Secu-Socialist war on Jesus Christ

[gordiecanuk]

As well, Christians have killed and continue to kill hundreds of thousands of people in the name of their saviour. There is nothing unique or secular about killing. It is an equally-religious attack.

For Christians killing was justified for ages because non-believers or heretics weren't going to go to heaven anyway. Never try to discuss anything with a religious fanatic, they believe they're doing God's will and have His sanction at all times.

[WIP]

Pedophiles, not homosexuals, are attracted to young boys. There may be some homosexuals that are pedophiles, just as some heterosexuals are pedophiles, but they do not necessarily go hand in hand.

But many of these cases involve teenage boys, not children. So, is it accurate to classify a man who is hitting on teenage boys (or girls) as a pedophile? The term is usually reserved for men who have an unusual sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. I still see the problem as having its origins in setting unattainable standards like celibacy. Back in my mother's generation, when scandals, especially those involving the church, were not mentioned in public, there were many incidents of heterosexual priests having affairs with women and teenage girls.

[WIP]

They all believe that Christ is the Saviour?

And how does Christ do the saving? Different churches have different doctrines of salvation: faith alone, faith and baptism, faith and works, by grace, faith and works, keeping the commandments, and predestination -- Calvinists believe you are either chosen to be saved, or destined for hell, and your fate cannot be altered. And there are likely many other more nuanced variations of these themes; the problem is that they represent exclusionary paths of salvation, even among professed Christians. So even if all the denominations believed Christ is the saviour, they can't all be following the narrow road to salvation.

Here on Earth, the soteriology doctrines fuel the religious conflicts, since a rival sect that has a different salvation belief, means their adherents don't qualify for your salvation, and they cannot be real Christians since this would mean that they are condemned to hell.

[stignasty]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/16/...al-schools.html

The Canadian government developed a policy called "aggressive assimilation" to be taught at church-run, government-funded industrial schools, later called residential schools. The government felt children were easier to mould than adults, and the concept of a boarding school was the best way to prepare them for life in mainstream society.

Residential schools were federally run, under the Department of Indian Affairs. Attendance was mandatory. Agents were employed by the government to ensure all native children attended.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/16/...al-schools.html

1994:

The Presbyterian Church offers a confession to Canada's First Nations people.

1993:

The Anglican Church offers an apology to Canada's First Nations people.

1991:

The Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate offer an apology to Canada's First Nations people.

1990:

Phil Fontaine, leader of the Association of Manitoba Chiefs, meets with representatives of the Catholic Church. He demands that the church acknowledge the physical and sexual abuse suffered by students at residential schools.

1989:

Non-aboriginal orphans at Mount Cashel Orphanage in Newfoundland make allegations of sexual abuse by Christian Brothers at the school. The case paves the way for litigation for residential school victims.

[Michael Hardner]

It's interesting to see how the residential schools issue has been framed as a blight on conservatism. The truth was, the arch conservatives of the day wanted the 'red man' to wither and die. It was the progressives that wanted to help native Canadians through education.

[Oleg Bach]

It's interesting to see how the residential schools issue has been framed as a blight on conservatism. The truth was, the arch conservatives of the day wanted the 'red man' to wither and die. It was the progressives that wanted to help native Canadians through education.

The real Jesus Christ did not approve of the molestation of children or the destruction of a primative and honourabe group of "Indians" ... who actually believed in the GREAT SPIRIT.....This bit about the war on Jesus Christ....is really a lame concept - If this great teacher were to appear on the scene today - the last of his concerns would be about what the secularists are doing - that's like asking "I wonder what the poor are doing these days?" Christianity is a powerful state of mind and a bunch of people (secularist) who are just to dumb to get it are of no threat what so ever.

[Mr.Canada]

WIP - Were you raised a Catholic? I'm just curious. This won't be followed up with another post or anything, just my own curiosity.

To the others. Yes the Church has made mistakes, certainly, only God is infallible. When these schools were set up it was to help not hurt, this was the original intent. For many, it did help but others were not so lucky. The public mindset at the time was ot the same as today and that also must be taken into consideration.

[Oleg Bach]

WIP - Were you raised a Catholic? I'm just curious. This won't be followed up with another post or anything, just my own curiosity.

