Why is it always Atheists vs Christians?

[Hollie]

How many hundreds of years ago was the Inquisition?

And it was, of course, a political movement.

Progressives are so stupid. They seem to think Christianity springs from the Catholic Church.

Well, no. Christianity had nothing to do with the Inquisition... or the Crusades, or the Salem Witch Trials or even the Dark Ages.

Brain dead fundies are in a dark place, I never hope to be in.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And of course, your nonsense has already been refuted by me.

And what a brilliant refutation - which was "Genghis Khan = religious."

ROFL

Yer stupid as a fucking lamppost - but you make me laugh - don't ever change.

Don't let your ego get in the way of your humiliation.

I don't know how I'll ever get over a brilliant retort like yours....

 

[Hollie]

And of course, your nonsense has already been refuted by me.

And what a brilliant refutation - which was "Genghis Khan = religious."

ROFL

Yer stupid as a fucking lamppost - but you make me laugh - don't ever change.

Don't let your ego get in the way of your humiliation.

I don't know how I'll ever get over a brilliant retort like yours....

They're like little wind-up toys.

 

[Underhill]

How many hundreds of years ago was the Inquisition?

And it was, of course, a political movement.

Progressives are so stupid. They seem to think Christianity springs from the Catholic Church.

Did you even read what I said? I said oppression springs from poverty. Something that virtually all historians agree with and makes perfect sense to anyone who knows what is going on in the world.

Oppressive treatment is all about control. Whether talking about the inquisition or the cultural revolution, these things had very little to do with religion, or lack of it, and everything to do with controlling a population.

This is true today in places like Pakistan, Somalia, North Korea... look at the most oppressive regimes anywhere on the planet and the one thing they all have in common is poverty.

These places all have leaders terrified of being overthrown.

If I am wrong then you feel free to show me examples of a wealthy population ruled by a tyrannical government.

As for the source of the protestant church, show me a timeline that doesn't include Constantine. Without him and his church, you do not have the modern day bible.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They're like little wind-up toys.

I think your mainspring broke....

 

[Underhill]

How many hundreds of years ago was the Inquisition?

And it was, of course, a political movement.

This made me laugh. As if the cultural revolution wasn't a political movement.

Here is another grand example. Rome. Rome was a pagan country. Worshiped many gods. Slaughtered christians in the coliseums all over the country.

Then the christians took over. And guess what changed? Now they slaughtered pagans in the coliseums all over the country.

The religion had nothing to do with it. It was about control. It made people afraid to speak out against their leaders (who were also the spiritual leaders at the time) and it gave the poor some excitement to let them forget their shit lives.

It worked for 800 years or so.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did you even read what I said? I said oppression springs from poverty. Something that virtually all historians agree with and makes perfect sense to anyone who knows what is going on in the world.

Oppressive treatment is all about control. Whether talking about the inquisition or the cultural revolution, these things had very little to do with religion, or lack of it, and everything to do with controlling a population.

This is true today in places like Pakistan, Somalia, North Korea... look at the most oppressive regimes anywhere on the planet and the one thing they all have in common is poverty.

These places all have leaders terrified of being overthrown.

If I am wrong then you feel free to show me examples of a wealthy population ruled by a tyrannical government.

As for the source of the protestant church, show me a timeline that doesn't include Constantine. Without him and his church, you do not have the modern day bible.

Your thesis of causation fails.

At the end of World War II, the poverty of North and South Korea was identical. Today the South is one of the most prosperous nations in the world, which the North one of the most tyrannically This would suggest that poverty springs from tyranny, rather than vice versa.

 

[Hollie]

How many hundreds of years ago was the Inquisition?

And it was, of course, a political movement.

Progressives are so stupid. They seem to think Christianity springs from the Catholic Church.

Did you even read what I said? I said oppression springs from poverty. Something that virtually all historians agree with and makes perfect sense to anyone who knows what is going on in the world.

Oppressive treatment is all about control. Whether talking about the inquisition or the cultural revolution, these things had very little to do with religion, or lack of it, and everything to do with controlling a population.

This is true today in places like Pakistan, Somalia, North Korea... look at the most oppressive regimes anywhere on the planet and the one thing they all have in common is poverty.

These places all have leaders terrified of being overthrown.

If I am wrong then you feel free to show me examples of a wealthy population ruled by a tyrannical government.

As for the source of the protestant church, show me a timeline that doesn't include Constantine. Without him and his church, you do not have the modern day bible.

My opinion is that you're correct that maintenance of wealth and power were contributing factors to the wars of conquest fought by the religious entites.

However, you cannot minimize the religious passions pulsing away. We need to be aware and acknowledge that religious beliefs can be a wellspring of hate and derision.

For example, the 9-11 Islamic terrorists or the Christians who bombed women's health clinics were not seeking wealth or power. It’s important to understand that these acts were committed by deeply religious people who have very narrow and specific motivations which defined their worldviews

 

[koshergrl]

No, they were committed by people who placed no value upon life, but fell under the sway of a mindset that assured them they had the *right* to kill people.

Kinda like progressives think they have the *right* to kill babies, or disabled, or elderly, people if they are no longer functioning (or haven't started functioning) up to the standard that they think grants people "personhood".

 

[Hollie]

No, they were committed by people who placed no value upon life, but fell under the sway of a mindset that assured them they had the *right* to kill people.

Kinda like progressives think they have the *right* to kill babies, or disabled, or elderly, people if they are no longer functioning (or haven't started functioning) up to the standard that they think grants people "personhood".

And unfortunately, there are the religiously insane who make apologies for mass murderers who are religiously motivated.

 

[Underhill]

Did you even read what I said? I said oppression springs from poverty. Something that virtually all historians agree with and makes perfect sense to anyone who knows what is going on in the world.

Oppressive treatment is all about control. Whether talking about the inquisition or the cultural revolution, these things had very little to do with religion, or lack of it, and everything to do with controlling a population.

This is true today in places like Pakistan, Somalia, North Korea... look at the most oppressive regimes anywhere on the planet and the one thing they all have in common is poverty.

These places all have leaders terrified of being overthrown.

If I am wrong then you feel free to show me examples of a wealthy population ruled by a tyrannical government.

As for the source of the protestant church, show me a timeline that doesn't include Constantine. Without him and his church, you do not have the modern day bible.

Your thesis of causation fails.

At the end of World War II, the poverty of North and South Korea was identical. Today the South is one of the most prosperous nations in the world, which the North one of the most tyrannically This would suggest that poverty springs from tyranny, rather than vice versa.

Except that you are ignoring a great many factors, like US aid to South Korea or the impact of sanctions.

North Korea received aid from China for a few years following the war but that ended during the cultural revolution in the 60's. Their economy wasn't really a total ruin until the 70's.

On top of which, NK isn't really a communist nation any more except in name only. By the early 80's the dictatorship was in full affect and the Korean Workers Party was a sham.

But you can read more about them on your own time.

I would agree if you said communism can lead to dictatorship. Or that communism is a very flawed political system.

But atheism has very little to do with it. In fact, North Korea has freedom of religion as one of it's tenants. Their 1948 Constitution says, ""citizens of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea shall have the freedom of religious belief and of conducting religious services." The 1972 constitution reads, "citizens have religious liberty and the freedom to oppose religion". And in 1992 they went back to something closer to the original document in 48 granting freedom of religion and the right to construct buildings for religious use.

They do have a history of labeling foreign missionaries as spies. But that has a lot more to do with paranoia of the dictatorship than any ban on religion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Except that you are ignoring a great many factors, like US aid to South Korea or the impact of sanctions.

Outside of military aid, please point to any aid provided the South?

And sanctions? North Korea is not Cuba.

North Korea received aid from China for a few years following the war but that ended during the cultural revolution in the 60's. Their economy wasn't really a total ruin until the 70's.

Not exactly. First, North Korea trades almost exclusively with China, and has received heavy financial aid from China for at least the last decade.

{Pyongyang is economically dependent on China, which provides most of its food and energy supplies. Nicholas Eberstadt, a consultant at the World Bank, says that since the early 1990s, China has served as North Korea's chief food supplier and has accounted for nearly 90 percent of its energy imports. By some estimates, China provides 80 percent of North Korea's consumer goods and 45 percent of its food. North Korea's economic dependence on China continues to grow, as indicated by the significant trade imbalance between the two countries. Snyder notes that in 2008, Chinese imports amounted to $2.03 billion, while exports to China including coal and iron ore totaled $750 million. Some experts see the $1.25 billion trade deficit as an indirect Chinese subsidy, given that North Korea cannot finance its trade deficit through borrowing.

China also provides aid directly to Pyongyang. "It is widely believed that Chinese food aid is channeled to the military," (PDF) reported the Congressional Research Service in January 2010. That allows the World Food Program's food aid to be targeted at the general population "without risk that the military-first policy or regime stability would be undermined by foreign aid policies of other countries." }

The China-North Korea Relationship - Council on Foreign Relations

On top of which, NK isn't really a communist nation any more except in name only. By the early 80's the dictatorship was in full affect and the Korean Workers Party was a sham.

Utterly irrelevant to the conversation.

North Korea is totalitarian and tyrannical. The evidence points to tyranny as the cause of poverty, not the result.

But you can read more about them on your own time.

I would agree if you said communism can lead to dictatorship. Or that communism is a very flawed political system.

But atheism has very little to do with it. In fact, North Korea has freedom of religion as one of it's tenants. Their 1948 Constitution says, ""citizens of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea shall have the freedom of religious belief and of conducting religious services." The 1972 constitution reads, "citizens have religious liberty and the freedom to oppose religion". And in 1992 they went back to something closer to the original document in 48 granting freedom of religion and the right to construct buildings for religious use.

They do have a history of labeling foreign missionaries as spies. But that has a lot more to do with paranoia of the dictatorship than any ban on religion.

They have a history of putting Buddhists to death and into forced labor camps.

 

[koshergrl]

No, they were committed by people who placed no value upon life, but fell under the sway of a mindset that assured them they had the *right* to kill people.

Kinda like progressives think they have the *right* to kill babies, or disabled, or elderly, people if they are no longer functioning (or haven't started functioning) up to the standard that they think grants people "personhood".

And unfortunately, there are the religiously insane who make apologies for mass murderers who are religiously motivated.

Again, no specifics.

Who are the religiously insane who make excuses for mass murderers who are religiously motivated? Give us names.

 

[newpolitics]

I think it's somehow wrapped up in some fuzzy re-writing of history that includes a weird understanding of what the crusades were, and how Christianity spread...wrapped up with the vague notion that cars are bad and everybody should just live together in concrete jungles and leave the natural world alone, while harvesting unborn babies for nutrition and skin products.

It's called "progressivism".

Might want to wipe the drool from your rabid mouth. There is no weird understanding for the crusades. It is your revision of history that is weird, which attempts to absolve Christianity of any wrong doing. This easily perceptible bias you have towards Christianity and conservatism on these boards makes your remarks somewhat comical, but completely uninteresting, and totally lacking in credibility. But go ahead, keep on painting your completely inaccurate view of progressives fed to you by Coulter and Beck. How brainwashed you are, both politically and religiously.

 

[newpolitics]

No, they were committed by people who placed no value upon life, but fell under the sway of a mindset that assured them they had the *right* to kill people.

Kinda like progressives think they have the *right* to kill babies, or disabled, or elderly, people if they are no longer functioning (or haven't started functioning) up to the standard that they think grants people "personhood".

And again... No specifics. I'm guessing you are referring to Peter Singer? That is one person. Nice hasty generalization based on a sample size of ONE. Might want to consider subjecting your errant beliefs and perceptions to some kind of rigorous logical scrutiny, because right now, they are seriously lacking in any.

 

[koshergrl]

No, they were committed by people who placed no value upon life, but fell under the sway of a mindset that assured them they had the *right* to kill people.

Kinda like progressives think they have the *right* to kill babies, or disabled, or elderly, people if they are no longer functioning (or haven't started functioning) up to the standard that they think grants people "personhood".

And again... No specifics. I'm guessing you are referring to Peter Singer? That is one person. Nice hasty generalization based on a sample size of ONE. Might want to consider subjecting your errant beliefs and perceptions to some kind of rigorous logical scrutiny, because right now, they are seriously lacking in any.

Actually, I'm referring to the progressives, including those on this site, who en masse support abortion, euthanasia, and who suffer under the delusion that they, personally, have the authority to grant or deny other humans "personhood".

Do you get the Peter Singer newsletter? Color me shocked.

