Top 10 most horrible Christian torture devices

Sure, we can question whether they were indeed true believers or not, and whether a true theist would do such things - and whether a true theist would ever even just have the desire to kick people and piss on them.



The question is: Why does God just stand by and let people do all kinds of things in His name??

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Was it Richard Dawkins?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They don't do it in His name. ''In the name of God'' carries as much spiritual weight as ''in the name of stripey pyjamas'.
IOW, ''God'' isn't a name.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

billvon,

Belief in ''religion'' is distinct from belief in God.

If you slaughtered people in the name of ''China'' would that mean ''China'' was the reason you slaughtered them?

No.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

Deleted double post

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post ..

Stalin has definitely killed and tortured the greatest number (by many magnitudes) of humans on this planet, and he was an atheist, as were Caligula, Idid Amin, Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin, etc.

This is an issue some atheists would rather not face.


Edit - Corrected last line. Don't want to appear to be saying atheists are better or worse than theists.
Edit - got Stalin / Lenin wrong way round, now fixed.
Edit - fixed formatting

 

You can go back and edit old posts, and also delete them.

 

Lol .. thanks. Either I or my computer just went nuts. probably 'puter.

 

Of course they do it "in God's name" - whether they call God by the name "God" or "Krishna" or "Jehovah" or some other name.

No, but China - or any other country - would probably step in and not let people slander it.

But God - however you wish to call Him, Krishna or Jehovah or Allah or whichever - apparently just stands there and watches as ugly things are being done in His name, as if He had commanded them.



The question is: Why does God just stand by and let people do all kinds of things in His name??

 

The common trait is the True Believer mentality. This is most often seen in religious belief (including the belief in God, which is a religious belief) but can also be seen in belief in some charismatic leader or principle. These are the people who find it easy to drop atomic bombs on civilians, torture thousands of people, commit genocide etc etc because they believe it is morally good and necessary to do such things. The more of a True Believer they are, the more they are able to ignore their own conscience on such matters.

Quite literally yes. If you said "I kill all these people in the name of China!" and that was true - then China would be the reason you killed them. (You could be lying, of course.)

 

Wrong about atheists, Those chosen examples were "Meglomaniacs" where they believe that they are God(s).

 

Whatever you call them, they were atheist

 

Which line would that be?

 

There is nothing about fairy tale. Since you are a bastard offspring of Jews you would not know about the Essins witch was an other branch ( pharisee, Saduce and Essins who established in Qumran ) in the time of Jesus , then after Jesus departed the apostols made an organization such as commune .
Now at the 1900 Land was purchase by Jews in America and Europa from Palestinian , and commune were established to work the land and so they named them Kibbutz .

 

That presumes something (atrocity) from nothing (absence of belief). Guilt implies intent, which is found in the beliefs, thoughts and feelings that precede a culpable act. Since atheism is the absence of belief, it generates no intent, and thus no blame can attach to it. In fact it's the only thing that has to be eliminated as a possible cause.

You're referring to religiosity, which is different than religion.

A belief can be neither true nor false, except as measured against the benchmark of knowledge.

That requires redefining religion to mean religiosity, and then redefining theism to mean religion. But the proofs are all the same. There can be no "true religion"; and even if there could be, it would have to be the oldest, original and most orthodox doctrine of them all. Anything else would stray from "true", making all other sects worse, not better, than the orthodoxy being superseded by sectarianism. Further, we're left with the understading that "theism" as you are using it here seems to be restricted to Christian fundamentalism of the ICR type.

Evidently you are voicing your disavowal of Roman Catholicism (as opposed to Nestorianism, or Eastern and Greek Orthdoxy -- to include Coptic, Syriac, Russian and Ethiopian flavors).

The only true Christians are the first Christians; everyone after that is only as true to the extent they hold to the same beliefs and practices. And since for those first Christians the determination of the "truths" of Christian belief would rely on priests to teach the doctrines of Christianity to them, to preside at the Eucharistic assembly (mass), and to administer the sacraments, any deviation from this would be "far from true" . That pretty well covers the role of the priest in the life of a "true" Christian as evidenced by Christian writings older than the oldest of New Testament fragments.

Some 1500 years later when we get to the Reformation, this definition changes. We now either decide Protestants are not true Christians, which I think your logic might require of us, or else we differentiate them from "true Catholics" by coming up with some other criteria for deciding whether they are "true Lutherans", "true Calvinists", "true Episopalians" or "true Methodists" and then we proceed through the 50 or so ways that Anabaptists split from the Anglicans into the dozens of sects that proliferate the English world, culminating most recently in the notorious "true fundamentalist" religions.

By neutral standards, all religions are equal in their deviation from some prior "truth". No religion is superior to another, and none is actually true. But the truest to itself would be orthodoxy. The rest is politics and libertarianism, and the hubris of fundamentalism, which -- if we were actually confronting all of the subtext in this thread and similar threads -- is all any such discussion hinges on anyway. Absent fundamentalism, none of this dialogue would even be taking place.

That's like saying murderers kill their victims with nonexistent weapons, so anyone who is not armed must be guilty. As I mentioned before, the reverse is true. Since atheism is the absence of an ideology, it's the only quality that has to be excluded as a possible motive. You can't kill someone for principles you don't hold. That makes no sense.

 

So what? That doesn't make atheism responsible for anything. Unless you are making the absurd claim that theism prevents mass murder. The early Jews claim to have been commanded by god to commit genocide upon several rival tribes. Besides, theism alone contains no particular commandments against murder or anything else.

 

Not solely from Acts...

"Matthew 25:14-30: And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to each according to his ability. And he went abroad at once."
"Acts 4:32: All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had."

Check in Wiki

 

Remember what was the opening post . The implication is how cruel Christians are . We are pointing out there is cruelty among Christians and among atheist , so lets don't point the finger to hard

 

I don't think that's even true. Just something people say. I've heard calculations that the Roman Catholic Church killed many more people than Stalin. And they have been doing it for a thousand years or more.