Top 10 most horrible Christian torture devices

Discussion in 'History' started by Magical Realist, Oct 23, 2013.

  1. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,206
    The implication is that Christianity itself made them cruel, and it's true. Slaughtering heretics was logical if you thought that their influence would condemn people to hell. The Bible says you shall not suffer a witch to live. You can't say atheism made anybody cruel, since it has no doctrines. If Christians and atheists are equally cruel, then that proves Christianity is worthless for making people better morally. The whole presumption of the Abrahamic religions is that it makes a better society. Meanwhile, the believers in the USA openly advocate against helping the poor through any organized system that doesn't abide cheating. They talk a great game about charity, but that's voluntary, you can still be selfish. In any case, if charity worked we wouldn't need welfare.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2013
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,206
    It's a trademark of human beings. Believing that there is a God doesn't prevent mass murder. Just ask any Aztec.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    But you just were advocating belief in religion when you said only some beliefs are true.


    It would help to hold the facts of history closer to the vest. Bolsheviks didn't kill religious people because they were atheists; they killed them because they believed religious people were a threat to the goals of the revolution. The Khmer Rouge didn't target religious people because they were atheists, but because they believed religious people were a threat to the removal of Sihanouk and the establishment of a new Communist "democratic" republic they would call Kampuchea. There are several events that come to mind concerning the slaughter of Chinese. The first was the 1931 incursion of Japanese troops into Manchuria resulting in slaughter of 1.7M Chinese people. This might be equated with religious motivated mass murder since religious ideation motivated Japanese troops. Mao Tse-tung's massacres came in three waves: the initial cleansing of counter-revolutionaries, the Great Famine and, during the so-called Cultural Revolution, the return to mass murders of anyone perceived to be a counter-revolutionary. These were not motivated by atheism, but by the ideals held by Mao's enemies -- or rather his perception of them -- that is, he believed they were counter-revolutionaries, whether they were or not. I suspect most of them were anti-Mao before they were wrapped in political ideology. The famine was not directed at religious people at all, and the calculus was different. It was due to high taxes, moderate crop yields and fear of Mao -- fear that he would discover their meager productivity and have them executed. Farmers were driven by despair, not by religion.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    The existence of torture devices used by clerics and their appointees in order to extract religious confessions has no parallel. The ides that want to force atheism into this mold are incorrect, since no motive springs from the disavowal of a motivating ideology.
     
  8. Gage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    Humans are just violent sick creatures. God or no god.
     
  9. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,206
    I doubt anyone would think it's fine to cut off the end of your children's penis if it weren't for religion. Or burn witches. Or own a human being.
     
  10. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564

    That is fine what you are saying The system require loyalty to the state ( it was mentioned before ) . A believer by instruction in Pauls teaching have to be loyal to the state ,
    The question is why Bolsheviks institutionalized in crazy homes , the believers ? An as I mentioned before in one province removed 127000 and killed in one year 85000 believers , In schools they asked children as to the believes of the parent , then incarcerated the parents . Removed the children from the parents for indoctrinated.
     
  11. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Since you are starting this subject again , Let go further back . What do you think about Nero and other Roman emperor did to the early Christian wen you talk about torture , the salvation was to deny the believe . What to you think were Roman emperors religious or not ? To me they were people who believed in themselves as atheist believe in themselves.
     
  12. Gage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    Really!?? So we need/needed religion, in order to be violent?
     
  13. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,206
    Circumcision isn't considered an act of violence, but rather a religious sacrament. Who would do that otherwise?
     
  14. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I was just responding to the long-running claim that non-religiously motivated murder by an atheist the same as religiously motivated murder which is incorrect.

    I'm not sure of the quality of evidence that places Nero as first persecutor of the Christians. Fundamentalists are unable to claim this since Stephen was the first martyr according to Acts, but that's after the destruction of the temple, which is after the death of Nero. Everyone else is free to treat Acts as unreliable. But I doubt that Christians appeared anywhere on earth before the crucifixions of AD 70. The crucifixion story of Jesus appears to be based on a legendary tale of a Jewish freedom fighter.

    You seem to think Romans were atheists which is clearly false. One of the later emperors, Antoninus Pius, burned Christians at the stake for atheism. The early Christian writer Justin Martyr appeals to him to spare the lives of the accused, establishing a documentary record of the nature of the charge:

    Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

    Romans believed in Jupiter and the pantheon of Roman gods, many of whom appear as Greek gods recast in the framework of Roman mythology.

