Christian News Site Calls Sprinter Tyson Gay 'Tyson Homosexual'
Posted Jun 30th 2008 7:32AM by Michael David Smith
It's going to be an embarrassing day at the office for people who get their news from the Christian web site One News Now. The water cooler conversation about sports is going to get awkward when they say, "Did you see the record set by Tyson Homosexual?"
Yes, One News Now, which describes itself as providing "your latest news from a Christian perspective," calls the Olympic sprinter Tyson Gay "Tyson Homosexual."
Jim Buzinski of Outsports explains that the site has set a filter to change the word "gay" to "homosexual," and they don't bother to look at the context of the story before applying the filter. And that's how Gay became Homosexual.
God, you know my heart and you know it angers me that I and my fellow believers are ridculed as such. In my mind and heart, I want so much vengeance, to the point of pummeling the nay-sayers within an inch of their life. But when I dig deeper into my soul, I know that it is there you reside. So I take comfort in your words spoken through the disciples. Thank you, God. I love you with all my heart, soul, and mind. Amen
God, you know my heart and you know it angers me that I and my fellow believers are ridculed as such. In my mind and heart, I want so much vengeance, to the point of pummeling the nay-sayers within an inch of their life. But when I dig deeper into my soul, I know that it is there you reside. So I take comfort in your words spoken through the disciples. Thank you, God. I love you with all my heart, soul, and mind. Amen
Peter 1
A Living Hope, and a Sure Salvation
1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen
2according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you,
5who are (W)protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
6(AA)In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials,
7so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
8and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
9obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of [a]your souls.
10As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries,
11seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.
12It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things into which angels long to look.
13Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
14As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance,
15but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior;
16because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."
17If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth;
18knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers,
19but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
20For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you
21who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
22Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,
23for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.
24For,
"ALL FLESH IS LIKE GRASS,
AND ALL ITS GLORY LIKE THE FLOWER OF GRASS.
THE GRASS WITHERS,
AND THE FLOWER FALLS OFF,
25BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER "
And this is the word which was preached to you.
I ain't madatcha, bro! I'm just being real.
You should work on your anger issues.
Remember - blessed are the meek
The only reason you feel ridiculed is because your fellow christians do things that are so utterly worthy of ridicule
Yes, you are the man. :)Just trying to keep it real, Beach. It helps so much when you have scripture to reference.
I ain't madatcha, bro! I'm just being real.
I didn't think you were mad at me but what exactly is it that is making you so angry that you feel the need for "vengeance, to the point of pummeling the nay-sayers within an inch of their life"It's not just this post, but more of a conglomeration of statements that are posted on this board (so, it really could have been any of the anti-God rhetoric). Eventually, it starts to wear on you, to the point that you have those kinds of thoughts. My prayer was to demonstrate what I normally go through when I'm at that point. Though the "fleshly" side of me wants to take action, God and his words through the writers of scripture always win out and I am encouraged. That's why I added the verse from 1 Peter.
Why make a statement like that in (what appears to be) a response to a story about the stupidty (or carelessness) of the editors of that particular website
There is nothing wrong with being angry. It's a normal human emotion. There are a couple of verses that actually say be angry, but control yourself:U da man!!!
"Be angry, and do not sin.
Meditate within your heart on your bed, and be still. Selah"
Psalm 4:4
“Be angry, and do not sin”:[a] do not let the sun go down on your wrath"
Ephesians 4:26
Though the "fleshly" side of me wants to take action, God and his words through the writers of scripture always win out and I am encouraged. That's why I added the verse from 1 Peter.
Only God possesses the ultimate in patience and understanding.
No matter how good intentions may be, sometimes our fleshly sides can overtake us:
(caution: vulgar language in clip)
It's not just this post, but more of a conglomeration of statements that are posted on this board (so, it really could have been any of the anti-God rhetoric). Eventually, it starts to wear on you, to the point that you have those kinds of thoughts. My prayer was to demonstrate what I normally go through when I'm at that point. Though the "fleshly" side of me wants to take action, God and his words through the writers of scripture always win out and I am encouraged. That's why I added the verse from 1 Peter.
