Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;15126 wrote:

I think that Christ wanted people to become Christians, but peacefully.

I also think Catholicism is the most legitimate to be Christian, as in the beginning, it was the Christian faith. The Catholic Church was formed after the Council of Nicaea formed the ideas of what Christianity should be. It created the Bible. Then, some said that it conflicted with the Bible and started the Reformation. Granted, there were other things they objected to, but most have since been stopped. I don't see how the Church can conflict with the Bible if it reated the Bible. Also, considering they created the Bible, how can other groups say that it is the only part of Christianity when it was only a part of Christianity from the time of its inception? I don't see the basis for going against the original Church, so I am a part of it.

from what i know, christ walked around in the deserts showing people his faith by actions. He led by example, He did not tell the people who refused to believe in him that they were crazy, or moronic. He did not say that my way is the only way. He said i am the way and the light, he who believes in me shal never parish but live forever through me. These weren't the exact words he used but are basicaly the same. He wanted people to choose. In the begining God created man and gave him everything he would need to have a perfect peacefull world, said all you must do is not question me and obey my word. Then when man screwed up he took all of that away and made man work for everything and made man make the descision to fallow him. Hence free will. Yes you should try to convert people to believe in christ, but leadership in my opinion results in a power struggle. all leaders are but humans with human faults. It is only natural for humans to become power hungry. and as for the catholic religion, the christian belief was around long before the catholic religion. and it did just fine. before it was organized to a system.

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

No, with the phrase "You are Peter, and on this rock I build my Church", Jesus gave Peter, a human, the authority to start his church, his single Church, and Peter started the Catholic Church in Rome, hence the Roman Catholic Church, more properly known as the Catholic Church, but not so as to distinguish it from other churches. What is more, Peter also had the authority to change things on Earth, and what he tightened on Earth would be tightened in heaven, what he loosened on Earth, loosened in heaven. If Jesus did not have faith in a man decided to be his most faithful follower, which is what Peter and the Popes are, he would have stayed on Earth to establish it himself rather than die for his sins.

Yes, people do have free will to choose God or not, but it is no excuse for being selfish and condemning everyone else to Hell instead of spreading God and Christ's message.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;15129 wrote:

No, with the phrase "You are Peter, and on this rock I build my Church", Jesus gave Peter, a human, the authority to start his church, his single Church, and Peter started the Catholic Church in Rome, hence the Roman Catholic Church, more properly known as the Catholic Church, but not so as to distinguish it from other churches. What is more, Peter also had the authority to change things on Earth, and what he tightened on Earth would be tightened in heaven, what he loosened on Earth, loosened in heaven. If Jesus did not have faith in a man decided to be his most faithful follower, which is what Peter and the Popes are, he would have stayed on Earth to establish it himself rather than die for his sins.

Yes, people do have free will to choose God or not, but it is no excuse for being selfish and condemning everyone else to Hell instead of spreading God and Christ's message.

well it is argued that mary and not peter was jesus' closest desciple and that she was suposed to cary on his church. Of course this does not match what the catholic church claims, but......it's all a matter of opinion and what you feel like you should believe. i think it is more than possible.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Mary Magdalene? Why would the writings of the disciples not even mention her as an Apostle then, let alone say she was supposed to start the church. I do not think there is anything behind such a claim.

2 Replies

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;15134 wrote:

I do not think there is anything behind such a claim.

that's the point, it's just your thought. i feel as if you confuse your beliefs with reality. It's mostly speculation. We may never know the truth. It's all speculations. I guess when you make it to god you can ask him, he will be the only one who knows for sure.

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;15134 wrote:

Mary Magdalene? Why would the writings of the disciples not even mention her as an Apostle then, let alone say she was supposed to start the church.

this is why it is argued that the catholic church threw out or burned scrolls that would hender their agenda. It has been said that the scroll of Jesus himself was found not too long ago. But no one is alowed to see it. I'm not stating this as fact only as possibility.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

No, what I said can be proven, that is wild speculation. We can't know the whole truth, but evidence shows me to be more right than those who claim that.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;15137 wrote:

No, what I said can be proven, that is wild speculation. We can't know the whole truth, but evidence shows me to be more right than those who claim that.

based on who's evidence? are you saying that evidence can't be tampered with? Or that the early popes were too holy to stoop to that level? It seems to me the people of the catholic religion honor the popes words as Gods words comming out of his mouth.....wich honelsty seems ubsurd to me.

2 Replies

@trappedbyparties,

trapped.by.parties;15140 wrote:

based on who's evidence? are you saying that evidence can't be tampered with? Or that the early popes were too holy to stoop to that level? It seems to me the people of the catholic religion honor the popes words as Gods words comming out of his mouth.....wich honelsty seems ubsurd to me.

and further more, it's no more or no less speculation than your opinion. Those people believe they have the hard evidence as well, i have yet to dig deaper than that into the subject, but it is the same as you claim.

0 Replies

@trappedbyparties,

at one time in the world the earth was flat. Untill one man discovered it wasn't. History is full of instances like this. Someone could discover something that changes the way we all think. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

"But Hitler was raised Catholic."

So what? He wasn't a Christian. He cast off that particular childhood influence. Instead, he grasped at a powerful, competitive religion, endemic to the German nation -- blood-and-soil, pre-Christian tribalism.

"That was what most committed Catholic Nazis were."

What? That sentence doesn't make sense to me.

"Though 'Catholic' in name, if they truly believed in the Nazi cause, they were in conflict with Catholicism."

