Why Christianity is so Dangerous!

Originally posted by Rajk999
You missed the point. I'm not a supporter of Joes rants but the point made is a valid one. That is that to tell a man that there are no consequences or very little consequences for grevious sins is a very wrong thing to do. Christian churches do that all the time and it encourages evil rather than discourage it.

I don't know of any Christian Churches that teach it is okay to murder anyone.

Originally posted by whodey
Nonsense.

He was clearly inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ

What teaching of Jesus Christ are you referring to? I don't recall reading that Jesus Christ ever taught that murder was okay?

Originally posted by RJHinds
What teaching of Jesus Christ are you referring to? I don't recall reading that Jesus Christ ever taught that murder was okay?

Wasn't he the chap who converted with the sword and took female sex slaves, or am I thinking of someone else?

Originally posted by whodey
Wasn't he the chap who converted with the sword and took female sex slaves, or am I thinking of someone else?

That was Muhammad in Islam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Islam

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't know of any Christian Churches that teach it is okay to murder anyone.

No, not directly......but the church does teach that if you believe in Jesus, all will be forgiven and you get to go to heaven even if you are a murderer.

Originally posted by 667joe
I see a question mark, but not a question.

Feel free to dodge; we both know why you are doing so

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, you don't.

I can tell you don't understand my point when you say "we agree that" and then go and
say a whole bunch of things that directly contradict everything I have been saying.

If you think that what you are saying and what I am saying mean the same thing you
obviously have absolutely no clue whatsoever what I am talking about.


And ...[text shortened]... ef that you cannot grasp it.

It's like not being able to get someone to accept that 1 + 1 = 2

Except what you are telling me is what I'm telling you. You look at the universe and come
up with reasons to build your belief system. The point I've been pointing out to you is that
you are doing all of that with the fundamental foundation that something you've rejected
is not there or needed.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, you don't think that a rejection of the source of all things doesn't cause you to build
a system of beliefs to fill in the blanks? I'd say it does, to deny God is real now puts you
in the place of filling in the blanks and because all of our beliefs need to agree with each
other to not be contradictory a system will appear. Our lives will not tolerate a vacuum it
will fill in the blanks with something.

Just a point on this. It is possible for people to have both contradictory and "missing" beliefs. However for this to be the case the contradiction has to be tolerable to them, the obvious way is if it is not apparent to them. It's only when faced with the contradiction that it has to be resolved in one way or another. Since we generally justify one belief in terms of another the belief that is lost is the one that doesn't fit. Missing beliefs are less troublesome, some find the need to have everything explained in terms of something else, others are satisfied with "It just is.".

Which is why I think that strong atheism has to be part of a belief system, it can't contradict the various other beliefs an individual holds. Agnostics on the other hand don't need to fit a belief about whether there is a God into a belief system.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't know of any Christian Churches that teach it is okay to murder anyone.

Christian churches preach that there is no loss of eternal life for believers who sin. If you cannot make the connection between that doctrine and the opening post then I cannot help you further.;

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why do you jump to conclusion that this was a right-wing Christian. Are you saying there is not one left-wing person that is against crushing the head of an unborn baby in order to havest the human body parts for sell?

How does this prove to you that right-wing Christians are women haters?

PP does not sell "baby parts". The videos that Fiorina loves to trot out at every opportunity are faked. We all know that now except you, apparently. They are edited and dubbed to paint PP as the "evil monsters" the anti-choice crowd has always claimed they are. And now these people who faked these videos have the blood of the Colorado shootings on their hands. "Pro-life"? Doesn't look like it from where I'm standing.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Just a point on this. It is possible for people to have both contradictory and "missing" beliefs. However for this to be the case the contradiction has to be tolerable to them, the obvious way is if it is not apparent to them. It's only when faced with the contradiction that it has to be resolved in one way or another. Since we generally justify one ...[text shortened]... on the other hand don't need to fit a belief about whether there is a God into a belief system.

Atheist can justify their stance, but it is their stance they are justifying. They not I put a
label on them that says this variable in the universe "God" isn't real to them in any
fashion. I don't put that on them, they do!

In how we view all things, we do it finding ways to justify our knowledge/beliefs all with
this self proclaimed label we use to describe ourselves.

So Atheist look at everything and resolve all of their issues maintaining this stance. I
don't care if they claim they lack knowledge or beliefs about God or reject Him outright
as something they find distasteful it doesn't matter how they got there, there they are.

With respect to Agnostics, I have more respect for Atheist, at least they have the guts
to take a stand instead of sitting in the middle of the road.

Originally posted by divegeester
Feel free to dodge; we both know why you are doing so

Why don't you come to your point?

Originally posted by 667joe
Why don't you come to your point?

Based on your OP, I asked you if you subscribed to the notion that there was no such thing as a valid "no true Scotsman" argument. You either don't understand my question or you are avoiding it because you know exactly what I'll say if you answer either way.

In other words your argument in your OP may be flawed; you can't have it both ways. either ALL individuals claiming to be part of a group, are indeed a true representation of their religious (or secular group), or they are not, and the group is defined by the modal behavior - the most common, or a median behaviour or that group.

Am I being clear?

Of course Mr. Dear does not represent all Christians. Mr. Dear, however, unlike most Christians, took Christian doctrine to it's logical conclusion to excuse and justify his actions.

Originally posted by 667joe
Of course Mr. Dear does not represent all Christians. Mr. Dear, however, unlike most Christians, took Christian doctrine to it's logical conclusion to excuse and justify his actions.

Explain how it's "logical" in clear steps please.