 

[newpolitics]

No, they were committed by people who placed no value upon life, but fell under the sway of a mindset that assured them they had the *right* to kill people.

Kinda like progressives think they have the *right* to kill babies, or disabled, or elderly, people if they are no longer functioning (or haven't started functioning) up to the standard that they think grants people "personhood".

And again... No specifics. I'm guessing you are referring to Peter Singer? That is one person. Nice hasty generalization based on a sample size of ONE. Might want to consider subjecting your errant beliefs and perceptions to some kind of rigorous logical scrutiny, because right now, they are seriously lacking in any.

Actually, I'm referring to the progressives, including those on this site, who en masse support abortion, euthanasia, and who suffer under the delusion that they, personally, have the authority to grant or deny other humans "personhood".

Do you get the Peter Singer newsletter? Color me shocked.

Your pretense of moral superiority over progressives is quite laughable, especially given your misrepresentation of their positions. For example, nobody wants or supports abortion. They support abortion rights for women, meaning their ability to choose kver your having chosen for them. That's quite a difference, yet a distinction you evidently don't want to comprehend, because you seem to love to hate progressives. Coming from a christian, this is rather odd. If you actually had the faculty of your reason beyond your bias you would see nuance and understand that you can't put people in to a box and blindly hate them just because they are progressives. I could make the same argument against conservative Christians as far as being the bane of humanity, and it would be just as valid.

 

[koshergrl]

Ho hum.

 

[Underhill]

Except that you are ignoring a great many factors, like US aid to South Korea or the impact of sanctions.

Outside of military aid, please point to any aid provided the South?

And sanctions? North Korea is not Cuba.

There have been sanctions on North Korea for decades. On and off since 1953 in fact.

And military aid is a huge help to the south. Every dollar in military aid we give them is a dollar they don't have to spend. Not to mention, our having troops there is the number one reason NK hasn't invaded.

Not exactly. First, North Korea trades almost exclusively with China, and has received heavy financial aid from China for at least the last decade.

{Pyongyang is economically dependent on China, which provides most of its food and energy supplies. Nicholas Eberstadt, a consultant at the World Bank, says that since the early 1990s, China has served as North Korea's chief food supplier and has accounted for nearly 90 percent of its energy imports. By some estimates, China provides 80 percent of North Korea's consumer goods and 45 percent of its food. North Korea's economic dependence on China continues to grow, as indicated by the significant trade imbalance between the two countries. Snyder notes that in 2008, Chinese imports amounted to $2.03 billion, while exports to China including coal and iron ore totaled $750 million. Some experts see the $1.25 billion trade deficit as an indirect Chinese subsidy, given that North Korea cannot finance its trade deficit through borrowing.

China also provides aid directly to Pyongyang. "It is widely believed that Chinese food aid is channeled to the military," (PDF) reported the Congressional Research Service in January 2010. That allows the World Food Program's food aid to be targeted at the general population "without risk that the military-first policy or regime stability would be undermined by foreign aid policies of other countries." }

The China-North Korea Relationship - Council on Foreign Relations

No shit. What little trade they have is with China. And they have received some aid from China (as I said) although that ebs and flows with the rhetoric coming out of the dictator.

Utterly irrelevant to the conversation.

North Korea is totalitarian and tyrannical. The evidence points to tyranny as the cause of poverty, not the result.

It's a self perpetuating issue. Poverty leads to unrest. Unrest to fear by dictators. Fear leads many to tyranny. And the tyranny often leads to more unrest.

This is why these leaders love to have an enemy they can blame.

They have a history of putting Buddhists to death and into forced labor camps.

What has that to do with anything? There is no question the leader is paranoid. Most dictatorial rulers are. He's put to death a lot of people of all ilks.

 

[koshergrl]

No, poverty does not lead to dictatorship. Why am I not surprised you have difficulty with cause and effect? Most people who support totalitarianism do.

Dictators typically rise to the top by tricking the people into thinking they represent a form of government they do not, and then they put into place, one by one, policies that oppress the people and remove their means of resistance. They find excuses to imprison, kill or otherwise remove people who stand in opposition...usually via laws that the people approve of at the time.

By the time the people realize what has happened while they were asleep at the wheel, it's too late.

It's happening in our country as we speak.