• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How I see christian of today . (2 Viewers)

Shery i'm intreasted in what you think about 9/11. Do you think we it was alright for OBL to do what he did?

In the meaning if he was right, - no.
In the meaning if it was a right tactical move in the war, - most likely yes. You see the results by yourself.
 
That is a wrong path. Believe yourself that you are not really smart in your view, no matter how many people say that you are. I have been carring such a belief since the time I grew up.
These are truly golden words of wisdom from justone.

I strive to learn more that's not my problem, my problem is to many people think i'm a idiot for being 14. I was just simply showing that i'm not. In fact young people somtimes make more sense than the adults.
 
In the meaning if he was right, - no.
In the meaning if it was a right tactical move in the war, - most likely yes. You see the results by yourself.

The meaning wasn't right no, and a smart move in war yes. But i'm much more interested in her opion. I knew were you stood on this issue.
 
I strive to learn more that's not my problem, my problem is to many people think i'm a idiot for being 14. I was just simply showing that i'm not. In fact young people somtimes make more sense than the adults.

You cannot live to showTHEM something. You cannot show THEM anything. Live with yourself, I accept G-d as the only judgement, the only benchmark, - and I am a total fool in this system of coordinates. 14 is always an advantage if to compare with anybody who is older. I am giving you my truly golden words of wisdom only with a hope that one day you would be able to turn them into silver. Don't worry about THEM. For THEM you may remain an idiot even when you are 24. They forget that they were 14 one day. Would you argue that they were not 14 one day? Just imagine justone when he was 14 and you will have a good laugh.

P.S. My routine advice is - learn math, calculus is a must.
Don't try satisfy your ego, it is very easy, it is a circle of self distruction.
 
Shery's rants (if genuine, and not just some posters idea of sucking us all in) show you just how sick and warped Islamists are. They are obsessed by sex, they may deny it, but they are. It's probably because their whole movement revolves around micro-managing and controlling every aspect of peoples lives (because they say that Mohammed said Allah said so), that they despise and call people perverts for consensual sexual activity, that bucks this authoritarianism. Their homophobia is repulsive. Again they have no concept of consensual activities between two adults, because to them it contradicts Allah's will.


And yet at no time does Shery actually substantiate her claims, or move above the proverbial Islamist mud slinging gutter, by calling us perverts, evil, wicked etc.

We see a person so short sighted that she assumes any Western poster is Christian, she fails to understand that some people in the west maybe Atheist or Agnostic. We see a person that allows fails to understand, that it is not just the 'West' that finds many muslima traditions backward, but in fact most of the non-muslima world..... Oh Shery, fails to see that the Chinese, Japanese, Korean (and parts of Indian-Hindu society) society would also reject much of the irrational logic of Islam. Indeed this may explain why in these cultures the Abrahamic religions did not prosper.

see a All historical records suggest that there never has been a Koran that existed at the time of Mohammed.

Granted there was a time when the Christian world, was going through what the Islamic world is going through, but by in large European society has become more secular humanist, and the power of the Church has been limited. Even in Asian countries, such as China, Japan, Singapore, Korea; culturally these countries place a high value on materialism and logic (most likely due to the influences of Confucius, Buddism, etc)

And yet every time we see a muslima society trying to become more like the Prophet Mohammed (which you muslimas do worship like a god, even though you deny it), , destroyed independent thinking, and destroyed capitalism; instead of challenging the Imans, you muslimas will rejoice when the Imans suggest that muslimas need more Islam, and what would the prophet do.....

Islam has been nailed, Christianity has been nailed unintentionally, just because it is on the way, the flag of atheism has been paraded high and Communist officially atheistic China has been set as an example for developing nations. New Government Statistics on China's Christians BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China's Christians suffer for their faith Christianity in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
USATODAY.com - Christians in China persevere despite religious restrictions China's rising number of young Christians gear up for Easter - The China Post
 
Show me one single insult to prophet jesus ???

I dont dare to insult him .. he is one of our prophet ...

I dont dare to paint prophets or mock them as you do ...

but I sare to mock the pope .. though I didnt insult him .