To the others. Yes the Church has made mistakes, certainly, only God is infallible. When these schools were set up it was to help not hurt, this was the original intent. For many, it did help but others were not so lucky. The public mindset at the time was ot the same as today and that also must be taken into consideration.

My parents were old Russian Orthodox - eastern rites.--- a very old version of this - the family was from all over the place - they settled in the 1800s up by lake Bakal - near the Mongolian boarder - there was a certain amount of shamnism in the are mixed with ancient Christian - We were....my dad's best friends father - oringated the Church in Toronto in the very late 40s - some of the old relatives of the Russian royal family attended....we were never taught - that Jesus's bothers were "brothers" - as far as the virgin birth - that was never an issue..Easter time was about the only night we attended...My mother fed the poor - we were very pragmatic...in so far as the appoach to the faith..we stood our ground...it feels like we have been chased half way round the planet. My grand father was marytred for his belief by the communists..for that reason socialism leaves a very bad taste in my mouth...the religion was based around truth...and hope and eternal life and no fear of death....sorry for being a prick...I am just very black and white about most things these days...thanks.

[WIP]

It's interesting to see how the residential schools issue has been framed as a blight on conservatism. The truth was, the arch conservatives of the day wanted the 'red man' to wither and die. It was the progressives that wanted to help native Canadians through education.

Do you consider the residential schools to have been a progressive action? They may have thought so at the time because they believed the aboriginals were subhuman and had a degenerate culture, and of course had to be christianized, since they were all going to H - E - double hockey sticks. The schools were built to obliterate their culture completely and remove all traces of their languages, customs, spiritual beliefs and replace it with the superior culture. The extreme reaction of native traditionalists who want to try to repudiate everything European, has a lot to do with this ugly mess sponsored by the churches.

[WIP]

WIP - Were you raised a Catholic? I'm just curious. This won't be followed up with another post or anything, just my own curiosity.

No, but I married a Catholic...in a United Church, since I could not force myself to believe the dogmas I would have to accept to become a legitimate convert. The UCC was a bit of stretch for both of us, so after about ten years into our marriage, she went back to the Catholic Church, and I went back to being a freethinker and deciding for myself what my beliefs are.

[Michael Hardner]

WIP,

Do you consider the residential schools to have been a progressive action? They may have thought so at the time because they believed the aboriginals were subhuman and had a degenerate culture, and of course had to be christianized, since they were all going to H - E - double hockey sticks. The schools were built to obliterate their culture completely and remove all traces of their languages, customs, spiritual beliefs and replace it with the superior culture. The extreme reaction of native traditionalists who want to try to repudiate everything European, has a lot to do with this ugly mess sponsored by the churches.

Were they progressive ? The question is relative. You seem to make the mistake of many liberals in that you want to use today's moral scope when looking at the past.

If you do that, then pretty much everyone who was alive was evil. Hardly anyone believed in equality of races, women, and so forth. Lincoln, who freed the slaves, believed Africans to be an inferior species. 'Progressive' was, and is still a relative term. And in two hundred years, you'll be viewed as a monster by some - following your own measure.

[Smallc]

You seem to make the mistake of many liberals in that you want to use today's moral scope when looking at the past.

You make the mistake of thinking that just because something happened in the past, it should be exempt from present judgment.

[Michael Hardner]

Isn't there some room in-between ? That's where I'd like to be, thanks.

[WIP]

WIP,

Were they progressive ? The question is relative. You seem to make the mistake of many liberals in that you want to use today's moral scope when looking at the past.

That was my point actually! But until a century ago, everyone of European ancestry looked at the world the way the fundamentalists do today -- all non-christians are heathens destined to hell, so their religions, beliefs and all cultural artifacts must be erased and replaced with the new Christian culture. During the era of colonialism, there were very few places like the Philippines, that just readily abandoned their religions and culture for the new-fangled one being spread by the people coming over on the tall ships. Resistance against colonization was resistance against God and modernity; so with the exception of the few traders and explorers who adopted much of the lifestyles of the indigenous peoples, there were no people with a modern understanding of respect for other cultures.

This is what drives me crazy about the historical revisionism of characters like Christopher Columbus -- he was neither a hero, nor a villain, just a devoutly superstitious mariner who thought he had landed somewhere in the islands east of India. On one of his later voyages, when he brought a few natives of San Salvador back to Spain with him, the church authorities couldn't decide whether the natives were human, had souls, and therefore qualified for salvation, or whether they should be classified among the other beasts of burden. So, Columbus's treatment of the natives was informed by the prevailing opinions of his time.

If you do that, then pretty much everyone who was alive was evil. Hardly anyone believed in equality of races, women, and so forth. Lincoln, who freed the slaves, believed Africans to be an inferior species. 'Progressive' was, and is still a relative term. And in two hundred years, you'll be viewed as a monster by some - following your own measure.

This is what drives me up the wall when fundamentalist opponents of evolution keep dragging out Charles Darwin's quotes about blacks, and other races that were considered to be inferior. Darwin was a keen enough observer of nature to make one great discovery from his observations of nature in the different places he visited while traveling on the Beagle -- that doesn't mean he was right about everything. And, ofcourse, not many churchmen at the time considered blacks to be equal to whites either. Even the abolitionists believed that they were the inferior cursed descendents of Noah's son, Ham. They just objected to enslaving blacks. Most abolitionists wanted the freed slaves to be sent back to Africa.

[Smallc]

Isn't there some room in-between ? That's where I'd like to be, thanks.

If we don't recognize the mistakes of the past, we can never learn from them.

[Mr.Canada]

If we don't recognize the mistakes of the past, we can never learn from them.

Precisely. Now since the 60's free love and drug days society has rebelled against conformity and the Church and the Bible.

Has it been all bad? No far from it, we've made a lot of progress but now we have new problems as a society. Maybe a return to family-Church values could help.

Maybe a balance between the progressive and Bible views would be good. Not everything the Church teaches is bad, c'mon. It's a foundation for millions and does a lot of good work. Bridges need to be built. Instead of looking at differences we could look at the similarities and work from there.

[Smallc]

Maybe a balance between the progressive and Bible views would be good. Not everything the Church teaches is bad, c'mon.

No, not everything is bad. That's probably the reason that some of the teachings mirror the laws we have today. Unfortunately, parts of it aren't so good, so we don't use those.

[Oleg Bach]

No, not everything is bad. That's probably the reason that some of the teachings mirror the laws we have today. Unfortunately, parts of it aren't so good, so we don't use those.

Old Judiac writings that brag about murder and deception...we toss aside - NT....any sign of the twisting of the words of the Christ - we don't use those either - the bible must be used with a clear logical mind...after all Christianity is based on truth and logic...all the other stuff we toss out - I don't want to know how King David has a guy killed so he can have sex with his wife - that's nothing to be proud of...nor do I want to know how one tribe genocide the other with the help of God - I am sure God does not participate in these types of human affairs...the old scribes always justified bad behaviour saying "god was involved" the liars simply made it up - if you want the truth out of the bible - you are going to have to look for it carefully.

[WIP]

Old Judiac writings that brag about murder and deception...we toss aside - NT....any sign of the twisting of the words of the Christ - we don't use those either - the bible must be used with a clear logical mind...after all Christianity is based on truth and logic...all the other stuff we toss out

There is that small problem that although the majority of NT comments on the Law are negative, there are a few gospel mentions that the Law and the Commandments are in force until the 2nd Coming. Modern biblical scholars recognize that there was a heated battle in the early Christian communities regarding how much Christianity should be a new religion, and how much it should adhere to its Jewish origins.

The Ebionites represented one extreme: Jewish Christians who observed the sabbath and the Law, and their collections of scriptures reflected their interpretation. On the other extreme, were gnostics, who came from gentile backgrounds and totally repudiated the Old Testament, even claiming that Yahweh - the God of the Old Testament, was an evil god and not the same one that Christians worshipped. The most famous of the gnostics, or gnostic-influenced theologians was Marcion, who was later excommunicated by the Church of Rome, and nearly all of his writings were obliterated.

We know more about Marcion and other heretics from the condemnations of Justin Martyr and other early orthodox theologians than we do from their own sources. The picture of the early church shows a divided community with different scriptures and even different translations of them - Marcion's Gospel of Luke is different than the later, orthodox version we have today. Scribes tried to remove some of the contradictions, or alter the language to harmonize their books, but some of the inconsistencies in scripture have created the many different interpretations that have resulted in different types of Christian religion we have today. For example, Christians who believe in salvation by faith alone have their scriptures, advocates of baptism have theirs, faith and works has its scriptural justifications, and so on.