Only God possesses the ultimate in patience and understanding.
No matter how good intentions may be, sometimes our fleshly sides can overtake us:
(caution: vulgar language in clip)
Only God possesses the ultimate in patience and understanding.
No matter how good intentions may be, sometimes our fleshly sides can overtake us:
(caution: vulgar language in clip)
Only God possesses the ultimate in patience and understanding.
No matter how good intentions may be, sometimes our fleshly sides can overtake us:
(caution: vulgar language in clip)
I kind of know how you feel although I'm on the opposite side of the issue. I'm sick and tired of hearing a barrage of nonsense, inconsistency and hypocricy from the religious folks in this country. Oddly, even without the benefit of scripture, I don't feel any need for vengence or to beat someone within an inch of their life. It seems the religous types are the ones filled with the most anger and violence. The Muslims win the grand prize in this category. They are constantly feeling insulted to the point of feeling justified to commit bodily harm. Seems like the more religious one is the more one is inclined to feel insulted, angry and defensiveYou bring up some excellent points, Straw. I think I can safely speak for the other Christians who are on this board when I say that for us, it's not about religion...it's about a personal relationship with Christ. For me, God is not about religion, and I believe that until you have that personal relationship with you, that's all He'll be to you. Remember, bro, I've always left the door open for you to talk about the relationship aspect. And that offer is always going to be there for you. I believe that to be true for Stella, MCWay, Loco, Beach, Hustle Man, and the others.
You bring up some excellent points, Straw. I think I can safely speak for the other Christians who are on this board when I say that for us, it's not about religion...it's about a personal relationship with Christ. For me, God is not about religion, and I believe that until you have that personal relationship with you, that's all He'll be to you. Remember, bro, I've always left the door open for you to talk about the relationship aspect. And that offer is always going to be there for you. I believe that to be true for Stella, MCWay, Loco, Beach, Hustle Man, and the others.
Why, in spite of the benefit of that personal relationship, do you still feel so angry and insulted to the point where you wish you could beat someone almost to death? That's the part that I find incongruent with the supposed peace that comes with that relationshipI don't think that Colossus himself feels insulted, but that he loves God so much that it sometimes upsets him when people dis God.
He sure as hell doesn't in the Bible...mass murdering babies, wiping out the world,
there are many other deities that are more understanding and patient than the bibical one.Which ones?
He sure as hell doesn't in the Bible...mass murdering babies, wiping out the world, condemning people to burn in hell for rejecting his 'offer', cursing poor fig trees....there are many other deities that are more understanding and patient than the bibical one.Deicide, are you angry at the God of the bible?
I don't think that Colossus himself feels insulted, but that he loves God so much that it sometimes upsets him when people dis God.
A loose analogy could be along the lines of someone constantly bad-mouthing your wife or children or mother whom you love.... it may make you upset.
Why, in spite of the benefit of that personal relationship, do you still feel so angry and insulted to the point where you wish you could beat someone almost to death? That's the part that I find incongruent with the supposed peace that comes with that relationshipHave you ever read any of the book of Psalms? Or any of the OT or NT for that matter. You'll see that I'm no different than David or Moses and the like.
I don't think that Colossus himself feels insulted, but that he loves God so much that it sometimes upsets him when people dis God.Excellent analogy, Stella! Excellent! :)
A loose analogy could be along the lines of someone constantly bad-mouthing your wife or children or mother whom you love.... it may make you upset.