I think I was very clear .. and dont try to put words on my mouth ..
because I dont even dare to insult prophet jesus ..

The only people who dare insult God and Prophets is western people .


I'll type this slowly because I know you people cant read that fast...

Reread your first post. By insulting the religion do you not insult all of its leaders and followers? Yes I admit I insulted Islam and the pervert Mo-HAM-ad (moe ham, you want moe ham?)
But what the fook to you I'm just a non-believer, worse then being a Christian or Jewish so before you start in with the “Your just another “Western crusader” I am a died in the wool atheist so I will dare to mock/insult them and paint them for what they really are Retards....:2wave:
 
I'll type this slowly because I know you people cant read that fast...

Reread your first post. By insulting the religion do you not insult all of its leaders and followers? Yes I admit I insulted Islam and the pervert Mo-HAM-ad (moe ham, you want moe ham?)
But what the fook to you I'm just a non-believer, worse then being a Christian or Jewish so before you start in with the “Your just another “Western crusader” I am a died in the wool atheist so I will dare to mock/insult them and paint them for what they really are Retards....:2wave:

Cherokee and I agree? It muss be da' Jubilee!

religion.jpg
 
No I'm smarter than most people right now, i was told by 2 different LT colonel's in US military, one in the Air force other in engineering division, both Ret. How many people can say that? So i believe them.

Oh to be 14 again. :lol:
 
How I see christian of Today ?
I hope you are aware that the majority of the posters on this thread (as far as I can tell) are not Christians, but rather professed atheists or agnostics. Christianity does not embrace such hatred and vitriol.
 
I hope you are aware that the majority of the posters on this thread (as far as I can tell) are not Christians, but rather professed atheists or agnostics. Christianity does not embrace such hatred and vitriol.

Speaking of, I was visited by the lovliest two Christians this morning concerned about rising violence. We had a great talk. They didn't try to change my beliefs or preach, they were more intetested in our similarities then differences. It's wonderful to meet people like that, of any religion.
 
Tell that to Fred Phelps.

Well...Stalin was an Atheist...does that mean all his beliefs are what Atheism is all about--or was he (hmmm...how to be charitable...) ummm ....misguided?
 
Tell that to Fred Phelps.

BTW--according to Wiki:

"The church at Westboro which he leads has 71 confirmed members, 60 of whom are related to Phelps through blood or marriage or both."

That's certainly not a representative group.:roll:
 
Well...Stalin was an Atheist...does that mean all his beliefs are what Atheism is all about--or was he (hmmm...how to be charitable...) ummm ....misguided?

Stalin didn't act in the name of atheism, he didn't do anything politically because of his atheist beliefs. Fred Phelps most certainly does act because he believes that's what Christianity tells him to do.

So your statement that Christians don't act like that is false. Phelps and people like him most certainly do, and do so because they're convinced that Jesus wants them to act that way.
 
So your statement that Christians don't act like that is false. Phelps and people like him most certainly do, and do so because they're convinced that Jesus wants them to act that way.

I didn't say, "Christians don't act like that,"--I said Christianity does not embrace such hatred and vitriol.

It doesn't.

Just as Stalin was Atheist, and it does not follow that his views are representative of Atheism, it does not follow that the claimed Christian Phelps is representative of Christianity. You are the one trying to make a false comparison by falsely attributing to me a particular position that I did not express.

..Pretty much your status quo with regard to impugning Christianity, however.:roll:
 
Stalin didn't act in the name of atheism, he didn't do anything politically because of his atheist beliefs. Fred Phelps most certainly does act because he believes that's what Christianity tells him to do.

So your statement that Christians don't act like that is false. Phelps and people like him most certainly do, and do so because they're convinced that Jesus wants them to act that way.

I must say you really hate christianity. Why? What one christian does doesn't repersent what christanity stands for or even a whole country. But in a way stalin did act in the name of aitheism, he didn't want religion in the world isn't that what you strive for?
 
I must say you really hate christianity. Why? What one christian does doesn't repersent what christanity stands for or even a whole country. But in a way stalin did act in the name of aitheism, he didn't want religion in the world isn't that what you strive for?
I disagree.

