Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

All-loving, all-merciful Christian God discriminates against the handicapped


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 214 posts in this discussion
Posted on 23 Feb 2013 18:01:51 GMT
Bellatori says:
DB says: "..."

I wonder if you can see the rather perverse humour In what you have written... Let me quote a bit about Comrade Jo from a biography.
"Stalin was raised very religious in the Greek Orthodox Church. He was named after Saint Joseph and was raised to be a priest. His father was a priest and young Joseph spent five years in a Greek Orthodox seminary.
But Stalin's father beat him mercilessly, and Stalin once described his childhood as having been "raised in a poor priest-ridden household." Perhaps this contributed to his decision to become a Marxist revolutionary."

What do you think Diane? Why did Stalin become the monster he did? Did you know that he recanted and became a believer during the war?

Of course Hitler was a Catholic as he said himself in Mein Kamf. Pol Pot and Mao were Buddhists.

Here is someone elses pick for a best answer to your question...
"Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Simple: they didn't kill IN THE NAME OF atheism. They killed to solidify power and gain control. Many of them happened to be atheists, but they didn't kill under the banner of their atheism. Many of them also happened to have moustaches or wear boots or smoke, but that isn't why they killed either. Atheism is another trait they may have had, but it wasn't the reason they did what they did--either in their own mind or as the guise and cover they used to justify and pursue their agenda."

Posted on 23 Feb 2013 18:13:20 GMT
J. Forbes says:
It is true that recent barbarian leaders have often be atheists. However, your statistics are false. The population of the world has increased hugely in recent times, so you cannot compare the number of victims of recent atheist leaders with the number of victims of credulists in earlier times.

Secondly, the structures set up by Mao, Hitler and Stalin were totalitarian. There was no room for dissent, so the crimes were really committed by the leadership. The people who carried out the atrocities had little choice in the matter.

Third, those three gentlemen were the leaders of three out of the six most populous countries at the time. So the numbers of victims were correspondingly great.

Fourth, the great majority of people who died under Stalin and Mao starved because of economic failures. Incompetence rather than evil.

Now let's take another example. The worst atrocities of the second world war and the Sino-Japanese war that preceded it were committed by Japan. Hardly an atheist country. Had they had a little more time they would probably have killed and tortured many more people than Hitler. If they had succeeded in conquering China, who knows what might have happened.

Fifth, we have much better ways to count the number of people who died in the 20th C., but we have very little idea of how many died in South America at the hands of the Spaniards.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 18:20:11 GMT
There is no good or evil, it's all a matter of perspective. Life teaches that much.
The quote in itself assumes that no other alternatives are available - he 'must' be malevolent if he does not stop evil, ignoring the sanctity of free will which is more important than removing evil. Dependent on your theistic view, one could argue that humans brought evil on themselves after 'the fall', so we have evil in our world from our own doing. Why don't humans make more of an effort to remove evil; we are able but not willing, does that not make humanity malevolent ?

You never know, maybe God is just an artist - authors and directors who create art featuring evil are not themselves evil, and so the same could be said of God.

We make our own choices, people above us make choices for us and affect the world around us causing evil and suffering. Why would it be reasonable to blame someone else when we chose to play a part in it all. If you believe in Original Sin then all people are inherently 'evil' (too busy pleasuring the body rather than the soul etc) - therefore if God were to erase evil He would have to destroy mankind, ergo allowing evil to remain and us to live is benevolent rather than malevolent. Most people would choose life, even with the bad, over death.
Evil isn't destroyed for the greater good, if there were no bad then there'd be no good. If somehow there were only 'good' there would still be badness in comparison to that goodness i.e. not 'good' enough, and a new opinion of 'evil' would come into being. When would this new 'evil' warrant removal ?

Romans 9 14-23; What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory!

And on a side, as far as I'm aware God isn't claimed to be omni-benevolent anywhere in the Bible, so even if he were malevolent the Epicurus quote wouldn't debunk anything. (there are a couple of passages that hint at goodness, but none that claim Him to be completely good)

ramble ramble ramble there's a few points anyway.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 18:21:40 GMT
Seeing as it's at least the second time you've posted it in this thread alone, you could stop anyway ...

Posted on 23 Feb 2013 18:23:09 GMT
Bellatori says:
A similar vacuous answer to Dianes atheist rant would be...

God, the creator of all, created the Yersinia pestis bacterium which was responsible for the black death and in the mid 14th century killed 25% of the world population.

Lets not forget that in 10000BC or thereabouts he also wiped out 99% of the worlds population including most of the creatures who, at the very least, were innocent of anything other than being animals and left only Mr & Mrs Noah and offspring.

A bit of a homicidal maniac this god person...!?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 18:28:00 GMT
Bellatori says:
" "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." "

Spiteful little sod isn't he. Creating someone for the sole purpose of striking him down. Delightful.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 18:30:05 GMT
To be honest (if I'd made the world) I bet watching a bunch of do-gooders would get boring. Like watching an eternity of Rom-coms - no thanks !! Nothing like a bit of action/thriller/horror to spice up those long celestial nights.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 18:36:47 GMT
Last edited by the author on 23 Feb 2013 18:37:00 GMT
Bellatori says:
Whilst I might agree with you, I cannot see the next Pope standing on the Vatican steps and saying after the latest 100k killed by a major Tsunami that it was just trying to relieve his boredom!

Maybe he could do something like the The Midwich Cuckoos on the whole of USA bible belt. Now that would be fun!!

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 18:41:31 GMT
J. Forbes says:
He did. That's where these nutters came from.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 20:26:15 GMT
you're just unreasonable. That's the long and short of it. I can't believe you are actually trying to defend ad hominem! you have no shame.

Posted on 23 Feb 2013 20:28:15 GMT
and then you turn around and ask me to supply my own ad-hominem - against an atheist (a non-belief)?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 23:58:46 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 00:00:12 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 24 Feb 2013 00:21:10 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 00:04:33 GMT
Ian says:
No, that would be your rather emotive description of abortion, which is clearly a very different thing from atheism. Many atheists have never taken part in an abortion and some actively oppose it. Likewise some religious types have had an abortion or taken part in one professionally.

You have a very simplistic view of the world Diane; anything which your religion opposes is the fault of atheism. There are even plenty within your own religion who disagree with you -are they Atheist Catholics?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 00:07:54 GMT
Ian says:
I think Bellatori has already explained that these rulers (some of whom happened to be atheists) killed their own people because they, rather inconveniently didn't want to be ruled by a lunatic despot. Amazingly some athiests don't want to be ruled by lunatic despots and might well find themselves being killed despite their atheism in similar circumstances.

Keep trying, you might yet find an atheist who killed people because his or her belief that there is no God told him or her to...

Posted on 24 Feb 2013 00:09:18 GMT
Last edited by the author on 24 Feb 2013 00:11:40 GMT
J. Forbes says:
Stalin and Mao both killed quite a lot of people deliberately, but not hundreds of millions, and not because of atheism. Far more people died because their economic policies were crazy, and these were nothing to do with atheism.

Furthermore, birth control saves lives, by controlling the populations of peoples who can't feed themselves. It doesn't kill children because it stops eggs from being fertilised. An unfertilised egg is not a child. If it were, you would be killing a child every month you live without being pregnant.

Posted on 24 Feb 2013 08:50:28 GMT
This, like the definition of atheism, is something that has explained to DB a thousand times. Either her notoriously selective memory is getting the better of her, or she has the memory span of Swiss cheese.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 08:55:26 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Swiss cheese has uses, unlike DB- who seems pointless.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 10:56:57 GMT
Bellatori says:
DB Says: "These atheist rulers "

Which atheist leaders are we talking about... the professed catholic Hitler, the abused Greek orthodox Boy Jo who returned to religion on the retreat to Moscow, the Buddhist pol pot or was it some other.?

I note you don't rebut the slaughter due to God's black death or the wipe out of humanity by his flood.

Your argument holds no water and if your God ever turns up to acknowledge his guilt he will be roundly condemned... fortunately he cannot for the obvious reason

Posted on 24 Feb 2013 14:34:30 GMT
Last edited by the author on 24 Feb 2013 14:35:57 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 14:57:54 GMT
Drew Jones says:
That's a bit like quoting Hitler on genetics. Do you catorgorise Stalin as a considered social and ethical commentator or paranoid and power-hungry character who's declarations and decisions are going to be a little effected by that lust for total allegence to the state?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 15:03:59 GMT
C. A. Small says:
DB- try and find a group Stalin didn't persecute. He was a lunatic. He had men and women walk into machine gun fire provided by the German troops, incidentally their belt buckles had " Gott Mit Uns" on. Not a bad slogan for an atheist? Or was he a confirmed theist?

But back to Stalin- he used torture instruments from the museum- the ones the christians had used on non -believers. Not exactly the example you thought it was- try doing a bit of research before posting- you might look a little less stupid.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 15:10:25 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 15:13:38 GMT
C. A. Small says:
DB- did you have a bang on the head at some point? Or is your mental incapacity inborn?

Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a god- exactly the same as your non-belief in Odin and Viracocha and the hundreds/thousands of other gods other people believe or have believed in.

Why you cannot grasp this shows the corrosive damage that religion does to the brain, catholocism and islam are just the worst offenders currently.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 15:15:12 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  214
Initial post:  16 Feb 2013
Latest post:  25 Feb 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions