Religious nuts have Killed more than they saved

Post Reply New Topic

you know those religious nuts, that have those big churches, and Crusades and sell music and self help books on the side...

well imagine that you ACTUALLY really need saving... and you go to the doorstep of one of this profiteering churches... you go and join and feel that you are saved.. but then you realise they are just all nuts... you went thier for help in the first place, and have now lost all hope.

-I wonder how many people Top themselves after joining one of these churhces.... you don't see that on the bottom of the scrolling screen next to the number of people that have been 'saved'

Now I'm going to join a church. Your anti-religious rant has only pushed me to be MORE religious.

That's GOOD!

but

Don't join so that you can head bang,, don't join so that you can REJOICE,, don't join so becasue this PREACHER 'speaks' to you.....

join because you beleive.... a simple small Church with a small minded collection plate and a Priest without a DJ is a place where you will learn more through spirit rather than brain washing.

...Benny Hinn Ministries comes to mind...

Imagine having cancer and you go to his sermon... and you don't get 'healed' ... what then? -do you jump off the nearest bridge, especially so when you thought that Benny Hinn was going to help you?

--A real Church has REAL help.

Just a point of reference. The crusades were not designed primarily to save anyone but as a defensive reaction to the Muslims wars of conquest that spread over the formerly Christian areas of the Middle East, and North Africa. Catholic law of the time, and today (yes, I know it has often been violated, but it was generally followed in the crusades in the Holy Land) forbid the use of force for the use of conversation. During the time Europeans occupied the Holy Land, they generally did not spend there time converting people. Of course, this wasn't the case with the inquisition, or today's Islamist (not all Muslims!) extremists.

Jews (most notably, but others as well when cities were sacked) were horrible massacred by Christians crusaders as they rampaged their way through Europe on the way to the Holy Land, or wherever this or that particular Crusade was.

From what I understand the crusades weren't any more brutal then any other wars of the time.

I'm an atheist but atheist have killed 50-100 million people themselves in communist countries so mass murder is completely independent of religion. I reject religion not because it is evil I reject it because its not the truth.

No one should be held accountable for the crimes of their fathers.

We have little to confess unless you've actually gone out and killed someone.

Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland and all the others all have 'Crusades' where they go around the world to places like the Jesus Dome in singapore and 'spread the word' ... inefect your church collection money being used to brainwash others... and kill other actually 'Really Needy People'.

My favorite one ,is where that Husband and Wife team sell a new book every episode... and say that the money goes to buiding water wells in Africa... what a bunch of smart arses.

But the christians killed people for being atheist

And the atheist killed alot of religious people to in communist countries.

Yes, absolutely. People should be judged on their own beliefs and actions, not the crimes of their ancestors.

The crimes of the past, committed in the name of progress cannot be denied. Philosophical debates over whether one government ideology or the other may lead to greater tyrannical or oppression is certainly valid. However let us be cautious not to lay general blame on the religious or non-religious so generally as that as if every individuals is tarnished with some type of terrible scorn. The average "western" atheist or Christian, Jew, ect. has no desire to return to the dark ages and burn the other at the stake. To suggest such a thing is engaging in exaggeration of a high order.

Your analogy is flawed because no one has been killed in the name of atheism. Atheism by definition has no unifying doctrine or principle other than a complete lack thereof.



This is of course a completely mature response to a statement you disagree with. Rather than offer a rebuttal it makes more sense to simply say "Oh yeah? Well I'm gonna do it just to piss you off!"

Tell thats to the religious people who were shipped to the gulag or where killed in Mao's culture revolution.

Do you understand the difference between atheism and communism? One is a religious point of view (or lack thereof) while the other is a political and economic doctrine. Religious people were persecuted in the USSR and PRC because the rulers of those countries perceived religion to be a threat to their power (and rightly so). They were not murdered in the name of atheism, they were killed so that the people in power could stay there.

Find me a single person who has been killed by an atheist because the victim was not atheist and I will concede my position immediately.

You can argue the semantics with yourself but if a system that is opposed to religion loads you on a rail car because you are religious and ships you to a labor camp with a high death rate. I say that is death by atheistic zeal. I guess if a Muslim fundamentalist sets off a bomb killing alot of mainstream Muslims that has nothing to do with religion either just Terrorism?

They were killed for political reasons. No one went around saying "THESE CHRISTIANS MUST DIE FOR THE GLORY OF ATHEISM!" They weren't opposed to religion in and of itself, they were opposed to the power that religious leaders have with the populace. I honestly doubt Mao or Stalin actually cared about their beliefs, just that they didn't like the competition.

Your belief that atheism and communism are the same thing is a holdover from the Red Scare mentality from the Cold War. It's ridiculous and doesn't have anything to back it up other than the fact that communist governments tend to be secular as well.

Your biggest problem seems to be that you have trouble realizing that atheists have no unifying doctrine or beliefs. I can't even think of an analogy to help illustrate my point because it just seems like something that should be immediately self evident, as atheism is defined by a lack of beliefs.

He's got a point. It's a very popular thing these days to equate religion with violence and to bring back the crimes committed in the name of religion however the truth of the matter is that large-scale crimes like that were committed by all sorts of people in the past, with -and- without religious motivations.

In any case, I'd like to make an independant point in this post. You say "religion" as a whole, but you seem to be talking primarily about Christianity. As a fellow of the jewish faith, I find your logic flawed. Immediately I equate your (generally speaking) words with my own religion first, then with the others, as a natural reaction to hearing them. The falshood therefore rings especially loud for me in that I can't really recall any of the crimes you're mentioning being committed by any members of the jewish faith. Or buddhism or janism or a whole collection of other peaceful religions.

If you have a problem with religion itself, then narrow it down to one issue and one religion. Otherwise you seem to be making generalistic statements about a group of people who's beliefs are different from your own, and therefore you begin to sound like the very people you have a problem with. The cycle of hate continues.