Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Light · 03-19-2004, 02:00 PM

A Christian is One Who believes in God.

This is a 24 hours a day conviction, not a part-time occupation.

Of course being nominally Christian doesn't account for much.

You don't say that you are a Christian and then kill people or steal from them.

Equally you do not say that you are ... not ... a Christian so that you may kill and steal ... from ... Christians.

That would be hypocrisy.

"Stuffing Christian Turkies for Christmas" is not what I would call a Christian sentiment.

Especially when you share Christian countries.

But then such a non-Christian was Judas.

Anybody who betrays someone else, instead of helping them, is such a Judas.

True Christians would not betray each other.

If the ENTIRE World was Christian there would not be any problem at all.

Except that it is not that way and people have far too many children, born of poverty, fatalism, ignorance, superstition and stupidity.

Sounds kind of "religious" to Me.

NeverendingLVI · 03-23-2004, 03:08 PM

A Christian is One Who believes in God.

Um, are you saying that Muslims and Jews are Christians as well? Your definition seems quite imprecise.

If the ENTIRE World was Christian there would not be any problem at all.

This is simply not so. Not all Christians have the same beliefs as you which would cause conflict. Although you may actually be right since it would be virtually impossible for all people to be Christians unless everyone or nearly everyone were dead, and in that case, there wouldn't be much of a problem, but I don't think that that is what you intended to say.

Except that it is not that way and people have far too many children, born of poverty, fatalism, ignorance, superstition and stupidity.

And Christians don't have any of those qualities? Sounds like Christians don't really exist (at least with your definition).

Light · 03-23-2004, 05:31 PM

Can I refer you to this post please.

You will see why it is that I agree with Dr. Steven Weinbergs assessment of "religion".

I also agree with Voltaire.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...76#post1500476

NeverendingLVI · 03-23-2004, 06:45 PM

About the linked post:

Homosexuality abounds, because there is more than a single child per family, (Herod killed the first born in case He should be scientifically enlightened, an advanced thinker, The Son of God.)

I am wondering what you meant by this. It doesn't seem to follow in any sort of way.

The Bible talks a LOT of utter nonsense about sheep, baptism, shepherds, disciples, etc. and the Old Testament is a work of abysmal madness.
and
Just see how many of The 10 Commandments are broken on a daily basis.

If the OT is such a "work of abysmal madness", then why should anyone believe the 10 commandments?

Light · 03-24-2004, 08:00 AM

The OT was for the people of the time. Whereas the NT was ... supposed ... to be a NEW covenant to introduce Christianity.

That this has been overturned by OT thinkers is evident by the mess this planet is in.

A population increase from 2 billion to 4 billion on a planet of finite size does not happen unless non-christian peoples are operating a separate agenda within formerly Christian countries.

Because of this madness, when the self-impoverished poor with their multitude of babies do inherit the Earth ... there will be nothing left.

Their madness will have become all consuming.

DarkBronzePlant · 03-24-2004, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Light
...Of course being nominally Christian doesn't account for much.

You don't say that you are a Christian and then kill people or steal from them.

Equally you do not say that you are ... not ... a Christian so that you may kill and steal ... from ... Christians...

Unless you kill someone in the name of the Christian God, of course. Like stoning someone to death if they work on a Sunday (or Saturday, because as I understand it the verdict is still out on what day is actually the "Sabbath"...)

NeverendingLVI · 03-24-2004, 01:17 PM

The OT was for the people of the time. Whereas the NT was ... supposed ... to be a NEW covenant to introduce Christianity.

The Ten Commandments were part of the OT.

Light · 03-25-2004, 12:34 AM

Quote:

About the linked post:

Homosexuality abounds, because there is more than a single child per family, (Herod killed the first born in case He should be scientifically enlightened, an advanced thinker, The Son of God.)

I am wondering what you meant by this. It doesn't seem to follow in any sort of way.

