The glories of atheism in action today.

Komodo

Active member
Oh, you must be referring to the documentation that atheists are presently torturing Jesus followers, and uyghur Muslims in atheist and communist China.
STEVE: Atheists here are promoting the atrocities being committed by Communist China.
ME: Not a single atheist here is promoting the atrocities being committed by Communist China.
STEVE: Ah, you are obviously denying the existence of those atrocities.

No, Steve, I was very explicitly saying that you had no "documentation" or citation or any basis whatsoever for saying, as you did, that "we" promoted or cheered for or supported or minimized the atrocities being committed by Communist China.

There is no possibility that you could mistake that point, so -- as usual -- instead of either acknowledging "no, I have no basis for saying that the atheists here support China" or making an actual case that some atheist here did support China, you make up some crap about what I "must" be referring to, which is of course basically the opposite of what I was actually, obviously, explicitly referring to. Again, no honest person behaves the way you do.
 
Last edited:

SteveB

Well-known member
an interesting concept..... but history has shown what happens when the numbers of practitioners of any given ideology increases beyond a certain percentage.
Long before I became a deist, I knew what Christians did do each other over doctrinal differences. French Wars of Religion (3 million dead) and the Thirty Years War (8 million). Or maybe we can agree that psychopaths will use whatever means they find necessary to maintain their hold on power, and what politicians claim to be when they are busy decimating the masses through wars, enslavement, starvation, etc. has more to do with the nature of psychopaths and less to do with the philosophy the psychopath is espousing.
Which is why I don't follow man made religious belief.

My mother's ancestors were Quakers and involved in the abolition movement.

My dad's ancestors were French, Italian British, Scottish and Irish. As such they were all over the map. Catholic, Methodist, and God knows what else.

I left the church I grew up in in 1971-2. I was a preteen then. I didn't meet Jesus until 1977. Right in the middle of the southern California Jesus movement.
The christianity I engage in is quite different from the christianity I grew up in.
The bible teaches us that it's possible to get stuck on the teachings of men, who treat them as though they are the commandments of God, but wind up with people whose hearts are far from God.

So, yep. History happened. Considering that the bible is quite clear that those who hate, and commit murder do not have eternal life dwelling in them, do you actually think that what people did in the name of Jesus and God is actually valid?

1Jn 3:10-16 WEB 10 In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn’t do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn’t love his brother. 11 For this is the message which you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; 12 unlike Cain, who was of the evil one, and killed his brother. Why did he kill him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s righteous. 13 Don’t be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. He who doesn’t love his brother remains in death. 15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him. 16 By this we know love, because he laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.​


Come follow Jesus. He's swung the door wide open for all who come to him.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
STEVE: Atheists here are promoting the atrocities being committed by Communist China.
ME: Not a single atheist here is promoting the atrocities being committed by Communist China.
STEVE: Ah, you are obviously denying the existence of those atrocities.

Wow. You never actually learned how to comprehend what you read, did you?
How on earth did you get out of junior high school?
Or are you?
No, Steve, I was very explicitly saying that you had no "documentation" or citation or any basis whatsoever for saying, as you did, that "we" promoted or cheered for or supported or minimized the atrocities being committed by Communist China.

There is no possibility that you could mistake that point, so -- as usual -- instead of either acknowledging "no, I have no basis for saying that the atheists here support China" or making an actual case that some atheist here did support China, you make up some crap about what I "must" be referring to, which is of course basically the opposite of what I was actually, obviously, explicitly referring to. Again, no honest person behaves the way you do.
Well, if you ever actually learn to comprehend what you read, let me know.

Until then, it's not possible to discuss this issue with you.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Are Jesus and the Father YHWH one?
That is what Jesus said in John 10.

If so, when YHWH orders the Israelites to overthrow then Canaanites or Philistines, and slaughter those who disagree with them, would that be the same as Jesus doing it?
Scary thought, isn't it!

It's not about those who disagreed with the Israelis.
It was about YHVH creating a new civilization and society, which was morally just, and righteous.
God didn't ask the other people groups to stop their lifestyle because he'd already given them hundreds of years to come to him. They refused, so their judgment came due. The first mention of this was in Genesis 15. God gave them another 400+ years to change. They refused, so they were put on the chopping block. They were wiped out in a few generations, for the explicit purpose that they were only going to corrupt the people of Israel and God didn't want them to negatively influence their new culture.

Jesus seems really nice and loving until you get to "the Father and I are one", at which point all of the things done by YHWH's chosen people at the command of YHWH's was also at the command of Jesus.
I think that it's not a problem.
Reading through the old testament, probably around 8 or 9 times now, maybe more, I've seen that YHVH is extremely gracious towards the human race.
Yes, he did indeed judge the people of various cultures. But he repeatedly gave them warnings for hundreds of years prior to the final judgment.
The flood, humans lived for 1650 years. The last 120 years God told Noah to build the ark. Thus, the people had plenty of time, but refused.
The philistines and canaanites had over 400 years following YHVH's notifying Abraham of his plan.
Israel had 1000 years of warnings. Then another 500-600 years before they were finally exiled in 135 ad/ce.
They're now restored to their ancestral lands, just like YHVH promised.
The last phase of the human race is drawing closer, based on the restoration of Israel to their ancestral territories.

Once the church is removed by God from the earth, humanity doesn't have long before they'll bring their own destruction on themselves.

Jesus said that unless those days were cut short, no flesh would survive. But for the sake of the chosen, they will be cut short.
I.e., things will get so bad that unless God were to directly intervene, humans would destroy themselves.
As Jesus said that as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days when the Son of Man comes, I find myself wondering if the same thing happened prior to the flood.
I.e., humans had gotten so bad that God had to directly intervene to save the human race. And it was so bad that only 8 people got through it alive.