Christianity has a set of morals defined within its beliefs. Though there are some differences in the many sects there are some common standards such as the belief that fornication and homosexuality are wrong. There are more.

Atheism, however, has no standards, not in the slightest.

Technically, yes, Stalin acted based upon his atheistic foundations. However, there is no universal standard for atheists actions. Another atheist may completely disagree with Stalins actions and have equal rational foundation. Christians, however, do have some universal Christian beliefs that cause them to take particular stances. This can't be applied all the time but in certain cases such as with homosexuality, it can be.

Thus, acting in the name Of Christianity, in some circumstances, has much more meaning then acting in the name of atheism.
 
Last edited:
I disagree.

Christianity has a set of morals defined within its beliefs. Though there are some differences in the many sects there are some common standards such as the belief that fornication and homosexuality are wrong. There are more.

Atheism, however, has no standards, not in the slightest.

And aitheism doesn't so therefore anytime anyone does somthing, with out a set of guidelines what they do is for what they do it for. So sense he did it partly for atheism it is therefore done for atheism. If you disagree, it's with a personal opion because there's no offical doctrine.
 
And aitheism doesn't so therefore anytime anyone does somthing, with out a set of guidelines what they do is for what they do it for. So sense he did it partly for atheism it is therefore done for atheism. If you disagree, it's with a personal opion because there's no offical doctrine.
Wrong.

It can be said that someone is doing something in the name of Christianity but it cannot be said that someone is doing something in the name of atheism because atheism has no common standard for morality and actions.

So to say someone does something in the name of atheism means that they did something based on their morality. However, as stated before atheism defines no morality. Thus the statement is a contradiction because to do something in the name of atheism would mean that a person did something based on a morality defined by atheism.
 
Wrong.

It can be said that someone is doing something in the name of Christianity but it cannot be said that someone is doing something in the name of atheism because atheism has no common standard for morality and actions.

So to say someone does something in the name of atheism means that they did something based on their morality. However, as stated before atheism defines no morality. Thus the statement is a contradiction because to do something in the name of atheism would mean that a person did something based on a morality defined by atheism.

You contradicted yourself. Because there is no offical guidelines, anything can be done in it's name. If let's say a aithiest kills a priest. He say's he did it for aitheism. You can't say he didn't because you have nothing to say what it is. If there is know offical rule for atheism then what a person believes is what they follow and they do in the name of it. So what you say it is doesn't mean it is.
 
Stalin didn't act in the name of atheism, he didn't do anything politically because of his atheist beliefs.

“The World has never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, HATRED OF GOD is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly put them into practice.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn, former Marxist, Nobel Prize winner


‘’The Party cannot be neutral towards religious prejudices and it will continue to carry on propaganda against these prejudices because this is one of the best means of undermining the influence of the reactionary clergy who support the exploiting classes and who preach submission to these classes. The Party cannot be neutral towards the bearers of religious prejudices, towards the reactionary clergy who poison the minds of the toiling masses. Have we suppressed the reactionary clergy? Yes, we have. The unfortunate thing is that it has not been completely liquidated. Anti-religious propaganda is a means by which the complete liquidation of the reactionary clergy must be brought about.’’

J. Stalin.
Religion+Is+the+Enemy+of+Industrialization+.jpg (image)
Religion is the enemy of industralization.
Stalin’s industralisation: Gulag, Industrialization


The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed.
The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. By 1939 only about 500 of over 50,000 churches remained open.
The financial foundation of the Russian Orthodoxy was destroyed merely two years after the revolution. The government confiscated all church property and capital, as it was nationalized, in 1918 by the decree, On the Separation of the Church from the State and Schools from the Church. This decree condemned the Church, financially crippling the institution, as well as putting the clergy and believers in danger. Through the first five years of the Soviet Union, twenty-eight Russian Orthodox Bishops and over 1,200 priests were executed, all seminaries closed, and the publications of most religious texts was prohibited. Repression of the Russian Orthodox Church continued in the Soviet Union for the next decade during the infamous period of the Great Purges of the 1930s.


