the head of the person belonging to the other religion ?

when a religion says it is ok to stone a little girl to death if she has sex with someone else other than her husband, and that the burden of proof lies with her to prove she is innocent and not her accuser, then that religion cannot be held beyond blame.

intelligent people will understand that some parts of a religion established thousand of years ago cannot be applied today. However, if you convince an IQ 60 person to kill someone, you get to go to prison to hence christianity and all other religions must assume some responsibility for some events done in their name and clearly state that those are not condoned.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
when a religion says it is ok to stone a little girl to death if she has sex with someone else other than her husband, and that the burden of proof lies with her to prove she is innocent and not her accuser, then that religion cannot be held beyond blame.

intelligent people will understand that some parts of a religion established thousand of years ago ...[text shortened]... responsibility for some events done in their name and clearly state that those are not condoned.

I understand your feelings and agree but who will admit the part of the guilt that you say the organised Religions have to bear ? The Pope is head of the Catholics and he is yet to wholeheartedly condemn the sexual exploitation of the young people at the hands of his priests. Who is/are the heads of the other sects of Christianity ? Who is the head of the Mullahs of Islam who will issue a fatwah condemning that terrorism is not Islamic and and the perpetrators of these crimes must be brought to justice.
Will you ask Scientists to admit the guilt of processing tobacco into cigarettes ? or for that matter the guilt of producing weapons of mass destruction ? Is Science by itself is condemnable because of cigarettes or bombs ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I understand your feelings and agree but who will admit the part of the guilt that you say the organised Religions have to bear ? The Pope is head of the Catholics and he is yet to wholeheartedly condemn the sexual exploitation of the young people at the hands of his priests. Who is/are the heads of the other sects of Christianity ? Who is the head of the ...[text shortened]... apons of mass destruction ? Is Science by itself is condemnable because of cigarettes or bombs ?

fermi or whomever discovered fission isn't to blame for the invention (and usage) of the atom bomb. he never footnoted his research "use this to blow stuff up".

the bible however specifically states one should kill his wife if she is unfaithful or not a virgin on the wedding night. someone intelligent enough had the courage to say "no, stop that sh|t, it's stupid". ultimately, like i said, the main blame falls on those who do the deed. but an organization that prides itself as a pillar of the community should not hide behind their thumbs and admit there might be a problem.

To twhitehead:

You are wrong, wrong, wrong. The Old Testament God was not
in favor of slavery. In fact, it was the Old Testament God who
rescued the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt. You obviously,
don't know what you are talking about. And Christianity in
America had nothing to do with the people who sold Negros
into slavery. In fact, the only ones that spoke up against it were
Christians and Jews.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
when a religion says it is ok to stone a little girl to death if she has sex with someone else other than her husband, and that the burden of proof lies with her to prove she is innocent and not her accuser, then that religion cannot be held beyond blame.

intelligent people will understand that some parts of a religion established thousand of years ago ...[text shortened]... responsibility for some events done in their name and clearly state that those are not condoned.

If you have read how Jesus respond to this type of situation,
you would know you can not blame Christianity. Jesus was
the only begotten Son of God and represented his Father
while on earth.

Originally posted by RJHinds
To twhitehead:

You are wrong, wrong, wrong. The Old Testament God was not
in favor of slavery. In fact, it was the Old Testament God who
rescued the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt. You obviously,
don't know what you are talking about. And Christianity in
America had nothing to do with the people who sold Negros
into slavery. In fact, the only ones that spoke up against it were
Christians and Jews.

this was used to justify slavery.


9:24 When Noah awoke from his drunken stupor 53 he learned 54 what his youngest son had done 55 to him. 9:25 So he said,

“Cursed 56 be Canaan! 57

The lowest of slaves 58

he will be to his brothers.”

9:26 He also said,

“Worthy of praise is 59 the Lord, the God of Shem!

May Canaan be the slave of Shem! 60

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
this was used to justify slavery.