So.... you can indeed have a problem with the contents of the bible. But having read it multiple times, for over 4 decades, I think that God is incredibly good and gracious towards the human race. Definitely better than we deserve.

He's waiting for the entire planet to hear the gospel of Jesus before he brings the end.
 

Komodo

Active member
STEVE: You atheists are promoting the atrocities of Communist China.
ME: There's not a single atheist here who has promoted the atrocities of Communist China.
STEVE: Don't you know that Communist China is committing atrocities?
ME: How about you either cite an atheist here who is promoting those atrocities, or admit that there aren't any?
STEVE:
Wow. . . . You never actually learned how to comprehend what you read, did you?
How on earth did you get out of junior high school?
Or are you?

Well, if you ever actually learn to comprehend what you read, let me know.

Until then, it's not possible to discuss this issue with you.

Is there anybody who does not see that Steve's "response" here consists entirely of bluff and evasion?
 

Komodo

Active member
Ironically, you're using man made religious words...
How is it any more "man made" than any other word? And there's nothing specifically "religious" about the word.

that don't actually exist in the old English.
Nobody said anything about "old English," but the word has existed for hundreds of years. It's in Shakespeare, for example.

"I know not love," quoth he, "Nor will I know it..." -- Venus and Adonis

It was quoteth, not quoth.
No it wasn't. The two words are quite distinct. "Quoth" just means "said." [See link to Merriam-Webster; go ahead and see if you can find any dictionary which defines it differently.]

In fact, quoth is a sarcastic use of the word quoteth.
No it isn't. I doubt that anybody in the history of the world has used it that way. Feel free to refute me by providing an example.

This would be the cue for an honest individual to say either "Oops, guess I was mistaken about that" or "no, I was correct, and I can show it using these citations..." You can astound us all by doing either.
 
Last edited:

Nouveau

Well-known member
This would be the cue for an honest individual to say either "Oops, guess I was mistaken about that" or "no, I was correct, and I can show it using these citations..." You can astound us all by doing either.
That's one thing Steve will never do.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
That's taken completely out of context.
Why is the government's job, as defined by God to fight against evil taken out of context?



Romans 12 says Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Yep. If you treat me like crap, I'm to show you kindness and goodness.... up to the point where I can no longer tolerate your asinine behavior.

Rom 12:17-21 WEB Repay no one evil for evil. Respect what is honorable in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as it is up to you, be at peace with all men.19 Don’t seek revenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to God’s wrath. For it is written, “Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, says the Lord.” Deu 32:35 20 Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing so, you will heap coals of fire on his head.” Pro 25:21-22 21 Don’t be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

If you're actually going to talk about other people taking passages out of context, you shouldn't do it yourself. It makes you look bad.

No. I am not to take revenge. God knows much better how to kick the crap out of people who treat his family like crap. I find it curious however that he would say that I'm to live peaceably with others, in so far as it depends on me.

So, picking up where you left off,

If it is possible, as much as it is up to you, be at peace with all men.


Romans 13 1 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who exist are ordained by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authority withstands the ordinance of God; and those who withstand will receive to themselves judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Do you desire to have no fear of the authority? Do that which is good, and you will have praise from the authority, 4 for he is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid, for he doesn’t bear the sword in vain; for he is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to him who does evil. 5 Therefore you need to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for they are servants of God’s service, continually doing this very thing. 7 Therefore give everyone what you owe: if you owe taxes, pay taxes; if customs, then customs; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.


Romans 13 goes on to tell a persecuted church to submit to the authorities, not that it's okay for Christians to join the arm of the state to go kill the enemy of the state.

Show me how that works.



And just war theory is from OT passages that make it clear that their are times the God's followers are just to go kill people, but Jesus never says it's okay to go kill people. See, you want it both ways. When the Christians kill millions in the War of Religion, then they weren't following Jesus, but if they kill millions stopping the Germans, then they are following Jesus. It's inconsistent. I would've had much more respect for you if you actually followed Jesus' teachings on peace, but you pick and choose the things that are okay and the things that aren't to bolster your argument with no consistency behind it. As it stands, the War of Religion was true Christians slaughtering and starving each other over doctrinal differences. Maybe you don't support it because it's 500 years after your time, so you can say it wasn't true Christians then, but I'm sure you have no problem with true Christians dropping bombs on Afghanistan and Iraqi villages, because that's a just war.

I'm not the one who is having a problem here. Sounds to me however that you think it's a good thing to let tyranny thrive, and destroy human beings without any justification.
Rather interesting.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
How is it any more "man made" than any other word? And there's nothing specifically "religious" about the word.


Nobody said anything about "old English," but the word has existed for hundreds of years. It's in Shakespeare, for example.

"I know not love," quoth he, "Nor will I know it..." -- Venus and Adonis


No it wasn't. The two words are quite distinct. "Quoth" just means "said." [See link to Merriam-Webster; go ahead and see if you can find any dictionary which defines it differently.]


No it isn't. I doubt that anybody in the history of the world has used it that way. Feel free to refute me by providing an example.

This would be the cue for an honest individual to say either "Oops, guess I was mistaken about that" or "no, I was correct, and I can show it using these citations..." You can astound us all by doing either.






The difference between language and sarcasm.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
That's one thing Steve will never do.
Pot calling the kettle black.
Or.... is that kettle calling the pot black....
Since you have repeatedly refused to answer questions, I've long since ceased being concerned about your accusations.
 
Top