Paging all Christians, paging all Chirstians...

[Marblehead]

We have a lost minister here, could somebody claim him please.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9047102/

[Henjin]

Don't you all remember when Jesus called for Pilate to be assassinated?

[Deadhead]

Dont you understand? Democratic elections are only valid when the winner supports the U.S. I thought everyone knew that.

I wouldnt mind much if someone 'took out' Pat Robertson.

Slightly Off topic: I think the world would be a better place if christianity had never existed. Do you agree?
Heres a little evidence to start this off: From 1940-1945 Ante Pavelic's Nazi supported Croatian Catholic government killed between 500,000 and a Million non-catholics in ways so brutal that is shocked and appalled the NAZI SS . The Nazis actually functioned as a restraining force, the Croats would have killed even more had they not been there.

[Deadhead]

One last thing.

If Socialism was to be implemented in a modern country, wouldnt a oil rich nation be the best place to do it? Well, Barring a Rural Agrarian country with little to no centralized government, in which the distribution of goods was carried out by individual villages. But how many places like that are even left?

Well, I am sure there are plenty in Africa, but I ment places that actually had goods to distribute.

[Rogue_7]

Slightly Off topic: I think the world would be a better place if christianity had never existed. Do you agree?
Heres a little evidence to start this off: From 1940-1945 Ante Pavelic's Nazi supported Croatian Catholic government killed between 500,000 and a Million non-catholics in ways so brutal that is shocked and appalled the NAZI SS . The Nazis actually functioned as a restraining force, the Croats would have killed even more had they not been there.

Well you are right. Because of one incident with one government that was 'Catholic', all Catholics are evil. In fact, hell, all religions are evil. And since irreligious governments (paging Uncle Joe) have also slaughtered millions, athiests and agnostics are automatically evil too! Wait, you know what that means?!?!? Every fucking one of us is evil, evil to the core.

[Deadhead]

Well you are right. Because of one incident with one government that was 'Catholic', all Catholics are evil. In fact, hell, all religions are evil. And since irreligious governments (paging Uncle Joe) have also slaughtered millions, athiests and agnostics are automatically evil too! Wait, you know what that means?!?!? Every fucking one of us is evil, evil to the core.

Yeah, because I definitely said that all Catholics are evil.
You took me saying 'Would the world be a worse or better place if Christianity had never existed' And turned it into something completely different. Either you have no reading comprehension, or you want to make me look bad by taking something I said and going off in a completely different direction that isnt even based in what I said.

I could ask the same question about the U.S., but it wouldnt mean I hate U.S. citizens.

PS. The pope was well aware of what the Croatian Catholics were doing, he didnt much care. If the unquestioned leader of your religon is willing to look the other way and call the Croatians good catholics, I dont think its fair to question whether the Croatians were Catholic.

PSS. The Pope sanctioned cannabalism during the Crusades.
Catholic Missionaries tell people in Africa that condoms cause Aids.
High level members of the Church helped prominent Nazi war Criminals escape to south america.
No matter how many soup kitchens they want to open, the Catholic church has done (and is doing) way more harm than good.
Does that mean I hate catholics? No, most of them I have met were born into their religon, and dont have a clue what the guys up top are and have been doing. Its the Catholic leadership I have a big problem with

[Henjin]

Don't judge Christianity by Catholics.

[Nights_into_dreams]

Pat Robinson is an idiot.

Watch the 700 Club sometime if you want to see a weekly does of softcore terrorism and scare tactics.

Venezula has a right to act like this...look at how many times we tried to kill Castro. We overthrown countries and assassinated political figures over the past few decades that I would be thinking twice if an influential man such as Robertson (who was in the running to be the Republican canidate for president in 1986) just advocated the assassination of my country's leader on national TV.

[Kass]

Not since 1976 has an assassination attempt been made on a foreign leader. If there had been, there'd be a lot more dead foreign leaders. Several of the ones that were assassinated were friendly to the US and it would not have been in our best interests to kill them. Get your facts straight.

Whether Pat Robertson ran for president is irrelebant. He lost and is not president. That makes him a private citizen and accountable for his statements only as much as you are for yours. Since a good number of people here advocate killing him, what is the difference between his opinion andyours? NOTHING. They are both wrong but neither are illegal. Only a direct threat would be illegal (i.e. "I am going to shoot you.")

Pat Robertson is NOT a Christian. Real Christians don't behave as he does. Besides, the Christian Coalition he runs has about 2 million members. That is about 1.26% of the 159,030,000 Christians in the US. It is hardly representative. (http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions -- not a religious website)

These ignorant stereotypes are why there are so many problems in the US right now.

You can have Pat Robertson. We don't want him.

[Rogue_7]

Yeah, because I definitely said that all Catholics are evil.
You took me saying 'Would the world be a worse or better place if Christianity had never existed' And turned it into something completely different. Either you have no reading comprehension, or you want to make me look bad by taking something I said and going off in a completely different direction that isnt even based in what I said.