That's exactly what those nutty Muslims say when they start rioting and killing people over a cartoon of their Prophet or any number or perceived insults or even things that are not insulting but just forbidden by their religionAll the more reason that you have that personal relationship with God. Muslims (and others who place the religion before God) do not take their burdens and joys to God Himself. It's more about defending the religion that defending the one true God. The personal relationship is key. You can know all the scriptures back and forth, but until you make it personal, none of it will make sense. This was the very issue of the Pharisees and Sadducees. They knew the Law of Moses (the OT), but didn't accept Christ to be who He said He was....God.
Excellent analogy, Stella! Excellent! :)Thanks Ro :)
The personal relationship is key. You can know all the scriptures back and forth, but until you make it personal, none of it will make sense. This was the very issue of the Pharisees and Sadducees. They knew the Law of Moses (the OT), but didn't accept Christ to be who He said He was....God.agree!
Have you ever read any of the book of Psalms? Or any of the OT or NT for that matter. You'll see that I'm no different than David or Moses and the like.
This is good dialog, stick boy! :D Really! I appreciate you asking these questions. I hope we can keep this going.
Why don't you just tell me what passages you're referring toRead through the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), but I recommend starting in the book of John
All I see is a person who fervent religious beliefs have driven him to the point where he feels the need to beat someone up.
If God is really powerful then surely he doesn't need you to beat people up as a demonstration of the peace and comfort you receive from your personal relationship with him.
Read through the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), but I recommend starting in the book of John
John 3
Jesus Teaches Nicodemus
1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
9"How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.
10"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
John the Baptist's Testimony About Jesus
22After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. 23Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized. 24(This was before John was put in prison.) 25An argument developed between some of John's disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. 26They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him."
27To this John replied, "A man can receive only what is given him from heaven. 28You yourselves can testify that I said, 'I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him.' 29The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. 30He must become greater; I must become less.
31"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit. 35The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
where is the part where Jesus feels ridiculed and then get's so mad he fantasizes about beating people to within an inch of their lives?
where is the part where Jesus feels ridiculed and then get's so mad he fantasizes about beating people to within an inch of their lives?John 2:13-16"The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, "Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!"
John 2:13-16"The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, "Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!"
Sounds like anger to me, wouldn't you say? C'mon, bro! Read the scriptures I mentioned yesterday. Don't rely on me to give you all the answers ('cause I will let you down). But I can tell you that I'm glad you're asking.
God, you know my heart and you know it angers me that I and my fellow believers are ridiculed as such. In my mind and heart, I want so much vengeance, to the point of pummeling the nay-sayers within an inch of their life. But when I dig deeper into my soul, I know that it is there you reside. So I take comfort in your words spoken through the disciples. Thank you, God. I love you with all my heart, soul, and mind. Amen
Straw Man, I don't believe all people that have adopted a specific religious belief feel as Colossus may at times. Some might though.
What is it about choosing to adopt a specific religious belief that turns people into, potentially, homicidal maniacs?
Straw Man, I don't believe all people that have adopted a specific religious belief feel as Colossus may at times. Some might though.
I believe if someone dissed Colossus' family constantly, he would feel like pummeling them for that also. People are different and have different responses to different stimuli. I have no doubt that Colossus would not actually pummel someone for speaking disrespectfully; he is a good, good man. But that doesn't mean certain feelings/thoughts don't come about when he is irritated! (that all being said there are certain other things that do make me want to beat the hell out of people such as seeing them abuse an innocent child or animal etc.)
Personally I don't think I get "angry" w/people when they disrespect God - I feel more sad about it and mainly for their sakes. But I know that God is in control and whatever happens or doesn't happen to that person will be something He allows or not.
Thankfully, God will not force someone against their will to spend eternity with Him.
The reason the people that live by you that believe Christ is Savior are trying to "convert" you is because they care about you and believe that if you accept Christ you will spend eternity in paradise. They don't want to harm you by telling you the gospel message. If you reject it that is your choice. If they act "holier than thou" then they may have a problem with pride and/or may be "religious" instead of actually having a relationship with God.