That's what I'm saying. Nazis chose their ancient, pre-Christian tribalism over Christianity. It made sense in historical terms. The Germans were the last major barbarian people to convert to Christianity, and they were the fiercest opponents of Rome. Yes, they eventually succumbed, but they put up one helluva fight, thanks to their cultural intransigence and unity.

"I think lack of a religious moral basis could be said to be the real force behind the mass murders of history, not atheism in and of itself as the cause."

Nazism's ethos was based on hardcore social Darwinism. They viewed the German people as a racially superior, naturally stronger people, empowered and obligated by nature itself to annihilate the weak, taking possession of all available living space, replete with its rich natural resources, in the establishment of an inconquerable, ever-lasting empire.

"It was more often a political ideology that included atheism so that no religious values could conflict with it."

Yes, but Hitler did believe he was possessed, in an abstract way, by the spirit of the German people.

PS: Let me chime in with a few of our fellow posters by citing my academic achievements. While earning my 12th PhD at Harvard/Princeton/Yale (of course I'm joking), I concluded that although Hitler was indeed demonic, he was perhaps the most fascinating leader of modern history.

1 Reply

@Pinochet73,

PS: Let me chime in with a few of our fellow posters by citing my academic achievements. While earning my 12th PhD at Harvard/Princeton/Yale (of course I'm joking), I concluded that although Hitler was indeed demonic, he was perhaps the most fascinating leader of modern history.[/QUOTE wrote:

true, we probably would not have the medical advances we have today with out him, or our knowledge of highways. I am able to look at the good in such a horrible situation. It's horrible these things had to happen to find these things, but it did. nothing can be done about it now.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Quote:

What? That sentence doesn't make sense to me.

Most commited Nazis who were Catholic were simply raised Catholic like Hitler and rejected their beliefs out of necessity, if not officially, then to themselves, at least.

Quote:

That's what I'm saying. Nazis chose their ancient, pre-Christian tribalism over Christianity. It made sense in historical terms. The Germans were the last major barbarian people to convert to Christianity, and they were the fiercest opponents of Rome. Yes, they eventually succumbed, but they put up one helluva fight, thanks to their cultural intransigence and unity.

Actually, most of modern Germany never was conquered by Rome. I think they gave up after they had a major military defeat.

Quote:

Nazism's ethos was based on hardcore social Darwinism. They viewed the German people as a racially superior, naturally stronger people, empowered and obligated by nature itself to annihilate the weak, taking possession of all available living space, replete with its rich natural resources, in the establishment of an inconquerable, ever-lasting empire.

Racial superiority, not Darwinism per se. Darwinism could encourage such behavior but was not the direct source in this case.

0 Replies

@trappedbyparties,

trapped.by.parties;15140 wrote:

based on who's evidence? are you saying that evidence can't be tampered with? Or that the early popes were too holy to stoop to that level? It seems to me the people of the catholic religion honor the popes words as Gods words comming out of his mouth.....wich honelsty seems ubsurd to me.

What evidence was tampered with and how could popes have access to all evidence pointing towards the falsehood that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' successor.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;15153 wrote:

What evidence was tampered with and how could popes have access to all evidence pointing towards the falsehood that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' successor.

they couldn't obviously. as i said before there was a gospel acording to mary. Like i said i havn't reached too far into the subject yet but i have a freind who has. I will have to get more information from him and find out how to find more information.

2 Replies

@trappedbyparties,

trapped.by.parties;15154 wrote:

they couldn't obviously. as i said before there was a gospel acording to mary. Like i said i havn't reached too far into the subject yet but i have a freind who has. I will have to get more information from him and find out how to find more information.

the question was, do you think evidence can never be tampered with?

0 Replies

@trappedbyparties,

trapped.by.parties;15154 wrote:

they couldn't obviously. as i said before there was a gospel acording to mary. Like i said i havn't reached too far into the subject yet but i have a freind who has. I will have to get more information from him and find out how to find more information.

Gnostic Gospels were pretty much all written well after the person that 'wrote them' cold have possibly written them. That is why they have no standing in such a discussion as this.

Of course evidence could have been tampered with, but it is impossible that everything was tampered with, the influence of early Christian leaders did not extend that far and anyway, were this true in any way, they could have easily adjusted their power and why they had it and theology to agree with it. So what personal motives would they have?

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;15158 wrote:

Gnostic Gospels were pretty much all written well after the person that 'wrote them' cold have possibly written them. That is why they have no standing in such a discussion as this.

Of course evidence could have been tampered with, but it is impossible that everything was tampered with, the influence of early Christian leaders did not extend that far and anyway, were this true in any way, they could have easily adjusted their power and why they had it and theology to agree with it. So what personal motives would they have?

power! Here is what i know. I have worked in sales. In sales you convince someone that doesn't believe you by only telling them the possitives of your product. You also throw out and ignore all of the negative and anything that might hurt your agenda. In sales they tell you to keep controll of your customers. I think it could be the same concept. to keep controll of a belief, you throw out all that is negative to your agenda. anything that might contridict what you are trying to protect. The same way the government keeps certain information from us as classified information for our "protection". now that our media has gone out of controll, there are very few things that can be kept secret anymore.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Yes, yes, I understand all of this but I stick to my original point that they could have easily adjusted to that theology and kept their power.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;15172 wrote:

Yes, yes, I understand all of this but I stick to my original point that they could have easily adjusted to that theology and kept their power.

i don't think they would have kept the same credibility. they were a stay the course kind of thinkers. It is much easier to threaton and kill than it is dissprove something.

1 Reply

Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know