‘’ Lenin "added" no "new principles" to Marxism nor did Lenin abolish any of the "old" principles of Marxism. Lenin always was and remained a loyal and consistent pupil of Marx and Engels, and wholly and entirely based himself on the principles of Marxism. ‘’

J. Stalin.



‘’So far as the party of the socialist proletariat is concerned, religion is not a private affair. Our Party is an association of class-conscious, advanced fighters for the emancipation of the working class…. we founded our association, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, precisely for such a struggle against every religious bamboozling of the workers. And to us the ideological struggle is not a private affair, but the affair of the whole Party, of the whole proletariat.

Our Program is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the materialist, world-outlook. An explanation of our Program, therefore, necessarily includes an explanation of the true historical and economic roots of the religious fog. Our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism. We shall now probably have to follow the advice Engels once gave to the German Socialists: to translate and widely disseminate the literature of the eighteenth-century French Enlighteners and atheists.’’

Socialism and Religion
V. I. Lenin

''We must pursue the removal of church property by any means necessary... The instructions must come down to this, that in Shuia he must arrest more if possible but not less than several dozen representatives of the local clergy, the local petty bourgeoisie, and the local bourgeoisie on suspicion of direct or indirect participation in the forcible resistance to the decree of the VTsIK on the removal of property of value from churches. Immediately upon completion of this task, he must return to Moscow and personally deliver a report to the full session of the Politburo or to two specially authorized members of the Politburo. On the basis of this report, the Politburo will give a detailed directive to the judicial authorities, also verbal, that the trial of the insurrectionists from Shuia, should be carried out in utmost haste and should end not other than with the shooting of the very largest number of the most influential and dangerous of the Black Hundreds in Shuia, and, if possible, not only in this city but even in Moscow and several other ecclesiastical centers ''
V. I. Lenin

Letter from Lenin
 
You contradicted yourself. Because there is no offical guidelines, anything can be done in it's name. If let's say a aithiest kills a priest. He say's he did it for aitheism. You can't say he didn't because you have nothing to say what it is. If there is know offical rule for atheism then what a person believes is what they follow and they do in the name of it. So what you say it is doesn't mean it is.
Actually I didn't.

Atheism is the cause of an act as much as a conscious mind or a body. Without a mind or a body one cannot commit any type of act. Similarly, claiming someone did something because of atheism is similar to claiming they did something because they have a body or a mind. Atheism causes people to act a particular way only in the same sense a body and a mind cause people to be able to act a particular way; it is not the true cause.

IOW, it would be like saying that a mass murderer killed people because he has hands. Well DUH! If he didn't have hands then he couldn't commit mass murders but it is not the true cause of the murders. The true cause is the person's murderous mentality. Make sense?
 
Actually I didn't.

Atheism is the cause of an act as much as a conscious mind or a body. Without a mind or a body one cannot commit any type of act. Similarly, claiming someone did something because of atheism is similar to claiming they did something because they have a body or a mind. Atheism causes people to act a particular way only in the same sense a body and a mind cause people to be able to act a particular way; it is not the true cause.

IOW, it would be like saying that a mass murderer killed people because he has hands. Well DUH! If he didn't have hands then he couldn't commit mass murders but it is not the true cause of the murders. The true cause is the person's murderous mentality. Make sense?

definition of aitheism
define:atheism - Google Search


the doctrine or belief that there is no God

So by that anything for the cause of spreading the belief of no god is therefore spreading aitheism. So what Stalin did was in the name of aitheism.
 
the doctrine or belief that there is no God

So by that anything for the cause of spreading the belief of no god is therefore spreading aitheism. So what Stalin did was in the name of aitheism.
No!

Atheism isn't the CAUSE of anything except the belief that there is no God. Implying that Atheism is the cause of anything else is a misnomer. Stalin might be an atheist but his actions are due to his moral beliefs. Stalin's moral beliefs may coincide with the belief that no god exists but his moral beliefs are not derived from atheism because atheism only states that there is no god. Your statement is logically correct but you use atheism to attribute something which it cannot.

IOW, it would be like saying that a mass murderer killed people because he has hands. Well DUH! If he didn't have hands then he couldn't commit mass murders but it is not the root cause of the murders. The root cause is the person's murderous mentality. Make sense?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom