Orpheous99

Originally posted by Layman:

I'm not the one claiming that the most true belief system necessarily will win the day. That was Toto's idea.

The point is that there is not a one true belief system that is why none have really provailed for any really long time. All religions eventually lose power and die out. Christianity is starting to do it now, and compared to many other belief systems it was quite soon.

An atheists have used their control over the state to enforce atheism to a much greater degree than Christians used their control over the state to enforce their Christianity.

That is false. If you knew any of Lenin's and Stalin's history you would see where they got most of their influence from. Stalin had been a seminary student. Plus, Hitler was a Christian as well. Even then their control was short lived in comparison to all of the evil done in Christianity's monster god's name.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Orpheous99 ]</p>

Orpheous99

Originally posted by Layman:

You are making a giant leap here.

Yes, a giant leap forward, unlike you who is stuck with a 1500 year old book based on fairy tales.

We may not. But that's my point. Toto's idea that the most true belief system will win is not necessarily true. It's just not that simple. Islam may outpace us. I still have some hope for the West--Buchanan is oversimplistic in much of his analysis. But the point is that the survivability of a belief system does not guarantee its truthfulness, only its success as perpetuating itself.

All dominance based religions, like Christianity and Islam, will use force to increase their numbers when they how any sort of real power. But this power is only fleeting as time goes on and people gradually wake up and finally put it in its place, the past. This is happening to Christianity now and eventually to Islam as well.

Orpheous99

If you think that the word crap is serious profanity then you have some maturing to do yourself, but then again that would have have to add to what you already have to do as it is.

Layman

You are contradicting yourself. You say people are not rational. You admit that the truth will not necessarily succeed in gaining all converts. Then you agree with Toto that because not everyone agrees with Christianity it must be untrue (but agnosticism/atheism IS true, even though only 4% of the people in the U.S. believe in it). Which is it?

What makes you think Chrisitniaty is disappearing? There are about 2 billion of us ya know. And we are seeing remarkable growth in Asia and Africa.

Geepers you are being simplisitc. Lenin and Stalin were atheists dedicated to promoting atheism and squashing Christianity and other religions. Many of you were Christians in your younger days, but clearly are no longer so. So your red herrings are sad. Immature one might say.

But you are really missing the point. The fact is that communist governments are the only examples we have of atheists having control over governments. And to this day, those atheists are still using state power to promote their view and squash religion. They still do it in China and North Korea. And Cuba.

Hitler a Christian? Don't be silly.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

Books. The Bible is a collection of books. Some of which are much older than 1500 years.

But anyway, it was clear that your point did not follow from your premise. As your complete failure to even attempt to connect the dots reveals.

Again, all you can retreat to is that I'm a Christian and therefore so completely illogical that you needn't even attempt to explain yourself.

More chest-thumping.

I know you and Toto have faith that Christianity--and its 2 billion adherents--is somehow withering, but until you give me some evidence, I'm unconvinced. Besides, it is in Christian nations--such as Western Europe and the United States--where freedom of expression and religion have prospered the most.

Bookman

This is remarkable, Layman. Given Hitler's public comments it's hardly "silly" to consider him a Christian.

And before you have an attack of apoplexy, I know the argument that he was, according to a handful of private comments, some sort of bizarre neo-pagan. However the claim that Hitler was a Christian is not exactly one that you can just dismiss out of hand.

Unless, of course, you mean that he wasn't a "True Christian".

Bookman

Layman

It's more than a handful of private comments. But I think the point relevant to this discussion is that Hitler didn't launch his wars or do his dirty business in order to force French Catholics to convert to Lutheranism.

Layman

There ya go again. Distorting my comments. I didn't say it was "serious" profanity, just that it was profanity. And uncalled for profanity at that. Indeed, it was a way for you to ignore, rather than respond to, my comments.

Bookman

Some people might think that the point relevant to this discussion was how Hitler's Christian background informed his feelings toward the Jews.

Layman

They might. But they'd have to demonstrate it rather than just imply it.

We are talking about the use of state power to promote religion. Hitler was not interested in using the state power of Germany to promote Christianity. He was interested in using it to promote Nazism. Hitler despised Christianity.