    Atheists simply reject any belief in God (or gods).
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,545
    Parents who want to reduce their kid's chance of getting an STD?
     
  16. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,206
    No, that isn't a logical reason.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,545
    From the CDC:

    =============
    Male Circumcision

    Summary

    Male circumcision reduces the risk that a man will acquire HIV from an infected female partner, and also lowers the risk of other STDs , penile cancer, and infant urinary tract infection. For female partners, male circumcision reduces the risk of cervical cancer, genital ulceration, bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and HPV. Although male circumcision has risks including pain, bleeding, and infection, more serious complications are rare.
    =========================
     
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    That could so get you burnt and frozen, by both camps!
     
  19. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,206
    That's mostly bullshit. People with no teeth have a lower risk of cavities, but that is no reason to remove them. If you don't want HIV, condoms are much more effective.
     
  20. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    What are those calculations?
    Present them as facts, not rumours.
     
  21. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    At the end of the day, it's the rumurs that count.
     
  22. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,500
    wynn,

    ''God'' isn't a name. Plus to do something is someone's name requires a permission from that person. If someone kills in your name, you aren't responsible for their actions unless you sanction it.

    It doesn't have the power to take back a committed action, neither can it stop anyone at anytime who claim to kill in it's name. Killing in God's name is just an excuse.

    What do you want God to do? Go against our wishes?
    This is what we have created for ourselves.
    We can't have our cake, and eat it.
    If we want God's protection, then we must become conscious and aware of Him, of our relationship to/with Him. Not do what the frack we like, soak up the good times as if we are responsible for them, then cry into our pints because the world we created acts accordingly.

    Those people who make that claim, do not kill in His name. They don't know His name.

    jan.
     
  23. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    In the case of God - to use the generic term "God" - this is different, though, because God makes it possible for people to do anything at all to begin with, including when they kill in what they claim to be His name.


    But at least a country or an ordinary human can and does take a stance and distance themselves from the committed action.


    Really?


    When it is the very people from whom we are supposed to learn about God, that commit or desire to commit murder, things get a bit more complicated.



    Prabhupada: Then you have to make propaganda against that, that simply pushing two eyes... Anyone can push two eyes and there is natural some light. Is that the proof that he has become God? You are so foolish? And you say that God is, God has created the universe. So what he has created? What he has done, wonderful thing? That simply by pushing your eyes, you see some light, and you become God? You have become so foolish, European brain? You have no intelligence. Preach against him. What is the proof that he is God? Now, those who do not know anything about God, they can be convinced. Just like -- what is called? -- agnostic. The agnostic... Sometimes we say that there is a creator because everything, just we say, everything, whatever we have got in our experience, it is created. So this gigantic universe or one or many, there must be one creator. This is one hypothesis. So that creator, if I accept this man, whether he can create something, such wonderful? Has he done so? In this way, you have to make propaganda. So far our position is, we accept God, Krsna, on the authority, as well as by the action, both. We, we make hypothesis that there must be a creator. Vedanta says: "Yes, there is a creator." And Krsna says, He says: "I am the creator of everything." And when He was at, on this planet, He did so many wonderful things. And He is accepted by big, big stalwarts. Just like Arjuna accepts. He heard Bhagavad-gita. So before that, Narada accepts. Vyasadeva accepts. Great... Later on, big, big acaryas accept. So these are the proof. But what proof he can give that he's God, that we shall accept him God? Simply he shows some light. We have to make some propaganda. That will be our (indistinct). And he has to be... If we remain silent, then whatever he says, that means we are accepting. So we should not allow this man to grow popularity. We must make propaganda wherever meeting is there. I can kick on the face of this (indistinct). I can urine on the face of... What can he do. Let them. Let him come. If he's God, then let him kill me by his power. When I go to kick on his face, let him stop me, then I shall accept that he's God. So why don't you do that? He's saying God. You just kick on his face, if he can do something... In this way, make some counter-propaganda. If we allow him to go on, then so many people falsely being misled. We don't allow anybody to pass on as God because we are presenting real God. We must make process. The real process is to kill him. But that much power we haven't got. We cannot do that. Otherwise, we would have done so. Nobody should be allowed to claim as God. And severe punishment for him. Krsna has shown this example.


    http://www.romapadaswami.com/node/2854

    So this man who is purported to be the spiritual master of the whole Universe for a long long time to come wants to kick the face of someone and piss on it. He even wants to kill him.
     

Share This Page