But if you're going to repudiate the entire Old Testament, that puts you outside of mainstream Christian theology that tried to find a compromise middleground between the Jewish and gnostic Christians like Marcion.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

To the OP, maybe if Christians haven't waged a war and tried to instill their beliefs on us non-believers for centuries, maybe these so called 100 million Christians in your article would not have been killed. The way I see it, the religious started the fight.

How many times have non-believers been killed in the past 2000 years for not believing?

Bring it to modern times...

How many times have Christians tried to instill their beliefs on our kids (Creationalism/Intelligent Design versus Evolution)?

How many times have us non-believers been barred from shopping, working, or drinking alcohol from Christians? Less common now as it used to be, but still prevalent.

How many times to I have to read your signs about how much your invisible friend loves me? I don't want to hear it.

You Christians have been bombarding us non-religious for 2 thousand years. You think it is your right and your duty to instill your beliefs on us whether we like it or not.

If you kept your religious beliefs in your home and your church where they belong, then I would keep my anti-religious beliefs where they belong. But you don't. You need to bring it out into the public sphere and influence how we live - now we will fight back. We will fight against you trying to teach our kids your drivel, and we will fight against your ridiculous rules to limit our freedoms during your religious days.

And you have the nerve to suggest that the non-believers started this fight?

I am all for taking religion completely out of the public sphere - it doesn't belong in a society that includes many religions as well as non-religious. Get it out of sight and mind and there will be fewer clashes between us.

[Mr.Canada]

Chuck U. Farlie. Seeing isn't Believing, Believing is seeing.

What if Christians turned out to be right all along? What then?

[Smallc]

Chuck U. Farlie. Seeing isn't Believing, Believing is seeing.

What if Christians turned out to be right all along? What then?

Since God is supposed to be omnibenevolent, i it shouldn't really matter now should it?

[Kitchener]

This article linked at the bottom clearly defines all the Christians that have been killed by secular run countries.

It defines them? What is that supposed to mean?

Funny how they all have Communist, Totalitarian dictatorships.

OMG, a guy on a firearms advocacy website stitched together some quotes! Compelling argumentation reaches a new zenith!

Secularism was one of the basic tenants of these people.

Which people? Please be precise.

They will often try to hide it behind a mask of being politically correct and inclusive.

Which people do this? Why should they hide their secularism? Identify the people you have in mind, please. Then, since they do this "often", give just a few examples of what you think are the clearest examples of the people you've identified hiding their secularism "behind a mask of being politically correct and inclusive". You needn't give enough evidence to actually support your claim -- just give quotes and context establishing a few of the most obvious instances.

These socialists are inclusive of anyone who isn't Christian.

Again, give the clearest examples, if you would.

Don't believe me?

What sane person would, when you're obviously ranting incoherently?

Edited January 2, 2009 by Kitchener

[WIP]

Chuck U. Farlie. Seeing isn't Believing, Believing is seeing.

What if Christians turned out to be right all along? What then?

What then! I'll tell you what then -- if the Christian story is real, we live in a universe where you are judged by how willing you are to believe in things that have no evidence, and instead offer a carrot (heaven) and a stick (hell) to motivate you to set aside any desire to use reason to evaluate the evidence.

Why is it that Doubting Thomas is the only skeptic provided with evidence, and even it the Gospel of John, he's condemned for demanding tangible evidence before he believes that Christ has risen from the dead, with the refrain: blessed are those who believe anyway even though they are given no evidence (paraphrasing of course)

Beliefs are easy to arrive at; what's difficult is testing those beliefs to see if they have any merit. A belief based on faith is circular logic: "I believe because I believe," for example.

And what are the odds that it will be the Christians who have it right? Most people in the West don't realize that they are in the minority and that most of the world is non-Christian -- so being a Christian wouldn't save you if some other religion is right. In such a case, you'd better hope that the true religion is something like Buddhism or Hinduism, which don't determine your place in the hereafter based on having the right beliefs. And even if you are a Christian, there are conflicting doctrines of salvation, so you still have to pick the right brand of Christianity to be guaranteed salvation.

[M.Dancer]

Since God is supposed to be omnibenevolent, i it shouldn't really matter now should it?

That's a presupposition that has no basis in scripture...just ask Noah's neighbours...