Well it seems to me that thinking the world would be a better place if Christianity didn't exist is pretty tatamount to saying "All Christians are bad." Even if you admit that some are good people, you are implying that none of the good done in the name of Christianity over two-thousand years amounts to anything. That evil things done on their own volition and for their own non-religous reasons by governments and individuals who claim to be Catholic somehow outweighs the immense amount of good deeds and acts performed by the vast majority of Catholics. So yeah, that kinda pissed me off a bit. I'm really sick of Anti-Catholic bias these days. And it does really entertain me when people confuse the worldly power-driven actions of religious people. Just because they are religious doesn't mean they are acting for that religion. (Haven't we gone over this with Islam?)

Besides, it was my understanding that Pat Robertson was most certainly NOT Catholic, so I wonder how this bias got into this discussion. Never really listened to him though, so I'm not terribly sure on that last point.

[RDClip]

Slightly Off topic: I think the world would be a better place if christianity had never existed. Do you agree?
That's an interesting question. What would have happened have Constantine the Great never beleived in the Christian faith? (because without him, they would have been anihiliated)

Let's see, well, there is a good chance that we would all be pagans now, mostly athiest, or some other religion that popped up in the 1300 years in between. Don't know if any of those would be better than what we have. Any organization that has been around as long as the Catholic chuch eventaully is filled with corruption. So most likely even if Christainity would have never existed, there would still be wars, genocide, and all matters of bad things.

Now as for dumbass Pat Robertson. He is probably the worst Christian on TV. He preaches Jesus then says they should kill someone. What was that thing Jesus preached? Oh yeah, PEACE. ANy Christian that adovcates killing in any degree is a bad Christian, pure and simple. He's a bad Christan and he thinks that he knows what God wants. What a bloody blowhart ass.

Now, I don't beleive in God, Jesus, Allah, Jahovah, Zeus, or whatever god you can think of, but I do know of what they say (Catholic elementary and high school) and Pat Robertson is sure as hell going to hell.

[Deadhead]

Don't judge Christianity by Catholics.
I hate it when people try to disassociate Catholicism from Christianity. Catholics are Christian, and they make up a very large percentage of all the Christians.


Well it seems to me that thinking the world would be a better place if Christianity didn't exist is pretty tatamount to saying "All Christians are bad." Even if you admit that some are good people, you are implying that none of the good done in the name of Christianity over two-thousand years amounts to anything. That evil things done on their own volition and for their own non-religous reasons by governments and individuals who claim to be Catholic somehow outweighs the immense amount of good deeds and acts performed by the vast majority of Catholics.That evil things done on their own volition and for their own non-religous reasons by governments and individuals who claim to be Catholic somehow outweighs the immense amount of good deeds and acts performed by the vast majority of Catholics.
Besides, it was my understanding that Pat Robertson was most certainly NOT Catholic, so I wonder how this bias got into this discussion. Never really listened to him though, so I'm not terribly sure on that last point.

I do think that the world would be a better place without Christianity, but drawing me saying 'All Christians are bad' from that just makes you look like a dumbass trying to paint me a negative light.

I am saying that the majority of the things done in the name of Christianity in have been bad. Until you start pointing out facts to disprove that I dont think anyone is listening for you. What 'good' are you talking about? True, there are Christian charities, but I hardly think that they outweigh past and ongoing atrocities.

You keep saying things like Ante Pavelic 'claimed to be catholic'. Thats BS, he was as good a Catholic as anyone. If the major leader of your religon knows what you are doing and still welcomes you to the vatican repeatedly, then you are Catholic. The Croats were catholic, dont make it sound like they somehow werent.

That evil things done on their own volition and for their own non-religous reasons by governments and individuals who claim to be Catholic somehow outweighs the immense amount of good deeds and acts performed by the vast majority of Catholics.
Heres a real gem. They didnt do it for non-religous reasons, it was all in the name of Religon. Again you say they 'claim to be catholic', which I have already pointed out is a ludicrous claim.
What 'immense amount of good deeds'? Sure, the Church has done its fair share of charity, but that doesnt outweigh the amount of evil they have and are still doing. Also, Catholic charities tend to push their Religon and opinions,

I think its perfectly fair to be biased against Catholicism. They have done some profoundly awful things. Wouldnt you be biased against a person advocating Nazi Facism? I'm Biased against people advocating Catholicism.
They dont do these things for 'non-religous reasons', its all IN THE NAME OF AND FOR RELIGON.

[RDClip]

Don't judge Christianity by Catholics.
I hate it when people try to disassociate Catholicism from Christianity. Catholics are Christian, and they make up a very large percentage of all the Christians.


Well it seems to me that thinking the world would be a better place if Christianity didn't exist is pretty tatamount to saying "All Christians are bad." Even if you admit that some are good people, you are implying that none of the good done in the name of Christianity over two-thousand years amounts to anything. That evil things done on their own volition and for their own non-religous reasons by governments and individuals who claim to be Catholic somehow outweighs the immense amount of good deeds and acts performed by the vast majority of Catholics.That evil things done on their own volition and for their own non-religous reasons by governments and individuals who claim to be Catholic somehow outweighs the immense amount of good deeds and acts performed by the vast majority of Catholics.
Besides, it was my understanding that Pat Robertson was most certainly NOT Catholic, so I wonder how this bias got into this discussion. Never really listened to him though, so I'm not terribly sure on that last point.

I do think that the world would be a better place without Christianity, but drawing me saying 'All Christians are bad' from that just makes you look like a dumbass trying to paint me a negative light.

I am saying that the majority of the things done in the name of Christianity in have been bad. Until you start pointing out facts to disprove that I dont think anyone is listening for you. What 'good' are you talking about? True, there are Christian charities, but I hardly think that they outweigh past and ongoing atrocities.

You keep saying things like Ante Pavelic 'claimed to be catholic'. Thats BS, he was as good a Catholic as anyone. If the major leader of your religon knows what you are doing and still welcomes you to the vatican repeatedly, then you are Catholic. The Croats were catholic, dont make it sound like they somehow werent.

That evil things done on their own volition and for their own non-religous reasons by governments and individuals who claim to be Catholic somehow outweighs the immense amount of good deeds and acts performed by the vast majority of Catholics.
Heres a real gem. They didnt do it for non-religous reasons, it was all in the name of Religon. Again you say they 'claim to be catholic', which I have already pointed out is a ludicrous claim.
What 'immense amount of good deeds'? Sure, the Church has done its fair share of charity, but that doesnt outweigh the amount of evil they have and are still doing. Also, Catholic charities tend to push their Religon and opinions,

I think its perfectly fair to be biased against Catholicism. They have done some profoundly awful things. Wouldnt you be biased against a person advocating Nazi Facism? I'm Biased against people advocating Catholicism.
They dont do these things for 'non-religous reasons', its all IN THE NAME OF AND FOR RELIGON.

Seems you have an unhealthy hatred for all things Christian. So are you saying that people don't do bad things for any other reasons than religion?

To say that the world would be better without Christianity is a grossly innaccurate statement. Teribble things have been done outside of religion and before Christianity existed. As far as we know the world may have been the same or worse without Christianity.

Wars are not fought for religion wars ar fought for pride, greed, money, or resources. Do you think the Crusades were about religion? They were fought for Pride, land, and because the Europeans saw the Muslims as a threat to them. The last Crusade wasn't even against Muslims, it was against another Christain trading rival city. All these so-called wars of 'religion' were just to mask their true motives.

(I don't remember the Soviet Union having religious resons when they killed more than 20 million of their own people)

[Rogue_7]

Don't judge Christianity by Catholics.
I hate it when people try to disassociate Catholicism from Christianity. Catholics are Christian, and they make up a very large percentage of all the Christians.


Well it seems to me that thinking the world would be a better place if Christianity didn't exist is pretty tatamount to saying "All Christians are bad." Even if you admit that some are good people, you are implying that none of the good done in the name of Christianity over two-thousand years amounts to anything. That evil things done on their own volition and for their own non-religous reasons by governments and individuals who claim to be Catholic somehow outweighs the immense amount of good deeds and acts performed by the vast majority of Catholics.That evil things done on their own volition and for their own non-religous reasons by governments and individuals who claim to be Catholic somehow outweighs the immense amount of good deeds and acts performed by the vast majority of Catholics.
Besides, it was my understanding that Pat Robertson was most certainly NOT Catholic, so I wonder how this bias got into this discussion. Never really listened to him though, so I'm not terribly sure on that last point.

I do think that the world would be a better place without Christianity, but drawing me saying 'All Christians are bad' from that just makes you look like a dumbass trying to paint me a negative light.

I am saying that the majority of the things done in the name of Christianity in have been bad. Until you start pointing out facts to disprove that I dont think anyone is listening for you. What 'good' are you talking about? True, there are Christian charities, but I hardly think that they outweigh past and ongoing atrocities.

You keep saying things like Ante Pavelic 'claimed to be catholic'. Thats BS, he was as good a Catholic as anyone. If the major leader of your religon knows what you are doing and still welcomes you to the vatican repeatedly, then you are Catholic. The Croats were catholic, dont make it sound like they somehow werent.

That evil things done on their own volition and for their own non-religous reasons by governments and individuals who claim to be Catholic somehow outweighs the immense amount of good deeds and acts performed by the vast majority of Catholics.
Heres a real gem. They didnt do it for non-religous reasons, it was all in the name of Religon. Again you say they 'claim to be catholic', which I have already pointed out is a ludicrous claim.
What 'immense amount of good deeds'? Sure, the Church has done its fair share of charity, but that doesnt outweigh the amount of evil they have and are still doing. Also, Catholic charities tend to push their Religon and opinions,

I think its perfectly fair to be biased against Catholicism. They have done some profoundly awful things. Wouldnt you be biased against a person advocating Nazi Facism? I'm Biased against people advocating Catholicism.
They dont do these things for 'non-religous reasons', its all IN THE NAME OF AND FOR RELIGON.


A person who acts as a Catholic, or even as a Christian in general, acts in accordence to Christ's teaching. You may remember little sayings like "turn the other cheek" or "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" or even the big daddy of them all, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." There are millions of people, dead and living, that practiced these ideas every day. They made their towns, cities, nations, and countries a better place. Now there are many people, of all races and religions, who claimed to be a member of that faith. Some have even been very highly placed. Popes, Sultans, Kings, Presidents. These people have used their religious ties in attempts to gain and maintain earthly power. A true follower of Christ does not do this. A true follower remembers that Jesus said, "Sell all your things, give the money to the poor, and follow me!"

You are trying to pin human motivations and human desire for power on religion. But religions are here to motivate us, to inspire us to be better than that. Humans use religions as a convinient excuse for war or slaughter. But one must not confuse the teaching of that religion with those who are warping it.

[RDClip]

You are trying to pin human motivations and human desire for power on religion. But religions are here to motivate us, to inspire us to be better than that. Humans use religions as a convinient excuse for war or slaughter. But one must not confuse the teaching of that religion with those who are warping it.
I see it as simply an incentive based morality system that is explained through myth. Do bad, your going to hell; do good your going to heaven. Simple as that, people have just taken it too far and made those myths into religion.

When someone says that religion was the true and only reason for war and whatnot really don't understand this fundamental aspect of religion.

[Roxie]

But one must not confuse the teaching of that religion with those who are warping it.

THANK YOU!
Someone finally gets it.

[Deadhead]

Seems you have an unhealthy hatred for all things Christian. So are you saying that people don't do bad things for any other reasons than religion?
Can you show me a place where I said that?


When someone says that religion was the true and only reason for war and whatnot really don't understand this fundamental aspect of religion.
Yeah, because I definitely said that religon is the only cause of War /sarcasm.

All I said is that Christianity has done more harm than good. I have given plenty of examples of Harm. I have yet to see you give me one of good.


To say that the world would be better without Christianity is a grossly innaccurate statement. Teribble things have been done outside of religion and before Christianity existed. As far as we know the world may have been the same or worse without Christianity.
Except it isnt. You refuse to believe that horrible things are done only because of religous motivations They Are, ALL THE TIME.
Look at the history of the Balkans, almost all of the tensions there come from religon, not from other factors.
I am not, nor have I ever said that Christianity caused all the worlds evils, I merely said that Christianity has caused more evil than good. I am sure there would have been Genocide without christianity, but there are alot of atrocitites that only happened because of christianity.


Wars are not fought for religion wars ar fought for pride, greed, money, or resources. Do you think the Crusades were about religion? They were fought for Pride, land, and because the Europeans saw the Muslims as a threat to them. The last Crusade wasn't even against Muslims, it was against another Christain trading rival city. All these so-called wars of 'religion' were just to mask their true motives.

(I don't remember the Soviet Union having religious resons when they killed more than 20 million of their own people)
Are you even reading my posts? I never said that all wars are fought over religon, or that all atrocities are commited because of it! I Said that a large number of them are, and that seeing as Christianity has caused quite a few itself, the world would probably be better off without it.


A person who acts as a Catholic, or even as a Christian in general, acts in accordence to Christ's teaching. You may remember little sayings like "turn the other cheek" or "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" or even the big daddy of them all, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." There are millions of people, dead and living, that practiced these ideas every day. They made their towns, cities, nations, and countries a better place. Now there are many people, of all races and religions, who claimed to be a member of that faith. Some have even been very highly placed. Popes, Sultans, Kings, Presidents. These people have used their religious ties in attempts to gain and maintain earthly power. A true follower of Christ does not do this. A true follower remembers that Jesus said, "Sell all your things, give the money to the poor, and follow me!"

You are trying to pin human motivations and human desire for power on religion. But religions are here to motivate us, to inspire us to be better than that. Humans use religions as a convinient excuse for war or slaughter. But one must not confuse the teaching of that religion with those who are warping it.
Then how many people in the world do you think are really christian/catholic?
Damned few, probably less than 1% of Christians follow what Jesus said/did literally, Do you? I doubt it, as you have a computer. Why not use that money to help the poor? The way to decide who is Christian is to look at A: What they call themselves and B: are they accpeted by other christians. I really dont have an issue with the teachings of Jesus, I think there is alot of good stuff in there. I do have an issue with what they spawned.

Again you make it sound like I am saying that all atrocity springs from religon, I am not. I really doubt that alot of you are reading my whole posts, since you seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth. If you are, put this phrase at the bottom of your next post: Donkey Basketball.

But one must not confuse the teaching of that religion with those who are warping it.
I have met 2 people who really follow, or even try to follow Jesus's teachings. Both of them were awesome people. Does that mean that there are only 2 Christians in the world? According to you it does.

[Roxie]

I saw not using the "quote" function has cause atrocities throughout time.
The world would be better with ONLY quote fuction users.

There is something you seem to not understand. You saying the world would be better with out Christianity IMPLIES that you think the world would be better off w/o the followers of that religion, who so happen to be called

uh....um...CHRISTIANS.

That's not putting words into your mouth that's reading inbetween the lines.

[Rogue_7]

Well you make a blanket statement that the world would be a better place without Christianity and expect people to treat you like this is afternoon tea? I mean come on, douse yourself in flame bait and expect to be flamed. You want Christian Good? Ok.

Mother Theresa
People Hiding Jews in World War II
Monks keeping knowledge and literacy alive in the Dark Ages
Thousands, Millions of charities throught history
A system of belief giving hope and inspiration to millions
Gothic Cathedrals
Donkey Basketball

Now am I a true Christian? Hell no! But I try, and that is the point. Do I even like people who are overtly religious? Oh Heeeeelllll no. I can't stand evangelicals. Do I think the world is a better place for having Christianity and other religions present. yes, yes I do.

[Roxie]

Then how many people in the world do you think are really christian/catholic?
Damned few, probably less than 1% of Christians follow what Jesus said/did literally, Do you? I doubt it, as you have a computer. Why not use that money to help the poor?

I have met 2 people who really follow, or even try to follow Jesus's teachings. Both of them were awesome people. Does that mean that there are only 2 Christians in the world? According to you it does.

OMG, he has a pc!! Stone him!
so in order to be Christian he has to do everything literally? Cause that's not what it's about either. You do your best.

Asking for someone's assisination is obviously NOT your best.


Ok, this is proof to me you don't really care what anyone here has to say about it, you're just going to hate on Christianity b/c you can.

[Deadhead]

Mother Theresa
People Hiding Jews in World War II
Monks keeping knowledge and literacy alive in the Dark Ages
Thousands, Millions of charities throught history
A system of belief giving hope and inspiration to millions
Gothic Cathedrals
I will give you mother Theresa, She was a good woman.
The Monks, not so much. The Arab world had better info, you act like we would all be in caves if it wasnt for them
The Charities still dont balance out the atrocities, especially since so many of them are pushing an agenda
Gothic Cathedrals? I admit the architecture is neat, but the Nazis had some neat architecture too. Doesnt make it a good system.

I have never heard anything about Christians hiding jews, but I have heard plenty about them helping Nazis escape justice.

[I]

OMG, he has a pc!! Stone him!
so in order to be Christian he has to do everything literally? Cause that's not what it's about either. You do your best.

Asking for someone's assisination is obviously NOT your best.


Ok, this is proof to me you don't really care what anyone here has to say about it, you're just going to hate on Christianity b/c you can.[I]
He is saying that the people who commit atroctites cant be chritian because they dont follow Christ teachings, He doesnt either.

[RDClip]

Mother Theresa
People Hiding Jews in World War II
Monks keeping knowledge and literacy alive in the Dark Ages
Thousands, Millions of charities throught history
A system of belief giving hope and inspiration to millions
Gothic Cathedrals
I will give you mother Theresa, She was a good woman.
The Monks, not so much. The Arab world had better info, you act like we would all be in caves if it wasnt for them
The Charities still dont balance out the atrocities, especially since so many of them are pushing an agenda
Gothic Cathedrals? I admit the architecture is neat, but the Nazis had some neat architecture too. Doesnt make it a good system.

I have never heard anything about Christians hiding jews, but I have heard plenty about them helping Nazis escape justice.

[I]

OMG, he has a pc!! Stone him!
so in order to be Christian he has to do everything literally? Cause that's not what it's about either. You do your best.

Asking for someone's assisination is obviously NOT your best.


Ok, this is proof to me you don't really care what anyone here has to say about it, you're just going to hate on Christianity b/c you can.[I]
He is saying that the people who commit atroctites cant be chritian because they dont follow Christ teachings, He doesnt either.

You still haven't conviced anyone that the world would be better without Christains. Had Christianity not been adopted by the Romans, I can guarentee you atrocities would have still happened. As I said and you agree to "bad things happened before and without Christainity." It's same to say that Christianity was not related to the majority of the atrocities in the history of the humanity. Thus, your statement has been proven false already.

[Roxie]

He is saying that the people who commit atroctites cant be chritian because they dont follow Christ teachings, He doesnt either.
oOh, you totally proved my last statement was correct, thanks.

[akitaka]

Now am I a true Christian? Hell no! But I try, and that is the point. Do I even like people who are overtly religious? Oh Heeeeelllll no. I can't stand evangelicals. Do I think the world is a better place for having Christianity and other religions present. yes, yes I do. I think what he means is that religion works well if the person understands and acknowledges positive points, and acts upon them out of pragmatism.

There have been many things both malevolent and benevolent in history that had occured out of the name of religion; bad seems to out do good, but mainly because the bad is much more publicized. Also there is the argument that people are innately easy to mislead; this is also the case with law. You can easily argue that, without business, the world would be a better place. Slave labor, economic dependance, overusage of resources, you name it. Does that make it 100% true? Maybe not.

Religion, to myself, is a lot like material knowledge you would learn in school, only the sheer nature adds more etheral reasons, rather than scientific. Either way you learn because you feel a sense of gain; what is done with that knowledge is a whole different beast.

[Mr. Mouthwash]

Slightly Off topic: I think the world would be a better place if christianity had never existed. Do you agree?

Eliminating Christianity from history would leave a huge void in Western civilization. People do seem to desire religion. When was the last time you heard of a majority atheistic society? If Christianity didn't exist, that void would have been filled with something else, likely another religion. In that case, who's to say that the other religion wouldn't have behaved exactly the same way or worse? Obviously some of the details might have been different, but can we really say that there is any feature of Christianity itself which is uniquely likely to cause harm? I can't think of any unique feature, one which would be unlikely to exist in the religion which took its place.

If by chance no religion took Christianity's place... well, there are still plenty of reasons for people to hurt one another. The Crusades might still have been fought purely in terms of expansionism. Ethnic groups would still be fighting or abising one another purely on the grounds of being different ethnic groups (pop quiz: what religion are the Rom people, aka gypsies?) Even members of the same religion manage to find reasons to fight (Catholics vs. Protestants in Northern Ireland, Turks/Sunni Muslims vs Kurds). My point here is that lots of violence and harm might still have occurred irregardless of religion. Religion just seems to be a non-factor sometimes. So on the whole, I'm just not convinced that taking any one religion out would affect much.

[Mushu]

Not since 1976 has an assassination attempt been made on a foreign leader. If there had been, there'd be a lot more dead foreign leaders. Several of the ones that were assassinated were friendly to the US and it would not have been in our best interests to kill them. Get your facts straight. I dont see the relevant of this


Whether Pat Robertson ran for president is irrelebant. He lost and is not president. That makes him a private citizen and accountable for his statements only as much as you are for yours. Since a good number of people here advocate killing him, what is the difference between his opinion andyours? NOTHING. They are both wrong but neither are illegal. Only a direct threat would be illegal (i.e. "I am going to shoot you.")Really? You think it’s relevant? That he might have an influence, no matter how small it is? Don’t think you know whole allot of politics...

Pat Robertson is NOT a Christian. Real Christians don't behave as he does. Besides, the Christian Coalition he runs has about 2 million members. That is about 1.26% of the 159,030,000 Christians in the US. It is hardly representative. (http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions -- not a religious website) You can declare person not being in your religion when they stand out or offend other people? I didn’t know you could do that. And btw i think 2 million people matter somehow.

[Mushu]

and just to end the whole fucking thing. ill tell you something amazing, you ready....B/c here it comes.............
...............
..............
.............
............
...........
..........
.........
........
.......
......
.....
....
...
..
.
The world would be a better if mankind didnt exist.

[RDClip]

and just to end the whole fucking thing. ill tell you something amazing, you ready....B/c here it comes.............
...............
..............
.............
............
...........
..........
.........
........
.......
......
.....
....
...
..
.
The world would be a better if mankind didnt exist.
The World would be better if existence didn't exist.

[Mushu]

The World would be better if existence didn't exist.I have a follower; hurray..........unless you are sarcastic, then ill hunt you down and kill you for it :mad:

[Pierrot le Fou]

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/pierrotlefou/churchsign.jpg

[MajorProblem]

Here's my opinion: Religion played an important part in history to organize people and to give hope to them. But now, religion hinders progress. Yes, most religious people are good, but the same exists with us atheists. At this point religion simply causes conflicts based on who's right and who's wrong. At this point people are simply believing what they want to, Catholics are not obeying their own rules, Protestants just keep on dividing and dividing it seems. But religious charities do help many people.

That said, I am tired of atheists being treated so poorly in the world. If someone is Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu, they are treated with respect, but if someone chooses not to believe in a higher power, they are instantly evil. Some have called me self-centered for "believing humans are all powerful." But really, who ever said there is a power? When you look at it, does the universe really care if an almost infinetely small (in comparison to the universe's size) asteroid crashes into this grain of sand that we call Earth on this coastline we call the universe?

I've already strayed far enough from the original topic, but I'll stray even farther: it's reasons like these that I believe we need to begin the terraforming of Mars and colonize it as soon as possible.
I'm done.

[Rogue_7]

I'll join you on mars, but only if I can vacation on Europa.

[JustTooCrazy]

Warning: Religous Arguement May Errupt!!!!

[Kass]

*sigh* I've tried to reply to this twice and something keeps locking up. When I am so inclined, I'll write out my response in Word and repost it later.

[Eagle]

[I]

Then how many people in the world do you think are really christian/catholic?
Damned few, probably less than 1% of Christians follow what Jesus said/did literally, Do you? I doubt it, as you have a computer. Why not use that money to help the poor?

Jesus also said (in response to disciple muttering about the cost of anointing oils being used on him being better spent on the poor) "You will always have the poor. But you won't always have me"

Where does that fit in?

"Christian" has two meanings. One is a follower of Christ, the other is acting in a selfless and generous manner. Millions give lip service to the first. There are probably more non-christians doing the second.

Organised religion is a political party. A power structure, created by MEN for the purposes of MEN. Throughout history, the entrenched heirarchy has used religion to control the populace. Having said that, it's important not to confuse the message with the organisation. Whether the Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Moslems, Hindu's, etc. actually live the life of their chosen Holy Man/prophet/leader/voice in the sky/face in a peanut butter jar is less important than whether they believe in something greater than themselves. At least to me.

[ruaidhri]

First, the purpose of this thread was to publicize television evangelist Pat Robertson’s call for someone to kill Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Understandably, it’s digressed into a general indictment of religion of all types particularly Christianity. One writer has further focused on Catholicism as his personal root of all evil. Flames have even appeared and against a moderator no less.

Yes, religious organizations are not the bastions of tolerance. But then, neither are the people who are complaining so vociferously about the evils of religion. Personally, I do not belong to any church. I always considered myself an Agnostic not knowing or even caring if there were a God. Now, perhaps because I’m 64 and getting older each day, I’m thinking it would be nice if there were a God. Therefore I have declared myself a Theist because I would like to believe not because I have faith. However, regardless of my lack of faith or lack of religion I have always tried to treat each person I meet with respect and tolerance. I’ll argue an issue until the cows come home but I don’t like or appreciate personal attacks even on those people with whom I disagree.

Religion is a touchy issue. It means a lot to people. In my old age I’ve decided that it’s not beneficial to anyone to get another person fired up and all red faced. It’s just mean and disrespectful. What Pat Robertson did was wrong. I believe the White House has a responsibility to publicly condemn Robertson’s actions. So far, it hasn’t. That’s the issue opened with this thread. How can our government condemn Terrorism yet through their silence condone Pat Roberts comments calling for the assassination of a world leader?

[Mushu]

First, the purpose of this thread was to publicize television evangelist Pat Robertson’s call for someone to kill Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Understandably, it’s digressed into a general indictment of religion of all types particularly Christianity. One writer has further focused on Catholicism as his personal root of all evil. Flames have even appeared and against a moderator no less.

Yes, religious organizations are not the bastions of tolerance. But then, neither are the people who are complaining so vociferously about the evils of religion. Personally, I do not belong to any church. I always considered myself an Agnostic not knowing or even caring if there were a God. Now, perhaps because I’m 64 and getting older each day, I’m thinking it would be nice if there were a God. Therefore I have declared myself a Theist because I would like to believe not because I have faith. However, regardless of my lack of faith or lack of religion I have always tried to treat each person I meet with respect and tolerance. I’ll argue an issue until the cows come home but I don’t like or appreciate personal attacks even on those people with whom I disagree.

Religion is a touchy issue. It means a lot to people. In my old age I’ve decided that it’s not beneficial to anyone to get another person fired up and all red faced. It’s just mean and disrespectful. What Pat Robertson did was wrong. I believe the White House has a responsibility to publicly condemn Robertson’s actions. So far, it hasn’t. That’s the issue opened with this thread. How can our government condemn Terrorism yet through their silence condone Pat Roberts comments calling for the assassination of a world leader? thank you, really

[Jormungand]

catholics r totaly different from true christians almost nothing they teach is from the bible half of its simply made up bullshit from the middle ages and constantine dident save christiany he just made it big it woulda survived without him it just wouldent be as big as it is now

[RDClip]

catholics r totaly different from true christians almost nothing they teach is from the bible half of its simply made up bullshit from the middle ages and constantine dident save christiany he just made it big it woulda survived without him it just wouldent be as big as it is now
Really, well pagans had fun little games called "Let's see how many Christains this lion can eat" and "How fast can a Christian burn"

Christians would have been wiped out sooner or later, if not by the Romans then someone else.

[ruaidhri]

As I previously wrote, the purpose of this thread was to publicize television evangelist Pat Robertson’s call for someone to kill Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Neither the survival of Christianity nor the merits or sins of the Catholic Church are on topic. Each would make a splendid thread by themselves but they have nothing at all to do with Pat Robertson call to assassinate Hugo Chavez.

Can we all agree that what Pat Robertson did was wrong? Do you believe the White House has a responsibility to publicly condemn Robertson’s actions? I do! So far, it hasn’t. That’s the issue opened with this thread. How can our government condemn Terrorism yet through their silence condone Pat Robertson’s comments calling for the assassination of a world leader? This is an interesting topic. I’d like to hear comments from members that discuss Pat Robertson’s actions not the fate of Christianity or the Catholic Church or any other issue.

Please…

[CNagy]

Pat Robertson forgot a golden rule of politics: people say stupid things all the time, but when a politician says something stupid, it's news.

The practical side of me says assassinations are the easiest way to do something. Of course, to actually embrace that idea would require an unrelenting sense of trust in your own government, and a belief that everything they do is right.

So yeah, Pat screwed the pooch big time. His statements should be denounced by anyone with any affiliation with him whatsoever. The fact that he himself apologized and the White House has still kept quiet looks really bad for the administration's already tattered reputation.

[Rogue_7]

Poor pooch, I wonder if pat thought through his actions before he screwed the pooch.

On Topic

Yeah, Pat Robertson is a moron, always has been. I like how he has apologized and is backpedaling. "I only said 'take him out" I didn't say 'assasinate him." I doubt I'm the only one who doesn't see much semantic difference there.

[Tssss..]

Not since 1976 has an assassination attempt been made on a foreign leader. If there had been, there'd be a lot more dead foreign leaders. Several of the ones that were assassinated were friendly to the US and it would not have been in our best interests to kill them. Get your facts straight.

Whether Pat Robertson ran for president is irrelebant. He lost and is not president. That makes him a private citizen and accountable for his statements only as much as you are for yours. Since a good number of people here advocate killing him, what is the difference between his opinion andyours? NOTHING. They are both wrong but neither are illegal. Only a direct threat would be illegal (i.e. "I am going to shoot you.")

Pat Robertson is NOT a Christian. Real Christians don't behave as he does. Besides, the Christian Coalition he runs has about 2 million members. That is about 1.26% of the 159,030,000 Christians in the US. It is hardly representative. (http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions -- not a religious website)

These ignorant stereotypes are why there are so many problems in the US right now.

You can have Pat Robertson. We don't want him.


:eek: ........damn right. right on.

[Myrsilus]

As I previously wrote, the purpose of this thread was to publicize television evangelist Pat Robertson’s call for someone to kill Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Neither the survival of Christianity nor the merits or sins of the Catholic Church are on topic. Each would make a splendid thread by themselves but they have nothing at all to do with Pat Robertson call to assassinate Hugo Chavez.

Can we all agree that what Pat Robertson did was wrong? Do you believe the White House has a responsibility to publicly condemn Robertson’s actions? I do! So far, it hasn’t. That’s the issue opened with this thread. How can our government condemn Terrorism yet through their silence condone Pat Robertson’s comments calling for the assassination of a world leader? This is an interesting topic. I’d like to hear comments from members that discuss Pat Robertson’s actions not the fate of Christianity or the Catholic Church or any other issue.

Please…
Just wanted to say that I like your style of getting back on topic. It's refreshing. :D

I don't know how the White House is not truly giving the matter the attention it is calling... no freaking yelling for, but it is very odd. America is, obviously, very active in dealing with terrorism, yet when a call for such activity is made INSIDE the U.S. by an American, an apology seems fit. -.-

I truly think more harsh action should be taken against Robertson for calling for an assassination of Hugo Chavez. Perhaps he may have not intended to actually have people start plans to assassinate the man, but many people that follow the man might think otherwise. Hell it could somehow ignite a flame in the heart's of those against Chavez, giving them a little push of confidence in possibly attempting to assassinate the man.

Whatever the case may be, I find this to be a call for terrorism. And as a country that does not condone terrorist activity, I think the U.S. dealing with this subject lightly is hypocritical and immoral.

I would say maybe some jailtime is in order. Although the evangelist's words may have not been intentionally made to incite terrorist activity, it is, in itself, linked to terrorism.

[Tssss..]

hmm....i don't really give a damn. i say certain people deserve to die everyday. you know when you're really pms-ing and some woman cuts you off in traffic and you just want to scream in frustration and you blurt out something about car accidents and armageddon............

pat has a right to wish someone dead. i'm sure millions of people wish he was dead. we all do it. its human.

i'm super tired btw.

:p

[RDClip]

So yeah, Pat screwed the pooch big time.

He screwed the whole damn dogpound.

As for the people who say that Pat has the right to say what he wants, its a little different advocating killing a specific political leader than it is Tome Cruise bitching about psychiatry. And he has influence over like 2 million people. Doesn't being in the public eye mean to know how to talk and act appropriatly.

I'm wondering what the FCC thought about big ol' Pat's comments because I've heard nothing.

[Marblehead]

Ok first things fucking first.

I fucking should have known better than to believe this wouldn't turn into a "MY GOD HAS A BIGGER DICK THAN YOUR GOD" debate. I know not all of you did that, but fuckin' a', most of you did. I don't give a shit about religion because I know I will never have a real answer in my lifetime.

You cannot argue faith because faith is-

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

That being said, firstly the Bush adminstration did-

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez/index.html

and Pat Robertson said-

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/index.html

While you were all flaming each other you missed reality.

My only point of this thread was to say, "Man, isn't kinda ironic that a Christian would advocate assasination?"

Now that I'm done. Me , Jesus, Buddha, and Anton Lavey are going bowling.

Later

[Rogue_7]

Now that I'm done. Me , Jesus, Buddha, and Anton Lavey are going bowling.

Later

Awsome! I love bowling, can I come? Gotta watch ole Jesus tho, he tends to be a sore winner.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php?date=2004-08-04

[akitaka]

A silly quote I stumbled into when I googled "Pat Robertson":
They are marketing the idea that God, one all-powerful God, can be challenged by an equally powerful competitor.

...and that competitor was apparently Allah, and according to him, God will win by a perfect 300, while Allah at a stumbling 289. It's all a game when you introduce fanatics. Bowling really is fun, though.

Here's another quote from the same writer:
Most Christians believe in one God only, or monotheism. On the other hand, a great superior god with simultaneous recognition of god-like competitors, like the moon god, is called monolatry.

...in which she has pitted Pat in the term. Because of this, it seems that he's bent upon stepping on others who he simply sees as impure; it's really no wonder for Pat to think as he does, but wow, did the cup of hot karma come splashing on him when he mentioned "taking out" Chavez.

Ahh and I got my bits from http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski90.html.