Stella - I guess my simple point would be that it seems that the more fervent one is with their religious beliefs the more they seem compelled to commit acts of violence in response to perceived insults.I just don't think I agree with that unless a main teaching of the belief is to commit acts of violence. The main teachings of Christianity are receiving Christ, sharing Him and serving others.
I don't think many Christians would riot in the streets over a cartoon and the people that bomb abortion clinics may or may not be Christian and it's possible that someone that would go through w/a bombing like that could have mental issues.
You don't see atheists or agnostics rioting in the streets over a cartoon or bombing abortion clinics. Only god fearing muslims and christians do stuff like that
I agree with Stella's interpretation of Colossus' comments.
The overwhelming majority of Christians do not commit acts of violence in the name of religion. Bombing of abortion clinics doesn't happen that often and a handful of extremists don't represent the millions upon millions of Christians in this country.
How many millions of muslims are there?
Serious question... What's the percentage of Muslims who commit a bombing?
I'd like to see the percentage figures on that.
I don't know, but there are a lot of them. I think one of the differences between Islam and Christianity is what Stella just pointed out: the teachings are quite different. Jihad isn't a part of Christian teachings. Christians don't teach that murdering innocent civilians will result in an afterlife with 70 virgins. As Stella mentioned, Christians by and large don't riot in the streets over cartoons. There are many other examples. Not really much of a comparison.
still - it's the people who take their religious beliefs off the deep end that commit acts of violence.
I can't think of one instance of a radicalized agnostic or athiest who feels compelled by their specific belief to commit violence against those who either don't share those beliefs or those they feel have insulted their beliefs.
That special category seems to be reserved only to the religious types - one might even say that those people have let their religious beliefs drive them to the point of mental illness
Still... since someone brought up the "extremists", I think it would be interesting to see a percentage of "extremists" in both Christianity and Muslim religions.
I think it would be very worthwhile information to have.
History disagrees with you.
Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
By Dinesh D'Souza
RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIF. –
In recent months, a spate of atheist books have argued that religion represents, as "End of Faith" author Sam Harris puts it, "the most potent source of human conflict, past and present."
Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the familiar litany. "The Crusades slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought the torture and murder of millions more. After Martin Luther, Christians did bloody battle with other Christians for another three centuries."
In his bestseller "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins contends that most of the world's recent conflicts - in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, in Kashmir, and in Sri Lanka - show the vitality of religion's murderous impulse.
The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25. Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination.
It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness.
These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.
Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "religious wars" were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be called religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were Catholics? Hardly.
The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination and land. Hamas and the extreme orthodox parties in Israel may advance theological claims - "God gave us this land" and so forth - but the conflict would remain essentially the same even without these religious motives. Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.
Blindly blaming religion for conflict
Yet today's atheists insist on making religion the culprit. Consider Mr. Harris's analysis of the conflict in Sri Lanka. "While the motivations of the Tamil Tigers are not explicitly religious," he informs us, "they are Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbable things about the nature of life and death." In other words, while the Tigers see themselves as combatants in a secular political struggle, Harris detects a religious motive because these people happen to be Hindu and surely there must be some underlying religious craziness that explains their fanaticism.
Harris can go on forever in this vein. Seeking to exonerate secularism and atheism from the horrors perpetrated in their name, he argues that Stalinism and Maoism were in reality "little more than a political religion." As for Nazism, "while the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominantly secular way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity." Indeed, "The holocaust marked the culmination of ... two thousand years of Christian fulminating against the Jews."
One finds the same inanities in Mr. Dawkins's work. Don't be fooled by this rhetorical legerdemain. Dawkins and Harris cannot explain why, if Nazism was directly descended from medieval Christianity, medieval Christianity did not produce a Hitler. How can a self-proclaimed atheist ideology, advanced by Hitler as a repudiation of Christianity, be a "culmination" of 2,000 years of Christianity? Dawkins and Harris are employing a transparent sleight of hand that holds Christianity responsible for the crimes committed in its name, while exonerating secularism and atheism for the greater crimes committed in their name.
