christ-on-a-stick

Old Man sez: Au contraire, mon frere... it seems to me that he understood it perfectly - and recognized it as the man-made and corrupt cult that it is. Pardon, but what on earth does "that of your own nation and race" have to do with anything? Murder of "girl babies" (or ANY babies or people for that matter) is different/less bad/more bad based on race?

Additionally, although I don't have "hard numbers" (not sure they are calculable anyway) from the numerous atrocities commanded by Yahweh in the OT, but I would reckon to say that the slaughter of the Amelkites etc. certainly included a fair number of "girl babies".

And how 'bout them Egyptian "boy babies"? What the hell did they do to deserve being ritually slaughtered by Yahweh's Angel of Death? Oh - maybe it was that they were the wrong race.

Quite sickening.

Philosoft

Dr. Hovind? Seriously, is this supposed to be an argument? Christianity might be true because I wasn't there to verify?
I was talking about the OT, and hello?? God, Noah, flood - any of this ring a bell?

Old Man

That's unlikely, as if you bothered to read the literature, you will see that Ghandi had a picture of Christ in a prominent place in his office. That hardly speaks of him regarding Jesus as belonging to a corrupt cult.

In any case, it is not recorded that Christ was a member of any wordly organization, so where do you get "cult" from?
That's not the topic of this thread. I don't observe US citizens showing much concern about how many Iraqi or North Korean babies die of maluntrition. North Koreans don't even have electricity or heating to heat their buildings in the middle of winter. The US does not care, because they are of a different nation and race. But it would care if it was US citizens. Are you really telling me that the US government treats all men and all nations "equal" to itself?
A different nation and race.
Yes, I suppose death is sickening to infidels. The bible does confirm that truth. But then it's not so sickening provided its the USA doing the killing. Its just that when anyone else does the killing, you object. Double standards somewhere?

Old Man

You are the one claiming knowledge of its falsity. From whence does it come?

Sorry, meant to say OT. Death, of course, is to be welcomed at the appropriate time and for the appropriate reasons. Killing 50,000,000 Hindu girl babies is pretty selfish. Killing one's enemies is a different matter.

christ-on-a-stick

Barf. So much for God's objective morality. My responses to the rest of your posts (responding to mine) will have to wait - must go run off some of the agitation at these kinds of twisted sentiments - but for the moment, re: What the heck? Please don't presume to tell me what I do and don't object to. On what grounds are you basing this assertion about what I do and don't object to?

I find cold-blooded murder of innocent children, women and men - *ALL HUMANS* - *OF ALL NATIONS AND RACES* - sickening whether it's done by the USA, some other country or Yahweh-the-fictional. What I find most disturbing is modern-day people's willingness not only to believe that such an entity existed but that given his record of bloodthirstiness, he's good and worthy of worship.

More later.

christ-on-a-stick

Scratch that... I'll finish now, then go run off the agitation.

Re: Ghandi - you seem to be twisting my words (in response to YOUR words) about Jesus (Christ) vs. Christianity. To quote you again, I replied with "It" refers to Christianity. It seems obvious that he did regard Christ as a great teacher, but realized that the religion of Christianity was a total separate thing - a manmade and corrupt cult based on but not necessarily representing Christ. And??? This shows, as I said, that it seems that he regarded Christ as a great teacher. When did I say that Jesus "belonged" to a corrupt cult? I said CHRISTIANITY is a corrupt cult, which obviously he couldn't have belonged to since it didn't start until well after his death. How can I explain this more clearly... the "cult" is what Christianity (based on either the real or mythical Christ's life) is. The religion of Christianity that came about AFTER Christ's death (again either real or mythical) is a manmade and corrupt cult.

Get my drift Old Man? If you're still confused by my answers let me know and I'll try, try again.

EspressoSnail

Actually, for me anyway, I couldn't care less about who does the killing. I don't care who dies. I am not a humanist, I do not care about the majority of humans. Most of the humans on this earth could die and I wouldn't care, although I might be worried for my own survival. Now I'm not saying that most of the humans should be killed... although... well... I won't go into that.

Philosoft

No, I claim it's not objectively true.
I can't even begin to list all the ways that number is BS. They cite some "recent United Nations report" about missing population; they "calculate" over a 2500(!) year span; they include a completely unknown number of aborted embryos/fetuses. I find it remarkable you would even bring up such nonsense as a comparator. Do you think you could defend all the behaviors and practices of Christians over the last 2000 years?

rubbercok3000

Now wait just a minute guys!!! Chritianity not objective?? What about the with hunts and the inquisitions, how much more godly can a religon be. Killing women and children because of possible mental illness or just because they have been "accused" of being a witch. And of course the only way to check is to see if they drowned in water right? How much more can a religon be founded on "objective truth". I mean all socerers deserve to die even if they cant be proven to be one while alive!! VIVA DOGMATISM!!!!

orac

This is your way of saying that you don't actually know if christianity is true because you wern't there?

Are you prepared to state that christianity, for all you know, might actually be false?

Alternatively, you might want to admit that people don't need to be 2000 years old in order to know anything.