9:24 When Noah awoke from his drunken stupor 53 he learned 54 what his youngest son had done 55 to him. 9:25 So he said,

“Cursed 56 be Canaan! 57

The lowest of slaves 58

he will be to his brothers.”

9:26 He also said,

“Worthy of praise is 59 the Lord, the God of Shem!

May Canaan be the slave of Shem! 60

You read the Holy Bible with no understanding.
You should seek professional help.

Originally posted by RJHinds
To twhitehead:

You are wrong, wrong, wrong. The Old Testament God was not
in favor of slavery. In fact, it was the Old Testament God who
rescued the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt. You obviously,
don't know what you are talking about. And Christianity in
America had nothing to do with the people who sold Negros
into slavery. In fact, the only ones that spoke up against it were
Christians and Jews.

I'm afraid your wrong. The reason the Baptist movement split in America in 1845 (?) was because the North wanted to abolish slavery while the South wanted to keep it. Take the words of Baptist Reverend Thomas Stringfellow in his 1856 book -
A Scriptural View of Slavery

...Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties... I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction...

Originally posted by RJHinds
You read the Holy Bible with no understanding.
You should seek professional help.

yes, ain't it funny when a fundie claims one doesn't understand the bible if they disagree?

and what would that professional help be? you? will you tell me the correct way of understanding the bible? of experiencing god?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm afraid your wrong. The reason the Baptist movement split in America in 1845 (?) was because the North wanted to abolish slavery while the South wanted to keep it. Take the words of Baptist Reverend Thomas Stringfellow in his 1856 book -
A Scriptural View of Slavery

...Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that was lawful a ...[text shortened]... d, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction...

Here, we have another atheist declaring his Christian knowledge
and substituting man's deeds for Christian principles. Jesus the
Christ did not need to give any new command to prohibit slavery,
It was already there. "You shall love your neighbor as yourself".

From the Holy Bible:
But when the Pharisees heard that He had put the Sadduces to silence,
they gathered themselves together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked Him
a question, testing Him. "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?
And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and
with all your soul, and with all your mind.' "This is great and foremost
commandment. The second is like it. 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question,
saying, "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" They said to
Him, "The son of David." He said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand until, I put
Thine enemies beneath Thy feet"'? "If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He
his son?" And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare
from that day on to ask Him another question. Matthew 22:34-46 NASB

He did introduce a moral principal that should work its (slavery) destruction.
Knowing so much about Christianity, I am sure you have heard it:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
I'm sure you must be able to find the reference yourself, since you know
so much about the Holy Bible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Here, we have another atheist declaring his Christian knowledge
and substituting man's deeds for Christian principles. Jesus the
Christ did not need to give any new command to prohibit slavery,
It was already there. "You shall love your neighbor as yourself".

From the Holy Bible:
But when the Pharisees heard that He had put the Sadduces to silen ...[text shortened]... e reference yourself, since you know
so much about the Holy Bible.

Listen, there's no need to get tetchy. They are not my words but words from a Baptist minister, i would say take it up with him but i'm sure he is long since dead. He wrote the book not me, i'm merely quoting what he wrote.

The fact is Christians were involved in the slave trade, the reason the American Baptist movement split was because of the slave trade. The Southern Baptists used the Bible to justify their involvement in the slave trade as i posted above, they even issued a rather belated apology in 1995. These aren't just my words but historical facts. I can post links for you to look over if you like.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, ain't it funny when a fundie claims one doesn't understand the bible if they disagree?

and what would that professional help be? you? will you tell me the correct way of understanding the bible? of experiencing god?

What I am saying is that your are taking a story in the Holy Bible about
something that happen and twisting its meaning into a justification for
slavery by Christianity. This is probably because you do not understand
CHRISTIANITY. No, I am only a Christian layman. I probably could
not help you. You don't appear to want help to undestand and would not
listen to me anyway. So, I just said you need some professional help to
overcome your resistance and approach learning about the truths of
Christianity with a different attitude. I hope one day you will seek it.