Religious fanatics have done things that are impossible to defend, and some of them, mostly in the Muslim world, are still performing horrors in the name of their creed. But if religion sometimes disposes people to self-righteousness and absolutism, it also provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocents. In particular, the moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for - indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to - the historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.
Atheist hubris
The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of course if some people - the Jews, the landowners, the unfit, or the handicapped - have to be eliminated in order to achieve this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is permitted."
Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.
It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html
History disagrees with you.
Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
By Dinesh D'Souza
RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIF. –
In recent months, a spate of atheist books have argued that religion represents, as "End of Faith" author Sam Harris puts it, "the most potent source of human conflict, past and present."
Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the familiar litany. "The Crusades slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought the torture and murder of millions more. After Martin Luther, Christians did bloody battle with other Christians for another three centuries."
In his bestseller "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins contends that most of the world's recent conflicts - in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, in Kashmir, and in Sri Lanka - show the vitality of religion's murderous impulse.
The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25. Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination.
It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness.
These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.
Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "religious wars" were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be called religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were Catholics? Hardly.
The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination and land. Hamas and the extreme orthodox parties in Israel may advance theological claims - "God gave us this land" and so forth - but the conflict would remain essentially the same even without these religious motives. Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.
Blindly blaming religion for conflict
Yet today's atheists insist on making religion the culprit. Consider Mr. Harris's analysis of the conflict in Sri Lanka. "While the motivations of the Tamil Tigers are not explicitly religious," he informs us, "they are Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbable things about the nature of life and death." In other words, while the Tigers see themselves as combatants in a secular political struggle, Harris detects a religious motive because these people happen to be Hindu and surely there must be some underlying religious craziness that explains their fanaticism.
Harris can go on forever in this vein. Seeking to exonerate secularism and atheism from the horrors perpetrated in their name, he argues that Stalinism and Maoism were in reality "little more than a political religion." As for Nazism, "while the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominantly secular way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity." Indeed, "The holocaust marked the culmination of ... two thousand years of Christian fulminating against the Jews."
One finds the same inanities in Mr. Dawkins's work. Don't be fooled by this rhetorical legerdemain. Dawkins and Harris cannot explain why, if Nazism was directly descended from medieval Christianity, medieval Christianity did not produce a Hitler. How can a self-proclaimed atheist ideology, advanced by Hitler as a repudiation of Christianity, be a "culmination" of 2,000 years of Christianity? Dawkins and Harris are employing a transparent sleight of hand that holds Christianity responsible for the crimes committed in its name, while exonerating secularism and atheism for the greater crimes committed in their name.
Religious fanatics have done things that are impossible to defend, and some of them, mostly in the Muslim world, are still performing horrors in the name of their creed. But if religion sometimes disposes people to self-righteousness and absolutism, it also provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocents. In particular, the moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for - indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to - the historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.
Atheist hubris
The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of course if some people - the Jews, the landowners, the unfit, or the handicapped - have to be eliminated in order to achieve this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is permitted."
Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.
It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html
Interesting perspective, but I don't believe it.
Where are the statistics... I can list out wars and atrocities attributed to religion... Show me this information related to "lack of religion".
correction - Dinesh D'Souza disagrees with me but his perspective on history is skewed.
The tyrants who committed these mass murders did NOT do it because of an attack against their alleged athiesm (and let's not forget that Hitler was most likely a Christian).
They did it to gain power, assets, control over land and people. It has NOTHING to do with their religious beliefs or lack there of.
It is at best, disingenious to conflate the two. At worst - it's an intentional misrepresenation or willfull ignorance which is exactly what I've come to expect from Dinesh D'Souza
The stats are right here: "In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people."