By limiting the population to having one child, poulation growth can be carefully controlled and people can be introduced to each other as friends and equals. They can be well educated, well-fed, and so on. There would ne no exponential populatin growth. People would not just get rich by selling rubbish to rabbi(t)s and people would then ALL be Christian. "Stuffing Christian Turkies for Christmas" is NOT a Christian Ethic.

The Bible talks a LOT of utter nonsense about sheep, baptism, shepherds, disciples, etc. and the Old Testament is a work of abysmal madness.

and

Just see how many of The 10 Commandments are broken on a daily basis.

If the OT is such a "work of abysmal madness", then why should anyone believe The 10 Commandments?

[B]When Christ was crucified 2004 years ago the people who lived here were STILL NOT obeying The Ten Commandments.

Christ did say, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do."

The World is divided between all manner of pairs of "opposites" who have taken sides AGAINST each other instead of dealing in Friendly co-operation.

To take sides AGAINST someone else living on the same planet is ... sectarianism, racist and hypocritical.

That Jews should have attacked Christians living in their own country is blind hatred and absolute madness. That they should attempt to take over all other countries shows that they care only for themselves and for no-one else.

You only have to look at Palestine, a former British Protectorate, and the Israeli assassination of The Muslims spiritual leader.

Instead of attacking other countries on the basis of "spirituality" the people of each independant Sovereign country would be better off REgulating their own affairs on their own territory.

NeverendingLVI · 03-25-2004, 03:20 PM

Quote:

By limiting the population to having one child, poulation growth can be carefully controlled and people can be introduced to each other as friends and equals. They can be well educated, well-fed, and so on. There would ne no exponential populatin growth. People would not just get rich by selling rubbish to rabbi(t)s and people would then ALL be Christian. "Stuffing Christian Turkies for Christmas" is NOT a Christian Ethic.

And what does this have to do with homosexuality?

Light · 03-26-2004, 05:02 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By limiting the population to having one child, population growth can be carefully controlled and people can be introduced to each other as friends and equals.

They can be well educated, well-fed, and so on. There would be no exponential population growth. People would not just get rich by selling rubbish to rabbi(t)s and people would then ALL be Christian.

"Stuffing Christian Turkies for Christmas" is NOT a Christian Ethic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what does this have to do with homosexuality?

One of the basis for homosexuality is that of feelings of inadequacy amongst rival siblings and fellow men & women.

Another is simply lack of opportunity.

This is severely exacerbated by over-breeding and by over-rowding and has led to an exponential increase in population world-wide and further exacerbated by "on" church seeking to "dominate" all "others".

We only have one planet and one belief, eben that this one belief goes under many different names.

A single child policy, such as has been adopted in several countries, ensures that children can be properly educated, fed, housed and found useful employ within Global society.

Mankind is certainly a social being unles behaving as an anti-social being, which all REsponsible people naturally frown upon, especially in terms of Law & Order.

The single child (taking the Christ example) should have found helpful brothers and sisters around Him in a society of mutual friendship and co-operation.

Certainly His brothers and sisters should not have mocked Him upon His cross.

They really did and still do crucify people you know, both literally and figuratively.

They crucified people because they did not believe in God.

And you are STILL torturing and killing each other.

And would you crucify God Himself?

Or would you allow yourself, your Wife, your Son, or your Daughter to be crucified?

I don't think so.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-19-2004, 02:00 PM	#1
Light Banned Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Here, There & Everywhere Posts: 1,253	A Christian is One Who believes in God. This is a 24 hours a day conviction, not a part-time occupation. Of course being nominally Christian doesn't account for much. You don't say that you are a Christian and then kill people or steal from them. Equally you do not say that you are ... not ... a Christian so that you may kill and steal ... from ... Christians. That would be hypocrisy. "Stuffing Christian Turkies for Christmas" is not what I would call a Christian sentiment. Especially when you share Christian countries. But then such a non-Christian was Judas. Anybody who betrays someone else, instead of helping them, is such a Judas. True Christians would not betray each other. If the ENTIRE World was Christian there would not be any problem at all. Except that it is not that way and people have far too many children, born of poverty, fatalism, ignorance, superstition and stupidity. Sounds kind of "religious" to Me.

03-23-2004, 03:08 PM	#2
NeverendingLVI Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 5	A Christian is One Who believes in God. Um, are you saying that Muslims and Jews are Christians as well? Your definition seems quite imprecise. If the ENTIRE World was Christian there would not be any problem at all. This is simply not so. Not all Christians have the same beliefs as you which would cause conflict. Although you may actually be right since it would be virtually impossible for all people to be Christians unless everyone or nearly everyone were dead, and in that case, there wouldn't be much of a problem, but I don't think that that is what you intended to say. Except that it is not that way and people have far too many children, born of poverty, fatalism, ignorance, superstition and stupidity. And Christians don't have any of those qualities? Sounds like Christians don't really exist (at least with your definition).

03-23-2004, 05:31 PM	#3
Light Banned Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Here, There & Everywhere Posts: 1,253	Can I refer you to this post please. You will see why it is that I agree with Dr. Steven Weinbergs assessment of "religion". I also agree with Voltaire. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...76#post1500476

03-23-2004, 06:45 PM	#4
NeverendingLVI Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 5	About the linked post: Homosexuality abounds, because there is more than a single child per family, (Herod killed the first born in case He should be scientifically enlightened, an advanced thinker, The Son of God.) I am wondering what you meant by this. It doesn't seem to follow in any sort of way. The Bible talks a LOT of utter nonsense about sheep, baptism, shepherds, disciples, etc. and the Old Testament is a work of abysmal madness. and Just see how many of The 10 Commandments are broken on a daily basis. If the OT is such a "work of abysmal madness", then why should anyone believe the 10 commandments?

03-24-2004, 08:00 AM	#5
Light Banned Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Here, There & Everywhere Posts: 1,253	The OT was for the people of the time. Whereas the NT was ... supposed ... to be a NEW covenant to introduce Christianity. That this has been overturned by OT thinkers is evident by the mess this planet is in. A population increase from 2 billion to 4 billion on a planet of finite size does not happen unless non-christian peoples are operating a separate agenda within formerly Christian countries. Because of this madness, when the self-impoverished poor with their multitude of babies do inherit the Earth ... there will be nothing left. Their madness will have become all consuming.

03-24-2004, 01:17 PM	#7
NeverendingLVI Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 5	The OT was for the people of the time. Whereas the NT was ... supposed ... to be a NEW covenant to introduce Christianity. The Ten Commandments were part of the OT.

03-26-2004, 05:02 AM	#10
Light Banned Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Here, There & Everywhere Posts: 1,253	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By limiting the population to having one child, population growth can be carefully controlled and people can be introduced to each other as friends and equals. They can be well educated, well-fed, and so on. There would be no exponential population growth. People would not just get rich by selling rubbish to rabbi(t)s and people would then ALL be Christian. "Stuffing Christian Turkies for Christmas" is NOT a Christian Ethic. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And what does this have to do with homosexuality? One of the basis for homosexuality is that of feelings of inadequacy amongst rival siblings and fellow men & women. Another is simply lack of opportunity. This is severely exacerbated by over-breeding and by over-rowding and has led to an exponential increase in population world-wide and further exacerbated by "on" church seeking to "dominate" all "others". We only have one planet and one belief, eben that this one belief goes under many different names. A single child policy, such as has been adopted in several countries, ensures that children can be properly educated, fed, housed and found useful employ within Global society. Mankind is certainly a social being unles behaving as an anti-social being, which all REsponsible people naturally frown upon, especially in terms of Law & Order. The single child (taking the Christ example) should have found helpful brothers and sisters around Him in a society of mutual friendship and co-operation. Certainly His brothers and sisters should not have mocked Him upon His cross. They really did and still do crucify people you know, both literally and figuratively. They crucified people because they did not believe in God. And you are STILL torturing and killing each other. And would you crucify God Himself? Or would you allow yourself, your Wife, your Son, or your Daughter to be crucified? I don't think so.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.