While Stalin was an atheist, he didn't do it to uphold an atheistic view, he did to to retain power. Not even remotely the same scenario. He also fought Nazi Germany in WW2... and was a big reason why they were defeated... So if you're going to give him the bad, you have to give him the good as well.
The Athiest helped defeat the horrible Christian in that instance.
;)
Sure it's the same scenario. He wanted a religion-free regime.
Atheists also suppress religion in China. I heard someone talk about it this past weekend. What "Christian nation" arrests atheists?
Sure it's the same scenario. He wanted a religion-free regime.
Atheists also suppress religion in China. I heard someone talk about it this past weekend. What "Christian nation" arrests atheists?
Are you trying to tell me that in the past a Christian nation has not persecuted those who were not Christian?
I didn't say that, but can you identify past and current "Christian nations"?
Also, as of today, we have at least one atheist nation that persecutes/oppresses Christians (China). Is there a "Christian nation" today that oppresses and persecutes atheists? I'm unaware of any.
Once again, the Chinese government does not persecute/oppose religious groups because they (the government) is promoting atheism. They do it because it's a threat to their power. Period. There is a difference.
Communism did not start out as a group of atheists intending to stamp out religion as a raison d'etre. It was simply a means to an end to gain political power.
While Stalin was an atheist, he didn't do it to uphold an atheistic view, he did to to retain power. Not even remotely the same scenario. He also fought Nazi Germany in WW2... and was a big reason why they were defeated... So if you're going to give him the bad, you have to give him the good as well.
;)
I didn't say that, but can you identify past and current "Christian nations"?
Also, as of today, we have at least one atheist nation that persecutes/oppresses Christians (China). Is there a "Christian nation" today that oppresses and persecutes atheists? I'm unaware of any.
Perhaps not... but there have been in the past.
England and the official "Church of England" have persecuted non believers in the past.
That's your interpretation.
feel free to show me some proof that it's not correct
You can't prove that an opinion is incorrect. You can prove that facts supporting that opinion are incorrect.
China promotes atheism. China persecutes Christians. Those are facts. How you spin them to form your opinion is up to you.
For example:
China announces "civilizing" atheism drive in Tibet
The Chinese Communist Party has launched a three-year drive to promote atheism in the Buddhist region of Tibet, saying it is the key to economic progress and a weapon against separatism as typified by the exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama.
The move comes amid fresh foreign reports of religious persecution in the region, which was invaded by China in 1950.
Xiao Huaiyuan, the head of the Party propaganda department in Tibet, told a meeting of the regional committee that the new campaign would "help peasants and herdsmen free themselves from the negative influence of religion".
. . .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/253345.stm
thanks for proving my point (as if you didn't already know).
It's merely a means to an end and also a strategy to eliminate a potential threat to the authority of the Chinese Govt.
sure it does.
The objection to religion is because it's a threat to the authority of the central government.
The Chinese govt (or Stalin or Hitler) did not engage in violence as a result of a perceived insult to atheism. They engaged in violence to obtain power and they persecuted and eliminated any group that was a threat to their power or authority.
If you can't understand the difference (or as usual refuse to understand) then so be it.
We're so far off the original topic of this thread it's (as usual with you) become ridiculous
Hardly proves your point.
We're so far off the original topic of this thread it's (as usual with you) become ridiculous
Oh brother, yeah it does. In both China and the Soviet Union, atheist artists, intellectuals, journalists, musicians, etc.. have ALSO been persecuted, along with all those who wish to meet in large groups to proselytise and convert others to whatever cause. It was never a case of the "bad" atheists against the "good" religious, and many died alongside the devout. In China today, all kinds of religions flourish, as long as people are willing to celebrate in their own homes or in small groups away from the village square. Anyone with a personal relationship to God has no reason to complain.
Oh brother, that's absurd. "All kinds of religions flourish" so long as they celebrate in their homes? lol. Under cover of darkness, away from the authorities, to avoid going to prison for worshiping God. No persecution, suppression, or oppression there. You call that flourishing? Oh brother.
What the atheist government is trying to do is "help peasants and herdsmen free themselves from the negative influence of religion."
Well, before you speak with such authority, maybe you should read. I know you don't like to, but the first page of this book should answer your "absurd" comment. And yes, they seem to be flourishing.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=cPzY-ieGCvcC&dq=china+today+%2B+religion&pg=PP1&ots=D5WLcI0rzs&sig=bn75tV5cXb5i1kX5aepIZhUrZ4s&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA1,M1
I didn't say that, but can you identify past and current "Christian nations"?
Also, as of today, we have at least one atheist nation that persecutes/oppresses Christians (China). Is there a "Christian nation" today that oppresses and persecutes atheists? I'm unaware of any.
Some months ago, a few non-believers took offense, when I suggested that atheism, at its roots, is simply man worshipping himself. But, after a review of Stalin and the other cats that Beach Bum mentioned, my claim stands.
Stalin didn't want the folks worshipping God. He wanted them to worship the government. Of course, since he ran the government......
As one saying goes, "Stalin killed more in one year than the Crusaders did in a decade" (paraphrase).
Yes, your own country Beach Bum, the USA...
O Rly? How does the U.S. oppress and persecute atheists?
Your own example...of the man in the military who is suing the armed forces for persecution; atheists cannot hold public office in many statess according to state constitutions, generally cannot hold office in Washington without at least paying lip service to Christianity; regular folk don't like atheists and are intolerant of them:
A few things:
1. The atheist suing the military has an experience that is inconsistent with those who have served, including me (a "religious" person) and HH6, who isn't really a "religious" person. It is unfortunate that some people are given a hard time, but I think that is the exception and not the rule. It certainly isn't part of any official policy, like you find in China.
2. You say "many" state constitutions preclude atheists from holding public office? Provide me with one reference. That kind of prohibition would be inconsistent with the First Amendment.
3. It is true that a candidate for the House, Senate, or president could likely not be elected if they were an open atheist. I think part of the reason is many folks don't trust atheists. They are the least trusted group in American according some polls.
None of this establishes that the U.S. oppresses and persecutes atheists. To the contrary, we actually protect them with the First Amendment.
Maryland's Declaration of Rights, Article 36
"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."
North Carolina's State Constitution, Article 6 Section 8
"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm
There you go...
And you can bet money if Christians in the Middle Ages had access to the modern technology that Stalin did, they would have killed many, many more people.
But you are right about the other thing; communism is just another religion.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a supernatural power; it does not involve worship of any kind.
Interesting. Thanks. Regarding each one:
Maryland
A unanimous 1961 decision by US Supreme court in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins found that an attempt to enforce this provision violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In 1970, this article was amended to include the sentence "Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion". However the original wording of the article was also left in place, but presumably is symbolic rather than effective.
. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Constitution
North Carolina
As per the Federal Supremacy Clause, all Federal law and the Constitution of the United States overrule the North Carolina Constitution. There are several provisions in the current North Carolina Constitution that may conflict with federal law and/or the US Constitution.
At least two provisions, carried over from previous versions of the document, are not enforced either because they are known to be void or would almost certainly be struck down in court.
Article 6, section 8 disqualifies from office any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. However, Article Six of the United States Constitution stipulates that no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Under current precedent, this provision is binding on the states under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. As a result, this article has never been enforced despite being carried over from the 1868 Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Constitution
;D
Your original post was funny. All it did was point out the silliness of that website. But many Christians have a very intense hatred of homosexuality/gay people, so your thread perhaps elicited the reaction it did due to some barely contained anger reserved for that portion of society. Maybe you should have posted it on a board where people can take a joke.
Your own example...of the man in the military who is suing the armed forces for persecution; atheists cannot hold public office in many statess according to state constitutions, generally cannot hold office in Washington without at least paying lip service to Christianity; regular folk don't like atheists and are intolerant of them: